---

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

             Friday, August 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 154

                             Headlines

A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Still Awaits Okay of Derivative Claim Deal
APPLE: Wants iPhone Users to Arbitrate Antitrust Claims
BATTAT INC: Recalls 1,083,600 Toy Keys Due to Choking Hazard
BP: Seeks Dismissal of Employee Class Action

CLOUD ENGINES: Recalls 11,000 Pogoplug Video File Sharing Devices
ECO SCRIBE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action May Hit Annual Revenue
EQUINIX INC: Appeal From IPO Settlement Approval Remanded
EQUINIX INC: Has Not Yet Responded to Cement Masons' Class Suit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: North Jackson Lawsuit Still Pending in Alabama
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 9th Circuit Affirms Denial of Motion to Dismiss
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suits in N.J. and Del. Over Medco Merger
FOUR FOOD: Owner Faces Class Action for Pocketing Servers' Tips
HORIZON LINES: Gets Final Okay to Settle 3 Puerto Rico Suits

HORIZON LINES: Oral Argument in Hawaii/Guam MDL Set for Sept. 1
HORIZON LINES: Roseville's Appeal Remains Pending in Delaware
KINDER MORGAN: New Mexico Court Confirms Final Arbitration Award
KRAFT FOODS: Judge Wants Employees to Consider Settlement
LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Settlement Okay in Suits Over Text Messages

LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Neese" Suit in Alaska
MISSION CITY, CANADA: Homeowners Await Response to Class Action
NATIONAL ACADEMY: Latin Jazz Musicians File Class Action
RED WING: Faces Class Action Over "Wigger Days"
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Court Certifies Class Action

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Klingler's Must Seek Certification by Nov. 10
REVOLUTION FOOD: Investors File Class Action Over Vending Scam
S1 CORP: Being Sold to ACI Worldwide for Too Little, Suit Claims
SK COMMUNICATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach
TOWN SPORTS: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Suits

WADDELL & REED: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Certify in FLSA Suit
WEST BANCORPORATION: Awaits Ruling in "Meyer" Suit
WILLIAMS COS: Expects Ruling in Royalty Suit in Late 2011
WILLIAMS COS: Nevada Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
WPCS INT'L: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Proposed Sale to Multiband

ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Crane Co. Drop to 56,403 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursues Appeal in Brewer Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing for Woodard Appeal This Month
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in Bell, Nelson Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $56.2MM Costs for Settlement, Defense

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Posts June 30 Liability at $570.77MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court OKs Verdict in Lumnah Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Florez Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn. School District OKs $1.3MM for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW's Government Acts on Asbestos Payout Delays

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Seeks Continuance in Whisnant's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed from Tazewell High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l.'s Unit Denied Asbestos Claims Data
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Manchester Parkade to Cost $525,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manx Builder's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. U.S. Steel Surge to 620 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $9MM June 30 Administration Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Carlisle Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Records $17MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Posts $5MM Litigation Charge at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith Case v. 60 Firms Filed on June 9 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Action v. 16 Firms Filed in St. Clair
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harpenden Builder's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beloit City to Settle Asbestos Claim For $270T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Basingstoke Development Site

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Reconsideration Bid in Wagner Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Leonard Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Issues Split Ruling in Sivinski Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Issues Split Rulings in Clemmer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Dismissal in Oil Re-Refining Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Mine Safety




                             *********

A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced an August 31, 2011
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd., between
March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011, inclusive.

A-Power, through its subsidiaries, provides onsite distributed
power generation systems and micro power grids for industrial
companies, primarily in the People's Republic of China.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial performance.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its
related-party transactions such that its financial statements were
presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP); (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated in
violation of GAAP; (3) the Company's revenue and income reported
in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
were overstated as the Company reported materially lower revenue
and net income in its filings with China's State Administration
for Industry and Commerce (SAIC); (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased A-Power securities between March 31,
2008 and June 27, 2011, you have certain rights and have until
August 31, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, PA 19020
         Telephone: (215)638-4847
         Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Still Awaits Okay of Derivative Claim Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein L.P. is still awaiting court approval of a
settlement to resolve derivative claim in a consolidated lawsuit,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled
Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.
("Hindo Complaint") was filed against, among others,
AllianceBernstein L.P., AllianceBernstein Holding L.P and
AllianceBernstein Corporation ("General Partner").  The Hindo
Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to disclose that
they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified
parties to engage in "late trading" and "market timing" of certain
of the Company's U.S. mutual fund securities, violating various
securities laws.

Following October 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were
filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.  On September 29,
2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints with
respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims;
mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf
of Holding; and claims brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") by participants
in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The agreement was documented by a stipulation of
settlement, which has been approved by the court.  The settlement
amount ($30 million), which the Company previously expensed and
disclosed, has been disbursed.

The derivative claim, which was brought by Holding unitholders
against the officers and directors of AllianceBernstein and in
which plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages, has been
resolved pursuant to a stipulation of settlement with plaintiffs
and the recovery of insurance proceeds totaling $23 million from
relevant carriers.  The stipulation of settlement has been
submitted to the court for final approval and, if approved by the
court, will result in the settlement proceeds, after payment of
plaintiffs' legal fees, being disbursed to AllianceBernstein.

The Company is involved in various other matters, including
regulatory inquiries, administrative proceedings and litigation,
some of which allege significant damages.  While any inquiry,
proceeding or litigation has the element of uncertainty,
management believes that the outcome of any one of the other
regulatory inquiries, administrative proceedings, lawsuits or
claims that is pending or threatened, or all of them combined,
will not have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations or financial condition.


APPLE: Wants iPhone Users to Arbitrate Antitrust Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple and AT&T
customers should arbitrate their antitrust claims and be barred
from moving forward as a class, according to new motions by the
companies in the ongoing litigation over iPhone carrier
restrictions.

Lead plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a federal
complaint against Apple and AT&T Mobility in October 2007,
claiming the companies illegally controlled consumer choices by
limiting iPhone users to AT&T plans.  A San Jose federal judge
certified their class action last year.

AT&T and Apple say the lawsuit should be arbitrated and the class
should be decertified because the "entire theory rests on a
single, unified course of conduct."

"Plaintiffs have wrapped themselves for years in the service
contract and in allegations of a single ATTM-Apple conspiracy to
survive motions to dismiss and obtain class certification,"
according to Apple's motion to compel arbitration.  "They cannot
run from those theories now."

That motion, authored by Sadik Heseny with Latham & Watkins, also
asks the court to decertify.

"If plaintiffs now try to backtrack from their years-old reliance
on the wireless service contract in order to evade its arbitration
clause -- and if the court allows them to do so -- decertification
would still be required because that contract formed the basis for
the court's entire prior class certification analysis and ultimate
approval of a class defined by reference to the service contract,"
the 25-page filing states (italics in original).

The companies claim the plaintiffs did not waive their right to
arbitrate and that there is no merit to the argument that the
plaintiffs never agreed to arbitrate.

If the court rejects Apple's demand for arbitration, it should
still stay the litigation until the claims pending AT&T
arbitration, according to a different motion by AT&T.

Yet another motion to decertify the class quotes a recent 9th
Circuit case involving AT&T's arbitration provision, in which
Judge Ronald Whyte said "the argument that ATTM's arbitration
provision is unenforceable solely because it includes a class
action waiver is no longer viable."


BATTAT INC: Recalls 1,083,600 Toy Keys Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Battat Inc., of Plattsburgh, New York, announced
a voluntary recall of about 1,080,000 toy keys with remote in the
United States of America and 3,600 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The metal toy keys and the plastic key ring can break, posing a
choking hazard.

CPSC and Battat have received 17 reports of keys breaking, and 14
reports of key rings breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall includes all B. FunKeys(TM) with factory code H58000-
01 or H26300-01, and Parents(R) Magazine Electronic Keys with
factory code H26300-01.  The factory code is located on the back
of the remote.  The remote of the B. Fun Keys is olive green or
red and the top of the keys are multi-colored.  The remote of the
Parents Magazine Electronic Keys comes in different colors and the
top of the keys is a solid color.  Both remotes have sound
buttons, and the metal keys hang from a plastic ring.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11293.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
retailers nationwide and online sellers from April 2010 to May
2011 for B. FunKeys, and from January 2006 to December 2009 for
Parents Magazine keys for about $9.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy keys away from
children and contact Battat to receive replacement keys.  For
additional information, contact Battat toll-free at (866) 665-5524
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.battatco.com/


BP: Seeks Dismissal of Employee Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that while
BP employees complain that the company's disregard for safety
drove down the value of their stock plans, they watch their stock
plans grow.

Shares that fell to $28.74 two months after the Deepwater Horizon
explosion climbed to $46.77 on July 25, according to a brief BP
filed in federal court on July 26.

BP's brief supported a previous motion to dismiss a class action
of employees seeking to recover losses from Jan. 16, 2007, to
June 24, 2010.

"In cherry picking the end date of the proposed class period to
maximize their potential damages, plaintiffs ignore the
significant recovery in BP's stock price that subsequently
occurred," Thomas Taylor of Houston wrote.

"BP's viability as a going concern was never threatened and its
stock was never in danger of becoming worthless," he wrote.

"BP's vast assets and revenues refute any notion that the expected
losses from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill were a
threat to the continued viability of the company," he wrote.

Mr. Taylor wrote that it has 29,000 employees and market
capitalization of $138 billion.

He wrote that its operations remained robust even after it took a
$40 billion charge against earnings, suspended its dividend and
committed to sell $30 billion in assets to address cleanup costs.

He wrote that in this year's first quarter, operating revenues
were about $85 billion.

He wrote that since June 24, 2010, BP's stock price has
outperformed the American Oil Index, S&P 500, and Dow Jones
Industrial Average.

He wrote that if the plans had rushed to divest BP stock after the
explosion, they might have faced suits from participants who
missed the subsequent price appreciation.

He wrote that company stock is a presumptively prudent investment
for employees.

He wrote that employees freely directed portions of their accounts
to the BP stock fund.

"The BP stock fund was not a default investment option for either
participant or employer matching contributions," he wrote.

He wrote that employees allege breaches of fiduciary duties
against entities and persons who didn't act as fiduciaries, but
they didn't allege any breach against the fiduciary.

He wrote that an oversight committee expressly delegated fiduciary
authority to State Street Global Advisors.

He identified the firm as a division of State Street Bank and
Trust, trustee of the plans.

He wrote that State Street was a defendant in a number of original
complaints, but that plaintiffs elected not to sue it when they
filed a consolidated complaint.

Mr. Taylor practices at Andrews Kurth.

Paul Ondrasik, Morgan Hodgson and Ryan Jenny, all of Steptoe and
Johnson in Washington, worked on the brief.

So did Daryl Libow of Sullivan and Cromwell in Washington, and
Richard Pepperman, Marc De Leeuw and David Possick, with the same
firm in New York.

The motion to dismiss remains pending before U.S. District Judge
Keith Ellison.

He presides over this and three other groups of shareholder suits
that followed the explosion, by appointment of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multi District Litigation.


CLOUD ENGINES: Recalls 11,000 Pogoplug Video File Sharing Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Cloud Engines Inc. of San Francisco, California,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,500 units of Pogoplug
Video file sharing device in the United States of America and
1,500 units in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The unit can overheat or catch fire, emitting excessive heat,
sparks, smoke or flames.

Cloud Engines has received three reports of the units overheating.
One device caught fire, one device emitted smoke, and one device
melted, damaging the desk it was on.

This recall involves the Pogoplug Video file sharing device.  The
device is a black desktop electronics box, measuring about 2.5
inches wide, 7 inches deep, and 5.5 inches high.  It is used to
stream and share videos, photos, and music and to provide remote
access to files stored on drives attached to the device.  The
device has the word "Pogoplug" on the side.  "Model: Pogoplug
Video" is listed on a label on the bottom of the device.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11294.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Adorama, B&H, Best Buy, Buy.com, J&R, Pogoplug.com, New Egg, and
Sony Style from March 2011 through June 2011 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the devices,
and contact Cloud Engines to receive a refund or replacement
device.  For additional information, contact Cloud Engines toll-
free at (866) 582-6651 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time, by e-mail at videorecall@cloudengines.com or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.pogoplug.com/


ECO SCRIBE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------
Goodman Law Offices, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Eco Scribe, LLC, Case No. 2011-CH-26981
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., August 1, 2011) alleges that Eco Scribe
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by sending
unsolicited fax to Goodman and the class members advertising its
legal services and offering "extra vacation money" in the form of
a $50 Visa gift card with the purchase of legal services.

Goodman is an Illinois Limited Liability Company located in
Chicago, Illinois.

Eco Scribe is a Nevada Limited Liability Company that is in the
business of providing legal and business services, including court
reporting and legal videography.  Eco Scribe does business in the
state of Illinois and in Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie S. Franklin, Esq.
          THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM LLC
          53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 803
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 662-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 662-1015
          E-mail: jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action May Hit Annual Revenue
----------------------------------------------------
Darren Rovell, writing for CNBC, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed by former college athletes against the NCAA and
Electronic Arts could take a huge bite out of the video game
maker's revenues, should the athletes win the case.

A California District Court judge recently denied Electronic Arts'
motion to dismiss the combined case filed by former Nebraska and
Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller and former UCLA basketball
player Ed O'Bannon.

The case centers on whether licensees like EA unlawfully used
athletes' likenesses without their consent.  The case is already
two years old and there's plenty more to go, but if the judge
eventually rules that EA did in fact violate the players'
intellectual property rights, there could be huge financial
damages.

EA has not specifically disclosed any numbers related to the
lawsuit to its shareholders, but the damages they could have to
pay might be as much as $1 billion, which equals 25% of its annual
revenue.  EA spokesman David Tinson declined to comment on any
details about disclosures related to the case.

So let me show you how I arrived at the $1 billion estimate, said
Mr. Rovell.

First, let's figure out how many athletes potentially could be
involved.

The NCAA is located in Indiana, where games were also sold.  The
suit's statute of limitations is two years.  The case was filed in
2009, which means that any games made from 2007 on would be
covered.  Counting all releases on all platforms since then, I
have 20 football releases.  There are 120 FBS teams and 70 players
per team for a total of 8,400 players.  There are a total of 125
FCS teams and there are 55 players per team for a total of 6,875
players.  The law says that each player can be awarded $1,000 per
likeness, per platform.  That's a potential of $168 million
awarded to FBS players and $137.5 million awarded to FCS players.

Then there are the college hoops games.  Using the same $1,000 per
likeness, per platform formula, there have been eight college
basketball games published by EA on all platforms since 2007.
There are 330 Division 1 teams and 11 players per team.  That's a
total of 3,630 players and a potential total owed of $29.04
million to players.

If all athletes are included in the class, and EA loses the case,
the total cost to EA would be $334.5 million, but the Indiana
publicity rights statute says that the award could be trebled if
the violation was "knowing, willful or intentional."  That means
that a loss for EA here could mean more than $1 billion in
damages.

Of course, it's not clear if every player in the game can argue
that his likeness was used and any player might potentially be
excluded from the class, but it should be noted that the
plaintiffs have already stated that some pretty minor players,
like a Kent State running back, had their likenesses used in the
game.  Stuart Paynter, the attorney representing the players,
would not comment on any estimates of specific damages.

EA has argued that it has a First Amendment right to use the
players likenesses.


EQUINIX INC: Appeal From IPO Settlement Approval Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement in the shareholder
lawsuit against Equinix, Inc., was remanded to the district court
while another one was dismissed, according to the Company's
July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On July 30, 2001 and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and several
investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants").  The cases were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Similar lawsuits were filed against
approximately 300 other issuers and related parties.  These
lawsuits have been coordinated before a single judge.  The
purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and the Individual Defendants.  The plaintiffs have since
dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice.  The
lawsuits allege that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus for the Company's IPO was false and misleading
and in violation of the securities laws because it did not
disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  On February 19, 2003, the court dismissed the
Section 10(b) claim against the Company, but denied the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Equinix case, reached a settlement.  It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Equinix.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to
the settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal
was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district
court to determine if the appellant is a class member with
standing to appeal.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.  The
Company intends to continue to defend the action vigorously if the
settlement does not survive the remaining appeal.

The Company believes that while an unfavorable outcome to this
litigation is reasonably possible, a range of potential loss
cannot be determined at this time.  The Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with this legal matter as of June 30,
2011, as the Company concluded that an unfavorable outcome is not
probable.


EQUINIX INC: Has Not Yet Responded to Cement Masons' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., still has not yet responded to the claims asserted
in the class action lawsuit commenced by Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust in California, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory
damages, fees and costs.  Defendants have not yet responded to the
claims in this action.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.
The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

The Company believes that while an unfavorable outcome to this
litigation is reasonably possible, a range of potential loss
cannot be determined at this time.  The Company has not accrued
any amounts in connection with this legal matter as of June 30,
2011 as the Company concluded that an unfavorable outcome is not
probable.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: North Jackson Lawsuit Still Pending in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Inc. continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit filed by North Jackson Pharmacy Inc. in Alabama,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc.
(Civil Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed October 1, 2003)
purports to be a class action against the Company on behalf of
independent pharmacies within the United States that assert that
certain Express Scripts business practices violate the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, et. seq.  The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and
injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on March 3, 2006.  Express Scripts filed a motion to
decertify the class on January 16, 2007, which was fully briefed
and argued and taken under submission by the court.  Recently, the
parties were ordered to submit supplemental briefs in support of
the motion to decertify the class by July 29, 2011, and
supplemental briefs in opposition must be filed by August 26,
2011.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: 9th Circuit Affirms Denial of Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling denying a motion to dismiss a putative class
action filed against Express Scripts Inc., according to the
Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2011.

On December 12, 2002, several California pharmacies filed a
complaint as a putative class action against the Company and
several other pharmacy benefit management companies -- Jerry
Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (Case No. 021327, United States
District Court for the Central District of California).  The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with statutory
obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide
California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of
retail drug prices. On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with
prejudice on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring
the lawsuit.  On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing
and remanded the case to the district court.  Defendants moved to
dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds and the
district court denied that motion, which defendants appealed.  On
July 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of defendants' motion to dismiss.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Suits in N.J. and Del. Over Medco Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts Inc. is facing multiple class action complaints in
connection with its proposed merger with Medco Health Solutions,
Inc., according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2011.

Several lawsuits have been filed by stockholders of Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., challenging Express Scripts' proposed merger
transaction with Medco since its announcement on July 21, 2011
that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement.  The
complaints in the actions name as defendants Medco and/or various
members of Medco's board of directors as well as Express Scripts
and certain of its subsidiaries that are party to the merger
agreement.  As of July 28, 2011, multiple complaints have been
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey.  The plaintiffs
in the purported class action complaints generally allege, among
other things, that (i) the members of Medco's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Medco and its stockholders by
authorizing the proposed merger and (ii) Express Scripts and three
of its subsidiaries -- Plato Merger Sub, Inc., Aristotle Holding,
Inc. and Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc. -- aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Medco and its directors.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants
from consummating the merger transaction on the agreed-upon terms,
and unspecified compensatory damages, together with the costs and
disbursements of the action.


FOUR FOOD: Owner Faces Class Action for Pocketing Servers' Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Lindner, writing for Farmingdale Patch, reports that
Four Food Studio and Cocktail Salon in Melville is being taken to
court, along with its owner, for allegedly pocketing tips
belonging to its servers.

Filed by Danielle Brooke Murry of Farmingdale, Marissa McGivney of
Hicksville and Christina Suthakar of West Babylon, the former
employees allege that owner Jay Grossman failed to pay the servers
the 20% mandatory gratuity charged to customers hosting catered
events at the restaurants, in violation of state labor law.

The servers also accuse Mr. Grossman of paying employees less than
minimum wage in the class action suit filed Friday, July 22, in
State Supreme Court in Mineola.

The suit could cover more than 70 employees, servers, busboys,
cleanup staff and bartenders who catered private parties at Four
and Two Steak and Sushi Den in New Hyde Park, also owned by
Mr. Grossman, since 2005.

"Regrettably, there are too many greedy restaurants that rob
hardworking employees during these difficult economic times of the
money that is rightfully theirs," Jeffrey Brown, one of the
worker's lawyers, said in a statement.

The suit also alleges that the restaurants failed to properly
maintain timesheets or payroll records and did not provide
employees with pay stubs listing their wages, rates and
deductions.

"Employers, such as Four and Two, frequently ignore the wage laws
simply to cut costs hoping that their employees will refrain from
enforcing their rights in fear of retribution," Lloyd Ambinder, a
co-counsel in the suit, said in a statement.

The suit seeks to recover the unpaid wages owed to the employees,
damages and attorney fees.

In reaction to the charges, Mr. Grossman said that the allegations
are a sham.

"This law firm has solicited a small group of mostly former
employees.  We are committed to compliance with the law and
maintain policies and procedures to ensure that employees are
properly paid for all time worked and wages earned," he said.
"Four and Two believe that the employees' claims in this
proceeding are without merit and we will vigorously defend against
this lawsuit."

According to court papers, the suit seeks class action status
because the individual employees may lack the financial resources
to pursue individual cases.


HORIZON LINES: Gets Final Okay to Settle 3 Puerto Rico Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
A court approved Horizon Lines, Inc.'s settlement agreement
resolving three lawsuits in Puerto Rico, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2011.

In February 2011, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit
against the Company seeking monetary damages in its own right and
on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly paid inflated prices
for goods imported to Puerto Rico as a result of alleged price-
fixing by the defendants in violation of the Puerto Rico
Monopolies and Restraint of Trade Act.  In addition, two lawsuits
have been filed against the Company as putative class-action
lawsuits on behalf of indirect purchasers, one of which is pending
in the Court of First Instance for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
and the other is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico.

On March 31, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the named plaintiffs,
individually and representing the indirect purchasers, to resolve
claims relating to the Puerto Rico trade.  The settlement
agreement was entered into by the parties pursuant to a Memorandum
of Understanding, dated February 22, 2011.

Under the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agreed to settle claims alleged in the
three lawsuits filed against the Company and the other defendants.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, each of the defendants will
pay a one-third share of the total settlement amount of $5.3
million.  Accordingly, the Company has agreed to pay $1.8 million
as its share of the settlement amount.  If the settlement
agreement is finally approved, the settling defendants will
receive a full release from the named plaintiffs, from the members
of the settlement class, and from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
in its own right and as parens patriae.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement
on April 26, 2011.  The Court granted final approval to the
settlement agreement on July 19, 2011, and the Company made the
final settlement payment on July 29, 2011.


HORIZON LINES: Oral Argument in Hawaii/Guam MDL Set for Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of
their consolidated lawsuit relating to the Hawaii and Guam
tradelanes has been set for September 1, 2011, according to
Horizon Lines, Inc.'s July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2011.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a grand jury subpoena and
search warrant from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida seeking information regarding an
investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice into possible antitrust violations in the domestic ocean
shipping business.  On February 23, 2011, the Company entered into
a plea agreement with the DOJ, and on March 22, 2011, the Court
entered judgment accepting the Company's plea agreement and
imposed a fine of $45.0 million payable over five years without
interest and placed the Company on probation until the fine
payments are completed.  On April 28, 2011, the Court reduced the
fine from $45.0 million to $15.0 million payable over five years
without interest.  The first $1.0 million of the fine was paid on
April 25, 2011, and the Company must make payments of $1.0 million
on or before the first anniversary thereof, $2.0 million on or
before the second anniversary, $3.0 million on or before the third
anniversary and $4.0 million on or before each of the fourth and
fifth anniversary.  The plea agreement provides that the Company
will not face additional charges relating to the Puerto Rico
tradelane.  In addition, the plea agreement provides that the
Company will not face any additional charges in connection with
the Alaska trade, and the DOJ has indicated that the Company is
not a target or subject of any Hawaii or Guam aspects of its
investigation.

As part of the court's judgment, the Company was placed on
probation for five years.  The terms of the probation include that
the Company: 1) file annual audited financial reports, 2) not
commit a criminal act during the probation period, 3) report any
material adverse legal or financial event, and 4) annually certify
that it has an antitrust compliance program in place that
satisfies the federal sentencing guidelines requirements,
including antitrust education to key personnel.

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, fifty-
eight purported class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and other domestic shipping carriers (the "Class Action
Lawsuits").  Each of the Class Action Lawsuits purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services directly from the various
domestic ocean carriers.  These complaints allege price-fixing in
violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble monetary damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly
unlawful conduct.  The Class Action Lawsuits were filed in the
following federal district courts: eight in the Southern District
of Florida, five in the Middle District of Florida, nineteen in
the District of Puerto Rico, twelve in the Northern District of
California, three in the Central District of California, one in
the District of Oregon, eight in the Western District of
Washington, one in the District of Hawaii, and one in the District
of Alaska.

Thirty-two of the Class Action Lawsuits relate to ocean shipping
services in the Puerto Rico tradelane and were consolidated into a
single multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the District
of Puerto Rico.  On June 11, 2009, the Company entered into a
settlement agreement with the named plaintiff class
representatives in the Puerto Rico MDL.  Under the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay $20.0 million and to
provide a base-rate freeze to resolve claims for alleged antitrust
violations in the Puerto Rico tradelane.

The base-rate freeze component of the settlement agreement
provides that class members who have contracts in the Puerto Rico
trade with the Company as of the effective date of the settlement
would have the option, in lieu of receiving cash, to have their
"base rates" frozen for a period of two years.  The base-rate
freeze would run for two years from the expiration of the contract
in effect on the effective date of the settlement.  All class
members would be eligible to share in the $20.0 million cash
component, but only the Company's contract customers would be
eligible to elect the base-rate freeze in lieu of receiving cash.

On July 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in the Puerto Rico MDL, and the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on July 12, 2010.
The settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.  The
Company has paid $10.0 million into an escrow account and the
settlement agreement provides that the Company was required to pay
the remaining $10.0 million after final approval of the settlement
agreement by the Court.  However, on April 26, 2011, the
plaintiffs advised the Company that they would not object to the
Company paying the remainder of the $10 million due under the
settlement agreement in one payment of $5.0 million within 30 days
after final approval of the settlement agreement and a second
payment of $5.0 million within 60 days after final approval of the
settlement agreement.

Some class members have elected to opt-out of the settlement, and
the customers that have elected to opt-out of the settlement and
customers not part of the settlement class may file lawsuits
containing allegations similar to those made in the Puerto Rico
MDL and seek the same type of damages under the Sherman Act as
sought in the Puerto Rico MDL.  The Company says it is not able to
determine whether or not any actions will be brought against it or
whether or not a negative outcome would be probable if brought
against the Company, or a reasonable range for any such outcome,
and has made no provisions for any potential proceedings in the
accompanying financial statements.  Given the volume of commerce
involved in the Puerto Rico shipping business, an adverse ruling
in a potential civil antitrust proceeding could subject the
Company to substantial civil damages given the treble damages
provisions of the Sherman Act.

In addition, the Company has actively engaged in discussions with
a number of shippers in the Puerto Rico trade that have opted out
of the MDL settlement.  The Company has reached commercial
agreements or is seeking to reach commercial agreements with
certain of those shippers, with the condition that the shipper
relinquishes any existing antitrust claims.  In some cases, as
part of the agreement, the Company has agreed to, or is seeking to
agree to, future discounts which will be charged against operating
revenue if and when the discount is earned and certain other
conditions are met.

Twenty-five of the fifty-eight Class Action Lawsuits relate to
ocean shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes and were
consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the Western District of
Washington.  On March 20, 2009, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the claims in the Hawaii and Guam MDL.  On August 18,
2009, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the
Hawaii and Guam MDL.  In dismissing the complaint, however, the
plaintiffs were granted thirty days to amend their complaint.
After several extensions, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint on May 28, 2010.  On July 12,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was granted with prejudice on December 1, 2010.  The plaintiffs
appealed the Court's decision to dismiss the amended complaint
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the appeal has been briefed by the parties.  Oral argument has
been set for September 1, 2011.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend against this purported class action lawsuit.

One district court case remains in the District of Alaska,
relating to the Alaska tradelane.  The Company and the class
plaintiffs have agreed to stay the Alaska litigation, and the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the purported class
action lawsuit in Alaska.


HORIZON LINES: Roseville's Appeal Remains Pending in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the securities class action
lawsuit commenced by City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System against Horizon Lines, Inc., remains pending, according to
the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26,
2011.

On December 31, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.  The complaint purported to be on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the Company made material misstatements and omissions
in connection with alleged price-fixing in the Company's shipping
business in Puerto Rico in violation of antitrust laws.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the
motion to dismiss on November 13, 2009, with leave to file an
amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
December 23, 2009, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on February 12, 2010.  The Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on May
18, 2010.  On June 15, 2010, the plaintiff appealed the Court's
decision to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Company filed its
opposition brief with the Court of Appeals on December 22, 2010,
and the plaintiffs filed their reply brief on February 2, 2011.
Oral argument was held on June 23, 2011.


KINDER MORGAN: New Mexico Court Confirms Final Arbitration Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico federal district court confirmed an arbitration
decision approving the settlement of claims asserted by CO2
Committee Inc. against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P.'s
subsidiary, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2011.

Kinder Morgan CO2 and Cortez Pipeline Company were among the named
defendants in CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., an
arbitration initiated on November 28, 2005.  The arbitration arose
from a dispute over a class action settlement agreement which
became final on July 7, 2003 and disposed of five lawsuits
formerly pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.
The plaintiffs in such lawsuits primarily included overriding
royalty interest owners, royalty interest owners, and small share
working interest owners who alleged underpayment of royalties and
other payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome
unit.

The settlement imposed certain future obligations on the
defendants in the underlying litigation.  The plaintiffs in the
arbitration alleged that, in calculating royalty and other
payments, defendants used a transportation expense in excess of
what is allowed by the settlement agreement, thereby causing
alleged underpayments of approximately $12 million.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Cortez Pipeline Company should have
used certain funds to further reduce its debt, which, in turn,
would have allegedly increased the value of royalty and other
payments by approximately $0.5 million.  On August 7, 2006, the
arbitration panel issued its opinion finding that defendants did
not breach the settlement agreement.  On June 21, 2007, the New
Mexico federal district court entered final judgment confirming
the August 7, 2006 arbitration decision.

On October 2, 2007, the plaintiffs initiated a second arbitration
(CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., aka Kinder Morgan
CO2 Company, L.P., et al.) against Cortez Pipeline Company, Kinder
Morgan CO2 and an ExxonMobil entity.  The second arbitration
asserts claims similar to those asserted in the first arbitration.
On April 29, 2011, the parties reached a settlement of the claims
in the second arbitration.  On May 5, 2011, the arbitration panel
approved the settlement and issued its final award.  On June 24,
2011, the New Mexico federal district court entered final judgment
confirming the final arbitration award.


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Wants Employees to Consider Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge ordered Kraft Foods and the employees who sued it in an
ERISA class action to "re-evaluate their settlement positions . .
. and to exhaust all efforts to settle this case."

Lead plaintiff Gerald George sued Kraft Foods Global, claiming it
had mismanaged its employees' defined contribution plan under
ERISA.

In 1999, the plan's designated Investment Committee, a fiduciary
with the power to establish guidelines and monitor the performance
of investments, considered using index management within the
equity segments of the benefit plan.  Kraft eventually converted
various sub-funds of the actively managed portion of the plan to
the S&P Index.

In 2008, employees and former employees sued, claiming that Kraft
and its investment arms had violated their fiduciary duties under
ERISA.

When Kraft decided to invest in two indexed funds, "both were
expected to underperform relative to comparable investment
alternatives," according to the complaint as recounted in the
opinion.

The workers said that Kraft also concealed decision-making
information and failed to properly monitor the funds.  The class
claims this mismanagement "caused plaintiffs' plans to suffer
millions of dollars in losses from underperformance and high
investment management fees."

Having pruned the complaint significantly in past rulings, U.S.
District Judge Ruben Castillo rejected the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on whether Kraft had breached its duties by
allowing poor performing, overly expensive funds to remain in the
ERISA plans.

"ERISA's fiduciary duty was meant to hold plan administrators to a
duty of loyalty akin to that of a common-law trustee," Judge
Castillo wrote, citing 7th Circuit precedent.  But after
recounting of plaintiffs' allegations, Judge Castillo dismissed
them.

"Nothing they have presented in support of their motion
establishes that the retention of the funds in the plan after 1999
was imprudent as a matter of law," Judge Castillo wrote.  "Given,
inter alia, the differences between defined contribution plans and
defined benefits plans, a reasonable jury could find that a
businessperson with the interests of the beneficiaries at heart
could have acted prudently in retaining the funds."

The 7th Circuit revived the class action in April.

Kraft sought summary judgment in July, unsuccessfully.

Judge Castillo ordered Kraft and the employees who sued it in an
ERISA class action "to re-evaluate their settlement positions in
light of this opinion and to exhaust all efforts to settle this
case" before trial, which has been set for Aug. 9.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in George, et al. v.
Kraft Foods Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-cv-03799 (N.D.
Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/02/Kraft.pdf


LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Settlement Okay in Suits Over Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its $2.5
million settlement to resolve class action lawsuits over its text
message advertisement, according to the Company's July 29, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted the Company in
promoting a targeted "0% financing on used vehicles" advertising
campaign during a limited sale period.  The marketing included
sending a "Short Message Service" communication to cell phones (a
"text message") of the Company's previous customers.  The message
was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states.  The message
indicated that the recipients could "Opt-Out" of receiving any
further messages by replying "STOP," but, due to a technical
error, certain recipients who responded requesting to be
unsubscribed nonetheless may have received a follow-on message.

On April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin McClintic
vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging
activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer
protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled,
plus injunctive relief and attorney fees.  The lawsuit seeks class
action designation for all similarly situated entities and
individuals.  The lawsuit has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

On July 5, 2011, a similar complaint was filed alleging
substantially similar claims, also seeking class action
designation (Dan McLaren vs. Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, United
States District Court of Oregon, Portland Division).

The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs, which is subject to court approval.  Under this
settlement agreement, the Company agreed to pay a total of $2.5
million, all of which such amounts will be reimbursed by the
vendor pursuant to contractual indemnification.  The Company says
no assurances can be given that the court will approve the
settlement.

The ultimate resolution of the matter cannot be predicted with
certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of the matter could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Neese" Suit in Alaska
---------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit commenced by Jackie Neese in Alaska,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the Company (Jackie
Neese, et. al. vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al,
Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI) and in April 2007, a second case (Jackie
Neese, et. al. vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al,
Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated), in the Superior Court
for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage.  In
the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company, through its
Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that purportedly
violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging customers
dealer fees and costs (including document preparation fees) not
disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to disclose the
acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used vehicles or
whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for sale in a
foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receives a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500.00 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney's fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification.  Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits,
the Company engaged in settlement discussions with the State of
Alaska through its Office of Attorney General with respect to the
first two practices enumerated.  As a result of those discussions,
the Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court
approval and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the
proposed settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to
intervene and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to
the state Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class for (i) the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the Plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company.

On June 14, 2011, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class without addressing either the merits of the claims
or the size of the class or classes.  The Company says it intends
to defend the claims vigorously and does not believe the novel
"dealer reserve" claim has merit.

The ultimate resolution of the matter cannot be predicted with
certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of the matter could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows.


MISSION CITY, CANADA: Homeowners Await Response to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Woodford, writing for Mission/CKNW(AM980), reports that the
city of Mission was expected on August 2 to respond to a class
action lawsuit filed by two residents over a controversial bylaw.

One of the plaintiffs, Stacey Gowanlock, says he is bracing for a
long legal battle even though the city has already admitted they
are wrong.

"They haven't broke but they have bent quite a bit here, you know,
there has been a moratorium on the entire inspection team and the
bylaw and how it operates since January.  The city has come out
here and apologized to some homeowners, the mayor himself has sent
letters out apologizing to some people."

Mr. Gowanlock says the bylaw allowing inspections of homes
suspected of marijuana grow-operations have cost innocent
homeowners thousands.  The twenty-one days for the city to respond
to the class action lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court over the 2009
bylaw expired on July 29.


NATIONAL ACADEMY: Latin Jazz Musicians File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that some Latin jazz musicians have
filed a class-action lawsuit against the organization that gives
out the Grammy Awards, accusing the National Academy of Recording
Arts and Sciences of harming them by eliminating it as a separate
category in next year's awards.

The lawsuit, filed on August 1 in state Supreme Court in
Manhattan, calls for the Best Latin Jazz Album category to be
reinstated.

"They shouldn't have done this," said Roger Maldonado, lead
attorney for the plaintiffs, who include Bobby Sanabria, a
Grammy-nominated Latin jazz musician and Grammy nominee Mark
Levine, a pianist and composer.

"Not only does it devalue the category of music and the work these
musicians do," he said, "It makes it much harder for them to gain
recognition."

The lawsuit names four plaintiffs and looks to include other
members of the academy who would compete in the category to sign
on.

In a statement, the academy said it "believes this frivolous
lawsuit is without merit, and we fully expect to prevail."

The academy said in April that the number of award categories was
being cut from 109 to 78.  The changes included decisions like
eliminating the male and female divisions in the pop vocal
category to one general field as well as reducing categories like
children's spoken-word album; Zydeco or Cajun music album; best
Latin jazz album; and best classical crossover album.

Instead, artists who would have competed in those categories will
now be part of a broader pool all competing in a general field.
So instead of vying for the Best Latin Jazz Album, the musicians
could go up against a range of artists looking to take home the
Best Jazz Instrumental Album, for example.

But that larger pool could tip the balance in favor of bigger,
more well-known artists at the expense of smaller ones,
Mr. Maldonado said.

"The concern is by lumping several categories together, it makes
it much easier for larger record labels and those artists who have
already gained recognition to dominate," he said.

The lawsuit accuses the academy of having a detrimental effect on
the musicians' careers by taking away the Latin jazz category
specifically.

"Even being nominated for the award has enormous value for these
musicians," Mr. Maldonado said.

It also says the academy didn't follow the proper procedures to
make this kind of change and that members weren't informed or
given the chance to offer input on how the cuts would affect them.


RED WING: Faces Class Action Over "Wigger Days"
-----------------------------------------------
Dionne Cordell Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports that
Red Wing High School let students hold "Wigger Days" for
homecoming -- the word stands for "white nigger" -- during which
white students wore clothes and acted in what "from their
perspective, mimicked black culture," a black student says in a
federal class action.

Quera Pruitt claims the school district's deliberate indifference
to the harm she and others suffered from the Wigger Days "was not
only immoral . . . it was illegal."

Ms. Pruitt says that Red Wing School ISD No. 256 customarily held
"Dress Up Days" for homecoming weeks.

She says upperclass students at predominantly white Red Wing High
School called them Wigger Days when Pruitt was enrolled, in 2008
and 2009, and that defendant Principal Beth Borgen, "was aware
that the Wednesday of Homecoming Week had historically been
referred to among the students as 'Wednesday Wigger Day.'"
"Wigger is a pejorative slang term for a white person who emulates
the mannerisms, language and fashions associated with African-
American culture," the complaint states.

"Wigger is a combination of the words White and Nigger. Wigger,
within the Red Wing community, may also mean 'Winger Nigger.'

"Wangsta is also a pejorative slang term for a white person who
emulates the mannerisms, language and fashions associated with
African-American culture.

"Wangsta is a combination of the words White and gangsta.

"Wangsta, within the Red Wing community, also means 'Winger
Gangsta.'

"The students who participated in Wigger or Wangsta day wore
clothes that, from their perspective, mimicked Black culture.
These costumes included oversized sports jerseys, low-slung pants,
baseball hats cocked to the side and 'doo rags' on their heads.
Some of the students displayed gang signs.

"Indeed, September 30, 2009, was not the first time the students
at Red Wing High School held Wigger or Wangsta Day.  School
officials acknowledge that 'Wednesday Wigger Day' had occurred in
at least the 'last couple of years' prior to September 30, 2009."

Ms. Pruitt adds: "The defendants' deliberate indifference to the
harm plaintiff experienced as a result of 'Wigger Days' was not
only immoral, but as the Tenth Circuit made plain, it was illegal:
'It does not take an educational psychologist to conclude that
being referred to by one's peers by the most noxious racial
epithet in the contemporary American lexicon, being shamed and
humiliated on the basis of one's race, and having school
authorities ignore or reject one's complaints would adversely
affect a Black child's ability to obtain the same benefit from
schooling as her white counterparts.' Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. I-38 of Garvin Cnty, Okla., 334 F.3d 928, 932 (10th Cir.
2003).

Ms. Pruitt says she and her mother complained to school officials,
including principal Ms. Borgen, about "the racist nature of Wigger
Day," but that "Prior to intervention by state and federal
government officials, including the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights and the United States Department of Education, the
defendants did not take school-wide action to address Wigger Day."

She points out that the school receives federal funding.

Ms. Pruitt says the school's deliberate indifference to organized
racism caused her to suffer "extreme emotional distress including
depression, loss of sleep, stress, crying, humiliation, anxiety,
and shame."

She adds: "Ms. Pruitt's depression forced her to discontinue her
participation in school activities such as track, cheerleading,
and student council.

"Ms. Pruitt chose to not participate in her school's Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day celebration because she felt the celebration
was a farce in light of the school district's failure to prevent
or adequately remediate the conduct that took place on Wigger Day.

"Ms. Pruitt's depression caused her to consider dropping out of
school, and caused her to miss out on her own senior prom."

She seeks declaratory judgment and punitive damages for
constitutional violations, hostile environment, abetting, racial
discrimination and negligence.  Red Wing School Superintendent
Karsten Anderson is also a defendant.

A copy of the Complaint in Pruitt v. Anderson, et al., Case No.
11-cv-02143 (D. Minn.) (Doty, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/02/Wigger.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua R. Williams, Esq.
          2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 486-5540
          E-mail: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com

               - and -

          A. L. Brown, Esq.
          2515 White Bear Avenue, Suite A-8103
          Maplewood, MN 55109-5159
          Telephone (651) 252-1214
          E-mail: A.L.Brown@Comcast


REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Court Certifies Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP issued a notice pursuant to an
order of the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    
HENRY H. BRECHER, Individually And
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
    
No. 06 CV 15297 (TPG)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,  
    
v.   
  
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA,   
  
Defendant
          
TO: ALL HOLDERS OF BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN THE BOND ISSUED BY THE
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA, WITH ISIN XS 0113833510, DUE JULY 20, 2004,
AND A COUPON RATE OF 9.25 PERCENT WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THOSE INTERESTS PRIOR TO DECEMBER 19, 2006, AND HAVE HELD
THEM CONTINUOUSLY

This is to advise you of the pendency of the above-entitled
litigation which has been certified as a class action against the
Republic of Argentina alleging breach of contract.  The Court has
certified a plaintiff class in the litigation which is defined
above.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired beneficial interests in
Argentina 9.25% Global Notes due July 20, 2004, and have not
already received a copy of the printed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, you may obtain it by writing to: Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O.
Box 8040, San Rafael, California 94912-8040, or
ArgentinaBondLitigation@hbsslaw.com

Your rights may be affected by this action.

DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK OR THE COURT FOR INFORMATION.
DATED: June 3, 2011.     

United States District Court
Southern District of New York


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Klingler's Must Seek Certification by Nov. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klingler's European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc.'s deadline to seek
class certification in its lawsuit against a subsidiary of
Republic Services, Inc., is on November 10, 2011, according to the
Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On November 20, 2009, Klingler's European Bake Shop & Deli, Inc.,
filed a complaint against the Company's subsidiary, BFI Waste
Services, LLC, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,
in which plaintiff complains about fuel recovery fees and
administrative fees charged.  The complaint purports to be filed
on behalf of a class of similarly situated plaintiffs in Alabama.
This complaint asserts various legal and equitable theories of
recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not properly
disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract.  Class-
certification-related discovery is underway.  Plaintiff's deadline
for moving for class certification is November 10, 2011.
Plaintiff has not specified the amount of damages sought.

Although the range of reasonably possible loss cannot be
estimated, the Company does not believe that this matter will have
a material impact on its consolidated financial positions, results
of operations or cash flows.  The Company will continue to
vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit.


REVOLUTION FOOD: Investors File Class Action Over Vending Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vending Times reports that a group of disgruntled investors who
say they were swindled in a bulk vending scam has filed a
class-action lawsuit seeking damages of up to C$20 million from
the machine manufacturer and peanut supplier behind the venture.

According to the lawsuit, Revolution Food Technologies, a Canadian
vending machine manufacturer, and Johnvince Foods Distribution, a
Toronto-based bulk food supplier and exclusive distributor of
Planters peanuts in Canada, entered into a partnership in
September 2009 to promote a business opportunity to entrepreneurs
to own and operate their own bulk vending businesses selling
Planters peanuts.

The suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in
Toronto, alleges that the company solicited investors to purchase
up to 72 wall-mounted vending machines for C$64,440 with the
prospect of earning as much as C$126,000 a year.  The aspiring
vendors were promised that professional locators would place the
machines in high-earning sites, and that the number of machines in
each area would be kept to a minimum.

The claim alleges that revenue fell short of projections and the
defendants used high-pressure sales tactics to sign up
distributors.  It also contends that the biz-op promoters said the
machines would dispense 4-oz. servings of peanuts, but they only
dispensed 3-oz. portions.  As a result, distributors were
reportedly encouraged to buy more peanuts than they could sell,
forcing them to discard large quantities.


S1 CORP: Being Sold to ACI Worldwide for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say S1 Corp. is
selling itself too cheaply to ACI Worldwide, for $9.50 a share of
$540 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Levitan v. S1 Corporation, et al., Case
No. 6730 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/02/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com
                  bdl@rigrodskylong.com
                  gs@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DEBRA S. GOODMAN P.C.
          1301 Skippack Pike, Suite 7A #133
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (610) 277-6057


SK COMMUNICATIONS: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Kim Yoo-chul, writing for The Korea Times, reports that the
situation can't get any worse for SK Communications, the operator
of Cyworld and Nate, following a hacking attack that compromised
the personal information of 35 million of its customers.

Stock prices of the Internet unit of the telecommunications giant
SK Telecom plummeted.  Officials admitted that the recent data
loss may taint the company's image.

Efforts to calm angry customers will be challenging.

Lawyers are already circling the users of Cyworld, the country's
largest social media service, and Nate, popular for search and
instant messaging services, to lure them into filing class-action
lawsuits.

As the company scrambles to recover from what may be its greatest
crisis to date, many wonder whether its network remains
vulnerable.

The more immediate threat to Korean consumers may be from the
increase in fraud.  Phishing scams, which use phones, e-mail and
instant messaging services to lure users into revealing their
personal information, are serious problems following the
information leak.

"It was extremely frustrating to see a message pop up while
chatting with my friend that read 'You've been hacked,'" said
Nate user Kim Jeong-eun, who plans to sign up for the class-action
lawsuit.

There are already a slew of Web sites encouraging victims to join
in the lawsuits against SK Communications.  More than 1,000
customers have signed up to the online communities on Daum and
Nate in the past two days, according to the portals.

"SK Communications is just parroting about how an investigation is
underway, looking for the right time to make a public apology.
They seem to think that this issue will go away easily if they can
buy some time, and that is pretty silly," said a lawyer from a
major law firm in Seoul, which plans to get involved in the suit.

"I think we will be able to gather evidence about SK
Communications' mismanagement of personal information, and that
would give us a better chance to win in court.  Web portals have
been aggressive in acquiring personal information from users to
strengthen their target-marketing efforts, but were lax about
protecting the data.  We want to make sure that they pay for their
mistake."

The challenge for lawyers in court is to prove that SK
Communications' customers sustained actual damage from the
incident.

The data breach of SK communications' network compromised
sensitive personal information such as names, addresses, phone
numbers, passwords and resident registration codes, the Korean
equivalent of social security numbers.

SK Communications claims that the resident registration numbers
and passwords were encrypted and aren't likely to be abused even
in the hands of hackers.  Nobody is giving the company the benefit
of the doubt.

SK Communications spokeswoman Choo Eun-jung claimed that fallout
would be limited.  Since Cyworld and Nate are both free services,
the company didn't require users to submit financial information
like credit card numbers, she said.

"We can't comment about the movement for class-action suits as we
remain under investigation," Ms. Choo said.

Yoo Chul-min, another Seoul-based lawyer, said that the results of
any legal action against SK Communications could be influenced by
court rulings for Auction, the electronic commerce giant that has
been hit by class-action lawsuits following a hacking incident in
2008 that compromised the data of 18 million customers.

"If the recent data loss is found to be just another hacking
incident, then the case is quite similar to that of the recent
personal information leakage case by Auction.  An upcoming ruling
by an appeals court is important and will likely affect the SK
Communications case," he said.

GS Caltex, a major refiner, successfully defended itself in court
against compensation suits.

Employees of GS's subcontractors were arrested in 2009 after
downloading information on millions of customers and attempting to
blackmail the company.

The Seoul High Court recently ruled in favor of GS, saying there
was no reason to think that the company could have prevented the
criminal act.

The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) said that the recent
hacking attacks at SK Communications were tracked back to an
Internet protocol (IP) address in China.

The Seoul Metropolitan Policy Agency (SMPA) plans to announce its
investigation results within a week.

Law enforcement authorities say they are paying particular
attention to whether SK Communications had sufficiently protected
customer data.

"We are looking closely at whether the company's servers were left
vulnerable.  There is a possibility that the mismanagement of SK
Communications' servers and network systems could have invited the
hacking attack," said Jeong Seok-hwa, chief of the police's anti-
cyber terror attack bureau.

A drop in stock price is salt in the wound.

"The data leakage may trigger information-sensitive Koreans to
move from SK Communications, cutting its customer numbers and
lowering page views, which are the two elements that are most
important to Internet companies," said a fund manager in Seoul.

The manager recently lowered its portion of SK Communications
shares and bought more security-related stocks because obviously
even the top-level portal service is vulnerable to hackers.

Stock analysts have generally agreed that share prices will be
dependent upon updates of the class action case since any
compensation to the victims will directly hit SK Communication's
bottom line.

Some stock analysts believe the recent attack won't hugely affect
SK Communications stocks as institutional investors have already
turned their attention to software companies as an alternative for
big information technology (IT) stocks.

"When we have seen in previous similar cases as in those of NHN
and NCsoft, personal information leakage won't have a huge
negative impact on SK Communications earnings," said Kim Chang-
kwon, an analyst from Daewoo Securities.

Kim Dong-hee, an analyst from Taurus Investment, also added the
icy investor sentiment towards SK Communications will be short-
lived.  The local brokerage believes that the SK Communications'
chief is more than capable of settling the matter.


TOWN SPORTS: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary is awaiting
a court ruling on its motions to dismiss two class action lawsuits
pending in New York, according to the Company's July 29, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town
Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary, Town Sports International, LLC ("TSI, LLC") in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.  On June 18,
2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class
action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI,
LLC violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
all New York purported hourly employees.  On September 17, 2010,
TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of
both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to
certify the class actions.  Oral argument on the motions occurred
on November 10, 2010.  A decision is still pending.

While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, in the event of such
an outcome, the Company says it intends to contest these cases
vigorously.  Depending upon the ultimate outcome, these matters
may have a material adverse effect on TSI, LLC's and the Company's
consolidated results of operations, or cash flows.


WADDELL & REED: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Certify in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify their purported
collective action to allow certain financial advisors the
opportunity to opt in to the lawsuit, according to the Company's
July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In the action captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young,
individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc. and DOES 1
through 10 inclusive; Case No. 09-CV-2909 AJB (WVG); in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
filed December 28, 2009, the Company, along with various of its
affiliates, were sued in an individual action, class action and
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") nationwide collective action by
two former advisors asserting misclassification of financial
advisors as independent contractors instead of employees.  Only
Waddell & Reed, Inc. remains as a defendant in the case.
Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for minimum and overtime
wages, claims under California Labor Code Statutes, and a claim
for Unfair Business Practices under the California Business &
Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief and monetary damages.

On April 22, 2011, plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify the
purported FLSA collective action, asking the court to allow
certain financial advisors the opportunity to opt in to the
lawsuit.  The Company has opposed this request.  If the court
conditionally certifies the FLSA collective action, certain
current and former financial advisors will be provided written
notice of the lawsuit and offered the opportunity to participate
as plaintiffs.  If conditional certification is granted, the scope
and cost of the case would increase, particularly where there is a
high participation rate by those notified.  The Company intends to
continue vigorously contesting plaintiffs' claims.

In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution and outcome
of this matter is uncertain.  At this stage of the litigation, the
Company is unable to estimate the expense or exposure, if any,
that it may represent.  The ultimate resolution of this matter, or
an adverse determination against the Company, could have a
material adverse impact on the financial position and results of
operations of the Company.  However, this possible impact is
unknown and not reasonably determinable; therefore, no liability
has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Awaits Ruling in "Meyer" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc., is awaiting court decision on
plaintiff's motion to amend its petition to add an additional
claim in a purported class action lawsuit pending in Iowa,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged by
West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on bank card
transactions are impermissible finance charges under the Iowa
Consumer Credit Code rather than allowable fees.  The lawsuit was
filed in the Iowa District Court for Polk County by Anthony Meyer.
West Bank believes the allegations in the lawsuit are factually
and legally inaccurate.  West Bank is vigorously defending this
litigation.  A motion to amend the petition has been filed seeking
to add an additional claim that the sequence in which West Bank
formerly posted items for payment violated its duties of good
faith under the Iowa Uniform Commercial Code and Consumer Credit
Code.  The proposed amendment has not yet been allowed by the
Court, although West Bank expects it will be allowed for filing.

The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as a result of
this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure purposes
(i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable").  The
amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated
now because there are substantial and different defenses
concerning the various claims of potential liability and class
certification.  Even if legal liability is established under some
theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing
Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely
require individual determination due to the potential
applicability of different offsets or credits.


WILLIAMS COS: Expects Ruling in Royalty Suit in Late 2011
---------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., anticipates that the Colorado
Supreme Court will issue a decision later in 2011 or early in 2012
with respect to plaintiffs' petition for certiorari in lawsuit
relating to royalty interests, according to the Company's July 29,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action lawsuit in District Court, Garfield
County, Colorado, alleging the Company improperly calculated oil
and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that
the Company received from the sale of natural gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund
amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.
Plaintiffs sought to certify as a class of royalty interest
owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected
payments resulting from calculation errors.  The Company entered
into a final partial settlement agreement.  The partial settlement
agreement defined the class members for class certification,
reserved two claims for court resolution, resolved all other class
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, and established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments.  This settlement resolved
all claims relating to past withholding for ad valorem tax
payments and established a procedure for refunds of any such
excess withholding in the future.  The first reserved claim is
whether the Company is entitled to deduct in its calculation of
royalty payments a portion of the costs the Company incurs beyond
the tailgates of the treating or processing plants for mainline
pipeline transportation.  The Company received a favorable ruling
on its motion for summary judgment on the first reserved claim.
Plaintiffs appealed that ruling and the Colorado Court of Appeals
found in the Company's favor in April 2011.

In June 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Colorado Supreme Court.  The Company anticipates that Court will
issue a decision on whether to grant further review later in 2011
or early in 2012.  The second reserved claim relates to whether
the Company is required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether the Company did so
and are, thus, entitled to deduct a proportionate share of
transportation costs in calculating royalty payments.  The Company
anticipates trial on the second reserved claim following
resolution of the first reserved claim.

The Company believes its royalty calculations have been properly
determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and Colorado law.  At this time, the plaintiffs have
not provided the Company a sufficient framework to calculate an
estimated range of exposure related to their claims.  However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this item
could result in a future charge that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.


WILLIAMS COS: Nevada Plaintiffs Appeal Class Certification Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit pending in Nevada appealed the approval
of The Williams Companies, Inc.'s joint motions for summary
judgment and the denial of their class certification motion,
according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Civil lawsuits based on allegations of manipulating published gas
price indices have been brought against the Company and others, in
each case seeking an unspecified amount of damages.  The Company
is currently a defendant in class action litigation and other
litigation originally filed in state court in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Wisconsin brought on behalf of direct and indirect
purchasers of natural gas in those states.  These cases were
transferred to the federal court in Nevada.  In 2008, the court
granted summary judgment in the Colorado case in favor of the
Company and most of the other defendants based on plaintiffs' lack
of standing.  On January 8, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for reconsideration of the Colorado dismissal and entered
judgment in the Company's favor.  The Company expects that the
Colorado plaintiffs will appeal now that the court's order became
final on July 18, 2011.

In the other cases, on July 18, 2011, the Nevada district court
granted the Company's joint motions for summary judgment to
preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims because the federal
Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve those issues.  The court also
denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.  On
July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the Nevada district court.

Because of the uncertainty around these current pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.  However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items
could result in future charges that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.


WPCS INT'L: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Proposed Sale to Multiband
---------------------------------------------------------------
WPCS International Incorporated is facing three putative class
action lawsuits in Pennsylvania over a proposed transaction in
which Multiband Corporation would acquire all of its outstanding
shares, according to the Company's July 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended April 30, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case is
Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Docket
No. 11-06837 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In this
action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction in
which Multiband Corporation would acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that the consideration to be paid for such acquisition by
Multiband is inadequate, and that the individual board members
failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process for the
Company and failed to disclose material information for the
purposes of advancing their own interests over those of the
Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the plaintiff asserts
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board
of directors.  In the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.  The plaintiff
also asserts a claim against the Company and Multiband for aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for which he seeks
unspecified money damages.  Defendants' time to answer or move
with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired.  However, the
Company and its directors deny the material allegations of this
complaint and intend to vigorously defend this action.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case is
Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., Docket
No. 11-06838 (No Judge has been assigned at this time).  In this
action, the plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which Multiband Corporation would acquire all of
the outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the consideration to be paid for such
acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that the individual
board members failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process
for the Company and failed to disclose material information for
the purposes of advancing their own interests over those of the
Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the plaintiff asserts
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's board
of directors.  In the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, plaintiff seeks money damages.  The plaintiff also
asserts a claim against the Company and Multiband for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty for which he seeks unspecified
money damages.  The plaintiff's allegations are substantially
similar to those in Rapozo vs. WPCS.  Defendant's time to answer
or move with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired.
However, the Company and its directors deny the material
allegations of this complaint and intend to vigorously defend this
action.

On June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court of
Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Company
and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The case is
Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., (No
Docket number or Judge has been assigned at this time).  In this
action, the plaintiff also seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction
in which Multiband Corporation would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company.  The plaintiff's allegations
are substantially similar to the allegations in Rapozo v. WPCS and
Shepler v. WPCS.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the consideration to be paid for such acquisition by Multiband is
inadequate, and that the individual board members failed to engage
in an honest and fair sales process for the Company and failed to
disclose material information for the purposes of advancing their
own interests over those of the Company and its shareholders.  To
that end, the plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Company's board of directors.  In the event that
the proposed transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money
damages.  The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company
and Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  Defendants' time to
answer or move with respect to the Complaint has also not yet
expired.  However, the Company and its directors deny the material
allegations of the Complaint and intend to vigorously defend this
action.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2011, Strauss & Troy filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all purchasers of Zoo Entertainment, Inc.  The Complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of investors who purchased shares in
Zoo Entertainment between May 17, 2010 and April 15, 2011.

The Complaint alleges that Zoo Entertainment and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
a series of false and misleading statements which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  Specifically the
complaint alleges that Defendants, notwithstanding their knowledge
of the Company's material weaknesses in its internal controls,
caused the Cincinnati-based computer game company to report
financial results that overstated shareholder equity by over
$250,000 and inflated both net income and diluted net income per
common share by 660% and 900%, respectively.

On April 15, 2011, the Company disclosed that it had erred "in
recording certain transactions in the Company's previously filed
unaudited consolidated financial statements" for the first three
quarters of 2010, ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010 and
September 30, 2010.  As a result, the Company warned that
investors should no longer rely on those financial statements.  On
the announcement of this news, the price of Zoo common stock
plummeted 34.3%.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zoo Entertainment, Inc. common stock between
May 17, 2010 and April 15, 2011, excluding Defendants and their
affiliates.  Plaintiffs are represented by Strauss & Troy, a law
firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions for
violations of the federal securities laws.  If you are interested
in becoming a lead plaintiff, you may file a motion with the court
no later than September 26, 2011, and request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of class members.  If you
would like more information about the Zoo shareholder lawsuit, or
have any questions concerning your rights or interests, please
contact:

         Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
         Annie C. Jansen, Esq.
         STRAUSS & TROY
         150 E. Fourth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 621-2120
         E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                 acjansen@strausstroy.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Crane Co. Drop to 56,403 at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 56,403 asbestos claims for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with 65,352 claims for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2011.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

For the three months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
893 new claims, 263 settlements and 8,873 dismissals.  For the
three months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 824 new
claims, 242 settlements and 2,709 dismissals.

For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
1,858 new claims, 603 settlements, 9,690 dismissals, and one
MARDOC claim.  For the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company
recorded 1,737 new claims, 532 settlements, 3,151 dismissals, and
957 MARDOC claims.

The Company faced 64,646 asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 67,479 claims during
the three months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
May 6, 2011)

Of the 56,403 pending claims as of June 30, 2011, about 21,000
claims were pending in New York, about 9,900 claims were pending
in Texas, about 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, and
about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio.

To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse
jury verdicts in asbestos matters.  The first payment, in the
amount of US$2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, about two
years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in
California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies.  The second payment, in the amount of
US$20,000 was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the
Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles on April 21, 2009.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of
which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal and is currently the subject of further appellate
proceedings before the Supreme Court of California, which accepted
review of the matter by order dated Dec. 23, 2009.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory damages of
US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.  The
Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan. 5,
2009.

The case was concluded by settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010
during the pendency of the Company's appeal to the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania.  The settlement is reflected in the settled
claims for 2010.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursues Appeal in Brewer Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to pursue an appeal in the Chief Brewer
asbestos-related action.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles.  The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing for Woodard Appeal This Month
------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that a court will hear an appeal in Dennis
Woodard's asbestos-related claim in August 2011.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for 0.5% of plaintiffs' damages of
US$16.93 million; however, based on California court rules
regarding allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the
Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009, the
court advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment
was entered in favor of the Company.

The plaintiffs have appealed that ruling.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in Bell, Nelson Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that all appeals in the Larry Bell and James Nelson
asbestos-related claims are still pending.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County state court jury found
the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million
verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a
US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

On Feb. 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of US$200,000 against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of US$4 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of US$10,000 being assessed against the Company, only, in
Nelson.

All defendants, including the Company and the plaintiffs, have
taken timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $56.2MM Costs for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross asbestos-related settlement and defense costs incurred
(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co.
totaled US$56.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011 and
US$52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company totaled US$27.6
million for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011, compared
with US$27.5 million for the three-month period ended March 31,
2010.  (Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2011)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 totaled a US$35.6 million net
payment and a US$27.5 million net payment, respectively.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2011, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) about 83,000 claims, not including MARDOC
claims.  The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and
its insurance carriers is about US$300 million, for an average
settlement cost per resolved claim of US$4,000.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Posts June 30 Liability at $570.77MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$570,768,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$619,666,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed on July 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$600,506,000 as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
May 6, 2011)

Current asbestos liability was US$100 million as of both June 30,
2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$167,412,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$180,689,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$33 million as of both
June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. is a diversified
manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Supreme Court OKs Verdict in Lumnah Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York,
affirmed the ruling of the Tioga County Court, which convicted
Michael J. Lumnah of arson in the third degree, arson in the
fourth degree (seven counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree.

The case is styled The People of the State of New York, Respondent
v. Michael J. Lumnah, Appellant.

Judges Mercure, Spain, Malone Jr. and Stein entered judgment in
the Case on Feb. 24, 2011.

Mr. Lumnah's barn was condemned and estimates suggested a costly
demolition due to the presence of asbestos.  Christopher Tuttle
set the barn on fire during the early morning hours of May 31,
2008.  The fire quickly spread and ultimately damaged or destroyed
seven additional properties.

The next morning, Mr. Lumnah drove Mr. Tuttle to a bus station and
gave him money for a ticket to North Carolina.  Nevertheless, Mr.
Tuttle was identified as the individual responsible for the fire
and he, in turn, implicated Mr. Lumnah, stating that Mr. Lumnah
had offered him US$1,000 to set the barn on fire.

Mr. Tuttle ultimately pleaded guilty to arson in the third degree
and was sentenced to three to nine years in prison.  Mr. Lumnah
was charged in an indictment with arson in the third degree, seven
counts of arson in the fourth degree and conspiracy in the fourth
degree.

Following a jury trial, Mr. Lumnah was convicted as charged and
sentenced to an aggregate term of five to 15 years in prison.  Mr.
Lumnah appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
ruling.

Francisco P. Berry, Esq., of Ithaca, N.Y., represented Michael J.
Lumnah.  Gerald A. Keene, District Attorney, in Owego, N.Y.,
represented the State of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Florez Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New
York, affirms a ruling in a case involving asbestos styled Lincoln
Hernandez Florez, etc., appellant v. Michael Conlon, et al.,
defendants, Chris Schlesinger, et al., respondents.

Judges Mastro, Skelos, Leventhal and Roman entered judgment in the
case on March 8, 2011.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
plaintiff appealed, as limited by his brief, from so much of an
order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated Jan. 29, 2010, as
granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Chris
Schlesinger and Schlesinger Development, LLC, which was for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted
against them.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when he fell from a ladder
while engaged in asbestos removal work on a single-family home
renovation project.  The owner of the home contracted directly
with the plaintiff's employer.  The plaintiff commenced this
action against the defendants Chris Schlesinger and Schlesinger
Development, LLC (hereinafter together the defendants), the
construction managers, alleging violations of Labor Law ss 200, s
240(1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants' cross
motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
insofar as asserted against them.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn. School District OKs $1.3MM for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The board of the Armstrong School District in Pennsylvania
approved nearly US$1.3 million for various asbestos abatement
projects, the Leader Times reports.

The three change orders were passed by a 5-4 vote and involve
mainly restoration to the buildings undergoing abatement -- Ford
City and Kittanning high schools and the Elderton school complex.

The increased cost is the latest sticking point in ongoing
dissension between the board majority and its apparent successors.

The approval of an additional US$1.3 million being spent to
restore the schools following the abatement has led to outrage
from those opposed to the project, and a puzzled response from the
board president.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW's Government Acts on Asbestos Payout Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
After being criticized by trade unions, the New South Wales
government is acting on delays over processing claims for asbestos
victims, ABC News reports.

NSW's Dust Diseases Board assesses applications for compensation
for those affected by asbestos-related diseases.  When the
Coalition Government was elected in March 2011, it asked all board
members to re-apply for their jobs.

The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union attacked the Government
after it emerged a meeting of the board had to be cancelled
because its members had still not been finalized.

It has now emerged that Cabinet approved the new board on July 25,
2011.  The union's Tim Ayers says up to 80 people will be affected
by the delay.

Earlier Mr. Ayers said the delays were terrible for those
suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

A spokesman for Finance Minister Greg Pearce says unions will keep
their representation on the board.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Seeks Continuance in Whisnant's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, on June 27, 2011, filed an
unopposed motion for continuance, asking Judge Donald Floyd to
continue an asbestos case filed by Caryl Richardson on behalf of
her late father, Willis Whisnant Jr., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

In November 2011, a local judge, at the request of Mrs.
Richardson, continued a retrial of an asbestos lawsuit against
DuPont.  Seven months later, DuPont seeks to have the case
continued again.

DuPont won a jury verdict in early 2008.  However, Judge Floyd
tossed out the jury's decision and granted Mrs. Richardson's
attorney Glen Morgan's motion for a new trial without any
explanation for the ruling.

Following two appeals and numerous hearings, in July 2009, the
Texas Supreme Court ordered Judge Floyd to disclose his reasons
for granting the new trial, court records show.

DuPont's motion states that the Supreme Court's ruling in the case
In re United Scaffolding "will have relevance to the order in" its
case.  The court will hear oral arguments on the United
Scaffolding case on Oct. 6, 2011.

Court records show that Mr. Whisnant, a former subcontractor for
DuPont, died from mesothelioma in his late 70s.  Judge Floyd
signed a final judgment on April 17, 2008.

Following the no negligence verdict, Mrs. Richardson's attorney
John Morgan, Esq., of the Beaumont law firm Reaud, Morgan & Quinn,
filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence did not
support the jury's verdict.

Judge Floyd granted the motion in a May 28, 2008, order, but
offered no explanation for his decision.

DuPont is represented in part by MehaffyWeber attorney Sandra
Clark, Esq.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Removed from Tazewell High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
A partial collapse of the ceiling of Tazewell High School in
Tazewell, Va., has prompted the school to remove asbestos from the
premises, SWVA reports.

Superintendent of Schools Dr. Brenda Lawson said about a 20-inch
portion of the ceiling in the main hallway chipped off and fell
sometime in the afternoon July 19, 2011.  That portion contained
asbestos and county personnel moved quickly to cover the area and
put up warning signs.

E. Luke Green, a company that removes asbestos was already on
scene removing tiles from an upstairs hallway and has taken charge
of the removal.  After reviewing the situation with Director of
Environmental Services and Maintenance Charles Simpson and others,
Dr. Lawson said a decision was made to remove the asbestos from
the entire hallway and replace the ceiling.

Dr. Lawson said new lighting will also be installed.  Office
personnel have relocated to the library which can be accessed
without entering the main portion of the building.

Dr. Lawson said the work will be finished no later than Aug. 4,
2011 and should not hinder the HVAC work being done at the school.
Southern Air has been in the school most of the summer installing
air conditioning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l.'s Unit Denied Asbestos Claims Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court ruled that RPM International Inc.'s Bondex International
Inc. subsidiary is unable to acquire data on compensation paid to
asbestos victims the company wants to use to calculate future
liabilities, Bloomberg reports.

On July 26, 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald in
Wilmington, Del., denied Bondex's request for details on payments
that some asbestos-victims' trusts may have made to people who
also claimed to have been injured by Bondex's home-repair
products.

Bondex and Specialty Products Holding Corp. filed for bankruptcy
in 2010 with plans to set up their own asbestos-victims trust to
resolve future and current suits.  To calculate how much money the
companies, or their parent, RPM, must put into the trust, the
companies sought data on past payments.

Gregory M. Gordon, Esq., a Bondex attorney, said the model the
Company is trying to create may predict lower future payments by
taking into account payments that other trusts made to victims who
sued Bondex.

Judge Fitzgerald has allowed Bondex to collect other details from
asbestos victims to build its models.

Bankrupt companies and their parents can win immunity from future
asbestos lawsuits by setting up trusts to cover medical and other
costs associated with exposure to asbestos.

The bankruptcy case is styled In re Specialty Products Holdings
Corp., 10-11780, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
(Wilmington).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Manchester Parkade to Cost $525,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Works Director Mark Carlino said the company likely to get
an asbestos abatement contract for the Manchester Parkade is New
Haven-based Abcon Environmental Inc., which submitted a low bid of
US$525,000, the Courant reports.

General Manager Scott Shanley said on July 25, 2011 that the
contract for asbestos removal on the blighted side of the
Manchester Parkade in Manchester, Conn., will likely be signed by
the end of the week.

The work, which includes prying up 250,000 square feet of
asbestos-containing floor tiles, is to begin the second week of
August 2011.

The town-owned "dark side" of the parkade off Broad Street is the
focus of a redevelopment plan that includes a mix of new housing,
green spaces, civic uses and some retail space.

Hazardous materials removal and demolition of the vacant shopping
center will cost about US$2 million to US$2.3 million, according
to a consultant hired by the town.  Town officials have said the
vacant buildings could be knocked down next spring.

In addition to asbestos removal, Abcon workers also are to remove
lights and light ballasts that contain PCBs, or polychlorinated
biphenyls, Mr. Carlino said.

Ozone-harming chlorofluorocarbons present in refrigerant left in
the buildings also must be removed, said Mark Sergi, project
manager for Abcon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manx Builder's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court heard that the July 27, 2011 death of 63-year-old Edward
John Bedford, who had lived at the Isle of Man, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Manx Independent.

The hearing into Mr. Bedford's death was opened and adjourned on
July 20, 2011 pending completion of investigations.  Coroner
Alastair Montgomerie said Mr. Bedford, a former bricklayer who was
born in Blackpool, England, died at the Isle of Man Hospice.

A statement from Dr. Jane Hockings confirmed the date of Mr.
Bedford's death and he was identified the following day by his
wife, Margaret.

A post-mortem examination by Dr. Douglas McLellan found Mr.
Bedford, who lived at Ballafesson Road, Port Erin, Isle of Man,
died from malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos.

Earlier in 2011, the Manx Independent reported that Mr. Bedford
was diagnosed in April 2010 with mesothelioma.  He was convinced
his illness was linked to his contact with asbestos while working
as a bricklayer on the Summerland development on Douglas seafront
in 1970 where he was involved in the construction of the toilet
block.

Mr. Bedford actually witnessed Summerland burn down in 1973 with
the loss of 50 lives ? and he believed that 40 years on from
working there, he could become another victim.

Mr. Bedford contacted the National Asbestos Helpline and was put
in touch with Manchester law firm Birchall Blackburn to try to
make a civil claim for compensation.  Solicitor Helen Bradley
appealed for readers of the Manx Independent for help in pursuing
the claim.

Mr. Bedford, who leaves two children and three step-children, was
employed by Parkinson when he was working on the Summerland
contract.  He worked for the company for 20 years. The firm has
since been taken over by the Sefton Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. U.S. Steel Surge to 620 at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2011, was a
defendant in about 620 active asbestos cases involving about 3,160
plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2011.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company was a defendant in about 585
active asbestos cases involving about 3,125 plaintiffs.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 6, 2011)

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 550 active
cases involving about 3,090 plaintiffs.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company recorded 80 claims dismissed,
settled, and resolved and 150 new claims.  Amounts paid to resolve
claims during the period were US$5 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 200 claims dismissed,
settled, and resolved and 250 new claims.  Amounts paid to resolve
claims during the period were US$8 million.

About 2,575, or about 82%, of these plaintiff claims as of June
30, 2011 are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit
filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.

Historically, about 89% of the cases against the Company did not
specify any damage amount or stated that the damages sought
exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the
court in which the case was filed.  Jurisdictional amounts
generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation
produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and
tubular products, in North America and Central Europe.  Operations
in North America also include transportation services (railroad
and barge operations) and real estate operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $9MM June 30 Administration Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s net Chapter 11 and asbestos-related costs
amounted to US$9 million during the three months ended June 30,
2011, compared with US$7.8 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2011.

The Company's net Chapter 11 and asbestos-related costs amounted
to US$14.7 million during the six months ended June 30, 2011,
compared with US$20.4 million during the six months ended June 30,
2010.

The Company recorded asbestos administration costs of US$1.1
million during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared
with US$1.6 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010.
(Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2011)

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries and
affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary W. R.
Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to resolve
the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Jan. 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming
the Company's Joint Plan of Reorganization.  The confirmation
order must next be affirmed by the U.S. District Court.  On June
28-29, 2011, the District Court heard oral arguments on
affirmation and appeals to the confirmation order.

The timing of the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 will depend
on affirmation of the Plan by the District Court and the
satisfaction or waiver of the other conditions set forth in the
Plan, including the resolution of any further appeals.  The
Company is preparing to consummate the Plan as quickly as
practicable.  The Plan sets forth how all pre-petition claims and
demands against the Company will be resolved.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500
million as of both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company's
long-term asbestos-related contingencies amounted to US$1.7
billion as of both June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Carlisle Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due
to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes.

Carlisle manufactured those products in limited amounts between
the late-1940s and the mid-1980s.  In addition to compensatory
awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive damages.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of its
asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.  The Company
maintains insurance coverage that applies to a portion of certain
of its defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in
connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.

On Dec. 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury.  The total amount of the award and
related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was about US$5.8
million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010, as the related alleged asbestos-containing
product was manufactured by the Company's former on-highway brake
business.

Based on an ongoing evaluation, the Company said it believes that
the resolution of its remaining pending asbestos claims will not
have a material impact on its financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Carlisle Companies Incorporated
is a diversified manufacturing company consisting of five
segments, which manufacture and distribute a broad range of
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Records $17MM Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation's liabilities for asbestos-related actions were
US$17 million as of June 30, 2011, US$18.1 million as of Dec. 31,
2010, and US$19.4 million as of June 30, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities.

The Company's liabilities for asbestos legal actions amounted to
US$16.2 million at March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May
20, 2011)

Headquartered in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation is a manufacturer
concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and
Winchester.  Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine and caustic
soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide.  Winchester produces and distributes sporting
ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Posts $5MM Litigation Charge at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded asbestos litigation charges of US$5
million during the three months ended June 30, 2011 and June 30,
2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2011.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company recorded the US$5
million (US$3 million after-tax) to adjust the asbestos litigation
liability for the change in value of the components of the
Modified PCC Plan.

The Company recorded an asbestos litigation charge of US$10
million during the six months ended June 30, 2011.  The Company
recorded an asbestos litigation credit of US$47 million during the
six months ended June 30, 2010.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation was named in numerous lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos and on
April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.  The
Company, with other relevant parties, proposed a Plan of
Reorganization of PCC in 2003, which has not yet been confirmed.
Under this PCC Plan, the Company would contribute certain payments
and assets.

In the second quarter of 2011, the Company recorded a charge of
US$5 million (US$3 million after-tax) to adjust the asbestos
litigation liability for the change in value of the components to
be contributed by the Company under this PCC Plan.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated manufactures
specialty glass and ceramics.  The Company makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith Case v. 60 Firms Filed on June 9 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth E. Smith, on June 9, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
60 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mrs. Smith was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on May 25, 2011.  She claims the 60 defendants
allowed her to be exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing
products during her husband's employment with PPG Industries from
1950 until 1991.

Although Mrs. Smith smoked for about 30 years, she quit smoking at
least 40 years ago, according to the suit.

Mrs. Smith seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  She
is being represented by Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., and Victoria
Antion, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-948 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Armstrong Action v. 16 Firms Filed in St. Clair
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolinian Marcie Armstrong, on June 30, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 16 defendant corporations in St. Clair
County Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Armstrong is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori,
Julian and Associates in Edwardsville and by Erik Karst, Esq., of
Karst and von Oiste in Houston.

Ms. Armstrong alleges the 16 defendant companies caused her to
develop lung cancer after her exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout her career.  According to the suit, she worked
as a laborer at Presto Manufacturing Company in Jackson, Miss., in
1974.

Moreover, Ms. Armstrong was exposed to asbestos fibers through her
father, who worked as a laborer and molder at Presto from 1953
through the early 1980s.

Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson presides over the asbestos docket.
In June 2011, he dismissed four asbestos cases on defendants'
forum non conveniens motions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harpenden Builder's Death Related to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 79-year-old Geoffrey
Culverhouse, a retired builder from Harpenden, Hertfordshire,
England, was due to exposure to asbestos, The Herts Advertiser 24
reports.

Mr. Culverhouse died on June 2, 2011.  The inquest held July 21,
2011, heard that Mr. Culverhouse had "substantial" exposure to
asbestos between 1946 and 1971 while working as a maintenance
engineer.

Medical records showed Mr. Culverhouse had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma in February 2011 and was being cared for by Macmillan
nurses.

Coroner for Hertfordshire Edward Thomas recorded a verdict of
death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beloit City to Settle Asbestos Claim For $270T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Beloit, Wis., has agreed to a settlement of US$270,000
over allegations that it sold a building with asbestos issues, the
Beloit Daily News reports.

City Manager Larry Arft said the city council recently voted 6-0
to approve the settlement.

Dan Langone sued the City in 2009, claiming that the City failed
to address asbestos problems in property that his company bought
in 1998.  The property was the former site of the City's public-
works department.

A Beloit Daily News report says the City had provided a letter to
Mr. Langone's attorney guaranteeing the building had been cleaned
of asbestos before the sale.  However, Mr. Langone says he found
asbestos in 2008.

Mr. Arft says the settlement is fair for all parties.  Mr.
Langone's attorney, Derrick Grubb, Esq., says the decision was
"long overdue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Basingstoke Development Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos has driven up the cost of a borough
council redevelopment project in the center of Basingstoke,
Hampshire, England, This is Hampshire reports.

The asbestos was found in columns and panels at Loddon House --
one of two office blocks being demolished in the Basing View
business area.  It is estimated the discovery could add as much as
GBP370,000 to the GBP6 million cost of the project and push the
completion date back by a further three months.

The Health and Safety Executive has been notified but bosses
behind the scheme say there was no need to inform residents and
businesses neighboring the site.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is demolishing Loddon House
and neighboring City Wall House as part of a scheme that has
already suffered one setback.

The project stalled after Armoury Group -- the company that was
originally awarded the contract to carry out the work -- went into
administration at the end of 2010.  Kent-based Erith Contractors
is now completing the project.

A report to the Cabinet at Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
said the asbestos find, in the grouting of Loddon House, is
"likely to affect all or the majority of 264 pre-cast columns and
698 cladding panels."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Reconsideration Bid in Wagner Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
affirmed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the granting of
summary judgment in favor of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in
an asbestos case styled Wagner v. Various Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 08-87085 on May 6, 2011.

Volkswagen moved for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiff's claims were time-barred.  Plaintiff was diagnosed with
lung cancer in 1985, but did not bring suit until 2006.  The Court
granted Volkswagen's motion, and several Defendants' joinders, as
unopposed, as Plaintiff had failed to file a timely response.

Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration asked the Court to treat
Volkswagen's Motion for Summary Judgment as a partial motion for
summary judgment as to Plaintiff's lung cancer claims, but argued
that Plaintiff's asbestosis claims were not time-barred.

Plaintiff was not diagnosed with asbestosis until Oct. 14, 2003,
and it was undisputed that he filed his claim within three years
of this diagnosis.  His Administrative Order 12 submissions
contained separate diagnosing information for lung cancer and
asbestosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Leonard Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, issued various rulings in asbestos cases styled Ronald
D. Leonard, Plaintiff v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, et al., Defendants, Ronald D. Leonard, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Ernie Moore, et al., Defendants, and Ronald D.
Leonard, Plaintiff v. Ernie Moore, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King entered judgment in Case
Nos. 2:09-CV-961, 2:10-CV-347, and 2:10-CV-951 on May 5, 2011.

These consolidated cases were before the Court for consideration
of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in 2:09-CV-961, filed
on behalf of Defendants Mohr and Knab; the Motion to Dismiss in
2:10- CV-347, filed on behalf of Defendants Mohr, Moore and Croft;
and the Motion to Dismiss in 2:10-CV-951, filed on behalf of
Defendants Mohr, Moore and Knab.

In 2:09-CV-961, Plaintiff Ronald D. Leonard complained in the
original Complaint of exposure to asbestos and mold while
incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution [CCI].
Cole Worthington, at the time another inmate at CCI, later joined
as a Plaintiff in that action.

The original Complaint in this action alleged that Plaintiffs were
subjected to "the daily inhalation of an undetermined micron level
in size of airborne pathogen particles of asbestos and black mold,
thus subjecting Plaintiff to serious substantial risk of physical
harm, detrimental to Plaintiff's health."

The Complaint sought monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief.
Defendants are the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction; Gary Mohr, current Director the ODRC; and Robin Knab,
Warden of CCI.  The original Complaint named Defendants in only
their official capacities.

The named Defendants are the ODRC, a state agency, and Defendants
Mohr and Knab in their official capacities.  The claims against
Defendants Mohr and Knab were essentially claims against the State
of Ohio.

In sum, the Court concluded that Defendants were entitled to
judgment on the pleadings in 2:09-CV-961.

In 2:10-CV-347, Plaintiffs Leonard and Worthington again claimed
that they have been exposed to mold and asbestos at CCI in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.  Defendants in this case are
Ernie Moore, former Deputy Warden at CCI, and ODRC Chief Inspector
Gary Croft, who are sued in both their official and individual
capacities.  Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiff Leonard moved to consolidate this case with 2:09-CV-961
and for service of process on Defendants.  The cases were ordered
consolidated, but the Court had never directed the U.S. Marshal
Service to effect service of process in this case.  The Court will
direct service of process on the Defendants and recommend that the
motion to dismiss be denied.

In 2:10-CV-951, Plaintiff Leonard claimed that he had been
retaliated against by prison officials for his pursuit of his
claims regarding exposure to mold and asbestos.  The named
Defendants are Ernie Moore and Robin Knab.  Defendants also moved
to dismiss this action.

Plaintiff Leonard filed the Complaint on Oct. 21, 2010.  The Court
granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and
ordered the three cases consolidated, but again failed to
separately direct service of process on the Defendants in this
action.

It is was recommended that the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in 2:09-CV-961 be granted and that the Motion to Dismiss
in 2:10-CV-347 and the Motion to Dismiss in 2:10-CV-951 be denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Issues Split Ruling in Sivinski Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
issues split rulings in litigation styled John A. Sivinski,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lynn Arko Kelley, et al., Defendants-
Appellees.

Judges Boyle, Sweeney, and Cooney entered judgment in Case No.
94296 on May 5, 2011.  Judge Conway concurred in part and
dissented in part.

John Sivinski, appealed several decisions of the Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court arising from his jury trial, wherein the trial
court granted a directed verdict in favor of defendant-appellee,
Lynn Arko Kelley (Lynn), in her individual and representative
capacity as the executrix of the estate of Michael Kelley -- the
Estate -- on all of Mr. Sivinski's claims and denied Sivinski's
motion for directed verdict on the Estate's counterclaims for
spoliation of the evidence and abuse of process.

Mr. Sivinski further appealed from the jury's verdict, awarding
the Estate US$600,000 on its counterclaims, which included an
award of punitive damages, and the trial court's additional award
of attorney fees for US$296,352.01.

The Appeals Court then reversed the trial court's denial of Mr.
Sivinski's motion for directed verdict on the two counterclaims,
thereby vacating the jury's award of damages and attorney fees,
but affirmed the trial court's granting of the Estate's motion for
directed verdict on all of Mr. Sivinski's claims.

In 1997, Mr. Kelley, who was a nationally known attorney in the
field of asbestos litigation, started a law practice with a well-
established Florida asbestos lawyer, James Ferraro.  Together they
formed the partnership of Kelley & Ferraro LLP in June 1997.

In June 1997, Mr. Kelley, who worked with Mr. Sivinski at Mr.
Kelley's prior employment, recruited Mr. Sivinski to join him in
the new firm.  Mr. Sivinski agreed and executed a contract, titled
1997 Agreement.

According to Mr. Sivinski's trial testimony, Mr. Kelley later
approached him and discussed modifying the terms of his
compensation so that Mr. Ferraro would have to contribute to Mr.
Sivinski's compensation, especially since Mr. Ferraro had been
requiring Mr. Sivinski's assistance for trials in Florida.

Mr. Sivinski admitted signing a second employment agreement with
K & F in 1999.  Under the 1999 Agreement, Mr. Sivinski would
"continue to be a 'salaried partner' of K & F" for at least three
years (2000-2002), but instead of a bonus calculated as a
percentage of profits, the amount of his bonuses was specifically
set out in the agreement.

On Jan. 1, 2006, Mr. Kelley died suddenly.  Lynn testified that,
following her husband's death, Mr. Ferraro almost immediately
locked her out of the firm and refused her access to Mr. Kelley's
files, including a copy of the partnership agreement or any K & F
records relating to Mr. Sivinski's contract terms.

In June 2007, Mr. Sivinski commenced the underlying action against
Lynn, individually and in her capacity as the executrix of the
Estate, James Ferraro, and K & F, alleging that he was not
properly compensated under his employment agreement.

Mr. Ferraro and K & F jointly filed an answer, counterclaims, and
asserted cross-claims against the Estate for indemnity, unjust
enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.  Prior to trial, Mr.
Sivinski dismissed his claims against Mr. Ferraro and K & F
without prejudice, who in turn also dismissed their counterclaims
and cross-claims.  The Estate also dismissed their cross-claims
against Ferraro and K & F.  The matter proceeded to a jury trial
on Mr. Sivinski's claims and the Estate's counterclaims.

At the close of his case, Mr. Sivinski dismissed his conversion
claim, and the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of
the Estate on the remaining claims.  The case proceeded on the
Estate's counterclaims.

At the close of its evidence, the Estate dismissed its breach of
fiduciary duty claim, and the trial court granted a directed
verdict to Mr. Sivinski on the Estate's remaining counterclaims
except for the abuse of process and spoliation of the evidence
claims.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Estate on these two
claims, awarding US$100,000 in compensatory damages on each claim,
US$400,000 in punitive damages, and further finding that the
Estate was entitled to recover attorney fees.  The trial court
subsequently held a hearing and awarded the Estate US$296,352.01
for attorney fees.

Mr. Sivinski appealed, raising 12 assignments of error.  The Court
found there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

John A. Sivinski, Esq., Brian R. Herberth, Esq., Brian J. Smith,
Esq., of Sivinski, Smith & Herberth, LLC, in Cleveland, Ohio,
represented appellant.

William T. Wuliger, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio, represented
appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Issues Split Rulings in Clemmer Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky issued split rulings in a case
involving asbestos styled Edwin L. Clemmer and Mary A. Clemmer,
Appellants v. Rowan Water, Inc., Appellee.

Judges Caperton, Thompson, and Lambert entered judgment in Case
No. 2010-CA-000018-MR on May 6, 2011.

Edwin L. and Mary A. Clemmer appealed from the Sept. 11, 2009,
order and judgment, and Nov. 4, 2009, amended order and judgment
of the Rowan Circuit Court, denying their claim that Appellee,
Rowan Water, committed reverse condemnation as to the installation
of water lines on their property and as to the manner in which the
lines were installed, maintained or abandoned, thereby precluding
Clemmers' actions for trespass, nuisance, and fraud.

The Clemmers are residents of Indiana.  They purchased property in
Rowan County near an old railroad right-of-way in 1971, 1977, and
1989.  The railroad line was abandoned in 1985-86, which gave rise
to the Clemmers claim of ownership of the adjacent old railroad
property by reversion.  In total, the Clemmers own about 110 acres
of land.

The dispute between the Clemmers and Rowan Water concerned three
water lines of 6, 8, and 10 inches in diameter on or near the
Clemmers' property.  The only line installed after the Clemmers
purchased the property was the 8-inch PVC water line.  After Rowan
Water installed this line, the Clemmers complained about its
location.  It was subsequently relocated to the Department of
Highways easement.  No part of the 8-inch line is currently on the
Clemmer's property.

The 10-inch PVC water line is located on the old railroad right-
of-way, and the location of the abandoned 6-inch asbestos-cement
water line is uncertain.

The Clemmers initially filed a diversity action in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky.  The basis for the
claim against Rowan Water in that action concerned the water lines
that allegedly crossed the Clemmers' property.

The federal complaint alleged trespass, nuisance, and fraud
against Rowan Water.  In the federal court litigation, the parties
completed discovery, and filed expert reports, witness lists, and
pre-trial memoranda.

The federal court issued a 14-page memorandum, opinion, and order,
in which is examined the basis for the Clemmers' cause of action
and concluded that reverse condemnation was their sole remedy.
The court then reviewed the damages claimed by the Clemmers, and
determined that those damages were not sufficient to meet the
minimum jurisdictional limit of the federal court.  Accordingly,
the federal action was dismissed without prejudice.

Subsequently, the Clemmers filed their complaint in the matter sub
judice in the Rowan Circuit Court.  The Clemmers again alleged
trespass, nuisance, misrepresentation, and punitive damages.

After the Clemmers filed their complaint in Rowan Circuit Court,
Rowan Water filed its initial motion for partial summary judgment.
In so doing, Rowan Water argued that the decision of the federal
court holding that the Clemmers' remedy was limited to a claim of
reverse condemnation was conclusive on that issue.  On Jan. 8,
2007, the trial court entered an order and judgment sustaining the
motion made by Rowan Water.  The Clemmers then appealed, and this
Court issued an opinion holding that res judicata did not apply to
the federal court decision because there was no adjudication on
the merits in the federal action.

The matter was then remanded back to the Rowan Circuit Court, and
a status conference was scheduled.  During the course of that
conference, counsel for Rowan Water advised the court of its
intention to file a motion to request dismissal of the Clemmers'
claim on essentially the same legal premise as relied upon by the
federal court, namely, that the Clemmers' claim against Rowan
Water was limited to reverse condemnation.

Counsel agreed that this issue should be resolved before any
other action was initiated in the case.  This matter was argued by
the parties to the court, and was followed by another motion for
partial summary judgment by Rowan Water.  The trial court
sustained that motion in an order and judgment entered on
Sept. 11, 2009, again finding that the Clemmers' action was
limited to a claim of reverse condemnation.

The Clemmers then filed a motion to alter or amend Sept. 11, 2009,
judgment and the trial court entered an amended order and judgment
was entered on Nov. 4, 2009.  The trial court again dismissed the
Clemmers' claims for trespass, nuisance and
fraud/misrepresentation, leaving reverse condemnation as the only
remaining claim.  The Clemmers then appealed to this Court.

This court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Clemmers'
trespass claim, reversed that dismissal with respect to the claims
of fraud and nuisance, and remanded this matter for all additional
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Dismissal in Oil Re-Refining Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Eugene Division,
granted the dismissal of the case styled Oil Re-Refining Company,
Inc., a Washington corporation, Plaintiff v. Pacific Recycling,
Inc., an Oregon corporation, and Rodney M. Schultz, individually
and in his professional capacity, Defendants.

District Judge Michael R. Hogan entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 11-6042-HO on May 3, 2011.

Plaintiff Oil Re-Refining Company (ORRCO), brought this action
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) seeking costs incurred in responding to
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) contamination allegedly resulting
from defendant, Pacific Recycling, Inc.'s release of PCBs.

Plaintiff alleged it conducted sampling tests of its truck and
tank before loading the 1,000 gallons of defendants' oil on March
4, 2010, and found no contamination.  Plaintiff did not test the
oil itself.

Subsequent testing established significant PCB contamination at
plaintiff's Goshen, Ore., facility.  Plaintiff alleged that it
eliminated other possible sources of the contamination and that
subsequent testing demonstrated PCBs, with the same Areclor 1260,
had been found at Pacific Recycling.

Defendants now move to dismiss the CERCLA claim contending the
claim failed because there has been no release or threat of
release of PCBs into the environment.  Defendant moved to dismiss
the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendants contend that, according to the complaint, the only
things exposed to PCBs were plaintiff's storage facility and
equipment, tanks, and trucks located there.  Defendant cited
asbestos cases in support of its position.

Plaintiff also noted that without knowledge of the PCB
contamination, it would have processed the used oil into oil that
would be burned by customers resulting in PCBs being released and
that its discovery, prevented this threatened release.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice
to amend.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Mine Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant
in 1,965 suits in which plaintiffs allege to have contracted
certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust.

These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2011.

Headquartered in Cranberry Township, Pa., Mine Safety Appliances
Company develops, manufactures, and supplies products that protect
people's health and safety.  Its safety products are used by
workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction, and
other industries, as well as the military.


                            *********

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  * * *