CAR_Public/110909.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 179

                             Headlines

BANNER SUPPLY: Judge Set to Hear Settlement Exclusivity Today
BLUE SHIELD: Sued for Violating Calif. Mental Health Parity Act
BOIRON INC: Sued in Calif. Over Bogus Claims on Oscillococcinum
CITY OF TENAHA, TX: Racial Profiling Class Action Can Proceed
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Medical Records Not Needed Pre-certification

IMPERIAL SUGAR: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Mass. Tips Law Violations
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Class Action Under Way
MATTHEWS ROOFING: Accused of Underpaying Employees in Illinois
ONTARIO, CA: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Insane Asylum Abuses

SAFEWAY SELECT: Faces Class Action Over Kona Blend Coffee
UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Action Settlement May Face Delay
WAL-MART: Netflix Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
ZIMMER: B.C. Judge Certifies Durom Hip Implant Class Action

* Chinese Firms Face Securities Class Actions in Ontario

                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Affirms Graver Motion to Remand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Robertson Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Summary Judgment Denied in Saldibar
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind., Units Still Named in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Records $3MM Cleanup Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Gets 2,306 New Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Subject to 430 PD Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage From 54 Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $145.7MM Cleanup Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $51.4MM June 30 Libby Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Accrues $1.4MM June 30 Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Noble Corp. Drop to 21 at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Sealed Air Still Ongoing in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Units Still Facing Exposure Suits in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Manhattan Main Lawsuits Still Open v. ConEd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Face 477 Open Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Has Injury Suits in 4 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Posts $148MM Current Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $160MM Insurance Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. AK Steel Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l's June 30 A&E Reserve at $382MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reserves $828MM for Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Subject to Potential Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Subject to Potential Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vest Remand Bid OK'd in McDonnell Douglas Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Jury Awards $50MM in Two Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Fines for Violations at Wallingford Garage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cornwall Haulage Firm Fined for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Textile Workers at Risk for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Wins AU$368MM Tax Dispute With ATO

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PH Group Seeks to Hasten Ban on Use of Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Makes Argument Against Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in ConocoPhillips
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Court Issues Ruling in Bernard Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water's Units Subject to Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $294,000 in Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 95 Exposure Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $70.9MM for A&E at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 4,714 Open Claims at July 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,877 Open Claims at July 25

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Vernon Lawsuits Pending v. Albany Int'l.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Posts $183MM June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 8,491 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Pursues Declaratory Judgment Case in Pa.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Central Has $1.7MM ARO at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corporation Facing Respirator Liabilities





                             *********


BANNER SUPPLY: Judge Set to Hear Settlement Exclusivity Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for South Florida Business Journal,
reports that dissatisfied victims of the Chinese drywall fiasco
are asking a Broward County judge to let them continue pursuing
Miami-based Banner Supply Co. in lawsuits separate from a $53
million class action settlement.

Banner Supply reached the settlement in June in a class action
suit being handled by Coral Gables-based law firm Colson Hicks
Eidson.

But two other local attorneys with Chinese drywall clients
criticized the Florida-only settlement as providing too little
money -- an average of only $7,000 to $33,000 per victim.  In some
class action lawsuit settlements, people who opt out of a
settlement are barred or delayed from pursuing separate lawsuits.

Chinese drywall refers to high-sulfur drywall imported to the U.S.
from specific Chinese plants, mostly from 2004 to 2007.  Some of
the drywall contained substances that created corrosive gasses in
homes.

Today, Broward County Circuit Court Judge Charles Greene will
conduct a hearing regarding the exclusivity of the class action
settlement.  David Durkee and Victor Diaz, the two dissenting
attorneys, are representing plaintiffs Joseph and Patricia
Pensabene and William and Melanie Ford.

Those plaintiffs have opted out of the proposed settlement and are
opposing Banner's efforts to delay or bar separate litigation.

Colson Hicks Eidson attorney Ervin Gonzalez has warned that
pursuing individual lawsuits against Banner could simply push them
out of business and into bankruptcy, but Messrs. Durkee and Diaz
believe more money could be made available through insurance
policies and other sources.

This comes on the heels of a June ruling by U.S. District Judge
Eldon Fallon in Louisiana, who ordered a stay on separate
litigation.

"Justice delayed is justice denied, and the victims in the Chinese
drywall case have been denied justice and suffered far too long,"
Mr. Diaz said in a news release.  "The right to seek local redress
without delay is one of the most important rights."


BLUE SHIELD: Sued for Violating Calif. Mental Health Parity Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Shield of California
breaches contract and violates the California Mental Health Parity
Act by refusing to cover treatment for eating disorders, according
to a class action in Superior Court.


BOIRON INC: Sued in Calif. Over Bogus Claims on Oscillococcinum
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Boiron pushes Oscillococcinum and Children's Oscillococcinum with
bogus claims they can cure flu and the common cold.

A copy of the Complaint in Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-02039 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/06/SnakeOil.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Margarita Salazar, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006


CITY OF TENAHA, TX: Racial Profiling Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge certified a class who say they were subjected to racial
profiling and had their property taken by Texas law enforcement
officers.

One deputy marshal for Tenaha, Texas, has "testified that God
'ordained' him to patrol Highway 59, and that God gave him the
gift of being able to put crooks in jail," according to the 58-
page ruling.

In a third amended complaint, 10 travelers say they were
victimized in Tenaha, which lies on Highway 59 in Shelby County,
near the Louisiana border.

They claim officials "have developed an illegal 'stop and seize'
practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often
seizing property from, apparently non-white citizens and those
traveling with non-white citizens, including the plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class who travel in, through, or near
Tenaha."

"The Defendants undertake this practice without legal
justification, in violation of the citizens' rights, not for any
legitimate law enforcement purpose but to enrich their offices and
perhaps themselves, by seizing and converting cash and other
valuable personal property they can find during the course of the
illegal stop and seizure practice," the complaint says.

Last week, U.S. District Judge T. John Ward certified a class
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations
of their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

Named as defendants in their individual and official capacities
are Tenaha Mayor George Bowers; Deputy City Marshal Barry
Washington; Shelby County District Attorney Linda Russell; and
Shelby County Precinct 4 Constable Randy Whatley.  Shelby County
District Attorney Investigator Danny Green is named as a defendant
in his individual capacity only.

The complaint goes into each plaintiff's story, claiming that
police officials seized thousands of dollars while falsely
accusing them of money laundering.

Arkansas resident James Morrow, who is black, says Deputy Marshal
Washington pulled him over as he drove through Tenaha, demanded
that he exit the car and proceeded to question him without cause.
Mr. Morrow says that Constable Whatley showed up with a dog, that
the two men searched the car, and that they took two cellphones
and $3,969 from him before arresting him.

"Defendants Washington and Russell told plaintiff Morrow they
would hold him prisoner and prosecute him for money laundering
unless he would agree to forfeit the $3969," according to the
complaint.  "Under this duress and these threats, defendants
Washington and Russell released plaintiff Morrow and warned him to
not hire a lawyer or try to get his money back."

Texas residents Jennifer Boatright, who is white, and Ronald
Henderson, who is black, tell a similar story with Washington and
Whatley pulling them over and confiscating $6,000.  According to
the complaint, "defendants threatened to bring money laundering
charges against plaintiffs Boatright and Henderson, and to take
their children and put them in foster care if plaintiffs Boatright
and Henderson would not sign papers prepared by defendants to
authorize the seizure."

In a 58-page order, Judge Ward recited Tenaha's description of its
traffic-stop process.

"The city of Tenaha hired Washington in the fall of 2006 to be a
deputy city marshal," Judge Ward wrote.  "The evidence
demonstrates that shortly after Washington started on November 1,
2006, the City of Tenaha began its 'interdiction' program."

"Defendant Whatley, the Shelby County Precinct 4 Constable,
testified that he understood that the goal of the interdiction
program was to stop as many people as possible for traffic
violations to look for other criminal activity, primarily
narcotics trafficking," he added.

He also noted that Deputy Marshal Washington had "testified that
God 'ordained' him to patrol Highway 59, and that God gave him the
gift of being able to put crooks in jail."

During deposition, Mr. Washington made a probative comment about
indicators of criminal activity during a traffic stop.  "Well
there could be several things," Mr. Washington said, as quoted by
Ward.  "There could even be indicators on the vehicle.  The number
one thing is you have two guys stopped, and these two guys are
from New York.  They're two Puerto Ricans.  They're driving a car
that has a Baptist Church symbol on the back, says First Baptist
Church of New York.  They're traveling during the week, when most
people are working and children are in school.  They've borrowed
this car from their aunt, and their aunt is back in New York.  You
interview the two men, and they don't have a job, and they're on
vacation.  They have any substantial amount of luggage for the two
people to travel from New York to Houston.  They're nervous.  They
have conflicting stories. Sometimes they don't even know each
other.  They may have emblems on the car that have Gregg County
Sheriff's Office on it.  Just indicators."

Judge Ward also considered the implications of an absence of
racial profiling information in Tenaha.

"It is undisputed that both the Tenaha police department and
constable's office failed to collect racial profiling information
that they were required by law to collect and report and that
would have clearly shown the impact of the interdiction program on
racial and ethnic minorities," he wrote.

Amid this lack of data, District Attorney Russell and Investigator
Green have been silent about the case so far, the judge noted.

"The court finds that the failure of Tenaha and the constable's
office to collect, report, and maintain racial profiling
information, as required by Texas law, gives rise to an inference
that this failure was the result of an attempt to conceal the
illegal targeting of racial and ethnic minorities for enforcement
of the interdiction program," Judge Ward wrote.  "This, coupled
with the adverse inference drawn from the refusal of defendants
Russell and Green to answer relevant questions based on the Fifth
Amendment suggests that Defendants created an illegal practice of
targeting racial and ethnic minorities for pretextual traffic
stops as part of the interdiction program -- i.e. that Tenaha's
interdiction program operates as a general policy of
discrimination," the order states.

Judge Ward said he relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision
on class certification in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

While the judge certified the class for injunctive and declaratory
relief, he said the damages claims are not suitable for class
certification.

The class will include "(1) people who are, or appear to be,
members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their
company, and (2) were, or will be, traveling in, through, or near
Tenaha at any time after November 1, 2006, and (3) were stopped,
or will be subject to being stopped, by one or more Defendant for
an alleged traffic violation."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Morrow v. City of
Tenaha Deputy City Marshal Barry Washington, et al., Case No. 08-
cv-00288 (E.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/06/Tenaha%20Order.pdf


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Medical Records Not Needed Pre-certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Hall, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that the mother of a
girl born with a heart defect who is suing the maker of the
antidepressant Paxil does not have to disclose her medical records
before a class-action certification, a Vancouver judge ruled last
week.

The mother, Faith Gibson of Surrey, launched the lawsuit three
years ago in B.C. Supreme Court against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming
the drug company failed to provide adequate information regarding
the risks of birth defects for women taking Paxil during
pregnancy.

Ms. Gibson's daughter Meah was born six years ago with a hole in
her heart, which required surgery and seven months in hospital.

Three months after Meah was born, the U.S. Federal Drug
Administration issued a warning for an elevated risk of
cardiovascular birth defects for children of women taking Paxil
during pregnancy.

Ms. Gibson's lawsuit alleges that the drug maker knew or ought to
have known as early as June 2003 that there was a significant risk
of serious adverse cardiovascular complication for newborns whose
mothers had taken Paxil during pregnancy.

The lawsuit further claims that the drug maker failed to publicize
the problem, failed to apprise Ms. Gibson or her physicians of the
inherent dangers, and failed to issue a timely recall of the drug.

The legal action will try to determine what the drug maker knew
and when it knew it before the birth of Ms. Gibson's daughter.

The class-action certification application, which has not yet been
heard, seeks to appoint Ms. Gibson as the representative plaintiff
and to define the class as "any person in Canada, born with
cardiovascular defects, to women who ingested Paxil while
pregnant, and the mothers of those persons."

The lawsuit claims the drug company's actions were "callous and
arrogant," which are worthy of aggravated damages for the future
care of the child, who has not yet fully recovered.

The drug maker recently applied in court to seek the medical and
pharmaceutical records of Gibson and her daughter, starting two
years before the mother started taking Paxil until the present.

The company argued that their experts require these records in
order to fully respond to the issues on the certification
application.

While the plaintiffs conceded that the medical records may have to
be produced at some point, their lawyer, David Rosenberg, argued
the records are not necessary at the class-action certification
stage.

Besides, Mr. Rosenberg argued, the drug company had not yet filed
a statement of defense, so until pleadings are closed, it is not
possible to say what documents are relevant to issues in the legal
action.

Justice Nathan Smith agreed with the plaintiffs and dismissed the
company's application to produce medical records.

"In conclusion, I am not persuaded that this is one of the
exceptional cases where pre-certification disclosure of medical
records is necessary," the judge said in written reasons.

Ms. Gibson's lawyer said on Sept. 1 the ruling could be
significant for thousands of women considering joining the pending
class action, the only one brought forward by pregnant mothers
against the makers of Paxil in Canada.


IMPERIAL SUGAR: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Imperial
Sugar Company common stock who purchased shares between
December 29, 2010 and August 5, 2011, inclusive.  Specifically,
the lawsuit alleges that Imperial Sugar knew but failed to
disclose the following: (i) ISC was experiencing a known reduction
in customer demand for its products resulting from Mexican and
other sugar refiners selling sugar products into ISC's markets at
steeply discounted prices; (ii) that the decline in sales volumes
was primarily due to a lack of customer demand ensuing from forays
by competitors selling lower-priced products into ISC's markets
and not due to Company refinery production supply constraints;
(iii) ISC was experiencing a significant decline in its gross
margins; and (iv) that ISC's Port Wentworth refinery was
experiencing ongoing operating defects that resulted in higher
production costs and adversely impacted ISC's gross margins.

If you purchased IPSU common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than October 31, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are an Imperial Sugar investor and would like to
discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com  or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

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


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Mass. Tips Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin F. Pierce and All Those Similarly Situated v.
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc., Case No. SUCV2011-
03200 (Mass. Super. Ct., September 1, 2011), alleges that the
Defendant's service charge retention policy is unlawful under
several provisions of the Massachusetts Tips law.

The Plaintiff contends that under its Service Charge Retention
Policy, Intercontinental paid the bartenders, bar-backs, and
servers their portions of the automatic service charge not at the
end of their work shifts, but in their biweekly paychecks, in
violation of the Massachusetts Tips law.

Mr. Pierce is a resident of Everett, Middlesex County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  He was employed as a bartender at
the Defendant's Intercontinental Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts,
from September 2006 until the Defendant terminated his employment
in September 2008.

Intercontinental is a Delaware corporation, and operates the
Intercontinental Hotel in Boston.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
          GLYNN, LANDRY & RICE, LLP
          25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 408
          Braintree, Massachusetts
          Telephone: (781) 849-8479
          E-mail: daniel.rice@glhrlaw.com


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Red Light Camera Class Action Under Way
-------------------------------------------------------------
WDSU New Orleans reports that a class action lawsuit over red
light cameras is officially on the books in Jefferson Parish.

There have been a number of challenges to the red light statute in
Jefferson Parish even after the cameras were turned off nearly two
years ago.

Sources tell WDSU that residents should begin receiving notices in
the mail if they received a red light camera ticket and paid it in
Metairie.  The notices will be sent automatically and no action
will need to be taken on the driver's part.

Also included in the paperwork is information about how to opt out
of the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit names the defendants as Jefferson Parish and Redflex
Traffic Systems -- the Arizona-based company which runs the
cameras.

The lawsuit claims that the red light camera program is illegal
because it violates the U.S. Constitution and Louisiana State law.

The suit seeks to reimburse all fines paid.

By remaining a class member, drivers won't be able to file their
own lawsuit.

Those who take part in the class action won't be responsible for
any costs or attorney fees.


MATTHEWS ROOFING: Accused of Underpaying Employees in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Guerrero, Heriberto Tapia, Jose Antonio Perez, Ricardo
Varela, Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Juan Guevara, Julian Garcia, Jorge
Salay, Roberto Rodriguez, Filemon Cantu, Filiberto Garcia and
Salvador Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all individuals
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Matthews Roofing Company,
Inc., and William E. Matthews, individually, and Bruce O'Neal,
individually, Case No. 2011-CH-31359 (Ill. Cir. Ct., September 6,
2011), accuses the Defendants of violating the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and
other similarly situated employees (i) overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 in individual work weeks, and (ii) their
earned wages for all time worked at the rates agreed upon by the
parties.  The Plaintiffs also bring individual claims for unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois.  They argue
that they were employed as the Defendants' "employees" within the
judicial district and were not exempt from the overtime wage
provisions of the IMWL and the FLSA.

Matthews Roofing is an Illinois corporation and is an enterprise
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.
Messrs. Matthews and O'Neal are owners and principal officers of
Matthews Roofing and are involved in the day-to-day business
operation of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121


ONTARIO, CA: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Insane Asylum Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Goar, writing for Toronto Star, reports that lawyer
Kirk Baert is preparing to take on the provincial government in a
multi-billion-dollar class-action suit, representing a forgotten
group of Ontarians.  He is confident they'll win.  "We're more
than a match for the province," he says.  "The government can face
reality and settle or it can go to trial and pay three times as
much."

His clients are the thousands of mentally ill children and adults
locked in "insane asylums" between 1945 and 2009.  Hidden from
sight and helpless, they endured decades of sadistic discipline.

The first plaintiffs to step forward were two frail but brave
elderly women who spent most of their lives in the Huronia
Regional Centre (once known as Orillia Asylum for Idiots).  They
filed affidavits describing beatings, sexual abuse and degrading
forms of punishment.  Their personal testimony, plus the evidence
Mr. Baert and his legal team rounded up -- police reports, witness
accounts, newspaper exposes dating back four decades and
successive government inquiries that produced no action --
convinced an Ontario Superior Court judge to certify a
groundbreaking class-action suit last year.

That precedent prompted former residents of two other provincially
run psychiatric institutions to come out of the woodwork.  Last
month, a judge certified class actions against the Southwestern
Regional Centre in Chatham-Kent and the Rideau Regional Centre in
Smith Falls.

On September 6, 2011, all of Ontario's 16 residential facilities
for the mentally disabled are closed.  But they left a legacy of
blighted lives, damaged bodies and appalling secrets.  Mr. Baert
is determined to get the whole story out in the open, get the
province to acknowledge the wrong it did and get redress for the
victims.  "They were society's most vulnerable members, yet we
treated them worse than people convicted of serious crimes --
almost as if they were animals.  There will be a day of
reckoning."

He hopes the cases -- all three class-action suits will be heard
together -- will go to court in the next year, despite this fall's
election and the huge backlog cases awaiting trial.  He's seeing a
judge this week to set the timetable.  "The plaintiffs are aging.
These cases should be fast-tracked."

Mr. Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky in Toronto, has a track
record to back up his confidence.  In 2007, he won a C$4 billion
class action on behalf of aboriginal students of government-
sanctioned residential schools.  Last year, he won a C$41 million
judgment against Vale Inco on behalf of Port Colborne homeowners.

But the Toronto lawyer is not the real force behind this quest for
justice.  It was social worker Marilyn Dolmage who started the
ball rolling 10 years ago.  When she was a child, her younger
brother was sent to Huronia with Down's syndrome.  He died at 8
years of age of untreated pneumonia.  That motivated her to get a
job at Huronia.  During her five years on staff she witnessed
residents being medicated against their will, locked in caged cots
and punished harshly for behavior they could not control.

She sounded the alarm repeatedly to inspectors, regulators and
politicians to no avail.  Finally, as a last resort, she decided
on legal action.  She compiled many examples of abuse, persuaded
two former residents to tell their stories in court and contacted
Mr. Baert, who agreed to represent the former residents.

Nothing like this has ever happened in Ontario's courts before.
The province has no contingency fund to cover claims of this
magnitude.  The history of class-action suits in the public sector
is still young.

What is certain, however, is that the province's next government,
regardless of who heads it, will be held to account for one of the
ugliest chapters in Ontario's history.


SAFEWAY SELECT: Faces Class Action Over Kona Blend Coffee
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Safeway advertises its
Safeway Select Kona Blend coffee "as if Kona beans are the major
portion of the Kona blend," but they actually contain "only a very
small portion of Kona beans," according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Thurston v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. 11-
cv-04286 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/06/SafewayCoffee.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stemberfeinstein.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Action Settlement May Face Delay
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Armstrong, writing for Cronkite News, reports that payments
in a $3.4 billion settlement to Native Americans could be delayed
by more than a year because of appeals filed, and rebutted, in
August.

Officials had said that, barring legal wrangling, payments in the
Cobell case -- the largest settlement in U.S. government history
-- could have begun as early as October.  With the latest court
skirmishes, that distribution could now be pushed back by 12 to 18
months.

The number of beneficiaries in the class could range from 300,000
to more than 500,000 Indians nationally, including as many as
30,000 Arizonans from seven different tribes in the state.

"People would have (had) money before Christmas," said Dennis M.
Gingold, an attorney for the class of hundreds of thousands of
Native Americans who sued the federal government.  "As long as the
appeal's going on, that's not going to happen."

But an attorney for one of the people challenging the settlement
said his client is "not trying to delay this" and that legal
maneuvering by the class is also responsible for slowing the
process.

"We are happy to expedite it," said Theodore H. Frank, who
represents Kimberly Craven.  He said his client has regularly beat
filing deadlines by several days.

The case, now known as Cobell v. Salazar, was filed in 1996.  It
claimed the Interior Department for decades mishandled American
Indian trust royalties.  The trusts were established to let
nontribal groups use Native American lands for things such as oil
development and timber harvesting.

The federal government agreed to settle the suit in 2009 for $3.4
billion.  The deal, approved by Congress and signed by President
Barack Obama, designated $1.4 billion to be distributed to
Individual Indian Money accounts of trustees and it set aside $1.9
billion for the government to buy land that was "fractionalized,"
meaning the property has so many stakeholders that it is worth a
paltry amount to each.

After the settlement was confirmed in a fairness hearing on
June 20, Ms. Craven filed a notice of appeal in U.S. District
Court in Washington, D.C.  Ms. Craven is a member of the class set
to receive the settlement.

Her objection states, among other things, that anyone whose IIM
account was mishandled would receive less than those whose
accounts were not mishandled, even though the first group suffered
more financially.  The settlement determines awards by the amount
of money generated by a person's account, so severely mismanaged
ones will have earned less and will be given less compensation.

Ms. Craven said in a Sept. 2 filing that the method
"systematically and perversely paid the least to the class members
who suffered the greatest alleged injury."

In response to the appeal, attorneys in the original suit asked
the judge to force Ms. Craven to first file an $8.3 million bond
to cover their legal fees and other from the 15-year case.  That
bond motion, Mr. Frank said, will spark more legal action and
further postpone payment.

"The motion for the appeal bond is going to delay this," said
Mr. Frank, who also founded the Center for Class Action Fairness.

Mr. Gingold said the ongoing effort to determine how many class
members there are and how much money they are owed will not be
affected by the appeal.  But no money will be doled out until the
dust settles.

Ultimately, the hundreds of thousands of individuals in the case
could each receive anywhere from $500 to $1 million or more.

In Arizona, possible beneficiaries include members of the Tohono
O'odham, Navajo, Salt River/Pima-Maricopa, San Carlos Apache,
Hopi, Gila River and Colorado River tribes.

Mr. Gingold said Ms. Craven's objection does not take into account
many factors of an extremely complicated case and that the
settlement has received widespread approval.

"We have 500,000 class members, and 99.98% affirmatively support
the case," he said.


WAL-MART: Netflix Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Roberts, writing for paidcontent.org, reports that Wal-Mart
recently surged into third place in the movie-download business,
barely a year after buying the startup Vudu.  Now, the giant
internet retailer may have scored another coup.

A new court ruling gives Wal-Mart a major boost in its effort to
muscle in on Netlix's streaming subscribers.  A federal court in
California late last week approved a class-action settlement that
requires Wal-Mart to pay out $27.5 million.  But here's the key
element of the ruling: Wal-Mart will be allowed to pay the 40
million Netflix subscribers in the form of gift cards for Wal-
Mart.com -- where there is prominent advertising for Vudu, which
rents and sells movies a la carte.

The court ruling is a blow to Netflix, which had earlier blasted
the settlement as "the equivalent of a marketing campaign that
costs Walmart only 68 cents per potential customer."

The class action came in response to a dinner meeting in 2005 at
which the CEOs of the Netflix and Wal-Mart.com allegedly agreed to
divvy up the DVD market.  Consumer advocates say that under the
pact, Wal-Mart agreed not to rent DVDs if Netflix agreed not to
sell them.  Class action suits were filed against both companies
in 2009.

In what now appears to be a shrewd move by Wal-Mart, the company
reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in July.  The court
ruling last week gave tentative approval to the settlement.  Under
its terms, approximately 40 million past and current Netflix
subscribers in the U.S. and Puerto Rico will be notified by e-mail
that they are entitled to redeem an online settlement card at
Wal-Mart.com.  Members of the class action can also choose to
receive a check in the mail.  The settlement states that claimants
will receive their share of the $27 million, minus 25% legal fees.

In court filings, Netflix argued that the settlement effectively
hands over its customer list to Wal-Mart at a time when the retail
giant is trying to expand its online video offerings.  In
response, the court approved an arrangement that will see a third
party, not Wal-Mart, manage the payouts.  The procedures also say
that Wal-Mart cannot keep track of which people that register
their gift cards on the site are class action claimants.

Still, the way the settlement is being carried out will likely
increase awareness of Vudu as a potential alternative to Neftlix
at a time when Netflix is facing some new challenges.  In recent
months, Netflix has failed to renew a key agreement major content
provider Starz and announced a controversial plan that will
significantly increase costs for subscribers who elect to receive
movies both in the mail and a streaming service.

For the first half of the year, Vudu had 5.3% of the online
rental-and-purchase movie market, behind only Apple's ITunes, with
a 65.8% share, and Microsoft Corp.'s Zune Video Marketplace, with
16.2%.  Vudu was more popular than comparable offerings from both
Amazon and Sony.

"Netflix continues to believe the lawsuit is without merit and the
settlement changes nothing," said spokesman Steve Swasey by
e-mail.  Wal-Mart didn't reply to phone requests for comment.

The Wal-Mart settlement is slated to receive final approval next
February.  Meanwhile, Netflix says it will continue to fight
ongoing court claims that it is also liable for the same antitrust
allegations.


ZIMMER: B.C. Judge Certifies Durom Hip Implant Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for The Province, reports that a B.C. judge
has certified a class-action lawsuit for anyone in Canada who
received a Durom acetabular hip implant.

Dennis Jones, 63, a Langley retiree, underwent hip replacement
surgery on his right hip in January 2008.

He began suffering pain in the hip in September 2008, finding it
difficult to get out of his car and to stand from a seated
position.

In May 2009, he had "revision" surgery to replace the Durom Cup
device that had been implanted in his hip.

Court heard that since the removal of the cup, he has noticed a
gradual improvement in his condition and no longer uses a cane.

A second representative plaintiff, 51-year-old Susan Wilkinson of
Osoyoos, had her Durom Cup implanted in her left hip in April
2008.

She also began experiencing pain and started using a cane in
January 2009 before having revision surgery to remove the implant
device.

Ms. Wilkinson, a nurse employed at an extended care facility, has
been able to return to many of the activities she enjoyed before
the replacement surgery.

The two plaintiffs are arguing that the devices, manufactured by
Zimmer GMBH and imported into Canada, are defective.

The company says that revision surgery is a known risk of any
joint replacement surgery and says the need for additional surgery
does not mean the devices are defective.

At the certification hearing, court heard that some problems with
the Durom Cup became public in mid-2008 when an American surgeon
warned his collegues of failures and defects with the device.

The company suspended marketing and distribution of the device in
the United States on July 22, 2008, because of increased revision
rates and found that more surgical technique instructions were
needed.

In October 2009, the company determined that European surgeons
required more instruction and training.

A retraining program has also been implemented for Canadian
surgeons and the company says the device has not been recalled or
changed and is still for sale and being used in Canada.

Court heard that at least 4,941 Durom Cups have been sold in
Canada since 2005 but that it was unclear how many have been
implanted in Canadians.

The company argued that the plaintiffs did not meet the statutory
requirements for a class action suit.

But in a ruling posted online Monday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Gregory Bowden dismissed those arguments and certified the case.

He found that Zimmer's warning to surgeons amounted to a recall.

"I agree with the plaintiffs that there is a clear concern about
the performance of the Durom Cup in clinical situations."


* Chinese Firms Face Securities Class Actions in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that it seems
to be open season for publicly traded companies from China that
have some connection to Ontario.

And Mr. Hasselback emphasized the phrase, "some connection."

A good number of high profile cases have the plaintiff-side
securities class action bar on the go.  Sino-Forest is probably
the best known, but others have joined the queue.

For example, Windsor-based Sutts, Strosberg LLP recently commenced
an Ontario action on behalf of investors in Zungui Haixi Corp.,
which is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange.

While those cases are in their early stages, another case called
Canadian Solar has passed an interesting hurdle.  The Aug. 29
decision is, as of this writing (Sept. 6) not yet in CanLII, but
the cite is Abdula v. Canadian Solar, 2011 ONSC 5105.

Mr. Justice Gerald Taylor considered whether an Ontario court has
jurisdiction to hear an Ontario securities class action against
Canadian Solar.  The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the
action, arguing that the company's principal place of business is
China, and that the company is traded only on the NASDAQ exchange.
Their position is that because Canadian Solar is not, and never
has been, subject to continuous disclosure regime of the Ontario
Securities Act, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacks
jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The judge disagreed, and concluded that Canadian Solar is a
"responsible issuer" for the purposes of the Ontario Securities
Act.

The judge noted that the company is incorporated in Canada, has an
executive office in Kitchener, carries on business in Ontario, and
holds its annual meeting in the province.  The judge wrote: "As
the defendants concede in their Factum, "Canadian Solar has Canada
written all over it.'"

The Canadian Solar motion dealt solely with the jurisdiction
issue.  It was not a certification motion, nor was it a request
for leave to proceed with a statutory cause of action.  But it was
another victory for the plaintiffs.  Chalk another case up to the
growing body of jurisprudence that is making it easier for
plaintiffs to mount securities class actions in Ontario -- an
interesting point to note, given the growing desire of Ontario
plaintiff-side counsel to target Chinese defendants.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Affirms Graver Motion to Remand
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
David and Frances Graver's Motion to Remand, in an asbestos case
involving various defendants.

The case, which is part of MDL No. 875, is styled David and
Frances Graver v. Various, Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 11-02636 on May 16, 2011.

David B. Graver was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 24, 2010.
He and his wife, Frances Graver, filed a complaint against various
Defendants alleging injury due to asbestos exposure in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on June 25, 2010.

Plaintiffs were scheduled to commence trial in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County on April 18, 2011, as part of a trial
group with other similarly-situated plaintiffs.  However,
Allentown Cement Company filed a Notice of Removal in the case on
the same day.

Allentown's Notice of Removal averred that there was complete
diversity between the parties; Plaintiffs are citizens of
Pennsylvania and no remaining Defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

Allentown argued that the case became diverse, and therefore
removable, on April 11, 2011, when Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss granted summary judgment in favor of
Crown Cork & Seal, the last remaining Pennsylvania Defendant in
the case.  Alternatively, Allentown argued that the Pennsylvania
Defendants were fraudulently joined.

The Gravers responded that the case did not become removable on
April 11, 2011, because a voluntary dismissal of a non-diverse
defendant causes a case to become removable.  The Gravers
requested immediate remand, costs and fees in the amount of
US$100,000 and sanctions, as they alleged that there was no
legitimate basis for Allentown's removal.  The Gravers denied that
Crown Cork & Seal was fraudulently joined.

It was further ordered that the case be remanded back to the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.

Robert E. Paul, Esq., of Paul Reich & Myers, PC, in Philadelphia,
represented David and Frances Graver.

Bernard L. Levinthal, Esq., Medford J. Brown, III, Esq., of
Goldfein & Joseph in Philadelphia, Richard L. Walker, II, Esq., of
Kelley Jasons Mcgowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP in Philadelphia, Leroy
J. Janiczek, Esq., of Reilly, Janiczek & McDevitt, PC in
Philadelphia, and John P. McShea, Esq., of McShea Tecce PC in
Philadelphia, represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Robertson Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the ruling of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, which favored Dolores Ann Robertson (on
behalf of Thomas E. Robertson), in an asbestos case involving
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.

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

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

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

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

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

Following a lengthy trial, a jury returned a verdict against the
defendants and awarded damages to the estate totaling
US$1,471,870.00, including US$97,418.00 for necessary and
reasonable medical expenses, US$565,158.30 for loss of income,
US$400,000.00 for physical and mental pain and suffering,
US$9,294.10 for necessary and reasonable funeral expenses, and
US$400,000 in punitive damages.

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

Because the jury's verdict was based upon reasonable conclusions
supported by substantial evidence, this Court affirmed the circuit
court's denial of Garlock's motions for a directed verdict.  This
court also affirmed the assessment of punitive damages against
Garlock as the award did not violate federal due process standards
and was permissible under Kentucky law.

John K. Gordinier, Esq., Ilam E. Smith, Esq., of Louisville, Ky.,
represented Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.

Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., John R. Shelton, Esq., of Louisville,
Ky., represented Dolores Ann Robertson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Summary Judgment Denied in Saldibar
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied H.B. Fuller Company's
motion for summary judgment in a case involving asbestos filed by
Hannibal Saldibar.

The case is styled Hannibal Saldibar et al. v. A.O. Smith Corp. et
al.

Judge Barbara N. Bellis entered judgment in Case No. CV095024498S
on April 28, 2011

On July 24, 2009, Hannibal Saldibar and Eleanor Saldibar filed
their second amended complaint in this action, alleging that Mr.
Saldibar was exposed to asbestos from products associated with
multiple defendants, including H.B. Fuller, and as a result
suffered various damages.

Each of the defendants or their predecessors in interest conducted
business in the state of Connecticut and produced, manufactured or
distributed asbestos or products containing asbestos.

Mr. Saldibar was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products of the defendants while working in Connecticut for the
Navy from 1943 to 1946, and as a tile setter from 1946 to 1979.
This exposure contributed to his contraction of mesothelioma and
other asbestos-related ailments.

On April 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed their original, four-count
complaint naming the defendant in three counts.  In count one, Mr.
Saldibar claims damages under Connecticut's product liability
statute.  Count three alleged that the defendants engaged in
"grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and/or outrageous"
conduct.  Count four was a claim for loss of consortium by Mrs.
Saldibar.

On Sept. 15, 2009, H.B. Fuller filed a motion for summary judgment
and a supporting memorandum of law as to counts one, three and
four and any pending cross claims.  The Saldibars filed a
memorandum in opposition with supporting exhibits on June 8, 2010.
The defendant filed a reply memorandum on Sept. 17, 2010.  The
court heard oral argument at short calendar on Feb. 14, 2011.

When H.B. Fuller filed its motion for summary judgment on
Sept. 15, 2009, the operative complaint was the Saldibars' second
amended complaint dated July 24, 2009.  The plaintiffs had since
amended their complaint several times, most recent on Aug. 4,
2010.  H.B. Fuller did not replead its motion after making these
amendments; therefore, the second amended complaint remained the
operative pleading with respect to this motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Ind., Units Still Named in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named
defendants in some asbestos-related litigation filed in certain
U.S. states.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 8, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. is a
diversified growth company that designs, manufactures and
distributes energy systems and controls, medical and scientific
imaging products and software, industrial technology products and
radio frequency products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Strong Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc., from time to time, may be involved in
various claims and legal actions, including asbestos-related,
which are routine litigation matters incidental to the business.

The plaintiffs in the asbestos case entitled Manuel H.Chinea and
Janet M. Chinea v. American Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong,
Inc., a/k/a Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of the State of New York, agreed to dismiss the
Company from the lawsuit.

The Company was formally dismissed from the case on April 8, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Records $3MM Cleanup Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of June 30, 2011, has
recorded a liability of US$3 million related to potential future
asbestos abatement activities at its properties.

As of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded
in its financial statements a liability of US$2.9 million related
to potential future asbestos abatement activities at its
Properties.  (Class Action Reporter, June 10, 2011)

Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates Properties,
Inc. is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real
estate investment trust.  The Company owns, develops, acquires,
leases, manages, and operate regional shopping malls, open-air
centers, community centers and office properties.


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

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from the Company's product categories.  Most of these
claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.

A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The balance of the claims is related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control
products.

A small percentage of the claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against the Company.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Gets 2,306 New Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s Metropolitan Life Insurance Company subsidiary
received about 2,306 new asbestos-related claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2011 and 2,076 new asbestos-related claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

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

MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

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

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance,
annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the United
States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle
East.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Subject to 430 PD Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2011, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date remain outstanding.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001 Filing
Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered in favor of
the Company in nine cases; judgments after trial were entered in
favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases for a total of US$86.1
million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding.

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI (Zonolite Attic
Insulation) and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI).

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31,
2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.  The
Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering about
395 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of US$146.8
million.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury
claims that allege adverse health effects from exposure to
asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Filing Date, 16,354
asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 PI Claims
were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement
amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not
involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698 PI
Claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a
total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the
Company.  The Company said it believes that a substantial number
of additional PI Claims would have been received between the
Filing Date and June 30, 2011 had such PI Claims not been stayed
by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims.  A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage From 54 Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2011, there remains
about US$970 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from
54 presently solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.
For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims.

Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities
has not been commercially available to the Company.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $145.7MM Cleanup Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s estimated liability for environmental
investigative and remediation costs -- non-asbestos and asbestos-
related -- totaled US$140.9 million at June 30, 2011, as compared
with US$145.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The amount is based on funding and/or remediation agreements in
place, including a Multi-Site Agreement, and the Company's best
estimate of its cost for sites not subject to a formal remediation
plan.

Net cash expenditures charged against previously established
reserves for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 were
US$5.4 million and US$3 million.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $51.4MM June 30 Libby Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., as well as the cost
of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby,
was US$51.4 million at June 30, 2011 and US$52.7 million at
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont., in 1963
and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite ore from the Libby mine
was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other
products.  Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby
mine was contaminated with naturally-occurring asbestos.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has investigated sites,
including sites owned by the Company, which used, stored or
processed vermiculite from the Libby mine.  The Company and other
potentially responsible parties have conducted investigations
and/or remedial actions at those sites identified by the EPA as
requiring remedial action.

During 2010, the EPA commenced a reinvestigation of up to 105
former or currently operating plants, including seven that are
currently owned by the Company, at which vermiculite from the
Libby mine was processed prior to 1990.  The Company is
cooperating with the EPA on this reinvestigation.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Accrues $1.4MM June 30 Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2011, had accrued
about $1.4 million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal
or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow Central
properties.

Some of the Company's properties may contain asbestos-containing
materials.  The Company has removed or abated asbestos-containing
building materials from certain tenant and common areas at its
City National Plaza and Brookhollow Central properties.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Noble Corp. Drop to 21 at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at June 30, 2011, there were about
21 asbestos related lawsuits in which it is one of many
defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 8, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2011, there were about 29 asbestos lawsuits in which
the Company was one of many defendants.  (Class Action Reporter,
June 10, 2011)

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to the Company's 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.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Headquartered in Baar, Switzerland, Noble Corporation is an
offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.  At
June 30, 2011, its fleet consisted of 76 mobile offshore drilling
units located worldwide as follows: 14 semisubmersibles, 13
drillships, 47 jackups and two submersibles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Sealed Air Still Ongoing in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues face asbestos-related lawsuits in
Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench.  W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. are also
named as defendants.

The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and
seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of
Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants.  The latter proceeding, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The
Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks
the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly
provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class
of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -
Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one
of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling,
manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos
or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac
transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. - Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, recognizing
the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving
Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates
of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying
all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to
asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.  That
order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions.  The parties finalized a
global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims
against the Canadian government).

That settlement, which has subsequently been amended, will be
entirely funded by Grace.  The Canadian Court issued an Order on
Dec. 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement.

The Bankruptcy Court entered the Confirmation Order on Jan. 31,
2011 and the Clarifying Order on Feb. 15, 2011.  The Canadian
Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full
effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all
provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the
Confirmation Order's terms.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PI
Settlement Plan has not become effective.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve an array of food, industrial, medical
and consumer applications.  Its operations generate about 54% of
its revenue from outside the United States and about 16% of its
revenue from developing regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Units Still Facing Exposure Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits are still ongoing in New York State and federal courts
against Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Utilities and many other
defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large
amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and
injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that
were not, in the aggregate, material to them.

The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits
total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that
these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims.

In 2010, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., estimated
that its aggregate undiscounted potential liability for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years is US$10 million.

At June 30, 2011, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$103 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$28 million.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$106 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$32 million.

At June 30, 2011, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were
US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was
US$98 million, and its regulatory assets for workers' compensation
were US$28 million.

At Dec. 31, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were
US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was
US$1010 million, and its regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$31 million.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two
regulated utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R).
CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Manhattan Main Lawsuits Still Open v. ConEd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. still faced about 100 pending suits
related to a July 2007 rupture of a steam main located in midtown
Manhattan.

In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(CECONY) steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured.  It has
been reported that one person died and others were injured as a
result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged.  Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.  The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

The 100 pending suits seeking generally unspecified compensatory
and, in some cases, punitive damages, for personal injury,
property damage and business interruption.

The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits.  It has
notified its insurers of the incident and said it believes that
the policies in force at the time of the incident will cover most
of the Company's costs.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two
regulated utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New
York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (O&R).
CECONY provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Face 477 Open Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 477 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company have
pending claims each seeking several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.  In addition to BGE and Constellation Energy, numerous
other parties are defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or the Company
and a small minority of these cases have been resolved for amounts
that were not material to the Company's financial results.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Has Injury Suits in 4 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits in the state
courts of Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The suits allege that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable.  These lawsuits are individual
personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money
damages as the sole remedy.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result
of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.  The Company maintains general liability insurance that
has applied to these claims.

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

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

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

Headquartered in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company provides
wire and cable and related services to the U.S. market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GST Posts $148MM Current Receivable at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (GST
LLC) subsidiary's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$148 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$158 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

GST recorded a current asbestos insurance receivable of US$158
million as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, June 10, 2011)

On the June 5, 2010 Petition Date, GST LLC, Garrison and Anchor
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte.  GST LLC, Anchor
and Garrison are sometimes collectively referred to as "GST."  The
filings were the initial step in a claims resolution process.

As a result of the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the
resolution of asbestos claims is subject to the jurisdiction of
the Bankruptcy Court.  The filing of the Chapter 11 cases
automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily
injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such
lawsuits, against GST.

Further, the Bankruptcy Court has issued an order enjoining
plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting asbestos products
liability actions against affiliates of GST, including the
Company, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the pendency of
the Chapter 11 proceedings, subject to further order of the
Bankruptcy Court.

GST LLC and Anchor have been among a large number of defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.  Among the many
products at issue in these actions are industrial sealing
products, including gaskets and packing.  The damages claimed have
varied from action to action, and in some cases plaintiffs seek
both compensatory and punitive damages.  To date, neither GST LLC
nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive damage awards.

Of the more than 90,000 open cases at the Petition Date, the
Company is aware of about 4,900 that involve claimants alleging
mesothelioma.  A large majority of the amount of settlement
payments made by GST LLC in recent years have been paid in
connection with mesothelioma claims.

During the first half of 2010, GST LLC began three trials.
In a Texas mesothelioma case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$3 million; GST LLC's 45 percent share of this verdict was
US$1.35 million.  GST LLC appealed.  Two mesothelioma trials in
Philadelphia settled during trial prior to a verdict.

GST LLC won defense verdicts in 10 of 19 cases tried to verdict in
the period from Jan. 1, 2006 through the Petition Date.  In the 10
successful jury trials, the juries determined that either GST
LLC's products were not defective, that GST LLC was not negligent,
or that GST LLC's products did not cause the claimants' injuries.
GST LLC's share of the nine adverse verdicts, most of which are
being appealed, ranged from nil to US$1.35 million and averaged
about US$490,000.

In March 2010, the Illinois Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned a US$500,000 verdict that was entered against
GST LLC in 2008, granting a new trial.  In May 2011, a three-judge
panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST's US$700,000
share of a jury verdict, which included punitive damages, in a
lung cancer case against GST.

GST intends to appeal the decision to the full court and to the
Kentucky Supreme Court if necessary.  At June 4, 2010, four
additional GST LLC appeals were pending from adverse verdicts
totaling US$2.9 million.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered
industrial products.  The Company has 48 primary manufacturing
facilities located in the United States and nine other countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $160MM Insurance Coverage at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at June 30, 2011, had US$160 million of
insurance coverage it said it believes is available to cover
current and future asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and certain expense payments.

At March 31, 2011, the Company US$167 million of insurance
coverage it said it believes is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims against GST LLC and certain expense
payments.  (Class Action Reporter, June 10, 2011)

GST has collected insurance payments totaling US$30.6 million
since the June 5, 2010 Petition Date.  In addition, at the
Petition Date, the Company had classified US$4.2 million of
otherwise available insurance as insolvent.

Of the US$160 million of collectible insurance coverage, the
Company considers US$156.6 million (98%) to be of high quality
because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-
based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade
(BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent or better.

The Company considers US$3.4 million (2%) to be of moderate
quality because the insurance policies are written with various
London market carriers.  Of the US$160 million, US$124 million is
allocated to claims that have been paid by GST LLC and submitted
to insurance companies for reimbursement and the remainder is
allocated to pending and estimated future claims.

The Company's recorded asbestos liability at the Petition Date was
US$472.1 million.  As of the Petition Date, the Company had
remaining insurance and trust coverage of US$192.4 million.

Included is US$156.3 million in insured claims and expenses that
the Company's subsidiaries have paid out in excess of amounts
recovered from insurance.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. designs,
develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered
industrial products.  The Company has 48 primary manufacturing
facilities located in the United States and nine other countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Reynolds American Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to be
party to litigation involving asbestos, of which the case is
styled Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.

In Parsons, which was filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court,
Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers,
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and
parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR,
seeking to recover US$1 million in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in
both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., Reynolds American Inc. is
the holding company for cigarette maker (RJR Tobacco) and
smokeless tobacco manufacturer (American Snuff Company).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. AK Steel Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's AK Steel Corporation subsidiary or
its Armco Inc. predecessor, since 1990, has been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

The great majority of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting
the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.  About 40%
of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure at a
facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation
is a fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless
and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly
owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l's June 30 A&E Reserve at $382MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. says that, at June 30, 2011, its
property and casualty group's asbestos and environmental reserves
was US$382 million, net of reinsurance recoverables.

The Company recently completed the previously announced
comprehensive study of its asbestos and environmental exposures
relating to the run-off operations of its property and casualty
group and its exposures related to former railroad and
manufacturing operations and sites.

As a result of the study, the Company recorded a US$50 million
special charge (net of reinsurance) to increase the property and
casualty group's asbestos reserves by US$28 million and its
environmental reserves by US$22 million.

At June 30, 2011, the Company's three year survival ratio was 18.0
times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 12.3 times paid
losses for the total A&E reserves.

Excluding amounts associated with the settlements of asbestos
related coverage litigation for A.P. Green Industries and another
large claim, the Company's three year survival ratio was 11.5 and
8.8 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and total A&E
reserves, respectively.

These ratios compare favorably with A.M. Best's most recent report
on A&E survival ratios (February 2011) which was 8.3 for asbestos
and 7.7 for total industry A&E reserves.

The Company recorded a US$9 million special charge (included in
other expenses) to increase its:

-- Asbestos reserves by US$3 million in recognition of a higher
   number of expected mesothelioma and lung cancer cases than
   had previously been estimated, partially offset by a decrease
   in the number of claims without serious injury and

-- Environmental reserves by US$6 million due primarily to
   higher estimated costs with respect to several existing
   sites.

At June 30, 2011, the Company had liabilities totaling US$101
million for environmental and personal injury claims associated
with its former railroad and manufacturing operations.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group, Inc.,
through the Great American Insurance Group of companies and its
flagship Great American Insurance Company, offers commercial
property/casualty insurance focused on specialties such as
workers' compensation, professional liability, ocean and inland
marine, and multi-peril crop insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reserves $828MM for Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary's
asbestos-related reserves totaled US$828 million as of June 30,
2011 and US$853 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 8, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Duke Energy Carolinas reserved US$841 million as of March 31, 2011
for asbestos-related claims.  (Class Action Reporter, June 10,
2011)

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to
1985.

As of June 30, 2011, there were 265 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to
US$61 million, and 43 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to us$12 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages
above an aggregate self insured retention of US$476 million.  Duke
Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self
insurance retention on its insurance policy during the second
quarter of 2008.

Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke
Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier.  The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.005
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of US$850 million related to this policy are
classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of
both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an
energy company that operates through its direct and indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.; and Duke
Energy Indiana, Inc.; as well as in South and Central America
through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. affiliate has
been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to
asbestos at its electric generating stations, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 8, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties like:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos
   during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana
   generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed
   workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other
   legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions,

Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably
possible exposure in existing and future suits over the
foreseeable future is not material.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is an
energy company that operates through its direct and indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.; and Duke
Energy Indiana, Inc.; as well as in South and Central America
through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Subject to Potential Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. may be parties to, or targets
of, lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including
product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and
intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental,
antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., FutureFuel Corp. manufactures
biodiesel and other biofuels; however, its core business is
specialty chemicals, which include herbicides, detergent
additives, colorants, photographic and imaging chemicals, and food
additives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Subject to Potential Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is routinely subject to asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, Ill., MYR Group Inc. provides
utility and electrical construction services with a network of
local offices located throughout the continental United States.
The Company provides services that include design, engineering,
procurement, construction, upgrade, maintenance and repair
services with a particular focus on construction, maintenance and
repair.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vest Remand Bid OK'd in McDonnell Douglas Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
Timothy and Caroline Vest's Motion to Remand in a case involving
asbestos filed against McDonnell Douglas Corporation and other
defendants.

The case, which is part of MDL Docket No. 875, is styled Timothy
and Caroline Vest v. Various, Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 11-cv-63520 on May 25, 2011.

Mr. Vest was diagnosed with mesothelioma in October 2009.  The
Vests filed the instant action in California Superior Court on
Dec. 17, 2009.  Mr. Vest allege that various Defendants' asbestos-
containing products caused his injuries, which he was exposed to
while present at Hangar 110, where his father, Warren Vest, worked
from 1973-1983.

Mr. Vest asserted that he was present at Hangar 110 often, and
additionally, that his father brought home asbestos on his
clothing and person, and therefore that he was exposed to asbestos
both at the worksite and in the home.  The Vests asserted that
McDonnell (MDC) manufactured airplanes that contained asbestos,
which were present at Hangar 110.

On Jan. 28, 2010, the Vests amended their complaint to add MDC,
alleging that asbestos-containing components on MDC planes were a
substantial contributing factor to Mr. Vest's asbestos-related
injuries.  MDC filed the notice of removal at issue on Jan. 6,
2011, almost a year after being added to the action.

It was hereby ordered that the Vests' Motion to Remand filed on
April 1, 2011 was granted.  It was further ordered that the case
be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Alameda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Jury Awards $50MM in Two Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York law firm of Belluck & Fox, LLP, secured separate
verdicts totaling US$32 million and more than US$19 million on
Aug. 17 in cases involving individuals who contracted mesothelioma
after being exposed to asbestos, according to a Belluck & Fox, LLP
press release dated Aug. 18, 2011.

In the case of Ronald Dummitt and Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W.
Chesterton, et al. (Supreme Court of New York, New York County,
No. 190196/10), a jury found Crane Co. and Elliott Turbomachinery
Co. responsible for the asbestos exposure that led to a U.S. Navy
boiler tender's diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma.

In returning its verdict, the jury determined that Crane and
Elliott acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others in
failing to warn.  The jury apportioned 99% responsibility to Crane
and 1% responsibility to Elliott.

The award included US$16 million in past pain and suffering and
US$16 million in future pain and suffering to the 68-year-old Mr.
Dummitt.

In the case of David Konstantin and Ruby Konstantin v. 630 Third
Avenue Associates, et al. (Supreme Court of New York, New York
County, No. 090134), the jury found Tishman Liquidating
Corporation, formerly known as Tishman Realty & Construction, Co.,
Inc., responsible for the 55-year-old Mr. Konstantin developing
testicular mesothelioma.

The jury found Tishman 76% liable and to have acted with reckless
disregard for the safety of others.  The jury awarded Mr.
Konstantin US$7 million for past pain and suffering, and US$12
million for future pain and suffering.  The verdict amount also
included US$64,832 for past lost wages, and US$485,325 for future
lost wages.

Based on the recklessness findings and the relative culpability of
these defendants, under New York law, they are jointly and
severably liable for the jury verdicts.

Both trials were joined and lasted nine weeks.  The Honorable Joan
Madden presided over both trials.  Jordan Fox, Esq., led the
Belluck & Fox trial team on each case.  Attorneys James Long,
Esq., Brian Belasky, Esq., Seth Dymond, Esq., and William Papain,
Esq., joined him.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Fines for Violations at Wallingford Garage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labor, public health and environmental officials of the State of
Connecticut said that the Wallingford Housing Authority was never
charged after a 2009 public health complaint that claimed workers
in a maintenance garage were removing and throwing out asbestos-
laden materials without proper permits, the Record-Journal
reports.

Recently, four maintenance workers at the housing authority's
garage at 66 Washington St. told the housing board that their
supervisor, Paul Inserra, told them to remove floor tiles and
adhesives from the garage two years ago and bury them in barrels
and a trash bin.

Spokesman Dwayne Gardner of the Department of Energy and
Environmental Pr otection said a complaint was investigated by
DEEP and public health officials, but after abatement was done in
fall 2009, no action was taken.  He said that when asbestos is in
a building, it is under Department of Public Health jurisdiction.
If it is outside, DEEP is in charge.

Chris Pisani, one of the four workers, told housing commissioners
that Mr. Inserra instructed them to remove the material and that
promised training to handle asbestos was never given.  While
internal health department memos in 2009 pointed to officials
contacting Occupational Safety and Health Administration
representatives, Department of Labor spokesman Paul Oats said no
formal complaints were ever lodged against the housing authority
over asbestos removal or contamination.

State public health laws dictate that the owner of an asbestos-
containing facility must notify health officials, but housing
administrators had not done that in June 2009, when an asbestos
abatement firm inspected the site and discovered amounts of
asbestos tile far exceeding the state minimum for notification
requirements, according to health department documents.

Diana Lejardi, a spokeswoman for the health department, said
building owners are required by law to hire professionals to
remove the asbestos in a documented process, and once that is
done, "additional disciplinary action is not usually taken."

The housing authority operates 317 low- and moderate-income rental
units and has an annual operating budget of about US$1.5 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cornwall Haulage Firm Fined for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Leah, the director of Penzance, Cornwall, England-based
Leah Ltd, has been handed a 12-month prison sentence suspended for
two years, for illegally tipping asbestos waste in an area of
"outstanding natural beauty," Road Transport Media reports.

In an Environment Agency prosecution at Truro Crown Court, Mr.
Leah was also ordered to pay GBP50,000 under the Proceeds of Crime
Act plus GBP4,000 costs.

During 2007 and 2008, Mr. Leah had illegally dumped waste,
including asbestos, at three separate sites including two farms
and a residential property in St. Ives.

The court was told how about 9,000 tons of construction and
demolition waste were dumped at Trenoweth Farm, Gweek over a six-
month period in 2007 and 2008.  Mr. Leah said he had only
deposited three lorry loads of subsoil at Trenoweth Farm, but was
unable to verify this by supplying the relevant waste transfer
notes.

A total of five other haulers had earlier pleaded guilty to
illegally depositing and disposing of controlled waste at
Trenoweth Farm in contravention of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990.

Sentences included:

-- Broad and Sons, Manaccan, Truro (2176 tons), GBP2,500 for
   four offenses plus GBP4,080 payable as Proceeds of Crime
   (POC).

-- Maen Karne Aggregates, Truro (1,875 tons), GBP2,250 for four
   offenses plus GBP3,750 POC.

-- St Pirrans Trucks, Camborne (1,620 tons), GBP2,000 for three
   offenses plus GBP4,860 POC.

-- Harts Haulage Ltd, Redruth (1,500 tons), GBP1,800 for four
   offenses plus GBP3,000 POC

-- Michael Mudge Ltd, Praze, Camborne (1,280 tons), GBP1,600 for
   four offenses plus GBP3,200 POC.

Each company was also ordered to pay GBP2,000 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Textile Workers at Risk for Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
A report by The Chinese University of Hong Kong, which was
recently published in the journal Lung Cancer, claims that textile
workers exposed to asbestos are at a high risk of dying of lung
cancer and other cancers, including mesothelioma, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

Researchers from The Chinese University of Hong Kong authored the
report, which was based on the results of a study that tracked the
employment and health status of 577 Chinese textile workers
exposed to chrysotile asbestos from 1972 to 2008.

Of the 259 worker deaths, 53 were caused by lung cancer and two by
malignant mesothelioma.  The results showed that workers with high
asbestos exposure were twice as likely to die of lung cancer as
those in the low exposure group.

The study results were published right around the same time that
Reuters reported that the World Bank warned China that chronic
non-communicable diseases, including lung cancer, account for over
80 percent of all deaths in China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Wins AU$368MM Tax Dispute With ATO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Federal Court judges, on Aug. 22, 2011, decided an
AU$368 million tax appeal in favor of James Hardie Industries SE,
The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The victory over a tax bill relating to a 1998 international
corporate restructuring will also relieve financial pressure on
the fund Hardie set up in 2007 to compensate Australian sufferers
of asbestos-related diseases.

Justices Richard Edmonds, John Gilmour and John Logan ruled
unanimously that Hardie did not obtain a tax benefit by including
in the restructuring a series of transactions among subsidiaries
in Australia, the United States and Malta.

The Australian Taxation Office has 28 days to decide whether to
seek special leave to appeal to the High Court.  If it does not,
or if leave is refused, Hardie expects to be reimbursed the amount
of AU$242 million plus interest and some of its legal costs.

Hardie deposited AU$184 million, half the disputed bill, with the
Tax Office in 2007 and has since been paying interest on the
balance.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund stands to receive 35 per
cent of the inflow, or at least AU$85 million.  Under NSW law
underpinning the fund, if Hardie receives the money before its
March 2012 balance date, the fund will be paid its share in July
2012.

After losing the initial case in 2010, Hardie took a US$345
million (AU$388 million) hit on its full-year profit, accounting
for the AU$368 million tax bill plus interest and currency
changes.

The non-cash charge, which contributed to a full-year net loss of
US$347 million, is likely to be reversed this year as a one-off
gain. The ruling will also benefit shareholders by freeing up more
cash for the share buy-back program.  Hardie said in May 2011 it
would acquire up to five percent of its issued capital next year,
or consider a special dividend.

The dispute related to an Australian subsidiary, RCI Pty Ltd,
receiving a US$318 million dividend on shares it owned in an
American subsidiary, and RCI's subsequent sale of those shares to
a Maltese subsidiary for US$94 million.  The transactions were
part of a wider restructuring in which Hardie moved its head
office to the United States, its largest market.

A central issue in the appeal was what Hardie would have done if
it had expected RCI to incur an AU$172 million capital gains tax
bill.

The three judges concluded that the RCI transactions would not
have proceeded, because they would have increased the one-off cost
of the restructuring from AU$35 million to AU$207 million, or from
2.5% of Hardie's market capitalization to 15%.

The ATO argued the long-term gains of the global restructuring
were so valuable that it was reasonable to expect Hardie to have
proceeded despite the extra costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PH Group Seeks to Hasten Ban on Use of Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Labor Unions' advocacy on asbestos begins on
Aug. 23, 2011 to hold a series of lectures to senior public high
school students in Quezon City, Philippines, about the risks of
asbestos to their health, and petition legislators to hasten
approval into law pending bills banning the use of asbestos,
according to a BWI press release dated Aug. 23, 2011.

Dr. Corazon Rubio, the Department of Education's Quezon City
Schools Superintendent, issued a memorandum on July 27, 2011
addressed to all assistant schools division superintendents,
division and district supervisors, secondary school principals,
and head teachers and teachers-in-charge allowing the ban asbestos
advocacy lecture and signature campaign in some of the 46
secondary schools in Quezon City.

The memorandum was in response to a letter by Gerard Seno, ALU
National Vice President, which requested for the campaign to reach
out students.  ALU is one of the largest confederations of unions
in the Philippines with a membership of more than 150,000 working
in 14 various industries nationwide.

The ALU partners with the Woodworkers International and Trade
Union Congress of the Philippines (BWI-TUCP) in its campaign to
ban and phase out asbestos in the Philippines.

Mr. Seno said, "The proposed bill (HB 896) must be approved as
soon as possible for the sake of 1.3 million Filipino workers who
are currently exposed daily to asbestos dust and for the sake of
the protection of these children who are our future workers."

The Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP) and the Philippine Cancer
Society (PCS) have recorded, since year 2000, about 12 cases of
Filipinos who were diagnosed with various cancers upon exposure
with asbestos dust.

The House Bill 896 was authored and filed by TUCP Party-List Rep.
Raymond Democrito Mendoza on July 2010.  It seeks to ban the
importation, manufacture, processing, use or distribution in
commerce of asbestos and asbestos containing materials.

The bill is pending at second reading after a Technical Working
Group meeting in March 2011.  Its counterpart bill, Senate Bill
89, in the Senate is also pending.

There are 25 establishments in the Philippines that exports raw
asbestos from Canada at more than 10,000 metric tons every year.
Most of these establishments are found within Metro Manila.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois Central Makes Argument Against Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Central Railroad Company says an appeal of two
Mississippi asbestos lawyers -- William Guy, Esq., and Thomas
Brock, Esq. -- who were both found to have committed fraud is not
supported by any laws or facts, LegalNewsline.com reports.

Three months after Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock filed their appeal brief
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Illinois
Central filed a response that argued the attorneys' jurisdictional
challenge has no merit.

The brief, which was filed on Aug. 12, 2011, says, "It is
undisputed that the District Court had original diversity
jurisdiction over Illinois Central Railroad Company's fraud claims
against William Guy and Thomas Brock."

Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock say the district court had no jurisdiction
over the case and that the Company did not file the fraud lawsuit
against them until the statute of limitations had tolled.

Illinois Central's complaints alleged the Company would not have
been obligated to pay US$210,000 in settlements had it known that
Willie Harried joined a mass action, titled Cosey, in 1995 and
Warren Turner in 1996.

Mr. Harried and Mr. Turner both sued Illinois Central in 2001.
The complaints say Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock knew their clients had
taken part in the mass action and failed to disclose it.  A
federal jury agreed and awarded the company US$420,000.

Mr. Guy and Mr. Brock say Illinois Central filed its fraud lawsuit
in federal court only because of adverse rulings from the
Mississippi Supreme Court in related cases.  They also say the
company disclosed that it knew about the alleged harm by Feb. 13,
2004, while investigating possible fraud in another mass action,
yet did not inform them.

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 31, 2007, against Mr. Turner and the
attorneys were added as defendants later that year.

Also at issue is the award of US$500,000 in attorneys fees to
Illinois Central.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in ConocoPhillips
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia,
on Aug. 16, 2011, issued rulings in litigation involving asbestos
styled Secretary of Labor v. ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery (3rd
Cir., No. 10-2893, 8/16/11), the Occupational Safety and Health
Reporter report.

The court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission abused its discretion when it reduced the secretary of
labor's asbestos-exposure citations against ConocoPhillips from
serious to other-than-serious.

The Appeals Court said that the commission reduced the citation
against ConocoPhillips because the Labor Department did not
present case-specific evidence that employees were exposed to
asbestos.  In vacating the commission's ruling, the appeals court
stated that the department did not have to present such evidence.

Following an inspection of a ConocoPhillips refinery in Linden,
N.J., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the
employer for nine serious violations of the asbestos standard,
29 C.F.R. 1926.1101, based on an incident in which employees
partially removed a gas pipe installed in the early 1950s without
taking proper precautions against asbestos exposure.

An OSHRC administrative law judge affirmed the Labor Department
citations and set a US$16,875 penalty.  ConocoPhillips appealed to
the commission, which reduced the citations to other-than-serious
and the penalty to US$3,150 (40 OSHR 542, 6/24/10; 23 OSHC 1137).
The secretary of labor appealed to the Third Circuit.

The court vacated the commission's decision and remanded the case
with the direction that the commission affirm the citations as
serious and reconsider an appropriate penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Court Issues Ruling in Bernard Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled
Lawrence Bernard, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v., Brookfield
Properties Corporation, etc., Defendant, Colgate-Palmolive
Company, Defendant-Appellant, Lori Konopka-Sauer, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant-
Appellant.

Colgate sought to question Dr. Sanborn about a hobby allegedly
involving asbestos that she mentioned in her consultation note on
Karen Tedrick.  Dr. Sanborn wrote that "[Tedrick's] father had
some sort of hobby activity or other project in the family
basement as the patient was growing up, which the patient's
brother reports did involve having asbestos in the basement."

Mrs. Tedrick's brother, Richard Konopka, has already been deposed,
however, and testified that this hobby referred to a chemistry set
that he owned as a teenager.  Because the information sought from
Dr. Sanborn is available from another source, the court agreed
with the motion court that Dr. Sanborn's deposition should not be
compelled.

Colgate sought testimony from Mrs. Tedrick's physicians about what
her chances for a full recovery would have been with traditional
"multimodality" treatment instead of the alternative, naturopathic
treatment she appears to have pursued.  However, the information
sought relates directly to diagnosis and treatment.

Moreover, the physicians' records are available for review by
Colgate's experts, who can offer their own testimony as to Mrs.
Tedrick's chances with conventional medical treatment.

Colgate sought information from Shelly Bernard's treating
physicians about Bernard's initial diagnosis of ovarian cancer
(peritoneal mesothelioma was subsequently diagnosed).  However,
this information is available not only in the physicians' records
but also, and more directly, in the pathology records and tissue
samples already in Colgate's possession.

Colgate sought to depose the pathologists who diagnosed the
ovarian cancer and peritoneal mesothelioma.  While the
pathologists' records and the tissue samples upon which they are
based may constitute an adequate alternative to deposing the
pathologists, the precise nature of Bernard's affliction appears
central to the resolution of this dispute.

In view of the particular circumstances of this matter, the court
exercised its discretion in favor of further disclosure into a
potentially dispositive issue.  The court had considered
defendant's remaining contentions and found them unavailing.  This
constituted the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water's Units Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in
three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.
Mueller Co. manufactures valves for water and gas systems,
including butterfly, iron gate, tapping, check, plug and ball
valves, as well as dry-barrel and wet-barrel fire hydrants and a
broad range of metering products for the water infrastructure
industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $294,000 in Liabilities at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc.'s asbestos-related liability was US$294,000 at
June 30, 2011 and its accretion expense was US$26,000 for the nine
months ended June 30, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$285,000 at March 31, 2011,
and its accretion expense for the six months ended March 31, 2011
was US$17,000.  (Class Action Reporter, June 17, 2011)

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

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

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

The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to property,
plant and equipment consisted of US$210,000 as of both June 30,
2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to
construction in progress consisted of US$27,000 as of both
June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Rentech, Inc. operates in two
business segments: Nitrogen products manufacturing and Alternative
energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 95 Exposure Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 95 pending asbestos-
related lawsuits as of June 30, 2011, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company faced five lawsuits; Union Electric Company faced
54 suits; and Ameren Illinois Company faced 74 suits.

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

The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with as
many as 212 parties named in some pending cases and as few as two
in others.  However, in the cases that were pending as of June 30,
2011, the average number of parties was 78.

The claims filed against the Company, AMO, AIC and Ameren Energy
Generating Company allege injury from asbestos exposure during the
plaintiffs' activities at the Company's present or former energy
centers.  Former CIPS energy centers are now owned by Genco, and
former CILCO energy centers are now owned by AmerenEnergy
Resources Generating Company.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO
energy centers, CIPS and CILCO, now AIC, contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco and AERG, for liabilities associated with
asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer.

At June 30, 2011, the Company, AMO, AIC and Genco had liabilities
of US$19 million, US$7 million, US$12 million, and nil,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

AIC has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90% of cash
expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric
rates are recovered from a trust fund established when Ameren
acquired IP.

At June 30, 2011, the trust fund balance was about US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.  If cash expenditures are less
than the amount in base rates, AIC will contribute 90% of the
difference to the fund.

Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed cash expenditures
in excess of base rates will be recovered through charges assessed
to customers under the tariff rider.  Following the Ameren
Illinois Merger, this rider is only applicable for claims that
occurred within IP's historical service territory.  Similarly, the
rider will seek recovery only from customers within IP's
historical service territory.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $70.9MM for A&E at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s net loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims was US$70.9 million at June 30,
2011, compared with US$80 million at June 30, 2010.

The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims amounted to
US$81.7 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$83.9
million as of March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, June 17,
2011)

The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E claims was US$77.9
million at June 30, 2011, compared with US$109.3 million at
June 30, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 4,714 Open Claims at July 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. faced 4,714 asbestos claims as of
July 25, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This compared with 4,799 claims as of April 18, 2011; 5,158 claims
as of Feb. 11, 2011; 5,170 claims as of Oct. 29, 2010; and 7,343
claims as of July 23, 2010.

The Company faces suits brought in various courts in the United
States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products
that the Company previously manufactured.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills.  Those fabrics generally had
a useful life of three to 12 months.

Pleadings and discovery responses in cases in which work histories
have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill exposure in
about 15 percent of the total claims filed against the Company to
date, and only a portion of those claimants have alleged time
spent in a paper mill to which the Company is believed to have
supplied asbestos-containing products.

As of July 25, 2011, 448 claims remained against the Company in
the MDL.  This compared to 12,758 claims that were pending at the
MDL as of Feb. 6, 2009.

As of July 25, 2011, the remaining 4,266 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL.

As of July 25, 2011, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 35,995 claims.  The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$8.116 million.  Of this amount, almost
100% was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has about $130 million in confirmed insurance coverage
that should be available with respect to current and future
asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage that it
should be able to access.

Headquartered in Rochester, N.H., Albany International Corp. and
its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper
Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment,
and The PrimaLoft Products segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,877 Open Claims at July 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.'s
affiliate was defending against 7,877 asbestos claims as of
July 25, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This compared with 7,876 claims as of April 18, 2011; 7,868 claims
as of Feb. 11, 2011; 7,869 claims as of Oct. 28, 2010; and 7,907
claims as of July 23, 2010.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of
the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which Albany is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999.  In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.
Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

As of July 25, 2011, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 9,721 claims for a total of US$200,000.  Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights.  The remaining
11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

As of July 25, 2011, 6,821 (or about 81%) of the claims pending
against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Headquartered in Rochester, N.H., Albany International Corp. and
its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper
Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment,
and The PrimaLoft Products segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mount Vernon Lawsuits Pending v. Albany Int'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is still named both as a direct
defendant and as the "successor in interest" to asbestos cases
related to Mount Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products.  The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims.  On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Headquartered in Rochester, N.H., Albany International Corp. and
its subsidiaries are engaged in five business segments: The Paper
Machine Clothing segment, The Engineered Composites segment (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment,
and The PrimaLoft Products segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Posts $183MM June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$183,430,134 as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$193,603,076 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$25 million as of both
June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Long-term asbestos-related receivables were US$116,177,074 as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$124,089,373 as of Dec. 31, 2010.
Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$18 million
as of both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a
steel producer divided into two segments: The forged and cast
steel roll arm makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and
cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 8,491 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,491 open asbestos-related
claims for the six months ended June 30, 2011, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gross settlement and defense costs were US$12,525,000 for the six
months ended June 30, 2011 and the Company recorded about 450
claims settled or dismissed.

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

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

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury.
The trial resulted in a defense verdict.  Plaintiffs appealed that
verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the
jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a
steel producer divided into two segments: The forged and cast
steel roll arm makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and
cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers.


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

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

Various counterclaims, cross claims, and third party claims have
been filed in the litigation.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Corporation have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some first-layer excess insurance coverage
for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for pending and future claims for Asbestos
Liability.

The claims against the Company's inactive subsidiary that is in
dissolution proceedings, numbering about 425 as of June 30, 2011,
are not included within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability
for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or
distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former Company subsidiary.

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

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks, as respects the Company, a
declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights
and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers
under the Excess Policies.

One of the excess carriers and the Company filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective
rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that
carrier.  The Company's cross-claim also sought damages for the
carrier's failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.

The Company and that carrier concluded a settlement generally
consistent with the Coverage Arrangement, and all claims between
that carrier and the Company were dismissed with prejudice on Dec.
8, 2010.

In April 2011, the Company and the other carrier that issued
Excess Policies also concluded a settlement generally consistent
with the Coverage Arrangement.  The Company has now been dismissed
from this litigation.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation is a
steel producer divided into two segments: The forged and cast
steel roll arm makes forged hardened-steel rolling mill rolls and
cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Central Has $1.7MM ARO at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp.'s regulatory asset was US$900,000 and
the related asset retirement obligation liability was US$1.7
million at June 30, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. recorded an ARO for the
remediation of asbestos existing on its system.  The asbestos
existing on Central's system is primarily in building materials
and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973.

The Clean Air Act of 1973 established the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants that regulate the use of
asbestos.

The amount of the regulatory asset was US$1 million and the
related ARO liability was US$1.6 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Owensboro, Ky., Southern Star Central Corp.
operates as a holding company for its regulated natural gas
pipeline operations and development opportunities.  Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is the Company's only operating
subsidiary and the sole source of its operating revenue and cash
flows.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corporation Facing Respirator Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation is subject to respirator liabilities, which
involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis,
silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting
from the use of American Optical Corporation (AO) respirators that
are alleged to have been negligently designed or labeled.

The Company has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from AO in an April
1990 asset purchase transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured
respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in
July 1995.

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

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

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

The reserve was US$12 million at June 30, 2011 and US$15 million
at Sept. 30, 2010 on a discounted basis (US$17 million and US$20
million on an undiscounted basis, respectively).  Cash payments
related to this liability were US$3 million in the first nine
months of fiscal 2011 and US$1 million in the first nine months of
fiscal 2010.

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


                            *********

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  * * *