---

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

            Friday, February 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 40

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend False Pricing Suits
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend AndroGel Class Suits
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Norvir-Related Lawsuits
APAC CUSTOMER: Obtains Final Order Dismissing "Sharpe" Suit
BEST BUY: Faces Securities Class Action in Minnesota

CALIFORNIA OIL COS: Faces Class Action Over Zip Codes
CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
CVS CAREMARK: Discovery in "Lauriello" Suit Continues
CVS CAREMARK: Motions for Class Certification Still Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend "FLSA" Suits in California

CVS CAREMARK: Securities Class Suit Now Pending in New Hampshire
DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Defend "Weinstat" Suit in Calif.
DENTSPLY INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Still Pending
EB BRANDS: Recalls 29,700 Resistance Stretch Tubing
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Sued for Overcharging Residential Deliveries

FELT BICYCLES: Recalls 1,550 Units 2011 Felt Adult Bicycles
FERDINAND MARCOS: Class Action Settlement Payments to Begin
FORD MOTOR: Sued for Selling Pickups with Defective Engine
HERSHEY CO: Continues to Face Class Action Allegations
HUMANA INC: Remains a Defendant in "Sacred Heart" Suit

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Appeal Settlement
INTEL CORP: Class Certification in Consumer Suits Still Pending
INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Sexual Harassment Suit Nears Settlement
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Securities Class Action Still Pending in New York
KENAN ADVANTAGE: DRI Seeks Review of Class Certification Ruling

MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Georgia
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Howell" Suit
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: "Silverman" Lawsuit Remains Pending
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Suit in Ill.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Dismissal of Consolidated Suit

PANERA BREAD: Settles Crispani Class Action for $5.75 Million
PERRIN HOLDEN: Sued for Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked
PHILIP MORRIS: Court Declines to Review Class Action Ruling
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Ensco Merger
PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Faces 2 More Suits Over Ensco Merger in Texas

PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Del. Stockholders Seek to Stop Ensco Merger
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Recalls 160 Novara Fusion Bicycles
STRYKER CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending
TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss ERISA & Securities Suits Pending
THE BRICK: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising

UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Dismissal of Finra Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Sup. Ct. Urged to Uphold Class Certification
WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Social Security Numbers in Employee IDs

* U.S.-Style Class Actions Difficult to Bring in U.K.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Box Injury Case v. SonomaWest Filed on Oct. 2010
ASBESTOS ALERT: Six Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Thermon Holding
ASBESTOS ALERT: Carlisle Settles 2 Injury Cases in Q4 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ross Claim v. 11 Firms Filed Jan. 27 in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Facing Lawsuits From Former Businesses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Strengthens $1.3BB Loss Reserves in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.1BB for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Records $277,000 Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6T Claims Pending v. Owens-Illinois at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83,700 Claims Open v. Goodyear Tire at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Has 1,167 Open Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. United Technologies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Unit Has 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Posts $53MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 499 Cases Ongoing v. Celanese Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17T Injury Claims Open v. BorgWarner at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $633MM Dec. 31 Litigation Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $718MM NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Travelers Coverage Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 22,480 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Posts $1.719BB Bendix, NARCO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spectrum Unit Still Facing 3 Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Precision Castparts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Posts $3.9MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Communications Posts $63MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Named in Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $3.7MM Liability, Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.87MM Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG to Recover $800T From W.R. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Delays Thornhill Community Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Pleads Guilty to Iowa Cleanup Charge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Minister Affirms GBP5.7M for Glan Clwyd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Firms Fined $15,600 for Cleanup Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunriver Owners, DEQ Agree on Abatement Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webster Plumber Arraigned on Abatement Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Palmieri Action v. 32 Firms Filed Jan. 18

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Sentenced to Imprisonment of Six Months
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Posts $126Mil Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Respirator Actions Still Pending v. 3M Company
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in 3M Company Action Slated for June 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $32MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Subject to Exposure Lawsuits



                             *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend False Pricing Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories continues to defend itself in various
purported class actions and state court actions alleging false
pricing information of certain drugs, according to the Company's
Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Several cases, brought as purported class actions or
representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, are
pending against Abbott that allege generally that Abbott and
numerous other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing
information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable
under Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors.  These cases,
brought by private plaintiffs, state Attorneys General, and other
state government entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The federal court cases
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Multi
District Litigation Rules as In re: Pharmaceutical Industry
Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456.  MDL 1456 includes:
(a) two state Attorneys General suits, filed in August 2006 (State
of South Carolina) and July 2009 (State of Mississippi  on behalf
of its state health plan); and (b) a purported class action case
in which the plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes of
Medicare Part B consumers and third party payors and other
consumers, filed in June 2003.  Eighteen named defendants,
including Abbott, collectively settled this case, subject to final
approval of the district court.  In addition, several cases are
pending against Abbott in state courts:  Commonwealth of Kentucky,
filed in September 2003 in the Circuit Court of Franklin County,
Kentucky; State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit
Court of Dane County, Wisconsin; State of Illinois, filed in
February 2005 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; State
of South Carolina (on behalf of its state health plan), filed in
August 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifth Judicial Circuit
of Richland County, South Carolina; State of Alaska, filed in
October 2006 in the Superior Court for the Third Judicial District
in Anchorage, Alaska; State of Idaho, filed in January 2007 in the
District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Ada County,
Idaho; State of Utah, filed in November 2007 in the Third Judicial
District in Salt Lake County, Utah; State of Louisiana, filed in
October 2010 in the Nineteenth Judicial District, Parish of Baton
Rouge, Louisiana and State of Oklahoma, filed in September 2010 in
the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma.

In 2010, Abbott settled the civil whistle-blower suit brought by
the United States Department of Justice, filed in May 2006 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida;
the civil whistle-blower suit brought by Ven-A-Care of the Florida
Keys, Inc., unsealed against Abbott in August 2007 and in which
the United States declined to intervene; County of Erie, filed in
March 2005 in the Supreme Court of Erie County, New York; State of
Mississippi, filed in October 2005 in the Circuit Court of Rankin
County, Mississippi; State of Hawaii, filed in April 2006 in the
First Circuit Court of Hawaii; County of Oswego, filed in August
2006 in the Supreme Court of Oswego County, New York; County of
Schenectady, filed in August 2006 in the Supreme Court of
Schenectady County, New York; and State of Kansas, filed in
October 2008 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend AndroGel Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories' unit, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
continues to defend itself from various lawsuits relating to the
patent of AndroGel, a testosterone gel product.

Several lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010 -- et al. have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as
In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084.  These cases,
brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission,
generally allege Solvay's 2006 patent litigation involving
AndroGel was sham litigation and the patent litigation settlement
agreement and related agreements with three generic companies
violate federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment laws.  Plaintiffs generally seek
monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
MDL 2084 includes: (i) 3 individual plaintiff lawsuits:
Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. et al., was filed
in April 2010 in the Northern District of Georgia; and  Rite Aid
Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and Walgreen
Co. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., both of which
were filed in February 2009 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; (ii) 7 purported class
actions: Meijer, Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co.,
Inc. et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., all of which
were filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; Stephen L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc.
et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in March 2009
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey; Fraternal Order of Police v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., filed in September 2009 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia; Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.
v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in October 2009 in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee; and  LeGrand v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. et al.,
filed in September 2010 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia; and (iii) a lawsuit brought by
the FTC, Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., filed in May 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  In February 2010, Solvay's
motion to dismiss the cases was partially granted and all of the
FTC's claims and all of the plaintiffs' claims except those
alleging sham litigation were dismissed.  In June 2010, the FTC
appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit, and this appeal is pending.  In February
2010, two cases, Scurto et al. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., filed in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, and United Food & Com. Workers Unions
& Employ. Midwest Health Benefits Fund et al. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., filed in May 2009 in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, were
dismissed.

No further updates were reported in Abbott's Feb. 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Norvir-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories continues to defend itself against lawsuits
related to the 2003 Norvir re-pricing.

Four cases are pending against Abbott in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California that allege
antitrust violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-
pricing: (a) a consolidated class action filed on behalf of all
direct purchasers by three individual plaintiffs, Meijer, Inc.,
filed in November 2007, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.,
filed in December 2007, and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.,
filed in November 2007; (b) two cases filed on behalf of director
purchaser class opt-outs, Rite Aid, Inc., filed in December 2007
and Safeway, Inc., filed in October 2007; and (c) one case filed
by a competitor, GlaxoSmithKline, filed in November 2007.  All of
the cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial.  The
plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and costs.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


APAC CUSTOMER: Obtains Final Order Dismissing "Sharpe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Wisconsin federal court has ordered the dismissal of a class
action complaint filed by Tiffany Sharpe against APAC Customer
Services Inc., according to the Company's February 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 27, 2009, a purported collective/class action complaint
captioned Tiffany Sharpe, et al. v. APAC Customer Services, Inc.
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.  On behalf of the named plaintiff, a non-
exempt call center employee, and other similarly situated
individuals, the complaint asserted violations under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) related to overtime compensation
and wage records.  The complaint also asserted violations under
Wisconsin Wage Payment and Overtime Compensation Laws based upon
the same alleged facts.  The complaint purported to allege claims
as a nationwide collective action under federal law, as well as a
class action under Wisconsin state law.  The complaint sought
various forms of relief, including injunctive relief, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  On January 8, 2010, the court entered an order which
conditionally certified the case as a collective action under the
FLSA.

In March 2010, APAC Customer entered into an agreement to resolve
the collective action.  On June 16, 2010, the Court entered an
order approving the resolution of all claims under the FLSA
collective action.  Under the terms of the agreement, APAC
Customer agreed to pay a maximum amount of $4.0 million to resolve
claims by eligible class members, including payments to class
members and payments for plaintiff attorneys' fees.  As a result,
APAC Customer recorded a liability of $2.4 million for the
thirteen weeks ended April 4, 2010 which represented its estimate
at the time of the costs to be incurred for attorneys' fees and
claims, based on expected opt-in rates for claimants in similar
actions.  Based on the court's final order approving the
agreement, (including setting the amount of plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees) and a revised estimated rate of participation from eligible
class members, APAC Customer reduced the previously recorded
liability by $0.5 million during the thirteen weeks ended
October 3, 2010 to an adjusted recorded liability of $1.8 million
which reflected the revised expectation of the final amount which
would ultimately be paid.

On December 21, 2010, a final order of dismissal was entered by
the Court triggering APAC Customer's payment obligations under the
agreement to resolve the collective action.  The final amount paid
to class members who participated in the action and to plaintiff's
attorney was approximately $1.8 million.

APAC Customer denied and continues to deny the allegations in the
complaint and contend that its policies and practices regarding
compensation were proper and in compliance with the law at all
times.  It denies all liability and wrongdoing in this case, but
decided to settle this lawsuit in order to avoid the distraction
and additional legal expenses that would otherwise be incurred.


BEST BUY: Faces Securities Class Action in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
Melissa Loth, writing for Twin Cities Business, reports that a
San Diego law firm filed a suit on Feb. 18, which claims Best Buy
made false and misleading statements about its financial position,
causing investors to lose money when the company's stock
plummeted.

Richfield-based Best Buy Company, Inc., faces a securities lawsuit
that is seeking class-action status based on claims that the
company's misleading and false statements about its financial
position caused investors to lose money.

The suit was filed on Feb. 18 in U.S. District Court in Minnesota
by San Diego law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP -- which
specializes in investor class-action suits and securities fraud --
on behalf of a group of investors.

According to the suit, Best Buy made several false and misleading
statements in regards to its fiscal 2011 sales and earnings in
press releases and during conference calls for investors and
analysts.  The misleading statements allegedly caused investors
who purchased stock between Sept. 14, 2010, and Dec. 13, 2010, to
lose money.

In March 2010, Best Buy reported its 2010 fiscal year results and
issued its fiscal 2011 outlook of $53 billion in revenue and
earnings per share of between $3.45 and $3.60.

In June, the suit says, the company's fiscal 2011 first-quarter
results missed analyst expectations for both revenue and earnings.
Despite missing expectations, the company reiterated its previous
fiscal 2011 outlook and also rejected analysts' concerns that
demand for its products during the remainder of the year might not
be strong enough to make up for the first-quarter shortfall.

According to the complaint, Best Buy reported its second-quarter
results in September, again reporting declines.  Despite the
declines, the company increased its fiscal 2011 earnings outlook
to between $3.55 per share and $3.70 per share.

Then, in December, the company reported its third-quarter
financial results, which missed expectations by a wide margin,
prompting the company to slash its fiscal 2011 earnings outlook to
$3.20 per share to $3.40 per share -- below its original outlook
that was set in March, according to the suit.

Following the third-quarter news, there was an "immediate and
massive sell off" of the company's shares on Dec. 14, resulting in
a stock price decline of up to 22% from what investors paid for
the stock between Sept. 14 and Dec. 13.

The complaint alleges that Best Buy knew or "deliberately
disregarded" facts that indicated it would not be able to support
its aggressive fiscal 2011 outlook, yet the company continued to
mislead investors into believing that it would succeed in meeting
expectations.

The suit is looking to get class-action status and is seeking to
recover damages on behalf of those who purchased Best Buy's common
stock between Sept. 14 and Dec. 13.

A phone call to a Best Buy representative on Feb. 22 was not
immediately returned.

Best Buy is the state's third-largest public company based on
revenue, which totaled $49.7 billion for its fiscal year that
ended in February 2010.


CALIFORNIA OIL COS: Faces Class Action Over Zip Codes
-----------------------------------------------------
A consumer protection lawsuit was filed on Feb. 22 accusing
California's largest gas station chains of violating the Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act by requiring customers who pay with credit
cards to type their zip codes into a keypad then electronically
recording and transferring that information.

Under California law, merchants are permitted to request personal
identification information from a buyer paying with a credit card.
However, the Song-Beverly Act prohibits merchants from recording
such information or requiring the customer to do so.

A California court had previously ruled that zip codes were not
"personal identification information."  And, virtually every gas
station in the state requires customers to key in their zip code
as part of the payment process.  However, last week the California
Supreme Court held that zip codes are "personal identification
information" protected by the Song-Beverly Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Chevron, Conocophillips (Conoco, Phillips
66, and Union 76), Exxonmobil (Exxon, Mobil), Shell, Tesoro (USA
Gasoline), and Thrifty gasoline stations, both corporate-owned and
franchised, violated the Song-Beverly Act by requiring customers
to type in their zip code then recording that information
electronically and sending it to a credit card processing site.

The Song-Beverly Act provides for civil penalties of up to $1,000
for each repeat violation.  The defendant oil companies may be
liable for up to a billion dollars a day, making this one of the
largest consumer class actions in history.

A copy of the lawsuit is available at:

     http://www.jeffschwartzlaw.com/zipcodes.pdf

For more information, or to schedule an interview, contact
Jeff Schwartz at 888-7300-LAW or jeff@JeffSchwartzLaw.com


CSX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corp. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging U.S. antitrust law violations, according
to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Since 2007, 31 putative class action suits have been filed in
various federal district courts against CSX Corp.'s principal
operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc.  and three other
U.S.-based Class I railroads.  The class action suits have been
consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia.  The
court has not yet ruled on whether it is appropriate to certify
the case as a class action.

The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the
effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to
contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal
conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.  The suits seek
unquantified treble damages (three times the amount of actual
damages) allegedly sustained by purported class members,
attorneys' fees and other relief.

All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight
transportation services from the defendants through the use of
contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation
during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and that
were assessed fuel surcharges.  Three of the lawsuits purport to
be on behalf of indirect purchasers of rail services.  The court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchasers'
claims.  The court dismissed all of the indirect purchasers'
causes of action seeking money damages, but did not dismiss their
request for injunctive relief.  The dismissal was upheld on
appeal.  Plaintiffs then petitioned the United States Supreme
Court to hear the case.  The Supreme Court denied the petition in
December 2010.

One additional lawsuit was filed, but not served, by an individual
shipper.  CSXT entered into a tolling agreement with this shipper
whereby the shipper agreed to dismiss the lawsuit against CSXT
without prejudice and CSXT agreed to extend the statute of
limitations for the claims asserted until the end of 2010.  That
agreement has been extended to the end of 2011.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices are lawful.
Accordingly, CSXT intends to vigorously defend itself against the
purported class actions, which it believes are without merit.

CSX Corporation, based in Jacksonville, Fla., is a leading
transportation company providing rail, intermodal and rail-to-
truck transload services.  The company's transportation network
spans approximately 21,000 miles with service to 23 eastern states
and the District of Columbia, and connects to more than 70 ocean,
river and lake ports.


CVS CAREMARK: Discovery in "Lauriello" Suit Continues
-----------------------------------------------------
Discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is ongoing in
a putative class action filed by John Lauriello against CVS
Caremark Pharmacy Services, according to CVS Caremark
Corporation's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark, several
insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999
settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class
action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.  The attorneys and law firms named as defendants
in McArthur's intervention pleadings have been dismissed from the
case, and discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is
underway.


CVS CAREMARK: Motions for Class Certification Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Pharmacy Services is awaiting a court ruling on
motions to dismiss a consolidation action captioned as In Re
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, according to CVS
Caremark Corporation's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.  In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief.  This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief.
The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark
entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal
court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.  The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties
pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and
staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the
appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling
arbitration of the Bellevue case.  Motions for class certification
in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending.  The
consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend "FLSA" Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation remains a defendant in putative class
action lawsuits filed by current and former employees in
California alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
other state laws, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Since March 2009, the Company has been named in a series of
putative collective and class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts around the country, purportedly on behalf of current and
former assistant store managers working in the Company's stores at
various locations outside California.  The lawsuits allege that
the Company failed to pay overtime to assistant store managers as
required under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under certain
state statutes.  The lawsuits also seek other relief, including
liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunctive relief arising out of the state and federal claims for
overtime pay.  Notice has been issued to over 13,000 current and
former assistant store managers offering them the opportunity to
"opt in" to certain of the FLSA collective actions and over 1,900
have elected to participate in these lawsuits.  At this time, the
Company is not able to predict the outcome of these cases, or the
possible monetary exposure associated with the lawsuits.  The
Company's position, however, that the lawsuits are without merit
and that the cases should not be certified as class or collective
actions.

The Company is vigorously defending these claims.


CVS CAREMARK: Securities Class Suit Now Pending in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit originally filed in a federal
court in Rhode Island has been transferred to New Hampshire,
according to CVS Caremark Corporation's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit names
the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of
insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in December 2009, in the same court against the directors
and certain officers of the Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a
lawsuit filed by a shareholder purporting to assert claims on
behalf of a corporation against directors and officers of the
corporation.  This lawsuit includes allegations of, among other
things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary
duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the
purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share
repurchase program.  In January 2011, both lawsuits were
transferred to the United States District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and the
Company plans to defend them vigorously.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Defend "Weinstat" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International Inc. continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit pending in the San Francisco County Court, in
California, according to the Company's February 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS, and Richard Nathan, DDS,
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California,
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class is defined as
California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  This case has been
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court.

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


DENTSPLY INT'L: Motion to Dismiss "Hildebrand" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
complaint filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin,
DDS, is pending in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On Dec. 12, 2006, a complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS,
and Robert Jaffin, DDS, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for class certification to
which the Company has filed its response.  The Company also filed
other motions, including a Motion to dismiss the claims of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court granted
this Motion for lack of standing of the individuals and did not
allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their
corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class
representative in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction
of the U.S. District Court.  The plaintiffs have now filed another
complaint in which they named the corporate practices of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The Company has
moved to dismiss this complaint.


EB BRANDS: Recalls 29,700 Resistance Stretch Tubing
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
EB Brands, of Yonkers, New York, announced a voluntary recall of
about 29,700 resistance stretch tubing.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The handle on the tubing, also called bands, can break or detach
while in use, causing the tubing or handle to strike the user and
posing an injury hazard.

One report of an incident involving a bone injury.

This recall involves Everlast Resistance Stretch Tubing, Everlast
Pilates Stretch Tubing, Sportline Resistance Stretch Tubing and
Pineapple Pilates Stretch Tubing, used for exercise and
stretching.  The tubing comes in yellow, blue or black with black
handles.  The words "2404", "2001 EB Sport Group" and "Made in
China" are molded on the handles.  A list of affected lot numbers
is available on the firm's Web site.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11138.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Sporting goods retailers from March 2010 through December 2010 for
between $13 and $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact EB Brands for a free replacement product or a full refund.
For additional information, contact EB Brands at (800) 624-5671
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.ebbrands.com/


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Sued for Overcharging Residential Deliveries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that FedEx overcharges for residential deliveries while offering
cheaper rates to businesses and government.

A copy of the Complaint in Manjunath A. Gokare, P.C. v. Federal
Express Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-02131 (W.D. Tenn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/22/FedEx.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William F. Burns, Esq.
          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          WATSON BURNS, PLLC
          253 Adams Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: 901-529-7996
          E-mail: bburns@watsonburns.com
                  fwatson@watsonburns.com

               - and -

          Salu K. Kunnatha, Esq.
          KUNNATHA LAW FIRM, PC
          2970 Clairmont Rd., Suite 905
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-633-4200
          E-mail: skk@kunnathalaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq.
          Robert L. Ashe, III, Esq.
          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900
          Telephone: 404-881-4100
          E-mail: bramlett@bmelaw.com
                  ashe@bmelaw.com
                  ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com


FELT BICYCLES: Recalls 1,550 Units 2011 Felt Adult Bicycles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,550 units 2011 Felt Adult bicycles.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bicycle's fork can break, causing the rider to lose control,
fall and suffer injuries.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all 2011 Felt F3, F4, F5 and F75 bicycles
with carbon fiber frames and carbon fiber forks.

   * 2011 F3 - These bicycles are satin carbon/satin white with
               red decals.
   * 2011 F4 - These bicycles are satin carbon/satin white with
               grey decals.
   * 2011 F5 - These bicycles are satin carbon/satin red or matte
               black with diamond shape design.
   * 2011 F75 - These bicycles are gloss navy.

"Felt" is written across the down tube of the bicycle frame.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11139.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
bicycle specialty stores nationwide from July 2010 through
November 2010 for between about $1,400 and $5,000 per bicycle.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact their local Felt Bicycles dealer to receive a free
inspection and repair.  For additional information, call Felt
Bicycles toll-free at (866) 433-5887 or (866) 4-FELT-US between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.feltracing.com/


FERDINAND MARCOS: Class Action Settlement Payments to Begin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years after the dictator Ferdinand Marcos was ousted
in the 1986 People Power revolution, victims of his oppressive
regime will at long last receive some compensation for their
suffering.

The settlement will be paid out starting March 1, the US-based
Kohn Swift and Graf law office informed the class action claimants
in a letter dated Feb. 7.

"It is my great pleasure to inform you that your claim is eligible
for payment for the peso equivalent of $1,000 from the settlement
fund in this litigation," said the letter signed by Robert Swift,
the class suit lead counsel.

Last January, Honolulu Judge Manuel Real approved the distribution
of $7.5 million to settle a class action suit filed in 1986 by
rights abuse victims of the Marcos regime.

In 1995, a landmark decision by a US federal jury in Honolulu
found the Marcos estate liable for torture, summary executions and
disappearances of about 10,000 people and awarded the victims
$2 billion in damages.

A total of 9,539 victims had joined the class suit but this number
has been reportedly reduced to 7,526 because of questions of
eligibility.

Claimants should have submitted both the 1993 and 1999 claim forms
in order to be considered eligible.

The money will be distributed at the office of the Commission on
Human Rights, SAAC Building, UP complex, Quezon City, from March 1
to 7.  The letter clarified that the CHR is allowing the use of
its space but is not participating in the distribution.

Payment will only be made in person.  The office will be open from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. every day from March 1 to 7.

Claimants with last names beginning with the letters A through E
must appear on March 1; F through J, March 2; K through O,
March 3; P through T, March 4; V through Z, March 7. Those who
cannot appear on these dates will be seen on March 7.

Claimants may not come on any other day.

Claimants have to bring with them the original of the Feb. 7,
2011, letter and any two of the following forms of identification:
Voter's ID, GSIS, SSS, driver's license, TIN, NBI clearance with
picture, seaman's book issued by Marina, senior citizen ID, postal
ID, or any other government-issued photo ID.

No one will receive payment unless his or her identity is
verified.  No power of attorney will be accepted.  If the claimant
is deceased, a death certificate must be presented by the next of
kin.

After receiving payment, payees will sign a receipt of payment,
photographs will be taken and kept by class counsel to be used to
verify identities should there be future distribution.

The check will be in Philippine pesos in the claimant's name drawn
on a local bank so that the payee may deposit or cash the check on
the same day the payment is received.

Mr. Swift clarified that class counsel receives compensation
through the court so there is no obligation on the part of
claimants to pay class counsel.

The court has also ruled that if a claimant is represented by a
personal counsel in the litigation, personal counsel may not
receive more than five percent of the payment.

No human rights organization or other group is entitled to any
portion of the claimant's payment.

According to Mr. Swift, the litigation to collect on the 1995
judgment continues, so there could be additional distributions in
the future.

The settlement looks like a miserable pittance compared to the
claimants' claim against the billions of dollars in ill-gotten
Marcos wealth.

But no one is protesting because this could just be the first
tranche, and there could be more distributions in the future.

And more importantly, "this is not about the money but a historic
victory that would vindicate the human victims of an evil reign,"
stressed one claimant.


FORD MOTOR: Sued for Selling Pickups with Defective Engine
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Ford's 6-liter Power Stroke diesel engine for pickups has multiple
problems, including loss of power, engine gas recirculation cooler
failure, oil cooler failure, blown head gaskets, warped head
bolts, and coolant entering the engine ventilation system.

A copy of the Complaint in Mayfield V. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 11-cv-00403 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/22/FordCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce C. Betzer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE C. BETZER
          1420 Veterans Boulevard
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (504) 832-9942


HERSHEY CO: Continues to Face Class Action Allegations
------------------------------------------------------
The Hershey Company continues to face lawsuits alleging
conspiracies in restraint of trade in connection with its pricing
practices, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a party to approximately 90 related civil antitrust
suits in the United States and 14 in Canada.  Certain of these
claims contain class action allegations, instituted on behalf of
direct purchasers of the Company's products as well as indirect
purchasers that purchase Hershey products for use or for resale.
These suits allege conspiracies in restraint of trade in
connection with the pricing practices of the Company.  Several
other chocolate and confectionery companies are the subject of
investigations and/or inquiries by government entities and have
also been named as defendants in the same litigation.  One
Canadian wholesaler is also a subject of the Canadian
investigation.  Hershey Company says it is cooperating with the
government investigations and inquiries and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.


HUMANA INC: Remains a Defendant in "Sacred Heart" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Humana Inc. disclosed that Humana Military Healthcare Services,
Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
commenced by Sacred Health System, Inc., according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Humana Military was named as a defendant in Sacred Heart Health
System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT, a class action lawsuit filed on
February 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida asserting contract and fraud claims against
Humana Military.  The Sacred Heart Complaint alleged, among other
things, that, Humana Military breached its network agreements with
a class of hospitals in six states, including the seven named
plaintiffs, that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient
services provided to beneficiaries of the DoD's TRICARE health
benefits program.  The Complaint alleged that Humana Military
breached its network agreements when it failed to reimburse the
hospitals based on negotiated discounts for non-surgical
outpatient services performed on or after October 1, 1999, and
instead reimbursed them based on published CHAMPUS Maximum
Allowable Charges.  Humana Military denied that it breached the
network agreements with the hospitals and asserted a number of
defenses to these claims.  The Complaint sought, among other
things, the following relief for the purported class members: (i)
damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract by Humana
Military, (ii) taxable costs of the litigation, (iii) attorneys
fees, and (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper.
Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred
Heart Health System Inc. requested damages and other relief for
its individual claim against Humana Military for fraud in the
inducement to contract.  On September 25, 2008, the district court
certified a class consisting of all institutional healthcare
service providers in TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had
network agreements with Humana Military to provide outpatient non-
surgical services to CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of November
18, 1999, excluding those network providers who contractually
agreed with Humana Military to submit any such disputes with
Humana Military to arbitration.  On March 3, 2010, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's class certification order
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceeding.  On June 28, 2010, the plaintiffs sought leave of the
district court to amend their complaint to join additional
hospital plaintiffs.  Humana Military filed its response to the
motion on July 28, 2010.  The district court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to join 33 additional hospitals on
September 24, 2010.  On October 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
their Fourth Amended Complaint claiming the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida has subject matter
jurisdiction over the case because the allegations in the
complaint raise a substantial question under federal law.  The
amended complaint asserts no other material changes to the
allegations or relief sought by the plaintiffs. Humana Military's
Answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on November 30,
2010.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Awaits Court Approval of Appeal Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated is awaiting court approval of a
settlement of an appeal from a dismissal order of an Ohio lawsuit,
according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Between February 20, 2008 and February 29, 2008, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, against
Huntington, the Huntington Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review
Committee, the Huntington Investment and Tax Savings Plan
Administrative Committee, and certain of the Company's officers
and directors purportedly on behalf of participants in or
beneficiaries of the Plan between either July 1, 2007 or July 20,
2007 and the present.  On May 14, 2008, the three cases were
consolidated into a single action. On August 4, 2008, a
consolidated complaint was filed asserting a class period of
July 1, 2007 through the present, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties in violation of ERISA relating to Huntington stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan
and seeking money damages and equitable relief.  On February 9,
2009, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice the
consolidated lawsuit in its entirety, and the plaintiffs
thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  During the pendency of the appeal,
the parties to the appeal commenced settlement discussions and
have reached an agreement to settle this litigation on a classwide
basis for $1,450,000, subject to court approval. Because the
settlement has not been approved, it is not possible for
Management to make further comment at this time.


INTEL CORP: Class Certification in Consumer Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend itself from consumer class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Sherman Act, according
to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 25, 2010.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by AMD in June 2005
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Like the
AMD lawsuit, these class-action suits allege that Intel engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things, providing discounts and rebates to the
Company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors,
interfering with certain AMD product launches, and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups.  The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the Company's
microprocessors. All of the federal class actions and the Kansas
and Tennessee state court class actions have been consolidated by
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the District of Delaware,
and the court has appointed a Special Master to address issues in
the litigation as assigned by the court.  In January 2010, the
plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion for sanctions for
the Company's failure to preserve evidence.  This motion largely
copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD litigation,
which has settled.  The plaintiffs in the coordinated actions also
moved for certification of a class of members who purchased
certain personal computers containing products sold by Intel.  In
July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation
(Class Report) denying the motion to certify a class.  The
plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Class Report,
and a hearing on these objections is scheduled for March 2011.
All California class actions have been consolidated to the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County.  The
plaintiffs in the California actions have moved for class
certification, which the Company is in the process of opposing.
At the Company's request, the court in the California actions has
agreed to delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware
District Court rules on the similar motion in the coordinated
actions.

The Company disputes the class-action claims and intends to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.


INTERNATIONAL PROFIT: Sexual Harassment Suit Nears Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ameet Sachdev, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is about to conclude what its
attorneys suspect is the longest discrimination lawsuit in the
history of its Chicago office.  It's not a record they are proud
of.

The case dates to June 12, 2001.  The EEOC brought a class-action
suit on behalf of more than 100 women against International Profit
Associates Inc., a Buffalo Grove consulting business, alleging a
pattern of sexual harassment.

Nearly 10 years later, the two sides are hammering out details of
a settlement in which the company has agreed to pay the class $8
million.  International Profit Associates, known as IPA, also has
acknowledged in court papers that an "unlawful pattern or practice
of tolerating sexual harassment" existed from Nov. 25, 1997, to
Feb. 14, 2005.

What transpired over a decade vividly illustrates how the civil
legal system can make victims feel like they have been victimized
again.  Wendy Commander, one of two women who brought complaints
about International Profit Associates to the EEOC that launched
the government's investigation in 1998, said she feels no
satisfaction in the proposed settlement.

"My wrongs have not been made right," Ms. Commander said.

She is so upset about the way the case has played out that she
wrote an angry letter to the federal judge presiding over the
suit.  Her ire is not limited to her former employer.
Ms. Commander worked at the company from 1994 to 1998.  She also
blames the EEOC for acting too slowly and keeping individual class
members in the dark about the case's progress.  Citing the
proposed settlement, Ms. Commander wrote that "being told this is
a success is insulting!"

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in the Chicago
office, acknowledged that the case is an unfortunate example of
the legal maxim "justice delayed is justice denied."

"We've done our best throughout this long litigation to keep (the
class) apprised of significant developments as they occur,"
Mr. Hendrickson said.  "They and we have been frustrated and
unhappy about the length of the case."

He blames International Profit Associates for dragging out the
suit for years with unnecessary legal briefs and requests for
sanctions.

"Their strategy has been one of delay and obstruction from the
first year of the lawsuit," Mr. Hendrickson said.

The company's attorney, Ronald Bell, declined to comment on the
length of the suit because the case is pending.  For most of the
EEOC case, IPA was represented by Myron Cherry, a Chicago lawyer.
Cherry, who withdrew from the case in November with the company's
consent, did not return messages seeking comment.

In this case, like in any high-stakes litigation, the gloves came
off, which wasn't surprising given the severe nature of the EEOC's
allegations.

U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall summed up the accusations:
Women were regularly propositioned for sex and even offered money
for sex.  More than 40 women reported being sexually assaulted in
one manner or another -- including everything from slapping,
pinching, touching and grabbing to outright attempted rape.
Graphic pornography was displayed on office walls.  Strippers and
prostitutes were hired to perform for male employees' birthday
parties at company offices during business hours.

According to the EEOC, IPA management, led by John Burgess, who
founded the company in the early 1990s, was complicit in the
egregious behavior.

When the case was filed in 2001, the class had 150 to 200 women,
according to Diane Smason, the EEOC's supervisory trial attorney
in the case.  Depositions and evidence-gathering took nearly four
years, and dozens of women dropped out, Ms. Smason said.

During discovery, the company asked the judge to impose sanctions
against the EEOC for violating court orders on evidence gathering.
The company lost.  It tried again and lost.

After rejecting IPA's fourth request for sanctions, Gottschall
chastised the company in a 2006 ruling: "Although this is IPA's
fourth bite at the apple, it continues to do a poor job presenting
the issues to the court."

After discovery, IPA began filing motions in 2006 to dismiss
several of the 113 remaining class members from the case, arguing
that their discrimination claims could not prevail under the law.
The last of the motions were summary judgments that were resolved
in August 2009, leaving 81 class members. The case was set for
trial the following summer.

In June 2010, IPA made a huge concession, admitting in court
papers that it tolerated a pattern or practice of sexual
harassment for nearly eight years.  On July 6, as the jury was
being selected, the parties announced a tentative settlement in
court.

But the fighting has not stopped.  The two sides have been arguing
over the terms of the settlement.  They agreed in July that the $8
million would be paid in four installments over three years,
according to court papers.

But in December, the company said in court papers that it could
not make the $3 million initial payment and "meet its continuing
business obligations at this time."

Bell said Monday that the company intends to pay the $8 million
over three years as it agreed to do in July.  He said he expects a
court-approved agreement within a week or two.

But as Mr. Hendrickson conceded, "It's too late for a happy ending
here."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Securities Class Action Still Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. continues to defend itself from a
securities class action lawsuit filed in New York, according to
the Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 3, 2010, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against ITT Educational and two of its current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Fund, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by:

   * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

   * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
     material facts necessary in order to make the statements
     made, in light of the circumstances under which they were
     made, not misleading; or

   * engaging in acts, practices and a course of business that
     operated as a fraud or deceit upon the plaintiff or others
     similarly situated in connection with their purchase of ITT's
     common stock during the class period.

The putative class period in this action is from October 23, 2008
through August 13, 2010.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
the designation of this action as a class action, an award of
unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorney's fees, equitable
relief and injunctive relief.  All of the defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the
complaint.  There can be no assurance, however, that the ultimate
outcome of this or other actions (including other actions under
federal or state securities laws) will not have a material adverse
effect on ITT Educational's financial condition or results of
operations.


KENAN ADVANTAGE: DRI Seeks Review of Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar on Feb. 21 jointly filed an
amicus curiae brief with the American Trucking Associations and
the United States Chamber of Commerce in the United States Court
Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

The case, Joaquan Harvey and Ron Mowdy v. Kag West, LLC and Kenan
Advantage Group, Inc. (No. 10-17360), addresses the issue of class
action certification in wage and hour litigation, and involves
interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Thirteen-hundred truck drivers from Kenan Advantage Group, North
America's largest bulk transportation and logistics provider for
the petroleum and specialty products industries, were granted
class action status by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in a case alleging that the defendants
violated the FLSA and California state law.

Class status was granted despite the fact that each plaintiff
cited separate grievances related to overtime pay, meal and rest
breaks, and off-the-clock work.  In its amicus brief, DRI argues
that the district court erred under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)
because it looked solely at whether the defendants had policies in
place covering wage and time matters, rather than considering the
employers' actual practices as required by law.

"The district court's ruling will allow individualized damages
claims to be certified routinely as class actions," said
Matthew Cairns, President of DRI.  "It is therefore important for
the court of appeals to rule appropriately to prevent a flood of
opportunistic class action cases that are solely geared to abuse
the system, and to foster settlements.  There are widespread
differences among these grievances, ranging from alleged overtime
pay to alleged rest breaks violations," Mr. Cairns continued.  "We
need to have clarity as to when class actions are appropriate in
specific and disparate matters."

The amicus brief further states that the district court's ruling
should be reversed because the elimination of FLSA protections for
employers and employees would impose an unreasonable legal and
economic burden on defendants.  "It would vastly -- and unfairly
-- magnify the leverage of plaintiffs' lawyers to extract
unjustified settlements from any business amenable to suit in
California," DRI says in the brief.

DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar -- http://www.dri.org/-- is an
international organization of defense attorneys and corporate
counsel that is recognized as a thought leader and an advocate for
the defense bar at the national and state level, as well as in
Europe.  With more than 22,000 members, DRI provides members and
their clients with access to world-class education, legal
resources and numerous marketing and networking opportunities that
facilitate career and law firm growth.

Contacts: Derede McAlpin, Esq.
          DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
          Telephone: 202-973-1314
          E-mail: dmcalpin@levick.com


MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation remains a defendant in an antitrust lawsuit
before a federal court in Atlanta, Georgia, according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the Company and a number
of its insulation installation companies in the federal court in
Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices violate
provisions of federal and state antitrust laws.  The plaintiff
publicized the lawsuit with a press release and stated in that
release that the U.S. Department of Justice was investigating the
business practices of the Company's insulation installation
companies.  Although the Company was unaware of any investigation
at that time, the Company was later advised that an investigation
had been commenced but was subsequently closed without any
enforcement action recommended.  Two additional lawsuits were
subsequently brought in Virginia making similar claims under the
antitrust laws.  Both of these lawsuits have since been dismissed
without any payment or requirement for any change in business
practices.

During the second half of 2004, the same counsel who commenced the
initial action in Atlanta filed six additional lawsuits on behalf
of several of Masco's competitors in the insulation installation
business.  The plaintiffs then dismissed all of these lawsuits
and, represented by the same counsel, filed another action in the
same federal court as a putative class action against the Company,
a number of its insulation installation companies and certain of
their suppliers.  All of the Company's suppliers, who were
co-defendants in this lawsuit, have settled this case.  On
February 9, 2009, the federal court in Atlanta issued an Opinion
in which the Court certified a class of 377 insulation
contractors.  In its Opinion, the Court also ruled on various
other motions.  Two additional lawsuits, seeking class action
status and alleging anticompetitive conduct, were filed against
the Company and a number of its insulation suppliers.  One of
these lawsuits was filed in a Florida state court and has been
dismissed by the court with prejudice.  The other lawsuit was
filed in federal court in northern California and was subsequently
transferred to federal court in Atlanta, Georgia.  This case has
been administratively stayed by the court.

The Company is vigorously defending the pending active case.
Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes
that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation
companies, which has been the subject of the lawsuits, has not
violated any antitrust laws.  The Company is unable at this time
to reliably estimate any potential liability which might occur
from an adverse judgment.  There cannot be any assurance that the
Company will ultimately prevail in the remaining lawsuits or, if
unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material
and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or
the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing
business.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Howell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Illinois
District Court's summary judgment decision in favor of Motorola
Solutions Inc., formerly known as Motorola Inc., in the suit
styled Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., according to the
Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The class action was filed against Motorola and various of its
directors, officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act.  The complaint alleged that the
defendants had improperly permitted participants in the Motorola
401(k) Plan to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola
because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by
a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of
telecommunications equipment by Motorola.  Telsim had subsequently
defaulted on the payment of approximately $2 billion of such
vendor financing, approximately half of which the company has
recovered to date.  The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
participants in the Plan and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.  On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed
the second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs subsequently intervened in the
case, and filed a motion for class certification seeking to
represent a class of Plan participants.  The class as certified
includes all Plan participants for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from
May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001, with certain exclusions.  The
court granted leave to defendants to appeal the class
certification and granted leave to lead plaintiff Howell to appeal
an earlier dismissal of his individual claim.  Each party filed
those appeals.

On June 17, 2009, the Illinois District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of all defendants on all counts.  On June 25,
2009, the Seventh Circuit dismissed as moot defendants' class
certification appeal and stayed Howell's appeal.  On July 14,
2009, plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment decision.  By order
of the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2009, Howell's individual
appeal and plaintiffs' appeal of the summary judgment decision
(now cited as  Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and Lingis et al.
v. Rick Dorazil et al.) have been consolidated with Spano et al.
v. Boeing Company et al. and Beesley et al. v. International Paper
Company for argument and decision.

On Jan. 21, 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois
District Court's summary judgment decision in favor of Motorola
and denied Howell's individual appeal in all respects.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides
technologies, products and services for mobile phones.  Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end enterprise
mobility products.  The company operates under three segments:
Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment.  In April 2009, the company
completed the sale of its biometric business unit, including the
Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Sagem Securite.  In January 2010, the company acquired
SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors.  In February 2010, the
company acquired BitBand, a provider of content management and
delivery systems, specializing in video on demand for Internet
protocol television (IPTV).


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: "Silverman" Lawsuit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced against Motorola Solutions,
Inc., formerly known as Motorola Inc., on behalf of the purchasers
of the Company's securities between July 19, 2006, and January 5,
2007, remains pending, according to the Company's February 18,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between July 19, 2006 and January 5, 2007,
Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al ., was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.  The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made
incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for
the third and fourth quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
An amended complaint was filed Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved
to dismiss that complaint in Feb. 2008.  On Sept. 24, 2008, the
district court granted this motion in part to dismiss Section
10(b) claims as to two individuals and certain claims related to
forward looking statements, among other things, and denied the
motion in part.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the district court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification.  On March 10, 2010, the district court
granted plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint,
which adds allegations concerning Motorola's accounting and
disclosures for certain transactions entered into in the third
quarter of 2006.

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


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Solutions Inc., formerly known as Motorola Inc.,
continues to defend a securities class action case filed by the
St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund,
according to the Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola securities between Dec. 6, 2007, and Jan. 22, 2008, St.
Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Motorola,
Inc., et al., was filed against the company and certain current
and former officers and directors of the company on Jan. 21, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of
the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The primary factual assertions in the
complaint are that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made
materially misleading statements concerning Motorola's financial
projections and sales demand for Motorola phones during the class
period.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola
shares during the class period.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint.

The suit is St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602-3455
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois court refused to dismiss an amended complaint in a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Motorola Solutions
Inc., formerly known as Motorola Inc., according to the Company's
February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Two purported class action lawsuits on behalf of all participants
in or beneficiaries of the Motorola 401(k) Plan between July 1,
2007 and the present and whose accounts included investments in
Motorola stock, Joe M. Groussman v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and
Angelo W. Orlando v. Motorola, Inc. et al., were filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and
employees of the Company, the Motorola 401(k) Plan Committee, the
Advisory Committee of Motorola and other unnamed defendants on
Feb. 10, 2010, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On May 20, 2010, the court ordered the cases to be consolidated.
On July 16, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The amended complaint added as defendants additional
current and former employees, the Compensation and Leadership
Committee of Motorola, and the Motorola Retirement Benefits
Committee, and deleted the Advisory Committee of Motorola as a
defendant.  The amended complaint also reduced the class period to
run from July 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2008.  The consolidated amended
complaint alleges violations of Sections 404 and 405 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The primary
claims in the amended complaint are that, in connection with
alleged incorrect statements concerning Motorola's financial
projections and demand for Motorola phones during the class
period, various of the defendants failed to prudently and loyally
manage the Plan by continuing to offer Motorola stock as a Plan
investment option, failed to provide complete and accurate
information regarding the performance of Motorola stock to the
Plan's participants and beneficiaries, failed to avoid conflicts
of interest, and/or failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to the purported losses to the Plan and individual
participant accounts.  On Sept. 24, 2010, the Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On Oct. 7, 2010, the
court dismissed the Retirement Benefits Committee as a defendant.

On Jan. 18, 2011, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the Amended Complaint.


PANERA BREAD: Settles Crispani Class Action for $5.75 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Panera Bread Co. has agreed to pay $5.75 million to settle a class
action lawsuit brought by shareholders who alleged the chain of
bakery cafes misled investors about the success of its Crispani
pizza, a product Panera discontinued in 2008.

Western Washington Laborers-Employers Pension Trust filed the
lawsuit in January 2008 in the U.S. District Court in St. Louis
on behalf of shareholders who bought Panera common stock between
Nov. 1, 2005, and July 26, 2007.

Mike Bongiorno, an attorney representing Sunset Hills-based
Panera, said the settlement amount is covered by Panera's
insurers, and will not be borne by the company or executives.

"Panera and the individual defendants deny any wrongdoing in
respect to the claims and make no admissions whatsoever in
wrongdoing in connection with the settlement," he said.  "The
company denied all of the allegations, but this is an opportunity
to put this behind us."

The lawsuit alleges that executives, including executive chairman
Ron Schaich, made false and misleading statements about Crispani
from 2005 to 2007, which artificially inflated Panera's stock.
Crispani was a highly touted new flatbread pizza Panera launched
in late 2006 but ultimately shelved two years later due to high
labor costs.

According to the lawsuit, Panera executives did not disclose that
Crispani was a drag on sales in press releases and filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and gave misleading growth
projections.

The "misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of
creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of
Panera Bread and its business, prospects and operations," the
lawsuit stated.

Judge E. Richard Webber granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on Feb. 22, which was reached after a mediation
process.  The settlement will be distributed to those who bought
or acquired the stock during the disputed period.

A hearing to approve the settlement is set for June 22.

Doug Britton, an attorney representing Western Washington
Laborers-Employers Pension Trust, could not be reached for
comment.


PERRIN HOLDEN: Sued for Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Velez, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Perrin, Holden & Davenport Capital Corp., et al., Case
No. 650434/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 18, 2011),
accuses the investment brokerage firm of failing to compensate
class members minimum wage for all hours worked, failing to pay
overtime wages,  and making improper wage deductions from class
members' paychecks, in violation of 12 NYCRR Sections 142-2.1,
142-2.2, 142-2.4, 142-2.6, and New York Labor Law Sections
192(1)(c), 193, and 198-b.

Mr. Velez worked as a stock broker for the defendants from
December 2006 until July 2008.

Mr. Velez explains that he and other class members received
compensation in the form of a commission and did not receive a
salary or hourly wage.  Moreover, their earned monthly wages or
commissions were not paid in the agreed upon monthly time frame.
According to the Mr. Velez, defendants also made illegal
deductions from their wages or commissions for administrative or
operating costs, as well as making excessive deductions for
'clearing and execution' charges.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Declines to Review Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kell, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that Philip
Morris USA said a federal appeals court denied review of a trial
judge's decision last year denying class-certification in four
separate cases in which smokers sought refunds for "lights"
cigarettes they smoked.

The Altria Group Inc. (MO) unit said the First U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals declined to review a district judge's Nov. 24 decision
related to four cases that were selected as sample cases for a
larger group of pending cases across the U.S.

Murray Garnick, an associate general counsel for Altria, said it
was "simply is not possible to resolve these claims without
determining why an individual smoker decided to purchase 'Light'
cigarettes."

Mr. Garnick added, "There are numerous individual issues that
render a class action unsuitable for resolving this type of case."

Under the cases in question, the smokers alleged the tobacco
company was deceptive in its advertising for light and low-tar
cigarettes.  They argued Philip Morris used those descriptors to
suggest the brands were less harmful than regular cigarettes, even
though it knew users would be getting the same level of tar or
nicotine from them.


PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Ensco Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International, Inc., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated lawsuit relating to its proposed merger with Ensco
plc, according to the Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 14, 2010, Edward Ferguson, a purported stockholder of
Pride, filed a derivative action in the state court of Harris
County, Texas, against all of the Company's current directors and
the Company, as nominal defendant.  The lawsuit alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company related to the issues described under the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act Investigation.  Among other remedies, the
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief against the individual defendants, along with an award of
attorney fees and other costs and expenses to the plaintiff.

On April 15, 2010, Lawrence Dixon, another purported stockholder,
filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the state court of Harris
County, Texas, against the same defendants.  These two lawsuits
have been consolidated.  The parties agreed to a deferral of the
matter to await further developments in the FCPA investigation.
After the conclusion of that investigation, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended petition on Jan. 18, 2011, raising
allegations substantially similar to those made in the prior
lawsuits.

On Feb. 9, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a further amendment to their
petition adding claims related to the Company's proposed merger
with Ensco plc.  In this latest amendment, the plaintiffs contend
that the proposed merger was motivated by a desire to extinguish
the alleged liability related to the derivative action.  The
plaintiffs also contend that the proposed merger does not provide
fair value to the stockholders, and that various provisions of the
merger agreement are improperly designed to prevent any competing
bids.  The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting such breaches, abuse of control, and
mismanagement.  They contend that their breach of fiduciary duty
claim with respect to the proposed merger should be certified as a
class action, that the merger agreement should be declared
unenforceable, and that the proposed merger should be enjoined.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief as well.

In December 2010, the special committee completed its evaluation
of the issues surrounding the FCPA investigation.  The committee
analyzed the issues raised by the demand letter and the then
pending lawsuits and conducted its own investigation into the
matter.  The committee concluded that it was not in the interest
of the Company or its stockholders to pursue litigation related to
the matter.  These conclusions were summarized for the board of
directors in Dec. 2010.  On Jan. 28, 2011, the special committee
met and evaluated whether the allegations raised in the amended
petition in the Ferguson matter filed on Jan. 18, 2011, raised any
issues that would alter its conclusion.  The committee determined
that the new filing did not alter its conclusion that litigation
of these matters was not in the interest of the Company or its
stockholders and that such litigation should not be pursued.
On Feb. 14, 2011, the Company received the report of the special
committee dated Dec. 8, 2010, as well as committee minutes
reflecting the conclusions reached in the meeting of Jan. 28,
2011.


PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Faces 2 More Suits Over Ensco Merger in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two stockholders of Pride International, Inc., filed separate but
similar class actions in Harris County, Texas, to enjoin the
proposed merger of the Company with Ensco plc, according to the
Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On February 9, 2011, Cary Abrams, a purported stockholder of
Pride, filed a class action petition in state court in Harris
County, Texas, requesting temporary and permanent injunctive
relief enjoining the proposed merger with Ensco plc and rescission
of the merger if consummated.  On February 10, 2011, Astor BK
Realty Trust, another purported stockholder of Pride, filed a
substantially similar lawsuit in Harris County, Texas.  The
lawsuits allege that all of the Company's current directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to inadequate
consideration for the Company's stockholders and by approving a
merger agreement that includes deal protection devices allegedly
designed to ensure that the Company will not receive a superior
offer.  The lawsuits also allege that the Company and Ensco aided
and abetted the directors in the breaches of their fiduciary
duties.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief
as well.

The Company said it anticipates the filing of other similar
lawsuits in the coming days.


PRIDE INTERNATIONAL: Del. Stockholders Seek to Stop Ensco Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two stockholders of Pride International, Inc., filed separate but
similar class actions in the Delaware Chancery Court to enjoin the
proposed merger of the Company with Ensco plc, according to the
Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On Feb. 10, 2011, Saratoga Advantage Trust, a purported
stockholder of Pride, filed a class action complaint in the
Delaware Chancery Court seeking preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the proposed merger with Ensco plc.
On Feb. 17, 2011, Elizabeth Wiggs-Jacques, another purported
stockholder of Pride, filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the
Delaware Chancery Court.  The plaintiffs allege that all of the
Company's current directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement because it provides inadequate
consideration to the Company's stockholders and contains
provisions designed to ensure that the Company will not receive a
competing superior proposal.  The plaintiffs also allege that the
Company and Ensco aided and abetted the directors in purportedly
breaching their fiduciary duties.  In addition, the plaintiffs
seek rescission of the merger should it be consummated, as well as
other unspecified equitable relief.

The Company said it anticipates the filing of other similar
lawsuits in the coming days.


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Recalls 160 Novara Fusion Bicycles
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
REI (Recreational Equipment, Inc.) dba Novara, of Kent, Wash.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 160 Novara fusion bicycles.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The alloy steerer tube could separate from the fork causing the
rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

The firm has received one report of a steerer tube detaching.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Novara Fusion bicycles with serial numbers
U95Y07321, U96Y28393, or in the sequential range of the last four
digits U96Y28876 through U96Y29128.  Serial numbers are located on
the underside of the bike.  The espresso-colored bicycles were
sold in two styles, the Step Through and the Fusion. The Step
Through was sold in extra small/small, while the Fusion was
available in medium, large, and extra large.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11140.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
REI stores nationwide and at REI.com from November 2009 to
November 2010 for between $600 and $900.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycles and contact
their local REI store or the REI customer service center to
arrange for a replacement fork to be installed free of charge.
For more information, contact REI at (800) 426-4840 anytime or go
to REI's Web site at http://www.rei.com/help/recall/index.html/


STRYKER CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In January 2010, a purported class action lawsuit against Stryker
Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's common stock between January 25, 2007, and November 13,
2008, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In May 2010, the lawsuit was transferred to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan Southern Division.  The Company says it intends to defend
itself vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


TEREX CORP: Motions to Dismiss ERISA & Securities Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corp.'s motions to dismiss an ERISA class action lawsuit and
a securities class action lawsuit are pending in Connecticut,
according to the Company's February 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Terex has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit:

   * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
     the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
     Litigation.

   * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
     securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the
     United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
     November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local
     32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension
     Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
     situated v. Terex Corporation, et al.

   * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
     Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary
     duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was
     filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court,
     District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer,
     derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M.
     DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris
     Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike,
     Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley,
     Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and
     Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of
Terex's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased its securities and in the ERISA lawsuit and
the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate
assets relating to the repurchase of Terex's shares in the market
and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain
officers and directors.  The complaints all seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to Terex's
corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified
compensatory damages from the individual defendants in Terex's
favor.

Terex believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them.  Terex believes that
it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal
securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these matters.
Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, Terex filed a motion to dismiss
the ERISA lawsuit and on January 18, 2011, it filed a motion to
dismiss the securities lawsuit.  These motions are currently in
the briefing stage and pending before the court.  The plaintiff in
the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with Terex to put
this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
in connection with the securities lawsuit.


THE BRICK: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Money reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a
class-action lawsuit against furniture retailer The Brick, which
is accused of misleading customers about their financing program.

The Quebec consumer group Option consommateurs is seeking punitive
damages of $5 million after it says The Brick claimed clients
would not have to pay interest on financed purchases for 15
months.  The suit says that clients are in fact charged an annual
fee of $35.

"These are false or misleading claims," the group's lawyer,
Stephanie Poulin, told QMI Agency.  "It's important that customers
be reimbursed."

Option consommateurs filed the class-action request in November
2009.  The group says any clients who paid the $35 fee following a
purchase at The Brick would be eligible for reimbursement, if the
lawsuit is successful.

Officials with The Brick were not immediately available for
comment.


UNITED STATES: Court Upholds Dismissal of Finra Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
federal appeals court agreed on Feb. 22 with a lower court's
decision to dismiss a case that alleged brokers were misled about
terms of a merger that created the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority in 2007.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a decision
by U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in March 2010 to throw out
a 2007 class-action lawsuit led by Standard Investment Chartered,
according to a court ruling.  The California-based brokerage is
leading the class action suit.

A second related case filed by Benchmark Financial Services, Inc.,
of Ocean Ridge, Fla., is still pending in federal court.
Proceedings in the matter were suspended until the appeal by
Standard Investment was concluded.

The cases alleged that Mary Schapiro, now chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, misled brokers about the
merger between Finra's predecessors, the National Association of
Securities Dealers and the regulatory arm of the New York Stock
Exchange.  Ms. Schapiro had previously served as NASD's chairman
and chief executive.

Judge Rakoff wrote in a March 2010 order that the defendants in
the cases, which included Finra and NASD, were entitled to
"absolute immunity" from damages because they were acting within
the scope of their regulatory functions.  The Second Circuit
agreed as to the case led by Standard Investment.  "There is no
question that [a self-regulatory organization] and its officers
are entitled to absolute immunity from private damages suits in
connection with the discharge of their regulatory
responsibilities," a three-judge panel wrote in its opinion.

A key issue in the cases was the adequacy of a $35,000 payout NASD
made to its individual members when it merged with the regulatory
arm of NYSE to form Finra.  In proxy material in December 2006,
the NASD claimed that the Internal Revenue Service had precluded
it from paying members more than $35,000 each.  The lawsuits
challenged that claim and said the NASD had plenty of money for a
bigger payout.

Jonathan Cuneo, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who represents the
plaintiffs, declined to comment on the ruling.

A Finra spokeswoman said the Wall Street self-regulatory
organization is "pleased with the decision."


WAL-MART STORES: Sup. Ct. Urged to Uphold Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a brief filed on Feb. 22 in the United States Supreme Court,
Plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex
discrimination case argued that overwhelming evidence supports the
lower court's class certification order and that overturning that
decision would dismantle the "fundamental pillars" of the Civil
Rights Act employment discrimination laws.

At issue is whether hundreds of thousands of women who work or
have worked in Wal-Mart retail stores since Dec. 26, 1998, can
collectively seek an injunction and lost pay against the nation's
largest retailer for discriminatory wages and career advancement.
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted
class certification of the case in June 2004 after an exhaustive
review of the evidence.  This decision was upheld by the United
States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, en banc in April 2010.
Wal-Mart appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in August
2010 and the Court will hear the oral arguments on March 29.

"Wal-Mart is attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court's
employment discrimination class action jurisprudence," says
Plaintiffs' counsel Jocelyn Larkin, an attorney with the Impact
Fund.  "Such far-reaching changes to the law would require the
Court to overrule 45 years of civil rights and class action
precedent.  This would rule out certification of all but the
smallest employment discrimination cases -- and that's not what
Congress intended."

Plaintiffs' brief argues:

    * Wal-Mart's uniform pay and promotion policies for its retail
store employees fail to provide any application or posting process
for promotions to store management or job-related criteria for
setting pay or making promotion decisions -- standard practices in
the American workplace.  Instead, Wal-Mart has chosen to adopt and
maintain highly subjective policies, which are implemented,
monitored, and enforced on a daily basis by its Home Office to
ensure consistency in results.

    * Personnel decisions are exercised within a corporate culture
that is rife with gender stereotypes demeaning to female
employees: Wal-Mart executives refer to women employees as "Janie
Qs," approve holding business meetings at Hooters restaurants, and
attribute the absence of women in top positions to men being more
aggressive in seeking advancement.  For example, women like named
Plaintiff Christine Kwapnoski were told men need to be paid more
than women because "they have families to support."

    * As Wal-Mart has long recognized, its female workforce has
borne the brunt of these subjective policies.  Even though its own
data shows that its female employees are, on average, better
performers and more experienced than their male counterparts,
women's pay lags far behind that of male employees in every major
job in each of the company's 41 regions.  Women at Wal-Mart also
face a classic glass ceiling -- while women comprise more than 80
percent of hourly supervisors, they hold only one-third of store
management jobs and their ranks steadily diminish at each
successive step in the management hierarchy.

Arcelia Hurtado, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates,
Plaintiffs' co-counsel, asserts, "Equal pay for equal work is a
basic civil right in this country.  Every day across the country
women are denied this right and effectively told their work has
less value.  This case stands for the collective right of every
working woman to be paid what her work is worth.  The reality is
that without this class action, the working women at Wal-Mart will
never have their day in court and all working women across the
country will lose.  The women have been treated unequally as a
class and they should be able to assert their rights as a class."

Co-lead Plaintiffs' counsel Joseph M. Sellers, of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC, will urge the Court to uphold the lower
court's decision during oral arguments in March.

For a copy of the Plaintiffs' brief or more information on the
case, visit http://www.walmartclass.com/

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Plaintiffs are represented by the
Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif.; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San
Francisco, Calif.; Davis Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco, Calif.;
Public Justice Center, Baltimore, Md.; and Tinkler Law Firm and
Merit Bennett, Santa Fe, N.M.


WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Social Security Numbers in Employee IDs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Tully, writing for The Orange County Register, reports that
Disney employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the company
claiming that employee identification cards expose them to
identity-theft risk.

The federal lawsuit was filed on Feb. 22 in U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles.

The Walt Disney Co. issues ID cards that are encoded with Social
Security numbers, which violates California law, according to the
lawsuit.  The codes can be read by most cellular phones, including
the Apple iPhone and Android devices, according to employees.

"With identity theft such a risk, I was shocked to learn that
Disney is exposing our private information so incautiously," said
Jorge Iniestra, a lead plaintiff and cashier at the Grand
Californian Hotel, in a statement.

The suit's backers hope to include all 21,000 employees at the
Disneyland Resort, Orange County's largest, private employer.  But
the lawsuit could extend to thousands more of Disney employees in
California, according to the employees.

Roman Delgado, the business agent for Teamsters Local 495 that
represents 3,500 Disney attractions and transportation employees,
said he's heard of no problems related to the identity cards.

Hotel employees, attorneys and representatives announced the
lawsuit at a press conference Tuesday in front of the Grand
Californian Hotel in Anaheim.

Two identity-theft experts had different opinions about the
lawsuit: Both said they think Disney should discontinue the
practice.

Jay Foley, executive director of the San Diego-based Identity
Theft Resource Center, said the law clearly states that employers
can't print Social Security numbers on ID cards, but he was unsure
about encoded numbers.

"That's probably something that a judge is going to have to
decide," Mr. Foley said.  "I would personally say I would not do
that to my employees.  It exposes them to risk that they don't
need to be exposed to."

Mari Frank, a Laguna Niguel attorney who is a certified privacy
expert, said she believes Disney is breaking the law with the bar
codes.

"I'm pretty much shocked how they are doing this," Ms. Frank said.
"The Social Security number is key to the kingdom of identity
theft."

The Disneyland Resort in Anaheim includes two theme parks, three
hotels and the Downtown Disney shopping-entertainment district.


* U.S.-Style Class Actions Difficult to Bring in U.K.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP said that a recent decision
in the Court of Appeal involving British Airways demonstrates once
again the difficulty of bringing anything resembling a U.S.-style
class action in an English court.  The claimants, Emerald Supplies
Limited and Southern Glass House Produce, used air freight
services from BA and other airlines to import flowers from
Colombia and Kenya.  The two companies had wanted to serve as
claimants in a U.S.-style class action lawsuit on behalf of 200
companies claiming loss resulting from alleged price-fixing, and
formulated their claim as a representative action under the Civil
Procedure Rule 19.6.  That rule permits a person to bring a claim
on behalf of others who have "the same interest in a claim."  The
Court of Appeal ruled that the group proposed by Emerald was
insufficiently defined because BA's liability to members of the
representative group was the only feature connecting the claiming
parties, and that liability remained to be proved.  The court also
found that the group did not share suitably common interests
because BA might have differing defenses to the claims of
differing members of the group.  Because only the representative
element of the suit was struck, the rest of the claim will proceed
as normal, but other claims are now likely to be brought
individually against BA.

This case serves to underscore the difficulty that consumers and
other large groups face in bringing collective actions in the
U.K., especially when the liability is not yet quantified.  As
Lord Justice Mummery acknowledged in the Court of Appeal, the need
to remedy the issue of redress for price-fixing is "so pressing"
that it is currently under review by the E.U. Commission, the U.K.
Office of Fair Trading and the Civil Justice Council.  Until any
reforms are actually implemented, however, this decision
emphasizes the difficulty in bringing class actions of this kind
in the U.K.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Box Injury Case v. SonomaWest Filed on Oct. 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., in October 2010, was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit as the successor of Appletime and Vacu-Dry,
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Alameda, by Eugene Box and Shirley Box.

The suit seeks damages for personal injuries related to alleged
exposure to asbestos during the 1974-1982 time frame, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 11, 2011, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


COMPANY PROFILE:
SonomaWest Holdings, Inc.
2064 Highway 116 North
Sebastopol, Calif.
95472-2662
Telephone No.: 707-824-2534

Description:
The Company's business consists of its real estate management and
rental operations.  Its rental operations include
industrial/agricultural property, some of which was formerly used
in its discontinued fruit processing businesses.  This commercial
property is now being rented to third parties.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Six Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Thermon Holding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six cases are currently pending against Thermon Holding Corp.,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 14, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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


COMPANY PROFILE:
Thermon Holding Corp.
100 Thermon Drive
San Marcos, Tex. 78666
Telephone No.: (512) 396-5801

Description:
The Company provides highly engineered thermal solutions for
process industries.  For over 50 years, the Company has served a
diverse base of thousands of customers around the world in
attractive and growing markets, including energy, chemical
processing and power generation.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Carlisle Settles 2 Injury Cases in Q4 2010
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Incorporated, in the fourth quarter of 2010,
settled two cases involving alleged asbestos-related injury,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 16, 2011.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which the Company manufactured in
limited amounts between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s.  In
addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages.

The total amount of the settlement and related loss, inclusive of
insurance recoveries, was about US$5.9 million, which was recorded
in discontinued operations in the fourth quarter of 2010, as the
related alleged asbestos-containing product was manufactured by
the Company's former on-highway brake business.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Carlisle Companies Incorporated
13925 Ballantyne Corporate Place
Suite 400
Charlotte, N.C. 28277
Telephone No.: (704) 501-1100

Description:
The Company is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of
five segments which manufacture and distribute a broad range of
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ross Claim v. 11 Firms Filed Jan. 27 in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary C. Ross, on Jan. 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit on
behalf of Fred Ross against 11 defendant corporations in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on Oct. 18, 2010, Mr. Ross, who was
employed at DuPont Washington Works during his working career,
died as a result of mesothelioma.

The defendants named in the suit are A.W. Chesterton Company;
Aurora Pump Company; Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; Fairmont Supply Company;
Gardner Denver, Inc.; Nagle Pumps, Inc.; Roper Pumps Company;
State Electric Supply Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC;
West Virginia Electric Supply Company; and John Does (1-5).

Mrs. Ross claims the defendants caused Mr. Ross to be continuously
exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or machinery
requiring the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products,
which caused him to contract mesothelioma.

Mrs. Ross seeks compensatory and punitive damages and she is being
represented by James A. McKowen, Esq., and David P. Pavlik, Esq.

Case No. 11-C-146 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. STERIS Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation continues to be involved in product exposure
actions related to chemicals, asbestos, contaminants, and
radiation).

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

STERIS Corporation develops, manufactures and markets infection
prevention, contamination control, microbial reduction, and
surgical and critical care support products and services for
healthcare, pharmaceutical, scientific, research, industrial, and
governmental Customers throughout the world.  The Company is based
in Mentor, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Facing Lawsuits From Former Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. has been named, along with multiple other
defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business
operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no
longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Feb. 9, 2011.

Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power control systems that are
used to control motion and power primarily in material handling,
elevator and energy delivery applications.  The Company's products
consist primarily of programmable motion control and power
conditioning systems used on the following applications: overhead
cranes and hoists; elevators; coal mining equipment; and renewable
energy.  The Company is based in Menomonee Falls, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Strengthens $1.3BB Loss Reserves in 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the 2010 year end loss reserve review, American
International Group, Inc. strengthened asbestos-related loss
reserves about US$1.3 billion before discount, according to a
Company press release dated Feb. 9, 2011.

Partially offsetting the reserve strengthening was US$446 million
of loss reserve discount and loss sensitive business premium
adjustments, including about US$120 million of reserve discount
for the asbestos class.

American International Group, Inc. is an international insurance
organization with operations in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve commercial, institutional
and individual customers through one of the most extensive
worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.  The Company
is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.1BB for Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's asbestos claims reserves were
US$1.1 billion during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$1.133 billion during the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos claims reserves were US$1.1 billion during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.180 billion during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Allstate Corporation's Allstate Protection segment sells auto,
homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in
Canada and the United States.  Allstate Financial provides life
insurance through subsidiaries Allstate Life, American Heritage
Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life.  The Company is based in
Northbrook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Records $277,000 Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc.'s asbestos liability was US$277,000 at Dec. 31, 2010
and its accretion expense was US$9,000 for the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

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

Conditional asset (asbestos removal) related to property, plant
and equipment was US$210,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009.

Conditional asset (asbestos removal) related to construction in
progress was US$27,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Rentech, Inc. provides clean energy solutions.  The Company also
owns and operates a nitrogen fertilizer plant in East Dubuque,
Ill., which manufacturers and sells natural gas-based nitrogen
fertilizer products within the corn-belt region in the United
States.  The Company is based in Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6T Claims Pending v. Owens-Illinois at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. faced 6,000 pending asbestos claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 7,000 claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 10, 2011.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 4,000
disposed claims and 3,000 claims filed.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 10,000 disposed claims and
6,000 claims filed.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust.  From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos.  The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31, 2010,
about 76% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages
sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount
sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial
court.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
Dec. 31, 2010, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
383,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,800.  Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$26 million at Dec. 31,
2010 (US$36 million at Dec. 31, 2009) and are included in the
foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer.  With
revenues of US$6.6 billion in 2010, the Company employs more than
24,000 people at 81 plants in 21 countries.  The Company delivers
safe, effective and sustainable glass packaging solutions to a
growing global marketplace.  The Company is based in Perrysburg,
Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 83,700 Claims Open v. Goodyear Tire at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded 83,700 pending
asbestos claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
90,200 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 1,700
new claims filed and 8,200 claims settled/dismissed.  Payments
were US$26 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 1,600
new claims filed and 10,400 claims settled/dismissed.  Payments
were US$20 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 90,700 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement.  The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled bout
US$365 million through Dec. 31, 2010 and US$349 million through
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company has recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$126
million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$136 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was SU$63 million at Dec. 31,
2010 and US$70 million at Dec. 31, 2009.  At Dec. 31, 2010, the
Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and related
defense costs was US$63 million, compared to US$66 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by about US$10 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$67 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$69 million at Dec. 31, 2009.
Of these amounts, US$8 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$11 million
at Dec. 31, 2009 were included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at Dec. 31, 2010, it had about
US$170 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos products
claims, in addition to limits of available primary insurance
policies.  A portion of the availability of the excess level
policies is included in the US$67 million insurance receivable
recorded at December 31, 2010.

The Company also had about US$14 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company manufactures tires.  Its 2010
net sales were US$18.8 billion, and its net loss in 2010 was
US$216 million.  The Company develops, manufactures, markets and
distributes tires for most applications.  The Company is based in
Akron, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Has 1,167 Open Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, of the 3,324
asbestos cases brought against subsidiary Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, about 1,167 remain pending, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 10, 2011.

Since 1987, Central Hudson, along with many other parties, has
been joined as a defendant or third-party defendant in 3,324
asbestos lawsuits commenced in New York State and federal courts.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits have each sought millions of
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages from all defendants.

The cases were brought by or on behalf of individuals who have
allegedly suffered injury from exposure to asbestos, including
exposure which allegedly occurred at two formerly owned electric
generating plants; the Roseton Electric Generating Plant and the
Danskammer Point Steam Electric Generating Station.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 2,002 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson,
and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases.

CH Energy Group, Inc.'s utility subsidiary Central Hudson Gas &
Electric provides electricity to about 300,000 electric and 74,000
natural gas customers in eight counties located in Mid-Hudson
River Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-
square-mile service area that runs from New York City in the
south, to Albany.  The Company is based in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.


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

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

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets and sells
consumer branded products for lawn and garden care.  The Company's
primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers,
warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware
stores, nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores.  The
Company is based in Marysville, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Pending v. United Technologies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, United
Technologies Corporation and its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's
products or premises.

While it has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate
it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of the
Company's historical products, like those of many other
manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos.

A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been
dismissed without payment.  The remainder of the closed cases has
been resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in
the aggregate.

United Technologies Corporation provides high technology products
and services to the building systems and aerospace industries
worldwide.  The Company is based in Hartford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Unit Has 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply Company,
which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named as a
defendant in about 22,500 asbestos-related claims in state courts
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey, Texas and Illinois.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases.  Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.

CONSOL Energy Inc. is a multi-fuel energy producer and energy
services provider primarily serving the electric power generation
industry in the United States.  The electric power industry
generates over two-thirds of its output by burning coal or gas,
the two fuels the Company produces.  The Company is based in
Canonsburg, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Posts $53MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved about US$53 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$49
million at Dec. 31, 2009 in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 10, 2011.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy Company.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, about US$16 million of the US$53 million
related to 181 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$37 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis.

Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to 5.4 million
customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and
southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and PECO Energy.  The
Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 499 Cases Ongoing v. Celanese Corp. at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation faced 499 asbestos cases as of Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with 526 cases as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 11, 2011.

From Dec. 31, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded two case
adjustments, 41 new cases filed, and 70 resolved cases.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the number
of actual cases.  The Company has reserves for defense costs
related to claims arising from these matters.

Celanese Corporation is a global technology and specialty
materials company.  It produces acetyl products, which are
intermediate chemicals, for nearly all major industries, as well
as a leading global producer of high performance engineered
polymers that are used in a variety of high-value applications.
The Company is based in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17T Injury Claims Open v. BorgWarner at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had about 17,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 23,000 claims as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

Of the 17,000 outstanding claims at December 31, 2010,
approximately 8,000 were pending in just three jurisdictions,
where significant tort and judicial reform activities are
underway.

In 2010, of about 7,700 claims resolved, 245 (3.2%) resulted in
any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.  In the full year of 2009, of about 5,300 claims
resolved, only 223 (4.2%) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

To date, the Company has paid and accrued US$153.1 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement, which
includes US$40.7 million, and has received US$32.5 million in cash
from insurers.  The net outstanding balance of US$120.6 million is
expected to be fully recovered, of which about US$43 million is
expected to be recovered within one year.  At Dec. 31, 2009,
insurers owed US$58.6 million in association with these claims.

On April 5, 2010, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate
Division affirmed a lower court judgment in an asbestos-related
action against the Company and others.  The Company filed its
Notice of Petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in late
April, seeking to appeal the decisions of the lower courts.

On July 8, 2010, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the
Company's Notice of Petition appealing the decision of the lower
courts.  The total claim of US$40.7 million was paid by the
Company in July 2010.

In addition to the US$120.6 million net outstanding balance
relating to past settlements and defense costs, the Company has
estimated a liability of US$50.6 million for claims asserted, but
not yet resolved and their related defense costs at Dec. 31, 2010.
The Company also has a related asset of US$50.6 million to
recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100% is expected based on the
Company's experience, its insurance contracts and decisions
received to date in a declaratory judgment action.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the comparable value of the insurance asset and
accrued liability was US$49.9 million.

BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered automotive systems and
components, primarily for powertrain applications.  Its products
help improve vehicle performance, fuel efficiency, stability and
air quality.  These products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-
vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-
trucks).  The Company is based in Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers, since January 2004, have been facing a
declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related companies.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the
apportionment matter.  The interim order has the effect of making
insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro rata
to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the
insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage.

Appeals of the interim order were denied.  However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly engineered automotive systems and
components, primarily for powertrain applications.  Its products
help improve vehicle performance, fuel efficiency, stability and
air quality.  These products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-
vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-
trucks).  The Company is based in Auburn Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $633MM Dec. 31 Litigation Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's asbestos litigation liability was estimated
to be US$633 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with an estimate
of US$682 million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 10, 2011.

In 2010, the Company recorded a decrease to its asbestos
litigation liability of US$49 million compared to a net increase
of US$20 million in 2009.  The net decrease in 2010 was due
primarily to a US$54 million decrease to its estimated liability
for asbestos litigation that was recorded in the first quarter of
2010, as a result of the change in terms of the proposed
settlement of the Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) asbestos
claims.

For the remainder of 2010, the Company recorded net credit
adjustments to its asbestos litigation liability of US$5 million
to reflect the change in value of the estimated settlement
liability.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's liability for asbestos litigation
reflected the components of a proposed resolution that requires
the Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and
Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed
series of cash payments, recorded at present value on Dec. 31,
2010.

Corning Incorporated's products include glass substrates for LCD
televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and
filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable,
hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical
biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions for industries like semiconductor,
aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology.  The Company is based
in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $718MM NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of
US$718 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$831 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company owned North American Refractories Company from 1979 to
1986.  NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks
and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the
East and Midwest.  Less than two percent of NARCO's products
contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement).  NARCO retained all liability for all
other claims.  On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO.  In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos
claims against the Company.  The stay has remained in effect
continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.

The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent
company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO
acceptable to the Company (which amount was paid in December 2005
following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company US$40 million,
and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to the Company,
upon the effective date of the plan of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.  In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.  The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submitted
for decision.  In connection with the settlement of an insurance
coverage litigation matter, the insurer appellants withdrew their
appeal regarding the NARCO Plan.

On Aug. 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered an
order formally dismissing the NARCO appeal.  The NARCO Plan of
Reorganization cannot become effective, however, until the
resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of NARCO
affiliates.  The Third Circuit reheard this appeal en banc on
Oct. 13, 2010.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.125 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010
and US$1.128 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Honeywell International Ltd. is a manufacturer that serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.  The Company is
based in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Still Faces Travelers Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face Travelers Casualty
and Insurance Company's lawsuit, disputing obligations for North
American Refractories Company-related asbestos claims under high
excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance
carriers

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers sued Honeywell and other
insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New
York, disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims
under high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other
insurance carriers.

In July 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certain plaintiffs.
About US$180 million of unsettled coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company said it believes it is entitled to the
coverage at issue and expects to prevail in this matter.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical
choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of
allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered
policies.  The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling
was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second
quarter of 2009.

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.  A related
New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but
all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the
New York action.

Honeywell International Ltd. is a manufacturer that serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.  The Company is
based in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 22,480 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business
faced 22,480 unresolved asbestos claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 19,940 claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, Bendix reported 4,302 claims
filed and 1,762 claims resolved.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, Bendix reported 2,697 claims filed and 34,708 claims
resolved.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved about
155,000 Bendix related asbestos claims.  The Company had 131
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 18 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts.  Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on
appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three
claims were settled and the remaining has been or will be
appealed.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$594 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and
US$566 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$157 at Dec. 31, 2010
and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2009 are in its consolidated
balance sheet.

Honeywell International Ltd. is a manufacturer that serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.  The Company is
based in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Posts $1.719BB Bendix, NARCO Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total asbestos liabilities
of US$1.719 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, of which
US$594 million related its Bendix friction materials business and
US$1.719 billion related to its former North American Refractories
unit.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded total
asbestos liabilities of US$1.694 billion, of which US$566 million
related to Bendix and US$1.128 billion related to NARCO.

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$875 million during the year ended Dec. 31,
2010, of which US$157 million related to Bendix and US$718 million
related to NARCO.  The Company's insurance recoveries for
asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.003 billion during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, of which US$172 million related to Bendix and
US$831 million related to NARCO.

Honeywell International Ltd. is a manufacturer that serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.  The Company is
based in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spectrum Unit Still Facing 3 Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands, Inc.'s Applica Consumer Products, Inc. subsidiary
is still a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to
asbestos in hair dryers distributed by that subsidiary over 20
years ago.

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

Spectrum Brands, Inc. is a diversified global branded consumer
products company with positions in seven major product categories:
consumer batteries; small appliances; pet supplies; electric
shaving and grooming; electric personal care; portable lighting;
and home and garden control.  The Company is based in Madison,
Wis.


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

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 11, 2011.

Precision Castparts Corp. makes investment castings used in jet
aircraft, satellite launches, armaments, and medical applications
(prostheses).  Its Investment Cast Products segment makes jet
engine parts, fluid management valves, and deep-hole boring tools.
The Company's aerospace customers include jet engine makers
General Electric (about 14% of sales) and Pratt & Whitney.  The
Company is based in Portland, Ore.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Posts $3.9MM ARO at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s asbestos-related asset retirement
obligations were US$3.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$5.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, are classified as other long-term
liabilities.

The Company determined that a conditional asset retirement
obligation exists for asbestos remediation.  Upon renovation, the
Company may be required to take the appropriate remediation
procedures in compliance with state law to remove the asbestos.

The removal of asbestos-containing materials includes primarily
floor and ceiling tiles from the Company's pre-1980 constructed
facilities.  The fair value of the conditional asset retirement
obligation was determined as the present value of the estimated
future cost of remediation based on an estimated expected date of
remediation.

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns
subsidiaries that operate skilled nursing facilities, assisted
living facilities, hospices, home health providers and a
rehabilitation therapy business.  The Company is based in Foothill
Ranch, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Still Party to Exposure Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sensus USA Inc., as well as many other third parties, has been
named as a defendant in several lawsuits filed related to
illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages.  The complaints filed in
connection with these proceedings do not specify which plaintiffs
allegedly were involved with the Company's products, and it is
uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses
or dealt with the Company's products, much less whether any
plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part
of the Company's product or whether such part could have been a
substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products from
certain subsidiaries of Invensys, under the stock purchase
agreement pursuant to which it acquired Invensys Metering Systems,
such indemnities, when aggregated with all other indemnity claims,
are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in
connection with the acquisition of Invensys Metering Systems.

Sensus USA Inc. has two principal product groups: utility
infrastructure systems products and support products.  Utility
infrastructure systems products include AMI and AMR communications
systems, distribution automation and demand response systems and
four principal metering product categories: water, gas, heat and
electricity.  Support products include pipe joining and repair
products and die casting products.  The Company is based in
Raleigh, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Communications Posts $63MM ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc.'s asset retirement
obligations amounted to US$63 million as of Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$64 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's ARO balance was primarily
related to estimated future costs of removing circuit equipment
from leased properties and estimated future costs of properly
disposing of asbestos and other hazardous materials upon
remodeling or demolishing buildings.

AROs are included in other long-term liabilities on the Company's
consolidated balance sheets.

Qwest Communications International Inc. offers data, Internet,
video and voice services nationwide and globally.  The Company
operates the majority of its business in the 14-state region of
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming.  The Company is based in Denver, Colo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Named in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at formerly
owned facilities.

No other significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 15, 2011.

Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace components, systems and
services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets.
The Company also supplies systems and products to the global
defense and space markets.  The Company is based in Charlotte,
N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $3.7MM Liability, Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded asbestos liability and defense costs
of US$3,697,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010,
according to a Company press release dated Feb. 15, 2011.

Asbestos liability and defense income was US$1,017,000 during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$7,876,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.  Asbestos liability and defense income
was US$2,193,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$2,433,000 during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$2,904,000
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$13,206,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$11,742,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Colfax Corporation offers critical fluid-handling products and
technologies.  The Company's operating subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.
The Company is based in Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.87MM Liabilities at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,875,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$34,866,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 15, 2011.

Long-term asbestos liability was US$391,776,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$408,903,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Current asbestos insurance asset was US$34,117,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$31,502,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.  Long-term
asbestos insurance asset was US$340,234,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$357,947,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$46,108,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$5,736,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Colfax Corporation offers critical fluid-handling products and
technologies.  The Company's operating subsidiaries supply
products under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation,
Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.
The Company is based in Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG to Recover $800T From W.R. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office has
obtained a court order approving a settlement with chemical
company W. R. Grace & Co., which requires the Company to pay for
cleanup costs at nine contaminated sites throughout the
Commonwealth, including four Superfund sites, according to a Mass.
AG press release dated Feb. 15, 2011.

According to this order, approved by the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court, MassDEP will receive over US$800,000, plus accrued
interest, to resolve claims by MassDEP against Grace for
environmental liability at the nine sites.  The order also
requires Grace to pay for future cleanup costs and to perform
cleanup work at several of the Superfund sites.

Cleanup at many of the sites has been completed.  The bankruptcy
proceedings began in 2001.

The Attorney General's office asserted claims on behalf of
MassDEP, as a creditor, in relation to the nine contaminated sites
throughout the Commonwealth: the former Zonolite Plant site in
Easthampton, the Daramic Plant site in Acton, the Cambridge Plant
site in Cambridge, the Knox Trail site in Acton and Concord, and a
pipeline site adjacent to the Massachusetts Military Reservation
site in Sandwich, the Acton Superfund site in Acton and Concord,
the Wells G & H Superfund site in Woburn, the Blackburn & Union
Privileges Superfund site in Walpole, and the Sutton Brook
Superfund site in Tewksbury.

Attorney General Coakley said, "W. R. Grace has the means to pay
its environmental liability to the Commonwealth and perform
cleanup actions at its contaminated properties.  We are gratified
that the bankruptcy court agreed it would be wrong to allow Grace
to walk away from its responsibilities."

MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell said, "MassDEP is pleased
that the settlement requires W. R. Grace to continue response
actions at its sites and to comply with all of its consent
decrees.  It also reserves the Commonwealth's right to bring
natural resource damage claims if such damages are found at the
Acton Superfund site, Wells G & H Superfund site, or the Blackburn
& Union Privileges site."

Cleanup of "Superfund sites" is performed under federal law known
as CERCLA, which requires the parties responsible for the
contamination to perform the cleanup under the oversight of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and MassDEP.  The
Commonwealth has an analogous "State Superfund" law known as
"Chapter 21E."  The Wells G & H Superfund site is the Woburn site
chronicled in the book and movie "A Civil Action."

Grace filed Chapter 11 largely due to asbestos-related personal-
injury lawsuits filed against it.  On Jan. 31, 2011, the court
confirmed Grace's plan of reorganization, which was a major step
in clearing the way for the reorganized Grace entity to emerge
from bankruptcy.

The Commonwealth will receive US$700,298, plus 4.19% accrued
interest from June 2005 and US$105,582.97 for past costs incurred
prior to and during Grace's bankruptcy, plus 4.19% accrued
interest from May 25, 2010.

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorney General Carol Iancu
of AG Coakley's Environmental Protection Division with assistance
from Jennifer Davis, Jay Naparstek, Rob Lucci, and others at
MassDEP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Delays Thornhill Community Renovation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornhill Community Center and Library in Thornhill, Ontario,
Canada, is slated for a $6 million facelift, but renovation is
being delayed by the extensive asbestos abatement in the upper
library, arena, community hall and main entrances,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

All asbestos must be removed prior to renovation.  Work on the
center began last April 2010 and was scheduled for completion in
December 2010, but has now been rescheduled for June 15, 2011.
Ward 2 Councilor Howard Shore has asked why asbestos was not
accounted for sooner.

The town's senior manager of infrastructure and special projects
Glen Taylor claimed that asbestos was anticipated, but initial
tests came back negative.

Mr. Taylor blames the error on the lab, and Mr. Shore calls says
that regardless of who is blames, the situation was entirely
negligent.

If asbestos was disturbed during the renovation prior to its
detection, both workers and the surrounding community could have
been exposed to the hazardous substance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Pleads Guilty to Iowa Cleanup Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors said Russell Coco, the supervisor of a
renovation project at the Equitable Building in Des Moines, Iowa,
has pleaded guilty to two asbestos abatement charges, The
Associated Press reports.

The U.S. attorney's office says Mr. Coco pleaded guilty on
Feb. 15, 2011 to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and
failing to remove all regulated asbestos containing materials from
the building before the project began.

Mr. Coco faces up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to
US$250,000.  Sentencing is May 20, 2011.

Mr. Coco and his boss, developer Bob Knapp, were accused of
illegally removing asbestos from 2005 to 2008.  The indictment
says asbestos was put in open bins and dumped in a landfill.

Mr. Knapp's trial on conspiracy and multiple violations of the
Clean Air Act is set for Feb. 28, 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Health Minister Affirms GBP5.7M for Glan Clwyd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wales' Health Minister Edwina Hart has approved GBP5.7 million
worth of funds to remove asbestos from Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, the
Daily Post reports

When the Bodelwyddan hospital was built in the late 1970s,
asbestos use was commonplace as a fire retardant coating on
structural steelwork.

The work to remove the asbestos from the theater block at Ysbyty
Glan Clwyd will cost GBP1.5 million.  Further work will also be
done to remove asbestos from the roof, ground floor and other
areas of the hospital, costing an additional GBP4.2 million.

Measures will be put in place to ensure services are maintained as
the work is carried out. It is expected to be completed by the end
of March 2012.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Firms Fined $15,600 for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has penalized two
Grants Pass businesses a total of US$15,600 for environmental
violations stemming from an asbestos removal project at a
commercial building at 202 S. Redwood Highway in Grants Pass,
Ore., last fall, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated
Feb. 14, 2011.

DEQ issued a US$9,600 penalty to Steve Motter's Maintenance LLC,
of 1117 SW Bridge St., Grants Pass, for performing an asbestos
project without a license.  DEQ issued a US$6,000 penalty to LH
Rogue Valley Properties LLC, of 200 S. Redwood Highway, Grants
Pass, for allowing the unlicensed Steve Motter's Maintenance to
perform the asbestos removal work on the commercial building its
owns.

In October 2010, Steve Motter's Maintenance workers removed about
250 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tile from the
building.  As owner of the building, LH Rogue Valley was
responsible for ensuring that all material containing asbestos was
properly handled and disposed.

Using a saw, workers broke the tile into numerous smaller pieces.
That action likely caused the release of asbestos fibers into the
air.

The workers also left the shattered tiles on the building's floor,
unpackaged, as well as in partially opened garbage bags in the
building, causing the potential for further release of asbestos
fibers.

DEQ cited Steve Motter's Maintenance with openly accumulating the
asbestos waste materials but did not issue a penalty for this
violation.

DEQ also cited LH Rogue Valley for openly accumulating asbestos-
containing waste material and for failing to have an accredited
inspector survey the building for the presence of asbestos-
containing material before beginning work there.  DEQ did not
assess penalties for these violations.

Both LH Rogue Valley Properties and Steve Motter's Maintenance LLC
appealed their penalties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunriver Owners, DEQ Agree on Abatement Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunriver Owners Association has entered into a voluntary
agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to
deal with asbestos-contaminated soil at the site of a proposed
aquatics center in Sunriver, Ore., according to an Oregon DEQ
press release dated Feb. 11, 2011.

The plan for the 5.9-acre cleanup area calls for securely covering
the contaminated soil with at least two feet of clean soil, three
to four inches of concrete, or three to four inches of asphalt.
Legal requirements will also be placed on the property deed to
make sure the asbestos stays covered in the future.  The cap will
be incorporated into the proposed aquatics center.

Minor changes to the original cleanup plan include the following
stipulations:

-- Cap thickness may be less than two feet at tree preservation
   areas, at parts of the south and east boundaries of the site
   where the cap will transition to the surrounding grade, and
   possibly at a drainage swale.

-- Excavating and moving a limited amount of asbestos-
   contaminated soil to ease site preparation and construction
   of the aquatic center.  Asbestos-contaminated soil will be
   moved for: clearing and grubbing of vegetation; grading
   organic soil to prepare the ground surface for installation
   of paved and asphalt portions of the cap; limited excavations
   around existing trees, new trees, a drainage swale, and
   footings for one portion of a building.  About 1,500 cubic
   yards of asbestos-contaminated soil will be excavated and
   moved within the cleanup area under the Sunriver sledding
   hill.

-- The public will be protected against any short-term asbestos
   inhalation risk from on-site excavation and transport of
   asbestos-contaminated soil during the cleanup through
   application of best management practices.  The owners
   association is responsible for routine air monitoring at the
   site perimeter to confirm maintenance of the acceptable risk
   level (less than 3.3 fibers per cubic centimeter).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Webster Plumber Arraigned on Abatement Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Webster, Mass., plumbing and heating contractor has been
arraigned for the improper removal and disposal of asbestos, child
endangerment, and multiple instances of larcenous conduct for work
performed in the Worcester County area, announced Attorney General
Martha Coakley, according to a Mass. AG press release dated
Jan. 20, 2011.

Daniel Watterson, age 40, was arraigned on charges of violating
the Massachusetts Clean Air Act for Failure to File Notices of
Asbestos Removal with the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Improper Removal of Asbestos-Containing
Material, and Improper Disposal of Asbestos-Containing Materials.

Mr. Watterson was also arraigned on charges of Child Endangerment
(2 counts), Larceny over US$250 by False Pretenses (3 counts),
Larceny over US$250 of a Victim over Sixty Years of Age, Larceny
under US$250 of a Victim over Sixty Years of Age, and Larceny over
US$250.

According to authorities, Mr. Watterson, a plumbing and heating
contractor who has operated in the Worcester County area under the
business names "The Clog Specialist," "Dan the Clog Man," "Dan the
Heating Man," and "DW Plumbing & Heating," illegally removed and
disposed of asbestos from a Worcester residence in April 2008.

Mr. Watterson was contracted for the removal and installation of
boilers for the home heating system.  Authorities allege that Mr.
Watterson contracted and instructed two teenage boys to dispose of
asbestos-containing material from two older boilers.

The removal of asbestos must be done by a licensed contractor
utilizing Personal Protective Equipment under MassDEP regulations
with notification as to when the removal will occur.  According to
authorities, the unlicensed teenage workers failed to wet the
asbestos prior to its removal, and did not wear respirators or
protective clothing during the removal process.

Authorities allege the teenage workers crudely removed the
asbestos from the boilers and pipes by ripping the insulation and
chipping it with putty knives.  The insulation was allegedly piled
in the cellar space before being placed in trash bags and
transported to a dumpster owned by Mr. Watterson for disposal.

Authorities further allege that the workers broke down the boilers
and its components, using sledgehammers and hacksaws.  The
components were later rejected by a local scrap yard for disposal
due to visible asbestos.

In addition, authorities allege Mr. Watterson regularly took
advantage of residential, commercial, and elderly customers,
frequently overbilling them for deficient plumbing and heating
services.

According to authorities, Mr. Watterson would overcharge his
customers, sometimes claiming the bill was a flat rate for the
job, and also charged customers' credit cards without their
consent.  Authorities also allege that work completed by Mr.
Watterson was often deficient, requiring consumers to have the
work redone by qualified professionals.

The indictments are the result of an investigation by the
Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), an
interagency unit which is overseen by AG Coakley, MassDEP
Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell and Energy and Environmental
Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.

The ECSF comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office,
Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's
Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP which
investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state's
water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human
health.

A Worcester County Grand Jury returned indictments against Mr.
Watterson on Dec. 17, 2010.  He was arraigned last Jan. 19, 2011
in Worcester Superior Court at which time he pled not guilty and
was released on personal recognizance.  Mr. Watterson was due back
in court on Feb. 9, 2011, for a pre-trial conference.  Judge Peter
Agnes, Jr. presided over the arraignment.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Attorneys General Andrew
Rainer and Dara Reppucci with assistance from Ashley Cinelli of
the Victim Witness Services Division.  ECSF officials involved in
this investigation included Environmental Police Officers and
MassDEP officials Don Heeley and Gregg Levin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Palmieri Action v. 32 Firms Filed Jan. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Palmieri of Ohio, on Jan. 18, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 32 defendant corporations in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill., represents Mrs. Palmieri.

In her complaint, Mrs. Palmieri alleges the defendants caused her
deceased husband, Carmine Palmieri Sr., to develop lung cancer
after his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his
career.

Mr. Palmieri worked as a tile setter and brick layer from 1952
until 1980, according to the complaint.

In her nine-count complaint, Mrs. Palmieri seeks a judgment
economic damages of more than US$50,000, punitive and exemplary
damages of more than US$50,000, compensatory damages of more than
US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
the defendants, plus a judgment of more than US$50,000 and other
relief the court deems just.

At the appellate court in Mount Vernon, justices are hearing an
appeal made by defendants in several asbestos cases filed by out
of state plaintiffs in St. Clair County. The defendants in Case
No. 11-L-28 are arguing that St. Clair County is not an
appropriate venue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Sentenced to Imprisonment of Six Months
---------------------------------------------------------------
A judge sentenced 46-year-old James Robert Soyars, Jr., of Denver,
Colo., to six months in prison on Feb. 8, 2011 for improperly
disposing of asbestos from renovation projects along the Front
Range, including in Aurora, The Aurora Sentinel reports.

Mr. Soyars was also sentenced to serve six months home detention
after his prison term and US$435,477 in restitution.  Federal
prosecutors say Mr. Soyars, a certified asbestos abatement
supervisor, violated the Clean Air Act by dumping asbestos from
renovation projects in an east Denver storage locker.

U.S. Attorney General John Walsh said, "The improper handling of
asbestos is a crime because even minimal exposure is dangerous.
If asbestos becomes airborne, and if it becomes lodged in a
person's lung, the result could be cancer."

A federal grand jury in Denver indicted Mr. Soyars in February
2010 and he pled guilty to two felony counts of failure to deposit
asbestos-containing waste material in October 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Posts $126Mil Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company recorded asbestos/respirator mask liabilities of
US$126 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$138 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's asbestos/respirator mask receivables amounted to
US$122 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$143 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global
presence in the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics; Consumer and
Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro and
Communications.  The Company is based in St. Paul, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Respirator Actions Still Pending v. 3M Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to be a defendant in asbestos-related
respirator lawsuit filed in various courts.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in 854 lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent about 2,148 individual claimants, down from
about 2,510 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31,
2009.

Most lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against
the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to
asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found
in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well
as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global
presence in the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics; Consumer and
Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro and
Communications.  The Company is based in St. Paul, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in 3M Company Action Slated for June 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related declaratory judgment action against 3M Company
remains in its early stages with a trial scheduled to begin in
June 2012.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory judgment
action filed on behalf of two of its insurers (Continental
Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. -- both part of the
Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for respirator
mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$122 million
insurance recovery receivable.  The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minn., seeks declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.

The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers.  This action is similar in nature to an action
filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which
ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of
2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names
some additional insurers and deletes others.  A significant number
of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.

Three additional insurers have recently been or are being added as
parties to the case.

3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global
presence in the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics; Consumer and
Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro and
Communications.  The Company is based in St. Paul, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $32MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, has
recorded US$32 million as the best estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims as of Dec. 31, 2010.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo.  Aearo manufactures
and sells various products, including personal protection
equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain
respiratory protection products.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

3M Company is a diversified technology company with a global
presence in the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics; Consumer and
Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and Electro and
Communications.  The Company is based in St. Paul, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal
business operations pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries.

No other significant asbestos matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 16, 2011.

FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million
customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  The Company's
domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more
than 14,170 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants.  The Company
is based in Akron, Ohio.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *