---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 170
  
                           Headlines

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Suits Over Shipping Ops Dismissed Aug. 18
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Mulls Class Action Suit v. Defense Dept.
BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
CAPITAL GROWTH: Class Opt-Out Notices Due by Sept. 26, 2009
CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Awards in "Beattie" Remain Undetermined

CENTURYTEL INC: Retiree Benefit Program Claims v. Embarq Pending
CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Faces Suit by FPU Shareholders Over Merger
CINCINNATI FINANCIAL: Still Faces State Suits for Reimbursements
CITIZENS INC: Counsel Seeks to Recertify Class in "Daccach" Suit
CITIZENS INC: Unit Defending "Todd" Suit for Medical Expenses

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Approved Aug. 3
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in ERISA Lawsuit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Rental Unit Continues to Defend LDW Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Books $45 Mil. Charge to Settle Suit

INTERNATIONAL SHIPHOLDING: Stockholders' Suit Dismissed on May 5
JDS UNIPHASE: Finalizing Settlement in Consolidated ERISA Suit
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: $95 Mil. Appeal Bond Requirement Modified
OCLARO INC: Avanex Stockholders' Claims Dismissed on August 17
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Confirms Receipt of Class Action Lawsuit

POMEROY IT: To Defend Claims in Stockholders' Suit Over Merger

                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Reverses Congoleum Dismissal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premix-Marbletite Faces Seven Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 557 Claims at June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle Facing Pending Injury Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. NL Ind.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Party to 805 Lawsuits (7,528 Claims)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Records $1.19B Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIHL Reserves $19.5M for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Still Named a "Premises Defendant"

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Douglas Emmett Has Hazard in 23 Properties
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Faces 31,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Has $47M for CCR Cases Through June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Has 180 Cases in Md. at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Aurora Pump Summary Judgment Bid

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Still Faces Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,028 Abex Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records $805Mil Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records $180M Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,670 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, 7 Units Facing Lawsuits in 33 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,219 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $342.5M Losses, LAE at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Digital Realty Cites $1.5Mil ARO at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll Units Still Face Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $1.159Bil Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.2M Settled Liability

                           *********

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Suits Over Shipping Ops Dismissed Aug. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class-action complaint against Alexander &
Baldwin, Inc., and its main subsidiary, Matson Navigation Co.,
Inc., over their domestic shipping carrier operations was
dismissed on Aug. 18, 2009.

The company and Matson were named as defendants in civil
lawsuits purporting to be class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the antitrust laws and seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.  

As of Jan. 8, 2009, the company was aware of 26 such lawsuits.  
All of the lawsuits have been or will be transferred and
consolidated into a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington in Seattle purporting to be a
class-action case.

Another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and
Guam trades, Horizon Lines, Inc., has also been named as a
defendant in the consolidated civil lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Feb. 2, 2009.

The company and Matson filed their motion to dismiss the
complaint on March 20, 2009.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The court granted plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint within thirty days to allege claims
consistent with the court's Order.  If the plaintiffs file an
amended complaint, the company and Matson will continue to
vigorously defend themselves in this lawsuit, according to the
company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Aug. 21, 2009.

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. -- http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/--  
is a diversified corporation with most of its operations
centered in Hawaii.  The business industries of the company
constitute transportation, real estate and agribusiness.  The
Company's ocean transportation operations, related shore side
operations in Hawaii, related intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services are conducted by its wholly owned subsidiary,
Matson Navigation Company, Inc. and two Matson subsidiaries.
Its property development and agribusiness operations are
conducted by A&B and certain other subsidiaries of A&B.


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Mulls Class Action Suit v. Defense Dept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The American Federation of Government Employees, the nation's
largest federal employees union, today said it is angered,
frustrated, and perplexed that the Defense Business Board (DBB)
determined that the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
created under the Bush administration warrants further
consideration.

In a letter to the review board, AFGE National President John
Gage wrote, "We believe that the DBB got the diagnosis right:
they found NSPS to be a sick system with nothing positive and a
great many things negative about it.  It is unconscionable that
after acknowledging its fatal flaws the Task Group would
recommend anything other than completely terminating the system."

The Task Group found that the system was fundamentally flawed,
mirroring many of the assertions made by AFGE about the systems
lack of transparency and inherent discrimination.  However,
rather than calling for its full termination, the Task Group
recommended that it be reconstructed from scratch.

While most of the 200,000 civilian defense employees the union
represents are immune from the system, thanks to congressional
action last year, NSPS continues to undercut the ability of the
DoD employees forced to work under it.  "A steady stream of DoD
managers and supervisors have told us that NSPS is unfair,
dishonest and ineffective," Mr. Gage said.  "Furthermore, we know
that those under the system suffer from low morale and lower
productivity.

"Congress already put several nails into the coffin of NSPS. We
had hoped the Obama administration would make quick work of
restoring the civil service system and put an end to this costly
albatross," Mr. Gage added.  "We wonder why DoD isn't holding
those responsible for NSPS accountable and terminating them for
this colossal failure.

"NSPS was the brainchild of the right-wing neocons at the
Heritage Foundation.  It was advanced into law as a result of
some very misleading proposals submitted by former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which were designed to end employee
civil service rights and the right to collective bargaining," Mr.
Gage said.  "In 2008 Congress sent a clear message expressing
that NSPS was a wrongheaded system when it effectively restored
workplace rights and required DoD to keep bargaining unit members
out of NSPS.

"This system has cost millions of dollars.  It does not make
sense to reinvent the wheel.  The people and the resources needed
to support our armed services are too valuable," said Mr. Gage.

A study by AFGE of payout data provided by DoD has led the union
to believe that there is significant discrimination throughout
NSPS.  A May 2009 DoD internal evaluation found that, as a group,
employees making less than $60,000 had a net loss under NSPS,
while those making more, especially those making more than
$80,000, received the highest payouts. In essence, the employees
making the least were funding the raises of those making the
most. As a result of the inherent discriminatory nature of NSPS,
AFGE is considering moving forward with a possible class-action
lawsuit against DoD.

For more information on AFGE's fight against the National
Security Personnel System visit http://www.defenseworkers.org/

A full-text copy of the letter sent by AFGE to the Defense
Business Review Board is available at http://is.gd/2zT5G

The American Federation of Government Employees is the largest
federal employee union, representing 600,000 workers in the
federal government and the government of the District of
Columbia.


BRINKER INT'L: Labor Suit Ruling Remains Under High Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., is awaiting a decision from
California's highest court in a decertified class-action suit
related to meal and rest breaks.  

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed a
lawsuit against Brinker in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and
rest breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and
was certified as a class action in July 2006.

On July 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the
class action on all claims with prejudice.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted a writ to
review the decision of the Court of Appeal (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 27, 2008).

No further updates on the case were reported in the company's
Aug. 24, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2009.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com/-- is
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development,
and franchising of the Chili's Grill & Bar, Maggiano's Little
Italy, and On The Border Mexican Cantina restaurant concepts.


CAPITAL GROWTH: Class Opt-Out Notices Due by Sept. 26, 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24, 2009, the
parties obtained preliminary court approval of a proposed
settlement in Brehm, et al. v. Capital Growth Financial, LLC, et
al., Case No. 07-cv-254 (D. Neb.), and the Court certified a
Class on July 6, 2009, that includes all purchasers of American
Capital Corporation and Royal Palm Capital Group, Inc.,
securities between August 1, 2002, and May 5, 2006.  The Class
excludes the Defendants named in the suit.

These filings do not mean that any money necessarily will be
obtained for members of the Class, it means only that the final
outcome of the lawsuit will bind every Class member who does not
request exclusion.  There is also a pending partial settlement
with three of the named Defendants.  

The representative Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed
securities fraud by making materially false and misleading
statements and by fraudulently concealing or otherwise failing to
disclose or correct material facts in connection with the sale of
American Capital Corporation and Royal Palm Capital Group, Inc.
securities. Defendants deny any liability for the claims asserted
by the representative Plaintiffs.

The Court has tentatively set July 2010 as the trial date for
this action.

If you are a member of the Class identified above, you can obtain
a copy of the full Notice by sending your name and address to:

         Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq.
         David A. Yudelson, Esq.
         KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O.
         1125 South 103 Street, Suite 800
         Omaha, NE 68124

You can also request a copy of the Notice by calling the law firm
at (402) 390-9500.

If you fit within the definition of the Class and wish to remain
a member of the Class bringing the lawsuit, you do not have to do
anything at this time.  By electing to remain a member of the
Class, you will be bound by any judgment, favorable or not, or
share in any settlement which may be reached.  By sending your
name, address and telephone number to the address listed above,
you will be placed in a database to receive direct mail notice of
any judgment or settlement favorable to the Class.  

If you wish to communicate with co-counsel as your representative
in this lawsuit, you may do so by writing to any of these lawyers
representing the Class:

          Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq.  
          David A. Yudelson, Esq.
          KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O.
          1125 South 103 Street, Suite 800
          Omaha, NE 68124

             - or -

          James B. Cavanagh, Esq.
          LIEBEN, WHITTED, HOUGHTON,
            SLOWIACZEK & CAVANAGH, P.C., L.L.O.
          100 Scoular Building
          2027 Dodge Street
          Omaha, NE 68102

             - or -
  
          J. L. Spray, Esq.
          MATTSON, RICKETTS, DAVIES, STEWART & CALKINS
          134 South 13 Street, Suite 1200
          Lincoln, NE 68508-1901

If you wish to be excluded from the Class bringing the lawsuit,
you must request to be excluded and prepare a written statement
that includes your name, address and telephone number (for an
entity, include the name and title of the person submitting the
request), and whether you purchased the Securities. The written
statement must be sent by first-class mail, to the above address
and postmarked no later than September 26, 2009.  By electing to
be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any further
orders of the Court and you will not share in any settlement.


CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Awards in "Beattie" Remain Undetermined
----------------------------------------------------------------
The scope and amounts of damages awarded in the consumer class-
action lawsuit entitled Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc., Case
No. 02-cv-10277 (E.D. Mich.) (Lawson, J.), remain subject to
additional fact-finding and resolution, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The suit was filed by Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on Oct.
28, 2002, alleging that the company unjustly and unreasonably
billed customers for inside wire maintenance services.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive
relief under various legal theories on behalf of a purported
class of over two million customers in the company's telephone
markets.

On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class-
action suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions
the company used for these services during an approximately 18-
month period between Oct. 29, 2000, and May 2002 were legally
insufficient.  The company's appeal of this class certification
decision was denied.

Centurytel's preliminary analysis indicates that it billed less
than $10 million for inside wire maintenance services under the
billing descriptions and time periods specified in the District
Court ruling.  The Court's order does not specify the award of
damages, the scope and amounts of which, if any, remain subject
to additional fact-finding and resolution of what the company
believes are valid defenses to plaintiff's claims.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq.
          Boulahanis & Assoc.
          21905 Garrison Avenue
          Dearborn, MI 48124
          Phone: 313-277-2550
          Fax: 313-277-2550

              - and -

          Elwood S. Simon, Esq.
          Elwood S. Simon Assoc.
          355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Phone: 248-646-9730
          Fax: 248-258-2335
          E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer L. Frye, Esq.
          Dickinson Wright
          301 N . Liberty, Suite 500
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: 734-623-7075
          Fax: 734-623-1625
          E-mail: jfrye@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          David J. Houston, Esq.
          Dickinson Wright
          215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200
          Lansing, MI 48933-1888
          Phone: 517-371-1730
          E-mail: dhouston@dickinsonwright.com


CENTURYTEL INC: Retiree Benefit Program Claims v. Embarq Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class action retiree benefit program claims are pending against
Embarq or its subsidiaries, according to Centurytel, Inc.'s
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

On Jan. 27, 2009, EMBARQ stockholders approved the proposed
merger, and CenturyTel shareholders approved the issuance of
CenturyTel common stock to EMBARQ shareholders in connection with
the proposed merger.

No further details regarding the class action lawsuit are
disclosed in the company's latest Quarterly Report filed with the
SEC.

Monroe, La.-based CenturyTel, Inc., now known as CenturyLink --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is a leading provider of high-
quality voice, broadband and video services over its advanced
communications networks to consumers and businesses in 33 states.  
CenturyLink is an S&P 500 Company and expects to be listed in the
Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.  


CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES: Faces Suit by FPU Shareholders Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary,
CPK Pelican, Inc., are defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of Florida Public Utilities
shareholders to challenge the merger with FPU.

CPK is a Florida corporation formed for the purpose of engaging
in the merger with FPU.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, on
May 8, 2009.  Other named defendants in the suit are FPU, FPU's
Chief Executive Officer, and each member of FPU's Board of
Directors.  The complaint alleges that in pursuing the merger
FPU's Chief Executive Officer and members of FPU's Board of
Directors have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing by
failing to maximize value to FPU's shareholders in the merger and
by attempting to provide certain FPU insiders and directors with
preferential treatment in connection with their efforts to
complete the sale of FPU to Chesapeake through CPK.  The
complaint further alleges that FPU, Chesapeake and CPK have aided
and abetted such breaches.  The complaint seeks equitable
remedies only, primarily being an injunction against the
defendants consummating the merger, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
distributes, transmits, and markets natural gas.  The Company was
founded in 1859 and is headquartered in Dover, Del.


CINCINNATI FINANCIAL: Still Faces State Suits for Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corp. and its subsidiaries continue to face
legal actions, including putative state class-action lawsuits
seeking certification of a state or national class that allege,
among others, improper reimbursement of medical providers paid
under workers' compensation insurance policies and erroneous
coding of municipal tax locations

The company did not provide specific details regarding the
pending class action lawsuits in its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Cincinnati Financial Corp. -- http://www.cinfin.com/-- is
engaged in the business of marketing property casualty
insurance.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Cincinnati
Financial Corporation owned 100% of four subsidiaries: The
Cincinnati Insurance Company, CSU Producer Resources Inc., CFC
Investment Company and CinFin Capital Management Company.  The
Company operates in four segments: commercial lines property
casualty insurance, personal lines property casualty insurance,
life insurance and investments.  In addition to The Cincinnati
Insurance Company, the Company's standard market property
casualty insurance group includes two subsidiaries: The
Cincinnati Casualty Company and The Cincinnati Indemnity
Company.


CITIZENS INC: Counsel Seeks to Recertify Class in "Daccach" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's counsel in a decertified class-action lawsuit
filed by Fernando Hakim Daccach against Citizens Insurance Co.
of America, Citizens Inc., Harold E. Riley and Mark A. Oliver are
pressing for recertification of the class.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 6, 1999, in the Texas District
Court in Austin.  A class was certified by the trial court, and
later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third District of
Texas.

The suit alleges that certain life insurance policies that the
company made available by its primary life insurance subsidiary
to non-U.S. Residents, when combined with a policy feature that
allows policy dividends to be assigned to two non-U.S. Trusts
for the purpose of accumulating ownership of the company's Class
A common stock, along with allowing the policyholders to make
additional contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and
sales of securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered
dealers in violation of the registration provisions of the Texas
securities laws.  The remedy sought was rescission and return of
the insurance premium payments.

The company appealed the grant of class status to the Texas
Supreme Court, and oral arguments occurred on Oct. 21, 2004.

On March 2, 2007, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals' affirmation of the trial court's class certification
order, decertified the class, and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the Texas Supreme
Court's opinion.

As a result of the ruling, no class-action lawsuit is presently
certified, and the plaintiff's counsel is seeking to recertify
the class.  In order to recertify the class, the lead plaintiff
must establish that he is qualified to represent the purported
class and that the res judicata effect of a class action will
not have a deleterious effect on the putative class members.

The case is before the Texas District Court judge for an analysis
of evidence presented to determine if it warrants recertification
of a class, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home Service
Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


CITIZENS INC: Unit Defending "Todd" Suit for Medical Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Security Plan Life
Insurance Company, continues to defend a purported class action
suit filed on behalf of Lilac Todd.

On Nov. 8, 2005, SPLIC was named as a defendant in a suit styled
Lilac Todd vs. Security Plan Life Insurance Company, which
alleges that SPLIC failed to pay Ms. Todd's claim for medical
expenses arising out of the loss of one of her limbs.

On Dec. 20, 2007, a Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages
was filed pursuant to which the plaintiff has asserted class
action allegations.

The purported class is defined as all Louisiana insureds of SPLIC
whose policies contained an incontestability provision identical
or similar to Ms. Todd's policy, and whose claims were denied
within 10 years of the petition filing on the basis of illnesses,
injuries or diseases diagnosed or which occurred at any time
preceding the incontestability.

This matter is in the early stages of litigation relative to the
class allegations.

The Plaintiffs' counsel has not established how many, if any,
individuals are within the purported class, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home Service
Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Approved Aug. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement settling two purported class-action lawsuits in the
Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, naming Computer Sciences
Corp. as a defendant, was approved on August 3, 2009.

The lawsuits claimed that Computer Sciences Corp, and others,
conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software products
licensed by Computer Sciences Corp. and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for
bodily injury claims.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors
to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies, as a
defendant in Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation,
et al., which was filed as a putative nationwide class-action
suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, shortly
before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into law.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for
bodily injury claims.  They also allege wrongful concealment of
the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and
wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent
errors and flaws in the software.  The suit sought injunctive and
monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each class member, as
well as attorney's fees and costs.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
sever certain defendants, including the company, from the
Hensley litigation.  As a result, the company continued as a
defendant in the Hensley litigation and was also a defendant in a
separate putative class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit
Court of Miller County, Arkansas, styled Basham, et al. vs.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., along with certain
insurance companies previously named as defendants in the Hensley
litigation.

During the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2009, the
company, along with certain other defendants in the Hensley and
Basham litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with legal
counsel representing the putative class members through
mediation proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator.

In February 2009, the company and the class representatives in
the Hensley and Basham litigation agreed to a settlement of the
pending litigation and the parties are in the process of filing
the settlement agreement with the court for approval.  As part of
the settlement, the company has agreed to certain injunctive
relief, primarily involving the publication of information
regarding the use of the company's software by its licensees in
adjusting bodily injury claims, and to the payment of legal fees
to legal counsel representing the classes in the litigation
(Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2009).

In February 2009, the company and the class representatives in
the Hensley and Basham litigation agreed to a settlement of the
pending litigation and the parties obtained preliminary approval
of the settlement from the court.  As part of the settlement, the
company has agreed to certain injunctive relief, primarily
involving the publication of information regarding the use of the
Company's software by its licensees in adjusting bodily injury
claims, and to the payment of legal fees to legal counsel
representing the classes in the litigation.  The company's net
payment obligation in the settlement is not material to the
company's financial condition nor will the settlement have a
material adverse effect on the company's operations (Class Action
Reporter, June 15, 2009)

On Aug. 3, 2009, the court gave its final approval of the
settlement, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 3, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Judgment in ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit captioned
In Re Computer Sciences Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. CV 08-
2398 (C.D. Calif.) (Otero, J.), are appealing the summary
judgment ruling entered in July 2009.  

On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action complaint in Quan,
et al.  v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927 (E.D.N.Y.), made allegations
of backdating stock options against the Company.  On Sept. 21,
2006, a related ERISA class action complaint was filed in Gray,
et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100 (E.D.N.Y.).  The complaints
named as defendants the company, the company's Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.  
The two ERISA actions were consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007,
plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.  On
Jan. 8, 2008, the consolidated proceeding was transferred to
California.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion.  Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification, and defendants filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008.  On
Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.   Defendants answered the complaint and the
parties conducted discovery.  

On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition
on Dec. 8, 2008.  On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the Court of
Appeals accept their appeal from the order granting class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 23,
2009.  The Court of Appeals denied defendants' request for
permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.  

Discovery closed on April 28, 2009.  

Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment
on May 4, 2009.  Reply briefs were filed on May 22, 2009.  On
July 13, 2009, Judge Otero issued an order granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants.  On July 28, 2009, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Morefield vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case
No. 09-cv-1176 (D. Nev.), is pending, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2009.

On May 29, 2009, the class action lawsuit was filed in state
court against the company and certain current and former officers
and directors asserting claims for declarative and injunctive
relief related to stock option backdating.  The alleged factual
basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged in
prior derivative actions.  

On June 30, 2009, the company removed the state court proceeding,
Morefield v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. A-09-591338-
C (Clark Cty. Nev.) to federal court.  

The defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint.  

Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in  
the information technology and professional services industry.  
CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global
Commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings include
IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional
services.  CSC also provides business process
outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as
procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer
relationship management, credit services, claims processing and
logistics.  IT and professional services include systems
integration, consulting and other professional services.
Systems integration encompasses designing, developing,
implementing and integrating complete information systems.
Consulting and professional services includes advising clients
on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business
strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering,
operations, change management and business process
reengineering.




HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Rental Unit Continues to Defend LDW Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., the heavy equipment rental unit of
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., still faces a class action suit
styled Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp.,
Case No. 06-cv-03830 (D. N.J.) (Cavanaugh, J.).  

Davis Landscape filed the lawsuit on Aug. 15, 2006, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated.  The suit
purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and
who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge.  The complaint alleges
that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law
under pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial
Code.  Davis seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  The complaint also asks for
attorneys' fees and costs.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro,
as well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an
"Environmental Recovery Fee."  Causes of action for breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing were also added.

In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.

After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008.  In June 2008, HERC filed its
opposition to class certification, as well as a motion for
summary judgment.  In April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals
denied HERC's petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Scott A. George, Esq.
         Seeger Weiss LLP
         550 Broad Street, Suite 920
         Newark, NJ   07102
         Telephone: 215-553-7982
         E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins, LLP
         One Newark Center, 16th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07101-3174
         Phone: 973-639-7293


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Books $45 Mil. Charge to Settle Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Rectifier Corporation (NYSE:IRF) reported this week
that it booked a $45 million charge in its fourth-quarter related
to an agreement in principle to settle pending securities class
action litigation.  

Earlier this month, International Rectifier said that it reached
an agreement in principle to settle Edward R. Koller v.
International Rectifier Corporation, et. al., Civil Action No.
07-02544 (C.D. Calif.), filed against the Company and certain of
its  former officers and directors in April 2007 by a putative
class consisting of purchasers of Company stock during the period
from July 31, 2003, through February 11, 2008.

The settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a
formal settlement agreement and is dependent upon final court
approval.  The proposed settlement would resolve all class
members' claims against the Company and certain of its former
officers and directors.  The settlement provide for a total
payment to the plaintiffs of $90 million, of which $45 million is
to be paid by the Company's insurance carriers and $45 million by
the Company.

Class members will receive notice and have a right to object to
or opt out of the settlement.  Final consummation of the
settlement will occur upon the entry of final judgment by the
court approving the settlement as fair to all class members.  
The timing of approval process is dependent on the court's
calendar.  The Company expects that the approval process will be
completed before the end of the calendar year 2009.

"The proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit is a
significant step in our efforts to resolve the legacy legal
issues of the Company," said Oleg Khaykin, President and Chief
Executive Officer of International Rectifier.  "We are pleased
to have an agreement in principle so we can focus our time and
efforts on core activities and the growth of our business."

International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE: IRF) -- http://www.irf.com
-- is a world leader in power management technology.  IR's
analog, digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power
management products, enable high performance computing and save
energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications.  
Leading manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances,
lighting, automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems
rely on IR's power management solutions to power their next
generation products.


INTERNATIONAL SHIPHOLDING: Stockholders' Suit Dismissed on May 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit filed by Alan R. Kahn, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated stockholders, against
International Shipholding Corporation and the company's directors
was dismissed in May 2009.

On Sept. 17, 2008, Mr. Kahn filed a purported class action suit
in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, against the
company and its directors, alleging that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith
in connection with Liberty's conditional offer to purchase the
outstanding common stock of the company by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take adequate measures to ensure that the
interests of the company's minority stockholders were protected.  


The lawsuit sought, among other things, injunctive relief
relating to certain voting rights of the company's stockholders
and monetary relief in an unspecified amount.  

The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 27,
2009, and the Court dismissed this action without prejudice on
May 5, 2009.  

All costs associated with this action have been included in the
company's results, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

International Shipholding Corporation -- http://www.intship.com/
-- through its subsidiaries, operates a diversified fleet of
United States and International flag vessels that provide
international and domestic maritime transportation services to
commercial and governmental customers primarily under medium to
long-term time charters or Contracts of Affreightment.


JDS UNIPHASE: Finalizing Settlement in Consolidated ERISA Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are finalizing the settlement of the consolidated
action entitled In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA Litigation,
Case No. C-03-4743 (N.D. Calif.), in which a purported class
of participants in the 401(k) Plans of the Company and Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc., and the Plans themselves, assert claims
against the company, certain of its former and current officers
and directors, and certain other current and former JDSU
employees.  

On Oct. 31, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by breaching their fiduciary
duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants.  The amended
complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb. 4, 2000, to
the present and seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable remedies.
Certain individual Defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006.
Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and JDSU
asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  The Court
dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the
ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the same
day, plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On April 24, 2007, the Court denied defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling
on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey,
and deferred ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Both sides have taken discovery.

Following the verdict for defendants in In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation, the court in the ERISA
action vacated all existing deadlines, set a schedule for
briefing a summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel
issues, and stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion.

By Order dated April 17, 2008, the Court modified the briefing
schedule for JDSU's summary judgment motion and ordered the
parties to engage in mediation. Defendants moved for summary
judgment on collateral estoppel issues on May 2, 2008.  The
parties participated in mediation on Oct. 10, 2008, and reached
an agreement in principle to resolve all claims.

On March 3, 2009, the parties signed a Memorandum of
Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement.  The
parties continue to work on documents necessary to complete the
settlement and have exchanged drafts, according to the company's
Aug. 24, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2009.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of
communications test and measurement solutions and optical
products for telecommunications service providers, cable
operators, and network equipment manufacturers.  In addition,
the Company's optical coatings are used in visual display and
decorative product differentiation applications.  It has four
segments: Optical Communications, Communications Test and
Measurement, Advanced Optical Technologies, and Commercial
Lasers.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: $95 Mil. Appeal Bond Requirement Modified
------------------------------------------------------------
SmartBrief reports that National Underwriter reports that
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance no longer has to post a
$95 million bond to appeal a court ruling, which ordered the
state-backed insurer to pay the same amount to policyholders for
delays in adjusting their Hurricane Katrina claims.  Instead,
Citizens has been ordered to pay a group of class-action lawyers
$6 million while the appeal moves to the state Supreme Court.  

The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the
certification of a class-action lawsuit against Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. that charges the state-sponsored insurer of
failing to pay contractor overhead and profit on claims from
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, according to Rebecca Mowbray at The
Times-Picayune (Class Action Reporter, June 3, 2009).

The Orleans Parish case, styled Stephanie Press v. Louisiana
Citizens Fair Plan Property Insurance Corp., is one of three
hurricane class actions pending against Citizens.  In total, the
cases have the potential to award tens of millions to
policyholders and create financial problems for Citizens, which
can pass on bills to taxpayers if it does not have enough cash on
had to fulfill its obligations, according to The Times-Picayune
reports.

According to Mark Smith, Esq., an attorney for the plaintiffs,
the lawsuit is one of a number of cases nationwide involving what
is called contractor overhead and profit.  Mr. Smith explained to
The Times-Picayune that anytime a repair job requires three or
more tradesmen, such as a plumber, a roofer and an electrician, a
policyholder is entitled to hire a general contractor to
coordinate all the parties.   The insurance company is supposed
to pay an extra 20 percent on top of labor and material costs to
cover the contractor's services and profit, he said.  Mr. Smith
alleged that Citizens paid contractor overhead and profit for a
while after the 2005 storms, stopped doing so for a period of
time and then resumed payment at some point, The Times-Picayune
reported.


OCLARO INC: Avanex Stockholders' Claims Dismissed on August 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California in and for the County of
Alameda, on Aug. 17, 2009, dismissed the claims in a purported
stockholder class action complaint against Oclaro, Inc.  

On Feb. 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Avanex and its directors, Bookham, and Ultraviolet
Acquisition Sub, Inc. in the Superior Court of California in and
for the County of Alameda by two individuals who purported to be
stockholders of Avanex.

Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual claims with
prejudice, and Oclaro agreed to pay Plaintiff's counsel up to
$20,000 in fees and costs.  On Aug. 17, 2009, the Superior Court
so ordered stipulation and, as stipulated by the parties, ordered
Oclaro to pay the $20,000.

Plaintiffs had purported to bring the Action on behalf of a class
of all stockholders of Avanex.  As amended, plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that the Avanex directors breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the
contemplated merger of Avanex and Bookham, and that a preliminary
version of the Joint Proxy Statement and Prospectus filed with
the SEC on Feb. 26, 2009, failed to provide stockholders with
material information or contained materially misleading
information thereby rendering the stockholders unable to cast an
informed vote on the proposed merger.  The complaint also alleged
that Avanex, Bookham, and Ultraviolet Acquisition Sub aided and
abetted the Avanex directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.  

Plaintiffs sought to permanently enjoin the merger with Bookham
and sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable
to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses.

On April 8, 2009, Avanex and the other named defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel
regarding the proposed settlement of the Action.  In connection
with the proposed settlement, Avanex made certain additional
disclosures to its stockholders.  Pursuant to the memorandum of
understanding, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement, which provisionally certified the action as a class
action.  The stipulation provided that members of the class would
furnish defendants with a release, and plaintiffs' counsel would
seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of up
to $230,000 as part of the settlement, which would be paid by
Avanex (or its successor(s)-in-interest).

The Superior Court denied the motion to preliminarily approve the
proposed settlement.  The individual plaintiffs thereafter
stipulated to dismiss their individual claims with prejudice, and
the parties agreed that the Court could award plaintiffs' counsel
up to $20,000 in fees and costs.  The stipulation further
provided that the other purported class members would receive
notice of this settlement pursuant to the company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Aug. 24, 2009, and that they would reserve their
rights with regard to defendants.

On Aug. 17, 2009, the Superior Court entered the stipulation as
an Order of the Court, dismissing the plaintiffs' individual
claims with prejudice, and ordered Oclaro, Inc. to pay
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $20,000.

Oclaro, Inc. -- http://www.oclaro.com/-- formerly Bookham, Inc.,  
designs, manufactures and market optical components, modules and
subsystems that generate, detect, amplify, combine and separate
light signals principally for use in fiber optics communications
networks.  It operates in two business segments: telecom and non-
telecom.  Its telecom segment relates to the design, development,
manufacture, marketing and sale of optical component products to
telecommunications systems vendors.  Non-telecom relates to the
design, manufacture, marketing and sale of optics and photonics
solutions for markets, including material processing, inspection
and instrumentation, and research and development.  It sells its
telecom products to telecommunications systems and components
vendors.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Confirms Receipt of Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., confirmed this week that it
was served with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class
action, filed against it, another cellular operator, and two
content providers and integrators, in the District Court of
Petach-Tikva.

The claim alleges that Partner charged subscribers for certain
content services, without their consent.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
of claim against Partner is estimated by the Plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 227,822,400.

Partner says it is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at
this preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of
success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any, with any degree of certainty.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications operator (cellular, fixed-line telephony
and Internet Services Provider) under the orange(TM) brand.  The
Company provides mobile communications services to 2.944 million
subscribers in Israel (as of June 30, 2009). Partner's ADSs are
quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are
traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (NASDAQ and TASE: PTNR).

Partner is a subsidiary of Hutchison Telecommunications
International Limited -- http://www.htil.com/-- a leading global  
provider of telecommunications services.  Hutchison Telecom
currently offers mobile and fixed line telecommunications
services in Israel, and operates mobile telecommunications
services in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Indonesia. It was
the first provider of 3G mobile services in Israel and operates
brands including "Hutch", "3" and "orange".  Hutchison Telecom, a
subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa Limited, is a listed company with
American Depositary Shares quoted on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker "HTX" and shares listed on the Stock Exchange of
Hong Kong under the stock code "2332".


POMEROY IT: To Defend Claims in Stockholders' Suit Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., and its directors are continuing
their defense of claims and causes of action asserted in Kenneth
Hanninen's purported class action complaint.

On May 22, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Boone Circuit Court, by Kenneth
Hanninen, an alleged Pomeroy stockholder, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, against the company and each
of its current directors as of the filing date: David G. Boucher,
Keith R. Coogan, Ronald E. Krieg, David B. Pomeroy, II, Richard
S. Press, Michael A. Ruffolo, Jonathan Starr and Debra Tibey.  
Hebron LLC and Desert Mountain Acquisition Co., affiliates of Mr.
Pomeroy, were also named as defendants in the lawsuit.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of
the company are in breach of their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in connection with the company's entry into an
agreement and plan of merger dated May 19, 2009, with Hebron LLC,
Desert Mountain Acquisition Co., and, with respect to certain
sections of the merger agreement only, David B. Pomeroy, II.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief to
enjoin the company and its directors from consummating the
transaction contemplated under the Agreement, along with
attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Aug. 24,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 5, 2009

Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pomeroy.com/-- is   
a leading provider of IT infrastructure solutions focused on
enterprise, network and end-user technologies.  Leveraging its
core competencies in IT Outsourcing and Professional Services,
Pomeroy delivers consulting, deployment, operational, staffing
and product sourcing solutions through the disciplines of Six-
Sigma, program and project management, and industry best
practices.  Pomeroy's consultative approach and adaptive
methodology enables Fortune 2000 corporations, government
entities, and mid-market clients to realize their business goals
and objectives by leveraging information technology to simplify
complexities, increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve
profitability.

                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Reverses Congoleum Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation, on Aug. 21, 2009, announced that it
received a decision from the U.S. District Court on its appeal of
two orders from the US Bankruptcy Court, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 21, 2009.

The Company had appealed Bankruptcy Court orders finding its
latest plan of reorganization unconfirmable and dismissing its
Chapter 11 case. The District Court decision reversed the
dismissal order on Aug. 17, 2009.

With respect to the plan of reorganization, the District Court
ruled that a settlement with certain asbestos claimants was
reasonable and not an impediment to confirmation while another
issue would require a minor modification to the plan.

The decision also provided specific guidance about the plan and
directed the parties in the case to provide briefings in
preparation for a confirmation hearing. In addition, the District
Court assumed jurisdiction over the proceedings from the
Bankruptcy Court.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We are
extremely pleased with the ruling from the District Court. It
removes the threat of dismissal and provides all parties with the
clear guidance needed to achieve a confirmable plan. This result
was precisely what we had hoped for, and believe it puts us on
track for confirmation of a plan.

"Since confirmation of our plan would have required review by the
District Court, the decision of the District Court to assume
authority over the proceedings will expedite the plan
confirmation process. In summary, we consider this an extremely
positive development and believe we could see a plan confirmed
within a reasonable amount of time."

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation manufactures
resilient flooring, serving both residential and commercial
markets. Its sheet, tile and plank products are available in
various designs and colors, and are used in remodeling,
manufactured housing, new construction and commercial
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Premix-Marbletite Faces Seven Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Premix-Marbletite
Manufacturing Co., is a defendant, together with non-affiliated
parties, in seven claims (four of which include the Company as a
defendant) which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos
contained in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.

Premix faced five asbestos-related claims (two of which include
the Company as a defendant). (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2009)

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers that have provided product liability coverage to the
Company including potential coverage for alleged injuries related
to asbestos exposure. Several of these insurance carriers are
providing a defense to Premix and the Company under a reservation
of rights in all of these asbestos cases.

Certain of these underlying carriers have denied coverage to
Premix and the Company on the basis that certain exclusions
preclude coverage and that their policies have been exhausted.

In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-Dade Circuit
Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the carrier seeks a
declaration from the Court that its insurance policies do not
provide coverage for the asbestos claims against Premix and the
Company.

The carrier also asserts a claim for reimbursement of defense
costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on the
Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims.

Pompano Beach, Fla.-based Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures
and sells exterior and interior finishing wall coatings and
mortar products for the construction industry, as well as
purchases and resells building materials from other
manufacturers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 557 Claims at June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation is currently defending about 557
asbestos claims, of which 11 are "malignant" claims and 546 are
"non-malignant" claims.

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former facilities.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic substances.

As of June 28, 2009, the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$5.1 million and a bodily injury insurance
receivable of US$3.9 million.

This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of
US$5 million and an insurance receivable of US$3.8 million at
March 29, 2009.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation, through subsidiary Todd
Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds
government-owned and commercial vessels. The U.S. government
accounts for more than 60 percent of the Company's shipyard
sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle Facing Pending Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is still a defendant in cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, based on the Company's historic
use of vermiculite in certain of its products.

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

The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may provide
insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and is
pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and policies.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
manufactures and sells horticultural and turf products. Its
garden and indoor plant care items include grass seeds,
fertilizers, herbicides, potting soils, and related tools. Brand
names include Ortho, Miracle-Gro, Hyponex, and Turf Builder.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. NL Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. is still named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as
a result of occupational exposure primarily to products
manufactured by its former operations containing asbestos, silica
and mixed dust.  

During the first quarter of 2009, certain of these cases
involving multiple plaintiffs were separated into single-
plaintiff cases. As a result, the total number of outstanding
cases increased.

About 1,224 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a
total of about 3,400 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of about
7,500 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed
on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts.

The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless
the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, the Company
has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the component
products (security products, furniture components and performance
marine components), chemicals (TiO2) and other businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Party to 805 Lawsuits (7,528 Claims)
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of June 30, 2009, was a party to 805
pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,528 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company was a party to 777 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,498 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials. (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

The asbestos was formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
158 claims filed, 150 claims dismissed, and four claims settled.
The average settlement amount per claim during period was
US$36,688 and total defense costs during period were
US$1,346,500.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 723
claims filed, 2,668 claims dismissed, and 75 claims settled. The
average settlement amount per claim during period was US$1,813
and the total defense costs during period were US$3,448,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company said it believes that many of
its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its
gaskets were distributed or used.

Of the 7,528 claims pending at June 30, 2009, about 120 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum). About 88 of the 120 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), about 26 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and six sought over
US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 91 of the 120
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, about 23 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million and six sought over US$5
million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 90 of the 120
claims sought between US$0 million and US$2.5 million, about 25
sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and five sought
over US$5 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have
reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past
the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.4 million. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes coverage available to the Company that
might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a
methodology for the administration of asbestos litigation defense
and indemnity payments.

The coverage in place agreement allocates payment responsibility
among the primary carrier, excess carriers and the Company's
subsidiary.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corporation and its
subsidiaries manufacture and distribute products for commercial,
industrial and consumer markets. The Company is engaged in five
reportable segments with diverse products and market channels:
Packaging, Energy, Aerospace & Defense, Engineered Components and
Cequent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Records $1.19B Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.19 billion at June 30, 2009 and US$1.23 billion at Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.21 billion
at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

Net of reinsurance recoverable, the reserves were US$682 million
at June 30, 2009 and US$704 million at Dec. 31, 2008.  

About 64 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at both June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008 were for
incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation and its
wholly owned subsidiaries, primarily Allstate Insurance Company
(AIC), are property-liability insurance companies with various
property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries,
including Allstate Life Insurance Company (ALIC).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. continues to be subject to legal and administrative
proceedings over allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances like asbestos and benzene.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum refiner and
marketer and chemicals manufacturer with interests in logistics
and cokemaking.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIHL Reserves $19.5M for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings
LLC's reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
includes US$19.5 million of gross reserves and US$19.4 million of
net reserves at June 30, 2009, and US$20.4 million of gross
reserves and US$20.3 million of net reserves at Dec. 31, 2008.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation and Platte River Insurance Company between 1969 and
1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Still Named a "Premises Defendant"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to be named as a "premises
defendant" in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically
claims by non-employees of exposure to asbestos while at a
facility.

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

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
six cases tendered, 11 cases resolved and 1,135 cases unresolved
at the end of the period. During the six months ended June 30,
2008, the Company recorded 10 cases tendered, 59 resolved cases
and 1,143 cases unresolved at the end of the period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of June 30, 2009, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$16 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
one such case filed, two cases resolved, and 42 cases unresolved
at the end of the period. During the six months ended June 30,
2008, the Company recorded two cases filed, one case resolved,
and 40 unresolved cases at the end of the period.

The Company did not pay any settlement costs for asbestos
exposure cases that are not subject to indemnification during the
six months ended June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2008. As of June 30,
2009, the Company had an accrued liability of US$225,000 relating
to these cases.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Douglas Emmett Has Hazard in 23 Properties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Emmett, Inc. says that environmental site assessments and
investigations have identified 23 properties in its portfolio
containing asbestos.

The asbestos would have to be removed in compliance with
applicable environmental regulations if these properties undergo
major renovations or are demolished.

As of June 30, 2009, the obligations to remove the asbestos from
these properties have indeterminable settlement dates, and
therefore, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the fair
value of the associated conditional asset retirement obligation.

COMPANY PROFILE:
Douglas Emmett, Inc.
808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
Santa Monica, Calif.
90401
Tel. No.: (310) 255-7700

Description:
The Company is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-
managed Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  Through its
interest in Douglas Emmett Properties, LP and its subsidiaries,
the Company owns, manages, leases, acquires and develops real
estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Faces 31,000 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 31,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2009 and at Dec. 31,
2008.

In addition, about 15,000 mostly inactive claims have been
settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with
or without payment.

The Company has accrued US$115 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2009,
compared with US$124 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Based on the volume of asbestos claims filed subsequent to its
emergence from Chapter 11, the Company reevaluated its estimated
liability as of June 30, 2009. The Company revised its estimates
of claims expected to be compensated in the future, which reduced
its estimated obligation for asbestos personal injury claims by
US$12 million and the related insurance recoverable by US$6
million.

The Company recorded the net benefit of US$6 in selling, general
and administrative expense.

At June 30, 2009, the Company had recorded US$62 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected asbestos personal injury liability claims.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles;
driveshafts; and structural, sealing and thermal-management
products; as well as genuine service parts. Customers include
vehicle manufacturers in the global automotive, commercial
vehicle, and off-highway markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Has $47M for CCR Cases Through June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, through June 30, 2009, had collected
the entire US$47 million paid to claimants with respect to Center
for Claims Resolution (CCR) asbestos claims.  

After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former CCR
members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, its insurers and the claimants over a period of several
years in an effort to resolve these issues.

Efforts to recover additional CCR-related payments from surety
bonds and other claims are continuing. Additional recoveries are
not assured and accordingly have not been recorded at June 30,
2009.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles;
driveshafts; and structural, sealing and thermal-management
products; as well as genuine service parts. Customers include
vehicle manufacturers in the global automotive, commercial
vehicle, and off-highway markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Has 180 Cases in Md. at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2009, there are
about 180 asbestos cases still pending against it in the State
Courts of Maryland.

Of these cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the Company and Mirant under which the Company
sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings, Inc. is a diversified
energy company that, through its operating subsidiaries, is
engaged in two businesses: the distribution, transmission and
default supply of electricity and the delivery and supply of
natural gas (Power Delivery) and competitive energy generation,
marketing and supply (Competitive Energy).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Aurora Pump Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut granted summary judgment in
favor of Aurora Pump Company, in an asbestos case filed by
Dorothy Drucker on behalf of her husband, Paul Drucker.

The case is styled Paul Drucker et al v. A.W. Chesterton Co. et
al.

Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV075006717S on June 23, 2009.

The Druckers filed the instant claim against multiple defendants,
including the defendant Aurora Pump, for personal injuries
sustained as the result of Mr. Drucker's exposure to asbestos
containing products while in the U.S. Navy from 1943 to 1950.
Thereafter, upon re-enlisting Mr. Drucker worked as a man-power
and planning estimator at General Dynamics from 1950 to 1988.

As a result of his exposure to asbestos while in the Navy and,
thereafter, while working for General Dynamics, Mr. Drucker
developed mesothelioma, which caused his death on May 3, 2007.

Accordingly, the court had no evidence either, from Mr. Drucker
or fellow workers that he was exposed to an Aurora pump on a ship
or at a location where an Aurora pump was present. Nor was there
evidence that the one Aurora pump identified contained asbestos
which was used most often in applications requiring protection
from excessive heat production.

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence creating a material issue
of fact, Aurora Pump's motion for summary judgment was granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Still Faces Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group, from time to time, has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2009.

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

San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a
holding company that provides water utility and other related
services in California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii through
its wholly owned subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,028 Abex Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at June 30, 2009, recorded 23,028
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo-Abex Corporation (Pneumo).

At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded 23,401 pending asbestos-
related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo. (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

From Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2009, a total of 147,011 Abex
Claims were filed, of which 123,983 claims have been resolved.

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained
from Pneumo-Abex Corporation [Pneumo] in 1994) were operated
through subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries
was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement
dated Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement).

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and
Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company
and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject
to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement. As part of its obligation to Pneumo
for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction
product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by
Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, 836 claims were filed
and 1,496 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average
indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,064 before
insurance. A total of US$155.4 million was spent on defense costs
for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2009.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50 percent
to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity payments for
Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower
percentage (about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers
of coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting
fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records $805Mil Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2009, Cooper Industries, Ltd. estimates that the
asbestos liability for pending and future indemnity and defense
costs for the next 45 years will be US$805 million.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company estimated that the liability
for pending and future indemnity and defense costs for the next
45 years will be US$811.7 million. (Class Action Reporter, May
15, 2009)

The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not
significant at June 30, 2009. The estimated liability is before
any tax benefit and is not discounted as the timing of the actual
payments is not reasonably predictable.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

The Company utilized scenarios that it believed were reasonably
possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates
from US$735 to US$950 million (undiscounted).

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting
fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records $180M Receivable at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s asbestos receivable for recoveries of
costs from insurers, as of June 30, 2009, amounted to US$180
million, of which US$65.7 million relate to costs previously paid
or insurance settlements.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company's asbestos receivable for
recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$183.3 million,
of which US$66.9 million related to costs previously paid or
insurance settlements. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

As of June 30, 2009, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$700 million.
Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance
sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements,
settlements or policy recoveries are probable.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months. About 90 percent
of the US$180.0 million receivable from insurance companies at
June 30, 2009 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating
is Excellent (A-) or better.

The remaining balance of the insurance receivable has been
significantly discounted to reflect management's best estimate of
the recoverable amount.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting
fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,670 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 3,670 cases at June 30, 2009 were outstanding for which
Standard Motor Products, Inc. was responsible for any related
liabilities.

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend
upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1,
2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof.

Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2009, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$8.1 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the
insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement, and the
insurance carrier reimbursed the Company US$2.4 million for
settlement claims and defense costs. The Company has submitted
additional asbestos-related claims to the insurance carrier for
coverage.

An incremental US$2.1 million provision in the Company's
discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual in
September 2008 increasing the reserve to US$25.3 million.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor vehicles
in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, 7 Units Facing Lawsuits in 33 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries face lawsuits
claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components
that contained asbestos.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wyoming.

Asbestos-containing components were acquired from third party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

To date, most of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance has been settled for various insignificant
amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by
claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 6, 2009.

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

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

The Company said it believes it is unlikely that mechanics were
exposed to asbestos by its former muffler products and that, in
any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-
related disease based on their work with these products.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a
variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not
specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount
for damages.

As major asbestos manufacturers continue to go out of business or
file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an increased
number of these claims.

To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved
favorable resolution. During the first six months of 2009,
dismissals were initiated on behalf of six plaintiffs and are in
process.

The Company was dismissed from an additional 697 cases.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. manufactures automotive
emission control and ride control products and systems. The
Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle designers and
manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, through brands, including Monroe, Rancho, Clevite
Elastomers and Fric Rottm ride control products and Walker,
Fonostm, and Gillettm emission control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,219 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are 26,219 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation as of June 30, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 6, 2009.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced 26,282 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
May 22, 2009)

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

Any component within a Company product which may have contained
asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier.

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

Of the pending cases, 25,683 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims,
totaling 536, are filed in various counties in a number of state
courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New
York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 18,106 cases.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 315 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  
The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation's metals segment offers
metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other
services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. This
segment's units act as an on-site service partner at about 170
locations in 35 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $342.5M Losses, LAE at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses were US$342,482,000 during the three
and six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$332,927,000
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and LAE for asbestos claims
were US$349,151,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$326,243,000 during the three months ended March
31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE were
US$220,335,000 during the three and six months ended June 30,
2009, compared with US$209,688,000 during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's reserves for asbestos and environmental-related
liabilities are from business written prior to 1986.

The Company did not incur net losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to asbestos or environmental claims for the six months
ended June 30, 2009. Net losses and loss adjustment expenses
incurred for asbestos claims increased US$6 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2008, due to loss emergence greater than
expectations in the period.

The Company did not incur net losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to asbestos or environmental claims for the three months
ended June 30, 2009. Net losses and loss adjustment expenses
incurred for asbestos claims increased US$2 million for the three
months ended June 30, 2008, due to loss emergence greater than
expectations in the period.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of June 30, 2009 is seven years.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an underwriter
of reinsurance, providing property and casualty products on a
worldwide basis. The Company offers both treaty and facultative
reinsurance to property and casualty insurers and reinsurers. It
also writes insurance in the United States and through the
Lloyd's marketplaces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Digital Realty Cites $1.5Mil ARO at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. recorded asbestos retirement
obligations of US$1.5 million as of June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31,
2008.

The equivalent asset is recorded at US$1.3 million as of June 30,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, net of accumulated depreciation.

The amount of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to
estimated asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life
of properties that were built before 1984.

San Francisco-based Digital Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate
investment trust (REIT) that owns data centers, Internet and data
communications hubs, and technology office and manufacturing
properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll Units Still Face Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc are still
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and
federal courts.

In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies
have also been named as defendants.

The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos. However, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

Swords, Ireland-based Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global
company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance
the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport
and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial
properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Records $1.159Bil Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters was
US$1.159 billion at June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.195 billion
at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's liability for asbestos related matters was US$1.179
billion at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$405.4 million at June 30, 2009, compared
with US$423.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company recorded US$1.8 million as costs associated with the
settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims after insurance
recoveries for the three months ended June 30, 2009, compared
with US$3.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008.

For the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded US$4
million as costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries.

The Company records certain income and expenses associated with
its asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries
within discontinued operations, as they relate to previously
divested businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was
sold in 2000.

Income and expenses associated with subsidiary Trane Inc.'s
asbestos liabilities and corresponding insurance recoveries are
recorded within continuing operations.

Swords, Ireland-based Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global
company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance
the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport
and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial
properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.2M Settled Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Interstate Power and
Light, in the first half of 2009, recorded liabilities settled of
US$1.2 million due to expenditures for asbestos and lead
remediation at its Sixth Street and Prairie Creek Generating
Stations required as a result of the impacts of the severe
Midwest flooding at these generating stations in June 2008.

No further asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 6, 2009.

Madison, Wis.-based Alliant Energy Corporation is an investor-
owned public utility holding company whose primary subsidiaries
are Interstate Power and Light Company, Wisconsin Power and Light
Company, Resources and Corporate Services.

                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.    

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *