---

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

             Friday, July 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 129

                             Headlines

AON INSURANCE: Judge Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
APPLE: Recalls Verizon iPad 2s Due to Duplicate MEID Codes
APPLE REIT: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New Jersey
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage "PayPlan"
BEST BUY: Faces Class Action Over Racial Customer Profiling

CACH LLC: Accused of Collecting Debts Sans License in Illinois
DREYER'S GRAND: "All Natural" Label Deceives Consumers, Suit Says
EASTERN PLATINUM: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses StubHub Ticket Resales Class Action
EQUABLE ASCENT: Deceives Consumers in California, Suit Says

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses "Friend Finder" Class Action
GREEN BANKSHARES: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
IPEX INC: Settles Kitec Plumbing Class Actions for $125 Million
ITAU UNIBANCO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stabilization Plans

KASHI COMPANY: Recalls 11,000 Cases of Frozen Pizzas
KELLOGG CO: Settles Rice Krispies Class Action
KEN'S FOODS: Recalls 16oz Bottles of Publix Caesar Salad Dressing
MRP REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Washington Harbour Flooding
NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Action Dismissed

REDLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action in Ontario
TOPSON DOWNS: Recalls 2,100 Women's Dresses Due to Fire Hazard
UNITED STATES: Sued for Misrepresenting Legal Status of Debt
UNITED STATES: Green Card Lottery 'Winners' Seek Injunction

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject to La. Insurance Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Subject to Antoine Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing Against Sears Holdings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere Subject to Unresolved Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Euroseas Ltd. May be Subject to Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Continues to Finance Treatment & Research
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 118 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro Corp. at June 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 79 Cases Open v. Precision Castparts at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Graham Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending Against Joy Global

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Navistar Int'l.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Records $36MM April 30 Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in SPX Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Hauman Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Denied in Fireman's Fund Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has $5.3MM Adjustment at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 564 Claims Pending v. James Hardie at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie March 31 Liabilities at $1.698BB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11MM March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Still Named in Liability Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Holdings Involved in 5 Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Files Lawsuit v. CMM Realty in S.C. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson Case v. Illinois Central Filed April 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanley Kiln Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBC Dismissed From Merlin Olsen's Injury Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pandocchi Action v. 103 Firms Filed in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SGL's Summary Judgment Denied in Wagers Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Appeal in Dow Injury Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Gainey Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines Trust $29T for Disposal Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hugharts' Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Wins $22MM Claim v. Goodyear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Dumping Continues at Home Rule Location
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Flinders Street Station Track
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitcheldean Driver's Death Related to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Knapp Sentenced to 41 Mos. for Conspiracy Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburgh Corning's 3rd Turnaround Plan Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dianella Walking Track Closed on Hazard Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on W.R. Grace Lawsuit Set for July 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong District's Abatement Projects Delayed




                             *********

AON INSURANCE: Judge Approves $10.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge on June 28 gave final approval
to a class action settlement involving Aon Insurance Services,
Inc. (now known as Aon Private Risk Management of California
Insurance Agency, Inc.), Aon Risk Services Companies, Inc. and Aon
Corporation, which calls for a guaranteed payment of $10.5 million
by the defendant.  The action was litigated by Louis Marlin,
Stanley Saltzman, Dale Anderson and Kristen M. Fritz of Marlin &
Saltzman, LLP.  The case alleged that California Account
Specialists, whose work involves assisting Account Managers in
providing insurance brokerage services to Aon's clients, have been
misclassified by the defendant as exempt administrative employees.

The case was filed in September, 2007.  The parties engaged in
substantial pre-trial litigation, including deposing over 100
witnesses.  In May 2010, Los Angeles Superior Court judge
Carolyn Kuhl granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

As the case was preparing for trial, the parties were able to
reach a settlement.  On June 28, 2011, the final step of the class
action settlement approval process took place, with Judge Elihu M.
Berle granting full approval to the settlement on behalf of 534
class members.  It is anticipated that settlement proceeds will be
sent to Class Members within the next sixty days.


APPLE: Recalls Verizon iPad 2s Due to Duplicate MEID Codes
----------------------------------------------------------
John Brownlee, writing for Cult of Mac, reported on June 13 that
Apple has confirmed they are recalling a limited number of Verizon
iPad 2s.

The report said an "extremely small number of iPad units for the
Verizon 3G network" were flashed with duplicate MEID codes,
prompting the recall.

An MEID code is a unique identifier that is used to tell a carrier
to send data to your device.  Multiple iPad 2s with the same MEID
would presumably result in chaos as two or more iPads received and
sent conflicting data to the Verizon network, which would view the
separate iPads as one device.

Although Apple wouldn't actually admit how many devices are being
recalled, they will be replacing affected units with new one,
reported Mr. Brownlee.  "If your Verizon iPad 2 is acting wonky
and sending you data you don't need, you might want to just call
up your local Apple Store and read them your serial number," he
added.


APPLE REIT: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Six, Inc., and the other Apple REIT companies are
facing a putative shareholder class action in New Jersey,
according to the Company's June 27, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2011, two shareholders of the Apple REIT companies
filed a putative class action captioned Kronberg et al. v. David
Lerner Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 2:11-cv-03558, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against David Lerner Associates, Inc. and certain of its officers,
and the Apple REIT companies and Glade M. Knight.  The Apple REIT
companies consist of Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven, Inc.,
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc., and Mr. Knight is their chief executive officer.  The
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of Units in
the Apple REIT companies, asserts claims and seeks, among other
things, certification of the class, compensatory, special and
general damages, and other costs and expenses.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that: (1) DLA made false and
misleading misrepresentations about (a) the value of the Units of
the Apple REIT companies, (b) previous distribution payments made
by the Apple REIT companies, and (c) the operations of the Apple
REIT companies, (2) the significant risks associated with the
illiquid investment in the Apple REIT companies were not properly
disclosed to investors, and (3) under the various agency
agreements between DLA and the Apple REIT Companies, the Apple
REIT Companies and Mr. Knight are responsible for the actions and
representations of DLA and its certain officers regarding the sale
of Units of the Apple REIT Companies.

The Company believes that these claims against the Apple REIT
Companies and Mr. Knight are without merit, and it intends to
defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company says it
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or an
estimate of damages or any other remedies against the defendants,
if any.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage "PayPlan"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Bank of America told customers its "PayPlan" of automatic weekly
or fortnightly mortgage payments would save them money on
interest, then "systematically and persistently" took the payments
late, to charge them even more interest.

A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen, et al. v. Bank of America,
N.A., Case No. 11-cv-00290 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/28/BofA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony G. Buzbee, Esq.
          THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM
          JP Morgan Chase Tower
          600 Travis, Suite 7300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 223-5393
          E-mail: tbuzbee@txattorneys.com

               - and -

          Jeremy W. Alters, Esq.
          David C. Rash, Esq.
          Matthew T. Moore, Esq.
          E-mail: jeremy@alterslaw.com
                  david@alterslaw.com
                  matthew@alterslaw.com
          ALTERS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          Miami Design District
          4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 201
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 571-8550

               - and -

          Minh Tam (Tammy) Tran, Esq.
          Pete Mai, Esq.
          John Na, Esq.
          THE TAMMY TRAN LAW FIRM, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.P.
          2915 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 655-0737
          E-mail: ttran@ttran-lawfirm.com
                  pmai@ttran-lawfirm.com
                  jna@ttran-lawfirm.com


BEST BUY: Faces Class Action Over Racial Customer Profiling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Poggi, writing for TheStreet, reports that Best Buy is
facing new discrimination allegations one week after settling a
class-action lawsuit.

The electronics retailer is being accused of widespread racial and
ethnic customer profiling in Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

The suit, which was filed by law firm Clinton & Peed, seeks to end
Best Buy's alleged racial profiling practices, as well as
compensation for an Arab-American Muslim manager who was fired for
speaking out against the company's practices.

Todd Abed accused Best Buy of terminating his 13-year employment
because he objected to the company's "Be On The Look Out" policy.
Under BOLO, Abed claims Best Buy employees circulated e-mails
among all managers in the region containing images and
descriptions of customers suspected of theft, intended to be
posted in their respective stores.  The complaint said images and
descriptions circulated under BOLO consistently involved racial
and ethnic minorities.

Best Buy was called for comment, but initial efforts to reach the
company were unsuccessful.

Last week, Best Buy settled a class-action employee discrimination
suit for $10 million.

Class-action cases have been in focus following the Supreme Court
ruling in favor of Wal-Mart's massive sex discrimination class-
action suit.  In the decade-long case, more than 1 million former
female employees claimed that managers at the discount giant made
sexist decisions about promotions and pay.

The Supreme Court ruling means the gender-bias suit won't precede
as a class-action claim, and the women must now bring their
complaints to the court individually.

Costco Wholesale is also facing a class-action suit.


CACH LLC: Accused of Collecting Debts Sans License in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Eisenmenger, individually and on behalf of the class
defined herein, and People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Robert
Eisenmenger v. CACH, LLC (Case No. 2011-CH-22911 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
June 27, 2011) seeks redress for the conduct of the Defendant in
taking collection actions prohibited by the Illinois Collection
Agency Act.  The Plaintiff also seeks relief against void
judgments.

Mr. Eisenmenger alleges that the Defendant, a collection agency,
instituted lawsuits against more than 100 consumers in Illinois
and also collected debts and judgments from the consumers,
including the plaintiff, without first obtaining a license -- in
violation of the ICAA.  Therefore, each judgment and order
obtained by the Defendant in cases filed before it obtained its
license is void, he says.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

CACH, LLC is a limited liability company organized under Colorado
law with its principal office at 4340 S. Monaco, 2nd Floor, in
Denver, Colorado.  The Defendant is engaged in the business of
purchasing or claiming to purchase charged-off consumer debts and
enforcing the debts against the consumers by filing collection
lawsuits and otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Lattumer, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


DREYER'S GRAND: "All Natural" Label Deceives Consumers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Rutledge-Muhs and Jay Woolwine, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.,
Case No. 4:11-cv-03164 (N.D. Calif., June 27, 2011) is a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers, who purchased Dreyer's purported "All Natural" Ice
Cream Products' beginning June 25, 2007, through the present.

The Plaintiffs allege that Dreyer's has packaged, marketed and
sold its ice cream products as being "All Natural" despite the
fact that the products contain alkalized cocoa processed with a
nonnatural, man-made, synthetic ingredient -- potassium carbonate.
They argue that Dreyer's "All Natural" labeling is false and
misleading and likely to deceive class members and the general
public.

The Plaintiffs are residents of San Bernardino County, California.

Dreyer's is a Delaware corporation and has its principal place of
business at 5929 College Avenue, in Oakland, California 94618.
Dreyer's manufactures and distributes premium products under the
Dreyer's brand name in the Western United Stales and Texas and
under the EDY'S(R) brand name east of the Rocky Mountains.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel R. Tamez, Esq.
          GNAU & TAMEZ LAW GROUP
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 446-6736
          Facsimile: (619) 793-5215
          E-mail: danieltamez@sdinjuryattorney.com

               - and -

          Majed Nachawati, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mn@fnlawfirm.com


EASTERN PLATINUM: Faces Securities Class Action in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on June 28 announced the filing in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice of a proposed class action against
Eastern Platinum Ltd. and certain of ELR's senior officers and
directors.  The proposed class includes all persons and entities
who acquired securities of ELR from January 1, 2011, to April 15,
2011.

The action alleges, among other things, that during the Class
Period, the defendants failed to disclose material changes in the
operations of the Crocodile River Mine in the Bushveld Complex of
South Africa.

Daniel Bach of Siskinds LLP stated that "companies have long been
required to disclose material changes to investors; when they do
not, investors are entitled to compensation.  We look forward to
testing these provisions in Court."

Persons and entities who acquired securities of ELR during the
Class Period are encouraged to register at: ELR Information Form.
Inquiries should be directed to Nicole Young of Siskinds at (800)
461-6166 (ext. 2380) or at nicole.young@siskinds.com

For further information:

          Daniel Bach, Esq.
          Siskinds LLP
          Telephone: (416) 362-8334
          E-mail: daniel.bach@siskinds.com


EBAY INC: Judge Dismisses StubHub Ticket Resales Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a baseball
fan struck out against the Yankees, eBay and StubHub in a proposed
class action over ticket resales to baseball games.

In the process, online ticket reseller StubHub won a key game in
its series against anti-scalping efforts in New York state, which
allowed a law removing price caps on ticket resales to expire in
2010.

An attorney for the woman suing the Yankees told Courthouse News
that he plans to appeal.

"If you want to know the truth, I knew we were in trouble when
oral argument started and the judge leaned back in his chair and
said, 'I was never a Yankees fan until the Giants moved to San
Francisco,'" attorney Randall Newman wrote in an e-mail.

The New York Giants moved their franchise in 1957.

"The judge's decision makes New York's ticket law meaningless,"
Mr. Newman wrote.  "Why would anyone bother to get licensed when
they can sell tickets anonymously on StubHub?"

On June 14, 2010, Mr. Newman's client Andrea Weinstein says, she
surfed the Yankees Web site looking for tickets to a game against
the Kansas City Royals.  She says the Yankees page redirected her
to StubHub, where she bought six tickets in the outfield
grandstand from an unknown seller.

Ms. Weinstein says the tickets cost her $33 each, plus a $19.80
service charge and a $4.95 fee to receive the tickets
electronically.  She says she found out later that their face
value was $20.

Ms. Weinstein sued StubHub, its parent company eBay and the New
York Yankees on Nov. 3, 2010, alleging deceptive business
practices.  She said the resellers should cite the prices on their
tickets.

But in a blistering 23-page opinion, U.S. District Judge John F.
Keenan said that her claim presumes that consumers have "a level
of stupidity that the Court cannot countenance."

Judge Keenan cited the ruling dismissing Chistie v. Hotel.com, in
which a customer sued the reservation Web site for not disclosing
that it made profits from reservation fees.

Attorney Newman said that he has spoken to "hundreds of people"
since filing the lawsuit, and few knew the difference between
primary and secondary ticket markets.

"Consumer confusion means higher profits and after all, isn't that
what America is about?" Mr. Newman asked.

As for the Yankees, Judge Keenan wrote that the team cannot be
held liable for every ticket a third party sells.

"Under plaintiff's reading of the statute, the Yankees would be
liable any time a scalper standing on a street corner sells a
ticket with altered or no established price information," Judge
Keenan wrote.  "There is simply no way the Yankees can police each
and every third party ticket sale to ensure that the final
purchaser receives the ticket in the same form, and with the same
face value information, as when it was originally issued by the
Yankees."

Mr. Newman said the judge misstated his client's position.

"We are not claiming that the Yankees have to police each third
party ticket sale," Mr. Newman said.  "We are claiming that the
Yankees and StubHub expressly agreed that StubHub could remove the
face value from the ticket when the ticket is electronically
issued."

But Judge Keenan wrote that even the plaintiff, Ms. Weinstein,
acknowledged that StubHub repeatedly warns customers about third-
party transactions.

"Every single page of the Web site to which plaintiff was
redirected included a disclaimer that 'You are buying tickets from
a third party; neither StubHub.com nor StubHub, Inc. is the ticket
seller,'" Judge Keenan wrote.

"Similarly, every page on StubHub's Web site includes a disclaimer
that 'Ticket prices are set by sellers and may differ from face
value.'"

Judge Keenan then gave the Yankees fan a primer in market
economics.

"If a consumer is forced to pay more than face value for a Yankees
ticket, it is due to the economic forces of supply and demand, not
StubHub's business practices," Judge Keenan wrote.  He also
dismissed claims accusing StubHub and eBay of "intentionally
aiding and abetting unlicensed ticket resellers," such as the
John Doe that sold her the ticket.

"The very nature of StubHub and eBay's business is to aid and abet
third party ticket sales by sellers who are most likely
unlicensed," Judge Keenan wrote.

Mr. Newman, in response, blasted the judge for giving "the 'steal'
signal to StubHub and essentially allow them to knowingly provide
a platform for people to engage in illegal activity."

But Judge Keenan said New York state law knowingly made exceptions
for StubHub and eBay.

"If the Legislature wished to regulate eBay and StubHub's conduct,
it could have simply required the companies to obtain reseller
licenses for themselves," Judge Keenan wrote.

He said that any efforts for Ms. Weinstein to amend her claim
would be "futile."

"There is no need to embark on costly and time intensive briefing
of a motion to amend because neither proposed amendment would
overcome the Amended Complaint's legal defects," Judge Keenan
wrote.  "The plaintiff has struck out."

Nonetheless, Mr. Newman said he will step up to the plate again,
in appeals court.

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Weinstein v. eBay, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-08310 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/2JuPs7


EQUABLE ASCENT: Deceives Consumers in California, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abdon Santiago, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Equable Ascent Financial, aka EAF; Ahn H. Regent dba
Regent & Associates, and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:11-cv-03158 (N.D.
Calif., June 24, 2011) is a class action challenging the
collection practices of the Defendants that violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Commerce
and Trade Code by (i) failing to provide him and the class members
certain information required by Section 1692g(a)(3) of that Code,
and (ii) using false, deceptive and misleading representations in
the collection of debt.

Mr. Santiago is a resident of California.

EAF is a debt collector, and employs Mr. Regent to collect
defaulted consumer debts it purchased from others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, California 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          Facsimile: (415) 891-8208
          E-mail: irvberg@com.cast


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Dismisses "Friend Finder" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has dismissed a class action against Facebook Inc. that claimed
the site's "Friend Finder" feature violated users' rights to
control the use of their names and likenesses.

Northern District Judge Richard Seeborg granted Facebook's motion
to dismiss on June 28, with leave to amend, finding that the
plaintiffs had not adequately shown they'd suffered any injury.

"Plaintiffs have not shown how the mere disclosure to their
Facebook friends that they have employed the Friend Finder service
(even assuming some of them did not) causes them any cognizable
harm," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Judge Seeborg did, however, find that Facebook had not obtained
consent to use names or likenesses to promote Friend Finder and he
rejected Facebook's argument that its terms of service and privacy
policy give it the right to use names or profile photos in any
manner.

"Nothing in the provisions of the terms documents to which
Facebook has pointed constitutes a clear consent by users to have
their name or profile picture shared in a manner that discloses
what services on Facebook they have utilized, or to endorse those
services," Judge Seeborg wrote.

The plaintiffs had sued Facebook last November, saying they did
not consent to having their names and likenesses used to promote
the Friend Finder service.

The feature prompts users to enter their e-mail account passwords,
then it scans users' e-mail contact lists for people they might
want to add as friends.  However, the plaintiffs allege, the
feature also uploads users' e-mail contact list to Facebook's
server.  The site then repeatedly e-mails nonmembers urging them
to join, the suit says.

"Facebook has made cynical and surreptitious business decisions to
misappropriate its users' names and likeness to promote use of its
'Friend Finder' service," the complaint said.

Attorneys from Cooley in San Francisco representing Facebook filed
a motion to dismiss in January.  Cooley's legal team includes
litigation Chair Michael Rhodes and litigation partner Matthew
Brown.

"We are pleased with the court's decision," Facebook spokesperson
Andrew Noyes said.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Spillane
Weingarten and Initiative Legal Group in Los Angeles.  Judge
Seeborg gave the plaintiffs 20 days to file an amended complaint,
which partner Jay Spillane said they will do.

"The court is requiring the plaintiffs to plead injury in fact
with more particularity, which we are confident we can do to the
court's satisfaction," Mr. Spillane said.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $750 per
violation, actual damages of at least $100 million, treble
damages, costs, injunctive relief and attorney fees.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on
June 28 announced that a class action has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who held shares of the common
stock of Green Bankshares, Inc. on June 16, 2011, against GRNB and
members of its Board of Directors for violating Section 14 (a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaching its
fiduciary duties to GRNB shareholders in connection with a merger
agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc. to acquire
a 90.1% stake in GRNB for $217 million.

GRNB is a Tennessee chartered commercial bank.  The complaint
states that on May 5, 2011, GRNB announced that it had entered
into a definitive agreement whereby NAFH would acquire a 90.1
percent stake in GRNB for $217 million.  According to the
complaint, approximately 120 million shares of GRNB common stock
will be issued at a price of $1.81 per share to NAFH and current
GRNB common shareholders will receive a Contingent Value Right
entitling them to cash proceeds up to $0.75 per share, based on
credit performance of GRNB's legacy loan portfolio over the five
years following the deal's closing.  However, the complaint states
that, at the time of the proposed transaction, GRNB was trading at
around $2.40 per share.  The complaint alleges that the board
decided to raise capital in a manner that unreasonably diluted
common shareholders of GRNB.  The complaint further alleges that
GRNB has failed to obtain GRNB's public shareholders the highest
value available for GRNB in the marketplace and that the
transaction with NAFH unreasonably dilutes existing shareholders.

The complaint alleges that on June 6, 2011, GRNB made misleading
statements and material omissions in the Company's proxy
statement, thus violating Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act.  The
proxy statement, according to the complaint, recommends that
shareholders vote on certain proposals to facilitate the Proposed
Transaction.  The complaint alleges that the proxy statement fails
to disclose material information including, but not limited to:
GRNB's search to raise capital on terms more advantageous to
current shareholders, consequences of failing to meet its informal
commitment with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and
Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions, additional facts
about the two alternative proposals that the board considered, the
method that the Board used to value the CVRs or the Board's
estimates for loan losses over the next five years, the terms that
NAFH is willing to accept from the Treasury concerning NAFH's
repurchase of Series A Preferred Stock, capital levels TDFI
requested GRNB to maintain, GRNB's projections concerning whether
tangible book value per share will fall below $1.81, and whether
NAFH has any plans to issue additional stock.

If you are a GRNB shareholder and you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court by August 29, 2011.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice, your rights, or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Charles Piven of Brower Piven at (410) 415-6616 or by
e-mail at hoffman@browerpiven.com
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all holders of
GRNB stock on June 16, 2011.  The plaintiff is represented by
Brower Piven, whose attorneys have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases for more than 60 years.


HONGHUA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that HongHua America, a China-
based drilling rig manufacturer, stiffs welders for overtime and
forces them to "pay kickbacks to their supervisors," according to
a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Vargas, et al. v. Honghua America, LLC,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-02403 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/28/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond Avenue, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-0066
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com


IPEX INC: Settles Kitec Plumbing Class Actions for $125 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed US$125 million settlement in the class actions
commenced against IPEX Inc. and IPEX USA LLC was announced on
June 28.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Canadian actions Rosati, et al.
v. IPEX USA LLC, et al. (Ontario) and Cooke, et al. v. IPEX Inc.
(Quebec) and in the United States action In re: Kitec Plumbing
System Products Liability Litigation (MDL-Texas) announced on
June 28 that they have entered into an agreement to settle.

The settlement relates to Kitec Systems sold under various brand
names including Kitec, PlumbBetter, IPEX, AQUA, WARMRITE, Kitec
XPA, AmbioComfort, XPA, KERR Controls and Plomberie Amelioree.
The Kitec System is a type of plumbing product, the components of
which include Kitec fittings and Kitec pipe.  The Kitec System was
used for a variety of applications, including hot and cold water
distribution in plumbing applications and radiant heating systems
in homes, residences, buildings or other structures.  The
settlement covers class members throughout Canada and the United
States.

The class actions allege that the Kitec System manufactured by
IPEX may be subject to premature failure and otherwise may not
perform in accordance with the reasonable expectations of users.
IPEX denies these allegations and asserts that the Kitec System is
not defective and that the vast majority of the systems will last
throughout the warranty period.  The parties have agreed to the
settlement to avoid the expense, inconvenience and distraction of
further protracted litigation and to fully resolve this matter.

The settlement agreement provides a Settlement Fund and Claims
Process for those who file claims related to any structures they
own, have owned, lease or have leased that contain a Kitec System.
The amount to be paid per claimant depends upon the type and
extent of any possible failure, the size and installation type of
the Kitec System and the available funds in the Settlement Fund.

Because this is a class action settlement, it is subject to court
approval.  The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the
courts in Ontario, Quebec and in the United States.  The final
approval hearings have been scheduled for November 17, 2011 in the
United States, November 29, 2011 in Ontario, and December 1, 2011
in Quebec, at which time the courts will be asked to determine
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of class members.

Potential class members have legal rights under the settlement:
they must decide whether to stay in the class and obtain the
settlement's benefits or, if they do not want to participate, they
must opt out by September 30, 2011.  If they do not opt out, they
will be automatically bound by the terms of the settlement.  If
they want to stay in the class, they are not required to do
anything at this time, although class members who want a
distribution from the Settlement Fund must file a claim form by
the claims deadline, which is eight years from the Effective Date
of the settlement.  The parties estimate the Effective Date will
take place late this year or early next year, such that the claims
period will likely end in 2019.

People who own or have owned or lease or have leased structures
with the Kitec System and who believe they may qualify for a
payment under this settlement can obtain additional information
about the settlement online at http://www.kitecsettlement.comby
calling 1-877-337-1293 or by writing:

In Canada:

          Canadian Kitec Claims Administrator
          633 Colbourne Street, Suite 300
          London, ON N6B 2V3

In the United States:

          Kitec Claims Administrator
          PO Box 6001
          Larkspur, CA 94977-6001

The Canadian Class is represented by Charles Wright, Esq. of
Siskinds LLP (London), David Robins, Esq. of Sutts, Strosberg, LLP
(Windsor) and Simon Hebert, Esq. of Siskinds Desmeules
s.e.n.c.r.l. (Quebec City).

The United States Class is represented by Robert K. Shelquist,
Esq. of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. (Minneapolis), Charles J.
LaDuca, Esq. of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP (Washington, D.C.),
Michael McShane, Esq. of Audet & Partners, LLP (San Francisco),
Michael Ram, Esq. of Ram Olson (San Francisco), and Jeffrey B.
Cereghino, Esq. of Merrill Nomura & Molineaux LLP (Danville, CA).

In Canada, IPEX is represented by Benjamin Zarnett, Esq., Jessica
Kimmel, Esq. and Suzy Kauffman, Esq. of Goodmans LLP (Toronto),
and Christopher Richter, Esq. of Woods LLP (Montreal).  In the
United States, IPEX is represented by Richard L. Josephson,
Esq. and Van H. Beckwith, Esq. of Baker Botts, LLP (Houston and
Dallas).

For Further Information:

For Canadian Class Plaintiffs:

          David Robins, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          251 Goyeau Street, Suite 600
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          Telephone: (519) 561-6211
          E-mail: drobins@strosbergco.com

For IPEX:

          Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS, LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 953-6505
          E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com


ITAU UNIBANCO: Continues to Defend Suits Over Stabilization Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits arising from government monetary
stabilization plans, according to the Company's June 27, 2011,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

From 1986 to 1994, the Brazilian government implemented several
consecutive monetary stabilization plans to combat hyper-
inflation.  In order to implement these plans, the Brazilian
government enacted several laws based on its power to regulate the
monetary and financial systems as granted by the Brazilian federal
constitution.

Holders of savings accounts during the periods when the monetary
stabilization plans were implemented have challenged the
constitutionality of the laws that implemented those plans,
claiming from the banks where they held their savings accounts
additional amounts of interest based on the inflation rates
applied to savings accounts under the monetary stabilization
plans.

The Company is a defendant in numerous standardized lawsuits filed
by individuals in respect of the monetary stabilization plans.
The Company record provisions for such claims upon receipt of
summons to present a defense based on statistical criteria.  Each
provision may be adjusted based on the balance in the savings
account statements of each plaintiff during the relevant periods.

In addition, the Company is a defendant in class actions, similar
to the lawsuits by individuals, filed by either (i) consumer
protection associations or (ii) public attorneys' office
(Ministerio Publico) on behalf of holders of savings accounts.
Holders of savings accounts may collect any amount due based on
such a decision.  The Company records provisions when individual
plaintiffs apply to enforce such decisions, using the same
criteria used to determine provisions for individual lawsuits.

The Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) has issued
some decisions in favor of the holders of savings accounts, but
has not issued a final ruling with respect to the
constitutionality of the monetary stabilization plans as
applicable to savings accounts.  In relation to a similar dispute
with respect to the constitutionality of monetary stabilization
plans as applicable to time deposits and other private agreements
the Federal Supreme Court has decided that the laws were in
accordance with the federal constitution.  Due to this
contradiction, the Confederacao Nacional do Sistema Financeiro --
CONSIF -- filed a special proceeding with the Federal Supreme
Court (Arguicao de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n 165 -
ADPF, 165), in which the Central Bank has filed an amicus brief,
arguing that holders of savings accounts did not incur actual
damages and that the monetary stabilization plans as applicable to
savings accounts were in accordance with the federal constitution.


KASHI COMPANY: Recalls 11,000 Cases of Frozen Pizzas
----------------------------------------------------
Kashi Company of La Jolla, California, is recalling approximately
11,000 cases of frozen pizzas, including Mediterranean Thin Crust
Pizza, Roasted Vegetable Thin Crust Pizza, and Mushroom Trio and
Spinach Thin Crust Pizza due to possible plastic fragments in an
ingredient in the pizza crusts.

The impacted products include these individually packaged pizzas:

   -- Kashi Mediterranean Thin Crust Pizza packaged in a 12.7
      ounce box and marked with UPC Code 1862732905 3 and Best If
      Used Before date of either May10 12NU, May18 12NU, or May19
      12NU;

   -- Kashi Roasted Vegetable Thin Crust Pizza packaged in a 12.2
      ounce box and marked with UPC Code 1862737342 1 and Best If
      Used Before date of either May09 12NU or May14 12NU; and

   -- Kashi Mushroom Trio and Spinach Thin Crust Pizza packaged
      in an 11.9 ounce box and marked with UPC Code 1862737344 5
      and Best If Used Before date of May17 12NU.

No other Kashi frozen pizzas or other products are included in the
recall, and no consumer complaints have been reported.  The
products were distributed nationwide through U.S. retail grocery
stores.

"People who buy Kashi trust the quality and safety of our foods,"
said David DeSouza, general manager.  "We apologize for this
situation and are working closely with our suppliers and retail
customers to resolve it quickly."

Consumers with questions or who would like a replacement may
contact the Kashi Consumer Response Center at 877.864.3521 Monday
? Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern time, or visit
http://www.Kashi.com/


KELLOGG CO: Settles Rice Krispies Class Action
----------------------------------------------
WBALTV.com reports that Kellogg Co. has settled a class-action
lawsuit regarding claims it made about Rice Krispies, which means
those who bought the cereal could get some money back.

Kellogg reached a settlement in the case earlier this week over
false claims it made during a 2009 ad campaign in which it said
Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies boost children's immune systems.

The lawsuit concerns people who bought the items between June 1,
2009, and March 1, 2010.

As part of the settlement, Kellogg agreed to pay consumers about
$2.5 million and to donate $2.5 million worth of its product to
charity.  Consumers who purchased the products will be able to get
$5 to $15 from the settlement.

No proof of purchase will likely be necessary, according to
TopClassActions.com.  The claims will be made on the honor system.

A Web site hasn't been established yet to submit a claim.


KEN'S FOODS: Recalls 16oz Bottles of Publix Caesar Salad Dressing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturer of Publix Caesar Salad Dressing, Ken's Foods,
Inc., is recalling a limited number of 16oz Publix Caesar Salad
Dressing bottles because it may contain undeclared fish, gluten
and soy allergens.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to fish, soy and gluten run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The dressing is 16oz. Publix Caesar Salad Dressing with an
expiration date of 31MAR12 A.  Bottles labeled correctly will have
a UPC#4141500730.  The product may have the incorrect ingredient
statement for "Buttermilk Ranch" dressing.  This dressing was
distributed to Publix stores in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee,
Alabama and South Carolina.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered a portion of the
run contains an incorrect back panel label.  This label does not
list the presence of fish, gluten and soy.

As of June 16, 2011, there has been no adverse reaction complaints
reported relating to this recall.

As part of Publix commitment to food safety, they are asking
customers to return the product to the place where it was
purchased for a full refund or replacement.  Consumers with
questions may contact Publix at 1-800-242-1227, Monday through
Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


MRP REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Washington Harbour Flooding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tierney Plumb, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that a group of Washington Harbour employees have jumped on board
a class-action lawsuit against the Georgetown complex's owner and
property manager D.C.-based MRP Realty in regards to the
destructive flooding that hit the warm weather mecca on April 18.

More than a fourth, or 12 of the 40 plaintiffs, listed in the
refiled complaint include employees of Farmers & Fishers, which
have each lost wages in an amount less than $75,000 as a result of
the flood.  This includes David Ross, general manager, and
Alfred Nappo, executive chef and director of culinary operations.

According to the report, Farmers & Fishers might have been
affected the most by the April flooding of Washington Harbour,
saying it has no foreseeable opening date in sight.

"Farmers & Fishers was totally devastated and has been completely
demolished," said a spokeswoman for Farmers & Fishers, the sister
restaurant to downtown hot spot Founding Farmers.  "Any possible
opening date has been set for the second quarter of 2012, at the
earliest."

The restaurant formerly functioned as Agraria until it revamped
its image in mid-2009 by teaming up with Farmers & Fishers by
debuting a farmer-approved menu and new interior fabrics and
artwork.

When flood waters struck, the eatery braced for an estimated
revenue loss of $20,000 to $40,000 for each day it was closed; if
that's the case, the restaurant has lost up to around $2.4 million
to date.

The space is completely raw and only concrete columns and open
ceiling remain.  Full demolition was the only solution as concern
for contamination of all equipment and floors and all areas was
very high, so everything was removed, said a spokeswoman.


NOVELOS THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company developing
novel drugs for treatment and diagnosis of cancer, on June 28
announced that on June 23, 2011, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed
the defendants' motion to dismiss the putative federal securities
fraud class action brought in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts in March 2010 entitled Boris Urman
and Ramona McDonald v. Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. and Harry S.
Palmin (Civil Action No. 10-10394-NMG).  The plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the progress of the Phase 3
clinical trial before the United States Food and Drug
Administration of Novelos' oxidized glutathione compound, NOV-002,
in application to non-small cell lung cancer.  On February 24,
2010, Novelos announced that the Phase 3 trial had concluded
unsuccessfully, and the price per share of Novelos' common stock
dropped by approximately 80% from its close on the prior day.

In dismissing the action without prejudice, Judge Gorton concluded
that the statements made by Mr. Palmin to which the plaintiffs
objected were not misleading, and endorsed the "competing and more
persuasive non-fraudulent inference that Mr. Palmin understood
that alleged changes to the NOV-002 specifications presented to
the FDA affected only the color specifications rather than the
effectiveness or fundamental composition of the drug."

Novelos and Mr. Palmin were defended by Foley Hoag LLP.

                 About Novelos Therapeutics, Inc.

Novelos Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.novelos.com/--
is a pharmaceutical company developing novel drugs for the
treatment and diagnosis of cancer.


REDLINE COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Class Action in Ontario
-------------------------------------------------------
Redline Communications Group Inc. on June 28 disclosed that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the proposed class
action lawsuit commenced in Ontario in September of 2010 against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
officers, and its former auditors.  These claims remain unproven
and the action has not received court approval.

The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims asserted against the Company, its
former auditors and the individual proposed defendants.

Substantially all of the anticipated contribution to the
settlement amount from Redline and the individual proposed
defendants is to be funded through their insurance coverage, the
remaining nominal amount being funded by the Company.  The
agreement in principle remains subject to final settlement
documents and receipt of court approval.  The settlement does not
constitute any admission of liability by Redline or its officers,
directors and employees.

                  About Redline Communications

Founded in 1999, Redline Communications -- http://www.rdlcom.com/
-- is a publicly traded company on the Toronto stock exchange that
manufactures wireless broadband systems used to deploy distributed
applications and services and to power 4G networks.  Redline
products are marketed and supported through an exclusive network
of value added resellers in the Americas, Mexico, the Middle East
and Africa.


TOPSON DOWNS: Recalls 2,100 Women's Dresses Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Topson Downs of California, of Culver City, California, announced
a voluntary recall of about 2,100 women's dresses.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The dresses fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The dress is a Bar III brand dress, and is fully lined with a
sheer rayon outer layer.  There is a white label with "Bar III"
written in black on the inside back of the dress.  The dress has a
checkered, multi-colored, and black pattern called "Mint Chili
Combo" and was sold in five adult sizes, ranging from extra small
to extra large.  Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11259.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold
exclusively at Impulse Department of Macy's stores nationwide and
on macys.com from March 2011 through May 2011 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dresses and
return them to any Macy's for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Macy's toll-free at (888) 257-5949 between
10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time or visit the Macy's Web
site at http://macys.com/or contact Topson Downs at (800) 241-
2975 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time or via e-mail at
customerservice@topsondowns.com


UNITED STATES: Sued for Misrepresenting Legal Status of Debt
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the California-based United States Civil Claims Department
misrepresents itself as the federal government in trying to
collect debts.

A copy of the Complaint in Ostendorf v. United States Civil Claims
Department, Case No. 11-cv-00641 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/28/Collections.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joan M. Landmann, Esq.
          LARRY P. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (314) 667-4382
          E-mail: jlandmann@smithlaw.us


UNITED STATES: Green Card Lottery 'Winners' Seek Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niall O'Dowd reports that Green Card lottery 'winners,' who had
their visas snatched away after a State Department mix up, were
set to file an injunction on June 28 to prevent the diversity
lottery taking place on July 15 until their case is dealt with.

Eight Irish 'winners' led by London-based Stuart McBrien, who is
leading the effort to force the State Department to recognize
their lottery win, are involved in the class action suit.

Mr. McBrien, stated: "The injunction is the only fair way to move
forward.  Without it all the available visas will be allocated by
the time our court case is heard -- so even if we win, it will be
pointless for me and thousands of others.  This is the only way
that justice can be done."

A class action lawsuit was filed against the State Department on
June 16, 2011 seeking to reinstate a commitment first made, then
broken, to 22,000 would-be immigrants to the United States who
were originally told they had won the lottery but were later told
that due to a computer glitch they had not.

The blunder, already admitted by the State Department, saw 22,000
individuals who were proceeding down a legal route to immigrate to
the United States, have their applications cancelled.

The injunction request to stop the lottery will be filed in
support of the class action lawsuit, being brought against the
State Department, with respect to its handling of the 2012 green
card lottery.

Attorney Kenneth White of White and Associates says of the
injunction -- "This is a necessary and meaningful step, in which
we seek to dramatically accelerate the hearing of our arguments in
court.  It deals with State Department plans to hold a second
lottery on July 15.  We need to ensure that the interests of the
class of 22,000 are protected going forward and this accelerated
hearing will preserve the possibility of justice being done."

Advocates for the 22,000 believe that the State Department will
bury their case as soon as the new lottery takes place.

To prevent this, a request for a preliminary injunction will be
filed, which petitions the court to weigh two potential outcomes
to preserve the plaintiffs' interests: 1) allow the July 15
drawing to proceed, only with safeguards to protect the
plaintiffs' rank order; or 2) reinstate the original results for
all selectees.

The goal of this request is to immediately re-commence the
processing of visa and adjustment of status applications for those
who have already been recognized and selected in the Lottery.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject to La. Insurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are
involved in an asbestos-related declaratory judgment action
entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. et al.

The suit was filed on or about Aug. 23, 2004, by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited, in the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish,
La., against the Company, J. Ray McDermott, Inc. and two insurer
defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking a declaration that the
London Insurers have no obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for
certain bodily injury claims, including claims for asbestos and
welding rod fume personal injury which have been filed by
claimants in various state courts, and an environmental claim
involving Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., a
subsidiary of B&W.

Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters.  This
proceeding was stayed by the court on Jan. 3, 2005.

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.  The
Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Subject to Antoine Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are still
defendants in an asbestos lawsuit entitled Antoine, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., which is pending in Texas court.

In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, La., about 88 plaintiffs filed suit against about 215
defendants, including J. Ray McDermott, Inc., and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation, another Company affiliate, alleging
injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals,
metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as
Jones Act seamen.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims, without prejudice to their right to re-file their claims.

Additionally, on Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et
al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial
District Court for Harris County, Tex., 43 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about
65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal
injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise.

On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all
activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of
process and answer or appearance dates until further Court order.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on Feb. 20, 2009,
which is pending before the District Court.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in
both cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case.

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.  The
Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing Against Sears Holdings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is subject to matters including class
action allegations, environmental and asbestos exposure
allegations and other consumer-based claims.

These actions may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage
claims (potentially in large amounts), as well as other types of
relief.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 19, 2011.

Sears Holdings Corporation is the parent company of Kmart Holding
Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.  The Company is a broadline
retailer with 2,201 full-line and 1,354 specialty retail stores in
the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 483 full-
line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears
Canada Inc.  The Company is based in Hoffman Estates, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere Subject to Unresolved Liability Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company is subject to various unresolved legal actions
which arise in the normal course of its business, the most
prevalent of which relate to product liability (including asbestos
related liability), retail credit, software licensing, patent and
trademark matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 27, 2011.

Deere & Company makes farm equipment and is also a major producer
of construction, forestry, and commercial and residential lawn
care equipment.  The Company operates through three business
segments: agriculture and turf, and construction and forestry
segments make up its equipment operations; a credit segment
provides financial services.  The Company is headquartered in
Moline, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Euroseas Ltd. May be Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Euroseas Ltd. may be involved in various litigation matters from
time to time, including contract disputes, personal injury claims,
environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and other toxic tort
claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or
duties, and other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of
our business.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2011.

Euroseas Ltd. owns 16 vessels, including a fleet of two handysize
drybulk carriers with a total deadweight tonnage of more than
84,000; five handy-size containerships with an average age of 17
years and more than 140,000 deadweight tons; three Panamax drybulk
carriers, with more than 210,000 deadweight tons; and three
intermediate container carriers, with more than 95,000 deadweight
tons.  The Company is headquartered in Maroussi, Greece.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Continues to Finance Treatment & Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation will continuously cope with issues faithfully
from the view point of Corporate Social Responsibility as one of
manufacturers that once manufactured asbestos-containing products.

The Company has established "Relief Payment System for the
Asbestos-Related Patients and the Family Members of the Deceased
near the Former Kanzaki Plant" on April 17, 2006, and paid the
relief payments to 212 parties up to March 31, 2011.

The Company has paid contributions to Hyogo College of Medicine
and Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases
for the purpose of medical treatment and research of asbestos-
related diseases, which was allocated for the year ended March 31,
2011.

Kubota Corporation makes tractors and farm equipment, from rice
transplanters to combine harvesters.  It also produces iron
ductile pipe for water supply systems.  The Company is
headquartered in Osaka, Japan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 118 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro Corp. at June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation said 118 asbestos cases remain pending against
the Company, as of June 2, 2011, with a majority of those cases
pending in New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and
Mississippi, as compared with 93 cases that were pending as of
March 17, 2011.

Beginning in 2002, the Company was named in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies
including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling
industries.

The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of
these cases.  The sum total of all payments through June 2, 2011
to settle cases involving asbestos-related claims was US$626,500,
all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including
legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an
average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about
US$31,325.

During the period March 17, 2011 through June 2, 2011, 33 new
cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was
dismissed from seven cases and settled one case.  Most of the
pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to,
or are scheduled for trial.

On April 27, 2011, a liquidation order was entered against
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, who had been providing defense
and indemnity to the Company, and its affiliate, Centennial
Insurance Company, who provided umbrella coverage to the Company.

Met-Pro Corporation's product recovery and pollution-control
segment makes products ranging from particle collectors -- used in
food preparation -- to fans and blowers -- used in semiconductor
manufacturing.  The Company is headquartered in Harleysville, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 79 Cases Open v. Precision Castparts at April 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 3, 2011, about 79 lawsuits remain pending against
Precision Castparts Corp. alleging personal injury as the result
of exposure to particulates, including asbestos, integrated into
its premises or processes or into certain historical products.

It is frequently not possible at the outset of a case to determine
which of the plaintiffs actually will pursue a claim against the
Company.  Typically, that can only be determined through discovery
after a case has been filed.

In a case involving multiple plaintiffs, unless otherwise
expressed in the pleadings, the Company accounts for the lawsuit
as one claim against it.

During fiscal year 2011, the Company reported 33 new claims filed
and 19 claims disposed of.  During fiscal year 2010, the Company
reported 27 new claims filed and 20 claims disposed of.

The Company considers that all such claims are tort claims while
noting that some claims, such as those filed in West Virginia,
were historically common law "employer liability" cases and are
now based on a statutory definition of requisite intent.

The particulates in question are no longer incorporated into the
Company's products, and the Company has implemented safety
protocols to reduce exposure to remaining particulates in the
workplace.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Graham Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to be a named defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 3, 2011.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs.

Graham Corporation designs, manufactures and sells custom-built
vacuum and heat transfer equipment to customers worldwide.  The
Company is headquartered in Batavia, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending Against Joy Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries are still involved in various
unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of
operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability -- including over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related
cases -- employment, and commercial matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on June 6, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Joy Global Inc. provides high productivity mining solutions and
manufactures and markets original equipment and aftermarket parts
and services for both underground and surface mining and certain
industrial applications.  The Company is headquartered in
Milwaukee, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Navistar Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Along with other vehicle manufacturers, Navistar International
Corporation has been subject to an increase in the number of
asbestos-related claims in recent years.

In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have
resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in
older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged presence
of asbestos in the Company's facilities.

In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

Navistar International Corporation is a holding company whose
principal operating subsidiaries are Navistar, Inc. and Navistar
Financial Corporation.  The Company operates in four principal
industry segments: Truck, Engine, Parts, and Financial Services.
The Company is headquartered in Warrenville, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. C. Penney Records $36MM April 30 Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of April 30, 2011, estimated its
total potential asbestos and environmental liabilities to range
from US$35 million to US$42 million and recorded its best estimate
of US$36 million in other liabilities in the Consolidated Balance
Sheet as of that date.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental conditions
involving the Company's former drugstore locations and asbestos
removal in connection with approved plans to renovate or dispose
of its facilities.

The Company continues to assess required remediation and the
adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes
available and known conditions are further delineated.

As of Jan. 29, 2011, the Company estimated its total potential
environmental liabilities to range from US$36 million to US$42
million and recorded its best estimate of US$37 million in other
liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of that date.
(Class Action Reporter, April 15, 2011)

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is a major retailer, operating 1,106
department stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico as of Jan. 29,
2011.  Its business consists of selling merchandise and services
to consumers through its department stores and through the
Internet Web site at jcp.com.  The Company is headquartered in
Plano, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in SPX Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld a ruling in an
asbestos case styled SPX Corporation, Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, The
Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendants, and Ace Property and
Casualty Insurance Company and Century Indemnity Company,
Defendants.

Judges Bryant McGee and Beasley entered judgment in Case No.
COA10-745 on April 5, 2011.

This was an appeal by defendant Employers Insurance Company of
Wausau from orders entered on Oct. 2, 2008 and Jan. 6, 2010 by
defendant The Travelers Indemnity Company from an order entered
May 26, 2009 by defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company from an
order entered on March 13, 2009 and cross-appeal by plaintiff SPX
Corporation from an order entered on Nov. 20, 2008.

General Railway Signal Company was a New York corporation, which
manufactured railway signal equipment. In 1963, General Railway
became a Delaware corporation and changed its named to General
Signal Corporation (GSX).  In 1976, GSX moved its corporate
headquarters to Connecticut.  In 1998, SPX Corporation acquired
GSX and merged it into SPX in 2001.

Between the 1920s and 1980s, General Railway purportedly purchased
and used various asbestos-containing parts and equipment in its
manufacturing.  As a result, General Railway has been implicated
in about 151 asbestos bodily injury cases.

Defendant-appellant Employers Insurance Company of Wausau insured
General Railway under comprehensive general liability policies
between January 1950 and January 1963.  Defendant-appellant
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company also provided liability policies
to SPX.

Defendants-appellees Ace Property & Casualty Company and Century
Indemnity Company provided insurance to SPX between 1967 and 1979.
Defendant-appellant The Travelers Indemnity Company is a
Connecticut-based insurance company, which issued seven one-year
liability policies to GSX between April 1979 and April 1986.

Since 2003, Ace, Wausau, Travelers, Liberty and General Railway's
other insurers have worked together under an informal claims
handling agreement to pay 100% of the cost of defending and
indemnifying each of General Railway's claims.

On June 13, 2006, SPX commenced this declaratory judgment and
breach of contract action, contending that it had the right to
tender all of the claims to a single insurer and to demand that
the chosen insurer pay 100% of the defense and indemnity costs.

On Nov. 21, 2006, the case was designated exceptional.  On May 21,
2007, Century and ACE moved for summary judgment on the duty to
defend and indemnify asbestos bodily injury claims against SPX.
On July 16, 2007, SPX filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on
ACE's duty to defend.  On Aug. 14, 2007, Wausau filed a joinder in
ACE's motion for summary judgment.  Following a hearing Aug. 24,
2007, the trial court entered an order on March 6, 2008 granting
SPX's cross-motion for summary judgment and denying ACE's motion.

On Jan. 17, 2008, Wausau moved for summary judgment on its duty to
defend asbestos bodily injury claims brought against its insured,
General Railway, a predecessor to SPX.  On March 5, 2008, SPX
filed a cross-motion for summary judgment against Wausau.

Following a hearing on May 7, 2008, the trial court entered an
order on Oct. 2, 2008 granting SPX's cross-motion for summary
judgment and denying Wausau's motion.  On Aug. 15, 2008, Liberty
moved for partial summary judgment to establish that SPX was
required to pay a specified deductible for each claim on each
triggered Liberty policy; on Nov. 20, 2008, the trial court
granted that motion.

In March 2009, Travelers moved for partial summary judgment on the
issue of proper allocation of defense costs for SPX's asbestos
bodily injury claims.  In April 2009, SPX filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment.  By order of May 26, 2009, the trial court
denied Travelers' motion for partial summary judgment and granted
SPX's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

On Oct. 20, 2009, ACE filed a motion for summary judgment on
Wausau's claim for contribution against other insurers of General
Railway Signal Company.  Following a hearing on Nov. 18, 2009, the
trial court entered an order on Jan. 6, 2010, granting ACE's
motion for summary judgment.

Also on Jan. 6, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment in
the case.  Defendant Wausau appealed from the Oct. 2, 2008 and
Jan. 6, 2010 orders.  Travelers appealed from the May 26, 2009
order.  Liberty appealed from the March 13, 2009 order.  SPX
conditionally cross-appealed from the Nov. 20, 2008 order, which
granted partial summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Hauman Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, decided on an asbestos
case filed by Darin Lee Hauman against the Secretary Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections and other defendants.

Judges Fuentes, Greenaway, Jr. and Roth entered judgment in Case
No. 09-4038 on April 4, 2011.

Darin Lee Hauman appealed from the final order of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concerning
his civil rights complaint.

In 2005, Mr. Hauman commenced a pro se civil rights action against
several prison officials and employees at SCI-Laurel Highlands at
Somerset, Pa., where he is an inmate.

Mr. Hauman alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth
Amendment rights by exposing him to various environmental dangers,
including toxic coal smoke emitted from the prison's coal-fired
boiler plant that infiltrates the prison's indoor air,
environmental or second hand tobacco smoke from prisoners who
smoke on prison grounds, and friable asbestos stemming from
exposure on a work assignment where asbestos was present and
disturbed in his presence.

Mr. Hauman contended that on numerous dates, especially in 2005,
he suffered shortness of breath and dizziness, and that his health
has been negatively affected by the prison environment.  He sought
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Mr. Hauman filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which was
denied without discussion.  The case proceeded to discovery.  He
filed several unsuccessful discovery-related motions, including a
motion to compel.  The Magistrate Judge denied the motion without
discussion.

Mr. Hauman appealed the order to the District Court, and the
District Court reversed the ruling as it pertained to Mr. Hauman's
requested discovery of his medical records.  The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment and responses.  In February
2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that
summary judgment be granted in the defendants' favor on all claims
except for the claim for injunctive relief based on the
allegations of deliberate indifference to exposure to friable
asbestos.  Mr. Hauman filed objections.

By order entered March 26, 2008, the District Court adopted the
report and recommendation and granted summary judgment to the
defendants except for the single claim for injunctive relief; that
claim was set to proceed to a non-jury trial.

Mr. Hauman then sought leave to file an amended complaint to
commence a class action and again sought the appointment of
counsel.  The Magistrate Judge denied these motions.

In April 2008, Mr. Hauman filed a motion to appoint an expert for
his remaining claim for injunctive relief on the friable asbestos
claim, which the Magistrate Judge denied.  On appeal of that
denial, the District Court remanded the issue for consideration
under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Magistrate Judge then conducted a site visit to the prison
with the parties. After that visit, on Sept. 3, 2009, the
Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that judgment
be entered in Mr. Hauman's favor on his remaining claim for
injunctive relief.

The Magistrate Judge noted that the remaining issue for trial
would be whether Mr. Hauman could prove exposure to asbestos and
whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to any need
for medical monitoring, and that the defendants had advised during
the site visit that they were willing to place Mr. Hauman in the
same medical monitoring program used for the individuals who were
potentially affected by a documented release of friable asbestos
at the prison in April 2006.  Mr. Hauman filed objections.

The District Court adopted the report and recommendation and
entered judgment in Mr. Hauman's favor on the remaining claim for
injunctive relief, directing that Mr. Hauman be included in the
same medical monitoring program used by the Department of
Corrections for monitoring individuals exposed to friable
asbestos.

In its order, the District Court noted that its order of
injunctive relief was enforceable against the defendants.  The
District Court later denied Mr. Hauman's motion to alter or amend
the order.  This appeal followed.

In its ruling, the Appeals Court will vacate the District Court's
March 26, 2008 order to the extent that it granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and will remand the matter for further
proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Denied in Fireman's Fund Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western
Division, denied Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company's motion
for partial summary judgment in a case styled Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity
Company, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff v. Dana Corporation,
Third-Party Defendant.

District Judge James G. Carr entered judgment in Case No.
3:03CV7168 on March 31, 2011.

This was an action for equitable contribution brought by Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company, against defendant/third-party plaintiff
Hartford and by Hartford against third-party defendant Dana
Corporation.

Dana purchased primary insurance coverage from both FFIC and
Hartford.  FFIC's coverage spanned from 1966 to 1978, while
Hartford provided coverage from 1978 to 1986.

In the 1980s, Dana faced potential asbestos liability resulting
from its earlier ownership of Smith & Kanzler, a manufacturer and
installer of asbestos-containing products.

In 1983, Dana sued FFIC and Hartford in this court demanding
coverage for two asbestos-related bodily injury claims from
building owners.

In 1984, Celotex filed suit against Dana in federal court in
Florida requesting a declaration that Dana was required to
indemnify Celotex for the S & K claims (Florida Action).  Finding
that this Florida action raised issues similar to those in the
1983 Action, this Court consolidated the two cases into one
proceeding.

In 1985, Celotex filed suit against FFIC in California, seeking a
declaration that it had coverage rights under FFIC policies.  Dana
also filed a declaratory action in California against FFIC and
Hartford seeking coverage for AIB claims.  Both California suits
were stayed.

Also in 1985, FFIC sued Dana, Celotex and an excess insurer in
this court.  FFIC sought a declaration that its 1966-1969 policies
with Dana did not cover claims for asbestos related property
damage involving S & K products.  Dana filed a counterclaim
against FFIC in the 1985 Case.

In September, 1990, FFIC moved in the 1985 Case to join Hartford
as an indispensable party to Dana's counterclaim or, in the
alternative, dismiss Dana's counterclaim.  The court in the 1985
Case never ruled on FFIC's motion to join Hartford.  The court
stayed the 1985 Case in October 1990.  In 1992, the court entered
an order perpetually staying and closing the 1985 Case.

In 2003, FFIC filed a three-count complaint against Hartford
requesting declaratory relief, contribution and subrogation in
connection with defense and indemnity costs FFIC allegedly
incurred on behalf of Dana in connection with the AIB and SPA
claims.  FFIC represented that it expended about US$20 million --
in addition to the US$1.1 million in settlements -- on defense
costs.

In 2005, FFIC filed a motion to reactivate the 1985 Case,
consolidate it with the 1983 Case and consolidate both cases with
the 2003 action.  The court granted that motion.

Pending was Hartford's motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the FFIC's claims for contribution as made in all
suits pending.  Hartford's motion for partial summary judgment was
denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has $5.3MM Adjustment at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's results include favorable asbestos
adjustments of US$5.3 million for the quarter ended March 31,
2011, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2011.

For the full year, the results include unfavorable asbestos
adjustments of US$85.8 million, which are primarily attributable
to movements in the value of the Australian dollar against the
U.S. dollar.

James Hardie Industries SE uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement
to create products for residential and commercial construction,
including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing,
and roofing.  The Company's largest segment, USA Fibre Cement, has
made substantial inroads into the U.S. siding market, where it is
now one of the largest siding manufacturers.  The Company is
headquartered in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 564 Claims Pending v. James Hardie at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE faced 564 open asbestos claims for the
year ended March 31, 2011, compared with 529 claims for the year
ended March 31, 2010.

For the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded 494 new
claims and 459 closed claims.  Average settlement amount per
settled claim was US$193,090 and the average settlement amount per
case closed was US$163,642.

For the year ended March 31, 2010, the Company recorded 535 new
claims and 540 closed claims.  Average settlement amount per
settled claim was US$162,250 and the average settlement amount per
case closed was US$146,325.

James Hardie Industries SE uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement
to create products for residential and commercial construction,
including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing,
and roofing.  The Company's largest segment, USA Fibre Cement, has
made substantial inroads into the U.S. siding market, where it is
now one of the largest siding manufacturers.  The Company is
headquartered in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie March 31 Liabilities at $1.698BB
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's total asbestos liability amounted to
US$1.698 billion as of March 31, 2011, of which US$111.1 million
was current and US$1.587 billion was non-current.

The Company's total asbestos liability amounted to US$1.619
billion as of March 31, 2010, of which US$106.7 million was
current and US$1.512 billion was non-current.

James Hardie Industries SE uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement
to create products for residential and commercial construction,
including siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing,
and roofing.  The Company's largest segment, USA Fibre Cement, has
made substantial inroads into the U.S. siding market, where it is
now one of the largest siding manufacturers.  The Company is
headquartered in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11MM March 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its discounted
asbestos-related aggregate liability is about US$11 million, which
has been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements as of March 31, 2011.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability, including related legal
costs, to range between US$7 million and US$17 million, using
actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30
years from March 31, 2011.

Of the US$11 million as of March 31, 2011, management expects to
incur asbestos liability payments of about US$500,000 over the
next 12 months.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a wide variety of
commercial and industrial end-user markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Amherst, N.Y.


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

No significant asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 27, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thermon Holdings Involved in 5 Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. is currently involved in five pending
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20,
2011.

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 two of the five 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 was dismissed without payment.  All
amounts paid in connection with such settlements were immaterial.

There are no claims unrelated to asbestos exposure for which
coverage has been sought under the policies that are providing
coverage.

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal
solutions for process industries.  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.  The Company is headquartered in
San Marcos, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Files Lawsuit v. CMM Realty in S.C. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has sued CMM Realty Inc. for allegedly firing an
employee who voiced and reported workplace and environmental
concerns regarding asbestos at one of the Company's worksites,
according to an OSHA press release dated June 15, 2011.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Columbia Division, alleges that the Company
violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act when it terminated
the individual's employment.

OSHA is asking that the court provide him all appropriate relief,
including reinstatement to his former position, back pay, interest
and compensatory damages, as well as prohibit the defendant from
future violations.

On May 13, 2009, the employee voiced concerns to the owner of CMM
Realty concerning asbestos exposure at the Company's Briargate
Condominiums.  The following day, he filed complaints with the
South Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration and
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Conservations.

Both agencies conducted inspections and issued citations against
CMM Realty for violating asbestos control standards.  On that same
day, the employee was informed that his services were no longer
needed.  On May 18, 2009, he was notified officially of his
termination from the Company.

In June 2009, the employee filed a whistleblower complaint with
OSHA.  After conducting an investigation, the agency found that
CMM Realty unlawfully had terminated the individual's employment
for reporting concerns to management about exposure to asbestos
and for filing complaints with the two state agencies.

In November 2010, OSHA enforced the whistleblower provisions of
the Clean Air Act by ordering the Company to reinstate the
whistleblower and pay him US$56,222 in compensatory damages and
back wages, which continue to accumulate while he is out of work.
The Company appealed that order to the department's Office of
Administrative Law Judges, where it awaits review.

OSHA is now suing the Company in federal court for violating
Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, which forbids companies from
discriminating against an employee because he or she has filed a
complaint with OSHA.

Cindy A. Coe, OSHA's regional administrator in Atlanta, said, "We
at OSHA are very serious about protecting America's workforce and
ensuring that employees have a voice about the safety of their
work environment.  Employers found in violation of the
whistleblower protection provisions of the OSH Act, Clean Air Act
or any of the whistleblower laws we enforce will be held
accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

CMM Realty Inc. is a real estate management corporation with its
main office in Columbia, S.C.

OSHA is represented in federal district court by the Labor
Department's Office of the Solicitor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jackson Case v. Illinois Central Filed April 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Jackson, on behalf of deceased husband Claudy Jackson,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad on
April 19, 2011 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In her complaint, Mrs. Jackson alleges that Mr. Jackson worked as
a fireman for the railroad company from 1948 until 1951.  During
that time, he was exposed to asbestos, diesel exhaust,
environmental tobacco smoke, silica, welding fumes, toxic dusts,
gases and other fumes.

As a result of his exposure, Mr. Jackson experienced great pain,
disability, mental anguish and nervousness and incurred medical
costs, the suit states.  On April 26, 2008, he died after a battle
against lung cancer.

As a result of Mr. Jackson's death, Mrs. Jackson claims she and
his four grown children lost his financial support.  In her four-
count complaint, she seeks a judgment of more than US$200,000,
plus costs.

William P. Gavin, Esq., of Gavin Law Firm in Belleville will be
representing Mrs. Jackson in Case No. 11-L-201.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanley Kiln Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at North Staffordshire Coroner's Court heard that the
death of 87-year-old George Harrison, a former kiln worker from
Hanley, Staffordshire, England, was related to workplace exposure
to asbestos, The Sentinel reports.

Mr. Harrison worked for Johnson's Pottery between 1950 and 1987.
He started to have chest problems in January 2011 and complained
of soreness.  When the pain was still present in February 2011,
his daughters persuaded him to go to the doctor and he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 29, 2011.

Mr. Harrison was cared for in a nursing home for a couple of weeks
before being admitted to the University Hospital of North
Staffordshire on May 12, 2011 with a chest infection.  He died
three days later on May 15, 2011.

At the inquest into the death, North Staffordshire Coroner Ian
Smith recorded a verdict of death caused by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NBC Dismissed From Merlin Olsen's Injury Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merlin Olsen's attorneys have dismissed NBC from the asbestos
cancer lawsuit, as evidence has revealed that it was asbestos
products, and not NBC -- Mr. Olsen's employer -- who were to blame
for his mesothelioma, according to a Baron & Budd, P.C. press
release dated June 20, 2011.

Denyse Clancy, Esq., Mr. Olsen's attorney, said, "Our yearlong
investigation has revealed that NBC was not responsible for
exposing Merlin Olsen to asbestos."

Mr. Olsen was a Hall of Fame football legend, sports commentator,
and television and movie actor.  He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.  His cancer was caused from a significant cumulative
lifetime exposure to many asbestos products, including heavy
equipment parts, construction materials used on Hollywood
television sets, and numerous other consumer and construction
products.

Mr. Olsen's family is represented by the national mesothelioma law
firm of Baron & Budd, P.C.

Mr. Olsen was considered one of the greatest NFL players of all
time and was selected to the Pro Bowl an unprecedented 14 times.
He was named an NFL most valuable player of the year, an NFL
rookie of the year, and voted into both the College and Pro
Football Halls of Fame.

Mr. Olsen's influence extended far beyond football; he was a
prolific actor, a revered sports commentator, and deeply involved
in community and charity work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pandocchi Action v. 103 Firms Filed in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey and Kathryn Pandocchi, a couple from Zelienople, Pa.,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 103 defendant corporations on
May 11, 2011, in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Pandocchi was diagnosed with
asbestosis on Dec. 8, 2009.  He claims he was exposed to asbestos
and asbestos products during the course of his employment with the
defendants.

The Pandocchis seek compensatory and punitive damages.  They are
being represented by Brian A. Prim, Esq.

Case No. 11-C-768 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SGL's Summary Judgment Denied in Wagers Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
SGL Carbon, LLC's motion for summary judgment, in an asbestos
action filed by Patricia Wagers.

The case is styled Patricia Wagers, Plaintiff v. SGL Carbon, LLC,
Defendant.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 2:10-02916 on April 6, 2011.

Dutt Wagers, Jr. worked as a laborer and then supervisor for
Siding, Inc., an independent contractor hired by SGL in 1976 to
install corrugated asbestos siding at SGL's Morgantown Carbon
plant in North Carolina.  In 1976, SGL extended building number 24
of its Morgantown Carbon plant.

SGL contracted with Siding, Inc. to perform the siding and roof
installation on building number 24.  There was no general
contractor on this project. The contract between Siding, Inc. and
SGL specified for the use of corrugated asbestos siding products.
Mr. Wagers performed work, cutting and applying asbestos siding
materials at SGL's Morgantown Carbon plant from around September
1976 until about January 1977.

Mr. Wagers passed away due to mesothelioma on Aug. 25, 2007.

It was further ordered that the issue of whether Mrs. Wagers
should be entitled to punitive damages was denied as moot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Appeal in Dow Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York,
dismissed an appeal in a case involving asbestos styled In the
Matter of the Claim of Lawrence Dow, Respondent v. Silver
Construction Corporation, Appellant, and Travelers Insurance
Company, Respondent.

Judges Spain, Stein, McCarthy, Garry, and Egan, Jr. entered
judgment in the case on April 14, 2011.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board, filed on Feb. 9, 2010, which removed Rizzi Associates from
notice as a potential employer.

Mr. Dow applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2005,
asserting that he suffers from a lung disease caused by workplace
exposure to asbestos while employed by Silver Construction
Corporation in 1961.

Subsequently, Silver raised the issue that, in 1961, Mr. Dow was
actually employed by its predecessor, Rizzi Associates, and a
Workers' Compensation Law Judge thereafter placed Rizzi on notice
as a potential employer.

The Workers' Compensation Board found that there was insufficient
evidence in the record to place Rizzi on notice as a potential
employer, removed Rizzi from notice and continued the case to
resolve the issue of an employer-employee relationship.  Silver
took an appeal from that decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Gainey Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued split rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled Wendy Shackleton, as the Executrix
of the Estate of Brenda P. Gainey, Deceased, and as the Executrix
of the Estate of Leward Benmack Gainey, Deceased Employee,
Plaintiff v. Southern Flooring & Acoustical Company, Employer, and
USF & G Kemper Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.

Judges Thigpen, Martin, and Hunter entered judgment in Case No.
COA10-734 on April 19, 2011.

This was an appeal by Plaintiff from Opinion and Award of the Full
North Carolina Industrial Commission entered on March 22, 2010, by
Commissioner Christopher Scott.

Leward Benmack Gainey was employed by Southern Flooring &
Acoustical from 1969 to 1983.  He began his work for Defendant as
a field installer, a job which primarily involved the installation
of asbestos tiles in ceilings.

On April 8, 1999, Decedent filed a Form 18B with the Industrial
Commission, seeking benefits for his occupational disease
resulting from exposure to asbestos during his employment with
Defendant.  On Sept. 2, 2003, the Full Commission entered an
Opinion and Award concluding that "[Decedent] was last injuriously
exposed to asbestos during his employment with Southern Flooring
and that [Decedent] had contracted asbestosis as a result of that
exposure."

A deputy commissioner entered an opinion and award concluding that
Decedent was totally and permanently disabled, and his asbestosis
was a significant contributing factor in the disability.  The Full
Commission entered an Opinion and Award on March 2, 2006.

The Commission concluded that as a result of his asbestosis,
Decedent was entitled to permanent and total disability
compensation at the weekly rate of US$481.24 from Dec. 3, 1999,
the date of the panel examination by Dr. Rostand, through the date
of his death, May 9, 2005.  Defendants were ordered to pay the
compensation awarded to [Decedent]'s estate in a lump sum, along
with attorney's fees in the amount of 25% of the compensation
awarded.

On July 3, 2007, the Court affirmed the March 2, 2006 Opinion and
Award of the Industrial Commission awarding Decedent permanent and
total disability compensation at the weekly rate of US$481.24 from
Dec. 3, 1999 until the date of his death.

Deputy Commissioner Robert J. Harris entered an Opinion and Award
on Dec. 6, 2007 concluding that Decedent's asbestosis neither
caused nor significantly contributed to Decedent's death.  Deputy
Commissioner Myra L. Griffen entered an Opinion and Award on June
26, 2008 in response to Plaintiff's Form 33 seeking attendant care
benefits, concluding that there was "insufficient competent
medical evidence to establish that attendant care was reasonable
and necessary as a result of [Decedent]'s compensable asbestosis"
and that Decedent's "claim for attendant care services is denied."

On March 22, 2010, the Full Commission entered an order affirming
both orders from the Deputy Commissioners, denying Decedent's
claim for compensation for death.

From this Opinion and Award, Plaintiff appealed, challenging the
adequacy of the evidence to support the Full Commission's findings
of fact with regard to both issues: compensation for death and
attendant care benefits.  The matter was affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines Trust $29T for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
has assessed a US$29,000 penalty against One Brussels Street
Realty Trust for violations of state asbestos regulations that
occurred at the Trust's commercial property located at 1 Brussels
Street in Worcester, Mass., according to a MassDEP press release
dated June 1, 2011.

During an inspection of the site in April 2009, MassDEP discovered
several heating pipes covered in asbestos-containing insulation
uncontained and unmarked on the ground near a dumpster in a
parking lot on the site.

Upon discovery of the violations, MassDEP required the Trust to
retain the services of a state Department of Occupational Safety-
licensed asbestos contractor to properly remove, package and
dispose of the asbestos waste, and to cleanup and decontaminate
all affected areas of the property.

The Trust was cited for failing to notify MassDEP of a
demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing
materials; improper removal and handling of asbestos-containing
materials; and for improper handling, packaging and storage of
asbestos-containing waste materials at the site.

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, MassDEP suspended
US$21,825 of the US$29,000 penalty provided that the Company
expends at least US$21,825 to complete a Supplemental
Environmental Project.

The SEP requires the Trust to retain a DOS-licensed asbestos
inspector to complete a full asbestos survey of both buildings on
site, and hire a DOS-licensed asbestos contractor to remove all
friable asbestos materials identified in the survey, as well as
mark with asbestos warning labels any non-friable asbestos-
containing materials that are identified and will not be removed.

The purpose of the project is to protect members of the general
public who may use the buildings.

Lee Dillard Adams, deputy director of MassDEP's Central Regional
Office in Worcester, said, "Property owners in Massachusetts must
be fully aware of their responsibilities under the regulations to
identify asbestos-containing materials in their building, and to
ensure any removal or disturbance of them is done by licensed
companies utilizing trained and certified workers to ensure the
work is completed safely and in accordance with the regulations.

"Failure to identify and remove asbestos materials properly is an
extremely serious, and ultimately a costly oversight that
potentially exposes workers and the general public to a known
carcinogen."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hugharts' Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug and Drema Hughart, a couple from Charleston, W.Va., on
May 11, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 72 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the complaint, on Jan. 26, 2011, Mr. Hughart was
diagnosed with lung cancer.

The Hugharts seek compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest.  They are being represented by Brian A.
Prim, Esq.

Case No. 11-C-767 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weitz & Luxenberg Wins $22MM Claim v. Goodyear
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., on June 21, 2011, won an
asbestos-related lung cancer trial against defendants, The
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada, according to
a Weitz & Luxenberg press release dated June 22, 2011.

After a 5 week jury trial in New York State Supreme Court, the
jury returned a verdict on behalf of both Weitz & Luxenberg
clients, Eugene "Mac" McCarthy and Walter Koczur.

Mr. Koczur was exposed to Goodyear asbestos containing gaskets
while working as a steamfitter between 1969 and 1973 at a number
of upstate Buffalo area job sites, including Republic Steel and
Ashland Oil.  Mr. McCarthy was exposed to Goodyear asbestos
containing gaskets while working as a heavy equipment engine
mechanic in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Asbestos containing sheet gasket material, manufactured by The
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada during the
1960s and 1970s, was at issue in the consolidated trial.  Both
Weitz & Luxenberg clients were former smokers.

The jury found The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 27%
responsible and Goodyear Canada 18% responsible for causing Mr.
Koczur's lung cancer.  They awarded the Koczur family US$11.6
million in pain and suffering damages and also awarded Mrs. Koczur
US$1.9 million in loss of consortium stemming from her husband's
death in 1998.

The Koczur case was filed by Weitz & Luxenberg in 1998.

The jury found The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 7% responsible
and Goodyear Canada 5% responsible for causing Mr. McCarthy's lung
cancer.  They awarded the McCarthy family US$8.5 million in pain
and suffering damages.  The McCarthy case was filed by Weitz &
Luxenberg shortly after Mr. McCarthy's death in 1998.

The Weitz & Luxenberg trial team included Danny R. Kraft Jr.,
Esq., and Michael Fanelli, Esq., who stated, "Our clients suffered
greatly before they died.  We are pleased that the jury was
receptive to the evidence that established Goodyear's role in the
development of our clients' lung cancers.  This case shows that
while Justice may sometimes be delayed, it never will be denied."

Extensive legal research and trial support was conducted by Daniel
Horner, Thomas Comerford, and Alani Golanski, also of Weitz &
Luxenberg.

The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada were
represented by James R. Lynch, Esq., and Jennifer Childs, Esq.,
from Lynch, Daskal Emery LLP and Richard D. Schuster, Esq., from
Vorys, Sater Seymour and Pease LLP.

The trial judge was the Honorable Martin Shulman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illegal Dumping Continues at Home Rule Location
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Geddes, of the Mid Western Regional Council in Newcastle,
New South Wales, Australia, says more asbestos was illegally
dumped recently at Home Rule, 1233 ABC Newcastle reports.

The council says another illegal dump of asbestos has set-back its
plans to reopen four contaminated dumps.  Transfer stations at
Home Rule, Ilford, Lue, and Windeyer have been closed for more
than a month after asbestos was found at the sites.

Mr. Geddes says the council is training staff to deal with the
clean up, but it takes time.  He says staff will soon be able to
clean up the mess quickly, without calling in specialist
contractors.

The Council says it could be several weeks before the four
contaminated dumps can be reopened.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Flinders Street Station Track
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was found at a section of track at Flinders Street
Station in Melbourne, Australia, The Age reports.

In March 2011, contractors working for Metro removed an asbestos
and cement roof on the shed at the western end of Flinders
Street's platform one.  Passengers do not use this part of the
platform.

During the removal works, significant amounts of asbestos
dispersed over the tracks.

Last June 15, 2011, Metro issued a warning to its drivers not to
get out of their cabins and onto the tracks if their train broke
down at this location.  The operator says it is planning to remove
the contaminated soil, but cannot say when or how it will do so
without drastically disrupting trains.

Metro spokesman Chris Whitefield said there was no danger from the
asbestos.

Metro has hired asbestos consultants Mairin to assess the level of
contamination in the soil surrounding the old platform.  WorkSafe
spokesman Michael Birt said it was satisfied with Metro's
approach.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitcheldean Driver's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Gloucestershire inquest heard that the death of Peter Meek, an
81-year-old form lorry truck driver from Mitcheldean, England, was
linked to asbestos, The Citizen reports.

Since Mr. Meek also smoked cigars for many years, Gloucestershire
Assistant Deputy Coroner Katy Skerrett recorded an open verdict.
Mr. Meek died at The Dilke Hospital, Cinderford, on Dec. 6, 2010.

Mr. Meek's GP, Dr. Andrew Rogett, told the hearing at the Seasons
Conference Centre in Cheltenham that Mr. Meek started to suffer
from severe chest pain in September last year and was referred to
the thoracic department at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital in
Gloucester.  A chest x-ray then showed he had lung cancer.

Dr. Adam Usher, specialist thoracic registrar, said Mr. Meek had
suffered six weeks of upper chest and back pain and had to take
strong painkillers.  Mr. Usher said, "He had also worked as a
lorry driver for George Read for 15 years and had transported
asbestos, before becoming a machine operator at Rank Xerox in
Mitcheldean."

A post-mortem examination found Mr. Meek had died from bronchial
pneumonia caused by extensive spread of the cancer.  Asbestos
could have been a significant factor in his death, but the post
mortem found that smoking could also have been implicated and it
was not possible to assess the extent of each.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Knapp Sentenced to 41 Mos. for Conspiracy Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Developer Bob Knapp, on June 22, 2011, was sentenced to 41 months
in prison for his role at the head of a conspiracy to ignore
federal asbestos regulations during a three-year renovation
project at the Equitable Building in downtown Des Moines, Iowa,
the DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

Mr. Knapp had pleaded guilty to two charges in February 2011.  The
sentence was issued shortly after 12 p.m. following a morning-long
hearing in front of U.S. District Court Judge James Gritzner.

Defense attorney Bill Kutmus, Esq., said the sentence equates to
roughly 35 months in prison if Mr. Knapp behaves well in custody.

Federal and state authorities say it was Mr. Knapp who pushed to
cut corners on the Equitable renovation and dispose of asbestos-
containing insulation and tiles without following government-
required safety procedures.

Paul Wilson, a longtime Equitable Building engineer, testified
that Mr. Knapp paid him to work 10-hour shifts on the weekends,
with no overtime, to remove pipe coverings and hide them in a
dumpster.  Court documents say the improper activity took place
between 2005 and 2008.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Knapp and construction supervisor Russ Coco took
pains not to ever use the word "asbestos" in public, Mr. Wilson
testified.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Scorpiniti, Esq., called Mr. Knapp
"an incorrigible defendant" who had been warned before about
asbestos regulations during his previous renovation of the Suites
at 800 Locust.

Mr. Knapp will be allowed to self-report to a not-yet-identified
federal prison.  Judge Gritzner agreed to recommend that the
sentence be served in Yankton, S.D.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburgh Corning's 3rd Turnaround Plan Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald has rejected a third plan
to reorganize Pittsburgh Corning Corp., a local joint venture of
PPG Industries Inc. and Corning Inc. that went bankrupt in 2000
under asbestos-related claims, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
reports.

Judge Fitzgerald in Pittsburgh denied a reorganization plan filed
in January 2009, saying any acceptable plan must "at a minimum"
clarify a proposed method for handling those claims.

On June 17, 2011, Judge Fitzgerald set a status conference for
July 20, 2011 to consider additional steps in the case, including
"potential modifications" to the reorganization plan, said PPG,
which is studying the ruling.

Between 1962 and 1972, Pittsburgh Corning manufactured pipe
insulation that contained asbestos.  At least 140,000 lawsuits
have been filed related to the product, and the litigation pushed
the company into Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  PPG and Corning have co-
owned the joint venture, which is based in Plum, since 1937.

PPG had developed a reorganization plan in response to Judge
Fitzgerald's 2006 decision to disallow PPG from establishing a
trust to pay asbestos claims.

PPG's obligation to the trust would have consisted of cash
payments totaling US$825 million paid over 15 years.  In addition,
PPG would contribute 1.4 million shares of PPG stock or the cash
equivalent, and PPG's shares of Pittsburgh Corning and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe.

A separate bankruptcy court filing showed that Pittsburgh Corning
had about US$87 million cash on hand at the end of May 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dianella Walking Track Closed on Hazard Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city council of Townsville, Queensland, Australia, has
temporarily closed the Dianella walking track on Castle Hill over
concerns about asbestos contamination, ABC News reports.

Council staff is inspecting building material found at the site
today.  Councilor Vern Veitch says council is uncertain what the
material is but the reports have to be taken seriously.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on W.R. Grace Lawsuit Set for July 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion regarding the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. is
scheduled for July 25, 2011, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Grace seeks bankruptcy-court permission to compete at an auction
for a "highly confidential potential strategic transaction" as it
awaits the final word on its Chapter 11 exit plan.

In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del.,
Grace said a win at the auction "would significantly enhance
Grace's business plan and growth strategy in the coming years."

Grace hopes to be out of Chapter 11 in 2011, having shaken off the
threat of claims for billions of dollars worth of damages stemming
from asbestos.

Due to its April 2001 bankruptcy filing, Grace has had to go to
court for permission for any business deal that is out of the
ordinary course of its affairs.  Grace has acquired a string of
smaller companies during its bankruptcy stay.

The June 21, 2011 motion says Grace's board in May 2011 authorized
due diligence on the proposed transaction.  Other than that, Grace
said details of the potential deal must be kept secret to protect
its commercial information and that of the entity identified only
as "seller" in the court filing.

The selling company fears competitive harm if details of the
auction were exposed, Grace said in a motion seeking to keep the
information confidential.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong District's Abatement Projects Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 2011, Judge James Arner, a visiting judge from Clarion
County, Pa., temporarily ceased the Armstrong School District's
asbestos abatement projects, as long as the plaintiffs post a
US$650,000 bond, the Leader Times reports.

Judge Arner granted a preliminary injunction on June 21, 2011
after nearly five hours of testimony, ordering that the district
stop abatement projects because they "have a bearing on decisions
the future board will make."

The June 21, 2011 decision was the first step in a bid by the
current school board minority and director candidates nominated in
May 2011 to stop asbestos removal projects at four of the
district's schools.  A hearing will be scheduled for the court to
consider granting a permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs had sought to stop the projects because the
abatement would limit the future board's options and the current
board does not have a plan to restore the buildings.

Attorney Charles Pascal, Esq., represented current directors Chris
Choncek, James Rearic and Joseph Close, along with four people
nominated during the May primary election to serve on the board:
Paul Lobby, Larry Robb, Amy Lhote and Stanley Berdell.  Barring
any changes in the November general election, the new board
members will take office in December 2011.

District Solicitor John Cambest argued that the asbestos contract
could be stopped once the new board takes its seats in December
2011.

Listed as defendants are the Armstrong School District and
Directors James Solak, Rose Stitt, John Monroe, D. Royce Smeltzer
and Sara Yassem, along with companies contracted to do the work ?
Environmental Assurance Company, Inc. of Indianapolis, Dore &
Associates Contracting of Michigan and Abmech, Inc. of West
Homestead.

The asbestos abatement project had been part of a multi-school
renovation plan.  In March 2011, the asbestos removal project was
separated from the renovation plan when the Pennsylvania
Department of Education ordered a second public hearing before
deciding whether or not to reimburse the district to aid in the
bond repayment process.  The district has control of US$80 million
in funds made available via bonds for the renovation projects.

Bids for the combined US$640,700 asbestos projects were awarded in
late April 2011 for abatement at Kittanning and Ford City high
schools and Elderton school complex.  The contracts were signed at
the end of May 2011.

Current Director Joe Close said the board has not discussed any
method of restoring the schools following the projects.

The projects have begun at Ford City and Kittanning high schools,
but a change order is pending for Elderton school complex, said
architect and renovation project manager Brian Hayes of L.R.
Kimball.

The plaintiffs were ordered to post US$650,000 bond.  The
attorneys explained that if the court does not grant the permanent
injunction the money will be immediately available to the
defendant.


                             *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *