CAR_Public/110916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 16, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 184

                             Headlines

24 HOUR FITNESS: App. Ct. Affirms Ruling Against Consumer Suit
ARIZONA PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Southern Calif. Blackout
AT&T: Motion to Move Wage & Hour Class Action to Florida Denied
ATLANTA, GA: Appeals Court Rules in Suit Over Water & Sewage Fees
BALANCE BAR: Defrauds Consumers on All Natural Claims, Suit Says

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Detroit Pension Fund Files Class Action
BANNER SUPPLY: Chinese Drywall Victims Can File Separate Suits
CALIPER LIFE: Being Sold to PerkinElmer for Too Little
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Protective Order for Discovery Process Approved
CHASE HOME: 3rd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Suit on Overcharges

DEAN FOODS: Trial in Dairy Farmers' Class Action Postponed
DREAM PRODUCTS: Sued Over False Claims on "Dream Water" Product
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Dismisses Ex-Quarterback's Class Action
FARMERS NEW WORLD: Fairbanks Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
GREAT ATLANTIC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Misleading Shareholders

HIGHLAND TOWN, IL: Settles Class Action Over Flood Damage
JOHNSON RODENBURG: Debt Collection Suit Denied Class Certification
KOSS CORP: District Court Dismissed Accountant in Securities Suit
L-3 SERVICES: Krajina Genocide Victims' Class Action Can Proceed
MEDTRONIC INC: Records $221M Expense Over Fidelis Suit Settlement

MEDTRONIC INC: "INFUSE" Suit Still Pending in Minnesota
META FINANCIAL: Iowa Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
NATALIE SALON: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
NAVISTAR INT'L: Hearing on Class Motion vs. Units Continued
NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Not Named in 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL

NCAA: Attorney Files Medical Monitoring Class Action
NEWS CORP: US Investors Expand Phone Hacking Class Action
NFLPA: Retirees File Class Action Over Lockouts
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Hearing Set for Sept. 23 in Wage and Hour Suits
PORTNOFF LAW: Attorney's Fees Award in Tax Collection Suit Upheld

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Ohio Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Premiums Lawsuit
RALPHS GROCERY: Denial on Bid to Compel Arbitration Remanded
ROSS STORES: Wage and Hour Suits Still Pending in California
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Files Motions to Strike Class Action Opt-Ins
SMITH & WESSON: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending

STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Foster Care Class Action Can't Proceed
TOLL BROS: Calif. App. Ct. Flips Ruling in Labor Violation Suit
WEEHOO INC: Recalls 2,700 Bike Trailers Due to Fall & Crash Risks
YTP INTL: 7th Circuit Remands "Pyramid Scheme" Suit for Review
ZALE CORP: District Court Junks Securities Fraud Suit


                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Applica Still Subject to Three Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Unit Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tata Posts GBP374.2MM A&E Provision at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Still Faces Suits in Miss., La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Premix-Marbletite Mfg. Faces 18 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Named in Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Open v. Kaanapali Land
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Subject to 4 Pending Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Faces Occupational Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Still Facing Personal Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Involved in AO's Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Still Subject to Gibsonburg Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $505.1MM June 30 Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Receives 1T New Claims in Q2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Accrues $239MM for Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Subject to Cases in Tex., Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,164 Actions Open v. Central Hudson at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $65.4MM A&E Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Manitowoc Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Has Exposure Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Posts $103.2MM June 30 ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Claims Still Open v. Scotts Miracle-Gro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Facing 81 Injury Cases at July 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Facing Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodard Lawsuit v. ExxonMobil Filed on Aug. 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Case v. 10 Firms Filed on Aug. 2 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dittmeier, Donohoe Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Issues Ruling on Longridge Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Seeks Public Comment on Toxicity at Libby

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Decides on Carriageworks Worker's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Developer Fined $100T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decuir Case v. Texaco Filed on Aug. 24 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Employee Awarded AU$1.15MM in Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Judge Dismisses Armstrong's Asbestos Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Township Head Pleads Not Guilty to Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $282,685 Verdict Handed to James Lokey's Family
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Martin Case v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dye Claim v. 73 Firms Filed on July 29 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AU$$11.6MM Estimated for Wynnum School Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in York Int'l. Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Granted in Spavone
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court to Grant Dismissal Bids in Tatum Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Office Workers Evacuated After Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Murfreesboro Site Cleanup to Cost Almost $30T

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Named in Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to be Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Named in 11 Cases With 325 Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Seeks Indemnification From Katy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Subject to 90 Open Cases at July 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Still at $17.7MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Facing 1,297 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McJunkin Facing 958 Exposure Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hampton Still Facing Harris County Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Trust Posts $600T ARO at June 30




                             *********

24 HOUR FITNESS: App. Ct. Affirms Ruling Against Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirmed a
trial court's ruling on a demurrer to a fifth amended version of
the class action entitled, Tammie D. Turner v. 24 Hour Fitness
United States, Inc., et al., Case No. B227445 (Calif. App. Ct.)

Plaintiff sought to maintain a class composed of U.S. residents
who entered into an agreement for personal training sessions with
24 Hour Fitness in California and did not receive a refund when
their unused training sessions expired.  24 Hour Fitness demurred
to the fifth amended complaint.  The trial court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend on July 7, 2010.  Plaintiff
appealed the trial court order.

Plaintiff failed to state a claim of forfeiture, the Appellate
Court held.  "By failing to use her training sessions during that
six month period, through no fault of 24 Hour Fitness, Turner lost
the benefit of her bargain."

Plaintiff also failed to state a claim for violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, the Appellate Court opined.  "Turner does not
allege that 24 Hour Fitness prevented her from using her training
sessions during the six month period.  Further, the FSA which
Turner signed expressly states the expiration date of the training
sessions both before and after her signature."

The Appellate Court ruled that "leave to amend" was properly
denied.  "Turner has failed to meet her burden to show a
reasonable possibility that a sixth amended complaint would state
a valid cause of action."

Judges Tricia A. Bigelow, Madeleine I. Flier, and Elizabeth A.
Grimes compromise the appellate panel.

A full-text copy of the July 13, 2011 Appellate Court order is
available at http://is.gd/djOmhCfrom Leagle.com.


ARIZONA PUBLIC: Faces Class Action Over Southern Calif. Blackout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the first wave of an expected
slew of class actions has been filed, blaming Arizona Public
Service for the Sept. 8 Southern California blackout, which forced
the plaintiffs to throw out all the spoiled, unrefrigerated food
from their businesses.

A copy of the Complaint in Busalacchi, et al. v. Arizona Public
Service Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02083 (S.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/SoCalBlackout.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Ian Rott, Esq.
          David V. Hiden, Jr., Esq.
          Eric M. Overholt, Esq.
          HIDEN, ROTT & OERTLE, LLP
          2635 Camino del Rio South, Suite 306
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 296-5884
          E-mail: mrott@hrollp.com
                  dhiden@hrollp.com
                  eoverholt@hrollp.com


AT&T: Motion to Move Wage & Hour Class Action to Florida Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 12, 2011, a federal judge denied AT&T's motion to
move an at home call center wage and hour class action lawsuit
from California to Florida.  Perry v. AT&T, Case No. C11-01488 is
currently pending in the Northern District of California.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik originally filed the class action
lawsuit complaint against AT&T Mobility and Arise Virtual
Solutions on March 28, 2011, alleging that the companies
mistreated a class of At Home Call Center employees as independent
contractors.

On July 1, 2011 the San Diego employment lawyers at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed an opposition to AT&T's motion to move
the class action lawsuit to Florida.

According to the opposition to AT&T's motion to transfer venue:

"Defendant AT&T is the ring leader of this 'yellow dog' scheme to
avoid the obligations AT&T owes to Plaintiff, the State of
California and the federal government.  AT&T's illegal scheme is
based on the artifice of requiring each employee to form their own
corporations, which contract with Arise, which in turn contracts
with AT&T.  This scheme is fraudulent because Plaintiff and the
other Class Members provide services directly to AT&T and AT&T
controls every aspect of their employment, which makes them AT&T's
employees under California law.  AT&T is thus able to unlawfully
avoid all the costs of being an employer that other employers pay
while, at the same time, effectively paying less than minimum
wage.  This scheme purposefully flouts the California Labor Code
which applies to all individuals working in California and the UCL
which applies to all entities doing business in California."

The Court agreed with the San Diego employment lawyers, finding
that the "Plaintiff has met her heavy burden of proving that
enforcement of the forum selection clause in this case would be
unreasonable, because it would contravene the strong public policy
of California that contractual schemes to avoid the California
Labor Code will not be tolerated."

The Court also ruled against AT&T's motion based on the finding
that the "Plaintiff negotiated and executed the contract with
defendant Arise from California, performed all aspects of her
contractual obligations in California, and made the choice to
litigate her claims in California, where the courts would be most
familiar with California law."

Norman Blumenthal, an attorney for the Plaintiff, had this to say
about the Judge's decision to keep the case in California: "This
is a big win for the citizens of California because it protects
them from yellow dog contracts and from the payment of the
employer's share of social security taxes."

For more information about the AT&T and Arise At Home Call Center
independent contractor class action lawsuit, call (866) 771-7099
or visit the AT&T employment law class action Web site.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm that focuses on representing employees in actions for
wrongful termination, discrimination, wages and hours, overtime
pay and other illegal employment law practices.


ATLANTA, GA: Appeals Court Rules in Suit Over Water & Sewage Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J.D. Smith of the Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed a
trial court order denying dismissal of certain named plaintiffs in
a class action complaint filed against the city of Atlanta,
Georgia, and the city's contractors relating to water and sewage
use charges.

The consolidated lawsuit was filed by Atlanta residents, who
asserted they were overcharged for water and sewage use through
the City's installation of new automatic meter reading technology.
The contractors sued are K & V Meter Automation, LLC; Khafra
Operations, LLC; Metals and Materials Engineers, LLC; and Neptune
Technology Group, Inc.

The defendants sought to dismiss the lawsuit.

The trial court granted in whole and in part, and denied in whole
and in part, various motions.   

The Appellate Court, however, reversed the trial court's denial of
the City's motion to dismiss named plaintiffs who failed to comply
with ante litem notice provisions of the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated.

"Requiring all named plaintiffs in a class action to comply with
the ante litem notice requirements of the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated will further the policy that the claims of the
representative be typical of the claims in the class," the
Appellate Court stated.  The record shows that the ante litem
notice sent to the city the named plaintiffs' counsel stated that
"The persons filing claims will include at least Mrs. Lisa Cervera
Webb and a class of currently unnamed plaintiffs."

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the
City's motion to dismiss the named plaintiffs' claims for unjust
enrichment, money received, and breach of the city code.  "No ante
litem notice was required for [those] claims because they are not
claims for injury to person or property," the Appellate Court
opined.

The Appellate Court also affirmed the trial court's dismissal of
the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims and negligence claims
against the city contractors.  Plaintiffs failed to allege a
viable breach of contract claim or negligence claim against the
city contractors, the Appellate Court held.

However, the Appellate Court found no merit in the city
contractors' contention that the City's claims against them for
contribution, indemnity, and attorney's fees and expenses under
the OCGA should be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the July 6, 2011 Appellate Court order is
available at http://is.gd/oBb3Cufrom Leagle.com.


BALANCE BAR: Defrauds Consumers on All Natural Claims, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly S. Sethavanish, a California resident on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Balance Bar Company,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:11-cv-04547 (N.D. Calif.,
September 13, 2011) is a class action brought on behalf of a
nationwide class of consumers, who purchased Balance Bar's energy
bar products labeled as "All Natural" even though they contain
synthetic ingredients, including Ascorbic Acid, Cocoa, Glycerine,
and Xanthan Gum.

Throughout the Class Period, Balance Bar prominently makes the
claim "All Natural" on the labels of its energy bar products,
cultivating a wholesome and healthful image in an effort to
promote the sale of these products, even though its energy bar
products were actually not "All Natural," Ms. Sethavanish alleges.
She contends that Balance Bar's conduct gives rise to common law
fraud, violates the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent prongs of
California's Business and Professions Code.

Ms. Sethavanish is a resident of Windsor, California, in Sonoma
County.  She says she is willing to and has paid a premium for
foods that are all natural and has tried to refrain from buying
their counterparts that were not all natural.  Balance Bar
manufactures and distributes a full spectrum of energy bars from
its Southern California manufacturing facility.

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
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.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
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com


BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Detroit Pension Fund Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halah Touryalai, writing for Forbes, reports that the Bank of New
York Mellon's lawyers are awfully busy lately and a Detroit
pension fund just added to their workload.

In a lawsuit filed on Sept. 12 in Manhattan the pension group says
its custodian, BNY Mellon, gambled and lost more than $1 billion
of its money in investments tied to failing Lehman Brothers.  BNY
continued to keep the pension funds' money invested in Lehman
notes during 2007 and 2008 even as it became apparent that the
investment bank was in trouble, the group says.

The class action complaint was filed by the General Retirement
System of the City of Detroit which includes that city's police
and fire retirement system.  From the suit:

"[BNY] surprisingly took no action with respect to the Collateral
investments it made on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class.
Although Defendant could have divested or otherwise hedged against
losses on the Lehman Notes and other similar Lehman investments at
any point during 2007 through 2008 and significantly minimized or
eliminated any losses, Defendant held onto the Lehman investments.
In such away, Defendant took a gamble with Plaintiffs' and the
Class Plans' money for which it bore no risk of loss.  Defendant
made this gamble because under the Agreement, Defendant had no
risk of loss but was paid 20% of any profit.  Because of this
"heads I win, tails you lose" paradigm, Defendant had no incentive
to modify its unauthorized and risky investment strategy, and made
no attempt to do so, because it was the beneficiary of all
profits, and would not be responsible for any losses.

"We believe the suit is without merit and we will defend ourselves
vigorously," BNY said in a statement on Sept. 13.

As Lehman's clearing bank, BNY knew about Lehman's problems and it
required Lehman to put up additional collateral in order to keep
those operations going, plaintiffs allege.  "Additionally, in the
summer and fall of 2008, executives within Defendant's Securities
Lending Program attempted to minimize BNY Mellon's exposure in
securities lending loans to Lehman, which Defendant would
ultimately beheld liable for should Lehman collapse," the lawsuit
says.

Despite it's own moves to protect itself, BNY did not act to
protect the assets of the pension fund whose money was invested in
Lehman notes, plaintiff says, and as a result breached its
fiduciary duty.

According to the lawsuit, the fund was encouraged to join BNY's
securities lending program in which the bank would lend securities
owned by the funds to creditworthy borrowers.  Upon information
from BNY, the fund believed program was "akin to a conservative
money market account."

This isn't the only legal battle BNY is fighting.  In June, BNY,
acting as a trustee, struck a record $8.5 billion settlement with
Bank of America over representation and warranty claims on
mortgage securities issued by its Countrywide unit.  That
settlement is being objected to by several parties including AIG,
the FDIC and some state attorneys general.  BNY is also facing
scrutiny over its pricing on some foreign exchange transactions
for clients.

Earlier this month BNY announced the departure of Chairman and
Chief Executive Robert Kelly who stepped down "due to differences
in approach to managing the company" with the board of directors.

Its new chairman and CEO, Gerald Hassell, told investors at a
Barclay's conference on Sept. 13 that it would fight claims
related to its foreign exchange transactions and defended its
settlement with BofA.

"Our clients aren't as much upset with us as the attorneys general
in some states are," Mr. Hassell said.  "We don't think we've done
anything out of line."


BANNER SUPPLY: Chinese Drywall Victims Can File Separate Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie McFarland, writing for pnj.com, reports that a Florida
circuit judge on Sept. 12 ruled that hundreds of residents can
file separate lawsuits against a Chinese drywall distributor if
they are unsatisfied with the proposed $55 million class action
settlement.

Attorneys representing South Florida residents whose homes had
been tainted by the defective drywall said many victims have
complained that their share of the settlement against Banner
Supply Co. wouldn't be enough to repair their homes.

Homes that were built with the drywall have a foul odor and the
chemicals used to make the drywall can cause health problems,
corrode metal wiring, and appliances.

Broward County Circuit Judge Charles Greene said plaintiffs who
would receive part of the proposed Banner settlement should advise
the court whether they want to opt out of the class settlement
that affects around 2,000 Florida homeowners.

The number of victims across the South entitled to a share of the
class action settlement is unclear.  Builders, drywall installers
and remodelers that have been sued as well may want a part of the
settlement because they blame distributors such as Miami-based
Banner for their legal woes.

Banner supported the class settlement but oppose allowing
homeowners to opt out because it could mean they would face
additional individual lawsuits.

Banner also is suing German company Knauf Gips for $100 million,
claiming Knauf knew about the odor and that the drywall would
cause damage to homes.

The Banner settlement is only one part of the complicated
litigation consolidated before the Louisiana court.


CALIPER LIFE: Being Sold to PerkinElmer for Too Little
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Caliper Life
Sciences is selling itself too cheaply to PerkinElmer, for $10.50
a share or $600 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Greenberg v. Caliper Life Sciences,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6853 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-443
          E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com
                  bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  jstein@saxenawhite.com
             lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Protective Order for Discovery Process Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, in Seattle, approved a protective order to
govern the discovery process in In re Cell Therapeutics, Inc.
Class Action Litigation.  A copy of the July 27, 2011, order is
available at http://is.gd/3DHSzYfrom Leagle.com


CHASE HOME: 3rd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Suit on Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Julio M. Fuentes, D. Michael Fisher, and Richard
Lowell Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed a district court's dismissal of an amended class action
complaint captioned, Coleman v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, Case No.
09-4727, (3rd Cir.)

The complaint was filed by Stacy Coleman relating to alleged
excessive fees charged for mortgage reinstatement after a
foreclosure judgment in favor of Chase.  The complaint, as
amended, was dismissed by the district court based on New Jersey's
entire controversy doctrine.

The Third Circuit is not persuaded that Plaintiff was deprived of
a fair opportunity to litigate her claims.

Among other things, the Third Circuit noted that because the
foreclosure sale had been stalled due to the bankruptcy
proceedings and the judgment had not been paid, the state court
had jurisdiction over the matter and Ms. Coleman could have
brought her claims as a part of the original foreclosure action
until January 20, 2006.  In fact, Ms. Coleman's cause of action
accrued on November 4, 2005, while the original foreclosure action
was still pending, and thus, she is barred by the entire
controversy doctrine, the Third Circuit held.

A copy of the 3rd Circuit's July 12, 2011 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/oxhJXufrom Leagle.com.


DEAN FOODS: Trial in Dairy Farmers' Class Action Postponed
----------------------------------------------------------
Larisa Brass, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that a
trial scheduled to begin on Sept. 13 in a lawsuit between
Southeastern dairy farmers and companies that market and buy their
milk has been postponed indefinitely.

The decision was publicly announced late last week on
http://www.southeastdairyclass.com-- a Web site set up for dairy
farmers who are members of the class action lawsuit against dairy
manufacturer Dean Foods, the cooperative Dairy Farmers of America
and other entities and individuals.

The post read: "The trial date has been postponed.  No further
information is available at this time."

The 2008 lawsuit alleges that Dean Foods, the largest dairy
products maker in the country, has controlled milk prices in the
region by allowing Dairy Farmers of America, through various
entities, to manage the milk supply of its member farmers and,
unbeknownst to the farmers, independent producers who chose to
supply local bottlers under separate contracts.

The suit charges the defendants with colluding to establish anti-
competitive practices that have artificially suppressed farm milk
prices in the Southeast over the recent decade.

The plaintiffs have been seeking more than $500 million in
damages.

While the Web notice was the first public announcement, the
decision to postpone the trial apparently was referred to during
an Aug. 30 conference call between U.S. District Court Judge J.
Ronnie Greer and lawyers in the case, which is to be heard in
Greeneville.  The postponement comes on the heels of Judge Greer's
recent decisions to decertify all DFA members, approximately 2,000
dairy farmers, from the class and to vacate a $140 million
settlement agreed on by Dean Foods and the plaintiffs prior to the
decertification order.

"The Court wanted to ensure that the rights of DFA farmer-members
were protected in regards to a 'settlement class,' perhaps
eligible to share in the Dean proposal of $140 million," said
Julie Walker of Cocke County, who produces a newsletter on dairy
issues and has been following the case.  Last week, Ms. Walker
read a transcript of the call, publicly available only at the
Greeneville federal courthouse.

"Since the (settlement) amount was announced prior to
decertification, that has raised many questions.  It will take
several weeks to sort all related issues out properly in this very
complex litigation, which is necessary before trial begins," she
said, adding that based on her reading of recent documents filed
with the court, "the trial will be reset when the Dean Settlement
Class is defined, unless all remaining defendants agree to settle
before trial."

There remains much uncertainty about the direction the case will
take, said John Bunting, a New York-based dairy expert who blogs
about the industry, writes for the national dairy newsletter
Milkweed and has been following the case.  "Where we're at right
now reveals how confusing the complexity of dairy has become."

Illustrating these conflicts, a letter posted on the federal
court's public database last week expressed confusion over recent
decisions in the case.

Addressing Judge Greer, former dairy farmer Bette Nicholson wrote
that the typical local farm was left out of the loop when it came
to the cooperative's decision-making process.  In the
decertification order, Jude Greer indicated that statements from
several DFA dairy farmers and regional board members declaring
that DFA members benefited from the market situation were among
his reasons to disassociate the producers from the independent
farmers in the case.

"Our Dairy Farm operated in central Arkansas from January 1990
through January 2007.  In order to sell milk in Arkansas you had
to belong to a Dairy Coop.  In the later years it was like picking
the lesser of two evils deciding which Coop to belong to,"
Nicholson wrote in a letter filed Sept. 3.  "We belonged to DFA a
good part of that time.  Your board member votes for you and you
find out about what is going on or has been decided at a later
time.  DFA management or DFA board members do not represent our
farm in the litigation that is going on.  They have not consulted
us or informed us in any of the issues involved as we were former
DFA members."

On Sept. 9, attorney Gary Brewer, who currently represents several
plaintiffs in the suit, filed a motion requesting permission to
represent DFA farmers as a subclass in the case.

There are larger issues that have contributed to a very complex
case that's difficult to resolve in court, according to
Mr. Bunting.

"The other thing that the court case reveals, both the
Southeastern case and (a separate) Northeastern case," he said,
"is that governmental authorities both at the state and federal
level have not done their job in oversight or these cases wouldn't
even exist.  Cooperative law is state law."


DREAM PRODUCTS: Sued Over False Claims on "Dream Water" Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that two Florida
companies are "preying" on sleepy consumers by selling them pricey
"Dream Water" -- at $20 a six-pack -- but it's just snake oil, a
San Diegan says in a class action in Superior Court.

Joe Ferris says Dream Products and Sarpes Beverages push their
Dream Water as a "miraculous" product that "works for anyone who
needs to relax, fall asleep or stay asleep."

"Dream Water, according to defendant, has no side effects and
provides its amazing sleep benefits without making users feel
groggy or drowsy the next day like other over-the-counter and
prescription sleep aids.  Although defendant uses images and
language to represent that these claims about its products have
been clinically proven and endorsed by medical organizations and
professionals, the reality is that defendant has no such support
for its baseless representations.  Defendant simply is and has
been misrepresenting the effectiveness of its products to the
general public, in order to reap windfall profits," according to
the complaint.

Mr. Ferris says the defendants push their product with "misleading
testimonials," among other things, in airports, over the Internet
and in "popular national retail chains including Walgreens and K-
Mart.  Dream Water is sold in a variety of 'flavors' in both 8
ounce 23 bottles and in 2.5 ounce 'sleep shots'.  A six pack of
either the 8 ounce bottles or the 2.5 ounce 24 'sleep shots'
retails for approximately $20.00."

Mr. Ferris says the defendants claim the stuff works through three
"natural" ingredients: GABA, melatonin and 5-htp.  He says he
bought Dream Water based on the defendants' "deceptive Dream Water
promises . . . lost money as a result" and "experienced none of
Dream Water's advertised benefits."

Mr. Ferris says the defendants claim, falsely, that their water
works better than FDA-approved sleep aids, and push the product as
a "safe and effective cure for sleep disorders."

But "In reality, defendant has no support whatsoever for these
claims.  It has conducted no studies examining the safety or
effectiveness of its 'proprietary' combination of the effective
ingredients in the Dream Water products let alone the products
themselves.  Defendant is simply selling snake-oil as a purported
cure for one of the most important health problems faced by
millions of Americans," the complaint states.

"Defendant claims that Dream Water is 'all-natural' and that it is
'safe as a warm glass of milk.'  But Dream Water includes and
promotes the use of melatonin.  Medical professionals note that
melatonin has 'inconsistent' effects as a sleep aid, that '[t]here
are many unanswered questions about melatonin' and that melatonin
may lead to daytime drowsiness, headaches, dizziness, stomach
discomfort, short-lasting depression symptoms, mild tremor, mild
anxiety, irritability, and confusion.  Melatonin may interact
negatively with a variety of common drugs, including blood-
thinning medications (anticoagulants), immunosuppressants,
diabetes medications, and birth control pills.  People who are
pregnant, breast-feeding, and younger than age 20 must be
especially careful when taking melatonin.  Risks of taking
melatonin are thought to increase over time.  Upon information and
belief, melatonin was recently banned for over-the-counter use in
Canada, and has been banned for over the counter use in many
European countries for some time.  Defendant does not disclose any
of melatonin's potential negative effects or implications."

Mr. Ferris seeks class damages of less than $5 million for
violations of consumer and business law, unfair competition, false
advertising, and breach of warranty.

A copy of the Complaint in Ferris v. Dream Products, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 37-2011-00097625 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/DreamWater.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derrick F. Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN FROST LLP
          429 Santa Monica Blvd., #700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 576-7312


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Judge Dismisses Ex-Quarterback's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Electronic
Arts is off the hook after a federal judge dismissed a former
college quarterback's claims that the video game developer based a
character on him without permission in the best-selling game "NCAA
Football."

Ryan Hart, the starting quarterback from 2002 to 2005 for Rutgers
State University in New Jersey, filed a right of publicity class
action against Electronic Arts in the Superior Court of New Jersey
in 2009, claiming the company used his name and likeness without
permission.

Mr. Hart said Electronic Arts created a virtual player with his
exact attributes in four versions of the game, including height
and weight, home state, skills and on-field accessories.
"NCAA Football," released annually, features more than 100
Division I college football teams and thousands of players from
the National Collegiate Athletic Association each year.  The game
identifies players by jersey number and position, but not by name.
The virtual player in question wore Mr. Hart's actual jersey
number, 13, a left wrist band and helmet visor -- all attributes
shared by the real life Mr. Hart -- and even hailed from Florida.

Electronic Arts removed the lawsuit to federal court, and Judge
Freda Wolfson allowed Mr. Hart to file a second amended complaint
after he left out exactly which aspects of his likeness were
included in the game.

While the lawsuit was under consideration, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted video games First Amendment protection in Brown v.
Entertainment Merchants Association.  The lawsuit challenged a
California statute that "prohibits the sale or rental of 'violent
video games' to minors, and requires their packaging to be labeled
'18.'"

According to that ruling, "Like the protected books, plays, and
movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas -- and
even social messages -- through many familiar literary devices
(such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through
features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's
interaction with the virtual world).  That suffices to confer
First Amendment protection."

Mr. Hart contended that "NCAA Football" constituted commercial
speech and was not afforded extensive First Amendment protections.

But Judge Wolfson rejected that argument, finding that the video
game is a work of art because players create custom athletes --
changing characters' hair color, skill levels and a variety of
other attributes.

Judge Wolfson underscored the creative aspect of making a video
game.

"Viewed as a whole, there are sufficient elements of EA's own
expression found in the game that justify the conclusion that its
use of Hart's image is transformative and, therefore, entitled to
First Amendment protection . . .  the NCAA Football game contains
'virtual stadiums, athletes, coaches, fans, sound effects, music,
and commentary, all of which are created or compiled by the games'
designers.'"

Judge Wolfson said three factors, as established by Facenda v.
N.F.L. Films Inc., were to be used when identifying commercial
speech: "(1) is the speech an advertisement; (2) does the speech
refer to a specific product or service; and (3) does the speaker
have an economic motivation for the speech."

"NCAA Football" doesn't qualify under those factors, Judge Wolfson
found.

"Whatever First Amendment protection is afforded to commercial
speech, 'NCAA Football' is not commercial speech," Judge Wolfson
wrote.  "Defendant's First Amendment right to free expression
outweighs plaintiff's right of publicity."

The judge granted Electronic Arts' motion for summary judgment.

College athletes are currently prohibited from entering into
licensing agreement, and Electronic Arts Sports may use NCAA team
trademarks, uniforms and logos via agreements with the Collegiate
Licensing Company.

The lawsuit is not the first against Electronic Arts.

In February 2010, a 9th Circuit judge allowed a similar lawsuit by
former Arizona State University and University of Nebraska
quarterback Samuel Keller to proceed, which Electronic Arts has
appealed.

And in May, a federal court in San Francisco rejected a licensing
complaint from Ed O'Bannon, former basketball standout at
University of California, Los Angeles against Electronic Arts, the
NCAA and the College Licensing Company.

Mr. Hart led the Scarlet Knights to the 2005 Insight Bowl and
finished as the school all-time leader in passing completions and
attempts.  He now works in insurance.

A copy of the Opinion in Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-05990 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/ea%20hart.pdf


FARMERS NEW WORLD: Fairbanks Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, affirmed a
trial court order denying class certification of the complaint
captioned Pauline Fairbanks, et al. v. Farmers New World Life
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. B216742 (Calif. App. Ct.).

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Unfair Competition Law in
connection with Farmers' marketing and sale of universal life
insurance policies.  The trial court denied the motion for class
certification on the basis that common issues did not prevail,
specifically concluding that Farmers did not use a common
marketing strategy with respect to the policies.  Plaintiffs
appealed the denial order.

The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's findings that
there is an absence of a common marketing scheme used by Farmers.
The Appellate Court also agreed with the trial court that it is
impossible to determine, as a matter of common proof, whether the
allegedly misrepresented permanence of the Farmers policies was
material to the entire class of Farmers policyholders.

Farmers shall recover its costs on appeal from plaintiffs, the
Appellate Court ruled.

A copy of the Appellate Court's July 13, 2011 ruling is available
for free at http://is.gd/CmHipCfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Gerstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. GERSTEIN
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
          Los Angeles CA 90025-1032
          Tel: 310-820-1939
          Fax: 310-820-1917

               - and -

          Scott A. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM
          21900 Burbank Blvd., Third Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 866-640-9062
          Fax: 818-992-3181
          E-mail: themarkslawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          John T. Nockleby
          Professor of Law and Director of Civil Justice Program
          LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL
          919 Albany St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
          Tel: (213) 736-1163
          Fax: (213) 380-3769
          E-mail: john.nockleby@lls.edu

               - and -

          John A. Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles CA 90017
          Tel: 213-977-0211
          Fax: 213-481-1554

Counsel for Defendants are:

          Peter H. Mason, Esq.
          Richard R. Mainland, Esq.
          Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
          Eric A. Herzog, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
          555 South Flower Street
          Forty-First Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: 213-892-9200
          Fax: 213-892-9494
          E-mail: pmason@fulbright.com
                  rmainland@fulbright.com
                  eherzog@fulbright.com


GREAT ATLANTIC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that top directors of
A&P supermarkets sold $430 million of shares at inflated prices by
lying to investors to disguise the company's desperate financial
straits, and when the truth came out the share price dropped by
70% in a single day, a shareholder says in a federal class action.

In a bit of unsettling irony, the 33-page complaint was filed the
week after a new book, "The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small
Business in America," received glowing reviews in print and on
radio, for its tale of a "stunningly successful company that
forever changed how Americans shop and what Americans eat,"
according to its description on Amazon.com.

While that may once have so, named plaintiff Ricky Dudley says
that from July 2009 to December 2010, the operation of the storied
company was nothing to be proud of.

Mr. Dudley says that during that time, CEO Christian W.E. Haub and
five codefendants on the board's executive committee participated
in a scheme "that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of
A&P securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts."

He claims the scheme enabled A&P to sell more than $430 million in
shares at inflated prices.

Mr. Dudley cites a series of A&P press releases stating that
despite financial difficulties associated with A&P's $1.3 billion
purchase of the Pathmark supermarket chain in March 2007, a "major
investment agreement" would "strengthen [the Company's] balance
sheet" and significantly increase the liquidity available to
pursue its business strategy.

Mr. Dudley says the first of these press releases stated that the
infusion of $175 million from the German investment firm
Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG, and the Yucaipa Companies,
a former owner of Pathmark, would "unlock shareholder value" and
better position the company to compete in the dynamic food retail
industry.

Citing the press release, Mr. Dudley says A&P acknowledged that
the Pathmark purchase would continue to weigh on earnings, but
said the strategic investment in the company will "well-position
us to generate long-term growth overtime and once the overall
economy improves."

Mr. Dudley says these statements were materially false and
misleading for a number of reasons: A&P was facing increased low-
cost competition from retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target Corp.;
Pathmark's operations were in far worse condition than investors
were told; and A&P was not operating according to internal
expectation and could not achieve the guidance sponsored and/or
endorsed by the defendants.

The string of positive news from A&P led to strong demand for a
public offering of $260 million in shares in 2009, Mr. Dudley
says.

Then in January 2010, A&P announced a sudden "'impairment charge'
of almost $413 million," and said that for the third quarter of
2009, the company would report a loss of $502.4 million, which
included charges of $412.6 million for "goodwill, trademark and
long-lived asset impairment and $16 million for mark to market
adjustments related to financial liabilities."

By comparison, losses from continuing operations for the previous
year had been only $3.8 million, and the supermarket's financial
statements included income of $23 million for mark to market
adjustments to financial liabilities.

Despite this worrying news, Mr. Dudley says, Mr. Haub continued to
try to spin corporate statements, telling investors, "The good
news is that we have identified several critical issues within our
organization that will lead us back to market performance."

But in December 2010, "A&P shocked and alarmed investors after
they revealed, for the first time, that the company was performing
so far below expectations and that the purported turnaround
program was failing so miserably that the company would likely to
be forced to file for bankruptcy protection," according to the
complaint.

Mr. Dudley seeks compensatory damages and extraordinary,
equitable, and/or injunctive relief on behalf of the class for
Exchange Act violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Dudley v. Haub, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
_____ docketed as Doc. 12754 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Sept. 9,
2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/A&P.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMAN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com


HIGHLAND TOWN, IL: Settles Class Action Over Flood Damage
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle L. Quinn, writing for Post-Tribune, reports that
taxpayers will be on the hook as the town of Highland settles a
2006 class-action lawsuit over flood damage, but the amount is
expected to be negligible and easily paid off.

The Town Council at its Sept. 12 meeting voted unanimously to pass
an ordinance allowing the Sanitary Board to issue bonds totaling
no more than $800,000 to cover the town's $780,000 portion of a
$1,950,000 settlement for the victims of that flood.  It also
voted unanimously in favor of a resolution approving of the
settlement.

The town's former insurer, Scotsdale Insurance, will pick up the
remaining $1,170,000, Clerk-Treasurer Michael Griffin said.

Settling the class-action suit does two things for the town,
Mr. Griffin said: It allows the town to clear the suit off its
books, which in turn will allow for better insurance rates in the
long run, and it keeps the case from going to trial, though Town
Attorney Rhett Tauber felt Highland had a strong case to win.

"The town has $5 million in tort exposure," Mr. Tauber said.
"What could happen if this had gone to the jury is anyone's
guess."

The bond will be paid for through property taxes, then reimbursed
through the Sanitary District, which collects $10,000 per month in
user fees, for a total of $120,000 per year, Mr. Griffin said.
Since the process of settling the suit has just started, Highland
will likely make an interest payment on the bonds during the
remainder of 2012, then will divide the principle payments over
the next two years.

In any case, unless something drastic happens, residents shouldn't
see a perceptible rate hike from the bonds.

"I'd be surprised," Mr. Griffin said.  "If the (assessed value) of
the town stays the same or goes up, then virtually nothing will
change.  If the AV drops, however, then you'll see it."

Approximately 230 members of the lawsuit will gain from the money,
Mr. Griffin said, though he didn't know what their portions would
be.

In related information, Public Works Director John Bach said some
1,600 households and businesses should receive a letter this week
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency telling them their
flood-plain properties have been reclassified and that, because of
that, they can reduce or drop flood-plain insurance if they
choose.  At the very least, premiums on those policies would be
reduced because of the lower-risk classification.


JOHNSON RODENBURG: Debt Collection Suit Denied Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota denied class certification of the complaint entitled
Joseph Atwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, PLLP, Case No. 10-3837
(D. Minn.).

The complaint arises out of attempts to collect consumer debt by
JRL from Minnesota residents.  JRL served as debt collector for
various entities the residents owe debts to.  JRL is alleged to
have sent two collection letters to the residents within a 30-day
period.  Plaintiff argued that the court should read the mailbox
rule into 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(3), and interpret the statute to
prevent a debt collector from sending information to a consumer
for 30 days.

But Judge Doty held that the Court cannot say that common
questions in the matter predominate, and thus denial of the
certification motion is warranted.  Plaintiff also failed to show
that a class action is the superior means of litigation, Judge
Doty said.  Moreover, Judge Doty said individual consumers would
be harmed by proceeding as a class.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 1, 2011 order is available at
http://is.gd/OAUl0nfrom Leagle.com.


KOSS CORP: District Court Dismissed Accountant in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin granted, in part, and denied, in part, a
motion to dismiss filed in the class action lawsuit captioned
David A. Puskala, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Koss Corporation, Michael J. Koss, Sujata
Sachdeva, and Grant Thornton, LLP, Case No. 10-C-0041 (E.D. Wis.).

The complaint alleges securities fraud, arising out of the
embezzlement of over $30 million from the Koss Corporation by
Sujata Sachdeva, the company's vice president of finance,
secretary and principal accounting officer.  The company, its CEO
and former accounting firm are also named as defendants, who all
have sought dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiff brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Section 10(b) forbids the use or
employment of any deceptive device in connection with the purchase
or sale of any security.  Section 20(a) provides that any person
who "controls, directly or indirectly, any person liable" under
the securities laws is jointly and severally liable.

Judge Adelman's ruling provides that:

   * the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Michael J.
     Koss is dismissed;

   * the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Koss Corp. and
     the Section 20(a) claim against Michael J. Koss survive; and

   * Grant Thornton's motion to dismiss is granted.

A copy of the District Court's July 28, 2011 Decision and Order is
available for free at http://is.gd/ZLgAaQfrom Leagle.com


L-3 SERVICES: Krajina Genocide Victims' Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Ethnic
Serbs accusing a large defense contractor of arming the Croatian
troops that committed genocide in the Krajina region can proceed
with a class action in the Northern District of Illinois, where
thousands of victims reside, a federal judge ruled.

Operation Storm, the largest European land offensive since World
War II, killed or displaced more than 200,000 Serbs in 1995,
according to the 2010 complaint filed by Genocide Victims of
Krajina.

The umbrella group is seeking billions of dollars in damages from
defense contractor L-3 Communications and its subsidiary, Military
Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI), a corporation they say was
founded by U.S. military officers who were downsized at the end of
the Cold War.

MPRI staff allegedly helped the Croatian army plan and train for
the attack, and it monitored and assisted the execution of the
operation.

The complaint says that a division of L-3, "negotiated a contract
to train and modernize the Croatian Army into a competent fighting
force able to invade the Krajina region and expel the ethnic
Serbian population from Croatian territory."

Virginia-based L-3 asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction, or alternatively, to transfer the case to the
Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia.
The contractor argued that either of these courts would be more
convenient for the witnesses and parties involved.

U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo refused on both counts, finding
ample evidence that the Northern District of Illinois has
jurisdiction over L-3.

L-3 conducted over $19 million worth of business in Illinois in
2010, including $2 million in sales came from MPRI, according to
the 21-page decision.  L-3 also employs about 100 people in
Illinois, including MPRI personnel, and regularly solicits
business in Illinois by communicating with Illinois-based
companies and attending trade shows in the state.

Though L-3 made a more compelling argument for transfer of venue,
Judge Castillo decided to keep the case in Illinois since it
offers the best access to evidence and witnesses.

Genocide Victims of Krajina provided affidavits from the Serbian
Consulate in Chicago and the Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox
Church "estimating that the number of Krajina refugees in the
Chicago area is in the thousands, more than any other area outside
of Serbia itself," Judge Castillo said.

"These individuals are members of a refugee community struggling
to rebuild their lives, and the supportive Serbian community in
the Chicago area overwhelmingly makes the Northern District of
Illinois a more convenient forum," Judge Castillo added.

L-3 made a compelling argument for the Eastern District of
Virginia's interest in regulating the actions of a Virginia-based
military contractor, according to the ruling.  But this interest
"must be weighed against the interests of the Northern District of
Illinois in redressing the wrongs done to its citizens."

"L-3 is an international corporation with billions of dollars in
revenue and an expertise in logistics," the Aug. 17 decision
states.  "While L-3 is headquartered in Virginia, it can bear the
expense of litigating in Illinois.  Plaintiffs, on the other hand,
are refugees from a brutal conflict."

The court urged both parties to reconsider their settlement
positions in light of its decision and exhaust all efforts to
settle the case.  A status meeting is set for Sept. 27 at 9:45
a.m.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Genocide Victims of
Krajina v. L-3 Services, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05197 (N.D. Ill.),
is  available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/13/krajina.pdf


MEDTRONIC INC: Records $221M Expense Over Fidelis Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., recorded an expense of $221 million related to
probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection with its
settlement of lawsuits over its Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads, according to the Company's September 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 29, 2011.

On October 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) family of
defibrillation leads.  As of April 29, 2011, approximately 4,000
lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads had been filed against the
Company, including approximately 47 putative class action lawsuits
reflecting a total of approximately 9,000 individual personal
injury cases.  Approximately 2,800 of the lawsuits were commenced
in Minnesota state court and approximately 1,200 were consolidated
for pretrial proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) rules.  On January 5, 2009, the
MDL court dismissed with prejudice the master consolidated
complaint for individuals and the master consolidated complaint
for third-party payors on grounds of federal preemption.  The
state court judge dismissed the state court cases on similar
grounds on October 22, 2009.  Plaintiffs sought appeals in both
the federal and state court matters.  The Minnesota Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal on May 16, 2011.  On October 15,
2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.  On October 29, 2010,
plaintiffs petitioned the Eighth Circuit for rehearing of their
appeal.  On June 14, 2011, the Eighth Circuit dismissed this
petition for rehearing.

The Company announced on October 14, 2010, that it had entered
into an agreement to settle the pending lawsuits as well as
certain unfiled claims subject to opt-out rights by both
plaintiffs and the Company, including the Company's right to
cancel the agreement.  The terms of the agreement stipulated that,
if Medtronic elected not to cancel the agreement, it would pay
plaintiffs to settle substantially all pending U.S. lawsuits and
claims, subject to certain conditions.  The parties subsequently
reached an adjusted settlement agreement pursuant to which
Medtronic waived its right to cancel the agreement and agreed to
pay a total of $221 million to resolve over 14,000 filed and
unfiled claims.  Accordingly, the Company recorded an expense of
$221 million related to probable and reasonably estimated damages
under U.S. GAAP in connection with these matters in fiscal year
2011.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.  On October 20, 2009,
that court certified a class proceeding, but denied class
certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, which the
plaintiffs appealed.  On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied.
Plaintiffs' request for further appeal was denied on November 22,
2010.  The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages
in connection with that matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC INC: "INFUSE" Suit Still Pending in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit commenced by the Minneapolis
Firefighters' Relief Association is still pending in Minnesota,
according to Medtronic, Inc.'s September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 29, 2011.

On December 10, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief
Association filed a putative class action complaint against the
Company and certain current and former officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging violations
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft
product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during
the period.  On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
putative class action complaint expanding the class.  Medtronic's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on
February 3, 2010, and pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


META FINANCIAL: Iowa Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark W. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa denied a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in In re Meta Financial Group, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-10-4108-MWB (N.D. Iowa).

In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of purchasers of common stock of Meta
Financial, damages and injunctive relief on claims of securities
fraud against Meta Financial and against certain officers of
MetaBank and/or Meta Trust Company.  Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants published a series of materially false statements about
Meta Financial's operations and finances.  They also assert that
the individual defendants should be liable for Meta Financial's
fraudulent actions as "control persons."  Defendants sought to
dismiss the amended complaint.

Judge Bennett held that the plaintiffs have adequately plead both
their securities fraud claim and "control person" claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court' July 18, 2011 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/VlVluFfrom
Leagle.com


NATALIE SALON: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Dan McMenamin, writing for Bay City News Service, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court
on Sept. 13 against a popular nail salon chain accused of wage
theft and other violations against their employees, an attorney
with the Asian Law Caucus said on Sept. 13.

Natalie Salon, a chain with locations in Redwood City, San Mateo,
Palo Alto, Los Gatos and Menlo Park, is being sued by four current
and former employees with the assistance of the San Francisco-
based Asian Law Caucus, which held a news conference on Sept. 13
to announce the lawsuit.

"On behalf of all former and current employees, we're seeking to
end unlawful business practices" at the salons, said Winnie Kao,
staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus.

Vicky Tran, who worked at various Natalie Salons for about five
years, said she often worked for more than 10 hours a day, but
never got paid overtime and often had to delay her lunch meal
until very late in the day.

"It's wrong to treat the employees that way," Ms. Tran said.

Natalie Salon management was not immediately available for comment
on the lawsuit.

Ms. Kao said the Asian Law Caucus got involved in the case after
one of the employees came to a free clinic the group held and told
them about the alleged violations.

She said the Asian Law Caucus has kept a watchful eye on the nail
salon industry, which has seen the number of salons triple in the
U.S. in the past decade, changing the business "from a luxury
service to a relatively inexpensive indulgence."

Of the roughly 96,000 licensed nail salon workers in California,
it is estimated that more than half are Vietnamese, and the vast
majority are women who are recent immigrants with limited English
proficiency and lack of knowledge about their rights.

Ms. Kao said those factors lead to many workers who are too scared
to come forward and report possible misdeeds by employers.

"Beauty shouldn't come at the expense of workers' rights," she
said.

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for all employees at the salons
who may have lost wages over the past four years and seeks to stop
the allegedly unlawful practices at the salons, Ms. Kao said.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Hearing on Class Motion vs. Units Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion to authorize the bringing of a class
action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation's
subsidiaries was continued to an as yet undetermined date,
according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2011.

On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. ("Quebec") filed a motion
to authorize the bringing of a class action against Navistar, Inc.
and Navistar Canada, Inc. (collectively, "Navistar Defendants"),
as well as Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company of Canada,
Limited (collectively, "Ford Defendants") in Superior Court in
Quebec, Canada (the "Quebec Action").  The Quebec Action seeks
authorization to bring a claim on behalf of a class of Canadian
owners and lessees of model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by
the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine that Navistar, Inc. previously
supplied to Ford.  Quebec alleged that the engines in question
have design and manufacturing defects, and that Navistar
Defendants and Ford Defendants are solidarily liable for those
defects.  For relief, the Quebec Action seeks dollar damages
sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged
damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel.  The Quebec Action also asks the Court to order the
Navistar Defendants and the Ford Defendants to recall, repair, or
replace the Ford vehicles at issue free of charge.  The motion to
authorize the bringing of the class action was presented on
August 2, 2011, and the hearing was continued to an as yet
undetermined date.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Unit Not Named in 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the 6.0 Liter Diesel Engine multidistrict litigation
filed a master class action complaint, which does not name
Navistar International Corporation or its subsidiary as a
defendant, according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

In November 2010, Brandon Burns filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company's subsidiary, Navistar, Inc. and Ford
Motor Company in federal court for the Southern District of
California (the "Burns Action").  The Burns Action sought to
certify a class of California owners and lessees of model year
2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power Stroke(R) engine
that Navistar, Inc. previously supplied to Ford.  Mr. Burns
alleges that the engines in question have design and manufacturing
defects.  Mr. Burns asserted claims against Navistar, Inc. for
negligent performance of contractual duty (related to Navistar's
former contract with Ford), unfair competition, and unjust
enrichment.  For relief, the Burns Action sought dollar damages
sufficient to remedy the alleged defects, compensate the alleged
damages incurred by the proposed class, and compensate plaintiffs'
counsel.  The Burns Action also asked the Court to award punitive
damages and restitution/disgorgement.

After the Burns Action was filed, nineteen additional putative
class action lawsuits making materially identical allegations
against Navistar, Inc. were filed in federal courts across the
country (the "Additional Actions" and, collectively with the Burns
Action, the "6.0 L Diesel Engine Litigation").  The Additional
Actions sought to certify in several different states classes
similar to the proposed California class in the Burns Action.  The
theories of liability and relief sought in the Additional Actions
were substantially similar to the Burns Action.

In December 2010, Navistar, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
Burns Action.  Burns filed a response on February 14, 2011, and
Navistar, Inc. filed a reply on February 22, 2011.  Navistar, Inc.
filed answers and affirmative defenses in six of the Additional
Actions.

In April and May 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred Burns and all but one of the Additional
Actions to the Northern District of Illinois, where the Custom
Underground case (another similar case pending in Chicago, where
Navistar, Inc. is not a defendant) is pending, for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings ("MDL").

On May 18, 2011, all plaintiffs in the consolidated matter filed a
voluntary Notice of Dismissal dismissing Navistar, Inc. without
prejudice, leaving Ford as the only defendant in the 6.0L Diesel
Engine Litigation.  In June 2011, the New York class action filed
by Richard Saxby was transferred to the MDL court.  In July 2011,
plaintiffs in the MDL filed "Plaintiffs' Master Class Action
Complaint," which does not name Navistar as a defendant or Saxby
as a plaintiff.


NCAA: Attorney Files Medical Monitoring Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Chicago
attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, alleging it isn't protecting
football players and other student-athletes from sustaining
concussions.

Joseph Siprut filed the lawsuit on Sept. 13 on behalf of plaintiff
Adrian Arrington, a 25-year-old former player on Eastern Illinois
University's football team.  The two have also moved to certify
those similarly situated as Arrington as a class.

"For over 30 years, the NCAA has failed its student-athletes -
choosing instead to sacrifice them on an altar of money and
profits," Mr. Siprut wrote in the complaint.  "The NCAA has
engaged in a long-established pattern of negligence and inaction
with respect to concussions and concussion-related maladies
sustained by its student-athletes, all the while profiting
immensely from those same student-athletes."

The complaint says the NCAA has ignored studies that show repeated
concussions are linked to early-onset dementia, Alzheimer's
disease, depression and lowered cognitive abilities.

The NCAA is alleged to have:

   -- Failed to address or correct the coaching of tackling
methodologies that cause head injuries;

   -- Failed to implement system-wide "return to play" guidelines
for players who have sustained concussions;

   -- Failed to implement guidelines for the screening and
detection of head injuries;

   -- Failed to implement legislation addressing the treatment and
eligibility of players who have sustained multiple concussions;
and

   -- Failed to implement a support system for players who are
unable to play football or lead a normal life after sustaining
concussions.

"On average, the NCAA makes over $740 million in revenue each
year," the complaint says.  "Unlike professional sports
organizations, the NCAA does not use revenues to pay its athletes,
nor does the money go towards pension or medical benefits for
post-collegiate athletes.

"The NCAA gives no medical or financial support to post-collegiate
student-athletes who sustained concussions while playing an NCAA
sport and who then cope with the costs and care needed resulting
from their injuries."

The complaint also alleges the NCAA has been ignoring studies put
out by the University of North Carolina that link head injuries to
early-onset Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. Arrington, a safety on the EIU team from 2006-09 suffered
numerous concussions while playing -- "At no time was Arrington
coached on how to make safer tackles," the complaint says.

Mr. Siprut seeks medical monitoring and financial recovery for
long-term and chronic injuries, as well as financial losses,
expenses and intangible losses caused by the NCAA. A medical
monitoring fund would provide future medical care to monitor
possible concussion-related illnesses.

Medical monitoring claims have been criticized because, as West
Virginia Supreme Court Justice Menis Ketchum wrote in a dissenting
opinion last year, defendants are forced to pay damages where "no
actual harm has occurred."

NEWS CORP: US Investors Expand Phone Hacking Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Fenton, Caroline Binham and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson at The
Financial Times report that pressure on News Corp. over its phone-
hacking scandal is rising on three continents with fresh legal and
political challenges.

James Murdoch, the media group's deputy chief operating officer
and son of its chief executive Rupert, was on Sept. 16 recalled to
a UK parliamentary committee to clear up accusations that he may
have misled MPs.  The recall came as thousands more documents
relating to the phone-hacking scandal emerged.

US investors also expanded a class action against his father
Rupert's media group, claiming that it had a "historic pattern of
corruption".  And the Australian government prepared plans for an
independent inquiry into media standards and regulation.

James Murdoch said he would be happy to face a House of Commons
select committee again in London.  He is likely to appear some
time in November.

Other former executives of the paper last week challenged earlier
evidence given by James Murdoch in a tense hearing before the same
committee in July when he said he had not been told about an
e-mail that suggested more than one journalist had used the
illegal technique of phone hacking.

The e-mail is seen by committee members as a sign that senior
executives at the company covered up an extensive scandal by
claiming only a single "rogue reporter" had been responsible for
phone hacking.

The news came as it emerged that a big cache of previously unknown
documents has been discovered by News Group -- which owns The Sun
and the now defunct News of the World and which is part of News
Corp.'s subsidiary News International -- that could have a
"significant" bearing on claims being brought by victims of
alleged phone hacking.

Lawyers for the victims have been given a document by
investigating police listing those who asked a private detective
to intercept mobile voicemail messages.  It runs to 68 pages, but
it is not known how many names are included.

The small US union and pension fund investors suing News Corp in
Delaware are led by Amalgamated Bank, the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System and Central Laborers' Pension Fund.  They have
not said how much they are seeking and News Corp has already moved
to dismiss the original complaint they filed in March.

The second amendment to their complaint, filed on Sept. 13,
accused News Corp.'s board of "repeated failures to correct
illegal conduct", claiming that verdicts against its News America
Marketing subsidiary and NDS affiliate should have made directors
"well aware of widespread misconduct" by the time they were first
alerted to allegations of phone hacking.

News Corp. declined to comment on the new allegations.  It also
emerged on Sept. 13 that Sheila Henry, the mother of a man killed
in the July 2005 bombings in London, has filed a civil claim
against the News of the World stating that her phone was hacked.
It will be one of six test cases heard in January.

Jay Eisenhofer, a partner with Grant & Eisenhofer, the law firm
representing the shareholders, told the Financial Times that the
court was likely to rule on the motion to dismiss within about six
months.

The amended lawsuit focuses on five past lawsuits alleging anti-
competitive behavior, including computer hacking, at News America
Marketing, an in-store marketer, and separate accusations by
Echostar, the US satellite group, that its NDS set-top box
smartcard affiliate had illegally cracked rivals' software codes.

In the NDS case, a jury ruled in favor of Echostar on three of six
counts but awarded actual damages of just $45.69 and statutory
damages of only $1,000.  After a successful appeal by NDS to a
federal appeals court, Echostar was instructed to pay NDS's legal
costs of US$18 million.  NDS and News Corp have said the
allegations are baseless.

In 2009, News Corp agreed to pay $29.5 million to acquire
Floorgraphics, the company that in 2004 alleged hacking by News
America Marketing, and settle its suit.  News Corp has denied the
charges and said it condemned the alleged conduct, which was in
violation of its standards.

The amended lawsuit also alleges that board members breached their
fiduciary duty in approving a share buy-back of up to US$5
billion, which could increase the Murdoch family's control of
voting rights in News Corp from the current level of almost 40%.

News Corp has bought back almost $900 million of stock under the
program in 20 trading days, Rich Greenfield, a BTIG analyst,
calculated on Sept. 13, but the company has not bought back the B
shares, which carry voting rights.


NFLPA: Retirees File Class Action Over Lockouts
-----------------------------------------------
A group of 28 retired NFL players, including Hall of Famers Carl
Eller, Chuck Bednarik and John Hannah, filed a federal class-
action lawsuit on Sept. 13 against the NFL Players Association,
union president DeMaurice Smith, New England Patriots quarterback
Tom Brady and former player Mike Vrabel.

The suit claims that once the NFLPA decertified March 11, just
prior to being locked out by the NFL, the defendants had "no
authority" to negotiate, let alone agree to, the terms of retiree
benefits during the labor dispute.

"They were not a union at that time," Michael Hausfeld, the
plaintiffs' lawyer, told Yahoo! Sports.

As such, any agreement concerning pension, retiree health care or
other issues was not properly agreed, Mr. Hausfeld said.  The suit
seeks a declaration that the "right to negotiate with the League
the rights and benefits for NFL retirees" rests with the Eller
plaintiffs.  Mr. Hausfeld said the lawsuit does not threaten the
labor peace reached by last month's collective bargaining
agreement, which saved the 2011 season.

The 51-page suit was filed in United States District Court in
Minnesota.  George Atallah, the NFLPA's assistant executive
director of external affairs, declined comment on the suit.  The
individual players could not be immediately reached for comment.

The goal of the suit, which represents all former NFL players, is
"to readjust the deal to better reflect the interests of the
retirees which would've been done by the retirees themselves,"
according to Mr. Hausfeld, who represented Mr. Eller and other
retirees during parts of the labor negotiation process.

"This deals with the rights of retirees and how they were
shortchanged by a process that negotiated their rights without
input from them and then [how the decertified NFLPA] reached an
agreement without the retirees' right to be heard," Mr. Hausfeld
said.

Messrs. Brady and Vrabel, who has since retired and become an
assistant coach at Ohio State, were singled out for being named
participants in the since settled Brady, et al v NFL suit.

The suit includes 23 members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame,
including Bednarik, Eller, Hannah, Dan Hampton, Paul Krause,
Lemuel Barney, Mel Renfro and Elvin Bethea among others.

"When the union decertified and relinquished all collective
representative rights, it lost all labor law protection,"
Mr. Hausfeld said.  "The interests that they had historically
compromised, in the context of collective bargaining, they no
longer had the authority to compromise.

"After decertification they emerged having concluded an agreement
with the league that fixed key benefits and rights for retirees."

The suit claims current players used the retirees' interests as
bargaining collateral.

"The retirees rights were sacrificed for the benefit of the active
players."

Mr. Hausfeld said the CBA does address a number of critical
concerns for retirees, but applies them to the current players.

"It addresses the safety and health of the active players that the
older players were subject to, such as repeated concussions,
helmet-to-helmet contact and being the guinea pigs for AstroTurf,"
Mr. Hausfeld said.

This fits a trend, according to the lawsuit, which claims, "during
recent years the NFLPA has consistently favored the interests of
active NFL players at the expense of NFL retiree's rights and
benefits."


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Hearing Set for Sept. 23 in Wage and Hour Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first status conference hearing on the coordinated wage and
hour lawsuits against Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., will be
held on September 23, 2011, according to the Company's
September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On January 13, 2011, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the
Company, captioned Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and penalties.  The Company has
filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's
claims and asserting various defenses.  As the ultimate outcome of
this matter is uncertain no amounts have been accrued by the
Company as of the date of this report.  Depending on the actual
outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future
which may have an adverse effect on the Company's operating
results and cash flows.

On March 21, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Phillip Gleason, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.,
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
457654, against the Company alleging violations of California's
wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and
regulations, among other things.  The complaint seeks class
certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties.  The Company has filed an answer denying all
allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various
defenses.  As the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no
amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the date of this
report.  Depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions
could be recorded in the future which may have an adverse effect
on the Company's operating results and cash flows.

On March 18, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit, captioned Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific
Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2011-00459346-CU-OE-CXC, against the Company alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and
rest break rules and regulations, among other things.  The
complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the
plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of
damages and penalties.  The Company has filed an answer denying
all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting
various defenses.  As the ultimate outcome of this matter is
uncertain, no amounts have been accrued by the Company as of the
date of this report.  Depending on the actual outcome of this
case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have an
adverse effect on the Company's operating results and cash flows.

Since the allegations in all three of the cases are substantially
similar, the Company filed a motion to coordinate the cases in the
Los Angeles Superior Court on April 20, 2011.  The motion was
granted on June 15, 2011.  All discovery in the cases has been
stayed pending the first status conference hearing, which will be
held on September 23, 2011.


PORTNOFF LAW: Attorney's Fees Award in Tax Collection Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court's
2009 orders awarding $1.28 million in attorney's fees and expenses
in favor of the plaintiff in the class action complaint styled,
Roethlein, et al. v. Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., et al.

Portnoff collects taxes for municipalities and school districts
located throughout the Commonwealth.  Delinquent taxpayers sued
Portnoff for collecting fees in excess of the delinquent taxes
owed.  Specifically, Delinquent Taxpayers asserted that Portnoff
improperly passed the municipality's attorney's fees and
administrative fees for Portnoff's collection of delinquent taxes
along to Delinquent Taxpayers.

The complaint was filed in 2002 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County by taxpayer Beverly Roethlein against Portnoff
Law, et al., for unjust enrichment and violation of the
Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (Act 6).  The
complaint seeks to recover charges paid in connection with the
collection of delinquent real estate taxes.  Defendants served as
private tax collector of the delinquent taxes.

A majority of the Commonwealth Court judges opined that the award
of attorneys' fees was appropriate under the law.  The judges are
Johnny J. Butler, Bernard L. McGinley, Dan Pellegrini, and Robert
Simpson.

Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt dissented.  "The majority affirms a
class action judgment against a tax collector based upon Act 6
violations and unjust enrichment.  Act 6, a usury statute, has
zero application to a municipality's collection of delinquent
taxes, and unjust enrichment is not available where there is a
written contract governing the parties' conduct.  To otherwise
hold, the majority has accepted plaintiffs' strained legal
theories. I cannot and, respectfully, dissent."

A copy of the Court's July 15, 2011 opinion is available for free
at http://is.gd/JS8PSFfrom Leagle.com.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Ohio Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss Premiums Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio rejected a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint captioned, Estate of Frank Townsend, et al. v.
Protective Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:19 CV 2365 (N.D.
Ohio).

Plaintiffs are the Estate of Frank Townsend, Jacqueline Dunn
Smith, and Judy Marik.  They each purchased a credit insurance
policy from Defendant in conjunction with their vehicle purchases.
Plaintiffs allege that they each paid the loan off in full before
the life of the loan had expired, and that, under the express
terms of the policy and the law, they are accordingly entitled to
a return of the premium paid for the time period from the date the
loan was terminated through the remaining term that was left on
the loan at the time it terminated.

Judge Oliver agreed with Plaintiff that the express language in
the insurance policy -- where the policyholder is prohibited from
starting a legal action against the insurer -- applies to actions
arising from claims for death or disability benefits, but is
inapplicable to actions seeking to recover unearned premiums.

The District Court further granted Plaintiffs leave to file an
amended class action complaint.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 15, 2011, is available for
free at http://is.gd/GawZr8from Leagle.com.


RALPHS GROCERY: Denial on Bid to Compel Arbitration Remanded
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed a
trial court order denying the petition of Ralphs Grocery Company,
et al., to compel arbitration in the class action captioned Terri
Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al., Case No. B222689 (Calif.
App. Ct.)

Plaintiff filed the class action and a representative action under
the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 against her employers for
alleged violations of the Labor Code.  Defendants responded by
filing a petition to compel arbitration.

The Appellate Court decision, penned by Justice Richard M. Mosk,
held that the trial court erred in ruling that under Gentry v.
Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, the class action waiver
provision in plaintiff's employment agreement was unenforceable
because that ruling was not supported by substantial evidence.
Judge Mosk also held that the recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion et ux. (2011) ---
U.S. --- 131 S.Ct. 1740, holding that California decisional law
invalidating class action waivers in consumer arbitration
agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, does not
apply to representative actions under the PAGA, and thus the trial
court correctly ruled that the waiver of plaintiff's right to
pursue a representative action under the PAGA was not enforceable
under California law.

The matter is remanded to the trial court for a determination
whether the provision in the arbitration agreement waiving
plaintiff's right to pursue a representative action under the PAGA
can be severed or whether the presence of one invalid provision in
the arbitration agreement renders the entire agreement or portions
of it unenforceable, the Appellate Court ruled.  The parties will
bear their own cost.

The decision is concurred by Justice Orville A. Armstrong.
Justice Sandy J. Kreigler, for his part, concurred with the
majority's opinion that the argument that the class action waiver
of Ms. Brown's employment contract was unconscionable under the
Gentry case, but dissented from the majority's conclusion that Ms.
Brown's waiver of the right to file a representative action under
the PAGA was unenforceable.

A copy of the Appellate Court's July 12, 2011, order is available
at http://is.gd/GW7fYQfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Defendants are:

          Linda S. Husar, Esq.
          Steven B. Katz, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: 213-457-8140
          Fax: 213-457-8080
          E-mail: lhusar@reedsmith.com
                  skatz@reedsmith.com

Counsel for Plaintiff is:

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Tel: 310-556-5637
          Fax: 310-861-9051
          E-mail: StephenGamber@InitiativeLegal.com

Also appearing in the case are Consumer Attorneys of California as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent:

          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          J. Mark Moore
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Fax: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: info@spiromoss.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: 818-961-2000
          Facsimile: 818-867-4820
          E-mail: darbogast@law111.com


ROSS STORES: Wage and Hour Suits Still Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Like many California retailers, Ross Stores, Inc., has been named
in class action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.  Class
action litigation involving allegations that hourly associates
have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well as allegations
of unpaid overtime wages to store managers and assistant store
managers at Company stores under state law, remains pending as of
July 30, 2011.

In the opinion of management, the resolution of pending class
action litigation and other currently pending legal proceedings is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.


SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Files Motions to Strike Class Action Opt-Ins
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glassbytes reports that Safelite Solutions has motioned a federal
court to strike 21 individuals who "filed untimely notices to opt-
in" to a class action suit under review in Ohio from the case.
The class action suit was filed by a group of customer service
representatives (CSRs) last August and is related to allegations
related to overtime pay.

In the latest motion, Safelite officials allege that individuals
were required to have postmarked their opt-in responses within 45
days of the court's April 19 notice, but that these individuals
"disregarded the court deadline."  They further claim that the
plaintiffs' counsel filed "untimely notices on behalf of 21
individuals at various times between June 20, 2011, and continuing
until August 24, 2011."

While the company points out instances in which a court has
extended time in class action suits for plaintiffs to opt in,
Safelite officials allege that in this case the plaintiffs did not
request permission to file untimely notices, and no circumstances
existed that would have made this acceptable.

"The untimely notices were filed in contradiction with the court's
order and must, therefore, be stricken from the record," writes
Safelite's counsel.

The class action suit currently contains more that 200 plaintiffs
whom Safelite officials say "managed to file timely notices."
An October 28 hearing currently is scheduled to review the motion.

The suit, filed last August, originally focused on the time CSRs
spend booting up their computers each day and the allegation that
this time is not calculated into their pay.  However, earlier this
summer, plaintiffs requested to file an amended complaint that
also would seek compensation for the time spent "locating a
working computer in a vacant cubicle, securing a headset or other
equipment essential to using that computer."  The plaintiffs also
have said the amended complaint would expand the suit to include
sales representatives at the company.


SMITH & WESSON: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit against Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation remains
pending, according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2011.

The matter known as In re Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation is a consolidation of the following three cases:
William Hwang v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.; Joe
Cranford v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.; and Joanne
Trudelle v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et al.  It is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Springfield), and is a purported securities class action lawsuit
brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of the Company between June 15, 2007, and
December 6, 2007.  The putative plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages against the Company, certain of its officers, and its
directors for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the putative
class.  On May 30, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint seeking unspecified damages against the Company
and several officers and directors for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On August 28, 2008,
the Company and the named officers and directors moved to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint because it failed to state a
claim under the federal securities laws and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The putative class Lead Plaintiff
submitted its Opposition to the Company's motion on October 28,
2008.  On March 26, 2009, the Company's motion was granted as to
Mr. Monheit and denied as to the remaining defendants.

On May 11, 2010, the court certified the consolidated action as
consisting of a class of persons who purchased securities of the
Company between June 15, 2007, and December 6, 2007, and suffered
damage as a result.  Court scheduled discovery concerning the
facts of this action ended on May 28, 2010.  Examination of any
experts put forth by the parties ended on October 1, 2010.  On
October 29, 2010, the Company moved for summary disposition of the
case.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the Company's motion on November 22,
2010, and cross-moved for partial summary judgment.  A hearing of
this matter was held for December 20, 2010.  On March 25, 2011,
the court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment as to
all remaining defendants, and dismissed the consolidated actions
with prejudice.  The Lead Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal of
that dismissal on April 21, 2011.  The Lead Plaintiff has not
appealed Mr. Monheit's dismissal and the time for such an appeal
has now past.  The Lead Plaintiff filed its Appellant Brief on
July 5, 2011.  The Company filed its Opposition to Appellant's
Brief on August 22, 2011.  The Lead Plaintiff's Reply to the
Opposition Brief was due on September 6, 2011.


STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Foster Care Class Action Can't Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 13 affirmed
dismissal of a proposed class action brought by foster children in
Sacramento County against California's Chief Justice Tani Cantil-
Sakauye and other court officials over allegedly "crushing and
unlawful caseloads" in the county's dependency court.

Approximately 5,100 foster children claimed that heavy caseloads
in the court violated their federal and state constitutional
rights.

The case "involves average attorney caseloads and the right to
counsel, with remedies potentially involving a substantial
interference with the operation of the program, including
allocation of the judicial branch budget, establishment of program
priorities, and court administration," according to the nine-page
decision.

A federal judge had granted the officials' motion to dismiss on
abstention grounds.  The San Francisco-based appellate panel
affirmed in an unsigned opinion.

"Federal courts may not entertain actions that seek to impose 'an
ongoing federal audit of state . . . proceedings,'" the three-
judge panel explained.

"The District Court properly concluded that 'plaintiffs'
challenges to the juvenile dependency court system necessarily
require the court to intrude upon the state's administration of
its government, and more specifically, its court system,'" it
added.

"Because the question is one of adequacy of attorney
representation, potential remediation might involve examination of
the administration of substantial number of individual cases," the
decision states.  "Thus, we conclude that the declaratory relief
sought by plaintiffs so intrudes in the administration of the
Sacramento County Dependency Court as to require abstention."

A copy of the Opinion in E.T., et al. v. Cantil-Sakauye, et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-01950 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/hmIsCU

The Plaintiffs-Appellants were represented by:

          Edward Howard Esq.
          CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
          University of San Diego School of Law
          5998 Alcala Park
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 260-4806

               - and -

          Peter E. Perkowski, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1819
          E-mail: pperkowski@winston.com

The Defendants-Appellees were represented by:

          Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 553-7507
          E-mail: rnaeve@jonesday.com


TOLL BROS: Calif. App. Ct. Flips Ruling in Labor Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, reversed, in
part, and affirmed, in part, trial court orders in two class
action lawsuits against home builder Toll Bros., Inc.

The two lawsuits against the company -- Castillo v. Toll Bros.,
Inc. (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2010, No. RG06290188) and
Hernandez v. Toll Bros., Inc. (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2010,
No. RG06302769) -- allege wage and labor code violations.

The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's legal findings,
including its application of the minimum wage as a standard under
Section 2810 of the Labor Code, but concluded that plaintiffs
raised a trial issue of fact with respect to the sufficiency of
two of the contracts challenged in the Castillo matter.

The Appellate Court also affirmed the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in the Hernandez action and its grant of summary
adjudication of the common law claims in the Castillo matter, but
reversed summary adjudication and remanded the case for further
proceedings on the Section 2810 claims asserted in Castillo.

A copy of the July 28, 2011 Appellate Court decision is available
at http://is.gd/t0FDvefrom Leagle.com.


WEEHOO INC: Recalls 2,700 Bike Trailers Due to Fall & Crash Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Weehoo Inc., of Golden, Colorado, announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,700 Weehoo iGo Bicycle Pedal Trailers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The receiver on the trailer's seat post hitch can crack and cause
the trailer to detach, posing fall and crash hazards to the child
in the seat.

CPSC and Weehoo have received one report of the trailer's receiver
cracking while in use.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 2011 Weehoo iGo bicycle trailers manufactured
between April 2011 and July 2011.  The trailer has a steel frame
with an adjustable seat for passengers 38 to 52 inches tall, two
pedals with straps, an enclosed sprocket and chain, a 20-inch
wheel, two pannier pockets, a flagpole and a flag.  The seat,
pannier pockets, and flag are made of red, heavy-duty nylon. The
pannier pockets and the flag have the word "Weehoo" and the logo
printed on them in reflective material.  The serial numbers for
the recalled trailers contain the letter "D" and can be found on
the underside of the iGo frame, by the pedals.  Picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11323.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
bicycle retail stores nationwide between April 2011 and July 2011
for about $390.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled iGo trailers
and contact Weehoo for the repair.  Consumers will receive a steel
reinforcement sleeve to be installed over the receiver.  For
additional information, contact Weehoo at (800) 538-6950 anytime,
or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.weehoobicycletrailer.com/


YTP INTL: 7th Circuit Remands "Pyramid Scheme" Suit for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated a lower
court judgment in the class action captioned, Faye Morrison, et
al. v. YTB International, Inc., et al., No. 10-2529 (7th Cir.).

Plaintiffs, consisting of seven persons and one corporation, want
to represent a class of everyone in any state who participated in
YTP's home-travel-agency program.  YTB International, dba as YTP
and YourTravelBiz.com, is based in Illinois and accused by
Plaintiffs of operating a pyramid scheme in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The district court did not decide whether YTB operates a pyramid
scheme.  It instead ruled that YTB's transactions with residents
of states other than Illinois do not occur predominantly in
Illinois and so are outside the Act.  Then the district court
dismissed the claims of persons who do live in Illinois,
concluding that the suit is an intra-state controversy that
belongs in state court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4).

The Seventh Circuit pointed out that the proposed class in the
suit is not centered in Illinois, but rather is nationwide.

"YTB does not contend that any state allows pyramid schemes, or
even that any state defines a pyramid scheme differently from the
way Illinois does.  It contends that its business is entirely
lawful, because it does not operate a pyramid scheme on any
understanding of that phrase.  This argues for uniform application
of Illinois law -- which is what plaintiffs want, what YTB wants
(or said it wants when it required all plaintiffs to assent to the
application of Illinois law), and what will enable one court to
resolve the controversy under the law of the state in which YTB
operates its business," the Seventh Circuit held.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Seventh Circuit's opinion.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's July 27, 2011 order is available
at http://is.gd/sf5klQfrom Leagle.com.


ZALE CORP: District Court Junks Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane J. Doyle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas dismissed the claims in the amended securities
fraud class action complaint commenced against Zale Corporation
and certain of the Company's officers and directors.

Two class actions, Rains v. Zale Corp., Case No. 3:09-cv-2133 and
Lawyer v. Zale Corp., Case No. 3:09-cv-2218, were consolidated in
June 2010, on behalf of all purchasers of Zale Corporation
securities between Nov. 16, 2006, and Oct. 29, 2009, for
violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

A consolidated class action complaint was filed in August 2010,
alleging that Zale had actual knowledge of the falsity of its
original financial statements or acted in reckless disregard of
the truth or falsity of those statements.  The Court dismissed in
April 2011 the original consolidated complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint on June 2, 2011.

In its August 1, 2011 ruling, the Court agreed with Defendants'
contention that Plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed because
Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead scienter with regards to
Rebecca Higgins, a former executive at the marketing department of
Zale, and thus scienter cannot be imputed onto Zale and the
Individual Defendants.

Judge Doyle held that the amended complaint does not remedy the
deficiencies identified by the Court at the April 7, 2011 hearing,
and does not plead a strong inference of scienter.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice.  The Court says Plaintiffs have had multiple
opportunities to state a claim but failed.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 1, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/UgY2JOfrom Leagle.com.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, party to
litigation that arises in the normal course of its business
operations, including asbestos litigation matters.

The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial,
commercial and residential applications that subject the Company
to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted
in injury or other damage.

Headquartered in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation
manufactures electric motors and controls, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.


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

Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers distributed by it prior to 1979,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 11, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Unit Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s wholly owned Quigley Company, Inc. continues to be
subject to asbestos-related exposure litigation.

Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were
intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the
Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury
from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or
mixed dust.

The Company recorded a charge of US$369 million pre-tax (US$229
million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2004 in connection with
these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  In March 2005,
Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that
needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt
of the vote of 75% of the claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80% of
the individuals with claims related to Quigley products against
Quigley and the Company.

The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in payments,
of which US$215 million became due in December 2005 and is being
paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of certain required
documentation from each of the claimants.  The reorganization plan
provided for the establishment of a Trust for the payment of all
remaining pending claims as well as any future claims alleging
injury from exposure to Quigley products.

In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to
solicit an amended reorganization plan for acceptance by
claimants.  According to the official report filed with the court
by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite votes were cast
in favor of the amended plan of reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to
Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in
December 2009.  In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined
to confirm the amended reorganization plan.  As a result of the
foregoing, the Company recorded additional charges for this matter
of about US$1.3 billion pre-tax (about US$800 million after-tax)
in 2010.

Further, to preserve its right to address certain legal issues
raised in the court's opinion, in October 2010, the Company filed
a notice of appeal and motion for leave to appeal the Bankruptcy
Court's decision denying confirmation.

In March 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with an ad hoc committee representing about 40,000 claimants in
the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding.

Quigley filed a revised plan of reorganization and accompanying
disclosure statement with the Bankruptcy Court in April 2011.
Under the revised plan, the Company expects to contribute an
additional amount to the Trust, if and when the Bankruptcy Court
confirms the plan, of cash and non-cash assets with a value in
excess of US$550 million.

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

In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to
certain insurance coverage, which provides for payments to the
Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405 million.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tata Posts GBP374.2MM A&E Provision at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tata Motors Limited recorded asbestos and environmental (land
cleanup) provisions of GBP374.2 million as of June 30, 2011,
compared with GBP360.2 million as of March 31, 2011, according to
a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2011.

Headquartered in Mumbai, India, Tata Motors Limited is a
manufacturer of buses, trucks, tractor-trailers, passenger cars
(Indica, Indigo, Safari, Sumo, and the ultra budget-conscious
Nano), light commercial vehicles, and utility vehicles.  The
Company also makes construction equipment and provides IT
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Named in Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. and its predecessors-in-
interest are defendants in a long-standing series of cases filed
in numerous jurisdictions around the country wherein former and
current employees and various third party persons allege exposure
to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with
Company premises or while working on vessels constructed or
repaired by Company.

The cases allege various injuries including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and
other alleged asbestos related conditions.  In some cases, in
addition to the Company, several of its former executive officers
are also named defendants.

In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers.

Headquartered in Newport News, Va., Huntington Ingalls Industries,
Inc., on March 29, 2011, entered into a Separation and
Distribution Agreement with its former parent company, Northrop
Grumman Corporation, and Northrop Grumman's subsidiaries, under
which the Company was legally and structurally separated from
Northrop Grumman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Group Still Faces Suits in Miss., La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. is involved in worker compensation and
environmental matters and pending cases in Mississippi and
Louisiana state courts and in a federal multi-district litigation
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos.

The asbestos was found on offshore drilling rigs and shipping
vessels formerly owned or operated by its offshore drilling and
bulk-shipping affiliates.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Premix-Marbletite Mfg. Faces 18 Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co.
subsidiary is a defendant together with non-affiliated parties in
18 claims -- nine of which include the Company as a defendant --
which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained
in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability
carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company,
including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to
asbestos exposure.

Several of these insurance carriers have been and continue to
provide a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation of
rights in all of the asbestos cases.  Certain of these underlying
insurance carriers have denied coverage to Premix and the Company
on the basis that certain exclusions preclude coverage and/or that
their policies have been exhausted.

In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier sought a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the
Company.  In December 2010, Premix, the Company and this carrier
resolved their dispute, with the carrier paying a settlement of
US$500,000 to Premix and the Company.

As part of the settlement, there is no longer coverage available
under that disputed policy.  The settlement was recorded as a
receivable and included in other current assets in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31,
2010, and as income reflected as litigation settlement during the
fourth quarter of 2010.  The Company received actual payment of
US$500,000 during the first quarter of 2011.

During the first quarter of 2011, the Company resolved a dispute
with another carrier regarding primary-layer insurance coverage,
which resulted in this carrier paying a settlement of US$325,000
to Premix and the Company, which was recorded as income reflected
as litigation settlement during the first quarter of 2011.  As
part of the settlement, there is no longer coverage available
under that disputed policy.

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Calif., Imperial Industries, Inc.
manufactures and distributes building materials to building
materials dealers, contractors and others located primarily in
Florida, and to a lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Named in Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. is involved in various other
product liability, commercial and employment litigation, personal
injury, property damage and other legal proceedings, including
actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has
allegedly made or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer
and asbestos.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 12, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, Momentive Specialty Chemicals
Inc. serves global industrial markets through a broad range of
thermoset technologies, specialty products and technical support
for customers in a diverse range of applications and industries.
At June 30, 2011, the Company had two reportable segments: Epoxy,
Phenolic and Coating Resins and Forest Products Resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Open v. Kaanapali Land
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
its D/C Distribution subsidiary have been named as defendants in
personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In June 2007, the parties settled the lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000.  Such settlement amount
was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter
7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in July 2007, Case No. 07-12776.

The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the
bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.  Prior to the deadline,
the Company filed claims that aggregated about US$26.8 million,
relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by
D/C to the Company.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Named in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Precision
Castparts Corp. is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the
workplace, including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others.

Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. is a
worldwide manufacturer of complex metal components and products,
provides high-quality investment castings, forgings and
fasteners/fastener systems for critical aerospace and industrial
gas turbine applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation, since December 2010, has been
facing an asbestos lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards, Executrix of
the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards.

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

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

Headquartered in Bohemia, N.Y., Andrea Electronics Corporation
aims to provide the emerging "voice interface" markets with state-
of-the-art communications products that facilitate natural
language, human/machine interfaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Group Subject to 4 Pending Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. says that four asbestos cases are
currently pending, of which it is a defendant, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 12, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company was involved in five pending asbestos-related cases.
(Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2011)

Since 1999, the Company has been named as one of many defendants
in 16 personal injury suits alleging exposure to asbestos from its
products.  None of the cases alleges premises liability.

Insurers are defending the Company in three of the four lawsuits,
and it expects that an insurer will defend it in the remaining
three matters.

Of the concluded suits, there were five cost-of-defense
settlements and the remainder was dismissed without payment.
There are no claims unrelated to asbestos exposure for which
coverage has been sought under the policies that are providing
coverage.

Headquartered in San Marcos, Tex., Thermon Group Holdings, Inc.
provides specialized cables, tubes, and control systems used in
electric and steam "heat tracing," which involves externally
applying heat to industrial-grade pipes, tanks, and
instrumentation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Faces Occupational Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still involved in occupational
claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as
well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion).

These claims are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.
Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.

Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation's
Norfolk Southern Railway unit transports freight over a network
consisting of about 20,000 route miles in 22 states in the
eastern, southeastern, and mid-western U.S. and in Canada (Ontario
and Quebec).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant along with a number of other
parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have
contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or
more named defendants.

Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against it.  Certain insurance carriers have informed it that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies.

The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this
situation.  The Company said it believes it has additional
policies available for other years which have been ignored by the
carriers.

Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation is an
international firm engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing
and distributing miniature and micro-miniature body-worn devices.
The Company also has facilities in Maine, California, Singapore,
Indonesia and Germany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Still Facing Personal Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. has been named as a defendant in
a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 15, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Global Power Equipment Group Inc.
is a comprehensive provider of power generation equipment and
maintenance services for customers in the domestic and
international energy, power infrastructure and service industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Involved in AO's Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s Warner-Lambert subsidiary is actively engaged in the
defense of, and will continue to explore various means to resolve,
asbestos-related claims involving American Optical Corporation.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned AO, which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing.  In connection with the sale of AO in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities,
including certain asbestos-related and other claims.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, about 88,000 claims naming AO and numerous
other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials.

Warner-Lambert and AO brought suit in state court in New Jersey
against the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims related to
AO.  Most of the carriers subsequently agreed to pay for a portion
of the costs of defending and resolving those claims.

The litigation continues against the carriers who have disputed
coverage or how costs should be allocated to their policies, and
the court held that Warner-Lambert and AO are entitled to coverage
by those carriers of a portion of the costs associated with those
claims.

The case is now in the allocation phase, in which the court will
determine the amounts currently due from the carriers who have
disputed coverage or allocation as well as their respective
coverage obligations going forward.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Still Subject to Gibsonburg Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer in various federal
and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products Company.

Gibsonburg was acquired by the Company the 1960s and sold small
amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. is a research-based
pharmaceuticals firm.  Its best-known prescription products
include cholesterol-lowering Lipitor, pain management drugs
Celebrex and Lyrica, pneumonia vaccine Prevnar, and erectile
dysfunction treatment Viagra, as well as arthritis drug Enbrel,
depression treatment Effexor, and high-blood-pressure therapy
Norvasc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $505.1MM June 30 Gross Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., at June 30, 2011, had gross asbestos loss
reserves of US$505.1 million, or 95.9%, of total asbestos and
environmental reserves, of which US$403.1 million was for assumed
business and U $102 million was for direct business.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.1 years
at June 30, 2011.

With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2011, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$512.7 million, or 95.7%, of
total A&E reserves, of which US$409.6 million was for assumed
business and US$103.1 million was for direct business.  (Class
Action Reporter, June 17, 2011)

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s
principal business, conducted through its operating segments, is
the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the United
States, Bermuda and international markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Receives 1T New Claims in Q2
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., during the six months ended June 30, 2011,
paid US$10 million to settle outstanding asbestos claims and had
1,000 new claims.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
1,000 settlements or dismissals and 50,000 ending claims.

The Company's Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. subsidiary is one of
many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

These claims arose from the insulation operations of a U.S.
company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.
About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude 3,100 pending claims
involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were, maritime
workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims the
Company believes will not have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash
flow.

The outstanding claims also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims.
Due to the passage of time, the Company considers it unlikely that
the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further action against
the Company.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Accrues $239MM for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s accrual for pending and future asbestos-
related claims and related legal costs was US$239 million as of
June 30, 2011, including US$189 million for unasserted claims.

The Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related
claims and related legal costs was US$243 million as of March 31,
2011, including US$192 million for unasserted claims.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 27, 2011)

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Subject to Cases in Tex., Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Texas and Pennsylvania courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending
claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value
of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has
paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the total
adjusted value of its predecessor's assets.

On Oct. 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Tex., which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the
legislation was enacted in June 2003.  In 2010, the Company
recorded a pre-tax charge of $15 including estimated legal fees to
increase its accrual for asbestos related costs for claims pending
in Texas on June 11, 2003.

The Company said it believes that the decision of the Texas
Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims
than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.  In November
2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania
Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No.
117 EM 2002), which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.

The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as
amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.  Adverse
rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality of the
Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the Company.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,164 Actions Open v. Central Hudson at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2011, of the 3,327
asbestos cases brought against Central Hudson Gas & Electric
Corporation, about 1,164 remain pending.

As of March 31, 2011, of the 3,327 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, about 1,169 remain pending.  (Class Action
Reporter, June 3, 2011)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 2,008 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson,
and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases.

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.'s
reportable operating segments are the regulated electric utility
business and regulated natural gas utility business of Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and the unregulated fuel
distribution business of Griffith Energy Services, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $65.4MM A&E Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos and environmental
reserves were US$65.4 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$68.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded A&E reserves of US$63.9 million as of
March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, June 17, 2011)

Headquartered in Worcester, Mass.,  The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc.'s primary business operations include insurance products and
services provided through three property and casualty operating
segments.  These segments are Commercial Lines, Personal Lines,
and Other Property and Casualty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is, and will likely continue to be, involved in
a number of asbestos-related product exposure actions.

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

Headquartered in Mentor, Ohio, STERIS Corporation provides
infection prevention and surgical products and services, focused
primarily on healthcare, pharmaceutical and research.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Manitowoc Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.

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

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a
multi-industry, capital goods manufacturer operating in two
principal markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice
Equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Has Exposure Suits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain and former subsidiaries, since 2004, have
been facing three multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and
Jasper County (First Judicial District), Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily
under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the
period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.  As a
result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.
Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi
state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a
result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company.  While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2011 and 2012, none of the
cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases.

The three cases removed from state court have been assigned to the
Multi-District Litigation 875, which is currently before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Although
actions were taken by the plaintiffs in these three cases to bring
the cases back to Mississippi state court, the U.S. District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion by order dated Dec. 10, 2009.

The Company was recently notified that the Houston firm
representing the plaintiffs in all 65 claims had dissolved
effective as of Nov. 30, 2010.  Currently, the plaintiffs are
represented by local Mississippi counsel, and the Company expects
that additional counsel will be entering as counsel of record.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in other jurisdictions.

Headquartered in London, Ensco plc's business consists of four
operating segments: (1) Deepwater, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe
and Africa and (4) North and South America.  Each of the four
operating segments provides one service, contract drilling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Posts $103.2MM June 30 ARO Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.'s asset retirement obligation
liability balance was US$103.2 million as of June 30, 2011,
compared with US$97.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's AROs may also result from regulatory requirements
associated with the renovation or demolition of certain assets
containing hazardous substances such as asbestos.

Headquartered in Houston, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is a
leading North American provider of midstream energy services to
producers and consumers of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, refined
products and certain petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Claims Still Open v. Scotts Miracle-Gro
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.  The
Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the
claims seek damages from the Company alone.

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

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing and sale of branded
products for consumer lawn and garden care.  The Company's primary
customers include home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse
clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware stores,
nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Facing 81 Injury Cases at July 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. is a party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions, which include asbestos-related personal
injury cases, 81 of which are pending as of July 22, 2011, in
which it is one of many defendants.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.  Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products
more than 20 years ago.

Through July 22, 2011, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with only a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Mo., Belden Inc. designs,
manufactures, and markets cable, connectivity, and networking
products in markets including industrial, enterprise, broadcast,
and consumer electronics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Still Facing Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s Automotive Specialty Accessories
and Parts (WAG) subsidiary is a named defendant in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960s and early 1970s that contained
asbestos.

WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis.

Headquartered in Carson, Calif., U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is
an online source for automotive aftermarket parts and repair
information.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodard Lawsuit v. ExxonMobil Filed on Aug. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
The widow of Andrew Woodard, Beaumont, Tex.-based Florence
Woodard, on Aug. 25, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Mr.
Woodard's former employer -- ExxonMobil -- in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Also named in the lawsuit is Mobil Oil.

Court records indicate that Mr. Woodard was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibers while in the employment of ExxonMobil.  The suit
does not give dates of employment or state Mr. Woodard's
occupation with the company.

The suit states that, as a result of his alleged asbestos
exposure, Mr. Woodard developed mesothelioma and died on Aug. 10,
2009.

Mrs. Woodard seeks to recover exemplary damages from ExxonMobil.
Beaumont attorney Keith Hyde, Esq., of the Provost Umphrey Law
Firm represents her.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. E190-729.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Case v. 10 Firms Filed on Aug. 2 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Long and Ruth Long, a couple from Liverpool, Ohio, on
Aug. 2, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 10 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

The 10 defendants named are: AK Steel Corporation; AmChem
Products, Inc.; Bechtel Corporation; Brand Insulations, Inc.;
Dravo Corporation; FMC Corporation; Goulds Pumps, Inc.; ITT
Corporation; J. H. France Refractories Company; and Yarway
Corporation.

From 1958 until 1979, Mr. Long worked as a boilermaker and
ironworker at various power plants, steel mills and other
industrial sites throughout western Pennsylvania, Ohio and West
Virginia.

Mr. Long claims he was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing
products that were manufactured and/or supplied by the defendants.
According to the suit, the defendants are responsible for Mr.
Long's diagnosis of lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural plaques.

The Longs seek compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest.  They are being represented by Craig E.
Coleman, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1264 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dittmeier, Donohoe Cases Filed in St. Clair Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos cases of Anne Dittmeier and William and Tarilan
Donohoe have recently been filed to the growing asbestos docket of
St. Clair County, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Dittmeier of Kentucky and William and the Donohoes will be
represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
in Edwardsville.  Erik Karst, Esq., and Matthew J. Wright, Esq.,
of Karst and von Oiste will serve of counsel in Ms. Dittmeier's
case.

In her complaint filed on July 29, 2011, Ms. Dittmeier alleges 29
defendant companies caused her deceased relative, Andrew
Dittmeier, to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-
containing products throughout his career.

In their complaint filed on Aug. 5, 2011, the Donohoes allege 26
defendant companies caused Mr. Donohoe to develop lung cancer
following his exposure to asbestos-containing products.

According to the suit, Mr. Dittmeier worked as a bricklayer from
1956 until 1994 and Mr. Donohoe worked as a laborer for an
independent contractor in Florida from 1972 until 1974 and as a
laborer at Atlantic Boat Building from 1975 until 1977.

In her nine-count complaint, Ms. Dittmeier seeks a judgment of
more than US$50,000, plus economic damages of more than
US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$250,000
and compensatory damages of more than US$50,000.

In their six-count complaint, the Donohoes seek a judgment of more
than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$50,000 and
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Issues Ruling on Longridge Man's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 76-year-old Neil Malcolm, a
former builder from Longridge, Lancashire, England, was due to
workplace exposure to asbestos, The Citizen reports.

From the beginning of his working life in 1967, Mr. Malcolm was
exposed to asbestos as he worked as a self-employed builder and
shopfitter.

The inquest at Clitheroe heard that Mr. Malcolm came into contact
with asbestos sheets, panels and tiles as he carried out shop
fittings for two national companies.  He was tasked to make
improvements to shops owned by the WH Smith's stationers and
Dorothy Perkins clothing stores.

Mr. Malcolm first started working for the companies when he was in
his early 30s and living in Levenshulme, Manchester.

In a letter written before his death on July 12, 2011, Mr. Malcolm
said that he would be called in to make improvements to store
rooms on a regular basis and he would have to remove asbestos
panels.  He would then load the panels into his van to be disposed
of later and sweep up the asbestos dust.

Mr. Malcolm was diagnosed with sarcomatoid mesothelioma in April
2011 after he woke up in the middle of the night suffering from a
sharp pain in his chest.  He visited his GP was told that he would
need an urgent check with a specialist.

Doctors found that Mr. Malcolm had a mass on his right lung but he
was advised against having chemotherapy treatment as he was not
"strong enough."  He was released from hospital but his health
deteriorated during a holiday with his wife, Gillian, and two
friends, and he was forced to come back early.

East Lancashire coroner Michael Singleton recorded a verdict of
occupational disease explaining that the cancer that killed Mr.
Malcolm was caused by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Seeks Public Comment on Toxicity at Libby
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is providing the public
with an opportunity to comment on draft toxicity values for a
unique form of asbestos called Libby Amphibole asbestos, according
to an EPA press release dated Aug. 25, 2011.

The toxicity assessment provides a toxicological review of a
specific type of asbestos found in northwest Montana and proposes
draft toxicity values for both cancer and non-cancer health
effects.  When final, the toxicity values will help EPA and the
residents of Libby and Troy, Mont., determine the best path
forward for asbestos cleanup and the protection of public health
at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site.

The Aug. 25, 2011 announcement is the latest step in EPA's
continuing efforts to protect human health by reducing exposure to
Libby Amphibole asbestos.

EPA is releasing the draft toxicity assessment for public comment
and peer review by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB).  The Aug.
25, 2011 Federal Register notice calls for a 60-day public comment
period from Aug. 25 to Oct. 24, 2011.  A public listening session
also is planned on Oct. 6, 2011.

The Federal Register notice announces the beginning of an external
review process that provides the public with an opportunity to
comment on the draft toxicity assessment and the science used to
develop the Libby Amphibole asbestos toxicity values.

To learn about the draft toxicity assessment and how to submit
comments and participate in the listening session, visit
http://www.epa.gov/ncea Copies of the assessment and Federal
Register notice will be available in the EPA Information Office in
Libby as well as the Lincoln County and Troy, Mont., Libraries.

Information on how to comment and participate in the Oct. 6
listening session also will be available at the Information Office
and libraries.

Jim Martin, EPA's regional administrator in Denver, Colo., said,
"This is an important step towards developing the best science to
finish the job of protecting public health in Libby and Troy.  Our
intent is to move forward with the input of independent experts
and local residents.  Once finalized, these toxicity values will
help guide remaining cleanup actions and identify exposure
prevention practices to protect human health."

EPA announced initial draft toxicity values at a public meeting in
Libby on May 3, 2011.  EPA released the draft information to the
residents earlier than usual in the scientific evaluation process
to ensure the community was fully informed.

Since that time, the values have undergone a review by scientists
at EPA and other federal agencies.  These reviews did not result
in any significant changes to the draft toxicity values shared on
May 3, 2011.

Based on requests from the community, the final toxicity values
for Libby Amphibole asbestos will be used to develop EPA's final
risk assessment at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site.  EPA will
use these toxicity values to evaluate risks to adults, teens and
children who may be exposed to Libby Amphibole asbestos during
activities such as housework, gardening, mowing, bicycling or
working in an office or outside.

Since 1999, EPA has worked to reduce risk of exposure to Libby
Amphibole asbestos by focusing on removing the largest sources of
exposure.  EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson in 2009 declared a
public health emergency in Libby, a first-of-its-kind action that
recognized serious impacts to public health.

To date, the agency has spent more than US$370 million and has
safely removed more than 873,350 cubic yards of asbestos-
contaminated soil from source areas at 1,509 commercial and
residential properties.

Preliminary conclusions in the draft assessment are that the
cancer risk value for Libby Amphibole asbestos is similar to the
current Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) cancer risk
value for other forms of asbestos.  The preliminary assessment of
non-cancer effects indicates the potential for detrimental health
effects at low exposure levels.  This is the first EPA non-cancer
toxicity value for asbestos.

EPA is conducting the review of the draft health assessment under
a process prescribed by IRIS.  The results of this assessment will
affect states and private industry groups with Superfund cleanup
responsibilities at sites where Libby Amphibole asbestos is
present.

The proposed toxicity values in this draft assessment will also be
useful in evaluating risk from potential exposures in other
environments where Amphibole asbestos may be present.  EPA expects
to issue its final health assessment in September 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Decides on Carriageworks Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Connie Spence, an 80-year-old
woman from Acomb, North Yorkshire, England who used to work in
Carriageworks, was related to asbestos, The Press reports.

Mrs. Spence never worked directly with asbestos but York
Carriageworks employees -- who did -- regularly used to visit the
shop where she worked, covered in dirt and dust.

Mrs. Spence's husband, Norman, who was married to Mrs. Spence for
almost 60 years, said she lived and worked around the
Carriageworks for most of her life.

It was possible Mrs. Spence came into contact with asbestos in the
dirt and dust from workmen's overalls.  She could also have been
exposed during renovation work at a retail store where she also
worked.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Developer Fined $100T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, on Aug. 24, 2011,
said developer James L. Xarras will pay a civil penalty of
US$100,000 for violating asbestos laws related to the 2009-2010
renovation and conversion of the former Union Products site in
Leominster, Mass., to retail and commercial space, according to an
Aug. 24, 2011 press release issued by AG Coakley's office.

AG Coakley said, "We will vigorously pursue those who endanger the
health of workers and the public by failing to control the release
of hazardous asbestos fibers.  This penalty should serve as a
reminder to others that we take these violations very seriously."

The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that Mr. Xarras failed to
take the required precautions to prevent the release of asbestos
fibers to the air when workers removed asbestos insulation from
heating pipes, dislodged and removed pipes covered with asbestos,
and removed other asbestos-containing material during renovation
work in one building on the site.

Upon discovering the violations, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection promptly shut-down the renovation
project.  After a state-licensed asbestos contractor implemented
emergency containment measures ordered by MassDEP, Mr. Xarras
continued to perform additional renovation activity.

During this process, Mr. Xarras cleaned up and improperly removed
more asbestos from a building before the licensed contractor
started the removal and disposal of all remaining asbestos from
the site.  After MassDEP discovered these additional violations,
the licensed asbestos contractor completely decontaminated the
site and properly disposed asbestos waste from two buildings
following the required environmental, health and safety
regulations.

MassDEP Deputy Commissioner Gary Moran said, "Complying with the
asbestos regulation is a critical responsibility of building
owners and contractors conducting renovation projects.  Today's
settlement imposes a tough penalty, and this case sends a clear
message that we intend to make sure that building owners and
contractors act responsibly to prevent airborne releases of
asbestos fibers during renovation work. Building renovation work
must not begin until an asbestos inspection is completed so that
workers know where the asbestos materials are located."

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Ireland of AG Coakley's
Environmental Protection Division prosecuted the case with
assistance from MassDEP attorney Robert Brown and Regional
Asbestos Chief Gregory Levins and Investigator Donald Heeley, both
of MassDEP's Central Regional Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Decuir Case v. Texaco Filed on Aug. 24 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Hulin Decuir and her children, on behalf of the late
Ronald Decuir, on Aug. 24, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
Mr. Decuir's former employer -- Texaco -- in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit, during Mr. Decuir's employment at Texaco's
Port Arthur refinery, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.
As a result, he developed mesothelioma and died on June 27, 2011.

Claiming that Texaco acted with malice, the Decuirs seek to
recover exemplary damages from the Company.  Beaumont attorney
D'Juana Parks, Esq., of the Provost Umphrey Law Firm represents
them.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. E190-720.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Employee Awarded AU$1.15MM in Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury at a Supreme Court in Victoria, Australia, awarded
AU$1.15 million in compensation to Eric King, a 62-year-old man
who used to work at James Hardie, the International Business Times
reports.

Mr. King was employed as a machinist and fitter and, in 1972,
visited a James Hardie factory at Welshpool, near Perth in Western
Australia on three occasions for several hours.  He was employed
to conduct maintenance on a machine in the asbestos cement
sheeting factory.  He was not warned about asbestos or given a
mask.

On Aug. 30, 2011, a jury of four women and two men found that
James Hardie failed to take reasonable care to avoid Mr. King's
exposure to asbestos and that this caused his mesothelioma.

Maurice Blackburn asbestos principal Andrew Dimsey said the jury
found in Mr. King's favor because James Hardie had failed to warn
and adequately protect Mr. King from the asbestos dust.

Mr. Dimsey said, "This is an important verdict because it is the
first mesothelioma case to go to verdict in Victoria in more than
10 years.  James Hardie applied to the Supreme Court on two
occasions to have the jury dismissed and have the case decided by
the judge alone.

"After the jury returned its verdict, James Hardie applied again,
to have the judge dismiss the jury's verdict and replace it with a
finding in favor of James Hardie.  Their application was refused."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Judge Dismisses Armstrong's Asbestos Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Pennsylvania judge had denied an asbestos-related lawsuit filed
against the Armstrong School Board directors, The Kittanning Paper
reports.

Armstrong School District Solicitor Gary Matta announced the moot
lawsuit regarding the Elderton K-12 school complex asbestos
abatement at the Aug. 22, 2011 meeting of the school board
directors.  The lawsuit is separate from an overall lawsuit
against school directors abating the schools.

Mr. Matta announced to school directors at their August 2011
monthly board meeting that one litigation suit filed against
asbestos abatement at Elderton K-12 was denied.  He said, "We
received an Order of the Court Friday dismissing certain motions
because of being moot.  That litigation was all regarding the
asbestos."

The Emergency Motion for Special Relief was filed on June 28, 2011
on behalf of School Board Directors Chris Choncek, James Rearic
and Joseph Close and nominated directors Paul Lobby, Larry Robb,
Amy Lhote and Stanley Berdell after directors voted to rescind the
abatement contract to ABMECH, Inc. and award it to Environmental
Assurance Co., Inc. instead.

Environmental Assurance bid US$203,000 for the contract and was
the second-lowest bidder behind ABMECH initially.  The Company
also abated asbestos from Kittanning Sr. High this past summer.

The Plaintiff's attorney, Chuck Pascal, Esq., explained why the
charges were thrown out by Clarion County Principal Judge James G.
Arner.  Mr. Pascal said, "He never ruled on it.  In the meantime,
it became moot because the work was done.  So by agreement, we
allowed for that to be denied with our consent.  That had to do
with the new contract at Elderton."

Erie County Senior Judge John A. Bozza was appointed to hear
arguments for the case, but after work had been completed on-site.

An appeal is pending on the original lawsuit over the asbestos
abatement projects.  That appeal has not yet been scheduled for
court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Township Head Pleads Not Guilty to Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amer Hakim, Esq., the lawyer representing Supervisor William
Morgan of Royal Oak Township, Mich., said that, despite a looming
federal bribery indictment, Mr. Morgan should not resign from his
job, the Detroit Free Press reports.

Mr. Morgan, who was arrested at his office on Aug. 31, 2011,
pleaded not guilty in federal court to charges that he took bribes
in connection with a contract to demolish and remove asbestos from
an abandoned theater on Eight Mile Road.  He said nothing during
his court appearance and was released on bond.

Mr. Hakim noted that Mr. Morgan knew he was under investigation
for at least a year, but that he did not foresee getting
criminally charged.

According to the indictment, Mr. Morgan received US$10,000 from
Sureguard/PBM, a contractor that submitted a bid for the
demolition and asbestos removal from the old theater.  Despite Mr.
Morgan's efforts to steer the contract to Sureguard/PBM, township
officials awarded the contract to a lower bidder.  The indictment
added that Mr. Morgan later solicited and got payoffs of US$500
and US$1,000 from the successful bidder.

According to pretrial services, Mr. Morgan has lived in Ferndale
for 20 years with his wife and has two sons.  His criminal record
consists of two arrests: one in 2008 for operating a vehicle while
impaired; another in 1962 for being a minor in possession of
alcohol.  It was not noted if he was actually convicted.

Federal authorities, meanwhile, said the case represents the
government's ongoing effort to weed out public corruption in metro
Detroit.  In this case, they noted, Mr. Morgan not only betrayed
the public's trust, but created a potential health risk as well.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $282,685 Verdict Handed to James Lokey's Family
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Finch, Esq., and James Ledlie, Esq., of Motley Rice, along
with Gary Kendall, Esq., and Kyle McNew, Esq., of Michie Hamlett
worked on behalf of the family of James "Doug" Lokey, to obtain a
US$282,685 verdict in a liability case involving asbestos
exposure, the Mesothelioma Legal Blog reports.

According to the legal team, this recent mesothelioma verdict was
achieved along with the legal assistance of Will Harty, Esq., of
Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, L.C. who assisted with
jurisdiction.

A liability verdict was issued on Aug. 29, 2011 in Albemarle
County, Va., against manufacturers Ford and Honeywell after jurors
found that both companies exposed a former state trooper to
asbestos which led Mr. Lokey, a former state trooper, to contract
the deadly lung disease mesothelioma in 2007 at the age of 84.

Mr. Lokey was exposed to asbestos from brakes in the 1966-74 time
frame as a result of going into state inspection stations and
watching mechanics do blowout on Ford, GM and Chrysler vehicles.
He also worked at the Norfolk Naval shipyard during World War II.

In the verdict, the six-member jury found that both Ford and
Honeywell were negligent for failing to warn Mr. Lokey about the
dangers of exposure to asbestos while at work.

According to the legal team who represented Mr. Lokey, "There were
no settlement offers by Ford or Honeywell at any time."  Both
companies held strong to deny their liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Martin Case v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Franklin Martin, on behalf of James Thomas Martin, on
July 29, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 57 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the complaint, James Thomas Martin was diagnosed with
lung cancer, of which he died from on Aug. 2, 2010.  James
Franklin Martin claims James Thomas Martin was exposed to asbestos
and asbestos-containing material during his employment as an
electrician from 1951 until 2006.

James Franklin Martin seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  He is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and
Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1248 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dye Claim v. 73 Firms Filed on July 29 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Feazell, on behalf of Norvell Vaughn Dye, on July 29, 2011,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 73 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on Aug. 6, 2009, Mr. Dye was diagnosed
with lung cancer, of which he died on Aug. 13, 2009.

Mr. Feazell seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  He
is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I.
Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1250 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AU$$11.6MM Estimated for Wynnum School Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimates show the asbestos remediation work at the Wynnum
State High School in Queensland, Australia, is set to cost
AU$11.6 million, which is about one third of the AU$31 million
site redevelopment bill, the Courier Mail reports.

Almost the entire oval of the future Wynnum State School site is
being removed to rid the site of asbestos contamination but the
material's origin is a mystery.

The Department of Education and Training has released figures
showing 35,000 cubic meters of material will be removed from the
site by the end of 2011.

Acting Deputy Director of general infrastructure services Graham
Atkins said the origin of the material containing the asbestos was
unknown.  He added, "But it is thought it was dumped on the land
before the Wynnum North State High School was developed (there) in
the early 1960s."

Aerial photos taken in the late 1950s show the oval area once
owned by former Wynnum Mayor John Greene as part of his Cooroona
property was a natural swamp and bushland.

Former Wynnum North State High School deputy principal Helen
Astill taught at the school from its 1964 opening until her
retirement in 1990.  She said the oval was not built when the
school opened and students would venture into the bushland.

Lindsay Horne, who was the school's sports master from 1970,
remembered the oval had been completed when he started teaching
there in 1967.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in York Int'l. Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled York
International Corporation, Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, Defendant.

District Judge Sylvia H. Rambo entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 1:10-CV-0692 on May 26, 2011.

This was an insurance indemnification action and breach of
contract case brought by York International Corporation against
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company whereby York International sought
indemnification and defense from Liberty Mutual for over 1,000
thousand underlying asbestos complaints.

Prior to 1956, York Corporation used asbestos-containing products
in the air conditioning units it sold.  This practice continued
after York Corporation dissolved, but the parties were not sure
for how long asbestos-containing products were used.

Liberty Mutual, from Oct. 1, 1952 through Oct. 1, 1956 provided
general liability insurance to York Corporation.  On or around
June 30, 1956, all assets and liabilities of York Corporation were
transferred to Borg-Warner Corporation.  The assets obtained by
Borg-Warner were placed in the York Division of Borg-Warner, which
operated until the early 1980s.

Meanwhile, in 1972, York International Corporation was formed in
Delaware and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Borg-Warner.  In
1981, Borg-Warner also acquired and operated the following
companies: Luxaire, Inc.; YorkLuxaire, Inc.; and Westinghouse
Electric Corporation.  Luxaire, Inc. manufactured products under
the brands Luxaire, Fraser-Johnston, Westinghouse and Moncreif.

In December 1985, Borg-Warner changed its name to York
International Corporation, not the same company as Plaintiff.
Through another convoluted series of corporate transactions and
acquisitions, in 1991, York International, Plaintiff here, was
formed.  Notably, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff York
International acquired all assets of the predecessor companies.

Between Oct. 1, 1952, and Oct. 1, 1956, Liberty Mutual issued four
general comprehensive liability policies to the original York
Corporation.

On March 30, 2010, York International filed this declaratory
judgment and breach of contract cause of action against Liberty
Mutual in federal court based on diversity of citizenship.  On
March 8, 2011, both parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment and briefs in support, along with statements of material
facts not in dispute.

On March 29, 2011, the parties filed their respective briefs in
opposition to the motions for summary judgment and answers to the
statements of material facts.  On April 12, 2011, reply briefs
were filed and Plaintiff also filed a response to Defendant's
answer to Plaintiff's statement of material facts.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.  Plaintiff's
cross motion for partial summary judgment was granted as to Count
I as follows: in that Liberty Mutual will be required to defend or
indemnify York International for asbestos-related claims
attributable to York Corporation during the time period from Oct.
1, 1952, through Oct. 1, 1956, during which York Corporation was
covered under the Liberty Mutual policies in question.

Plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment was denied
as to Count I with respect to any claims that fall outside the
policy periods.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Granted in Spavone
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving
asbestos filed by Steven Spavone.

The case is styled Steven Spavone, Plaintiff v. N.Y.S. Department
of Correctional Services, Jim Hillregal, John Bendlin, and Steve
Madison, Defendants.

District Judge Denise Cote entered judgment in Case No. 10 Civ.
833(DLC) on May 26, 2011.

Steven Spavone, proceeding pro se, brought this action against
employees of the New York State Department of Correctional
Services (DOCS), asserting that they placed him at risk of
exposure to asbestos.

While an inmate at DOCS' Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Mr.
Spavone assisted in preparing the Old Jewish Chapel at the
facility for renovation.  Over the course of about four hours that
spanned several days in June 2009, Mr. Spavone and other members
of the maintenance crew removed all of the fixtures and the
ceiling from the room.

General Mechanic Steven Madison personally supervised the work,
and told the crew to be careful not to hit the water pipe when
removing the ceiling.  The water pipe ran above the ceiling along
one section of the room adjacent to a window.  It was wrapped with
insulation.

The crew completed its work by June 16, 2009, and placed all of
the debris in garbage cans and carts, which were then removed from
the room.  During that period, none of the insulation from the
pipe fell.

The next phases of the work, in which Mr. Spavone was not
involved, were the painting of the room and the installation of a
new ceiling.  On July 13, 2009, civilian carpenter Cliff Hamlin
began the work necessary to install a "wall angle" to support the
ceiling.  While standing on the scaffold, Mr. Hamlin noticed a
leak in the water pipe.

When Mr. Hamlin returned on July 14, 2009, he noticed that part of
the insulation from the pipe had fallen onto the scaffold.  He
promptly notified John Bendlin, a Maintenance Supervisor, who told
Mr. Hamlin to stay away from the leaking pipe.  A Fire and Safety
Officer then shut down the work area because of the potential for
release of asbestos.

On July 16, 2009, a member of the CORCRAFT Asbestos Program
assessed the situation and cleaned up the chapel.  Its report
described the condition of the chapel on July 16, 2009 and
identified "asbestos/particulate" as an atmospheric hazard.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Mr. Spavone filed a complaint naming DOCS, Mr.
Bendlin, and Mr. Madison as defendants, in addition to DOCS Plant
Supervisor Jim Hillregal. Mr. Spavone filed a motion for summary
judgment on Jan. 19, 2011.  The defendants filed a cross-motion
for summary judgment on Feb. 14, 2011.  The motions were fully
submitted on April 26, 2011.

Mr. Spavone's Jan. 19, 2011 motion for summary judgment was denied
and the defendants' Feb. 14, 2011 motion for summary judgment was
granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court to Grant Dismissal Bids in Tatum Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, will
grant dismissal motions in a case involving asbestos styled John
Tatum v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, et al.

District Judge Baylson entered judgment in Civil Action No.
10-7577 on May 26, 2011.

This lawsuit arose from the alleged retaliation against a former
assistant manager at the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA), who
was demoted and later fired after he complained about PHA
officials' theft and fraud.  Plaintiff John Tatum filed suit
against PHA and PHA employees Carl Greene, Daniel Quimby, and
Diane Rosenthal.  Defendants had filed Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim.

According to the Complaint, Mr. Tatum worked for PHA from 1982
until Jan. 5, 2009.  In his highest-ranking position, Mr. Tatum
was Assistant General Manager, Scattered Sites, supervising more
than 400 PHA employees working in over 22,000 units.  Mr. Greene
was the Executive Director of PHA from 1998 until 2010.  Mr.
Quimby is PHA's General Manager of Maintenance.  Mr. Rosenthal is
PHA's Assistant Executive Director of Finance.

Mr. Greene directed Mr. Tatum to instruct his workers to complete
maintenance repairs on PHA units, known as "service orders," that
required lead and asbestos remediation.  Mr. Tatum refused because
his workers were not qualified to perform work involving hazardous
materials.  Mr. Greene, in 2007, instructed staff not to enter
service orders for pest control, which Mr. Tatum complained about
at a Service Order Committee meeting with Mr. Quimby and Mr.
Rosenthal.

Mr. Tatum filed his Complaint on Dec. 30, 2010.  PHA and Mr.
Quimby filed a Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative a Motion
to Strike on March 4, 2011.  Mr. Rosenthal filed a Motion to
Dismiss on March 4, 2011.  Mr. Greene filed a Motion to Dismiss on
March 30, 2011.

Mr. Tatum filed an Omnibus Response to the PHA/Quimby and
Rosenthal Motions and separately responded to Mr. Greene's Motion.
PHA and Mr. Quimby filed a reply brief, in which Mr. Rosenthal
joined.  Mr. Quimby also filed a motion for joinder in Mr.
Greene's argument regarding qualified immunity.  The Court held
oral argument on the motions on May 24, 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Office Workers Evacuated After Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The post office workers in Exeter, Maine, on Aug. 31, 2011, were
evacuated after multiple employees fell ill with symptoms related
to an asbestos removal project, Seacoastonline.com reports.

The post office is closed for the foreseeable future as fire
officials and investigators from the U.S. Postal Service figure
out how the employees were exposed and sickened.

Tom Rizzo, northern New England's spokesperson for USPS, said a
total of 28 employees were evacuated from the facility.  He said
17 of them were transported to the local hospital for observation.
He added that said most of the employees had been recently
released from care.

Assistant Fire Chief Ken Berkenbush said employees of the Front
Street post office were taken to Exeter Hospital with symptoms
including nausea, light-headedness, dizziness and chest pains.

Mr. Berkenbush said the illnesses were caused by off-gassing from
a solvent that crews were using to remove asbestos tiles from
inside the building.

Mr. Berkenbush said he has ordered the post office closed until
the building is made safe again.  Customers attempting to enter
the facility were met by a police officer advising them of the
temporary closure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Murfreesboro Site Cleanup to Cost Almost $30T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of asbestos tile where a women's locker room will be
located in Murfreesboro, Tenn.'s new fire department headquarters
is a major portion of a US$30,000 price increase on the project,
officials said, dnj.com reports.

The job brings the locker room cost up to a new total of
US$70,000, Murfreesboro Fire & Rescue Chief Cumbey Gaines informed
City Council members.

Mr. Gaines informed the council that administrators needed to
increase the square footage by 225 square feet, which includes
another lavatory area and two vanities to bring the locker room to
modern standards.

Mr. Gaines said his department will have enough in its reserve
funds from other areas of the budget to cover the remaining
US$30,000.

Murfreesboro City Administrator Rob Lyons added any time with a
remodel some problems are to be expected, such as asbestos
removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS International Named in Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. has been named as a defendant in certain
asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were
discontinued over 20 years ago, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 10, 2011, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Two non-operating subsidiaries of a predecessor company, along
with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to
the Company's former stockholders in October 2002.  The two former
subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal injury
claims.

Headquartered in Glassport, Pa., TMS International Corp. provides
outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North America
with a substantial international presence.  The Company operates
at 78 customer sites in 10 countries and has a raw materials
procurement network that extends to five continents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to be Named in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
have been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in
lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned facilities.

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

Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns
and operates natural gas distribution systems in six states.  Its
subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Named in 11 Cases With 325 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in 11 asbestos
lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325
individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 15,
2011.

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

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

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold
primarily to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that
supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities
and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Seeks Indemnification From Katy
---------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc., says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,885 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California,
South Carolina, Rhode Island and Canada to the Company for defense
and indemnification.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement.  Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased
the Company's former LaBour Pump business and other assets from
the Company.  Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company
in connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries.  The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to
asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their
employment.  Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers
of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs
came into contact with a variety of different products in the
course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an
inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have
manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one
settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the
position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.  With respect to the balance of the tendered
complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the defense of
Sterling in these matters.

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold
primarily to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that
supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities
and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Subject to 90 Open Cases at July 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc., says there are about 90 asbestos cases,
related to the LaBour Pump Company, which remain active as of
July 1, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 15, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

LaBour Pump, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the
Company, has been named as a defendant in about 430 of the New
Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA).  The
Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of which
have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. is a
manufacturer, importer and distributor of commercial cleaning and
storage products.  Its commercial cleaning products are sold
primarily to janitorial/sanitary and foodservice distributors that
supply end users like restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities
and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Liabilities Still at $17.7MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$17.70 million as of both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 15,
2011, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities
were US$17,646,000 as of both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Facing 1,297 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
approximately 1,297 pending claims involving about 1,843
individuals as of June 30, 2011.

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

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
190 new claims, 19 settlements, and 135 dismissals.  During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 304 new claims, 29
settlements, and 207 dismissals.

The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims.  The total indemnity costs incurred to settle
claims were US$3.2 million during the six months ended June 30,
2011 and US$5.7 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, all
of which were paid by the Company's first-layer excess umbrella
insurance carriers, as were the related defense costs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McJunkin Facing 958 Exposure Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation, as of June 30, 2011, is a
defendant in asbestos lawsuits involving about 958 such claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 15,
2011, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Each claim involves allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing
materials by a single individual or an individual, his or her
spouse and/or family members.  The complaints typically name many
other defendants.

In a majority of these lawsuits, little or no information is known
regarding the nature of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or their
connection with the products distributed by the Company.

Through June 30, 2011, lawsuits involving over 11,786 claims have
been brought against the Company with the majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved.

In total, since the first asbestos claim brought against the
Company through June 30, 2011, about US$1.6 million has been paid
to asbestos claimants in connection with settlements claims
against it without regard to insurance recoveries.

Headquartered in Houston, McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation
distributes pipes, pipe, valves and fittings (PVF) and related
products and services to the energy industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Hampton Still Facing Harris County Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian American Development Company's South Hampton Resources,
Inc. affiliate is still named in an asbestos lawsuit, which is
ongoing in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
Tex., according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 15, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 14, 2010, South Hampton received notice of the lawsuit
filed in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas which was subsequently transferred to the Harris County
court.  The suit alleges that the plaintiff became ill from
exposure to asbestos.

There are about 44 defendants named in the suit.  The Company has
placed its insurers on notice of the claim and plans to vigorously
defend the case.  No amounts have been accrued for this claim.

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Arabian American Development
Company's principal business activity is the manufacturing of
various specialty petrochemical products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Trust Posts $600T ARO at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos liability in Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc.'s
consolidated balance sheets for conditional asset retirement
obligations was US$600,000 as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company records a liability for a conditional asset retirement
obligation.  Depending on the age of the construction, certain
properties in its portfolio may contain non-friable asbestos.  If
these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished,
certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the
manner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled and
disposed.

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

The accretion expense for the three and six months ended June 30,
2011 and June 30, 2010 was not significant.

Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Pacific Office Properties
Trust, Inc. owns and operates primarily institutional-quality
office properties principally in selected long-term growth markets
in southern California and Hawaii.  The Company operates in a
manner that permits it to satisfy the requirements for taxation as
a real estate investment trust.



                            *********

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  * * *