---

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

             Friday, October 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 199

                             Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
ARGENTINA: Opposes Revised Aggregate Judgments
ARGENTINA: Defends 11 Class Suits in New York
ARGENTINA: No Certification Yet in Five Actions
ARGENTINA: "Barboni" Plaintiff Appeal Still Pending

ARGENTINA: Restraints on BNA Property Vacated
ARGENTINA: Appeal on Aerolineas Property Turnover Denied
AZZ INC: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
BUY.COM: Decertification Ruling in Suit Over Rebates Reversed
CALIFORNIA: ClassAction.Org Reviews Vacation Pay Claims

CELTIC INSURANCE: Sued for Imposing Unlawful Premium Increases
CHICAGO: 7th Cir. Revives Unjust Enrichment Class Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Accused in Tex. of Violating Federal Privacy Laws
EASTERN AMERICA: Recalls 124,000 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Faces Federal Securities Class Suit

FIRE-LITE ALARMS: Recalls 530 Fire Alarm Control Panel
GMAC MORTGAGE: Sued in Maine Over "Flawed" Foreclosure Process
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suit Over Two Hudson CDO Securities
HOME RESCUE: Sued for Offering Bogus Foreclosure Rescue Services
KFC USA: Removes "Harrison" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.

KRAFT FOODS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
GUAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Merit Bonuses
MAHALO.COM: Law Firms to Investigate Potential Class Action Suit
MATRIX SERVICE: Records $3.1MM Charge in 4Q for Suit Settlement
MERRILL LYNCH: "Dames" Plaintiffs Dismiss Additional Counts

MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Tipsword" Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: New York Court Dismisses All Claims Against BofA
MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Wants Lehman-Related Suit Dismissed
MERRILL LYNCH: Defends Amended MBS-Related Complaint in New York
MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal on Dismissal of ARS Suit Remains Pending

MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal on Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
METLIFE INSURANCE: Accused of Defrauding Investors
UNITED LIFE: Oct. 8 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Filipino Vets to File Class Suit Over Lump Sum
TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Benzene Emissions

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
VERIZON: Settles Cell Phone Billing Class Action
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 5,900 PBteen Sleep and Study Loft Beds

* Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Windfall

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Roofer Penalized GBP3,600 for Improper Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims at Aug. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 147 Lawsuits Ongoing v. GenCorp at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Enters Ruling in Barabin Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayers' Appeal Dismissed in Lawsuit v. Precision

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court to Deny Hagen's Motion to Remand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Wood Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torquay Mom's Death Linked to 2nd-Hand Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Breaches Determined at 14 NSW Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colne Worker's Death Linked to Workplace Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kane Core's Owners Charged on Fraud Allegations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arceneaux Case Filed v. Texaco, Chevron in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manhan Rail Trail Cleanup Starts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PADEP Checking Jeannette Glass Site for Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cannon Case v. BP Corp. Filed Sept. 23 in Texas

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Lawyer Cautions on Handling of Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northern Ireland Firms Warned on Asbestos Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowthorne Parish Cleanup Estimated at GBP1,092
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Stalls Renovation of Hawkins Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered in Provo, Utah Demolition Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Erosion at Kingscliff's Beach Exposes Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warilla North in New South Wales to Stay Closed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Pope Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bodine's Motion in Cat Iron Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kindergarten in Gisborne Closed Due to Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Teachers Federation Cites Asbestos Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Classroom in Mackay North
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Issues Raised at Mine Site in Uranium
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court Recommends Dismissal of Jenkins Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Straube's Action


                             *********

APOLLO GROUP: Accused of Violating Securities Exchange Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Apollo Group, Inc.  that alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Apollo's common
stock during the period February 12, 2007 through August 3, 2010,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona.  A copy of the complaint may be obtained from
Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
represented that Apollo's student enrollment in its programs, and
its revenues and profits were growing, but the positive statements
regarding the Company's performance and growth made by defendants
were materially false and misleading when made, and were known by
defendants to be false or were recklessly disregarded because the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company's purported growth
and profits were achieved through an improper course of conduct,
including fraudulently inducing students to enroll in Apollo's
scholastic and educational programs and engaging in other
manipulative recruiting tactics.  Further, the Complaint alleges
that during the Class Period Apollo insiders sold over $450
million dollars of their privately held Apollo stock at
artificially inflated prices.

The Complaint further alleges that the truth about Apollo's
improper recruiting tactics began to emerge on January 7, 2010,
when, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press
release disclosing, among other things, that the U.S. Department
of Education expressed a concern that some students had enrolled
and began attending classes before completely understanding the
implications of enrollment, including their eligibility for
student financial aid.  On January 8, 2010, the next trading day,
Apollo shares declined from a close on January 7, 2010 of $63.94
per share to close at $60.50 per share, a decline of $3.44 per
share or approximately 5.4% on heavier than usual volume.

Then, the Complaint alleges, on August 3, 2010, the United States
Government Accounting Office published a report finding that
certain for-profit schools (i) used deceptive recruiting
practices; (ii) inflated their tuition costs; and (iii) engaged in
other "troubling" practices.  The Complaint alleges that, as a
result of these disclosures, between August 3, 2010, and August 6,
2010, shares of the Company declined from a close of $47.14 per
share on August 2, 2010, to a close of $42.83 per share on August
5, 2010, a decline of $4.34 per share or approximately 9%.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than October 15, 2010 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  Our firm, with
offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New
Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class
actions and actions involving financial fraud.  For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy
of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit our Web site
at http://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                     (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


ARGENTINA: Opposes Revised Aggregate Judgments
----------------------------------------------
The Republic of Argentina continues to oppose the revised
aggregate judgments totaling approximately $1.4 billion, according
to its Oct. 1, 2010, Form 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Government is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the estimated, aggregate judgments entered by the District
Court in eight class actions because they were improperly
inflated.  On Sept. 22, 2010, plaintiffs in the same eight class
actions submitted revised aggregate judgments totaling
approximately $1.4 billion.  Argentina is opposing the revised
aggregate judgments.


ARGENTINA: Defends 11 Class Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Argentina continues to defend 11 cases where class
certification has been granted, according to its Oct. 1, 2010,
Form 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Government is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Class certification has been granted in 11 cases:

The cases are:

     (1) Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 400 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Oct. 9, 2006);

     (2) Seijas v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 401 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 7% bonds due
         Dec. 19, 2008);

     (3) Castro v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 506 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 9.75% bonds due
         Sept. 19, 2027);

     (4) Hickory Sec. Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina,
         04 Civ. 936 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         11.75% bonds due June 15, 2015);

     (5) Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 937 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Dec. 4, 2005);

     (6) Azza v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 1085 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 8.375% bonds due
         Dec. 20, 2003);

     (7) Puricelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2117
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 12.375% bonds
         due Feb. 21, 2012);

     (8) Chorny v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 2118 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of floating rate bonds
         due March 29, 2005);

     (9) Scappini v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 9788
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 8.125% global
         euro bonds due April 21, 2008);

    (10) Daelli v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 3095 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of 11.375% bonds due
         March 15, 2010); and

    (11) Brecher v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 15297
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 9.25%
         European Medium Term Note bonds due July 20, 2004).


ARGENTINA: No Certification Yet in Five Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in five actions against The Republic of Argentina have
yet to file for class certification, according to its
Oct. 1, 2010, Form 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Government is involved in class action litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

There are five putative class actions in which plaintiffs have not
yet sought class certification:

The actions are:

     (1) Lavaggi v. The Republic of Argentina, 04 Civ. 5068
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 12.125% bonds
         due Feb. 25, 2019, 10% European Medium Term Note bonds
         due June 25, 2007, and 3.5% European Medium Term Note
         bonds due Aug. 11, 2009);

     (2) Daho v. The Republic of Argentina, 05 Civ. 1033 (TPG)
         (purporting to represent holders of the same bonds at
         issue in Azza v. The Republic of Argentina,
         04 Civ. 1085 (TPG));

     (3) Dussault v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 13085
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 11% bonds due
         Nov. 5, 2003, 10% bonds due January 7, 2005, and 10%
         bonds due Feb. 22, 2007);

     (4) Newbadem Invest. S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina,
         07 Civ. 1938 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         12.25% bonds due June 19, 2018); and

     (5) Cavero v. The Republic of Argentina, 07 Civ. 11591
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of 9.5% bonds
         due Nov. 30, 2002).


ARGENTINA: "Barboni" Plaintiff Appeal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff in the matter Barboni v. The Republic
of Argentina, on the denial of preliminary injunction is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to The Republic of Argentina's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 18-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 26, 2010, the District Court denied a motion by
plaintiffs and class representatives in two certified class
actions:

     (1) H.W. Urban GmbH v. The Republic of Argentina,
         02 Civ. 5899 (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of
         11.375% bonds due Jan. 30, 2017 and 11.75% bonds due
         April 7, 2009); and

     (2) Barboni v. The Republic of Argentina, 06 Civ. 5157
         (TPG) (purporting to represent holders of floating rate
         European Medium Term Note bonds due May 27, 2004),

for a preliminary injunction enjoining Argentina from making any
proposed debt exchange offer, or communication regarding such an
offer, to purported members of the Urban and Barboni classes.  The
plaintiff in Barboni has appealed the denial, and the appeal is
pending.


ARGENTINA: Restraints on BNA Property Vacated
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
vacated the 2008 and 2010 restraints and attachments of the Banco
de la Nacion Argentina property, according to The Republic of
Argentina's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 18-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act limits
creditors to attaching or executing upon only assets of the
foreign state that are located in the United States and used for a
commercial activity in the United States.  The FSIA also provides
special protection from attachment or execution of such property
as that of foreign central banks and military property.

Plaintiffs have obtained junior liens on collateral securing
interest and principal payments due on the Brady bonds issued in
1992 that were not tendered in Argentina's 2005 global exchange
offer.  Argentina has no access to this collateral, which is
pledged for the exclusive benefit of the remaining Brady
bondholders under the terms of the relevant agreement, and
plaintiffs' liens are junior to those of the Brady bondholders.

In September 2008, two plaintiffs obtained attachment and
restraining orders on an ex parte basis of certain assets held by
Banco de la Nacion Argentina  in New York under the theory that
the bank is an alter ego of Argentina.  The same plaintiffs also
obtained attachments and restraining orders on an ex parte basis
of accounts held by Argentina at the Miami and New York branches
of Banco de la Nacion Argentina.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the District Court held that Banco de la Nacion
Argentina is not the alter ego of Argentina and vacated the
attachments of Banco de la Nacion Argentina's assets.  Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration is pending before the District Court.

In May 2010, these plaintiffs and the class representatives in
eight certified class actions obtained additional ex parte
attachment orders on certain assets held by Banco de la Nacion
Argentina in New York under the theory that recent Argentine
resolutions authorizing loans from Banco de la Nacion Argentina to
Argentina were evidence that the bank is an alter ego of
Argentina.  Argentina and Banco de la Nacion Argentina  moved to
vacate these orders.

On Sept. 24, 2010, following agreement of the parties, the
District Court vacated the 2008 and 2010 restraints and
attachments of BNA property.


ARGENTINA: Appeal on Aerolineas Property Turnover Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied the
appeal of the plaintiffs in connection with the motion for the
turnover of Aerolineas Argentinas S.A. property in the United
States, according to The Republic of Argentina's Oct. 1, 2010,
Form 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In March 2009, plaintiffs in two actions obtained orders on an ex
parte basis temporarily restraining any property in the United
States of Aerolineas Argentinas S.A.

On April 2, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order stating that property of
Aerolineas Argentinas S.A. is not attachable as property of
Argentina.  In July 2009, plaintiffs in eight class actions filed
a motion for the turnover of Aerolineas Argentinas S.A. property
in the United States, and on Aug. 19, 2009, the District Court
denied the motion on the same grounds.  Plaintiffs in one of these
actions appealed.

On Aug. 31, 2010 the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without
prejudice to renew upon the issuance by the District Court of new
judgments in the class actions.


AZZ INC: Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a settlement agreement resolving stockholder
complaints against AZZ Inc., remains pending, according to the
company's Oct. 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2010, the company announced its proposed acquisition
of North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc.  Several lawsuits
challenging the transaction were filed seeking to enjoin it or
recover unspecified damages from the company in respect of the
deal.

On April 13, 2010, Morris Akerman, a purported NGA stockholder,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Akerman v. North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5407-CC.

On April 16, 2010, Gerald Beddow, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Beddow v. North American Galvanizing &
Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5420-VCL.

On April 16, 2010, Barbara Gibbs, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the County Court for
Rogers County, Oklahoma on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated stockholders, captioned Gibbs v. North American
Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., Case No. CJ-2010-308.

On April 20, 2010, Richard Devivo, a purported stockholder of NGA,
filed a putative class action complaint in the District Court for
Tulsa County, Oklahoma on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders, captioned Devivo v. Morrow, et
al., Case No. 2010-02551.

On May 5, 2010, Carlos Dorta, a purported NGA stockholder, filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders, captioned Dorta v. Morrow, et al., C.A. No. 5461.

The Stockholder Complaints purport to assert claims against NGA,
the Board of Directors of NGA, AZZ and an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of AZZ, Big Kettle Merger Sub, Inc., alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the tender offer for the shares of NGA's
common stock.  Among other things, the complaints alleged that NGA
was being sold at an unfair price.  Among other relief, the
plaintiffs in each of the Stockholder Complaints sought an order
enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the Merger Agreement, in
addition to rescissionary damages, restitution, and attorneys'
fees.

On June 7, 2010, the Defendants entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Stockholder Complaints to
settle all components of that litigation in all of the cases.
Subject to approval by the Rogers County District Court in the
Gibbs case, the settlement includes (a) certification of a
settlement class consisting of all record and beneficial holders
of the Shares at any time from April 1, 2010 through and including
the date of the closing of the merger of NGA with and into a
subsidiary of AZZ; (b) certain supplemental disclosures contained
in an Amendment No. 1 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed by NGA; (c)
certain amendments to the Merger Agreement; (d) extension of the
expiration date of the tender offer for the shares of NGA's common
stock from June 7, 2010 to June 14, 2010; (e) a release of all
claims by class members against all Defendants arising from the
tender offer and subsequent merger; (f) orders or judgments of
dismissal with prejudice in all cases comprising the litigation;
(g) an attorneys' fee, including expenses for plaintiffs' counsel,
of $500,000; and (h) further terms, all as detailed in the
Memorandum of Understanding.  The summary of the Memorandum of
Understanding is qualified in its entirety by reference to the
Memorandum of Understanding, which has been filed as Exhibit
(a)(5)(A) to the Schedule TO filed by AZZ with the SEC on April 1,
2010 in connection with the tender offer (as amended).

The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the Defendants each
have denied, and continue to deny, that they have committed,
attempted to commit, or aided and abetted the commission of, any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts alleged in
the Stockholder Complaints, and expressly maintain that they have
diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary duties
and other legal duties and are entering into the Memorandum of
Understanding solely to eliminate the burden and expense of
continued litigation.  Notwithstanding their belief that the
allegations are without merit, in order to eliminate the
litigation burden and expense, the Defendants have concluded that
it is desirable that the Stockholder Complaints be settled on the
terms reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding, and NGA has
made certain additional disclosures set forth in an Amendment No.
1 to the Schedule 14D-9 filed by NGA without agreeing that any of
such disclosures are material and despite denying that the
previous disclosures were inadequate.

AZZ incorporated is a specialty electrical equipment manufacturer
serving the global markets of power generation, transmission and
distribution and industrial, as well as a leading provider of hot
dip galvanizing services to the steel fabrication market
nationwide.


BUY.COM: Decertification Ruling in Suit Over Rebates Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Ellis, staff writer for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Friday revived a
class action alleging that online retailer Buy.com violated state
law by failing to pay rebates advertised on products purchased
through its Web site.

Div. Three in an unpublished opinion said an Orange County judge
erred when she declined to certify a class in a suit claiming the
retailer violated California's unfair competition law and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and engaged in negligent
misrepresentation.

Richard M. Kershenbaum sued Buy.com when it declined to honor a
$30 mail-in rebate on a Connect 3D memory card he purchased in
2007 for $30.  Mr. Kershenbaum returned the appropriate rebate
forms, but Connect 3D failed to pay the rebate.

He subsequently requested a rebate from the company, based in
Aliso Viejo, but it told him the rebate was the responsibility of
the product manufacturer and that Buy.com was not responsible for
compensating him.  The retailer later offered customers who did
not receive rebates from Connect 3D a $10 gift card.

Mr. Kershenbaum sought class certification of his lawsuit, but
Orange Superior Court Judge Gail Andrea Andler denied the motion.
She concluded that Mr. Kershenbaum failed to show an ascertainable
class because he presented the court with three differing
definitions of the class in the memorandum of points and
authorities supporting his motion, and in his proposed order.

Judge Andler also said that it was unclear whether Mr. Kershenbaum
alleged that Buy.com failed to perform "due diligence" as to
Connect 3D's financial condition, or engaged in misleading
advertising.  If he claimed the latter, she wrote, his testimony
that he believed that a website is responsible for all rebates
listed, even if it states that the rebate will be provided by the
manufacturer, deprived him of standing because the testimony
showed he did not rely on any of Buy.com's representations or
omissions before making his purchase.

The judge further opined that Mr. Kershenbaum failed to show that
common issues of law predominated.

The Court of Appeal, however, rebuffed all of those conclusions in
an opinion by Justice Richard D. Fybel.

Justice Fybel wrote that two of the definitions put forth by
Mr. Kershenbaum were similar enough that denial of certification
over the "difference" would be an abuse of discretion, and he
agreed with the plaintiff that Judge Andler could have removed a
phrase in the third definition that excepted from the class
purchasers of a type of products otherwise unmentioned in his
motion.

"Any confusion caused by the different definitions could and
should have been remedied by the trial court, either by correcting
the proposed order, or by independently drafting a new order," he
explained

The justice also said that common issues of law did predominate
because a California choice-of-law provision in Buy.com's terms of
use agreement applied to claims asserted by the class.

The retailer argued that differences in the laws of California and
the other 49 states in which proposed class claimants resided
would "swamp" the common issues.  Justice Fybel, however,
construed the choice-of-law provision against Buy.com despite the
retailer's claim that its own provision was an unenforceable
contract of adhesion.

Even if the provision did not apply, the class had significant
contacts with California, he wrote, adding: "Buy.com cannot
explain why another state would object to having California
provide greater protection to its citizens against alleged
wrongdoing by a California defendant."

Justice Fybel said Mr. Kershenbaum's allegations were not "vague,"
noting that he essentially alleged that the advertising of a free
rebate was misleading, and the justice rebuffed Buy.com's claim
that there was nothing it could have done to disabuse Mr.
Kershenbaum of his asserted belief about rebates on websites.

"The misleading advertising Kershenbaum's complaint alleged is the
statement that the Connect 3D products purchased were free after
the rebate, when in fact a rebate was not available," he
commented.  "Kershenbaum has standing to assert such a claim, and
the trial court erred in determining otherwise."

Justices Kathleen O'Leary and Raymond J. Ikola joined Justice
Fybel in his opinion.

The case is Kirshenbaum v. Buy.com, Inc., G042303.


CALIFORNIA: ClassAction.Org Reviews Vacation Pay Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
WooEB News reports the wage and hour attorneys working with Class
Action.org are available to review claims from employees in
California who were not paid for unused vacation time at year's
end or upon termination.  According to California labor laws,
vacation and paid time off are considered earned wages, rather
than gifts or gratuities, and cannot be taken away once earned.
Therefore, use it or lose it vacation policies are illegal under
California vacation pay law, and employers must pay all earned but
unused vacation pay to employees upon termination or voluntary
separation.  If you have been denied compensation for your unused
vacation days, visit http://www.classaction.org/california-use-it-
or-lose-it-vacation-policy.html to learn your legal rights.

Vacation pay is voluntary in California, as there is no labor law
which requires employers to offer paid time off to employees.  An
employer who elects to offer vacation time as a fringe benefit,
however, must comply with California vacation pay law which
contains two major provisions.  First, when an employee quits or
is fired, the employer must pay the worker for any earned but
unused vacation days.  Vacation time is accrued proportionately as
labor is rendered and workers are entitled to a proportionate
share of vested vacation pay.  For instance, if a company allows
ten days of vacation after one year of employment, an employee who
is terminated after working for six months must receive five days
of vacation pay.

Additionally, California vacation pay law protects earned vacation
time from forfeiture, thereby making use it or lose it vacation
policies illegal.  Floating holidays and PTO days may also be
considered vacation days and must be treated as such, as long as
the time is to be used for personal reasons and can be scheduled
at the employee's convenience without any limitations.  Sick days
and holidays are not considered vacation time; however, sick days
which are part of a general leave or PTO plan cannot be forfeited
at year's end and must be paid upon termination or voluntary
separation.

California employees who were not paid for unused vacation days
may be able to participate in a wage and hour lawsuit to recover
monetary damages.  To find out if you are entitled to compensation
for your unused vacation days, visit
http://www.classaction.org/california-use-it-or-lose-it-vacation-
policy.html and complete the free case evaluation form at the
bottom of the page.  The wage and hour lawyers working with Class
Action.org are offering this initial consultation at no cost and
are dedicated to protecting the rights of employees who were
subjected to illegal vacation policies.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


CELTIC INSURANCE: Sued for Imposing Unlawful Premium Increases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica M. Thieriot, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Celtic Insurance Company, Case No.
10-cv-4462 (N.D. Calif. October 1, 2010), brings claims against
Celtic for repeatedly violating California's "Health Coverage
Contract Notification Act," California Insurance Code Section
10199, by imposing numerous and substantial premium increases on
the insurance policy it sold to Plaintiff without providing any
prior written notice of said premium increases that complied with
the Notification Act's requirements.  Ms. Thieriot seeks
restitution of excess insurance premiums collected from her by
Celtic.

Celtic engages in the marketing, sale and issuance of disability
insurance, including or medical expense insurance.  The Complaint
says that in March 1998, Ms. Thieriot purchased major medical
expense coverage under a non-employer master group policy issued
by Celtic, under "Celtic Adults" Certificate Number C566236091.
Because of Celtic's failure to provide notice as required by the
Notification Act, Ms. Thieriot alleges that she was unaware until
recently that multiple illegal premium increases for her medical
expense insurance had been collected from her to which Celtic was
not entitled.  Ms. Thieriot believes that the total amount
illegally collected from her by Celtic exceeds the amount of
$200,000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Pillsbury, Jr., Esq.
          Richard D. Shively, Esq.
          Celia M. Jackson, Esq.
          PILLSBURY & LEVINSON, LLP
          The Transamerica Pyramid
          600 Montgomery Street, 31th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-8000
          E-mail: ppillsbury@pillsburylevinson.com
                  rshively@pillsburylevinson.com
                  cjackson@pillsburylevinson.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com


CHICAGO: 7th Cir. Revives Unjust Enrichment Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived a class
action accusing Chicago of violating arrestees' due-process rights
by seizing millions of dollars of their cash each year and making
it difficult for them to reclaim it.

"Given the impressive amount of money that goes unclaimed each
year by a class of persons who in all likelihood want it back, has
the City created a policy that places an impermissible and
daunting burden on arrestees to establish an entitlement to money
that the City has no right to retain?" Judge Ilana Rovner asked.

Because that question has yet to be answered, Judge Rovner said,
summary judgment for the city "was entered in error."

Elton Gates and Luster Nelson were arrested on charges of
aggravated battery and possession of crack cocaine, respectively.
Mr. Gates was carrying $113 in cash at the time of his arrest, and
M. Nelson was carrying $59.

During the arrests, officers inventoried and held their
possessions, including the cash.  The seized goods were marked as
evidence.

A notice on the inventory receipt advised arrestees that they
would be notified when they could pick up their seized property,
even though the city never sends such notices, and neither Mr.
Gates nor Mr. Nelson received one.

For arrestees to reclaim property being held as evidence, Chicago
requires a court order or a release form signed by the arresting
officer.

Messrs. Gates and Nelson said they followed the city's procedures,
but were told that the arresting officers were not available to
sign their releases.

The charges against Mr. Nelson were dismissed about a month after
his arrest.

A federal judge dismissed the arrestees' due-process claims, but
the 7th Circuit in Chicago reversed.

In a 53-page opinion, Judge Rovner said the city's byzantine
recovery policies and its failure to notify the public of the
policies violate arrestees' due-process rights.

"Due process requires, at a minimum, that 'deprivation of life,
liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and
opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case,'"
Judge Rovner wrote, quoting Supreme Court precedent.  Had
information about the procedure been more widely available,
Chicago's policies might withstand a constitutional challenge, she
said.

But the panel concluded that the inventory receipt "does not
adequately inform arrestees of the procedures to retrieve their
money and thus does not comport with due process."

"We cannot conclude on this record that arrestees are willingly
abandoning millions of dollars," Judge Rovner wrote.

"It is more likely that arrestees do not know how to retrieve
their money because the City's notice is misleading and, in a
certain class of cases, is not reasonably calculated to reach its
target."

A copy of the decision in Gates, et al. v. City of Chicago, et
al., No. 08-1455 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/1N1BNIJK.pdf


CVS CAREMARK: Accused in Tex. of Violating Federal Privacy Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that in a RICO
class action, six pharmacies claim CVS Caremark pharmacies violate
federal privacy laws by collecting "proprietary patient
information" it gets from handling claims for non-CVS pharmacies,
and using it to solicit business for CVS pharmacies.  CVS merged
with Caremark in 2007 to create the 18th-largest company in the
nation, according to the federal complaint.

The six named plaintiffs claim that the merger created "a company
that every retail pharmacy must do business with (as a pharmacy
benefit manager), even though CVS Caremark's retail outlets (CVS
pharmacies) are direct competitors to non-CVS pharmacies across
the country."

The class claims that the CVS Caremark Pharmacy Benefit Manager
has contracts to handle claims for clients of at least 2,200
health plans.  When handling claims, CVS Caremark "requires that
the retail pharmacy supply several pieces of information to CVS
Caremark including the name, address, date of birth, and gender of
the patient; the identity of the patient's prescribing physician;
the prescription data such as medication and dosage; and the
pharmacy that dispensed the prescription drugs to the patient,"
according to the complaint.

CVS Caremark uses this information to form a "complete medical
picture" of the clients to market CVS products and services
directly to them, the plaintiffs say.

The class claims CVS Caremark violated the US Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act by using this patient
information "without lawful authority."

The CVS Caremark benefits manager has entered into contracts with
at least 525 plan health plans and established pharmacy networks
that "explicitly exclude" pharmacies, including plaintiffs, from
providing "maintenance medications and 90+ day scripts" to the
members of such plans, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs want an injunction requiring their admission "into
such networks and participation on equal terms to CVS-owned retail
and mail-order pharmacies."

They also seek judgment declaring void any CVS Caremark contracts
that "exclude or disfavor" them, as violations the Texas Any
Willing Provider Law.

CVS Caremark is no stranger to the scrutiny of federal and state
regulators, the plaintiffs say.

"CVS Caremark is currently under investigation by the Federal
Trade Commission and 24 states for issues of competition and
privacy, and the State of Texas is currently suing CVS Caremark
alleging improper billing practices that cost Texas over $20
billion," according to the complaint.

The pharmacies sued on behalf of a national class of all non-CVS
retail pharmacies in the United States, and a Texas class of all
non-CVS retail pharmacies in Texas.

A copy of the Complaint in The Muecke Company, Inc., et al. v. CVS
Caremark Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00078 (S.D. Tex.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/04/CVS.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Taylor, Esq.
          David E. Dunham, Esq.
          Miguel S. Rodriguez, Esq.
          TAYLOR, DUNHAM & BURGESS, L.L.P.
          301 Congress Ave., Suite 1050
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 473-2257


EASTERN AMERICA: Recalls 124,000 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eastern America Trio Products Inc. of Flushing, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 124,000 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Light bulb may overheat and catch fire.

The firm has received four reports of incidents, including two
fires that resulted in minor property damage.

This recall involves Trisonic 15-, 20-, 22- and 25-watt compact
fluorescent light bulbs with the model numbers TS-EN 15W/SP, TS-EN
20W/SP, TS-CFL 22WB or TS-EN 25W/SP printed on the base of the
bulb.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11001.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
discount stores in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Connecticut from January 2008 to December 2008 for between $1 and
$1.50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the light bulbs and
contact the company for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Eastern America Trio Products Inc. at 800-
661-7146 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.trisonic.com/


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Faces Federal Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Monday disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of FalconStor
Software, Inc. common stock who purchased shares between February
5, 2009 and September 29, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges, among other
things, that the Company knew but failed to disclose that it was
experiencing weakening demand for its products in violation of the
federal securities laws.  The lawsuit further alleges FalconStor
made improper payments to at least one customer to secure a
contract.

If you purchased shares of FalconStor common stock during the
Class Period, you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than November 30, 2010.  Any member
of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are a
FalconStor investor and would like to discuss a potential lead
plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with respect
to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or
Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or
mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

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

The firm may be reached at:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER HOLZER & FISTEL, LLC
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com


FIRE-LITE ALARMS: Recalls 530 Fire Alarm Control Panel
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fire-Lite Alarms of Northford, Conn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 530 Fire Alarm Control Panel.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled fire alarm control panels used with an SLC-2LS
expander module can fail to sound an alarm in the event of a fire.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Fire-Lite model MS-9600LS Series control
panel that uses the SLC-2LS Expander Module.  The following
control panel model numbers included in this recall are: MS-
9600LS, MS-9600LSC, MS-9600LSE, MS-9600UDLS, MS-9600UDLSE,
UNIMODE9600LS and UNIMODE9600UDLS.  The control panel is the main
portion of the fire alarm system.  The software in the expander
module tells the system to sound an alarm and flash warning
lights. The words "Fire-Lite Alarms by Honeywell" and the model
number are located on the front of the fire alarm control panel.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11702.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through authorized wholesalers and distributors nationwide from
October 2008 through March 2010 for between about $875 for the
expander module and $2,285 for the control panel.  These
distributors resold and/or installed the control panels and
modules for use in commercial facilities such as office buildings.

Building managers should contact Fire-Lite Alarms for a free
software upgrade.  Fire-Lite Alarms is contacting its customers
directly.  For additional information, contact the Fire-Lite
Alarms' technical service department at (800) 627-3473 between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.firelite.com/


GMAC MORTGAGE: Sued in Maine Over "Flawed" Foreclosure Process
--------------------------------------------------------------
MortgageOrb.com, citing Center for Responsible Lending and
Reuters, reports five Maine residents have filed a complaint
against GMAC Mortgage LLC on behalf of themselves and a class of
Maine homeowners, alleging that the company systematically files
false certifications that it has a right to foreclose, and false
affidavits when asking courts to enter foreclosure judgments.

The suit comes after a court in Maine sanctioned GMAC for its
flawed foreclosure process, according to the Center for
Responsible Lending.  Maine District Court Judge Keith Powers, in
a Sept. 24 ruling, chided GMAC for its "high volume and careless
approach" to affidavit signing, Reuters reports.

The Maine residents are represented by Andrea Bopp Stark from the
Molleur Law Office in Biddeford, Maine; Thomas Cox, coordinator of
Maine Attorneys Saving Homes in Portland; the National Consumer
Law Center and the Center for Responsible Lending.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Class Suit Over Two Hudson CDO Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
A client of the law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed on
September 30, 2010, a class action suit against Goldman, Sachs &
Co., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-
1, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp., Hudson Mezzanine
Funding 2006-2, Ltd., Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp.,
Peter L. Ostrem and Darryl K. Herrick, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The case is
captioned Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., case no.
10-cv-7497 (S.D.N.Y.).  A copy of the complaint may be obtained
via Berger & Montague's Web site -- http://www.bergermontague.com/
-- or the office of the clerk of the Court.

The action concerns two offerings of collateralized debt
obligation securities sponsored by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The first CDO was issued on or about December 5, 2006, and
comprised a $837 million offering of securities co-issued by
Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd. -- Hudson 1 Ltd. -- and
Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp. as to all tranches except
for the Class E and Income Note tranches, the latter two of which
were issued solely by Hudson 1 Ltd., as well as a senior swap
transaction with an initial notional amount of $1.2 billion --
Hudson 1 CDO.  The second CDO was issued on or about February 8,
2007, and comprised a $407.9 million offering of securities co-
issued by Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2 Ltd. -- Hudson 2 Ltd. --
and Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2 Corp. as to all tranches
except for the Class E and Income Note tranches, the latter two of
which were issued solely by Hudson 2 Ltd. -- Hudson 2 CDO.  The
value of the securities issued by both the Hudson 1 CDO and the
Hudson 2 CDO -- Hudson CDO Securities -- depended in significant
part on the value of highly risky subprime-related and other
residential mortgage-backed securities, many of which were
sponsored by subprime mortgage lenders such as Long Beach, New
Century, Fremont, Countrywide, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
The Hudson CDO Securities were underwritten, offered and sold by
Goldman's wholly-owned broker/dealer subsidiary, defendant
Goldman, Sachs & Co.  Additionally, two former senior Goldman
officials, defendants Peter L. Ostrem and Darryl K. Herrick,
helped lead in structuring and selling the Hudson CDO Securities,
among other things.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and New York common law in
structuring, offering and selling to plaintiff and other investors
the Hudson CDO Securities.  More specifically, plaintiff alleges
that in a classic case of "heads we win, tails you lose," the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors both that the Hudson
CDO Securities were structured by Defendants such that they were
doomed to lose value, and that Goldman would profit from its own
short positions when the Hudson CDO Securities did lose value.
The securities issued by the Hudson 1 CDO reportedly suffered
their first ratings downgrade in early September of 2007; by the
end of 2007, at least $280 million of the securities were
downgraded; and by at least mid-2008, the Hudson 1 CDO's AAA-rated
securities had been downgraded to junk status.  In addition,
certain principal of the Hudson 1 CDO securities was reportedly
paid off in or about April and May of 2009, with investors in
several of the tranches losing millions of dollars, as alleged
more fully in the complaint.

Similarly, by the end of 2007, at least $144 million of the
securities issued by the Hudson 2 CDO had been downgraded.  On
August 20, 2008, $286 million of the securities issued by the
Hudson 2 CDO were further downgraded by Standard & Poor's.

The action is brought on behalf of those who, from the initial
offerings through September 30, 2010 (the date plaintiff's
complaint was filed), purchased or otherwise acquired the Hudson
CDO Securities, and were damaged thereby. Plaintiff is represented
by Berger & Montague, P.C., and local counsel Frydman, LLC.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, Berger & Montague, P.C., helped
pioneer class action litigation and today, after over 35 years of
experience, is one of the largest and most highly regarded firms
in the country representing parties in securities litigation and
other types of complex litigation.

The specific Hudson CDO Securities, together with their CUSIP
numbers, are as follows:

Hudson 1 CDO

  Security       CUSIP
  --------       -----
Class S        443860AA9

Class A-f      443860AB7

Class A-b      443860AC5

Class B        443860AD3

Class C        443860AE1

Class D        443860AF8

Class E        443860AG6

Income Notes   44386PAA4

Hudson 2 CDO

  Security       CUSIP
  --------       -----
Class S        44386QAA2

Class A-1      44386QAB0

Class A-2      44386QAC8

Class B        44386QAD6

Class C        44386QAE4

Class D        44386QAF1

Class E        44386NAC5

Income Notes   44386NAA9

If you purchased any of the Hudson CDO Securities during the
applicable period, you may, no later than 60 days from Monday,
October 4, move to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff.  A Lead
Plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Any purchaser of any
of the Hudson CDO Securities during the applicable period may move
the court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  However, absent class members may share in any recovery
whether or not they serve as a Lead Plaintiff.  Therefore, the
ability of investors in the Hudson CDO Securities to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve
as a Lead Plaintiff.  You may also contact your own counsel or
Berger & Montague, P.C. for a more thorough explanation of the
Lead Plaintiff selection process.

If you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
with respect to this matter, please contact:

          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
                     (215) 875-3000


HOME RESCUE: Sued for Offering Bogus Foreclosure Rescue Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Brian
Suder, Steven Duplain, and Susan A. Herman promised foreclosure
rescue through Home Rescue Programs and the Home Rescue Programs
Foundation, of Marina del Rey, but took the money and closed up
shop, in Los Angeles Superior Court.


KFC USA: Removes "Harrison" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Harrison and Noe Rivera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. KFC USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-502757
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on August 18,
2010.  The Complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) failure to
provide vacation wages; (2) failure to timely pay wages due at
termination; (3) failure to reimburse employees for business
expenses; and (4) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, as
proscribed by Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.

According to the Complaint, plaintiff Lisa Harrison was jointly
employed as an Assistant Manager and Manager employee by
defendants until October 2008, while plaintiff Noe Rivera was
jointly employed as a team member employee by defendants until
November 2009.  Defendants own fast food restaurants fast food
restaurants and employ over a hundred (100) employees in the State
of California.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, defendants KFC USA, Inc.,
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and KFC Corporation, on October 4,
2010, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California,
and the Clerk assigned Case No. 10-cv-4465 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789

The Defendants are represented by:

          Layn R. Phillips, Esq.
          Andra Barmash Greene, Esq.
          IRELL & MANELLA LLP
          840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
          Telephone: (949) 760-0991
          E-mail: lphillips@irell.com
                  agreene@irell.com


KRAFT FOODS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kraft Foods stiffs workers
for overtime and won't let them take legally required breaks, a
class action claims in Fresno Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Owens v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10CECG03379 (Calif. Super. Ct., Fresno Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/04/EmployKraft.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Carver, Esq.
          Michelle M. Lunde, Esq.
          LABOR LAW OFFICE
          1600 Humboldt Rd., Suite 3
          Chico, CA 95928
          Telephone: (530) 891-8503


GUAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Merit Bonuses
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kerrigan, writing for Pacific News Center, reports Attorney
Mike Phillips has filed a class action suit against GovGuam to
enforce the issuance of merit bonuses which he says are required
by GovGuam law.

In a release, Mr. Phillips argues that under Guam Law [4 G.C.A.
6203], Government agencies and departments are required to
automatically issue a merit bonus to classified employees who
receive superior rating evaluations.  The merit bonus is equal to
3.5% of the employee's base salary.

Mr. Phillips says that since its enactment in 1991, the Government
has refused to implement and enforce Section6203.

The lawsuit requests the issuance of a Peremptory Writ of Mandate,
compelling the Government to enforce Section 6203, and process and
issue merit bonuses to classified employees who have received
superior rating evaluations.

Mr. Phillips is quoted in his release as saying: "The Government
cannot continue to pick and choose the laws it will voluntarily
follow. T he Law is clear that our clients are entitled to an
automatic merit bonus when they receive a superior rating
evaluation. We remain confident that the Government will finally
comply with the mandates of the merit bonus law."


MAHALO.COM: Law Firms to Investigate Potential Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cormier, writing for TNW, reports Mahalo.com, founded in 2007
by Jason Calcanis, bills itself as a "knowledge sharing service."
The site features questions asked and answered with users
receiving "Mahalo Dollars" (which can be exchanged for U.S.
dollars) as a token gift for providing a good answer.

Through the incentive system, the site has users who provide
opinions also respond to open-ended topics like "Best WordPress
themes that look like websites, as opposed to blogs," and more.

Apparently though, some of these users are none too pleased with
changes in the site's Terms of Service, resulting in a law firm
being retained to investigate a possible class action lawsuit
against Mahalo.com.

Green Welling, LLP, is currently looking into claims that a change
in the terms and conditions regarding payment and ad revenue
sharing negatively impacted page managers and others contributing
to the site.

The basis for a potential class action lawsuit centers on the
following changes to the Terms of Service made in June:

The important piece to note is the change in ownership of content.
Prior to the changes, contributors to Mahalo.com owned their
content.  Following the changes, any content written or submitted
to Mahalo became the intellectual property of Mahalo once it was
exchanged for "Mahalo Dollars."  What this means is content one
once owned by the writer/contributor, has now become the property
of Mahalo.

As one can imagine, there was outrage from users with little in
the way of a proper response from Calcanis, evidenced here.

We reached out to the law firm conducting the inquiry and received
the following response from one of its representatives:

"I am currently in the process of gathering as much factual
information as I can and conducting legal research so that we may
file a comprehensive and accurate Complaint, which will instigate
the lawsuit.  A former Mahalo writer has agreed to act as a "class
representative" or the "named Plaintiff" in the lawsuit, and if we
are successful in getting a class certified, Mahalo writers (who
added content prior to the TOS changes) will automatically become
members of the lawsuit and will not need to do anything to "join"
the action."

From the evidence regarding the changes to the Terms of Service
and with a former Mahalo writer willing to act as the class
representative, the remaining prerequisites of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure need to be satisfied in order for
a potential lawsuit to move forward.  The requirements are as
follows:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

   1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
      impracticable,

   2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

   3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
      typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

   4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately
      protect the interests of the class.

Points 1 and 2 appear to be satisfied, with the investigation by
Green Welling, LLP centering on ensuring the final 2 points are
fulfilled, which at present, seem like a foregone conclusion.


MATRIX SERVICE: Records $3.1MM Charge in 4Q for Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Service Inc., in its Oct. 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, reports that it recorded
a pretax charge of $3.1 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal
2010 and $5.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010
related to the settlement of the California pay practice class
action lawsuits.

On Dec. 8, 2008 a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County alleging that the
company's subsidiary, Matrix Service Inc., and any subsidiary or
affiliated company within the State of California had a consistent
policy of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that
the company was requiring employees to work more than 8 hours per
day and failing to compensate at a rate of time and one-half,
failing to pay double time for all hours worked in excess of
twelve in one day, and not paying all wages due at termination.
The class seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, waiting time
penalties, injunctive and equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The class included approximately 1,500
current and former employees.

On Sept. 1, 2009, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Alameda County also alleging that
MSI, and Matrix Service Company failed to comply with California
state wage and hour laws.  The September 2009 Action included
similar allegations to the December 2008 Action but also alleged
that the company did not provide second meal periods for employees
who worked more than 10 hours in a day, third rest periods for
those who worked more than 10 hours in a day, complete and
accurate itemized wage statements, compensation for all
compensable travel time, and did not take bonus payments into
account when calculating the regular rate, leading to incorrect
overtime rates.  The class is seeking all allowable compensation,
penalties for rest and meal periods not provided, restitution and
restoration of sums owed, statutory penalties, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs
then amended the September 2009 Action to assert damages under the
Private Attorney General's Act.  The September 2009 Action
increased the class to approximately 2,300 current and former
employees.

The cases have been coordinated in Alameda County.

At the plaintiff's request, mediation was held on Sept. 7, 2010.
In mediation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding
awarding the plaintiffs $4.0 million.  The award is in addition to
amounts previously paid to the class members of $1.9 million.

The September Settlement is subject to court approval and resolves
all class member claims included in the December 2008 Action and
the September 2009 Action.  The award will be used to pay the
class member claims, the enhancement award, the cost of
administration, and the class members' attorneys' fees and costs.

As a result of these actions and the related settlement, the
company recorded a cumulative charge of $6.1 million, of which
$5.1 million was recorded in fiscal 2010 and the remaining $1.0
million was recorded in fiscal 2009.  The fiscal 2010 charge
includes an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by the
company for payroll taxes that will be paid in conjunction with
the September Settlement.

Matrix Service Company -- http://www.matrixservice.com/--
provides engineering, construction and repair and maintenance
services principally to the petroleum, petrochemical, power, bulk
storage terminal, pipeline and industrial gas industries.  The
company is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with regional
operating facilities located in California, Delaware, Illinois,
Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington in the U.S. and in Canada.


MERRILL LYNCH: "Dames" Plaintiffs Dismiss Additional Counts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter Fred C. Dames Funeral Homes, Inc., et
al., v. Daniel W. Hynes, the Illinois Office of the Comptroller,
et al., where Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
is a defendant, have voluntarily dismissed the previously filed
additional amended counts.

MLPF&S is a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

Various state, federal and self-regulatory organization entities
have been investigating the role of Merrill Lynch Life Agency,
Inc. and/or MLPF&S in selling certain life insurance policies to a
trust established by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association
that received certain proceeds from pre-need funeral contracts
purchased by Illinois residents.  On May 18, 2009, the Illinois
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Division of
Insurance and MLLA entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order,
which was amended as of Feb. 22, 2010, by which MLLA agreed, among
other things, to contribute $18 million to a fund to benefit
certain affected funeral directors and purchasers of pre-need
funeral contracts.  MLLA and MLPF&S continue to cooperate with
other state, federal and SRO entities that have ongoing
investigations relating to the IFDA trust.

On July 7, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois on behalf of certain funeral
directors who are seeking to void the Consent Order in its
entirety, and are asking for a declaratory judgment against the
Illinois Comptroller, the Department,  MLPF&S, MLLA and Merrill
Lynch Bank &  Trust Co., FSB that only certain terms of the
Consent Order are unenforceable; an injunction against the
Department and the IOC from taking further action; and recovery of
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs, IOC and Department filed cross-motions for summary
judgment that focus on the authority of the IOC and Department to
enter into the Consent Order or impose other regulatory actions in
connection with the IFDA trust.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the Circuit Court entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and denying the IOC's and Department's motions for summary
judgment, and finding that the Department and IOC lacked authority
to enter into the Consent Order to the extent it affected the
rights of non-regulated third parties.

On July 1, 2010, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the additional
amended counts that had been filed on April 7, 2010, according to
the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Tipsword" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has
denied Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated's motion
to dismiss the matter David Tipsword as Trustee of Mildred E.
Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al.

MLPF&S is a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

Various state, federal and self-regulatory organization entities
have been investigating the role of Merrill Lynch Life Agency,
Inc. and/or  MLPF&S in selling certain life insurance policies to
a trust established by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association
that received certain proceeds from pre-need funeral contracts
purchased by Illinois residents.  On May 18, 2009, the Illinois
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Division of
Insurance and MLLA entered into a Stipulation and Consent Order,
which was amended as of Feb. 22, 2010, by which MLLA agreed, among
other things, to contribute $18 million to a fund to benefit
certain affected funeral directors and purchasers of pre-need
funeral contracts.  MLLA and MLPF&S continue to cooperate with
other state, federal and SRO entities that have ongoing
investigations relating to the IFDA trust.

On June 16, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a proposed
class of pre-need contract holders was filed against MLPF&S, among
other defendants.

MLPF&S is a subsidiary of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

The complaint alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary
duties and committed negligence.  MLPF&S has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice.

Prior to considering the motion of MLPF&S, however, the District
Court, pursuant to the motion of IFDA, IFDA Services, and
affiliated officers and directors of IFDA, entered an order
staying the action in all respects, including MLPF&S's motion to
dismiss.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the class, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 30, 2010, in light of the existing stay, the court denied
the motion to dismiss without prejudice, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: New York Court Dismisses All Claims Against BofA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
dismissed all claims against Bank of America Corporation.  The
court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts to support
their allegation that Bank of America is the "successor-in-
interest" to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

On Jan. 20, 2009, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, in its capacity as underwriter, along with IndyMac
MBS, IndyMac ABS, and other underwriters and individuals, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action complaint,
entitled IBEW Local 103 v. Indymac MBS et al., filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
by purchasers of IndyMac mortgage pass-through certificates.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the mortgage loans
underlying these securities were improperly underwritten and
failed to comply with the guidelines and processes described in
the applicable registration statements and prospectus supplements,
in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission, among
other relief.

On May 14, 2009 and June 29, 2009, two new putative class action
complaints, entitled Police & Fire Retirement System of the City
of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al. and Wyoming State
Treasurer, et al. v. John Olinski, et al., respectively, were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  MLPF&S was not named a defendant in either of these cases.
The allegations, claims, and remedies sought in these cases are
substantially similar to those in the IBEW Local 103 case, which
named MLPF&S as a defendant.

On July 29, 2009, Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al. and Wyoming State Treasurer,
et al. v. John Olinski, et al., were consolidated by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 9, 2009.  The
consolidated complaint named Bank of America, and not MLPF&S, as a
defendant based on an allegation that Bank of America is the
"successor-in-interest" to MLPF&S.

Prior to the consolidation of these matters, the IBEW Local 103 v.
IndyMac MBS et al. case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs,
and its allegations and claims are incorporated into the
consolidated amended complaint.

A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed
on Nov. 23, 2009.

On June 21, 2010, the court dismissed all claims brought against
Bank of America Corporation because plaintiffs failed to plead
facts to support their allegation that Bank of America Corporation
is the "successor-in-interest" to Merrill Lynch and Countrywide.
A motion to intervene and a motion to amend have been filed.  If
granted, they would add new plaintiffs and new claims against
MLPF&S and Countrywide Securities Corporation, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Wants Lehman-Related Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated has filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the matter In re
Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation.

Beginning in September 2008, MLPF&S, among other underwriters and
individuals, was named as a defendant in several putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state courts in Arkansas,
California, New York and Texas.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false
or misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
convertible stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and
seek unspecified damages.

All cases against the defendants have now been transferred or
conditionally transferred to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  MLPF&S and other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was denied without prejudice on March 17, 2010, when
plaintiffs advised the SDNY District Court that they would seek to
file a third amended complaint.

On June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Defends Amended MBS-Related Complaint in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., defends a consolidated amended complaint
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Beginning in December 2008, Merrill Lynch and affiliated entities
and others were named in four putative class actions arising out
of the underwriting and sale of more than $55 billion of mortgage-
backed securities.

The suits are:

     (1) Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, et al. v. Merrill
         Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.;

     (2) Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based
         Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, et al.;

     (3) Public Employees' Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill
         Lynch & Co. Inc.; and

     (4) Wyoming State Treasurer v. Merrill Lynch &  Co. Inc.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant
registration statements and accompanying prospectuses or
prospectus supplements misrepresented or omitted material facts
regarding the underwriting standards used to originate the
mortgages in the mortgage pools underlying the MBS, the process by
which the mortgage pools were acquired, and the appraisals of the
homes secured by the mortgages.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
the MBS allegedly caused by the performance of the underlying
mortgages or to rescind their purchases of the MBS.  These cases
were consolidated under the caption Public Employees' Ret. System
of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and, on May 20, 2009, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.  On
June 17, 2009, Merrill Lynch filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On March 31, 2010, the SDNY District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On June 1, 2010, the court issued an opinion explaining its March
31, 2010 order in which the court dismissed claims related to 65
of 84 offerings with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiffs
lacked standing as no named plaintiff purchased securities in
those offerings.  The opinion also allows lead plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint as to certain parties.  As a result, on July
6, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
relating to the offerings remaining in the case, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal on Dismissal of ARS Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of a second amended
consolidated complaint against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On March 25, 2008, a putative class action, Burton v. Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against ML & Co. and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, on behalf of persons
who purchased and continue to hold auction rate securities offered
for sale by MLPF&S between March 25, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that MLPF&S failed to
disclose material facts about ARS.

A similar action, captioned Stanton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
et al., was filed the next day in the same court.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the two cases were consolidated under the
caption In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation,
and on Dec. 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
amended complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
ARS allegedly caused by the decision of Merrill Lynch to
discontinue supporting auctions for the ARS.

On Feb. 27, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On May 22, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended consolidated complaint.  On July 24, 2009,
Merrill Lynch filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint.

On March 31, 2010, the Court dismissed the second amended
consolidated complaint with prejudice in Burton v. Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., et al.  On April 22, 2010, plaintiff Colin Wilson filed
a notice of appeal from the order of the SDNY District Court
dismissing the second amended consolidated complaint, according to
the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Appeal on Dismissal of Antitrust Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of two purported
class actions against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 4, 2008, plaintiffs filed two purported class actions
under the antitrust laws against over a dozen defendants,
including Merrill Lynch.  The two suits are:

     (1) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Maryland v.
         Citigroup, Inc., et al.; and

     (2) Russell Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.:

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded in connection with
their ARS practices.  The plaintiffs in City Council of Baltimore
seek to represent a class of issuers of ARS underwritten by the
defendants between May 12, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 who seek to
recover the alleged above-market interest payments they claim they
were forced to make when Merrill Lynch and others allegedly
discontinued supporting ARS.  The plaintiffs who also purchased
ARS also seek to recover claimed losses in the market value of
those securities allegedly caused by the decision of the financial
institutions to discontinue supporting auctions for the
securities.  These plaintiffs seek treble damages and seek to
rescind at par their purchases of ARS.

The plaintiffs in Mayfield seek to represent a class of persons
who acquired ARS directly from defendants and who held those
securities as of Feb. 13, 2008.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
alleged losses in the market value of ARS allegedly caused by the
decision of Merrill Lynch and others to discontinue supporting
auctions for the securities.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and
seek to rescind at par their purchases of ARS.

On Jan. 15, 2009, defendants, including Merrill Lynch, moved to
dismiss the complaints.  On Jan. 25, 2010, the District Court
dismissed the two cases with prejudice.  On March 1, 2010,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker,
dealer, banking and other financial services subsidiaries.


METLIFE INSURANCE: Accused of Defrauding Investors
-------------------------------------------------
Chie Akiba at Courthouse News Service reports that MetLife
Insurance defrauded investors, including elderly people, by
guaranteeing them 9% to 12% annual returns on real estate
investments, a class action claims in Superior Court.  Also sued
were New England Life Insurance, two of its wholly owned
subsidiaries, and Tony Russon and Russon Financial Services, of
Woodland, Calif., who was, or held himself out as, a MetLife
regional manager.

Named plaintiffs Lawrence Cantor and Larry Stilley say they
invested $1.95 million with "an authorized 'agent' with Met Life,"
who used it to enter contracts with nonparty Diversified Lending
Group (DLG).  The "funds invested in DLG contracts were ultimately
not repaid," the men say.

According to the complaint, the SEC sued DLG and Bruce Friedman in
Federal Court, accusing them of selling $216 million in securities
to investors, many of them elderly.  The SEC says the defendants
diverted "a substantial amount" of the money to Friedman's
businesses unrelated to real estate or mortgage lending, and that
Friedman snitched "a minimum of $17 million to support his lavish
lifestyle, including purchases of a luxury home, cars, vacations,
jewelry and designer clothing and accessories," and that he
grabbed $275,000 "for the personal use of his girlfriend."

Mr. Friedman consented to judgment, then fled to France, where he
was arrested and is awaiting extradition, according to the
complaint.

Mr. Cantor claims he invested $1.35 million with MetLife,
believing its claim that he would get 12% annual returns for 5
years.

Mr. Stilley says he invested $597,768.

They seek class damages for negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, unfair competition and financial elder abuse.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Foley Jr., Esq.
          FOLEY, BEZEK, BEHLE & CURTIS
          15 W. Carrillo St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495


UNITED LIFE: Oct. 8 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla is again set to hear
arguments in favor of settling a nine year-old insurance class
action suit.

Judge Hylla will hear the move to settle a case against United
Life Insurance Company at 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 8.

United Life Insurance Company was sued in 2001 by lead plaintiff
Christopher Booher of Wood River.

Mr. Booher, a high school classmate of Bradley Lakin, the managing
partner of LakinChapmann LLC, contended he and a class of car
buyers were cheated when they bought United Life Insurance
policies after purchasing cars.

The class action was originally certified by then-Madison County
Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis.

A previously scheduled July hearing was pushed off until the
parties could file the appropriate settlement documents.

The deadline for filing those documents was Aug. 17 but no
settlement documents have been placed in the case file to date.

Booher has also helmed at least one other Madison County class
action.

Daniel Cohen represents Booher and the class.

Richard Boyle represents United Life Insurance.

Another defendant in the suit, Four Flags Motors, was dropped from
the case.

The case is Madison case number 01-L-1824.


UNITED STATES: Filipino Vets to File Class Suit Over Lump Sum
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lariosa, writing for GMANews.TV, reports describing the
lump sum provided to the veterans two years ago as
"discriminatory, partial and unconstitutional," Filipino American
World War II veterans and widows will file on October 8 a class
lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

The class suit will be filed before the United States District
Court of Northern California in San Francisco.

This will be the first time that the $787-billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 President Barack Obama
signed into law will be called into question.

Veterans from Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco, California
and Washington D.C. will demand court injunction and declaratory
relief on behalf of 17,000 applicants who were denied of their
lump sum benefits.

There have been numerous class action lawsuits filed in various
U.S. districts since the fifties and sixties but they were all
dismissed for violating the statute of limitation since they were
filed out of time.

Meanwhile, California state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) will
be attending the filing of the lawsuit.

He will also sponsor a resolution for full equity.  Sen. Yee
added, "the lawsuit puts another pressure on Congress to act on
it."

Compensation for widows

Lead Attorney Arnedo Valera said, "The lump sum, provided to the
veterans two years ago, was discriminatory, partial and
unconstitutional, which leaves them no other option but to pursue
litigation."

The lawsuit will seek compensation for most of the widows, who
were denied the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC).

Ninety-three-year-old Nestor Punsalan complained that he was
denied the lump sum because he wasn't included in the official
list, also called "Missouri List."

Mr. Punsalan said, "I have served the U.S. and offered my life,
why am I not getting the lump sum that I deserve?"

Mr. Valera explained that aside from the question of recognition,
the lawsuit would also highlight the discrimination suffered by
the Filipino veterans.

The FVEC provided a one-time lump sum of $15,000 for US citizens
and $9,000 for non-US citizens.

Mr. Valera said the "quit claim" provision will be questioned in
court too as this will preclude efforts to pursue full equity in
Congress.

Support groups

The organizations supporting the lawsuit and full equity include
the:

* Justice for Filipino-American Veterans (JFAV);
* Association of Widows;
* Advocates and Relatives for Equality (AWARE);
* Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC);
* Veterans for Peace (VFP);
* American Legions;
* ANSWER Coalition;
* Barrio Unidos;
* Filipino Lawyers Organization of Washington (FLOW), and
* Washington State WW II Veterans and Widows.

Reps. Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) and Mike Honda (D-San Jose) also
promised to co-sponsor equity bill in Congress early next year.

The Daly City Council approved unanimously full equity resolution.
The Carson City Council and San Francisco Board of Supervisors are
expected to adopt the same resolution soon.

During WW II, the Philippines was a colony of the US and Filipinos
were considered US nationals.

On July 26, 1941, 250,000 Filipinos were conscripted to be part of
the US Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) that owe allegiance
to the US President and Commander-in-Chief Franklin Roosevelt.

The Filipinos were promised equal treatment as any American
veterans after the war.

In 1946, through the Rescission Act, the US Congress took away the
benefits and recognition of the Filipino World War II veterans and
families out of the 66 nationalities who fought under the US Flag.

In the GI Bill of 2008, many veterans received expanded benefits.
The US Congress, for the second time denied full recognition and
full benefits to Filipino veterans.


TONAWANDA COKE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Benzene Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Hill, writing for Tonawanda News, reports that the
attorneys who filed a class action lawsuit last week against
Tonawanda Coke on Monday filed individual complaints alleging that
the plant's benzene emissions caused their clients' cancer.

Collins & Brown attorney Charles Cobb said the lawsuits filed are
just the tip of the iceberg.  He said, "I have assembled an
amazing litigation team, involving four law firms, to help this
community receive the justice it deserves."

Those firms are Buffalo-based Collins & Brown, as well as Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer; Gordon & Gordon; and Hobbie, Corrigan, Bertucio
& Tashjy.  Attorneys for the firms are holding another meeting at
6 p.m. Wednesday at the Northwest Community Center in Buffalo for
individuals interested in taking legal action against Tonawanda
Coke.

The Town of Tonawanda plant has yet to respond to last week's
class action suit, filed in state Supreme Court.  After filing the
class action suit, Mr. Cobb said individual complaints would soon
follow.  "I anticipate many more lawsuits to be filed in the near
future," Mr. Cobb said, adding that it will be "a constant wave."

The complaints charge that Tonawanda Coke's emissions of benzene
-- a toxic chemical found in coke oven gas -- caused cancer. A
known human carcinogen, benzene has been linked to leukemia, and
residents who live near the River Road plant have claimed there
are higher-than-normal rates of leukemia in the area.

Tonawanda Coke and its owner, J.D. Crane, have come under intense
fire lately, both from the government and the public.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency made public
the results of tests that showed the company underreported its
benzene emissions.  In an exclusive interview with the Tonawanda
News last fall, Crane, who has declined to speak with the media
since, said Tonawanda Coke emits less than 10 tons of benzene.

The EPA, however, said last week the plant produces 90.8 tons, or
nearly 10 times its allowable limit.  EPA officials said they'll
be back at the facility this month to further examine the foundry
coke manufacturer's sources of "fugitive" benzene emissions, which
are caused by leaks.

In addition to governmental scrutiny, Tonawanda Coke has faced a
growing backlash from residents with the formation of a new
community group called Citizens United for Justice, which is in
the process of gathering data to take legal action of its own.

Bruce Steiner, the president of the American Coke and Coal
Chemicals Institute, of which Tonawanda Coke is a member and for
which Crane serves on the Board of Directors, declined to comment
on the action taken against Tonawanda Coke this year.

"We do not comment on member company legal matters," Mr. Steiner
wrote in an e-mail to the Tonawanda News.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott LLP on September 30, 2010, filed a class action
against Transocean Ltd., the former CEO of Transocean, and the
former CEO of GlobalSantaFe Corporation.  As alleged in the
Complaint, the action for violation of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 is brought on behalf of all GlobalSantaFe shareholders and
their successors-in-interest who suffered harm during the period
beginning October 2, 2007 through April 20, 2010, inclusive, as a
result of the Company's false October 7, 2007 proxy.

If you are a member of this Class and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than
November 30, 2010.  Any member of the investor Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com; (800) 404-7770; (860) 537-5537 or visit the Scott+Scott
Web site -- http://www.scott-scott.com/-- for more information.
There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in
advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed
merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a
proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of
§14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  Specifically, Transocean is alleged to have
misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety
practices.  In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater
Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically
underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a
catastrophic event.  The false proxy induced the Class to approve
the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby
harming the Class.

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


VERIZON: Settles Cell Phone Billing Class Action
------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports Verizon Wireless has announced
that it will pay refunds totaling about $90 million to 15 million
cell phone customers who were illegally charged for data sessions
or Internet use.  Customers will reportedly receive either credits
ranging from $2 to $6 on their Verizon Wireless October or
November bills or, in the case of former customers, refund checks.

The FCC had received hundreds of complaints about unauthorized
charges from the telecommunications company's customers spanning
the past three years.  Customers claimed they were charged for
data usage or Web access when their phones were not in use or when
they mistakenly pushed a button that was pre-programmed to
instantly active the phone's Web browser.  Since early 2009, a
number of publications, including The New York Times and The Plain
Dealer of Cleveland, reported that customers had been complaining
of the charges but had often been ignored by Verizon Wireless.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 5,900 PBteen Sleep and Study Loft Beds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
PBteen a division of Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco,
Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,900 PBteen Sleep
and Study Loft Beds.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The side rail on the bed can crack allowing the mattress support
to collapse, posing a fall and injury hazard to users.

The firm has received seven reports of the bed rail cracking or
splitting.  In one reported incident, a child sustained
lacerations to his head when the side rail split as he climbed
down the ladder.

This recall involves PBteen Sleep and Study Loft beds in a variety
of colors: espresso, honey, white and black.  The bed is elevated
and has a desk and bookcase underneath it.  The beds were sold in
the following colors: honey, black, espresso, and white.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11703.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
through PBteen stores in Georgia, New York and Illinois and online
at http://www.pbteen.com/ for about $1,800.  The recalled loft
beds were delivered to consumers from January 2008 through July
2010.

Consumers should immediately contact PBteen to schedule
installation of a free replacement side rail support bracket.  For
additional information, contact PBteen toll-free at (877) 494-9822
between 7:00 a.m. and midnight ET or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.pbteen.com/


* Legal Aid Groups Get Class Action Settlement Windfall
-------------------------------------------------------
Ameet Sachdev at Chicago Tribune reports The Legal Assistance
Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago received a $550,000 windfall
last week, but it won't be enough to prevent budget cuts amid a
climate of declining resources and increasing demand for free
legal services.

The money came from unclaimed funds in a class-action settlement
in Cook County involving a life insurance company.  The
foundation, which provides legal assistance to the poor and
elderly in Chicago and Cook County, was one of five Illinois
recipients to share $1.8 million.

Diana White, the foundation's executive director, said the money
will be used to replenish the organization's reserves, which she
said had fallen to "red alert" levels.  The foundation used
reserves to pay salaries and expenses in 2008 and 2009, when
funding fell short.  Last year, for example, it did not receive a
$900,000 state grant.

Ms. White had already decided to lay off staff and close a South
Side office before the class-action funds came in.

"The money could not have come at a better time," Ms. White said.
"But it doesn't mean we can keep or hire a whole bunch of people.
Or do anything structural that we have to fund in an ongoing way."

These are challenging times for legal aid groups that help keep
families together, keep roofs over their heads and get them back
on their feet.  Federal and state funding has shrunk.  Yet the
need has increased because of the recession and the ongoing
economic malaise that keeps unemployment high.

The Census Bureau said last month that 14.3% of the U.S.
population, or 43.6 million people, lived below the poverty line
last year, compared with 13.2% in the previous year and 11.3% in
2000.

Many legal aid groups provide help to people at or below 125% of
the federal poverty level threshold.  For a family of four, that
is an income ceiling of $27,563 a year, according to the Legal
Services Corp., which funds legal aid programs nationwide.

Nearly 57 million Americans now qualify for civil legal assistance
from the Legal Services Corp., an increase of 3 million from 2008,
and the highest number of people eligible for legal aid in our
country in the corporation's 35-year history.  Of the 57 million,
19.6 million were children, the Census Bureau said.

The new ranks of the poor or those too strapped to afford a lawyer
often don't know where to turn for legal advice, Ms. White said.

The Chicago Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Foundation will
hold a series of free public sessions to introduce organizations
around the city that provide legal representation when money is
tight.  The first event is 7:00 p.m. Tuesday at the Sulzer
Regional Library, 4455 N. Lincoln Ave.  There will be more
sessions throughout the month, including one in Spanish.  The full
schedule will be posted at the Chicago Bar Association's Web site
at chicagobar.org.

"There are a lot more people coming to court unrepresented," said
Bob Glaves, executive director of the Chicago Bar Foundation,
which received $450,000 from the same class-action settlement.

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed in 1997.  A group of
policyholders of Royal Maccabees Life Insurance Co. sued for
breach of contract after the company raised rates.  Eleven years
later, the two sides settled on the eve of trial.  The insurer
agreed to pay $93 million to a nationwide class of 54,000
policyholders and roll back rates an estimated $34.6 million.

The Chicago law firm of Schad, Diamond & Shedden, which
represented the policyholders, was able to distribute more than
95% of the cash settlement, a high participation rate, according
to legal observers.

The remaining amount, about $3.6 million, was given to charities
that provide legal aid to the poor, according to terms of the
settlement.  Half went to the Legal Assistance Foundation, the
Chicago Bar Foundation, the Illinois Bar Foundation, the Land of
Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation and Prairie State Legal
Services Inc.  The rest was distributed to national organizations,
Glaves said.

Unclaimed funds in class-action settlements can be donated to
charity under a legal doctrine known as "cy-pres," which indicates
the next best use of funds.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Roofer Penalized GBP3,600 for Improper Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Environment Agency ordered Andrew Disney, a roofer from
Wellington, Somerset, England, and two of his accomplices to pay
over GBP3,600 in fines and costs for illegally dumping a trailer
load of waste asbestos roofing tiles in the Somerset countryside,
according to an Environment Agency press release dated Sept. 30,
2010.

Mr. Disney, who trades as Disney Roofing, was caught after
packaging containing his home address was found among waste dumped
in a stubble field at Boomer Farm, North Petherton.  The farm lies
within The Quantock Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The farmer was alerted by a friend who told him one of his fields
had been targeted by fly-tippers.  The waste included old asbestos
tiles, drainpipes, wood and plastic.  The farmer reported the
incident to Sedgemoor District Council and handed over a box with
Mr. Disney's home address on it.

On Oct. 2, 2009, two police officers went to 88 Springfield Road,
Wellington and arrested Mr. Disney on suspicion of depositing
controlled waste without a license.  They were accompanied by
officers from the Environment Agency's environmental crime team.

Information obtained from Mr. Disney during questioning implicated
two other men, Gareth Bright and Andrew Bryant, in the crime.
When interviewed, Mr. Disney and Mr. Bright said they borrowed Mr.
Bryant's van to transport the waste to Boomer Farm using a trailer
belonging to Disney.

Samples of waste taken from the field were analyzed and found to
contain white and brown asbestos, a hazardous substance that must
be disposed of at a licensed site.  The waste had come from a site
in the Blagdon Hill area of Taunton.

Mr. Disney had earlier hired a skip to legally dispose of any
hazardous waste, but it had been removed by contractors before all
the asbestos roof tiles and drainpipes from the roofing job at
Taunton had been cleared.  It was this surplus waste that was
dumped.

Glyn Sewell for the Environment Agency said, "Fly-tipping is not
only a blight on the landscape, it also damages wildlife habitats
and can pose a risk to human health.  It is especially important
hazardous wastes like asbestos are disposed of safely.

"We are determined to bring offenders to justice by working in
close partnership with the police and local authorities. The
public can play an important role by reporting any fly-tipping
incidents they see."

Appearing before Bridgwater magistrates, Mr. Disney was ordered to
pay GBP1,844 costs and given a 12-month community order requiring
him to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.

Mr. Bright of 5 Churchfields, Wellington was ordered to pay GBP922
costs and ordered to carry out 100 hours unpaid work under a 12-
month community order.

Mr. Bryant, also of 5 Churchfields, Wellington, was fined GBP300
and ordered to pay GBP285 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims at Aug. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company settled three asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 28, 2010, compared with two
lawsuits and claims during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 29, 2009.

Settlement amounts were US$448,000 during the 39 weeks ended Aug.
28, 2010 and US$51,000 during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 29, 2009.
Insurance payments received or expected to be received were
US$359,000 during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 28, 2010, compared with
US$35,000 during the 39 weeks ended Aug. 29, 2009.

As of Aug. 28, 2010, the Company's probable liabilities and
insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims, inclusive of the
amounts related to the group settlement, were US$2,700,000 and
US$1,411,000, respectively.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in various
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products
containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago.  The
plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple
defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very
large amounts.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and a group of
other defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms
to settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years.  In total, the Company expects to contribute up
to US$4,114,000 towards the settlement amount to be paid to the
claimants in exchange for a full release of claims.  Of this
amount, the Company's insurers have committed to pay US$2,043,000
based on a probable liability of US$4,114,000.

Given that the remaining settlement payouts are expected to occur
over a period of years and the accrual is based on the maximum
number of cases to be settled, the Company applied a present value
approach and has accrued US$2,542,000 and recorded a receivable of
US$1,269,000 due from insurers, as of Aug. 28, 2010.
Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., H.B. Fuller Company makes
adhesives, sealants, powder coatings for metals (office furniture,
appliances), and liquid paints (in Latin America).  The Company's
industrial and performance adhesives customers include companies
in the packaging, graphic arts, automotive, woodworking, and
nonwoven textiles industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 147 Lawsuits Ongoing v. GenCorp at Aug. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 147 pending asbestos cases as of Aug. 31, 2010,
compared with 134 cases as of Nov. 30, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Oct. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases have been filed in Madison
County, Ill., and San Francisco.

During the nine months ended Aug. 31, 2010, the Company recorded
24 claims filed, 10 claims dismissed, and one claim settled.  The
aggregate settlement costs were US$15,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$15,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 27
claims filed, 25 claims dismissed, and two claims settled.  The
aggregate settlement costs were US$35,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$17,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
nine months of fiscal 2010 were US$300,000.  Legal and
administrative fees for the asbestos cases were US$400,000 for
fiscal year 2009 and US$500,000 for fiscal year 2008.

Headquartered in Sacramento, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a
manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a
real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-
zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of the Company's excess
real estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Enters Ruling in Barabin Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at
Seattle, entered a decision in a case involving asbestos
settlements styled Henry & Geraldine Barabin, Plaintiffs v.
AstenJohnson, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered judgment in Case No. C07-
1454RSL on Sept. 13, 2010.

This matter came before the Court on defendants' motions to vacate
the judgment to deduct amounts plaintiffs have received in
asbestos settlements with third parties.  The Court previously
granted the motions, vacated the judgment, and ordered plaintiffs
to provide defendants and the Court with information about all
settlement monies paid and pending.

The Court held a reasonableness hearing on May 21, 2010 to
consider whether the amounts of the settlements were reasonable.
The hearing spanned about an hour and a half and included the
presentation of documents and a live witness, Alan Brayton, Esq.,
a partner with plaintiffs' counsel's firm Brayton Purcell.

In addition, plaintiffs had acknowledged that they had accepted a
settlement from the Harbison-Walker Refractories Company
bankruptcy trust in the amount of US$71,662.50 and conceded that
the verdict should be offset by the amount of that settlement
because receipt of the funds was imminent.

Defendants did not contest the reasonableness of that settlement.
The Court found it to be reasonable in light of the fact that the
trust offered the same amount initially and in its most recent
offer, which demonstrates that plaintiffs would not be able to
achieve a higher settlement.

The Court found that the amount of the consummated settlements was
reasonable.  The judgment in this matter will be offset by
US$836,114.61.  The Clerk of the Court was directed to enter
judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants in the
amount of US$9,373,152.12, which reflected the US$10.2 million
verdict, less the offset amount, plus US$9,266.73 that had been
awarded in costs.

The judgment shall be entered nunc pro tunc as of Nov. 20, 2009,
the date of the initial judgment, for purposes of calculating
interest thereon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ayers' Appeal Dismissed in Lawsuit v. Precision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
dismissed an appeal filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas by Michael J. Ayers.

The case is styled Michael J. Ayers, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Precision Environmental Co., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Larry A. Jones, Melody J. Stewart, and James J. Sweeney
entered judgment in Case No. 93559 on Sept. 23, 2010.  Judge
Sweeney concurred and Judge Stewart concurred in part and
dissented in part.

Mr. Ayers appealed the trial court's decision to grant defendant-
appellee's, City of Cleveland's motion to dismiss and the granting
of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Precision
Environmental Co., Inc.

In 2004, the City condemned real property owned by Ayers on East
40th Street.  The City subsequently ordered the property
demolished and contracted with Precision to perform asbestos
abatement on the property prior to demolishing the buildings.

In 2008, Mr. Ayers filed suit against the City and Precision,
alleging that Precision's employees removed personal property
belonging to Ayers, including eight vehicles, tools, and other
equipment.

The City moved to dismiss.  The trial court granted the City's
motion and dismissed the case against the City on May 5, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the trial court held a settlement conference, at
which attorneys for both Mr. Ayers and Precision attended.  No
settlement was reached and the trial court later granted summary
judgment in favor of Precision.

Mr. Ayers filed his pro se notice of appeal against the judgments
in favor of both the City and Precision.  He later retained
counsel.

The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal against the City and
affirmed summary judgment in favor of Precision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court to Deny Hagen's Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, will
deny Donna L. Hagen's motion to remand an asbestos action filed
against Foster Wheeler Corporation and General Electric Company.

The case is styled Donna L. Hagen, Individually and as Executrix
of the Estate of Malcolm Hagen, Plaintiff v. Benjamin Foster Co.,
et al., Defendants.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No. 07-
63346 on Sept. 24, 2010.

Donna L. Hagen, individually and as executrix of the estate of
Malcolm Hagen, had moved to remand this action, which is
consolidated as part of the MDL-875 asbestos products liability
litigation, to New Jersey state court.

Mrs. Hagen argued the Court should remand due to lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  Foster Wheeler and General Electric filed
timely responses in opposition to Mrs. Hagen's motion.

Mrs. Hagen's motion to remand will be denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bolton Wood Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Bolton Coroners Court heard that the death of John
Howard, a former wood worker from Blackrod, Bolton, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Bolton News
reports.

In 2009, Mr. Howard was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He was
admitted to Bolton Hospice on April 23, 2010 and died five days
later at the age of 58.

Mr. Howard's brother, Leslie Howard, speaking after the inquest,
said, "He was a fighter, he did as much as he could in the last
two months of his life, which was fantastic.  He is sadly missed
by everyone who knew him."

Mr. Howard worked as a wood machinist and was exposed to asbestos
contained in the lagging of a boiler where he worked between the
late 1960s and early 1980s.  He became unwell in April 2009, with
doctors suspecting a chest infection then discovering
mesothelioma.

A post-mortem examination found asbestos particles in Mr. Howard's
lungs.

Assistant deputy coroner, Peter Watson, recorded a verdict of
death caused by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torquay Mom's Death Linked to 2nd-Hand Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at South Devon Coroner's Court heard that the death of
June Foxall, a woman from Torquay, Devon, England, was linked to
secondhand exposure to asbestos, the Herald Express reports.

Mrs. Foxall, a retired company director, contracted malignant
mesothelioma after washing her son's contaminated work clothes.
She died at her Livermead home on Oct. 2, 2010 at the age of 71.

Coroner's officer Ric Parsons said Mrs. Foxall died after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2010.  He said that in the
late 1970s, her son, serving in the Royal Navy, was involved in
stripping out the asbestos-lined boiler rooms of two ships.

Mr. Parsons said, "He would bring his work clothes home, and June
would wash them for him."

Mr. Parsons said after the hearing in Torquay that 14 industrial
disease deaths were recorded by South Devon Coroner Ian Arrow in
2009.  In 2010, seven such deaths have been recorded with Mrs.
Fohall's being the eighth inquest to open involving an industrial
disease.

A full inquest will be held in the resort at a later date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Breaches Determined at 14 NSW Schools
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 4, 2010 report in the Sydney Morning Herald says that
breaches over the handling of asbestos have taken place at 14
government, Catholic and independent schools across New South
Wales, Australia, 1233 ABC Newcastle reports.

New South Wales WorkCover had confirmed it has investigated
complaints about the handling of asbestos at 94 schools since
2007.

The report claims parent groups were not informed about the
breaches, and many of them took place since construction began
under the Building the Education Revolution program.

WorkCover says 12 notices were issued to contractors working
within school grounds -- while on the spot fines were issued to
contractors at two schools for failing to follow correct
administrative procedures or removing asbestos safely.

The Education Department says WorkCover was satisfied that
asbestos was removed safely after the breach notices were issued.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colne Worker's Death Linked to Workplace Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Robert Marshall Brewin, of
Colne, Lancashire, England, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, pendletoday reports.

Mr. Brewin, who died of by bronchial pneumonia and malignant
mesothelioma at the age of 61, spent a lifetime working with
asbestos in mills across East Lancashire.  He died at his Cross
Street home on May 10, 2010.

Mr. Brewin's widow, Gloria, said a fall from a roof had set off
his ill health and told the inquest he had not been well for
years.

The inquest was told that, in 1964, Mr. Brewin began refurbishment
work on mills in Clitheroe.  A statement made by Mr. Brewin in the
lead up to his death said he was tasked with removing asbestos
from old boilers and pipes on various sites.

Mr. Brewin also had to remove asbestos sheets from factory roofs
and break the asbestos up with a hammer.  At no time, he claimed,
was he advised to wear a mask while carrying out his job.  Later,
he was involved in ongoing maintenance at the Rolls Royce plant
and had to pull down asbestos insulation and break it up.

Dr. Walid Salman, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem
examination, found Mr. Brewin's right lung was surrounded by a
tumor which had spread to his heart.  Mr. Brewin had also been
suffering from bronchial pneumonia and ischemic heart disease.

East Lancashire coroner Mr. Richard Taylor recorded a verdict of
death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kane Core's Owners Charged on Fraud Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of Kane Core, Inc. -- David Kane, Mark Marino, and
Jamie Baugher -- were indicted by the United States federal
government on tax evasion and fraud charges, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

Kane Core is one of the property holders at the BoRit asbestos
site in Ambler, Pa.

The indictment accused them of conspiring to defraud the
government by failing to pay federal income taxes and receiving
more than US$2.5 million in fraudulent loans.

The Kane Core owners created fake companies to divert funds from
Kane Core into other bank accounts.  By doing this, Mr. Kane
failed to report over US$488,000 in income, Mr. Marino failed to
report over US$617,000 and Mr. Baugher failed to report more than
US$178,000.

Moreover, Mr. Kane did not file personal federal income tax or pay
any federal income taxes from 1999 to the present, and Mr. Marino
underreported his income from 2003 to 2007.

In November 2004, Kane Core bought the property at 6 Maple St. in
Ambler, which is now part of the BoRit asbestos site.  The Company
proposed constructing a 17-story high-rise condominium building at
the site.  However, the plan drew criticism from the community, as
asbestos is a highly carcinogenic material that can cause lung
cancer and mesothelioma.

Construction on the site would not only impact on traffic, but
also quality of life.

The debate over Kane Core's proposed construction continued for
months.  However, the Company was forced to withdraw its
development application in October 2005. As a property owner, Kane
Core could be responsible for contributing financially to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's cleanup of the BoRit site.

If the Company's owners are found guilty of fraud and tax evasion,
Mr. Kane faces up to 73 years in prison and a US$1.25 million
fine, Mr. Marino faces up to 25 years in prison and a US$1.75
million fine and Mr. Baugher faces up to 16 years in prison and a
US$1 million fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arceneaux Case Filed v. Texaco, Chevron in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The widow and children of Charles Arceneaux, on Sept. 30, 2010,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against Texaco Inc. and Chevron USA Inc.
in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

Katherin Arceneaux and three of her children allege that the two
oil giants are responsible for their benefactor's death.

Court papers show Mr. Arceneaux was employed by Texaco at its Port
Arthur refinery, working as a brick layer, carpenter and general
laborer.  Dates of his employment are not given.

Throughout his career, Mr. Arceneaux was allegedly exposed to
asbestos dust, causing him to develop asbestosis, "for which he
died a painful and terrible death on Aug. 8, 2009," court papers
say.

The Arceneaux family is suing for exemplary damages. Keith Hyde,
Esq., of Provost Umphrey represents the Arceneaux family.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case
No. A188-479.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manhan Rail Trail Cleanup Starts
-------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement work has begun on the final 0.75 miles of the
Manhan Rail Trail and is expected to last until December 2010, The
Republican reports.

In September 2010, environmental crews began to process of
removing a vermiculite concentrate containing asbestos fibers from
the former W. R. Grace & Co. site along the trail's route.  Grace
and a company called Zonolite operated a plant at that location
that made attic insulation and fireproofing that contained
asbestos.

Over the course of four decades, Grace is reported to have shipped
250,000 tons of vermiculite ore from mines in Montana to the
Easthampton, Mass., plant.

The property is now owned by Oldon LTD. and is used by a concrete
company for storage.  Grace is paying for the cost of the cleanup
with help from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the EPA, the cleanup is expected to last into
December 2010. Passersby can expect to see more truck traffic than
usual in the area as excavators and other heavy machinery remove
soil.

Scientists will be doing environmental sampling throughout the
process.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PADEP Checking Jeannette Glass Site for Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is
investigating the former Jeannette Glass factory for the presence
of asbestos, lead, and arsenic, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
reports.

On Oct. 4, 2010, DEP inspectors served a search warrant at the
former factory looking for evidence of soil, water and air
pollution violations, according to a search warrant issued by
District Judge Joe DeMarchis.

Inspectors combed the 32-acre site owned by Abe Zion of New York
City, inspecting the main glass production factory and buildings
known as the "batch house," machine shop and "Russian house," the
search warrant indicates.

A search on Oct. 4, 2010 turned up asbestos and piles of glass
cullet, or waste, along with piles of tires and an undetermined
number of steel drums.  Inspectors have not yet determined what is
in the drums, said Katy Gresh, a DEP spokeswoman in Pittsburgh.

They found asbestos-related materials known as Galbestos, which is
asbestos-protected metal, and transite, a cement-and-asbestos
composite used in wall construction.

Jeannette Glass, once one of the leading glassmakers in the
country, closed in 1982 after 112 years of operation.

Mr. Zion purchased the property in 1983 but never reopened the
facility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cannon Case v. BP Corp. Filed Sept. 23 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everett and Cheryl Cannon, on Sept. 23, 2010, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against BP Corp. North America Inc. in Galveston County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The Cannons allege that Mr. Cannon's illness was a result of
lengthy exposure to asbestos during his nine-year stint as an
employee of Amoco Oil, predecessor to BP.

Mr. Cannon worked for the defendant from 1967 to 1976.  His cancer
diagnosis was made on Aug. 23, 2010.

The suit faults BP for Amoco's reportedly improper supervision of
operations at the facility where Mr. Cannon worked in addition to
the Company's supposed knowledge that its asbestos-laced products
presented a dangerous health risk.

The Cannons seek unspecified monetary damages as well as a jury
trial.

Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black L.L.P. represents the Cannons, and
Galveston County 405th District Court Judge Susan Criss is
presiding over Case No. 10-cv-3613.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Lawyer Cautions on Handling of Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York attorney Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., says that one of the
primary ways that workers in the U.S. are exposed to asbestos
today is in demolition and remodeling, and a recent order from New
York state labor officials shows the dangers of doing unauthorized
work, according to a Belluck & Fox LLP press release dated Oct. 6,
2010.

Mr. Belluck says, "Old houses, schools and factories are often
filled with asbestos-containing materials.  If asbestos isn't
properly handled and disposed of, demolition workers could be at
risk of inhaling asbestos and of creating a community health
hazard.  To prevent that, the state of New York has requirements
for asbestos surveys before demolition and proper removal of
asbestos by a certified asbestos contractor.  Property owners need
to abide by the regulations."

On Sept. 24, 2010, the New York Department of Labor issued a stop
work order and strongly worded statement addressed to the owner of
a former paper mill in Lockport, N.Y., regarding the demolition of
an asbestos-contaminated building at 89 Mill Street.

The owner had previously been issued a Notice of Violation after
state labor inspectors found numerous asbestos violations,
including the lack of an asbestos survey and the lack of a
certified contractor to remove asbestos during the demolition.
State officials told the property owner repeatedly that he needed
to hire a certified asbestos contractor to complete the project.

Inspectors from the New York Department of Labor and Department of
Environmental Conservation conducted a follow-up joint inspection
on Sept. 24, 2010 after being told that workers were still
demolishing the building.

In a Department of Labor press release, New York State Labor
Commissioner Colleen C. Gardener said the inspectors were troubled
to hear that workers had been told there was no asbestos in the
building.  She said, "Nothing could be further from the truth."
She said the property owner could face criminal penalties and jail
time if he ignored the stop work order.

Mr. Belluck said that demolition and construction workers who are
handling asbestos materials without protection or training are
jeopardizing their health.

Mr. Belluck said it's critical that any New York contractor hire a
licensed asbestos contractor when demolishing a building in New
York and use workers trained and certified in asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northern Ireland Firms Warned on Asbestos Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland launched a
campaign to raise awareness about managing asbestos-related risks,
the Safety & Health Practitioner reports.

The HSENI partnered with Northern Ireland's 26 District Councils
to remind duty holders of their legal obligation to manage the
risks from asbestos.

As part of the campaign, nearly 60,000 businesses have been sent
an information pack, which includes an eight-step guide to help
manage the risks from asbestos.  The guide also emphasizes the
importance of maintaining an up-to-date asbestos register for
these businesses buildings.

In the last four years, there have been over 300 asbestos-related
deaths in Northern Ireland.  In the coming months, the HSENI will
be working in conjunction with the District Councils to carry out
inspections of non-domestic premises across the country, to check
the level of compliance with the asbestos regulations.

HSENI chairman, Professor Peter McKie, said, "Asbestos remains the
most serious occupational health issue in Northern Ireland and the
rest of the UK due to its widespread use.  It may be present in
any building built before the year 2000, so it is essential that
those with duties under health and safety law are aware of the
risk it poses and their responsibilities in managing it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowthorne Parish Cleanup Estimated at GBP1,092
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Crowthorne Parish Council in Berkshire, England, says the
removal of asbestos and demolition of a shed from the parish
grounds is estimated at GBP1,092, getbracknell reports.

Crowthorne Parish Council wanted to demolish a shed from an area
behind the parish hall in Heath Hill Road South because it
contains asbestos.

The council approached two companies for quotes, European Asbestos
Services and Active Building and Decorating, but the council was
left with an easy choice.

European Asbestos Services asked for GBP3,466 to carry out the
work while Active Building and Decorating wanted GBP1,092.

Speaking at the meeting of Crowthorne Parish Council on Sept. 21,
2010, Councilor Richard Price said, "I recommend that we accept
the quote from Active Builders.  We don't have a big budget for it
but GBP1,092 seems reasonable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Stalls Renovation of Hawkins Courthouse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Work on the US$2.5 million renovation of the 174-year-old
courthouse in Hawkins County, Tenn., has been suspended because
hazardous materials like asbestos and lead-based paint were found
throughout the building, the Kingsport Times-News reports.

On Oct. 4, 2010, project architect Tony Moore told the Times-News
that a demolitions subcontractor found the hazardous materials,
the removal of which was not included in the original renovation
bid specifications.  The courthouse was later tested for hazardous
materials, which were found throughout the building.

Mr. Moore said there is a "small allowance" set aside in the
courthouse renovation budget for removal of hazardous materials,
as well as a separate contingency fund.  The demolitions
subcontractor as well as three other companies will be submitting
bids for removal of the hazardous materials.

Among the asbestos-containing materials to be removed are floor
tiles on each of the building's three levels: the basement, ground
floor and the second story.  Mr. Moore noted that a lot of that
tile is underneath other flooring materials.  There is also pipe
insulation in the basement and in crawl spaces.  Most of the
ceiling tile in the old courtroom on the second floor contains
asbestos.

County Mayor Melville Bailey said on Oct. 4, 2010 that he will
schedule a Buildings Committee meeting to give Mr. Moore an
opportunity to explain plans for hazardous material removal to him
and county commissioners.

Mr. Moore said he does not expect it to be a major expense, but he
was not willing to offer an estimate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered in Provo, Utah Demolition Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Herald reported that removal crews were called into
action recently after asbestos fibers were found unexpectedly near
a demolition site in Provo, Utah, the Mesothelioma Resource Center
reports.

A man drinking coffee saw men arrive in white haz-mat suits to an
old convention center and became concerned that the minerals were
in the atmosphere and could be inhaled.  Workers found an
asbestos-contaminated pipe beneath the concrete but the county's
assistant public works director Don Nay said there was nothing to
worry about.

The find was a surprise, but Mr. Nay explained this was the reason
for keeping an abatement crew at the demolition site.

Mr. Nay says all of the buildings being demolished at the
convention center had some asbestos in them but none of it had
been released into the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Erosion at Kingscliff's Beach Exposes Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waves pounding the eroded Kingscliff Beach, in Kingscliff, New
South Wales, Australia, have exposed asbestos materials underneath
a nearby crumbling service road, the Tweed Daily News reports.

About four small pieces of asbestos, believed to have been part of
old filling under the road, were detected by a Tweed Shire Council
ranger on Oct. 4, 2010.

Kingscliff and Tweed Heads firefighters as well as a HAZMAT
vehicle were called out to assess and remove the potential threat.

Tweed Heads Fire Station officer Chris Perrin said it was unsure
how long the asbestos had been exposed for and if it had posed a
health risk to the community.  He did not know if there was any
more asbestos under the service road.

Tweed Heads senior firefighter Peter Sutherland, who helped to
remove the material, said it appeared to be the form work of curb-
side guttering used decades ago.

Council is currently waiting to hear back from the New South Wales
Government on the status of an application for AU$10 million worth
of natural disaster funding for the eroded beach.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warilla North in New South Wales to Stay Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Warilla North Public School in New South Wales, Australia, has
been officially closed for the rest of year after an asbestos-
abatement process was determined to take longer than originally
planned, ABC News reports.

Warilla North has been shut down since asbestos was discovered in
May 2010.  The New South Wales Department of Education had hoped
to allow older students back before the end of the year, but the
delay in abatement completion has forced school officials to
abandon the plan.

A spokeswoman for the department said the goal was to get students
and teachers back in the school at the beginning of next year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Pope Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina issues split rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled Horace K. Pope, Jr., Employee,
Plaintiff, Appellee v. Johns Manville, Employer, St. Paul
Travelers Indemnity Company, Carrier-Defendant, Defendants-
Appellants.

Judges Ervin, Geer, and Stroud entered judgment in Case No. COA09-
281-2 on Sept. 21, 2010.

This was an appeal by defendants from Opinion and Award entered on
Nov. 7, 2008 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

Defendants Johns Manville and Travelers Indemnity Company appealed
from the Opinion and Award, in which the Commission concluded that
Horace Pope had been exposed to asbestos during his employment
with Defendant Johns Manville; that Mr. Pope had contracted
asbestosis; that Mr. Pope was disabled; and that Mr. Pope should
be awarded US$399.06 per week in disability benefits, medical
expenses, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 19, 2010, this Court filed an opinion, in which the Court
affirmed the Commission's Opinion and Award in its entirety.

On Feb. 23, 2010, Defendants filed a petition for rehearing.  In
their rehearing petition, Defendants contended that the Court
erred in its original opinion by upholding the Commission's weekly
benefit award because the Commission had erred in calculating Mr.
Pope's average weekly wages.

On March 17, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' petition for the
purpose of reconsidering the Court's decision to affirm the
Commission's calculation of Mr. Pope's average weekly wage.  The
Court now concluded that the Commission erred in its determination
of Mr. Pope's average weekly wage and remanded this case to the
Commission for further proceedings.

The appeal was affirmed in part and remanded in part.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Bodine's Motion in Cat Iron Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, Urbana
Division, denied Bodine Environmental Services, Inc.'s Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Dismissal for
Lack of Jurisdiction.

The case is styled Cat Iron, Inc., Plaintiff v. Bodine
Environmental Services, Inc., Defendant.

Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey entered judgment in Case No. 10-
CV-2102 on Sept. 28, 2010.

Bodine filed this Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and
Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction on Aug. 18, 2010.
Cat Iron Inc. filed its Response on Sept. 1, 2010.

Cat Iron filed its Amended Complaint on Aug. 4, 2010.  In the
Amended Complaint, Cat Iron alleged that it and Bodine entered
into a contract whereby Bodine would inspect one of Cat Iron's
facilities for asbestos and issue a written report to Cat Iron.

Bodine submitted a proposal for a complete National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) asbestos
inspection and comprehensive report of the findings of the
inspection of the Internet Facility in Decatur, Ill., with the
cost not to exceed US$6,100.00.

On May 30, 2008, Robb Davis, on behalf of Cat Iron, accepted and
signed the proposal.  On July 7, 2008, Bodine sent its asbestos
inspection report to Cat Iron and billed Cat Iron for the asbestos
inspection, sampling, and written report.

Bodine filed this Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and
Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction on Aug. 18, 2010.
In its Motion, Bodine argued that the contract in question
explicitly limits Cat Iron's claim for damages to US$6,100.

Cat Iron filed its Response on Sept. 1, 2010.  Therefore, as Cat
Iron had pleaded that the alleged reckless conduct in Count III
caused damage in excess of US$75,000, the court found that the
jurisdictional requirement had been met.

Bodine's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion
for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction was denied.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal for
further proceedings in accordance with this order.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kindergarten in Gisborne Closed Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shire of Macedon Ranges has closed a kindergarten in Gisborne,
Victoria, due to the possible health risks from asbestos sheeting,
ABC News reports.

The Grant Avenue center is closed until further notice, while the
installation of an air-conditioning system is investigated.  Up to
30 children are being placed in another local kindergarten.

Dale Thornton, the shire's assets director, says the system was
installed seven years ago and the council is concerned asbestos
sheeting may have been disturbed.  He said, "The question's been
raised - when that air conditioner was installed, was it done with
compliance?

"We're unable to ascertain that from the records, so we're closing
the kinder as a precaution while we have qualified trades people
check out the installation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Teachers Federation Cites Asbestos Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Teachers Federation asserts that the public
needs to be more informed on the risks of asbestos at schools in
the North Coast, NEW South Wales, Australia, ABC News reports.

It was found that a building contractor at the Channon Public
School has breached Workcover guidelines on the removal of
asbestos.

Nicole Major, from the Teachers Federation, says the removal of
asbestos should be something that everyone knows about.

Workcover NSW has released a statement on the issue.  It says four
notices were issued to the construction contractor on the Channon
School site in relation to asbestos that included administration
and licensing issues.

Ms. Major says the Channon is not the only north coast school
where staff have raised asbestos removal concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Classroom in Mackay North
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mackay North State High School, which is in North Queensland,
Australia, closed one of its classrooms on Oct. 4, 2010 and Oct.
5, 2010 after a teacher found flaking paint from ceiling sheeting
that contained asbestos, ABC News reports.

The classroom was reopened on Oct. 6, 2010.

Acting Principal Tim Condren says he is satisfied all requirements
have been met.  He said, "We immediately closed the room,
relocated all our classes.  QBuild were notified - they've come
straight in, made an assessment.  Then Parsons Brinckerhoff has
come in, determined that action needed to be taken."

Mr. Condren says the appropriate action was taken to rectify the
situation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Issues Raised at Mine Site in Uranium
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metis and First Nations people in the area of Uranium City,
Saskatchewan, were afraid that burning of old buildings in the
uranium mine would release asbestos that would blow through the
air, The Canadian Press reports.

The Saskatchewan Research Council is changing its cleanup plans
for a shut-down uranium mine after a neighboring community voiced
concerns.  Council spokesman Joe Muldoon says old buildings on the
Gunnar Mine site near Uranium City were going to be burned down.

Mr. Muldoon says demolition had to go ahead because it was ordered
by federal regulators.  He says the rubble will be covered and
fenced off until it is decided what should be done with it.

The Gunnar Mine is 25 kilometers southwest of Uranium City,
Saskatchewan, Canada.  It is situated on the north shore of Lake
Athabasca.

The uranium deposit was discovered in 1952.  The mine had open-pit
and underground operations until it was shut down in 1963.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court Recommends Dismissal of Jenkins Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division, recommended that Dedrick Jenkins' civil rights complaint
be dismissed with prejudice.

The case is styled Dedrick Jenkins v. Brad Livingston, et al.

U.S. Magistrates Judge John D. Love entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 6:09cv560 on Aug. 31, 2010.

Mr. Jenkins, a prisoner confined at the Skyview Unit of the Texas
prison system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the
above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit.

The original complaint was filed on Dec. 17, 2009. In it, Mr.
Jenkins claimed that the Skyview Unit, where he is housed, has
inadequate ventilation that creates extremes of heat in the winter
and cold in the summer without a thermostat to control the
temperatures.  Further, he contended that there is asbestos in the
ceiling and floor tiles, creating a hazardous environment.

On July 21, 2010, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing to
consider Mr. Jenkins' claims.  He testified he had been in the
Skyview Unit, which provides psychiatric care for inmates of the
Texas prison system, for five years.  He asserted he suffers from
a combination of staph infections, gastrointestinal problems, and
sinus and nose problems.

Mr. Jenkins testified that he suffers from mental impairments.  He
said he is gaining weight and sleeps "non-stop" from the
medications he receives for his mental disorders.  He also
believes his physical ailments were caused by the presence of
asbestos in the ceilings and floor tiles in some areas of the
prison.

Mr. Jenkins is suing Warden Foxworth because he is in charge of
the Skyview Unit and is aware of the asbestos and air conditioning
issues.  He is suing Executive Director Livingston because he is
Warden Foxworth's superior.

Mr. Jenkins said he had filed a grievance when he first arrived at
the Skyview Unit, but it had received no response.  In December
2009 and January 2010, he filed new grievances.  In the instant
lawsuit, he said, he sought punitive damages and an injunction
requiring removal of the asbestos tiles and "whatever else."

Regional Grievance Office representative Mr. Brooks testified that
Mr. Jenkins had exhausted his administrative remedies through the
prison grievance process and presented Mr. Jenkins' grievance and
classification records as well as some maintenance records from
the prison.

Mr. Jenkins agreed that the Court could review his records as part
of this action.  He also consented to jurisdiction by the
undersigned Magistrate Judge.

It was therefore recommended that Mr. Jenkins' civil rights
complaint be dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Straube's Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Jan.
16, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
William H. Straube entitlement to service connection for
emphysema, including as secondary to asbestos exposure.

The case is styled William H. Straube, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Greene entered judgment in Case No. No. 08-2326 on Sept. 30,
2010.

Mr. Straube sought a reversal of the Board decision, or, in the
alternative, remand.  He offered several arguments.  He argued
that the Board's finding that his in-service diagnosis was not a
chronic condition is unsupported by the facts and that the
evidence regarding his years of continuity of symptomatology, when
properly considered, clearly supported a finding of service
connection.

Mr. Straube also argued that the Board erred in relying on his
temporally remote history of smoking as evidence against his claim
and that the Board erred in not resolving the benefit of the doubt
in his favor.  He further asserted that the 2004 VA medical
examination was inadequate because the examiner failed to consider
his extensive history of symptoms since his separation from the
Navy.

Alternatively, Mr. Straube argued that the record was insufficient
to support denial of his claim, that the regional office (RO) was
required to obtain a medical opinion to confirm whether he
contracted asbestosis and, if so, whether there was any
association of the disease to in-service events.

Further, Mr. Straube argued that the Board's failure to address
his lay statements of continuity of symptomatology rendered its
statement of reasons and bases inadequate.  The Secretary had
moved to strike a reference made by Mr. Straube to a letter from
his private physician.

The Secretary also argued that the Board decision should be
affirmed.  The Jan. 16, 2008 Board decision was affirmed and the
Secretary's motion to strike was granted.

                             *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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  * * *