CAR_Public/110930.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, September 30, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 194

                             Headlines

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: "Lenartz" Suit Still Pending in  Mass.
ANDREW BOLT: Aboriginals Win Racial Vilification Class Action
BJC HEALTH: Judge's Wife Sues Over Wrongful Termination
CHINA ADVANCED: Faces Class Suits Over Going Private Transaction
CITIMORTGAGE: Faces Foreclosure Class Action

DAIRY INDUSTRY: Hagens Berman & COK File Antitrust Class Action
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Certifies Labor Law Class Action
DONALDSON CO: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL
DRUG STORES: Removal of Class Actions to Federal Court Sought
EGAIN COMMS: Final Appellant in IPO Suit Lacked Standing to Appeal

FEDEX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Return Suits to MDL Court
FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Rascon" Class Suit in Colorado
FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of "Taylor" Suit Deal
FEDEX CORP: Still Awaits Decision in Paystubs-Related Suit
FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Petition for Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Still Defends Consumer Suit in Kansas
GOSFORD COUNCIL: Waterfront Homeowners May File Class Action
GOV. TOM CORBETT: Class Action Sought Over School Budgetary Cuts
GROUPON: Former Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
INOVA HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Age Discrimination

KRAFT FOODS: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Compensation Suit
MACK TRUCKS: Judge Approves $525-Mil. Class Action Settlement
MEGA BRANDS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Magnet Toys
OSRAM SYLVANIA: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Halogen Headlights
STATE OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over New Toll Hike

STATE OF NEVADA: Motorcyclists File Class Action Over Helmet Law
SUNCOR: Dismissal of Franchise Class Action Upheld
UNION-TRIBUNE: Newspaper Carriers' Class Action Can Go Ahead


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fuller Summary Judgment Denied in Mastroianni
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Rules in Summit's Favor in Ayala
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Nye Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixon Lawsuit v. DuPont, Temple Filed in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Asbestos Cases Filed in St. Clair County

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromley v. Conrail, American Premier Underway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquests Rule on Carriageworks Workers' Deaths
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation at Wheeling Sites to Cost $199,400
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43MM Settlement Deal OK'd for Montana Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merlin Olsen's Heirs Settle Wrongful Death Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkby Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewe Rail Worker Awarded Payout for Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Hazard Found at Merimbula, NSW Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Chester Local's Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Formac Electronics Fined for Safety Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Motion Granted in Wingfield Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. District Court Issues Ruling in Rufty Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greene's Dismissal Bid Ok'd in Bulanda Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Hunter Region Construction Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russell Claim v. 62 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mark Lanier to Address Fla. Asbestos Conference
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.P. Cullen Fined $25T for Environmental Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Parkfairfax Homes Could Cost $14T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Jury Awards $20MM Compensation to Garrison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Burke Elementary School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Donington Worker's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surman's Family Files Action v. Coventry Dunlop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Says Boral Asbestos Risk "Negligible"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coweta Seeks Cleanup Bids for Ishman Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradford Man's Death Related to Hazard Exposure




                             *********

AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: "Lenartz" Suit Still Pending in  Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation continues to defend itself in
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit captioned Lenartz
v. American Superconductor Corporation, et al. pending in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's September 23, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Between April 6, 2011, and April 29, 2011, six putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.  On May 12, 2011, an additional complaint was
filed against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering.  On June 7, 2011, the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated these actions
under the caption Lenartz v. American Superconductor Corporation,
et al. Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.  On June 16, 2011, the court
appointed the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead
Counsel and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as
Lead Plaintiff.

On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint against the Company, its officers and directors,
and the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering, asserting claims under
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that during the
relevant class period, the Company and its officers omitted to
state material facts and made materially false and misleading
statements relating to, among other things, the Company's
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as the
Company's relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that
artificially inflated the value of the Company's stock price.  The
complaint further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the
Company's November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

If a matter is both probable to result in liability and the
amounts of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company says it
estimates and discloses the possible loss or range of loss.  With
respect to the consolidated lawsuit, the Company says such an
estimate cannot be made.  There are numerous factors that make it
difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss
at this stage of these litigation matters, including that: the
proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are significant
factual and legal issues to be resolved, information obtained or
rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the methodology for
calculation of rescission and the related statutory interest rate.
In addition, with respect to claims where damages are the
requested relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified.
Therefore, the Company says it is unable at this time to estimate
possible losses.  The Company believes that these litigations are
without merit, and intends to defend these actions vigorously.


ANDREW BOLT: Aboriginals Win Racial Vilification Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Dunn, writing for Herald Sun, reports that the assumed right
of unfettered freedom of speech was trumped by laws protecting
against racial vilification on Sept. 28 after the Federal Court
delivered its decision on the controversial "white Aborigines"
case of Pat Eatock v. Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt.

Justice Mordy Bromberg found Mr. Bolt and the Herald and Weekly
Times contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two
articles on racial identity which contained "errors in fact,
distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative
language".

Speaking outside court, Mr. Bolt said it was "a terrible day for
free speech in this country".

"It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all
Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify
themselves," Mr. Bolt said.

"I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the
differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as
human beings," Mr. Bolt said.

The columnist said he would read and consider the full judgment
before commenting further.

Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did
not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done
"reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a
fair comment".

"Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful
for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by
challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of
people," Justice Bromberg said.

Ms. Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Mr. Bolt
and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial
vilification over two articles in which he criticized fair-skinned
Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of
mixed racial background, to emphasize their indigenous heritage
over their white heritage.

Ms. Eatock welcomed the judgment, saying it was a statement
against discrimination.

She said the court's decision meant racial identity could be
debated, but with respect.

"It's how you handle it, you can't be malicious . . .  he (Bolt)
must handle it based on truth and fact," she said outside court.

Ms. Eatock told the Herald Sun she was aware of her Scottish
ancestry from her mother's side but saw herself as Aboriginal.

In the articles, on April 15 and August 21, 2009, Mr. Bolt wrote
that some fair-skinned Aboriginal people, whom he called
"political Aborigines", had received prominence or indigenous
awards because they chose to identify with their Aboriginality.

The Eatock action claimed Mr. Bolt's articles -- which appeared
under the headlines "It's so hip to be black" and "White fellas in
the black" -- had "offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated''
them and were a breach of racial vilification laws.

In court during hearings in April, Neil Young, QC, for Mr. Bolt,
had argued that freedom of speech "trumped" other rights and was a
cornerstone of democracy.

"Everything that's said, even if it's expressed colorfully, is
rationally related to a thesis that's a matter of public
interest," Mr. Young had said.

He argued the legal test for racial vilification was how an
informed person would interpret the views expressed in Mr. Bolt's
articles.

But Ron Merkel, QC, for the complainants, said there was no
attempt by Ms. Eatock or other members of the group to shut down
freedom of speech or debate about racial identity issues.

Mr. Merkel said Mr. Bolt was free to express his views on the
subject but should not have chosen to attack the nine individuals
he named in his columns and blog.

In the sometimes heated court exchanges, Mr. Bolt took exception
to Mr. Merkel's comparison of the debate and Mr. Bolt's views to
Nazi race laws, the Holocaust and eugenics.

Mr. Bolt argued those who chose to identify with only one part of
their background over another were contributing to racism and came
at the cost of less focus on the important issues of education,
housing, health and poverty.

The parties were asked by Justice Bromberg to meet and discuss
what orders the court should make.

The nine Aborigines who took legal action against Mr. Bolt were
former ATSIC member Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic
Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch,
native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson,
lawyer Mark McMillan and activist Pat Eatock.

Mr. Bolt and several of the plaintiffs were in court for the
decision.


BJC HEALTH: Judge's Wife Sues Over Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that BJC Health
System fired a woman because she was suffering from depression and
because her husband, a judge, was presiding over a class action
against it, she claims in city court.

Taunia Allen Mason began working at BJC in July 2007 as a media
production specialist.  At the time, BJC was embroiled in a 2004
class action that alleged abusive collection practices and
overcharging uninsured patients for medical services.

Mrs. Mason's husband, David Mason, was presiding over the case in
St. Louis-based 22nd Circuit Court and had just certified the
class in March.

Mrs. Mason says BJC tried to recuse her husband in August and then
supervisors began criticizing her at work for alleged tardiness,
loud phone conversations and misuse of work time.

Another judge took over the case after it settled in March 2008,
and Mrs. Mason says she received positive performance evaluations
for 2007 and 2008.

In November 2009, however, Mrs. Mason's manager criticized her for
alleged deficiencies.  The manager gave Mrs. Mason an overall
rating of unacceptable in April 2010, a final warning in May and
forced her to resign in August, according to the complaint.

"Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges,
that her husband's position as a judicial officer presiding over
the Quinn action was a contributing factor in the discipline she
received during her employment and her eventual termination and in
so doing that defendant acted with the purpose to harass Judge
Mason because of his March 2, 2007 ruling," the complaint states.

Mrs. Mason says she had told her supervisor that she was being
treated for depression on May 13, 2010, three days after she
received the final warning.

The former employee seeks punitive damages for discrimination on
the basis of disability and wrongful termination.

A copy of the Complaint in Mason v. BJC Health Systems d/b/a BJC
Healthcare, Case No. 1122-CC09732 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis City),
is available at http://is.gd/BZzScV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Holman, Esq.
          Thomas F. Ralston, Esq.
          HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 283-8738
          E-mail: kholman@hslawllc.com
                  tralston@hslawllc.com


CHINA ADVANCED: Faces Class Suits Over Going Private Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc., is facing class
action lawsuits in Delaware relating to a proposed going private
transaction, according to the Company's September 23, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended June 30, 2011.

On July 26, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its board of directors received a preliminary, non-binding
offer from its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Xianfu
Han, and its Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Weili
He, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company's
common stock not currently owned by them in a going private
transaction at a proposed price of $2.65 per share in cash
("Proposed Transaction").

From July 29, 2011, to September 23, 2011, class action complaints
against the Company and its Board of Directors were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The complaints have
the following captions: Kinder v. China Advanced Construction
Material Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No.
6729-CS (filed July 29, 2011); McElligott v. China Advanced
Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et
al., C.A. No. 6739-CS (filed August 2, 2011); Elias v. China
Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board of
Directors et al., C.A. No. 6754-CS (filed August 5, 2011); Camitta
v. China Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and its Board
of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6770-CS (filed August 9, 2011);
Jaworski v. China Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc., and
its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6765-CS (filed August 11,
2011); Bolen v. China Advanced Construction Material Group, Inc.,
and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No. 6811-CS (filed
August 26, 2011), and Mulder v. China Advanced Construction
Material Group, Inc., and its Board of Directors et al., C.A. No.
6830-CS (filed September 1, 2011).

The plaintiff in the Dziak Complaint alleges, among other things,
(1) the value to China ACM's shareholders contemplated in the
Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and the
other shareholders of the Company; (2) the members of the Board of
Directors conduct constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duties
owed to the Company's shareholders, and a violation of applicable
legal standards governing the defendants' conduct.  For the
reasons set forth herein, plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants
from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction or,
in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover
damages resulting from the defendants' violations of their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, and due care.


CITIMORTGAGE: Faces Foreclosure Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Adam Belz, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that lawyers
for a Pella man have filed a lawsuit against CitiMortgage they
hope will be declared a class action, accusing the company of
double-dealing by foreclosing on homeowners even as they pursued
loan modifications, and extracting thousands of dollars in illegal
fees from them.

The 120-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Des
Moines, alleges Citi "agressively and falsely advertised its
commitment to help homeowners obtain affordable loan
modifications."

"In an attempt to maximize its profits, Citi has consistently
delayed, avoided, and otherwise hindered the modification process
by denying it has received borrower paperwork, losing paperwork,
and neglecting to inform borrowers as to the status of their
applications," the lawsuit said.

CitiMortgage lawyers could not be reached late on Sept. 27.

After collecting balloon payments from vulnerable homeowners
who've been assured their accounts would then be current, Citi has
kept the payments in "suspension accounts," illegally charged fees
to the homeowner, and deliberately reported them as delinquent to
the credit agencies, the lawsuit alleges.

Keith Goodyk of Pella is listed as the plaintiff in the suit.  In
the summer of 2010, as he was attempting to get a loan
modification and making reduced trial payments on his home, he was
notified by Citi that the bank was foreclosing on him.

He paid $1,363.80 in late charges, $138 for inspection fees, $84
for an appraisal, and $1,130 for legal fees and costs, in addition
to the mortgage payments.  Aside from the modified payments he'd
made at the instruction of a Citi representative, Mr. Goodyk had
always been current on his mortgage.

The fees and charges piled up while his payments sat in a
"suspended" account, the complaint says.  He has stayed current,
but in January of 2011, Citi informed him he owed more than his
original loan even though he had made significant payments on his
principal and interest.

Mr. Goodyk's lawyers are proposing a nationwide class action
lawsuit against the mortgage servicer, arguing that Citi hid the
fees it was assessing to Mr. Goodyk and others by describing them
simply as "other," and further indebted him and others
deliberately when they were already in danger of losing their
homes to foreclosure.

J. Barton Goplerud of Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson is
listed as the lead attorney.  Jerry Crawford of Des Moines is also
listed on the complaint, as are lawyers in San Francisco,
Philadelphia, New York, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Washington
D.C.

The suit asks for a jury trial and demands that Citi pay actual
damages and emotional damages for homeowners victimized by the
mortgage servicer.


DAIRY INDUSTRY: Hagens Berman & COK File Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, on behalf of several dairy
consumers, including Compassion Over Killing (COK) members, on
Sept. 26 filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of consumers
alleging that various dairy companies and trade groups, including
the National Milk Producers Federation, Dairy Farmers of America,
Land O'Lakes, Inc. and Agri-Mark, Inc. combined to form
Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) in order to fix the price of
milk in the United States.

CWT is a massive trade group representing dairy producers
throughout the country who produce nearly 70% of the milk consumed
in the United States.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Sept. 26, 2011, alleges that
between 2003 and 2010, more than 500,000 cows were slaughtered
under CWT's dairy herd retirement program in a concerted effort to
reduce the supply of milk and inflate its price nationally.
According to the complaint, the increased price allowed CWT
members to earn more than $9 billion in additional revenue.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by leading class-action
law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP.  The case was initially
researched and developed by Compassion Over Killing, a national
animal protection organization.

"We believe this case serves two important causes," said Steve
Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.  "A resolution to this
case will protect consumers from artificially-inflated milk prices
and also will prevent the unnecessary and shameful killing of tens
of thousands of cows each year."

"The dairy industry has consistently shown its lack of regard for
animal welfare and the environment," said Compassion Over Killing
general counsel Cheryl Leahy.  "Now it's milking its own consumers
by unlawfully jacking up prices.  The dairy industry must be held
accountable for these illegal profits."

The complaint further alleges that the program, which paid smaller
farm owners to kill their entire dairy cow herds, unfairly
increased the profits of agribusiness giants.

Dairy herd retirement ended in the summer of 2010, but CWT's
tactics may affect the price of milk for years, according to the
lawsuit.  The end of the program came shortly after Land O'Lakes
agreed to pay $25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed
against the United Egg Producers and its members.  That case
alleged that egg producers were encouraged to reduce their flock
size as part of a program disguised as an animal welfare
initiative.

Hagens Berman is interested in speaking to consumers who purchased
milk or milk products from 2004 to the present.  Consumers can
contact the firm by calling (206) 623-7292 or by e-mailing
CWT@hbsslaw.com

More information about the case can also be found at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/CWT

Compassion Over Killing has released additional information about
the case, which can be found at:

     http://www.cok.net/camp/inv/dairy-price-fixing

According to Compassion Over Killing, the most effective way
consumers can safeguard animals and put an end to cruel factory
farming practices is simply to choose meat, egg and dairy-free
foods.  For more information, visit COK.net.

                  About Compassion Over Killing

Compassion Over Killing (COK) is a nonprofit animal protection
organization based in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Since 1995,
COK has worked to end the abuse of animals in agriculture through
undercover investigations, public outreach, litigation, and other
advocacy programs.  COK is on the web at COK.net.

                        About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a class-action law firm with offices
in 10 cities.  The firm represents consumers, whistleblowers,
investors and workers in complex litigation.  The firm's blog can
be found at http://www.classactionlawtoday.com


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Certifies Labor Law Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
South Florida Business Journal reports that a federal judge in
Miami has certified a class action lawsuit filed by former
employees of foreclosure attorney David J. Stern.  The suit
alleges that Mr. Stern violated federal labor laws and failed to
warn employees of imminent layoffs.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro on Sept. 26 approved the
certification by adopting a favorable recommendation from U.S.
Magistrate Judge Ted Bandstra.

Mr. Stern and his affiliated business grew to be one of the
Florida's largest foreclosure practices.  But the firm and related
company DJSP Enterprises fell apart after the attorney general's
office began investigating them for alleged "robo-signing"
activities, including possible fabrication of documents.  The
investigation hit national news, where some articles dubbed Stern
the "foreclosure king."

Major lenders such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America
abandoned Mr. Stern, leading to the mass layoff of about 1,200
employees.

The suit charges that Mr. Stern's law firm and its publicly traded
paperwork company, DJSP, did not follow the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requirement to give 60 days'
warning, including wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued
holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k)
contributions, continuation of health insurance coverage and other
benefits that would have been paid or covered during the notice
period.

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Renae Mowat, Nikki Mack,
Arklynn Rahming and Quenna Humphrey.

In a news release, Fort Lauderdale-based law firm Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman said it is representing about
700 former employees.


DONALDSON CO: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Filter MDL
---------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson Company, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement to resolve the consolidated lawsuit filed by S&E Quick
Lube against filter manufacturers, according to the Company's
September 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended July 31, 2011.

The Company has reached a preliminary agreement to settle the
class action lawsuits that were previously disclosed in its SEC
filings, including most recently the Form 10-Q for the quarter
ending April 30, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the
Company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and
allocate U.S. Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  The
U.S. cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.  The Company
denies any liability and has vigorously defended the claims raised
in these lawsuits.

The settlement will fully resolve all claims brought against the
Company in the lawsuits and the Company does not admit any
liability or wrongdoing.  The Company says the settlement is still
subject to Court approval and will not have a material impact on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


DRUG STORES: Removal of Class Actions to Federal Court Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a recent
ruling in a case brought by West Virginia Attorney General Darrell
McGraw makes it harder for out-of-state defendants to remove class
actions to federal court, the Washington Legal Foundation is
arguing.

The WLF, which says its mission is the defense and promotion of
free enterprise, filed an amicus brief on Sept. 23 with the U.S.
Supreme Court while the court is deciding if it will hear the
appeal of a group of drug stores.  Mr. McGraw, through private
attorneys, sued the drug stores, claiming they do not pass savings
on generic drugs to consumers.

The six stores said Mr. McGraw's case is a class action and
removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said it was not a
class action and remanded it to state court.

"Amici believe that out-of-state defendants, in order to ensure
that their cases will be heard in an impartial forum, ought to be
permitted to remove the cases from state to federal court," the
brief says.

"Congress adopted CAFA to ensure that the right of removal is
protected for most such defendants, particularly in cases seeking
significant damages and in which the plaintiff (as here) is suing
in a representative capacity on behalf of numerous individuals.

"Amici are concerned that the decision . . . if not corrected,
will allow plaintiffs' lawyers to "game" the system to prevent
removal -- the very scenario that Congress sought to avoid when it
adopted CAFA."

The six drug stores are national chains Wal-Mart, CVS, Kmart,
Kroger, Target and Walgreen.  Earlier this month, they asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a 2-1 Fourth Circuit
decision.

"Indeed, the West Virginia Attorney General's role here is more
analogous to the role of the EEOC or other regulator when it
brings an action on behalf of a large group of employees or a
segment of the public," the Fourth Circuit's 2-1 judgment says.
"Yet, the Supreme Court has concluded that such a regulator's
action is not a class action of the kind defined in Rule 23."

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman dissented in the judgment and was the only
member of the three-judge panel to vote for a stay.  Even though
the action was brought under state statutes, it doesn't take away
the "essence" of the case, he wrote in his dissent.

"(T)he elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and
adequacy of representation have not been specifically pleaded,"
Judge Gilman wrote.  "But I submit that these are subsidiary
factors that do not detract from the essence of the action.

"They are, in other words, 'bells and whistles' whose absence in
the pleadings do not prevent the Attorney General's suit from
being considered a class action under CAFA."

Judge Gilman wrote that similar lawsuits filed by Mr. McGraw's
outside counsel in other states are undisputed class actions.

WLF says the case presents issues of "exceptional" importance.

"Federal district courts are repeatedly called on to determine
whether a case that is representative in nature has been properly
removed from state court," the brief says. (The U.S. Supreme
Court) has never issued a decision construing CAFA.

"As evidenced by the conflicting lower-court decisions regarding
when (for CAFA removal purposes) a state statute should be deemed
'similar' to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the lower courts are in need of
guidance regarding the scope of CAFA's jurisdictional grant.
Review is warranted to provide that guidance and to resolve the
conflict identified by CVS."

Mr. McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and
DiTrapano Barrett & DiPiero -- for the case.  The two firms have
contributed more than $60,000 to Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over
the years, including $11,800 for his 2008 race against Republican
Dan Greear.

Bailey & Glasser brought similar lawsuits in Michigan and
Minnesota.  The Michigan suits were dismissed by a state judge
because the only specific pricing information was obtained by a
West Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The Minnesota lawsuit, brought on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, was initially dismissed in November
2009 by former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, who had harsh
words for the plaintiffs attorneys.

Judge Rosenbaum was peeved that the complaint, filed against 13
defendants, only contained specific pricing information about two
of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Rosenbaum said Nov. 20,
2009.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible."

A federal magistrate judge is currently deciding if that lawsuit
will be remanded to a Minnesota court.


EGAIN COMMS: Final Appellant in IPO Suit Lacked Standing to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
determined that the final appellant lacked standing to appeal the
approval of the global settlement resolving the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit involving eGain Communications
Corporation, according to the Company's September 27, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended June 30, 2011.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its then
officers and directors and underwriters connected with the
Company's initial public offering of common stock.  The class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaints alleged generally that the
prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false
and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common
stock between September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000.  Similar
complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300
other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000 actions
were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig.  In 2003, the Company and the other issuer
defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the
Company's liability and that of its officers and directors.  The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by
the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the
Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed
settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case against the
underwriters proceeded.

In October 2004, the Court certified a class.  On December 5,
2006, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed, holding that the class certified by the District
Court could not be certified.  In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006), modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir.
2007).  The Second Circuit's holding, while directly affecting
only the underwriters, raised doubt as to whether the settlement
class contemplated by the proposed issuer settlement could be
approved.  On June 25, 2007, the district court entered a
stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer settlement.
Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed.  In March 2009, all
parties agreed on a new global settlement of the litigation; this
settlement included underwriters as well as issuers.  Under the
settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the Company, and the Company would bear no
financial liability.  The Company, as well as the officer and
director defendants, who were previously dismissed from the action
pursuant to a stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from
the case.  On June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement.  On October 5, 2009, the
Court issued an order finally approving the settlement.  Starting
on October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the certification
of a settlement class (which occurred as part of the October 5,
2009 order) petitioned the Court for permission to appeal from the
order certifying the settlement class, and on October 29 and
November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed notices of
appeal seeking to challenge the Court's approval of the
settlement.  On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on,
December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to the
settlement dismissing all claims involving the Company.

The appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals is set to
begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011.  On
October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the objectors
filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors withdrawing
their appeals with prejudice.  The remaining two objectors,
however, are pursuing their appeals and have filed their opening
briefs.  On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the
appeals.  On March 2, 2011, one of the two appellants, appearing
pro se, filed a stipulated dismissal of his appeal with prejudice.
On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of two
of the three remaining appellants, and directed the district court
to determine whether the third and final appellant had standing.
On August 25, 2011, the district court determined that the final
appellant lacked standing.

The Company says this litigation will be concluded unless that
determination is successfully appealed.  If the settlement and
final judgment were to be overturned on appeal and litigation were
to proceed, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the action vigorously.
The Company has not accrued any liability in connection with this
matter as the Company does not expect the outcome of this
litigation to have a material impact on its financial condition.


FEDEX CORP: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Return Suits to MDL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is awaiting a decision on its petition to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to require eight
class action lawsuits to be returned to the multidistrict
litigation court for issuance of a final judgment, according to
the Company's September 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
August 31, 2011.

One of FedEx Corporation's operating companies, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), is involved in numerous
class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as
class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other
administrative proceedings that claim that the Company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.  The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.  On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee).  In sum, the court has now ruled on the Company's
summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx
Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation
cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the
owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the
law of the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana,
Kansas (the court previously dismissed without prejudice the
nationwide class claim under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies), Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and
Wisconsin.  The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these
20 cases.

In the other eight certified class actions in the multidistrict
litigation, the court ruled in favor of FedEx Ground on some of
the claims and against FedEx Ground on at least one claim in three
of the cases (filed in Kentucky, Nevada and New Hampshire) and
then remanded all eight cases back to district court in these
states for resolution of the remaining claims: Arkansas,
California, Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire and Oregon
(two certified classes).  In January 2011, the Company asked the
court to issue final judgments in these eight cases, and the court
denied the Company's motion.  In July 2011, the Company filed a
petition to the Seventh Circuit asking the appeals court to
require these cases to be returned to the multidistrict litigation
court for issuance of a final judgment so that all appeals of the
December 2010 summary judgment rulings would be heard by the
Seventh Circuit, and the Company has not yet received a ruling on
that petition.

With respect to the state administrative proceedings relating to
the classification of FedEx Ground's owner-operators as
independent contractors, during the second quarter of 2011, the
attorneys general in New York and Kentucky each filed lawsuits
against FedEx Ground challenging the validity of the contractor
model.

While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by
the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had
been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, the
Company believes that it significantly improves the likelihood
that its independent contractor model will be upheld.  Adverse
determinations in the remaining matters related to FedEx Ground's
independent contractors, however, could, among other things,
entitle certain of the Company's contractors and their drivers to
the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-
and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and
benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to
the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-
operators in certain jurisdictions.  The Company believes that
FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as
independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer
of the drivers of the company's independent contractors.  While it
is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these
lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of
FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material, the Company
cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential
loss.  A number of factors contribute to this.  The number of
plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being
dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, no
discovery has been conducted.  In addition, the parties have not
yet conducted any discovery into damages, which could vary
considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff.  Further, the range of
potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings on
the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses,
and on evidentiary issues.  In any event, the Company does not
believe that a material loss is probable in these matters.


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Rascon" Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of FedEx Corporation's operating companies, FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), is involved in numerous
class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been certified as
class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other
administrative proceedings that claim that the Company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent
contractors.

In August 2010, another one of the contractor-model lawsuits that
is not part of the multidistrict litigation in Indiana, Rascon v.
FedEx Ground, was certified as a class action by a Colorado state
court.  The plaintiff in Rascon represents a class of single-
route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Colorado who drove
vehicles weighing less than 10,001 pounds at any time from
August 27, 2005, through the present.  The lawsuit seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, and related penalties and attorneys' fees
and costs, under Colorado law.  The Company's applications for
appeal challenging this class certification decision have been
rejected.

Other contractor-model cases that are not, or are no longer part
of the multidistrict litigation, are in varying stages of
litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 23,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011.


FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of "Taylor" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court entered a preliminary approval of FedEx
Corporation's settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit
commenced by drivers in California, according to the Company's
September 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011.

In September 2009, in Taylor v. FedEx Freight, a California state
court granted class certification, certifying a class of all
current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight Inc. in
California who performed linehaul services since June 2003.  The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they were forced to
work "off the clock" and were not provided with required rest or
meal breaks.  The Company entered into a tentative settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs in June 2011 for an immaterial
amount.  The order of preliminary approval of settlement was
entered by the court in September 2011.


FEDEX CORP: Still Awaits Decision in Paystubs-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation is still awaiting a court decision in the class
action lawsuit pending in California over noncompliant paystubs,
according to the Company's September 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended August 31, 2011.

A federal court in California ruled in April 2011 that paystubs
for certain Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx Express")
employees in California did not meet that state's requirements to
reflect pay period begin date, total overtime hours worked and the
correct overtime wage rate.  The ruling came in a class action
lawsuit filed by a former courier seeking damages on behalf of
herself and all other FedEx Express employees in California that
allegedly received noncompliant paystubs.  The court certified the
class in June 2011.  The court has ruled that FedEx Express is
liable to the State of California, and there will be a ruling as
to whether FedEx Express is liable to class members who can prove
they were injured by the paystub deficiencies.  The judge has not
yet decided on the amount, if any, of liability to the State of
California or to the class, but has wide discretion.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

The Company says a material loss in this matter is reasonably
possible but not estimable because both the number of class
members and the amount, if any, to which some class members may be
entitled is uncertain, and in ruling the judge may consider some
or all of the following: whether employees suffered injury;
whether remedial action was undertaken; whether there was
knowledge of any violation; whether any violation was intentional;
and whether any award would be unjust under the circumstances.


FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Petition for Appeal in "Anfinson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Supreme Court granted FedEx Corporation's petition
for discretionary appeal in connection with the lawsuit Anfinson
v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., according to the Company's
September 23, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") is involved in
numerous class-action lawsuits (including 30 that have been
certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and
other administrative proceedings that claim that the Company's
owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.

In January 2008, one of the contractor-model lawsuits that is not
part of the multidistrict litigation in Indiana, Anfinson v. FedEx
Ground, was certified as a class action by a Washington state
court.  The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of single-
route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from
December 21, 2001, through December 31, 2005, and allege that the
class members should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform
expenses and should receive overtime pay.  In March 2009, a jury
trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a
verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class
members were independent contractors, not employees.  The
plaintiffs appealed the verdict.  In December 2010, the Washington
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings,
including a new trial.  The Company filed a motion to reconsider,
and this motion was denied.  In March 2011, the Company filed a
discretionary appeal with the Washington Supreme Court, and in
August 2011, that petition was granted.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Still Defends Consumer Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P, has been named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas.  The complaint alleges that Ferrellgas violates consumer
protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for
its customers.  Based on Ferrellgas' business practices,
Ferrellgas believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the claims vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 26,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 31, 2011.


GOSFORD COUNCIL: Waterfront Homeowners May File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Collins, writing for Express Advocate, reports that Gosford
Council could soon be facing a class action by waterfront home
owners.

The Coastal Residents group, outraged at notifications placed on
S149 certificates regarding possible sea level rises, is seeking
legal advice on its options.

President Pat Aiken said the group would then approach a
litigation funding company.

The council incensed residents in May 2010 when notifications were
attached to section 149 planning certificates on waterfront homes
saying the property could be affected by sea level rises of up to
a meter over the next 90 years.

Mr. Aiken said there was no consultation on the move, which could
see property values plummet.  "The council clearly didn't think
through the impacts when it placed the notifications," he said.

"It didn't want to be liable for not warning people of the
supposed sea rise threat but only a fool would think these notices
won't affect property values.

"People don't have money to challenge council individually and the
council will not discuss the matter.  When people stop talking
that's when legal action starts.  If it means we have to break
this council we will do it."

Barrie Frost, of Pt Frederick, says Gosford Council has adopted an
"alarmist" attitude to possible sea-level rises over the next 90
years.

"I am not a skeptic," Mr. Frost said.  "Climate change is
happening all the time but the council has put these notifications
on the S149 certificates based on possible projections from one
study.

"More in-depth studies need to be undertaken.

"I have lived on the waterfront all my life and we haven't seen
our water levels rise by more than 1mm a year in my lifetime.

"It is ridiculous to think they could rise by a meter or so in the
next 90 years.

"This will destroy waterfront values and it is frightening people.

"I am not talking about multi-million-dollar waterfront
developments, although there are some of those -- but there are
many elderly residents whose waterfront home is their only asset,
especially since the global financial crisis."

Mr. Frost said the notifications should be lifted until more
information had been collected.

"There are many valid studies which seem to have been ignored," he
said.


GOV. TOM CORBETT: Class Action Sought Over School Budgetary Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Bugaile, writing for PetersPatch, reports that two area
lawmakers have joined forces to urge school districts in the
region to file a class action suit against Gov. Tom Corbett's
office to restore funding cuts to Pennsylvania's school districts
in the Pennsylvania budget.

Rep. Bill Kortz, D-Dravosburg and Rep. Marc Gergely, D-White Oak,
are urging Pennsylvania school districts to follow the route of
school districts in New Jersey, which successfully won a Supreme
Court decision with the governor's office, and had $850 million
restored to school districts in May.

"New Jersey's verbiage in their education is almost identical to
that of Pennsylvania," Rep. Kortz said.  "So I think we have an
excellent chance because our constitution also states that we have
to provide a thorough and efficient public educational system.  I
think we have excellent standing with the decision."

Rep. Kortz said schools in Colorado are also challenging the
governor's office to restore funding to education.

"What happened to our schools with the cut of over $900 million to
educational funding has hurt students," he said.  "It's absolutely
hurt the school districts, and we can't sit back and let it happen
again."

Rep. Kortz said things are likely to get worse in the next budget
for schools who had to cut programs, and lay off staff and
teachers to balance this year's budgets.

"Come 2012, the same thing is going to happen," Rep. Kortz said.
"There's going to be another big limb cut off the educational
money tree, and these districts are going to be scrambling."

Rep. Kortz, whose district covers schools in Baldwin-Whitehall,
West Jefferson Hills, South Allegheny (McKeesport), West Mifflin
and Clairton, said smaller districts have been hardest hit by the
state budgetary cuts, and districts such as Duquesne and Clairton
face a very real threat of having to close altogether.

"There are probably going to be some forced closings," Rep. Kortz
said.

Rep. Kortz said he and Rep. Gergely's message to school boards has
been that cuts have been unfair, and that poorer districts have
had to take an especially hard hit.

"We're framing the layoffs, tax increases and cuts that the
individual school districts have had to do with how much money has
been lost per student," he said.  "Even Upper St. Clair lost $79
per student with the cuts, and it's the richest school district in
Allegheny County.  They lost over $1,900 per classroom.  The
budget was discriminatory because the poorer districts lost more."

The Upper St. Clair board this year adopted a $59.3 million budget
that included elimination of seven teaching positions, three
teacher aides and one administrator.  The district also added a
"play to pay" for athletics.

Peters Township had its state funding slashed by about $900,000,
and passed a $49.5 million budget, that avoided layoffs, but did
not spend money for new programs or technology.

The board also added a "participation fee" for extracurricular
programs, and asked booster clubs to help with sports and
extracurricular events.  The budget and finance committee has
already planned a session in October to begin looking at the
budget for 2012-2013.

Rep. Kortz was critical of the state budget cuts to education
before the state budget was adopted.

"The equity funding program that would have assured all children
getting an equal education has been taken away," he said.

"Districts can begin planning for bigger cuts in the state
education budget for next year, but what's going to happen if an
even bigger amount of money is cut? It's not going to be easy."


GROUPON: Former Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citybizlist Washington DC, citing a report by PaidContent, relates
that a group of former employees has filed a class action suit
against Groupon over unpaid overtime.

The plaintiffs, known as "deal vetters," claim that the company
failed to pay overtime to employees that worked more than 40 hours
a week.  Deal vetters' responsibilities included reviewing the
terms of the transactions between Groupon and the merchants it
partnered with.

This is the second class action filed against Groupon by former
employees recently.  Last month, a group of salespeople claimed
that Groupon owed three years of back wages and punitive damages
for hundreds of employees.

Groupon, valued at $10 billion, has raised over $1.14 billion in
venture capital, including multiple rounds in which Chevy Chase,
Md.-based New Enterprise Associates participated.


INOVA HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Va. Over Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Inova Health System in
Northern Virginia pays younger nurses more than ones who are older
than 35, a class claims in federal court.

A copy of the Complaint in Logan, et al. v. Inova Health System,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-01026 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/27/inova.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Taylor, Esq.
          Paul M. Tyler, Esq.
          GROMEINE, TAYLOR & TYLER, P.C.
          1727 King Street, Suite 210
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 683-7780


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Compensation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has certified
two separate classes in a suit against Kraft brought by employees
who claim that the conglomerate did not properly compensate them
for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment before and
after work.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Curry, et al. v.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01288 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/27/kraft.pdf


MACK TRUCKS: Judge Approves $525-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge gave final
approval to a settlement requiring Mack Trucks and corporate
parent Volvo to pay $525 million to roughly 9,300 Mack retirees
who said Mack tried to unilaterally reduce their health benefits.

A copy of the Memorandum in Mack Trucks, Inc. v. International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America - UAW, et al., Case No. 07-cv-03737 (E.D. Pa.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/27/mack.pdf


MEGA BRANDS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Magnet Toys
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Haggett, writing for Reuters, reports that Mega Brands Inc.
said it has reached a preliminary settlement to a class-action
suit stemming from the sale of toys that allegedly contained
defective magnets.

The toymaker said in a release on Sept. 27 that the settlement
provides for U.S. claimants to be refunded the purchase price of
the magnet toys, which were recalled in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The suit was launched after the company recalled "Magnetix" toys
after one child died and 27 others were seriously injured after
swallowing small, powerful magnets that came loose.

However, Mega Brands said the class action did not make any claims
of personal injury, instead alleging the toys contained defective
magnets.

U.S. retailer Target Corp. was also named as a defendant in the
suit.

Along settlement, the defendants will also donate $100,000 in cash
and toys to a new foundation that addresses children's health
issues.

Mega Brands said the U.S. District Court of New Jersey had
approved the preliminary settlement.  A hearing on final approval
is slated for Dec. 15.

The settlement was announced after markets closed on Sept. 27.


OSRAM SYLVANIA: Sued Over Bogus Claims on Halogen Headlights
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Armstrong at Courthouse News Service reports that a company
that makes SilverStar halogen headlights rooks drivers into buying
the product by making "grossly exaggerated" comparisons to its
competitors on packaging materials and in video advertisements, a
class claims in federal court.

Lead plaintiff Imran Chaudhri says Osram Sylvania and its
subsidiary make misleading claims about the advantages of
SilverStar headlights.  The package says that, compared with
standard halogen headlights, SilverStar bulbs are up to 35%
brighter and wider, and they let motorists see up to 30% further
down the road.

"But, buried in very small print on the back of the packaging
Sylvania has a disclaimer that they are comparing the SilverStar
headlights at 100% brightness and halogen headlights at only 80%
brightness," the complaint states.

These misrepresentations also appear in video advertisements for
SilverStar Ultra head lamps, which an announcer promises are 50%
brighter and wider, letting drivers see 40% farther.  But as the
announcer makes claims like "See farther, see wider, see better,"
tiny print on the screen tells customers to visit
Sylvania.com/auto "for comparison information."

The class wants punitive damages and injunction, alleging consumer
fraud, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and breach of express
warranty.

Delaware-based Sylvania is the North American arm of German
manufacturer Osram, a Siemens company.

A copy of the Complaint in Chaudri v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 12876 in Case No. 33-
av-00001 on Sept. 22, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/27/Halogen.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry R. Eichen, Esq.
          Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
          EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & MCELROY, LLP
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Telephone: (732) 777-0100
          E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com
                  tpaciorkowski@njadvocates.com

               - and -

          Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq.
          LIEBESMAN LAW, LLC
          501 Silverside Road, Suite 2
          Wilmington, DE 19809
          Telephone: (302) 798-1000


STATE OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Action Over New Toll Hike
--------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has violated taxpayers'
civil rights with plans to increase tolls by 35 cents and charge
motorists to use a freeway, a class claims in Cook County Circuit
Court.

Five officers with Taxpayers United of America filed the class
action against the Illinois State Toll Authority to stop the plan,
which the agency adopted last month.

The increases are scheduled to take effect this January, but
Taxpayers United says the 15-year, $12 billion plan is the latest
affront to a 1953 law that mandates Illinois become a toll-free
state.

As part of the plan, the toll authority intends to double the toll
of motorists driving without an I-Pass and convert the Elgin
O'Hare West Bypass freeway into a tollway, according to the 15-
page complaint.

"The tollway is a creature of statute that went into affect in
July 1953," Taxpayers United president James Tobin, one of the
plaintiffs, said in a statement.  "The slogan of the authority was
'Toll Free in '73.'  That was when the toll roads were to be paid
off and converted into freeways."

"Instead, the tollway keeps expanding, building more toll roads,
and hiking tolls, ensuring that it will live forever," he added.
"This is contrary to the legislative intent of its creators."

Mr. Tobin and his four co-plaintiffs say the toll authority
continues to issue new construction bonds to avoid phasing itself
out.

With the new plan, the toll authority can "continue its existence
at least through 2026, a total of 73 years," the suit states.

Other defendants named in the action are Illinois Tollway Board of
Directors chair Paula Wolf and Texas-based Electronic Transaction
Consultants Corporation, which won the toll authority's open-road
tolling contract in 2005.

The class sued for declaratory relief, civil rights violations and
seeks an injunction to reverse the $12 billion dollar plan.  It is
represented by Andrew Spiegel of Taxpayers United.

A copy of the Complaint in Tobin, et al. v. Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority, et al., Case No. 11CH33144 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/27/Tollway.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew B. Spiegel, Esq.
          TAXPAYERS UNITED OF AMERICA
          407 South Dearborn Street, Suite llTO
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 427-5128


STATE OF NEVADA: Motorcyclists File Class Action Over Helmet Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing or Las Vegas Sun, reports that twelve
motorcycle riders filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 27 against
Clark County and five cities within the county, charging arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement of Nevada's helmet law.

The suit filed in U.S. District Court names as defendants the
county and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and
Mesquite; and Boulder City.

If certified as a class, the suit could represent more than 40,000
motorcycle riders in the county.

The suit, filed by Las Vegas attorney Travis Barrick, charges
"defendants, through their agents, have an ongoing pattern and
practice of issuing helmet tickets to the class members that are
not supported by constitutionally sufficient probable cause,
thereby violating the civil rights of the class members."

This violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
barring unreasonable search and seizure, the lawsuit says.

The suit also alleges violations of the 14th Amendment protections
against arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, charging the
defendants, through their agents, "have an ongoing pattern and
practice of dismissing helmet tickets when contested in the courts
or appealed to the courts, thereby denying the class members their
due process rights to challenge enforcement of the Nevada Helmet
Law."

The suit also alleges there's a disparity in fines and fees for
helmet law violations with no rational basis for the disparities;
and that the helmet law is enforced "as a pretext for invading the
liberties and civil rights" of the class members.

Mr. Barrick wasn't available to elaborate on the allegations and
the defendants have not yet responded to the lawsuit.

Efforts over the years to repeal Nevada's 1972 law requiring
motorcycle riders to wear helmets as a safety measure have failed,
most recently this year.


SUNCOR: Dismissal of Franchise Class Action Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal on Sept. 27 upheld a lower court summary
judgment decision that stopped a $200-million franchise class
action filed by former gas station owners against Suncor.

After Suncor merged with Petro-Canada on Aug. 1, 2009, the company
announced a plan to close about 200 Sunoco gas station franchises
in Ontario.  The franchisees launched a $200-million class action
that claimed Suncor's closure plan violated an Ontario franchisee
law called the Arthur Wishart Act.

The class action was blocked last December.  Judge Paul Perell of
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Suncor hadn't
broken the Act.  The case was heard using Ontario's new summary
judgment procedure, which enables motion judges to make relatively
speedy decisions.

The franchisees appealed, but the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld
Judge Perell's ruling and dismissed the case in an 11-page ruling
released on Sept. 27.


UNION-TRIBUNE: Newspaper Carriers' Class Action Can Go Ahead
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Bauder, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that Superior
Court Judge Lisa Foster on Sept. 21 ruled that a suit by 1,300
newspaper carriers against the Union-Tribune can be certified as a
class action.  The carriers charge that they were misclassified as
independent contractors when they were actually employees of the
company.

The law firm pressing the suit, Orange County's Callahan & Blaine,
previously got class action status for 5,000 carriers of the
Orange County Register.  This resulted in a $40 million settlement
that some say was a factor in helping to shove the paper's parent,
Freedom Communications, into bankruptcy.

Daniel Callahan of the law firm says, "It is a nationwide trend
when delivery personnel are essential to the conduct of a
company's business that those individuals be treated as employees
and not independent contractors."

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fuller Summary Judgment Denied in Mastroianni
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied H.B. Fuller Company's
motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case styled Stephen
Mastroianni et al. v. Acands, Inc. et al.

Judge Barbara N. Bellis entered judgment in Case No. CV990362945S
on May 17, 2011.

Stephen Mastroianni and Carol Mastroianni filed a complaint dated
May 3, 1999, alleging that Mr. Mastroianni was exposed to asbestos
from products associated with multiple defendants, including H.B.
Fuller Company, and that as a result the plaintiffs suffered
various damages.

Each of the defendants or their predecessors in interest conducted
business in the state of Connecticut and produced, manufactured or
distributed asbestos or products containing asbestos.  Mr.
Mastroianni was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products of the defendants while working in Connecticut as a tile
setter from 1955 to 1968.

This exposure contributed to Mr. Mastroianni's contraction of
asbestos-related pleural plaques and asbestosis and other
asbestos-related ailments.  The complaint named H.B. Fuller in two
counts.

In count one, Mr. Mastroianni claimed damages under the
Connecticut product liability statute, General Statutes ss 52-572m
et seq., 52-240a and 52-240b.  In count three, Mrs. Mastroianni
alleged loss of consortium.

On Oct. 15, 2009, H.B. Fuller filed a motion for summary judgment
with a supporting memorandum of law and various exhibits.  The
plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition with supporting
exhibits on Oct. 27, 2010.

H.B. Fuller filed a reply memorandum with additional exhibits on
Feb. 8, 2011.  The court heard oral argument at short calendar on
Feb. 14, 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Rules in Summit's Favor in Ayala
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, issued a ruling in favor of Summit Constructors, Inc.,
in a case involving asbestos filed by Cruz Ayala and Dustin Ayala.

Judge John T. Nixon entered judgment in Case No. 3:08-cv-01100 on
April 25, 2011.

Mary Ann Parker, Esq., Stephen C. Crofford, Esq., of Nashville,
Tenn., represented Plaintiffs.

Kenneth A. Weber, Esq., of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, PC-Nashville, in Nashville, Tenn., represented Summit
Constructors, Inc.

This was an action brought by Cruz Ayala and Dustin Ayala --
individually, "Cruz" or "Dustin," and collectively, "the Ayalas"
-- under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. s
2000, et seq. [hereinafter Title VII] and the Tennessee Human
Rights Act (THRA), Tenn. Code Ann. s 4- 21-101, et seq., against
their former employer, Summit Constructors, Inc.

Cruz and Dustin Ayala, a father and son, are former employees of
Summit Constructors, Inc. They worked within the Company's
blasting department - one of Summit's four areas of work.

Cruz Ayala immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1989,
and he and his wife (who is white) had Dustin while living in the
United States.  Cruz is lawfully present in this country, and
Dustin is an American citizen who considers himself to be half-
Mexican and half-white.

Cruz attended school through the second grade in Mexico, and is
minimally literate in Spanish and illiterate in English.  He does
not have a strong command of spoken English.  He has performed a
range of work in the United States, including farming when he
first arrived here, framing houses, cleaning at a Nissan plant,
factory work, and asbestos removal.  Dustin attended school
through the eighth grade and thereafter worked in fast food
restaurants, followed by work in the construction industry in his
late teenage years.

Cruz began to work at Summit Constructors as a laborer on Jan. 20,
2006.  He started working on a blasting crew led by Dwayne Carr
and then moved to a crew led by David Nabors.  While working for
Mr. Nabors, Cruz sought employment for Dustin at Summit, too.
Dustin began working as a laborer with Mr. Carr's crew on Sept.
16, 2006 at a pay rate of US$12.50 per hour and was later moved to
Stoney Roberts' crew with his father.

Cruz alleged at trial that he began to experience harassment from
Mr. Nabors while working on his crew, and then later while working
on Mr. Roberts' crew with Dustin.

Dustin stayed on Mr. Roberts' crew for some months, and then told
Mr. Roberts he wanted to be promoted to driller, with which role
came a pay increase of US$1.50 per hour, such that he was making
US$14.00 per hour.  Mr. Nabors, who was in charge of the blasting
crews, allowed the promotion and Dustin became a driller on Mr.
Nabors' own crew.

Dustin claimed that Mr. Nabors treated him poorly and subjected
him to racial epithets, and that he was often made to use old or
broken tools.  Dustin reported this to his father.

Cruz called Kenny Norman, Summit's Superintendent, to complain
that Mr. Nabors was cursing him and Dustin out and wanted to
"whip" them in relation to a work dispute, but did not complain
about racial harassment.

On the day of his termination, Sept. 25, 2007, Dustin claimed that
Mr. Nabors asked him to do laborer-type work, and that at some
point he asked to take a break, which he was denied while another
non-Hispanic employee was allowed to rest.

Subsequently, Dustin called Summit's Chief Financial Officer,
Tommy Davis, to complain about Mr. Nabors' alleged use of
derogatory language and to request that he be rehired.
Accordingly, Mr. Davis declined to reinstate him.  On Oct. 9,
2007, Dustin filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging race discrimination,
national origin discrimination, and retaliation.

Later, but prior to this trial, Dustin paid a visit to David
Bournazian, another former Summit employee, at his home.  Dustin
encouraged Mr. Bournazian to testify for the Ayalas in this case.

Cruz continued to work at Summit and filed his own EEOC Charge on
Jan. 29, 2008, alleging race and national origin discrimination as
a continuing action.  Cruz was eventually laid off on June 6,
2008, due to a reduction in force.  He had been making US$13.50
per hour.

At the time of trial, Cruz had not found any employment since
leaving Summit over a year-and-a-half earlier, despite seeking a
range of jobs (such as construction, retail and Mexican
restaurants, among others) in Tennessee and Kentucky, where he had
moved.

Although Dustin did not find work immediately after leaving
Summit, he did find a part-time position at Burger King as of
Jan. 15, 2010, which paid him US$7.25 per hour.  Dustin hoped that
this position would become full-time work.

Dustin testified that his treatment at Summit made him feel like a
lesser person, and he is still angered by the circumstances of his
termination from a good job that he enjoyed.

The Court entered judgment in favor of Summit on both of the
Ayalas' hostile work environment claims and on Dustin Ayala's
retaliation.  The Court found that Plaintiffs had met their burden
as to Cruz Ayala's retaliation claim, and so entered judgment in
Plaintiffs' favor on this claim, in the amount of US$27,113.20.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Nye Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Knoxville, reversed the ruling
of the Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, Circuit Court for
Hamilton County, in a case involving asbestos styled Evelyn Nye v.
Bayer CropScience, Inc., et al.

Judges Sharon G. Lee, Cornelia A. Clark, Gary R. Wade, Janice M.
Holder and William C. Koch, Jr. entered judgment in Case No.
E2008-01596-SC-R11-CV on June 7, 2011.  Judges Holder and Koch
concurred in part and dissented in part.

Hugh Todd Nye was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in
September 2005.  He died from this disease on Aug. 1, 2006.  His
mesothelioma was allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos during
the time he worked for DuPont at its Chattanooga, Tenn., facility
from 1948 to 1985.

As an operator on DuPont's continuous polymerization line, and
during the course of his employment, Mr. Nye was often exposed to
dust arising from the removal of asbestos insulation from pipes in
the areas where he worked.

In May 2006, Mr. Nye and his wife sued a number of defendants,
including National Service Industries, Inc., a successor in
interest to North Brothers, Inc., seeking compensatory damages for
injuries allegedly caused by Mr. Nye's exposure to asbestos-
containing products at the DuPont facility.

In February 2007, Mrs. Nye amended the complaint to allege Mr.
Nye's death from mesothelioma on Aug. 1, 2006.  In addition to
seeking damages for his death, she asserted that North Brothers
sold asbestos-containing products to DuPont that had been
manufactured by Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation, Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., and Johns Manville
Corporation.

North Brothers filed a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion
for summary judgment.  The trial court granted summary judgment to
North Brothers on the breach of warranty claims based on the
statute of limitations.  The trial court granted a partial summary
judgment to North Brothers based on the statute of repose for any
sales occurring before June 30, 1969.

At the time of trial, all the named defendants had been dismissed
except North Brothers, and the strict liability claims for sale of
defective products and failure to warn were the only surviving
claims.

The jury found North Brothers was at fault, but that DuPont was
the sole cause of Mrs. Nye's damages and awarded her nothing.  The
trial court denied Mrs. Nye's motion for new trial, and she
appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that North Brothers could be
held strictly liable as a non-manufacturing seller because the
manufacturers whose products North Brothers sold were not amenable
to service of process due to their bankruptcy proceedings.

The Court of Appeals further ruled that the trial court committed
harmful error in its instructions to the jury and reversed the
jury's verdict and remanded for a new trial.

The Supreme Court held that North Brothers was subject to suit on
strict liability grounds for injuries allegedly sustained by Mr.
Nye as a result of his exposure to the asbestos-containing
products that North Brothers supplied to DuPont.

The Supreme Court further held that the trial court committed
harmful error in adopting the learned intermediary doctrine in its
instruction to the jury.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed
the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case was
remanded for a new trial.  Costs are assessed to National Service
Industries, Inc., f/k/a/ North Brothers, Inc., and its surety, for
which execution may issue if necessary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixon Lawsuit v. DuPont, Temple Filed in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit on behalf of John Dixon Sr. was filed on
Aug. 31, 2011 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The case was filed by Agnes Dixon, Jane Lampman, Molly Abshier and
John Dixon Jr. against E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Tin
Inc. formerly known as Temple Inland Forest Products, Tin Inc.
formerly known as Temple-Eastex, Inland Paper Board and Packaging,
Temple Inland, Inland Container, Inland Orange and Owens Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege Mr. Dixon was exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers throughout his career at DuPont and Owens Illinois.  As a
result, he developed pulmonary asbestosis and died on Sept. 20,
2010, according to the complaint.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek exemplary and punitive
damages, plus damages and court costs.  J. Keith Hyde, Esq.,
D'Juana Parks, Esq., and Darren Brown, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont will be representing them.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B190-781.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Three Asbestos Cases Filed in St. Clair County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three asbestos-related lawsuits have been added to the growing
list of cases in the asbestos docket of St. Clair County, Ill.,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Raymond Paskauskas of Illinois, Raymond R. Ridley and Leon and
Catherine Zbigniewicz filed three separate lawsuits in St. Clair
County Circuit Court.

Mr. Paskauska is represented by Dave Cates, Esq., of Cates Law
Firm in Swansea, and Erik Karst, Esq., and J. Kyle Beale, Esq., of
Karst and von Oiste in Houston.  Mr. Ridley and the Zbigniewiczes
are represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

In his complaint filed Aug. 23, 2011, Mr. Paskauskas alleges 58
defendant companies caused his recently deceased father, Joseph
Paskauskas, to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the complaint, Joseph Paskauskas worked as a machine
repairman at Pullman Standard from 1947 until 1954, as a machine
repairman at Continental Foundry in Chicago from 1951 until 1953,
as a machine repairman at General Motors Fisher Body from 1950
until 1951 and from 1954 until 1956, as a machine repairman at
Ford Motor Company from 1956 until 1986 and as a shade tree
mechanic from the 1950s until 1980.

In his complaint filed on Aug. 26, 2011, Mr. Ridley claims 28
defendant companies caused him to develop lung cancer after he was
exposed to asbestos fibers throughout his career as a tankman in
the U.S. Army from 1960 until 1963, as a laborer at General Motors
from 1970 until 1975 and as a carpenter, demolition worker, iron
worker, electrician, asbestos abatement and laborer from 1975
until 2004.

According to the Zbigniewiczes' complaint filed on Sept. 6, 2011,
Mr. Zbigniewicz developed lung cancer after his work as an
equipment mechanic in the U.S. Air Force from 1952 until 1972, as
a laborer from 1972 until 1974, as a laborer at Portage Power
Plant from 1973 until 1974, as a laborer at Kenosha Power Plant in
1974, as a laborer from 1974 until 1977 and as a maintenance
mechanic from 1980 until 1995.

In his nine-count complaint, Mr. Paskauskas seeks economic damages
of more than US$200,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more
than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants
and a judgment of more than US$50,000.

In his five-count complaint, Mr. Ridley seeks a judgment of more
than US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$100,000, plus
costs and other relief the court deems just.

In their three-count complaint, the Zbigniewiczes seek a judgment
of more than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more
than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromley v. Conrail, American Premier Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert H. Bromley, on Aug. 15, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against Consolidated Rail Corporation and American Premier
Underwriters in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In his complaint, Mr. Bromley alleges he worked as a trainman,
flagman, brakeman and conductor for Consolidated Rail Corporation
from 1952 until 1995.  According to the suit, throughout his
career, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers, silica dust
and coal dust.

In his three-count complaint, Mr. Bromley seeks a judgment of more
than US$25,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

William P. Gavin, Esq., of Gavin Law Firm in Belleville will be
representing Mr. Bromley in St. Clair County Circuit Court Case
No. 11-L-459.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquests Rule on Carriageworks Workers' Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inquests in York, England, heard that the deaths of two former
York Carriageworks employees -- Edward Horsman and Harold Abbott
-- were related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Press
reports.

Mr. Horsman and Mr. Abbott contracted mesothelioma after being
repeatedly exposed to the deadly dust at the factory.

Another man, Derek Longley, who died of the same disease, was
thought to have breathed in asbestos during his work as a plumber.

The York inquests were told that the 78-year-old Mr. Horsman
started work as an apprentice at the works in Holgate Road in 1947
and worked there for almost four decades.  He was reasonably fit
and healthy until he fell ill with mesothelioma last autumn.
Before he died, he told solicitors Irwin Mitchell how he often
worked in a dusty environment in different parts of the factory
with no protective clothing or face mask.

The 63-year-old Mr. Abbott started work as an apprentice fitter in
1962 and worked there until 1993.  He also told Irwin Mitchell in
a statement before he died that he was exposed to asbestos dust on
a daily basis.

The 68-year-old Mr. Longley was a retired plumber who had been fit
and healthy until he developed a pain in his back in 2010 and
mesothelioma was diagnosed.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded verdicts in all three cases
that each man died of the industrial disease mesothelioma.  The
inquests were held just weeks after hearings were held into the
asbestos-related deaths of four other people in York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation at Wheeling Sites to Cost $199,400
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement at certain locations in Wheeling, W.Va., is
estimated to cost US$199,400, The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-
Register reports.

However, the Wheeler City Council must first hear public comment
and vote on two related ordinances before taking action toward
demolishing city-owned buildings in the 1100 block of Main and
Market streets.

An ordinance, if passed, will authorize asbestos abatements of the
buildings by Astar Abatement of Charleston, Buildings include the
former G.C. Murphy, Rite Aid and Graham's buildings and the River
City Dance Works building.  The abatements will cost US$199,400.

If the ordinance passes, then the mayor will be more likely to
meet the demolition deadline of Dec. 31, 2011 he announced in his
State of the City address in February 2011.

Mayor Andy McKenzie said the city will start the demolition
bidding process while abatements are under way, and the approval
process by council for demolition will begin once abatements are
complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $43MM Settlement Deal OK'd for Montana Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montana District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock, on Sept. 16, 2011,
approved a US$43 million settlement for asbestos victims in Libby,
Mont., the Los Angeles Times reports.

Judge Sherlock approved the settlement in the 10-year-old series
of about 200 asbestos lawsuits against the state.  It calls for
payments ranging from US$500 to more than US$50,000, according to
the Associated Press and the Daily Inter Lake newspaper, which
first reported the settlement.

Attorneys will receive about US$14 million of the money.
Distribution of the rest is likely to be delayed while authorities
determine how much the federal government is first entitled to on
behalf of those who received Medicare payments for medical
treatment.

Other cases and potential settlements are still pending.

Already, the federal cleanup of Libby and neighboring Troy has
cost more than US$370 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merlin Olsen's Heirs Settle Wrongful Death Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actor and Hall of Fame football player Merlin Olsen's family has
settled a lawsuit with several asbestos companies that they say
caused the mesothelioma Mr. Olsen contracted late in life, the
Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for Mr. Olsen's wife and three children filed a notice
of settlement on Sept. 14, 2011 in Los Angeles without providing
further details.

A member of the Los Angeles Rams' "Fearsome Foursome" in the
1960s, Mr. Olsen died in March 2010 after battling mesothelioma.
He had claimed the cancer of the lung lining was caused by
exposure to asbestos products at construction sites he worked on
as a youth.  The settlement covers 10 companies that manufactured
or used the products.

Mr. Olsen later appeared in the TV series "Little House on the
Prairie" as well as commercials and NFL broadcasts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kirkby Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest was told that the death of a certain 73-year-old Mr.
Seagrave, a welding technician from Kirky, England, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, Chad.co.uk reports.

Mr. Seagrave had said in a statement in November 2010 that he came
into contact with asbestos while working at Nottingham Trent
Polytechnic through his protective gloves and the bricks in a kiln
which also contained asbestos.

No post-mortem was performed on Mr. Seagrave because he was
diagnosed with the disease before he died.  He passed away at his
home on Abbey Road, Kirkby, on Sept. 10, 2010.

Nottinghamshire coroner Mairin Casey recorded a verdict of death
by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crewe Rail Worker Awarded Payout for Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Greenwood, an 84-year-old Crewe Railways Works employee,
has received a substantial sum in asbestos compensation for his
asbestos-related injuries, the Crewe Chronicle reports.

Mr. Greenwood worked as an apprentice fitter and turner and then
as a qualified fitter.  He was exposed to asbestos daily but was
never warned about the dangers or provided with adequate
protective equipment.

Mr. Greenwood was diagnosed with asbestosis in May 2010 after
suffering from breathing difficulties.  Following his diagnosis
his trade union, Unite, instructed national asbestos claims
experts Thompsons Solicitors to pursue a claim for compensation.

Thompsons settled the claim out of court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Hazard Found at Merimbula, NSW Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bega Valley Shire Council in Merimbula, New South Wales,
Australia, has stopped the sale of reprocessed garden mulch, after
the discovery of potentially contaminated material, ABC News
reports.

The alarm was raised after a resident found fiber cement within
mulch collected from the Merimbula Recycling and Waste depot.
Staff immediately stopped selling the mulch and engaged a
hygienist to inspect the stockpiles.  It has now been revealed the
material potentially contains bonded asbestos.

The Council says the level of contamination is slight but it is
treating the matter with urgency.

Australian Government departments like WorkCover and New South
Wales Health have been notified, and investigations are underway.

People who have purchased mulch from any of the Council's waste
facilities since March 2011 have been urged join a new register,
so a thorough assessment can be made.

The Council says bonded asbestos does not pose an appreciable risk
to health and safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Chester Local's Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest was told that the death of 68-year-old George Guest, of
Chester, Cheshire, England, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Chester Chronicle reports.

Mr. Guest died at the Countess of Chester Hospital in July 2010.
The inquest heard how he had spent almost four years working for a
construction company, building railway carriages, after leaving
school in 1957 as a teenager in his home town of Sheffield.

Mr. Guest helped to construct carriages that contained both spray
and sheet forms of asbestos, and was exposed to an unventilated
atmosphere where pieces of insulation were often left lying around
his workspace.  He later joined the Army and then worked as a
heavy goods vehicle driver after moving to Chester where his wife
Kathleen's family lived.  He was diagnosed in 2009 with
mesothelioma.

Recording a verdict of death due to the industrial disease,
Cheshire coroner Nicolas Rheinberg said, "Mr. Guest would have
inhaled copious amounts of asbestos fibers and this was almost
certainly the cause of mesothelioma, even though it was more than
50 years ago."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Formac Electronics Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Formac Electronics Ltd, a Bath, England-based company, has been
fined after 49-year-old builder Jonathan Arnold was exposed to
high levels of asbestos, according to Health and Safety Executive
press release dated Sept. 13, 2011.

Mr. Arnold, of Castle Cary, Somerset, England, was fitting
pipework for a new central heating system at Oxford House, in
Combe Down, Bath when he was exposed to high levels of blue
asbestos (crocidolite).

In a prosecution brought by the HSE against the building's owners,
Formac Electronics Ltd, Bath Magistrates' Court heard the airborne
substance was disturbed and spread within the building during
refurbishment.

The court was told that, for a five-hour period on Aug. 4, 2010,
Mr. Arnold was estimated to have been exposed to a high
concentration of airborne asbestos fibers many times over the
control limit.

HSE investigated the incident and found Formac Electronics Ltd had
failed to carry out a refurbishment and demolition survey, to
establish the presence and condition of asbestos in the building.

Formac also failed to provide suitable information to contractors
prior to the start of the refurbishment works which resulted in
uncontrolled disturbance of the loose fill blue asbestos located
within the fabric of the building.

When an HSE Specialist Inspector visited Oxford House under
controlled conditions, loose fill blue asbestos insulation
material could be clearly seen in the area where Mr. Arnold had
spent a long time on his hands and knees fitting pipework on the
Aug. 3-4, 2010.

HSE inspector Helena Tinton said, "Asbestos is a potent carcinogen
and is especially common in buildings constructed between 1950 and
1980.  As Oxford House was built in the 1960s, Formac Electronics
Ltd should have been aware of the risk of asbestos being present
in the building and should have carried out an appropriate level
of investigation to prevent any workers from being exposed to the
substance.

"The damage to Mr. Arnold's health after being exposed to such a
high concentration of this potent carcinogen could be very serious
and he now has to wait to find out what the long-term effects of
this exposure will be."

Formac Electronics Ltd, of Oxford House, Combe Down, Bath,
admitted breaching Regulation 10 of the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2007 and was fined GBP600 with GBP6,013.45
in costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Motion Granted in Wingfield Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
motions filed by John Crane, Inc. and other moving defendants in
an asbestos case filed by Emmett Wingfield.

The case, which is part of In re Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation (No. VI), is styled Emmett Wingfield v. Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, et al.

U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Reuter entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 09-75119 on June 3, 2011.

Upon consideration of the Motion to Exclude the Deposition of
Emmett Wingfield, III filed by John Crane, Inc. and joined by
Warren Pumps, Inc., General Electric Co., Georgia Pacific
Corporation and Crane Co., (John Crane, Inc., Warren Pumps, Inc.,
General Electric Co., Georgia Pacific Corporation and Crane Co.
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Moving Defendants")
and Mr. Wingfield's response thereto, it was hereby ordered that
the motion is granted with respect to the Moving Defendants.

Mr. Wingfield filed an action in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Ga., on July 3, 2003, alleging injuries to Mr. Wingfield
caused by his occupational exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured, sold and/or supplied by the various
defendants in this case.

Mr. Wingfield was deposed on July 25 and Aug. 1, 2003.  The
deposition on July 25, 2003 was a videotaped, direct examination
conducted by Mr. Wingfield's counsel.  This deposition was taken
prior to a discovery deposition.  At the end of the videotaped
deposition, defense counsel objected to the use of the videotaped
deposition at trial unless and until the defendants conducted a
cross-examination of Mr. Wingfield through a discovery deposition
as well as a videotaped cross-examination.

A partial discovery deposition was conducted on Aug. 1, 2003, but,
due to Mr. Wingfield's deteriorating condition, it was adjourned
before the defendants completed the cross-examination.  Mr.
Wingfield passed away on Aug. 4, 2003.

The Moving Defendants asserted that Mr. Wingfield's videotaped
deposition testimony should be excluded because it is inadmissible
hearsay.

Accordingly, the Motion to Exclude the Deposition of Mr. Wingfield
filed by John Crane, Inc., and joined by the Moving Defendants was
granted with respect to the Moving Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. District Court Issues Ruling in Rufty Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, issued
various ruling in a case involving asbestos styled Janet R. Rufty,
Plaintiff v. Wallace and Graham, P.A., Defendant.

U.S. Magistrates Judge Wallace W. Dixon entered judgment in Case
No. 1:11CV12 on June 7, 2011.

Kirk J. Angel, Esq., of The Angel Law Firm, PLLC, in Harrisburg,
N.C., represented Janet R. Rufty.

Laura J. Wetsch, Esq., of Winslow Wetsch, PLLC, in Raleigh, N.C.,
represented Wallace and Graham, P.A.

On Jan. 11, 2011, Ms. Rufty, a former Settlements Coordinator for
the law firm of Wallace and Graham, P.A., sued Wallace, alleging
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. s 2000e-3, and retaliation in violation of North
Carolina public policy under the North Carolina Equal Employment
Practices Act.

On March, 14, 2011, Wallace filed an answer and a motion to
dismiss.  In addition, on March 22, 2011, Wallace filed a motion
to stay discovery.  On April 27, 2011, Ms. Rufty filed a response
in opposition to Wallace's motion to dismiss, in which Ms. Rufty
consented to dismissal of the state law retaliation claim.

Ms. Rufty worked for Wallace in July 2001 until the time of her
termination.  She was employed as a Settlements Coordinator for
Wallace, with the primary duty of processing asbestos claims
involving defendants who had previously manufactured asbestos
products.  In addition to her primary work, Ms. Rufty was assigned
to work on "Beaty Documents" and Product Identification research.
She alleged that at least one year before her termination she was
the sole employee working on the PID research.

In the year before her termination, Ms. Rufty's immediate
supervisor Mark Jennings informed her that her position was to be
broken into two separate positions, with one position focusing
primarily on PID research.  She told Mr. Jennings she would be
interested in the PID position.

On Nov. 24, 2009, Ms. Rufty met with a firm partner, Mona Lisa
Wallace, in which Ms. Wallace advised Ms. Rufty that the firm was
planning on hiring a person to perform PID research work.  Ms.
Rufty informed Ms. Wallace of her interest in the position.

In response to Ms. Wallace's remark, and after hearing a rumor
that the PID position had been filled by a man, Ms. Rufty sent an
email to Bill Graham, a firm partner and her second supervisor,
asking if she could have a meeting with him and Ms. Wallace to
discuss Ms. Wallace's statement.  Mr. Graham refused to meet her.

Three days after Ms. Rufty sent the email to Mr. Graham, the
Office Manager Yvette Toledo gave Ms. Rufty a Performance
Correction Notice written by Ms. Wallace and threatening Ms. Rufty
with termination.

After receiving the Performance Correction Notice, Ms. Rufty
attempted to meet with Mr. Graham to discuss the Notice, her
intent to report it to the EEOC, and also to discuss the sex bias
comment by Ms. Wallace and the discriminatory hiring process of
the firm.  Ms. Rufty asserted that later that day she was called
into a meeting with Mr. Jennings and Ms. Toledo and was informed
that she was being terminated for a rude email sent to Mr. Graham.

Ms. Rufty alleged that she was not rude in her e-mail to Mr.
Graham and that she did not violate any of Wallace's policies.

On or about Dec. 29, 2009, Ms. Rufty filed a gender discrimination
and retaliation charge against Wallace with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  On Oct. 14, 2010, the
EEOC issued Ms. Rufty a Notice of Right to Sue, and Ms. Rufty
filed this action within 90 days.

It was recommended that the court dismiss Ms. Rufty's state law
retaliation claim, as the motion is unopposed as to that claim.
Furthermore, it was recommended that the court deny Wallace's
motion to dismiss Ms. Rufty's Title VII retaliation claim.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be denied in part and
granted in part.  Finally, the motion to stay discovery was
denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Greene's Dismissal Bid Ok'd in Bulanda Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted Green, Tweed, & Company's motion for dismissal
in an asbestos case filed by Margaret A. Bulanda.

The case is styled Margaret A. Bulanda, individually and as
Special Administrator of the Estate of John R. Oliphant, Sr.,
Deceased, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton Company, a corporation, CBS
Corporation, a corporation, Greene, Tweed & Co., a corporation,
John J. Moroney & Company, a corporation, Midwest Generation Eme,
L.L.C., a corporation, Paul J. Krez Company, a corporation, Rapid
American Corporation, a corporation, & Texaco, Inc., a
corporation, Defendants.

District Judge Amy J. St. Eve entered judgment in Case No. 11 C
1682 on June 7, 2011.

Ms. Bulanda, acting individually as special administrator on
behalf of the estate of John R. Oliphant, Sr., had brought a
negligence and wrongful-death action against a number of
corporations, which include Defendant Greene, Tweed, & Company.

Ms. Bulanda contended that Defendants negligently caused Mr.
Oliphant to work with, and be exposed to, asbestos through their
products and premises.  She alleged that Greene was liable for
negligence under a products-liability theory and for wrongful
death.

Greene had filed a motion to dismiss.  Greene further submitted
that, because the Complaint failed to explain how Greene's
products contributed to, or caused, Mr. Oliphant's injuries and
subsequent death, it did not state a products-liability claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Hunter Region Construction Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU), on Sept. 7,
2011, said that work has been halted on the coal loader expansion
site after asbestos was found in recycled building material
throughout a construction site at Newcastle in the Hunter region
in New South Wales, Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

AMWU organizer Daniel Wallace said, "When it comes to asbestos
there is no safe level of exposure, and we'll be making sure the
risk to workers is completely eliminated.

"The material has been on site for three months, so there are real
concerns about the level of exposure workers have faced during
this time through airborne dust."

Tests are being carried out on the site, which is run by Newcastle
Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG), after recycled aggregate
concrete being used for surfacing tested positive for asbestos.

Mr. Wallace said contractors had used a cheaper product made of
recycled construction material rather than standard river stones.

About 200 employees work on the construction site.

The Industrial Relations Commission is looking into the issue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Russell Claim v. 62 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert and Nina Jean Russell, a couple from Nettie, W.Va., on
Aug. 22, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 62 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
reports.

According to the complaint, on May 18, 2011, Mr. Russell was
diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 80.  He claims he was
exposed to asbestos during his career as an automotive mechanic,
service manager and electrician from 1953 until 1977.

The Russells seek a jury trial to resolve all issues.  They are
being represented by James M. Barber, Esq., and Victoria Antion,
Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-1442 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mark Lanier to Address Fla. Asbestos Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noted trial attorney Mark Lanier, Esq., founder of The Lanier Law
Firm, is presenting the keynote address on the first day of the
14th Annual National Asbestos Litigation Conference set for Oct.
3-4, 2011 in Amelia Island, Fla., according to a press release
dated Sept. 21, 2011 by The Lanier Law Firm.

The conference, which is taking place at the Ritz-Carlton hotel,
will include two days of presentations and panel discussions
featuring dozens of the country's leading asbestos lawyers and
other professionals.

The Lanier Law Firm's Trey Jones of Los Angeles will participate
in a panel conference on the changing strategies and approaches to
asbestos settlements.

Among the topics Mr. Jones plans to cover is how the mix of
asbestos cases and range of settlements have changed, factors
driving settlements, new programs in certain jurisdictions and the
pros and cons of judicial intervention.

The Lanier Law Firm's Toxic Exposure and Asbestos practice is one
of the largest in the country.  The firm also maintains the
website www.NationalMesotheliomaLawyer.com, which offers
information and advice on the everyday dangers of asbestos
exposure.

For more information, please contact J.D. Cargill at 713-659-5200.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J.P. Cullen Fined $25T for Environmental Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock County Circuit Court Judge Michael R. Fitzpatrick, on
Sept. 20, 2011, ordered judgment against J.P. Cullen & Sons, Inc.,
of Janesville, Wis., requiring it to pay US$25,000 in forfeitures,
mandatory court costs and surcharges to the Rock County Clerk of
Courts for a series of asbestos violations, according to a press
release dated Sept. 20, 2011 by the Office of Wisconsin Attorney
General J.B. Van Hollen.

According to the civil complaint, J.P. Cullen bid on and won the
general contract let by the City of Janesville to renovate the
interior of its public building located at 18 North Jackson in the
City.

The City had identified in its plans and specifications the
presence of asbestos in pipe elbows and mastic but not in ceiling
materials.  J.P. Cullen did not inspect the ceiling for asbestos
prior to its demolition.

During the 2005 renovation, J.P. Cullen employees demolished a
plaster ceiling on the first floor of the Municipal Building,
which was subsequently found to contain asbestos.

The complaint alleges that the demolition of the asbestos-
containing ceiling violated Wisconsin law because it had not been
thoroughly inspected prior to its demolition and, as a
consequence, J.P. Cullen failed to notify the DNR at least 10
working days prior to commencement of its renovation activity.

In addition, various required asbestos handling procedures and
supervision requirements were not followed during the removal of
the ceiling. Once the asbestos debris was discovered, renovation
stopped and the site was properly abated.

Assistant Attorney General Steven Tinker represented the State.

Copies of the Judgment and the Stipulation and Order for Judgment
are available at http://is.gd/HHV8hdand http://is.gd/TYUY6x


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Parkfairfax Homes Could Cost $14T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos from homes throughout Parkfairfax, Va.,
could cost property owners around US$14,000, the Alexandria Times
reports.

However, Board of Directors President Barbary Turpyn says a final
decision is months away.  The board established a working group to
look at the longstanding asbestos problem in April 2011, something
they have done periodically.

An option under consideration is the total removal of asbestos in
the neighborhood, built in the 1940s, which could cost property
owners up to US$14,000.

Ms. Turpyn said that while asbestos removal remains on the table,
there are other alternatives, including postponing any action in
the immediate future.  She added that there won't be any board
decision until the work group finishes their efforts and public
hearings are held.

Though the Board formed the asbestos work group roughly around the
same time a Virginia Occupational Safety and Health complaint was
filed for employees ignoring proper procedures when working around
the hazardous material, the two are not connected, Ms. Turpyn
said.

According to Ms. Turpyn, the unit owners association paid a state
levied fine of about US$600 and asked their property management
company to begin following prior established safety guidelines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Jury Awards $20MM Compensation to Garrison
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Broward County, Fla., awarded US$20,646,000 to Charles
Garrison and his wife, Cynthia, on Sept. 16, 2011, in a Broward
County courtroom, according to a press release dated Sept. 20,
2011 by The Ferraro Law Firm.

The 61-year-old Mr. Garrison was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2008.  The Garrisons have been married for more than 33 years and
have two daughters.

Juan Bauta, Esq., of The Ferraro Law Firm in Miami tried the case
against defendant Union Carbide Corp., and argued that Mr.
Garrison's exposure to Georgia Pacific's joint compound, which
contained Union Carbide asbestos between 1974 and 1975 caused his
terminal cancer.

Mr. Garrison never saw any warning labels on the buckets of
Georgia Pacific joint compound and never knew it contained
asbestos.

Mr. Bauta said, "It is remarkable to me that Union Carbide did not
attempt to try to settle this case rather than put the Garrison's
through more than two weeks of intense trial."

Mr. Bauta, lead counsel, was assisted by attorney Case Dam, Esq.,
also of The Ferraro Law Firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Burke Elementary School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Contractors, while removing a non-functioning chimney at Burke
Elementary School in Massachusetts, uncovered asbestos, leading
interim Superintendent Herb Levine to close school for a day in
order to avoid exposure to both staff and students,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The chimney was removed as part of a project to update the Burke
Elementary School's boiler system.  Upon initial testing,
officials knew the boiler room contained asbestos but the exhaust
vent leading from the boiler to the chimney showed no signs of
asbestos, according to Jesse Roman of The Salem News.

Due to false results during preliminary tests, contractors were
unprepared when they found asbestos-like particulars during the
initial demolition of the chimney.  Precautions were taken
immediately to quarantine the unknown substance, which tests later
confirmed was asbestos.

Asbestos removal firms were able to work late into the night in
order to remove the asbestos in time for school to reconvene the
next day.

The company worked under a special plastic tent to make certain
the asbestos remained contained.  The crew was able to get the job
done over night.

After air tests, both inside and outside, the school confirmed the
asbestos had been taken care of and was able to reopen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Donington Worker's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby Coroner's Court heard that the death of David
Tivey, a 73-year-old former power station worker who had worked at
the Castle Donington plant, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.

In a post-mortem examination after his death in June 2011, Mr.
Tivey, of Fairfield Crescent, Long Eaton, England, was found to
have pleural plaques.

During the inquest, assistant deputy coroner Paul McCandless said
that Mr. Tivey's death had been "brought about by exposure to much
more than background levels of asbestos."

The inquest heard that Mr. Tivey had worked his way up through the
ranks at Castle Donington power station, which closed in 1994.  He
became a charge hand there and worked in that position until he
retired.

Dr. Andrew Hitchcock, a consultant pathologist at the Royal Derby
Hospital, where Mr. Tivey died, said that the cause of death was
bronchial pneumonia -- a lung disease caused by pulmonary
asbestosis, which leads to the scarring of the lungs after
exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Surman's Family Files Action v. Coventry Dunlop
----------------------------------------------------------------
The relatives of Maxmillian Surman, an aircraft employee who
worked for Dunlop in Coventry, England, are suing the Company for
Mr. Surman's exposure and subsequent death to exposure to
asbestos, the Coventry Telegraph reports.

Mr. Surman, who had lived in Nuneaton, died from mesothelioma in
2009.  Shortly before his death, he made an appeal for former
colleagues to come forward to help him show he was exposed to
asbestos at Dunlop in Holbrooks.

Thanks to that appeal in the Telegraph, Mr. Surman's relatives say
they have now gathered enough evidence to lodge a claim for
compensation in the High Court.  The writ was submitted by Alida
Coates, of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, who is representing the
family.

Ms. Coates said she was now waiting for a formal response from
Dunlop and hoped the firm would "do the right thing" and conclude
matters quickly so Mr. Surman's family could grieve without the
need for a long, drawn out court case.

Mr. Surman worked at Dunlop as a bench-hand, or fraser, from 1961-
1970 and then again from 1974-1994.  The writ claims he was
exposed to asbestos when maintenance was carried out on the
factory's corrugated asbestos roof during normal working hours,
causing debris to rain down around his bench.

When the roof was replaced in the 1980s plastic sheets were put up
to catch the asbestos and Mr. Surman was given a cloth mask to
protect him, but in the writ his solicitors claim this was
ineffective.

Mr. Surman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2008 after he
developed a painful cough and began to find breathing difficult.

At the time of his appeal in May 2009, Mr. Surman told the
Telegraph he was determined to remain positive and was busy
organizing his golden anniversary celebrations with his wife Iris.
He passed away three months later, before the big day.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Says Boral Asbestos Risk "Negligible"
---------------------------------------------------------------
WorkSafe ACT says the risk of exposure to asbestos at Boral
Plasterboard Trade Centre in Canberra, Australia, is negligible,
ABC News reports.

Air sampling tests have not found any asbestos in the air, but
dust and sample monitoring has detected the material.  Work Safety
Commissioner Mark McCabe says workers will be kept away from the
center while the material is removed.

WorkSafe ACT has been working with Boral over the past few months
to address concerns that crumbling asbestos walls in the building
were placing workers at risk of exposure.

Mr. McCabe says plasterboard was being stacked against the walls,
and forklifts were hitting the structure, breaking up the
sheeting.  He says bollards have since been put in place to
protect the walls, but ongoing tests have found some loose
asbestos.

Mr. McCabe says Boral is cooperating fully with WorkSafe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coweta Seeks Cleanup Bids for Ishman Buildings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coweta County, Ga., seeks more bids for the removal of asbestos
from structures at 64 Ishman Ballard Road, the Times-Herald
reports.

Taking action to clean up the property, which has been a dump site
for several years, was on the agenda at the Sept. 8, 2011 meeting
of the Coweta County Board of Commissioners.

The county received a quote of just under US$14,000 for removal of
the asbestos, and US$10,000 for demolition of the four structures,
said County Administrator Theron Gay.

The demolition quote does not include the "tipping fees" at the
landfill, which is owned and operated by Coweta County.

Disposal fees are expected to run US$20,000 to US$30,000.  That
cost would be added to the lien that would be placed on the
property, but it would not necessarily be a direct cost to the
county.

Mr. Gay said he has discussed the issue with the building
department.  The county has already gone through the "unsafe
building" process.

The 1.9-acre property is owned by several heirs to an estate, and
some have been hard to contact.  However, the building department
has met with some of them.

The asbestos abatement and demolition quotes were from the same
company that did the asbestos survey.

After substantial discussion of the issue, Commissioner Al Smith,
who has spearheaded the drive to clean up the site, made a motion
to move forward with the asbestos removal.  The motion was
seconded by Bob Blackburn.

Commission Chairman Rodney Brooks then asked how many bids the
county got for the removal.  There was just the one, from the
company that did the testing, based upon their study, Mr. Gay
said.

Mr. Gay said he might have bids by the next commission meeting, to
be held on Sept. 30, 2011, but that will likely be pushing it a
bit close.  The bids could definitely be in by Oct. 4, 2011, when
the commissioners could then review the bids and take action.

Taxes have not been paid on the property for several years.
According to Coweta tax records, the last payment was in 2006, for
the 2005 taxes.  The county could seize the property for back
taxes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bradford Man's Death Related to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, held Sept. 6,
2011, heard that the death of Graham Butterfield, a teacher, was
related to exposure to asbestos, Telegraph & Argus reports.

Mr. Butterfield, who died at the age of 64 in January 2011 at
Marie Curie Hospice, had been fit and healthy until the summer of
2009 when he got a cough and he went on to experience
breathlessness, sweating and weight loss which resulted in
extensive investigations revealing malignant mesothelioma.

At the inquest, Acting Bradford Coroner Professor Paul Marks
recorded a verdict that Mr. Butterfield had died of an industrial
disease contracted while he worked at various schools in Bradford.

Mr. Butterfield had worked as a geography teacher at Hutton Middle
School and Tong Comprehensive School between 1967 and 1996, and
while at Hutton had helped with the cabling of computers which
involved being in the basement and service tunnels, exposing him
to asbestos lagging dust.


                           *********

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  * * *