---

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

            Friday, August 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 172

                            Headlines

CERVELO SA: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
FINANCIAL SERVICES: Groups Prey on Seniors, Michigan Suit Claims
GCI TECHNOLOGIES: Light Modules Recalled Due to Fire Hazard
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued In Nova Scotia Over Diabetes Drug Avandia
GOLD FIELDS: Suits Over Lead Exposure Still Pending in Oklahoma

H&R BLOCK: Illinois Peace-of-Mind Suit Removed to Federal Court
HARTFORD COMPUTER: Court Revives RICO Suit Over Recycled Cameras
HOBBICO INC: Recalls RC-Helicopter Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
KADANT INC: Wants Mass. Suit Over Defective Products Dismissed
KNOT INC: Florida Court Dismisses FACTA Violations Lawsuit

LEAP WIRELESS: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Still Pending in Calif.
MAPLE LEAF: Faces Lawsuit Over Recalled Contaminated Products
MISSOURI COMPANIES: Brain Tumors Prompt Cameron Town Lawsuits
MOLEX: Electrical Wire Splices Recalled Due to Shock, Fire Risk
NEW JERSEY: Transportation Dept. Unfairly Denies Overtime Pay

NORTH SHORE: Reconsideration of Ill. Fees Suit Dismissal Denied
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Cheated Annuityholders, Wisconsin Suit Says
PACWEST BANCORP: Calif. Court Approves "Gilbert" Suit Settlement
PEOPLES ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification in "Alport"
QUIGLEY CORP: Pa. Court Sets Oct. 24 Trial for Cold-Eeze(R) Suit

REGENCY AFFILIATES: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Gatz" Case
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Toner Cartridges
SMURFIT-STONE: Hourly Employees' Suits Still Pending in Calif.
STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Oct. 20, 2008 Trial Slated for "Pendlebury"

TARGET CORP: Settles Accessibility for Web Sites Suit in Calif.
TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing
TIME WARNER: Appeal Deadline for ERISA Suit Remand Order Expires
TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Gives Privacy Suit Deal Interim Approval
TIME WARNER: Awaits N.Y. Court Dismissal of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit

TIME WARNER: Seeks Court's Certification of "Brantley" Ruling
TIME WARNER: "Hallissey" Minimum Wage Lawsuit Still Pending
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 12 Conference Set for Cipro Suits
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Settle AWP Antitrust Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

PERINI CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand's Liabilities Total $1.22Bil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage for NJ Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Set Hearing in Quigley Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $176.9M Interest at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.87B at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs No Amounts for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Cites $20.7M Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Facing 13T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Cleared in 635 Actions in 1st Half
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 230 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Facing 42T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Has $10M Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Has 54T Pending AO Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 510 Claims at June 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Facing 74 Hilco Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Facing Damage & Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Faces 460 Damage Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Facing Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $917Mil Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $200M Libby Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $8.5M in 1H08 for Libby Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeal on Grace Suit Dismissal Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Corp. Facing 76 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18,462 Claims Pending v. Albany at July 25
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,672 Claims Pending v. Brandon at July 25

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Facing Mt. Vernon Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nevamar Company Still Facing Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Catalyst Paper Has $2.6M Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $40.5M Adjustments at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolcott Action v. 9 Companies Filed in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Howard's Lawsuit v. 60 Firms Filed in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lindsay Estate Sues 75 Firms in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davis' Action Filed v. 25 Companies in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Sues 73 Companies in Madison County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenant Files Suit v. Hudson Hotel in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund for Indirect Exposure Cases Opens Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Subject to Product Liability Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald's Ruling on Grace Action Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARD Predicts Cancer Epidemic in Libby
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Seeks Assistance on ZAI Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leave to File Longo's Expert Report Sought
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Urged to Appoint ASARCO Committee

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors Seek ASARCO Stipulation Approval
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Chesterton, 45 Others Filed in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reed's Action v. 60 Firms Filed in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kruemmelbein Case v. 74 Firms Filed in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MacDougall Pursuing Suit v. MoD for Injury

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. AG Settles w/ Sears on CAA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Teacher Penalized for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.4B Settlement Considered for ASARCO Plan
ASBESTOS ALERT: McJunkin Facing Suits w/ 826 Plaintiffs at June



                           *********


CERVELO SA: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Cervelo SA, of Switzerland, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,800
Wolf SL Carbon Fiber Bicycle Forks.

The company said the forks steerer can break during normal use,
causing the rider to lose control, fall and suffer serious
injuries.

Cervelo has received 12 reports of forks cracking or breaking,
resulting in one consumer suffering a broken wrist and another
suffering minor abrasions.

The recalled forks have a clear coating over black painted
carbon fiber, with the words "Wolf Superlite" and related logo
just below the crown on each fork leg, and the letters "SL" on
each leg above the fork blade dropouts.  There is a True Temper
CRT logo on the inside of both fork legs.  The recalled forks
could have been included on the following bicycle models: R3, R3
SL, Soloist Carbon, Soloist Carbon SL, and certain P3 Carbon
framesets and complete bicycles.

These recalled bicycle forks were manufactured by True Temper
Composite Material Products Co. Ltd, of Guangzhou, China and
were being sold by independent bicycle retailers nationwide from
November 2005 through July 2007 for about $475.

A picture of the recalled bicyle forks can be viewed at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08368.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using bicycles
equipped with the recalled forks and contact their authorized
Cervelo dealer to have a free replacement fork installed.

For additional information, contact Cervelo toll-free at
866-296-3137 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cervelo.com/WolfSLRecall


FINANCIAL SERVICES: Groups Prey on Seniors, Michigan Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the
County of Macomb, State of Michigan, alleges that under the
guise of offering estate planning and tax advice, Financial
Services of America and the Area Seniors Adult Retirement
Education Association "prey upon senior citizens" to
"fraudulently convert their retirement assets" in a boiler-room
"solicitation scam," CourtHouse News Service reports.

Also named as defendants in the complaint are:

     -- America's Professional Services Association,
     -- America's Professional Services Financial,
     -- America's Professional Services of Michigan,
     -- Adult Retirement Education Association Area, and
     -- America's Professional Services.

"This case concerns an industry specifically designed to exploit
and prey upon senior citizens and/or retirees in order to
fraudulently convert their retirement assets into unsuitable
financial products under the guise of offering free tax and
estate planning services," the complaint states.

Individual defendants include Richard David James, president and
CEO of Financial Services of America, and Mark Kersten, a
principal of FSA.  Mr. James, Mr. Kersten and FSA "were
authorized agents and/or representative of Allianz Life
Insurance Company of North American and North American Company
for Life and Health Insurance with regard to the purchase and/or
sale of insurance contracts and/or annuity agreements," the
complaint states.

"As part of the scam individuals were told that AREA (k/n/a/
APSA) was a nonprofit organization offering 'free tax and estate
planning services' to its participating members.  In reality,
AREA -- which encompasses at least one entity organized as a
for-profit corporation -- is nothing more than a boiler room
telephone solicitation outfit for FSA," the suit further
relates.

It adds: "FSA encourages their agents to use manipulative and
coercive tactics by rewarding them with unconscionable
commissions which can be triple the normal rates paid on sale of
typical investment products."

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that the action is a proper class action
        pursuant to MCR 3.501, certify plaintiff as a class
        representative, and appoint plaintiff's counsel as class
        counsel;

     -- find that the defendants conspired to engage in conduct
        and activity in violation of Michigan Statutory and
        common law;

     -- award plaintiff and the class their consequential and
        incidental damages;

     -- award plaintiff and the class their compensatory and
        incidental damages;

     -- impose a constructive trust and equitable lien in
        favor of plaintiff and members of the class against all
        money and wrongfully and fraudulently transferred by
        defendants their successors or related entities;

     -- award plaintiff and members of the class attorneys fees
        and costs as provided by law; and

     -- award plaintiff and members of the class such other
        further relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Leslie Stearns, et al. v. Financial Services of
America, Inc. et al, Case No. 08-3639CZ," filed in the Circuit
Court for the County of Macomb, State of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          John T. Hermann, Esq.
          2684 West Eleven Mile Road
          Berkely, MI 48072
          Phone: 248-591-9291


GCI TECHNOLOGIES: Light Modules Recalled Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
GCI Technologies Corp., of Edison, New Jersey, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 7,500 Power Light Modules.

The company said the internal wiring in the module's circuit
boards is incorrectly installed, posing a risk of an electrical
fire and burn hazards to consumers.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves Gemini brand power light modules used in DJ
rack systems.  Models included in this recall are PL-01 and Pl-
02.  The model numbers are printed on the front of the module,
near the power switch.  Models included in this recall have an
ETL logo on the back panel.

These recalled power light modules were manufactured in China
and were being sold by professional audio stores and dealers
nationwide between July 2004 and September 2007 for about $130.

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
power light modules and contact GCI Technologies to request a
repair or replacement.

For more information, contact GCI Technologies toll-free at
866-449-1200 between 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or e-mail: info@gci-technologies.com/  Consumers can
also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.geminidj.com/


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Sued In Nova Scotia Over Diabetes Drug Avandia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Scotia resident Ronald Finck has launched a class action
lawsuit against the federal government and the company
responsible for the popular drug Avandia, which is commonly used
to treat Type 2 diabetes, TheChronicleHerald.ca reports.

According to the report, Mr. Finck's counsel -- Merchant Law
Group -- filed the statement of claim in Nova Scotia Supreme
Court in Halifax.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Glaxosmithkline Inc.,
Glaxosmithkline PLC, Glaxosmithkline Services Unlimited,
Smithkline Beecham Corporation and the Attorney General of
Canada.

In the court document, attorney Wei Wu, of the Merchant Law
Group in Saskatchewan, claims that Avandia -- also known as
rosiglitazone -- raises the risk of heart attack, heart failure
and death in older patients.  Mr. Wu alleges that
Glaxosmithkline knew or should have known that its product,
approved by Health Canada on March 21, 2000, was unsafe for
patients.

Mr. Wu also claims that the defendant negligently and carelessly
over-promoted Avandia as safe and the simplest way to treat Type
2 diabetes.

The report cites the court document as stating that Mr. Finck
was prescribed Avandia between January 2003 and January 2007.
During that time he claims to have suffered tiredness, weakness,
weight gain, vision problems, shortness of breath, angina and
heart problems.  He has since stopped taking the drug but says
he still has difficulty walking and performing routine daily
tasks.

Court documents further note that Avandia is one of the most
widely prescribed drugs in North America and one of the highest
selling drug products in Canada.  In 2006 alone, Avandia sales
in this country topped $150 million.


GOLD FIELDS: Suits Over Lead Exposure Still Pending in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Mining, LLC -- a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corp.
-- and two other companies continue to face two class action
lawsuits brought on behalf of people allegedly exposed to lead
in connection with their past operations near Picher, Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.

The lawsuits are pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The company owns
majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all
the United States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In
addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine,
through a joint venture arrangement.  Most of the production in
the western U.S. is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin.
Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia,
and five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Illinois Peace-of-Mind Suit Removed to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
After Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn expanded a
class action suit against H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., the
company removed the case to federal court as a new action, Steve
Korris writes for St. Clair Record.

H&R Block says that Judge Mendelsohn himself commenced the new
action in an Aug. 5 order that decertified a defendant class and
redefined three plaintiff classes.

The report cites that in an Aug. 18 removal notice, Jason
Rankin, Esq., of Edwardsville wrote that Judge Mendelsohn's
order added new claims against H&R Block and expanded its
potential liability.  Mr. Rankin wrote that the order would
include independent franchise holders who own and operate 1,594
tax offices.

A day after removing the suit to U.S. District Court in East St.
Louis, Mr. Rankin moved to vacate Judge Mendelsohn's order, the
report says.

St. Clair Record recounts that The Lakin law firm filed the suit
for Lorie Marshall, alleging that H&R Block and its affiliates
sold "peace of mind" warranties that customers did not need.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 7, 2008, the
purported class action suit is captioned "Lorie J. Marshall, et
al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004," filed in the Circuit Court of Madison
County, Illinois.  The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and was
granted class-action status on Aug. 27, 2003.

According to the CAR report, the plaintiff's claims consist
of five counts relating to the POM Program under which the
applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability
for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.  The plaintiff alleges that the sale of POM
guarantees constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

The CAR reported that the plaintiff classes consist of all
persons who, from Jan. 1, 1997, to final judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.

St. Clair Record recalls that the defendants filed a motion to
decertify the classes and, at a July 9 hearing, defense attorney
Larry Hepler, Esq., of Edwardsville, told Judge Mendelsohn that
both sides agreed that he should decertify the defendant class.

Mr. Hepler said H&R Block paid $192 million to customers with
peace of mind warranties.  He also said individual issues
predominated over common questions.

Dan Cohen, Esq., of the Lakin firm said, "Block is selling a
product to millions of people a year knowing that a few thousand
of those millions will need it." He said that experts could tell
the value of the warranties.

Judge Mendelsohn subsequently asked both sides to prepare
orders, St. Clair Record notes.

Mr. Cohen prepared an order defining H&R Block as the only
defendant and holding it liable for actions of affiliates.  His
order narrowed his reach from 30 states to 13.

The report relates that Judge Mendelsohn adopted Mr. Cohen's
order, triggering removal.

Mr. Rankin wrote, "Plaintiffs previously had not sought to
impose liability against Block Tax Services for the acts of any
or all affiliated entities in separate Peace of Mind
transactions in which Block Tax Services was not involved."  The
Class Action Fairness Act requires removal if a new cause of
action does not relate back to the original cause, he wrote.

"Under Illinois law, where an amendment alleges that a defendant
is liable for the actions of another, and previously the
defendant had been alleged liable for its own actions, there is
no relation back," Mr. Rankin further wrote.

The court assigned the case to District Judge William Stiehl,
but the judge recused himself, St. Clair Record points out.  The
court then assigned it to District Judge Michael Reagan.

On Aug. 20, Paul Weiss, Esq., of Chicago entered the first
appearance for Ms. Marshall, according to the report.


HARTFORD COMPUTER: Court Revives RICO Suit Over Recycled Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit revived a class-
action racketeering lawsuit accusing Hartford Computer Group of
repackaging used cameras and selling them to Wal-Mart as new,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The allegations in this case stem from a commercial lending
agreement originally entered into between RWB Services and a
now-defunct company called Old Argus in 2003.  The suit notes
that the agreement was for the purchase and sale of cameras.
Under the terms of the agreement, Old Argus would secure the
sale of a number of cameras to a particular retailer, in this
case Wal-Mart.  After being notified of the sale, RWB Services
would purchase the needed number of cameras from vendors on Old
Argus' behalf, and Old Argus would then deliver the cameras to
and receive payment from Wal-Mart.  The proceeds from these
sales would go into a bank account held by a special purpose
entity, WIP Marketing, Inc., created for purposes of the lending
arrangement.  RWB Services would then draw down Old Argus' debt
from this account.  To ensure that this would happen, RWB
Services retained a security interest in all of WIP Marketing's
assets including, specifically, the purchased cameras.

RWB Services alleges that Hartford and its managers—defendants
Anthony Graffia Senior and Junior—cooked up a scheme to defraud
Old Argus' former customers.  For any number of reasons,
retailers like Wal-Mart will return cameras to their
distributors; customers may return unwanted but functioning
cameras or there could be something wrong with the camera
itself.

Recently, a three-judge panel overturned the district court's
ruling that RWB Services, the original camera distributor,
failed to show that a "pattern of racketeering activity both
factually and proximately caused an injury."

Judge Flaum said RWB sufficiently pleaded causation under the
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit is "RWB Services, LLC, et al. v. Hartford Computer
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 07 C 1073," on appeal from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge
Ruben Castillo, presiding.


HOBBICO INC: Recalls RC-Helicopter Batteries Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hobbico Inc., of Champaign, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 11,000
Batteries Used In Radio-Controlled Helicopter Kits.

The company said the rechargeable battery can overheat and catch
fire while charging, igniting nearby combustible materials. This
poses a fire hazard to consumers.

Hobbico has received 28 reports of batteries overheating and/or
melting, including 27 reports of flames and minor property
damage.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Electrifly lithium-polymer batteries
(part #GPMP0401) sold individually or with the Heli-Max Axe CP-L
radio-controlled helicopter kits.  The kit includes a 23-inch
long plastic helicopter, a battery, a radio transmitter, a
balance charger, a car adapter, an AC wall adapter, decals that
read "HMX", "AXE" and "Heli-Max" and training gear.
"Electrifly" and "GPMP0401" are printed on the battery.

These recalled batteries were manufactured in China and were
being sold at hobby Stores nationwide and online from November
2007 through March 2008 for about $35.  The helicopter kits were
sold for $200.

Pictures of the recalled batteries are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08364a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08364b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
batteries and contact Hobbico for instructions on returning
their battery for a free replacement battery.

For more information, contact Hobbico toll-free at 866-462-2426
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit
the company's recall Web sites at http://www.helimaxrc.com/and
http://www.electrifly.com/to register for the recall.


KADANT INC: Wants Mass. Suit Over Defective Products Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class-
action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative
class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing
products manufactured by its discontinued operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a
consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph
Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-
JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company on
Jan. 7, 2008.  Other defendants named in the suit are Kadant
Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc.

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages under various state consumer protection
statutes.  The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million.

On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filed
motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint.  This dimissal
motion is currently pending.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Fisher, et al. v. Liberty Diversified Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph
L. Tauro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 610-891-9880
          Fax: 610-891-9883

               - and -

          Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes LLP
          30th Floor, 100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

Representing the defendants are:

          John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9100
          Fax: 617-526-5000

               - and -

          Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English, LLP
          225 Franklin street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-7018
          Fax: 617-204-8018


KNOT INC: Florida Court Dismisses FACTA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed a putative amended class-action complaint, entitled
"Haslam v. Macy's, Inc., The Knot, Inc., WeddingChannel.com,
Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 07-cv-61871-DMM," which named The
Knot, Inc., as a defendant.

The complaint, filed on Feb. 22, 2008, alleges that the
defendants provided customers with electronically printed
receipts for credit card and debit card point of sale
transactions that contained more than the last five digits of
the customer's card number and the card's expiration date in
violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act.

The suit does not specify any actual damages for any member of
the purported class.  However, it does seek statutory damages,
which range from $100 to $1,000 for each proven alleged willful
violation of the statute, as well as attorneys' fees and costs,
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and a permanent
injunction.

Macy's, The Knot and WeddingChannel filed motions to dismiss the
case.  On May 16, 2008, an order was entered in their favor and
the complaint was dismissed by the Court with prejudice,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Haslam v. Macy's, Inc., The Knot, Inc.,
WeddingChannel.com, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No. 07-cv-61871-
DMM," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen Richard Astley, Esq. (sastley@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants are:

          Kathy-Ann Webb Marlin, Esq. (kmarlin@bilzin.com)
          Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131-2336
          Phone: 305-350-7229
          Fax: 305-351-2190

          Bradley D. Redlien, Esq. (bredlien@shutts-law.com)
          Shutts & Bowen
          201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 1500 Miami Center
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-358-6300
          Fax: 305-347-7718

          David M. Zensky, Esq. (dzensky@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          590 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-872-1000
          Fax: 212-872-1002


LEAP WIRELESS: Securities Fraud Lawsuits Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current
and former officers and directors continue to face several
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suits were filed between November 2007 and February 2008
purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common
stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007.

The company's independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these
lawsuits.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making false and misleading statements about the company's
business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007
announcement of its financial restatement.  Some of the lawsuits
also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's
Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release.

The class action complaints seek determinations that the suits
are proper class actions.  They also seek unspecified damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs and the
defendants' responsive pleadings to the consolidated complaint
were due on Aug. 21, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited
Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


MAPLE LEAF: Faces Lawsuit Over Recalled Contaminated Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Falconer Charney LLP and Sutts Strosberg LLP filed a national
class action on behalf of Cezanne Bilodeau, who is claiming
$100 million in compensation for all consumers who purchased or
who consumed food products on the Maple Leaf Foods recall list.

Maple Leaf Foods has announced a massive recall of 243 types of
ready to eat meat products supplied to stores, restaurants and
cafeterias.  These products have been recalled because of
concerns of a link between the products and an outbreak of
listeriosis.

Listeriosis is an illness caused by exposure to the Listeria
monocytogenes bacteria.  Symptoms of listeriosis include flu-
like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, headache,
constipation and persistent fever.  Symptoms usually appear
within 2 to 30 days and up to 70 days after consuming
contaminated food.  The very young, the elderly or those with
compromised immune systems are the most susceptible.

Consumers may be entitled to compensation for experiencing
physical injuries; experiencing emotional injury, including fear
that one or more family members who consumed a product on the
recall list might ultimately develop listeriosis; medical
expenses, loss of employment or business income; and a refund
for the cost of purchasing the product.

Consumers who have ingested the product should seek medical
attention and have a blood test to determine whether they have
contracted listeriosis.  Consumers should not throw out or
return any contaminated products.

Consumers should keep all contaminated products as evidence and
store them in a freezer.  Consumers should retain all receipts
and keep a record of when and where they purchased the products.

Details regarding the Maple Leaf Class Action Lawsuit is
available online at http://www.mapleleaffoodsclassaction.com/


MISSOURI COMPANIES: Brain Tumors Prompt Cameron Town Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed on behalf of residents of
Cameron, Mo., allege an area plant caused a sudden outbreak of
brain tumors among residents.

Grant L. Davis, Esq., alleged in the lawsuits filed against
unnamed companies that arsenic and lead found at the Rockwood
Industries plant were likely to blame for the growing number of
brain tumor diagnoses among the town's citizens, KMBC-TV in
Kansas City, Mo., reported Wednesday.

"The people who are responsible for illegally dumping these
materials, they need to come forward and do medical monitoring
and help," Mr. Davis said.

While the Environmental Protection Agency is conducting tests of
area water supplies and other sites, experts have yet to prove
that the elements found at the plant are responsible for the
brain tumors.

KMBC-TV said the lawsuits, which target those controlling all
area sites where similar chemicals have been found, include one
for property damage as Davis alleges Cameron residents' property
was negatively affected by the industrial developments.

Cameron is in northeastern Missouri about 30 miles east of St.
Joseph, Mo.


MOLEX: Electrical Wire Splices Recalled Due to Shock, Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molex, of Lisle, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 53,000 Electrical
Wire Splices (also known as Butt Splice Connectors).

The company said the splice can fail to hold the wires
adequately together, posing a shock and fire hazard to
consumers.

Gardner Bender has received one report of a recalled butt splice
failing to hold wires together.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled butt splices are used to connect electrical wires
to one another.  They are typically used for wiring small
electrical appliances, like audio equipment, or in automotive
applications.  The splices are yellow insulated vinyl and
measure about one inch long and one inch wide.  They were
intended for use with 12-10 AWG wire.  "12-10" is stamped on the
side of the splices.  Model numbers "10-126," or "21-126," and
Gardner Bender are printed on the product's packaging.  They
were sold in packages of 8 or 50.

These recalled electrical wire splices were manufactured in the
United States and were being sold at electrical distributors,
hardware stores, and home centers nationwide from June 2005
through April 2008 for between $1 and $5.

Pictures of the recalled electrical wire splices can be viewed
at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08367a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08367b.jpg

Consumers should immediately stop using products that contain
the recalled butt splices and contact the firm for free
replacement splices.

For additional information, contact Gardner Bender at
800-624-4320 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gardnerbender.com/


NEW JERSEY: Transportation Dept. Unfairly Denies Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Mercer County, claims that the New Jersey Department of
Transportation unfairly denies overtime to workers "who are
disabled and/or who are on light duty," CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Raymond Tipton claims that as a consequence, he
and other members of the class have been caused to suffer non-
economic pain and suffering, attorneys' fees, and other losses
cognizable under the New Jersey Laws against Discrimination.

The plaintiff demands judgment on behalf of the class together
with non-economic compensatory damages, for paid and suffering,
equitable back pay, equitable front pay, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, interest, costs of
suit and an equitable order directing the state to immediately
cease and assist from continuing to enforce this policy, and
requiring that the state offer overtime based upon other non-
discriminatory criteria.

The suit is "Raymond Tipton, et al. v. The New Jersey State
Department of Transportation, et al., Docket No. MER-L-2037-08,"
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kevin M. Costello, PC
          2090 East Route 70
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Phone: 856-751-3737


NORTH SHORE: Reconsideration of Ill. Fees Suit Dismissal Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion seeking reconsideration of the dismissal by the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, of a purported class-action
lawsuit against North Shore Gas Co. and several other companies,
which suit accuses them of improperly charging connection and
disconnection fees to several Chicago-based builders, has been
denied, according to North Shore Gas Co.'s Aug. 6, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

In June 2005, a purported class action suit was filed by
Birchwood Builders, LLC, against Peoples Energy Corp. and its
utility subsidiaries, including NSG, before the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, alleging that NSG was fraudulently and
improperly charging fees to customers with respect to utility
connections, disconnections, reconnections, relocations,
extensions of gas service pipes and extensions of distribution
gas mains, and failing to return related customer deposits.

NSG filed two motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  On Jan. 25, 2007,
the judge entered an order dismissing the complaint, but allowed
the plaintiffs the option of filing an amended complaint (except
as to the plaintiffs' seeking of declaratory relief, which was
dismissed with prejudice).

The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could file their claims
directly before the Illinois Commerce Commission.

On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint before the Circuit Court.  NSG responded by filing
another dismissal motion.  This motion was granted on April 16,
2008, and the case was thrown out.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal and this motion was denied on Aug. 4, 2008.  The
plaintiffs, however, are still allowed to appeal the order and
may still file individual complaints with the ICC.

North Shore Gas Co. -- http://www.peoplesenergy.com/--
purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports natural
gas.  The natural gas utility segment is NSG's core business.
The company purchases, stores, distributes, sells and transports
natural gas to approximately 158,000 customers through an
approximately 2,000-mile, distribution-mains system serving 54
communities in northeastern Illinois, representing a service
area of approximately 275 square miles.  The customer base
includes residential, commercial and industrial sales and
transportation accounts.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Cheated Annuityholders, Wisconsin Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Circuit of the State of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee County, alleging it cheated annuity-holders of
millions of dollars in dividends in a "long-running,
sophisticated, and ongoing scheme," CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This case arises from a long-running, sophisticated, and ongoing
scheme by Northwestern to quietly, deliberately and repeatedly
cheat owners of certain Northwestern annuities out of millions
of dollars in dividends to which they were and are clearly
entitled under the explicit, unambiguous provisions of both the
annuity contract language and controlling Wisconsin state law.

Instead of paying true dividends, Northwestern doles out "earned
on an account limited to some short-term bonds exclusively and
secretly chosen by Northwestern," the class claims.

"To initiate this scheme, Northwestern unilaterally and
deceptively altered the basis on which it credited the accounts
of Annuitants," the complaint states.  "Ignoring the Annuity
contract's plain requirement to credit the Annuitants' accounts
with a genuine share of the company's divisible surplus as
dividends, Northwestern instead has credited Annuitants with
what it continues to call 'dividends' but in fact is merely the
interest earned on an account limited to some short-term bonds
exclusively and secretly chosen by Northwestern.  Thus, instead
of receiving the contracted-for investment in the growth and
profitability of Northwestern, Annuitants have been unilaterally
relegated to a much less valuable and more limited investment in
some short-term bonds, all without the Annuitants' consent or
even notice."

Named plaintiff Marleen LaPlan brings this action under Wis.
Stats. Section 803.08 on behalf of all persons who purchased an
Annuity prior to March 1985, were residents of the State of
Wisconsin at the time of purchase, and did not expressly
consent, in writing, to limit or surrender their right to fully
participate in Northwestern's divisible surplus during the time
that they owned the Annuities.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether class members became policy holders and owners
         of Northwestern by entering into the Annuity contracts;

     (b) whether Northwestern failed to follow its own internal
         policies and procedures by failing to seek written
         consent for the change in the basis for determining
         dividends;

     (c) whether Northwestern had the unilateral right to
         convert the Annuities into no-dividend annuities;

     (d) how and why Northwestern made this unilateral change;

     (e) what steps were taken to make the change;

     (f) why Northwestern failed to disclose the change to
         owners of the Annuities;

     (g) why Northwestern failed to seek the Annuity Owners'
         agreement to the change;

     (h) on what authority Northwestern claims to have the right
         to make the change unilaterally;

     (i) whether the account statements and othe class wide
         notices provided to Annuitants adequately disclosed the
         change in the basis for determining dividends;

     (j) whether declaratory relief requested is appropriate;

     (k) whether the terms of the annuity contract are
         unambiguous;

     (l) whether Northwestern and its officers and trustees owed
         class members fiduciary duty as a result of entering
         into the Annuity contracts or by virtue of the duties
         imposed upon Northwestern by Wisconsin state law;

     (m) whether the Wisconsin State Statutes that govern the
         conduct at issue in this case are unambiguous; and

     (n) whether Northwestern is vicariously liable for the
         conduct of its officers and trustees in the performance
         of their duties to the class as alleged.

The plaintiff asks the court to certify the class as proposed
and to enter an order under Wis. Stats. Section 806.04 declaring
that:

     -- Wisconsin law governs the interpretation and enforcement
        of class members' Annuity contracts with Northwestern;

     -- Wis. Stats. Section 632.62 is unambiguous with respect
        to Northwestern's obligation to determine, allocate, and
        pay the annual divisible surplus to Northwestern policy
        holders;

     -- the Annuitants became policy holders and owners of
        Northwestern by entering into the Annuity contracts with
        Northwestern;

     -- the Annuity contracts between Northwestern and class
        members are unambiguous with respect to Northwestern's
        obligation to determine and credit class members with a
        genuine share of the company's annual divisible surplus;

     -- the Annuity contracts between Northwestern and class
        members, by their unambiguous terms, entitle class
        members to receive dividends genuinely based on the
        company's annual divisible surplus during the period in
        which they own or owned the Annuities;

     -- the Northwestern owes members of the class a fiduciary
        duty pursuant to the terms of the Annuity contracts and
        under Wisconsin law;

     -- Northwestern's conduct as alleged demonstrates an intent
        to act in its own self-interest, not in the interests of
        Annuitants;

     -- Northwestern is liable for the conduct of its officers
        and trustees as alleged;

     -- by basing the class' so-called dividends on the interest
        earned on a short-term bond account, Northwestern failed
        to determine, allocate, and credit to class members
        their proper and equitable share of the company's
        divisible surplus in accordance with the unambiguous
        provisions of the Annuity contracts and Wisconsin state
        law;

     -- Northwestern's conduct as alleged in the complaint was
        intended to deceive class members concerning the true
        method by which defendants determined dividends and to
        conceal the adverse economic effects to class members
        resulting from Northwestern's failure to pay class
        members their share of the divisible surplus; and

     -- by its conduct alleged, Northwestern acted in an
        intentional disregard of the righst of the class.

The suit is "Marleen M. LaPlant, et al. v. The Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 08CV011988," filed in
the Circuit of the State of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County.

For more information, contact:

          George P. Kersten, Esq.
          E. Campion Kersten, Esq.
          Kenan J. Kersten, Esq.
          Kersten & McKinnon, SC
          11518 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 104
          Mequon, WI 53092
          Phone: 262-241-0054
          Fax: 262-241-5935

               - or -

          David Boies III, Esq.
          Timothy D. Battin, Esq.
          Mark J. Schirmer, Esq.
          Strauss & Boies, LLP
          4041 University Drive, Fifth Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: 703-764-8700
          Fax: 703-764-8704


PACWEST BANCORP: Calif. Court Approves "Gilbert" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court gave final approval to a
settlement reached in the matter "Gilbert et al. v. Cohn et al.,
Case No. BC310846," which names PacWest Bancorp, formerly First
Community Bancorp, as a defendant, according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

                       Gilbert Litigation

On June 8, 2004, the company was served with an amended
complaint naming First Community, the predecessor to PacWest
Bancorp, and Pacific Western as defendants in a class-action
lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

A former officer of First Charter Bank, N.A., which the company
acquired in October 2001, was also named as a defendant.  This
former officer left First Charter in May 1997 and later became a
principal of Four Star Financial Services, LLC, an affiliate of
900 Capital Services, Inc.

On April 18, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint, which alleged that the former officer of First
Charter improperly induced several First Charter customers to
invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900 Capital.  The second
amended complaint further alleged that Four Star, 900 Capital,
and some of their affiliated entities perpetuated a fraud upon
investors through various accounts at First Charter and Pacific
Western with those banks' purported knowing participation in and
willful ignorance of the scheme.

The key allegations in the second amended complaint dated back
to the mid-1990s and it alleged several counts for relief
including aiding and abetting, conspiracy, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, relief pursuant to the California Business and
Professions Code, negligence and relief under the California
Securities Act stemming from an alleged fraudulent scheme and
sale of securities issued by 900 Capital and Four Star.

The suit said in disclosures provided to the parties that the
named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess of
$3.85 million, and the plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to
the class total many tens of millions of dollars."

On June 15, 2005, the company filed a demurrer to the second
amended complaint, and in August 2005, the Court sustained the
company's demurrer as to each of the counts, granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend on four of the six counts, and
dismissed the other counts outright.

On Aug. 12, 2005, the company was notified by Progressive
Casualty Insurance Co., its primary insurance carrier with
respect to the Gilbert Litigation, that based on the allegations
in the second amended complaint, there was no coverage with
respect to the Gilbert Litigation under the company's insurance
policy with Progressive.  Progressive also notified the company
that it was withdrawing its agreement to fund defense costs for
the Gilbert Litigation and reserving its right to seek
reimbursement from the company for any defense costs advanced
pursuant to the insurance policy.

Through Dec. 31, 2005, Progressive had advanced to the company
approximately $690,000 of defense costs with respect to the
Gilbert Litigation.

                     Progressive Litigation

On Aug. 12, 2005, Progressive filed a complaint in federal
district court for declaratory relief.  The suit is captioned
"Progressive Casualty Insurance company, etc., v. First
Community Bancorp, etc., et al., Case No. 05-5900 SVW (MAWx),"
seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the parties'
rights and obligations under Progressive's policy with the
company.  On Oct. 11, 2005, the company filed in federal court a
motion to dismiss or stay the Progressive Litigation.

                           Settlement

In November 2005, along with certain other defendants, the
company reached an agreement in principle with respect to the
Gilbert Litigation.

That agreement is reflected in a written Stipulation of
Settlement dated Feb. 9, 2007, which was executed by all the
parties to that settlement and filed with the Court.

At a hearing on June 23, 2008, the Los Angeles Superior Court
approved the settlement, and subsequently executed the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal regarding the claims against the
company and First Charter's former officer.

PacWest Bancorp -- http://www.firstcommunitybancorp.com/--
formerly First Community Bancorp, serves as the holding company
for its sole banking subsidiary, Pacific Western Bank.  The Bank
is a full-service community bank offering a range of banking
products and services through 60 branch offices located in Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego
Counties, California.  It accepts time and demand deposits,
funds loans including real estate, construction, small business
administration (SBA) and commercial loans, and offers other
business oriented banking products.  The operations are
primarily located in Southern California and the Bank focuses on
conducting business with small- to medium-size businesses and
the owners and employees of those businesses in the marketplace.
The company also operates in Arizona, Northern California, the
Pacific Northwest and Texas through its asset-based lending
division doing business as First Community Financial, BFI
Business Finance and SBA loan production offices.


PEOPLES ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification in "Alport"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against
Peoples Energy Corp. over alleged violations of the state's
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in relation
to matters at issue in the company's gas reconciliation
proceedings, are seeking certification of a class in the matter.

The suit was filed in February 2004 in Cook County Circuit Court
against Peoples Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries -- North Shore
Gas Co. and Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co.  The named plaintiff
in the suit is Stephen Alport, a Peoples Gas customer.

The suit, captioned "Alport, et al. v. Peoples Energy Corp.,"
alleges, among other things, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to matters at
issue in Peoples Gas' fiscal year 2001 gas charge reconciliation
proceedings.  It seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.

NSG and PGL have already been dismissed as defendants and the
only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by PEC and
that PEC acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.

On July 30, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, according to North Shore Gas Co.'s Aug. 6, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Peoples Energy Corp. -- http://www.peoplesenergy.com/-- is a
holding company and does not engage directly in any business of
its own, but does provide administrative services that support
the business activities of its subsidiaries.  Income is derived
principally from the company's regulated utility subsidiaries,
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., and North Shore Gas Co.  Peoples
Gas has approximately 815,000 residential, commercial and
industrial retail sales and transportation customers in Chicago.
Peoples Energy also derives income from its other subsidiaries,
Peoples Energy Resources Co., LLC, Peoples Energy Services
Corp., and Peoples Energy Production Co.


QUIGLEY CORP: Pa. Court Sets Oct. 24 Trial for Cold-Eeze(R) Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
scheduled an Oct. 24, 2008 jury trial for a nationwide consumer
fraud class-action suit filed against Quigley Corp., according
to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In September 2000, Georgia residents Jason Tesauro and Elizabeth
Eley filed the suit on behalf of a nationwide class of
"similarly situated individuals," alleging that they purchased
certain Cold-Eeze(R) products between August 1996 and November
1999 based on cable television, radio and Internet
advertisements that allegedly misrepresented the qualities and
benefits of the company's products.

The complaint, entitled "Tesauro and Eley, et al. vs. The
Quigley Corporation (CCP of Phila., August Term 2000, No.
001011)," requests an unspecified amount of damages for
violations of Pennsylvania's consumer protection law, breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment, as well as a judicial
determination that the suit be maintained as a class action.

In October 2000, the company filed preliminary objections to the
complaint and sought dismissal of the action.  The court
sustained certain objections thus narrowing the plaintiffs'
complaint.

In May 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
alleged class.  The company opposed this motion.

In November 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class based on plaintiffs' claim under the
Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law, however the court
certified the class based on plaintiffs' breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment claims.

In August 2002, the court issued an order adopting a form of
notice of class action to be published nationally.  The form of
notice approved by the court included a provision that limits
the class members who may potentially recover damages to those
persons who present a proof of purchase of Cold-Eeze during the
period from August 1996 to November 1999.

Afterward, a series of pre-trial motions were filed raising
issues concerning trial evidence and the court's jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action.  In March 2005, the court
held oral argument on these motions.

On Nov. 8, 2006, the court entered an order dismissing the case
in its entirety on the basis that the action was pre-empted by
federal law.

The plaintiffs appealed the court's decision in December 2006 to
the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  On
Feb. 19, 2008, the Superior Court upheld the appeal and remanded
the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas for
trial.

The company has decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania.

On June 13, 2008, the court held a pre-trial scheduling
conference during which the court discussed the status of
several unresolved pre-trial motions that will bear upon the
evidence allowed at trial.   At the end of the conference, the
court scheduled the case for a jury trial beginning Oct. 24,
2008.  The court also requested additional briefing on certain
evidence issues and allowed for limited additional discovery of
witnesses.

Quigley Corp. -- http://www.quigleyco.com/-- is a manufacturer,
marketer and distributor of a diversified range of homeopathic
and health products, which comprise the Cold Remedy, Health and
Wellness and Contract Manufacturing segments.  The company is
also involved in the research and development of potential
prescription products, which comprise the Ethical Pharmaceutical
segment.  Cold-Eeze is one of the company's key cold remedy
over-the-counter products whose benefits are derived from its
zinc formulation.  Quigley's business is the development,
manufacture, sale and distribution of over the counter (OTC)
cold remedy products, health and wellness products through its
direct selling subsidiary and the research and development of
natural-source derived pharmaceuticals.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Gatz" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in the purported derivative
and class-action suit entitled "Gatz et al. v. Ponsoldt, Sr., et
al., C.A. No. 174-N," which names Regency Affiliates, Inc., as a
defendant, according to Regency's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-KSB
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed in the New Castle County Court of Chancery in
Delaware on Jan. 20, 2004, by two dissident Regency Affiliates
shareholders -- Edward E. Gatz and Donald D. Graham -- against
current and former directors of the company, Royalty Holdings
LLC and certain of its affiliates, Statesman Group Inc., and,
nominally, the company.

The complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties by
the former directors and Statesman, as well as alleged that
Royalty and its affiliates knowingly participated in certain of
the alleged breaches.

In November 2004, the court dismissed all but one claim asserted
in the complaint.  The company was not a defendant with respect
to the sole surviving claim, which related to the 2001 sale of a
cache of previously quarried and piled aggregate rock by
National Resource Development Corp. to Iron Mountain Resources,
Inc.

On Oct. 16, 2005, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' sole
remaining claim for failure to state a claim for relief.  The
dismissal was without prejudice and the plaintiffs were given
leave to file an amended complaint attacking the Aggregate Sale.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
challenging the Aggregate Sale and alleging that the Aggregate
Sale negatively impacted the consideration the company received
in connection with the October 2002 restructuring transactions.
The plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $5,400,000 with
respect to the claim related to the Aggregate Sale.

On May 16, 2006, the court dismissed the sole remaining
complaint alleged in the complaint determining that it was
derivative in nature and could therefore not be maintained by
the plaintiffs.

On June 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal
appealing the court's rulings.

In its April 16, 2007 decision, citing an intervening legal
development in the area of direct and derivative claims arising
while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware reversed the Court's decision and remanded the case to
the Court for further proceedings.

On April 28, 2008 the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the
class-action suit.  If the settlement is consummated, the
company will pay $3,000,000 plus interest (as provided in the
MOU) to the plaintiff class.

The plaintiff class is defined in the MOU as all record and
beneficial owners of the company's common stock on Oct. 17,
2002, including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under any of
them, and each of them.  The plaintiff class does not include
the defendants, members of their families, affiliates of the
defendants, and those individuals or entities who solely held
securities convertible into Regency common stock or options to
purchase Regency common stock.

The company will make that payment pursuant to its obligation to
indemnify the defendants who are former directors of the
company.

The MOU also provides that the company will undertake an
appropriate process to determine if indemnification of its
former directors is appropriate under Delaware law.  It also
expressly provides that the defendants admit no wrongdoing but
have agreed to the MOU to eliminate the uncertainty,
distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.

The settlement will not occur if the company determines that no
such indemnification is appropriate or the Court of Chancery
refuses to approve the settlement.  There can be no assurance
that the settlement will occur.

Regency Affiliates, Inc. -- http://www.regencyaffiliates.com/--
has limited operations through its subsidiaries, Iron Mountain
Resources, Inc., Rustic Crafts, Inc., and National Resource
Development Corp.  Iron Mountain was an inactive entity as of
Aug. 6, 2008.  Rustic Crafts was a manufacturer of decorative
woods, cast marble fireplaces, and other home furnishings.
NRDC's principal asset consists of previously quarried and
stockpiled rock (Aggregate) inventory located at a mine site in
Michigan.  Regency Power Inc., owns a 50% interest in MESC
Capital, LLC.  MESC Capital owns a 100% interest in Mobile
Energy Services, Co., LLC, which owns an onsite energy facility
that supplies steam and electricity to a Kimberly-Clark tissue
mill in Mobile, Alabama.  In addition, the company holds a
limited partnership interest in Security Land and Development
Company Limited Partnership, which owns and operates 34.3 acres
of land and rental property.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Toner Cartridges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey alleging it cheats consumers by selling toner
cartridges with a "smart chip" that tells them the laser
printer's toner cartridge is empty long before it really is,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Angela Knox brings this class action to recover
damages and other relief available at law and in equity on
behalf of all persons or entities located within the United
States who have purchased or leased a Samsung laser printer.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether a significant amount of usable toner
         remains in a Samsung brand toner cartridge (and could
         be used by the consumer but for Samsung's shut down of
         all printing operations) at the point that Samsung has
         represented that the toner cartridge is "empty" and
         must be replaced;

     (b) whether Samsung has failed to disclose to consumers the
         material fact that Samsung laser printers cease all
         printing operations until a purportedly "empty" Samsung
         toner cartridge has been replaced;

     (c) whether or not plaintiff and the members of the class
         have been damaged by the wrongs complained of, and if
         so, the measure of those damages and the nature and
         extent of other relief that should be afforded;

     (d) whether Samsung engaged in unfair, fraudulent, and
         unconscionable conduct; and

     (e) whether Samsung failed to disclose material facts about
         the subject Samsung toner cartridges and printers.

The plaintiff ask the court to:

     -- certify the proposed class and order distribution of
        related notices to be paid by defendant;

     -- adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged in the
        conduct alleged;

     -- order restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of
        action;

     -- order injunction for defendant to cease and desist
        from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and
        fraudulent practices alleged in the complaint;

     -- award compensatory, treble and punitive damages
        according to proof on certain causes of action;

     -- award special damages according to proof on certain
        causes of action;

     -- award both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        allowable rate on any amount awarded;

     -- award costs of the proceedings; and

     -- award reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute.

The suit is "Angela Knox, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., Case No. 3:33-av-0000," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Arnold C. Lakind, Esq.
          Szaferman, Lakind Blumstein & Blader, PC
          Quakerbridge Executive Center
          101 Grovers MIll Road, Suite 200
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Phone: 609-275-0400
          Fax: 609-275-4511


SMURFIT-STONE: Hourly Employees' Suits Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. continues to face two putative
class-action lawsuits filed in California state court on behalf
of current and former hourly employees at the company's
California corrugated container facilities.

These cases allege violations of the California on-duty meal
break and rest period statutes and seek damages prescribed by
such statutes.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. -- http://www.smurfit-stone.com/
-- is an integrated manufacturer of paperboard and paper-based
packaging in North America, including containerboard and
corrugated containers, and is also a paper recycler.  Smurfit-
Stone is a holding company with no business operations of its
own.  Smurfit-Stone conducts its business operations through its
wholly owned subsidiary Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises,
Inc.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for an employment-related lawsuit against
Starbucks Coffee Co. that is on appeal before the California
Court of Appeals, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung, and Donald Brown --
filed the lawsuit on June 30, 2005, in the Orange County
Superior Court in California.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company violated Section 432.8 of the California Labor Code by
asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application
convictions for marijuana-related offenses more than two years
old.  They also seek attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of
all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks
Coffee in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim
damages in excess of $200.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.  Starbucks has appealed the denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the appeal.  No trial date has been set so
far.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items,
coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium
teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through company-
operated retail stores.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Oct. 20, 2008 Trial Slated for "Pendlebury"
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 20, 2008 trial is set for a purported overtime class-
action lawsuit against Starbucks Coffee Co. that claims the
company violated requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.

Two then-current employees of the company filed the lawsuit,
entitled "Sean Pendlebury and Laurel Overton v. Starbucks Coffee
Company, Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2004.

The suit alleges that the company misclassified its retail store
managers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA, and
that each manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation
for any week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during
the three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for
as long as they remain a manager thereafter.

The plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated U.S. current and former store managers of the company.
They also seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 3, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to
additional putative class members under the opt-in procedures in
section 16(b) of the FLSA.

On Jan. 3, 2005, the district court entered an order authorizing
nationwide notice of the lawsuit to all current and former store
managers employed by the company during the three years before
the suit was filed.

A class-wide motion for summary judgment is currently pending
before the District Court.  A tentative trial date has been
scheduled for Oct. 20, 2008.

The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al.,
Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A. Marra,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq. (ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com)
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          Fax: 561-477-7722

Representing the defendant are:

          Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
          (susan.eisenberg@akerman.com)
          Akerman Senterfitt
          Suntrust International Ctr.
          1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Phone: 305-374-5600
          Fax: 305-374-5095

               - and -

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq. (cconway@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-6435
          Fax: 310-552-6746


TARGET CORP: Settles Accessibility for Web Sites Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Federation of the Blind and Target Corp. have
settled a class action lawsuit regarding access to the
Target.com Web site by blind people, the parties announced in a
press release.

The NFB originally filed the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior
Court, claiming that the giant retail chain discriminates since
its Web site is inaccessible to blind customers (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2006).

The suit, which sought class action status, was filed on behalf
of all blind Americans who are being denied access to
target.com.  The named plaintiffs are the NFB, the NFB of
California, and Bruce Sexton, Jr., a blind University of
California-Berkeley student.

It charges that Target's Web site -- http://www.target.com/
-- is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil
Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 12, 2006).

The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Marilyn
Hall Patel.

The suit further charges that the Web site's tags are sometimes
misleading or incorrect.  It also charges that sometimes it is
missing entirely.

In its defense, Target argued that the ADA did not apply since
its Web site was not a "place of public accommodation" as
defined by the ADA.

However,  Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California disagreed, pointing out
that the Web site was a "gateway" service provided by the
company's s brick-and- mortar stores, and therefore covered by
the ADA (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 6, 2006).

Judge Hall ruled that commercial Web sites operated by brick-
and-mortar retailers must be accessible to the blind.

As part of the settlement, Target will establish a $6-million
fund from which members of the California settlement class can
make claims.  In addition, the National Federation of the Blind
will certify the Target Web site through its Non-visual
Accessibility Web Certification program once agreed upon
improvements are completed in early 2009.

Target and NFB have agreed to a three-year relationship during
which NFB will perform accessibility testing of the Target Web
site.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the
Blind, said: "Access to Web sites is critical to the full and
equal participation of blind people in all aspects of modern
life.  The National Federation of the Blind is pleased to have
reached a settlement with Target that is good for all blind
consumers, and we recognize that Target has already taken action
to make certain that its Web site is accessible to everyone.  We
look forward to working with Target in the coming months to help
make additional improvements that will enhance the experience of
blind visitors to Target.com.  It is our sincere hope that other
businesses providing goods and services over the Internet will
follow Target's example and take affirmative steps to provide
full access to their Web sites by blind consumers."

Bruce Sexton, Jr.,a named plaintiff in the case from the
beginning,added: "This settlement marks a new chapter in making
Web sites accessible to the blind.  I commend Target for
committing to being a leader in online accessibility."

Steve Eastman, president of Target.com, said: "First and
foremost, Target is committed to serving all our guests.  As our
online business has evolved, we have made significant
enhancements in order to provide an accessible shopping
experience.  We are pleased to have reached an agreement with
the National Federation of the Blind regarding the accessibility
of Target.com for individuals who use assistive technologies and
will work with the NFB on further refinements to our Web site."

More information about the terms of the settlement is found at:
http://www.nfbtargetlawsuit.com/

The suit is "National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target
Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-01802-MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Marilyn H. Patel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mazen Mohammed Basrawi, Esq. (mbasrawi@dralegal.org)
          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. (larryp@dralegal.org)
          Disability Rights Advocates
          2001 Center Street, Third Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: 510-665-8644
          Fax: 510-665-8511

          Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq. (dfg@browngold.com)
          Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP
          120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-962-1030
          Fax: 410-385-0869

               - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq. (jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com)
          Todd M. Schnieder, Esq.
          Schneider & Wallace
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-421-7100
          Fax: 415-421-7105

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael James Bostrom, Esq. (mbostrom@mofo.com)
          David Frank McDowell, Esq. (dmcdowell@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Phone: 213-892-5200
          Fax: 213-892-5454

               - and -

          Robert A. Naeve, Esq. (rnaeve@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          19900 MacArthur Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92612-2445
          Phone: 949-251-7541
          Fax: 949-251-7441


TIME WARNER: Administration of $2.65BB Settlement Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of the $2.65-billion settlement in a lawsuit
captioned "AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities & 'ERISA'
Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 5575" is still ongoing.

During the Summer and Fall of 2002, 30 shareholder class-action
suits were filed in various U.S. District Courts naming as
defendants the company, certain current and former executives of
the company and, in several instances, America Online, Inc.

The complaints purported to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the company and alleged that the company made
material misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs claimed that the company failed to disclose AOL's
declining advertising revenues and that the company and AOL
inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in a series of
transactions.

Certain of the lawsuits also alleged that certain of the
individual defendants and other insiders at the company
improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner stock,
that the company failed to disclose that the January 2001 merger
of America Online (now AOL LLC) and Time Warner Inc., now known
as AOL-Historic TW Merger, was not generating the synergies
anticipated at the time of the announcement of the merger and,
further, that the company inappropriately delayed writing down
more than $50 billion of goodwill.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount in compensatory
damages.

All of these lawsuits were centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under ERISA)
under the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and
'ERISA' Litigation."

The Minnesota State Board of Investment was designated lead
plaintiff for the consolidated securities actions and filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 15, 2003, adding
additional defendants including additional officers and
directors of the company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon Smith
Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC and
JP Morgan Chase & Co.

The plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that
the company made material misrepresentations in its registration
statements and joint proxy statement-prospectus related to the
AOL-Historic TW Merger and in its registration statements
pursuant to which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and
April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11 and Section 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.

                        The Settlement

In July 2005, the company reached an agreement in principle with
MSBI for the settlement of the consolidated securities actions.
The settlement is reflected in a written agreement between the
lead plaintiff and the company.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and certified the
settlement class.

The court issued an order dated April 6, 2006, granting final
approval of the settlement, and the time to appeal that decision
has expired.

In connection with reaching the agreement in principle on the
securities class action, the company established a reserve of
$3 billion during the second quarter of 2005 reflecting the MSBI
settlement and other pending related shareholder and ERISA
litigation.

Pursuant to the MSBI settlement, in October 2005, Time Warner
paid $2.4 billion into a settlement fund for the members of the
class represented in the action, and Ernst & Young LLP paid
$100 million.

Also in connection with the settlement, the $150 million
previously paid by Time Warner into a fund in connection with
the settlement of the investigation by the DOJ was transferred
to the MSBI Settlement Fund.

In addition, the $300 million the company previously paid in
connection with the settlement of its SEC investigation will be
distributed to investors through the MSBI settlement process
pursuant to an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on July 11, 2006.

On Oct. 27, 2006, the court awarded to plaintiffs' counsel fees
in the amount of $147.5 million and reimbursement for expenses
in the amount of $3.4 million, plus interest accrued on such
amounts since Oct. 7, 2005, the date the company paid
$2.4 billion into the MSBI Settlement Fund; these amounts are to
be paid from the MSBI Settlement Fund.

On May 2, 2007, the court entered an order directing an initial
distribution of these funds.  Administration of the MSBI
settlement is ongoing.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Gilardi & Co., Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 808061
          Petaluma, CA 949475-8061
          Phone: 877-800-7852
          e-mail: aoltimewarnersettlement@gilardi.com
          Web site: http://www.aoltimewarnersettlement.com/


TIME WARNER: Appeal Deadline for ERISA Suit Remand Order Expires
----------------------------------------------------------------
The time to appeal an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit that remanded several soon-to-be-settled lawsuits
against Time Warner, Inc., alleging violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, back to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, has expired.

During the Fall of 2002 and Winter of 2003, several putative
class-action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of ERISA in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of current and former participants in the Time Warner
Savings Plan, the Time Warner Thrift Plan and the TWC Savings
Plan.  Collectively, these lawsuits named as defendants the
company, certain of its current and former directors and
officers, and members of the Administrative Committees of the
Plans.

The lawsuits alleged that the company and the other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that the company was experiencing declining advertising revenues
and that the company was inappropriately inflating advertising
revenues through various transactions.

In 2006, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the ERISA matters, and the court granted final approval
of the settlement on Sept. 27, 2006.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the court issued an order approving certain
attorneys' fees and expenses requested by plaintiffs' counsel,
as well as approving certain incentive awards to the lead
plaintiffs.

Two of the lead plaintiffs filed an appeal on Nov. 26, 2007,
challenging the amount of their incentive awards, but the matter
was remanded to the district court upon stipulation of the
parties in January 2008, and resolved by order of the district
court dated April 9, 2008.

The time to appeal that order has expired, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Time Warner, Inc. -- http://www.timewarner.com/-- is a media
and entertainment company that operates in five business
segments: AOL LLC (AOL), consisting principally of interactive
consumer and advertising services; Cable, consisting principally
of cable systems that provide video, high-speed data and voice
services; Filmed Entertainment, consisting principally of
feature film, television and home video production and
distribution; Networks, consisting principally of cable
television networks that provide programming, and Publishing,
consisting principally of magazine publishing.


TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Gives Privacy Suit Deal Interim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
gave preliminary approval to a settlement reached in a purported
nationwide class-action suit, entitled "Parker, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertai, et al., Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," which
alleged violation of subscribers privacy rights by Time Warner
Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable.

The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time
Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleged
that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable
information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy
rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs sought damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which request was denied on Sept. 7, 1999.  In December 1999,
the company filed a motion to deny class certification, and this
motion was granted by the court with respect to monetary
damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification
as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings
on class certification and other matters.

In May 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which motion Time Warner Cable has opposed.

On October 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement arrangement, but final approval of that
settlement was later denied.

The parties subsequently reached a revised settlement to resolve
this action on terms that are not material to the company and
submitted their agreement to the district court on April 2,
2008.

On May 8, 2008, the district court granted preliminary approval
of the revised settlement, but it is still subject to final
approval by the district court, according to the company's
Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al.,
Case No. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge I. Leo
Glasser, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael G. Lenett, Esq.
         Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
         507 C Street, N.E.
         Washington, District of Columbia  20002
         Phone: 202-789-3960
         Fax: 202-789-1813
         Web site: http://www.cuneolaw.com/

              - and -

         Peter Steven Linden, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600

Representing the company are:

         Landis Cox Best, Esq. (lbest@cahill.com)
         Jonathan D. Their, Esq. (jthier@cahill.com)
         Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
         80 Pine Street
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-701-3694
         Fax: 212-269-5420

              - and

         George W. Sampson, Esq.
         Hagens Berman LLP
         1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Fax: 206-623-0594


TIME WARNER: Awaits N.Y. Court Dismissal of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking to dismiss a class action
lawsuit against Time Warner, Inc., alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On Jan. 17, 2002, Community Leader volunteers filed the class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company, America Online Inc. and AOL
Community, Inc.  The plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to
pension, welfare benefits and other employee benefits subject to
ERISA.

In March 2003, the plaintiffs filed and served a second amended
complaint, adding as defendants the company's Administrative
Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee.

On May 19, 2003, the company, America Online and AOL Community
filed a motion to dismiss the case and the Administrative
Committees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Both
of these motions are pending.

The suit is "Hallissey, et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al.,
Case no. 1:02-cv-00423-KTD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Judge Kevin Thomas
Duffy, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lynn Beth Bayard, Esq. (lbayard@paulweiss.com)
          Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq. (lclayton@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3215
          Fax: 212-373-2070

Representing the company is:

          Leon Greenberg, Esq.
          Leon Greenberg, P.C.
          225 Broadway Suite 612
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212-227-4841


TIME WARNER: Seeks Court's Certification of "Brantley" Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc., along with other
defendants in the matter "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," are asking the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to certify
a decision it issued in the case for interlocutory appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company was among the defendants named in the purported
class action, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Sept. 20, 2007.

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Rob Brantley,
       -- Darryn Cooke,
       -- William Costley,
       -- Beverly Costley,
       -- Christina Hills,
       -- Michael B. Kovac,
       -- Michelle Navarrette,
       -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
       -- Joseph Vranich.

The defendants in the case are:

       -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
       -- Viacom Inc.,
       -- The Walt Disney company,
       -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Inc.,
       -- Time Warner Cable Inc.,
       -- Comcast Corp.,
       -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
       -- Cox Communiations, Inc.,
       -- The Directv Group, Inc.,
       -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
       -- Charter Communications, Inc., and
       -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video
programming have entered into agreements with the defendants who
distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributors from reselling channels to subscribers
on an a la carte (or channel-by-channel) basis in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages for the loss of their ability
to pick and choose the specific channels to which they wish to
subscribe, and injunctive relief requiring each distributor
defendant to resell certain channels to its subscribers on an a
la carte basis.

The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
U.S. who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video
service provided by one of the distributor defendants.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the programmer defendants, including the
company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed
motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

On March 10, 2008, the court granted these motions, dismissing
the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.  On March 20,
2008, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
modified certain aspects of the First Amended Complaint in an
attempt to address the deficiencies noted by the court in its
prior dismissal order.

On April 22, 2008, the programmer defendants, including the
company, and the distributor defendants, including TWC, filed
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On June 25, 2008, the court denied these motions.  The
programmer defendants and the distributor defendants filed
motions requesting the court to certify its June 25 order for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


TIME WARNER: "Hallissey" Minimum Wage Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc., continues to face a consolidated lawsuit in
New York, entitled "Hallissey, et al. v. America Online, Inc.,"
filed in connection with AOL Community Leader volunteers that
are purportedly entitled to receive minimum wages, according to
the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

                    Consolidated Litigation

Two former AOL Community Leader volunteers filed the suit on
May 24, 1999, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This lawsuit was brought as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and as a class action under New York state
law against AOL and AOL Community, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that, in serving as Community Leader
volunteers, they were acting as employees rather than volunteers
for purposes of the FLSA and New York state law and are entitled
to minimum wages.

On Dec. 8, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case on the ground that the plaintiffs were volunteers and not
employees covered by the FLSA.  The court denied this motion.

In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion under the FLSA asking
the court to notify former community leaders nationwide about
the lawsuit and allow those community leaders the opportunity to
join the case.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
issue notice, which they did between April and May 2008.

                      Related Litigation

A related case was filed by several of the plaintiffs in
"Hallissey," alleging violations of the retaliation provisions
of the FLSA.

Three related class-action suits have been filed in state courts
in New Jersey, California and Ohio, alleging violations of the
FLSA and the respective state laws.

The New Jersey and Ohio cases were removed to federal court and
subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York for consolidated pretrial
proceedings with "Hallissey."

The California action was remanded to California state court,
and on Jan. 6, 2004, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's
denial of their motion for class certification to the California
Court of Appeals.

On May 26, 2005, a three-justice panel of the California Court
of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's order denying
class certification.  The plaintiffs' petition for review in the
California Supreme Court was denied.  The company has settled
the remaining individual claims in the California action.

The suit is "Hallissey, et al v. America Online, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:99-cv-03785-KTD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq.
          Leon Greenberg
          633 South 4th Street #9
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: 702-383-6085
          Fax: 702-385-1827
          e-mail: wagelaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Michael Shen, Esq. (mshen@employmentlawny-nj.com)
          Michael Shen & Associates, P.C.
          55 West End Avenue, Suite S15L
          New York, NY 10023
          Phone: 212- 227-03000
          Fax: 212-227-2714

Representing the defendants is:

          James Philip Chou, Esq. (jchou@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
          590 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-872-1098
          Fax: 212-407-3298


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 12 Conference Set for Cipro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 12, 2008 status conference was set for several lawsuits
against Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., The Rugby Group, and other
company affiliates in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic used to
treat bacterial infections, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Beginning July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson, Rugby and other company affiliates in various state and
federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state
competition and consumer protection laws.

Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification.  As of March 8, 2006, approximately
42 cases had been filed against the defendants.

Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re:
Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No.
00-1383."

On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted a motion by Watson to dismiss the case and entered
rulings limiting the theories under which the plaintiffs can
seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants.

On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of
plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class
certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the
case.

On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated
action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser
plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS
Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things,
the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005
order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court.  The
defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent
issues are involved in the appeal.  The plaintiffs have opposed
the motion to transfer.  The appellate court has not yet ruled
on the motion or the pending appeal.

Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New
York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin.  The
actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in
unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale
of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic
version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro.

These actions also generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the
actions.  The plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the
dismissal of the New York action.

In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the
appellate court reversed the order of dismissal.  On June 8,
2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.  On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter
pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego, "In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220," the California Court of Appeal granted on
July 21, 2004, in part and denied in part the defendants'
petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial
court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to the California appellate court's ruling, the
majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their
claims as a class.  On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court
granted the parties' joint application to stay the California
case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case.
In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay.  The
court denied the motion to lift the stay, but agreed to consider
the matter again at a status conference.

A status conference was held on May 16, 2008, at which the court
scheduled a further status conference for Dec. 12, 2008.

Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its
affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations
arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by
Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby,
and is currently controlling the defense of these actions.

The consolidated suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Judge David G. Trager, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert S. Schachter, Esq. (rschachter@zsz.com)
          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (jtusa@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969

Representing the company is:

          David E. Everson, Esq. (deverson@stinsonmoheck.com)
          Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C.
          1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-842-8600
          Fax: 816-691-3495


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Settle AWP Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries
are working to settle a consolidated lawsuit alleging improper
or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of
average wholesale prices of certain products, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its
subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, were named defendants in various state and federal
court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting
practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices
and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that
the defendants committed other improper acts in order to
increase prices and market shares.

Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the
caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456."

The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case
alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the
reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans
and programs.

The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of
certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average
wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager
to provide others with such drugs.

The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class
action complaint on April 9, 2004.  The defendants in the
consolidated suit have been divided into two groups.

The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large
group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the
plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs
to maintain a class action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One"
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis.  Classes
were certified against these defendants, a trial has been
completed with respect to some of the claims against this group
of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting
judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and
many of the claims have been settled.

The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered
into a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track
Two Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.  The total
amount of the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is
$125 million.

On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
Dec. 16, 2008.  The amount to be paid by each Track Two
Defendant is confidential.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development,
manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and
generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products.  It operates
through three business segments: Generic, Brand and
Distribution.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

PERINI CORP: Holzer & Fistel Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, filed a shareholder class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Perini Corp. common
stock during the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and Jan. 17, 2008.

The complaint charges Perini and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaint alleges Perini issued false and misleading public
statements and disclosures concerning the Company's financial
condition, including statements about the risks associated with
its CityCenter Project in Las Vegas, Nevada, which caused the
Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Toll-free Telephone: 888-508-6832


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand's Liabilities Total $1.22Bil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.220 billion at June 30, 2008, compared with US$754.9
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries were US$477.9 million at June 30, 2008, compared with
US$249.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. Most of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) and Trane Inc. and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain current and historical products sold by IR-New Jersey
and Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

On June 5, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of 100
percent of the outstanding common shares of Trane Inc. (f/k/a
American Standard Companies Inc.), which provides air
conditioning systems and services.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company increased its
recorded liability for asbestos claims by US$538 million, from
US$217 million to US$755 million.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded an US$89
million increase in its assets for probable asbestos-related
insurance recoveries to US$250 million.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a non-
cash charge to earnings of discontinued operations of US$449
million (US$277 million after tax).

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved about 208,000 claims.
The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company
(excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers
is US$308 million, for an average payment per resolved claim of
US$1,480. The average payment per claim resolved during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$7,491.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through Dec. 31, 2007, Trane has resolved 61,002 claims. Trane
and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of about US$109
million, which represents an average payment per resolved claim
of US$1,786.

During 2007, 3,019 new claims were filed against Trane, 1,826
claims were dismissed and 740 claims were settled. At Dec. 31,
2007, there were 105,023 open claims pending against Trane.

At June 30, 2008, over 90 percent of the open claims against the
Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been
placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of
which have little or no settlement value against the Company,
particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and
judicial treatment of such claims.

During the three months ended June 30, 2008, the total asbestos
settlement and defense costs were US$3.9 million. During the
three months ended June 30, 2007, the total asbestos settlement
and defense costs were US$8.1 million.

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the total asbestos
settlement and defense income was US$700,000. During the six
months ended June 30, 2007, the total settlement and defense
costs were US$20 million.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda Ingersoll-Rand Company
Limited is an innovation and solutions provider. The Company
operates in four business segments: Air Conditioning Systems and
Services, Climate Control Technologies, Industrial Technologies
and Security Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage for NJ Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's subsidiary, Trane Inc. (f/k/a
American Standard Companies Inc.), is still in litigation with
certain carriers whose policies it believes provide coverage for
asbestos claims, in which the case was filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.

On June 5, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of 100
percent of the outstanding common shares of Trane, which
provides air conditioning systems and services.

The insurance carriers named in thie suit are challenging
Trane's right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999
against various primary and lower layer excess insurance
carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims (the "NJ
Litigation").

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos related liabilities from twenty-one primary and lower
layer excess carriers and underwriting syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add 16
additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

During the mediation, the parties agreed to extensions of
discovery deadlines and stays of discovery except for discovery
necessary to facilitate the mediation process. The continued
stay of discovery was confirmed by agreement at the most recent
status conference with the court and mediator, which took place
on Nov. 26, 2007.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation
would resolve the coverage issues with respect to 94 percent of
the recorded receivable.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda Ingersoll-Rand Company
Limited is an innovation and solutions provider. The Company
operates in four business segments: Air Conditioning Systems and
Services, Climate Control Technologies, Industrial Technologies
and Security Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Set Hearing in Quigley Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. says that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York will schedule a confirmation hearing for
Quigley Company, Inc.'s plan of reorganization, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Bankruptcy Court will set the hearing at which it will
consider any objections to the plan's confirmation and determine
whether to approve the plan.

Quigley is a wholly owned Company subsidiary.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy
Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the
Bankruptcy Court, which it later amended, that needs the
approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The amended reorganization plan provides for the establishment
of a trust (the Trust) for the payment of all remaining pending
claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from
exposure to Quigley products.

In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to
solicit its amended reorganization plan for acceptance by
claimants.

According to the official report filed with the court by the
balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite number of votes were
cast in favor of the amended plan of reorganization.

Headquartered in New York, Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets safe and effective medicines. The
Company's revenues are derived from the sale of its products and
through alliance agreements, under which the Company co-promotes
products discovered by other companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $176.9M Interest at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation recorded US$176.9 million as asbestos-
related interest at June 30, 2008, compared with US$158.4
million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the fourth
quarter of 2002, of which US$512.5 million is to be utilized for
a cash payment that the Company is required to make upon the
effectiveness of a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of
W.R. Grace & Co.

The Company did not use cash in any period with respect to this
liability, and the Company cannot predict when it will be
required to make this payment.

While Grace has said publicly that it is optimistic that it will
reach its goal of confirming a plan of reorganization by the end
of this year or early in 2009, the Company does not know whether
or when a final plan of reorganization will become effective or
whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the
Settlement agreement.

The Company expects to fund this payment by using a combination
of accumulated cash and future cash flows from operations and
funds available under its US$500 million senior unsecured multi-
currency credit facility or its accounts receivable
securitization program or a combination of these alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5
percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21,
2002 to the date of payment.

The Company has recorded this accrued interest in asbestos
settlement liability and related accrued interest in its
condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation
manufactures packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business
through two direct wholly owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and
Sealed Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.87B at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's gross allocated and unallocated loss expense
reserves for asbestos exposures were US$2.871 billion for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$2.942 billion for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net allocated and unallocated loss expense
reserves for asbestos exposures were US$1.460 billion for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$1.482 billion for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos and environmental liabilities principally
relate to claims arising from bodily-injury claims related to
asbestos products and remediation costs associated with
hazardous waste sites.

The A&E net loss reserves including allocated and unallocated
loss expense reserves and provision for uncollectible
reinsurance at March 31, 2008, of US$1.836 billion are comprised
of:

     -- US$1.29 billion in reserves held by Brandywine run-off
        companies,

     -- US$210 million of reserves held by Westchester
        Specialty,

     -- US$168 million of reserves held by ACE Bermuda,

     -- US$147 million of reserves held by Insurance – Overseas
        General, and

     -- US$21 million of reserves held by active ACE USA
        companies.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, ACE Limited, through its
various subsidiaries, provides insurance and reinsurance
products to insureds worldwide. The Company operates through the
following business segments: Insurance – North American,
Insurance – Overseas General, Global Reinsurance, and Life
Insurance and Reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Incurs No Amounts for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of June 30, 2008, has not incurred and
does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-
related claims not subject to certain arrangements ("Remaining
Claims"), according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these
contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third
parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related
claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and
does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts
related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Before the 1988 sale,
those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing
friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named as a defendant in various personal
injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to
asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division’s assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement
(Transfer Agreement).

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division (Aerospace) and certain contingent liabilities and the
related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement,
all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related
claims are managed and paid by others.

Headquartered in New York, M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Harland
Clarke business manufactures checks and related products, forms,
treasury supplies and related delivery and fraud-prevention
services. Harland Financial Solutions provides lending and
mortgage origination and servicing applications, business
intelligence solutions, and customer management software for
community banks and credit unions. The Company's Mafco Worldwide
is one of the world's largest makers of licorice extract, used
for flavoring candy and tobacco products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Cites $20.7M Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's asbestos and environmental
reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses includes
US$20.7 million of gross reserves at June 30, 2008, compared
with US$22.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

AIHL is an Alleghany Corporation subsidiary.

AIHL's A&E reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes US$20.6
million of net reserves at June 30, 2008, compared with US$22.7
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

AIHL's A&E reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes US$22.7
million of gross reserves and US$22.6 million of net reserves at
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

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

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

Headquartered in New York, Alleghany Corporation has interests
ranging from property/casualty insurance to real estate. The
Company's operating subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica,
which provides property/casualty, fidelity, and surety
insurance; and Darwin Professional Underwriters (55-percent
owned), which writes specialty property/casualty insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Facing 13T Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of June 30, 2008, said that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
13,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced asbestos lawsuits and
claims involving about 14,000 plaintiffs and claimants. (Class
Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)

The Company is one of a number of defendants in lawsuits filed
in state and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury
(including death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos
fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

The traditional asbestos personal injury lawsuits and claims
relating to production and sale of asbestos material typically
allege various theories of liability, including negligence,
gross negligence and strict liability and seek compensatory and
in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31,
2007, 89 percent of plaintiffs either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim
an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court.

Nine percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of US$15
million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs specifically
plead damages greater than US$15 million but less than US$100
million. Fewer than 1 percent of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages US$100 million or greater but less than US$123 million.

The Company said it believes that as of June 30, 2008, there are
about 1,100 claims against other defendants which are likely to
be asserted some time in the future against the Company. These
claims are not included in the pending "lawsuits and claims"
totals.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical
monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage
claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
June 30, 2008, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
363,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,100.

Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts
payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled
US$29.9 million at June 30, 2008 (US$34 million at Dec. 31,
2007) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of US$3.22
billion through 2007, before insurance recoveries, for its
asbestos-related liability.

Headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
manufactures recyclable glass containers. Established in 1903,
the Company employs more than 24,000 people with 82
manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2007, net sales
were US$7.6 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Cleared in 635 Actions in 1st Half
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc., during the first half of 2008, was dismissed from
over 635 asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company is subject to lawsuits initiated by a significant
number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of
exposure to asbestos. A small percentage of claims have been
asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos
products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company,
one of the Company's subsidiaries.

Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.
A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a variety of
industries. The plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify
the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

The Company may experience an increased number of these claims.

To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved
favorable resolution.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. manufactures
automotive emission control and ride control products and
systems. The Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle
designers and manufacturers and the repair and replacement
markets, or aftermarket. The Company operates 80 manufacturing
facilities worldwide and employs about 21,000 people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 230 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, at June 30, 2008, recorded 230 asbestos
cases for which it was potentially liable and that had not been
settled or dismissed.

The Company had recorded a US$53 million liability at June 30,
2008 related to this matter.

The Company reported 211 asbestos-related cases at March 31,
2008 for which it was potentially liable and that had not been
settled and dismissed. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company LLC on
Feb. 20, 2003, to resolve a dispute over interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in
the agreement.

Commonwealth Edison and Midwest Generation apportion
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations
or Midwest Generation locations. The obligations under this
agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms; under
the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until
February 2009.

Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by
Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability for an
asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense.

Headquartered in Chicago, Midwest Generation, LLC sells
wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent
power producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,470 MW
from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois. The Company
also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site
generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Facing 42T Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 42,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2008,
which is unchanged from the number of claims pending at Dec. 31,
2007, including about 10,000 claims that were settled but
awaiting final documentation and payment.

The Company has accrued US$145 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending and future asbestos personal injury liability
claims at June 30, 2008. The Company's policy before the
adoption of fresh start accounting had been to accrue the
undiscounted low end of the range of projected obligations,
which had resulted in an accrual of US$136 million at Dec. 31,
2007.

Prior to 2006, the Company had reached agreements with some of
its insurers to commute policies covering asbestos personal
injury claims. The Company applies proceeds from insurance
commutations first to reduce any recorded recoverable amount
related to that insurer. Proceeds from commutations in excess of
the Company's estimated recoverable amount for pending and
future claims are recorded as a credit to other income.
Commutation proceeds of US$2 million were credited to other
income in the five months ended June 30, 2008.

At June 30, 2008, the Company had recorded US$73 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending
and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared with US$69 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2007.

In addition, the Company had a net amount receivable from its
insurers and others of US$18 million at June 30, 2008, compared
with US$17 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs
about 35,000 people in 26 countries and operates 113 facilities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Has $10M Receivable at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at June 30, 2008, had a receivable of
US$10 million that it expects to recover from available
insurance and surety bonds relating to Center for Claims
Resolution (CCR) asbestos claims.

At March 31, 2008, the Company had a receivable of US$18 million
that it expects to recover from available insurance and surety
bonds relating to CCR related claims. (Class Action Reporter,
May 30, 2008)

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

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

Through June 30, 2008, the Company had paid US$47 million to
claimants and collected US$37 million with respect to these
claims.

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs
about 35,000 people in 26 countries and operates 113 facilities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Has 54T Pending AO Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation says that, as of June 30, 2008, there were
about 54,000 claimants in pending cases (including asbestos-
related) asserting claims against American Optical Corporation
(AO) in connection with respiratory products.

As of March 31, 2008, there were about 55,000 claimants in
pending cases, including asbestos-related, asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products. (Class
Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

The Company has exposure over a safety respiratory products
business that a subsidiary acquired from AO in an April 1990
asset transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under
the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.

In connection with its acquisition of the business, the
subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion
of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with
amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO
respiratory products used before the 1990 purchase by the Cabot
subsidiary.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis and, more recently,
coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use
of AO respirators that are alleged to have been negligently
designed or labeled.

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period, which is through 2052, and, at
June 30, 2008, is about US$17 million (or US$26 million on an
undiscounted basis).

Cash payments related to this liability were US$1 million for
the three months ended June 30, 2008 and US$2 million for the
nine months ended June 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Boston, Cabot Corporation produces carbon
black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks,
cables, and coatings. The Company also makes fumed metal oxides
like fumed silica and fumed alumina. Other products include
tantalum and specialty fluids for gas and oil drilling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 510 Claims at June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation faces 510 asbestos claims, in which
14 are "malignant" claims and 496 are "non-malignant" claims.

As of March 30, 2008, the Company faced 503 asbestos-related
claims, of which 15 are "malignant" and 488 are "non-malignant."
(Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2008)

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

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

As of June 29, 2008, the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$5.4 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$3.9 million.

This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve of
US$5.4 million and insurance receivable of US$4 million at
March 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation repairs,
maintains, overhauls, and builds government-owned and commercial
vessels. Services range from minor repairs to major overhauls in
dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The United
States government, primarily through the Navy and the Coast
Guard, accounts for more than 60 percent of the Company's
shipyard sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Commercial Facing 74 Hilco Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. is party to 74 asbestos-related claims
from its predecessor, Hilco, Inc., according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of June 30, 2008, there were 75 plaintiffs in asbestos
lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or
products containing asbestos, by Hilco.

Subsequent to June 30, 2008, a voluntary withdrawal of a Notice
of Appeal by Hilco in the Rhodes matter has resulted in 74
remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

Universal Supply Group, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company. On June 25, 1999, Universal acquired substantially all
of the assets of Universal Supply Group, Inc.,including its
name, under the terms of a purchase agreement.

Subsequent to the sale, Universal Supply Group, Inc. (the
selling corporation) formerly known as Universal Engineering
Co., Inc., changed its name to Hilco, Inc. (Predecessor).

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2008, 15 filed actions
in 2007, seven filed actions in 2006, eight filed actions in
2005, 29 filed actions in 2004, 15 filed actions in 2003, and
one filed actions in 2002.

There are 136 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 13 other plaintiffs that have settled as of
June 30, 2008, for a total of US$3,358,500. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

Universal was named by 36 plaintiffs. Of these, 11 filed actions
in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed actions in 2005,
five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action in 2000, and two
filed actions in 1999. Twelve plaintiffs naming Universal have
had their actions dismissed and, of the total US$3,358,500 of
settled actions, two plaintiffs naming Universal have settled
for US$26,500. Following these dismissed and settled actions
there exists 22 plaintiffs that name Universal, as of June 30,
2008.

The Company has been indemnified against asbestos-based claims,
and insurance companies are defending the interests of the
Predecessor and the Company in these cases.

The only material litigation that was brought against Hilco
Predecessor through June 30, 2008 was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith
Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004 in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Number MID-L-
2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 (Settlement) under an agreement reached in
connection with a US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered
on Aug. 5, 2005. The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes
case.

On April 29, 2005, prior to the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a
third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries (Third Party
Complaint) in an action demanding contributor payment in
connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved
successfully for summary judgment.

Hilco filed an appeal as to the dismissal of Hilco's Third Party
Complaint. In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of
Hilco's Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter to the
trial court for further proceedings as to Hilco's claim for
contribution.

On July 31, 2008, the Company was informed that Hilco's Third
Party Complaint was once again dismissed by the trial court on
April 25, 2008. Hilco filed a Notice of Appeal as to that
dismissal. However, Hilco has since voluntarily withdrawn the
Appeal on July 7, 2008. Thus, the Rhodes matter is no longer an
active matter.

The Company's Universal subsidiary has not engaged in the sale
of asbestos products since its formation in 1997. Its product
liability policies for all years since 1998 exclude asbestos
claims.

Headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp.,
through subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group,
and American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers
(mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New
Jersey. The Company provides control system design, custom
fabrication, technical support, training, and consultation
services for engineers and installers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Facing Damage & Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to face property damage and personal
injury lawsuits relating to previously-sold asbestos-containing
products.

As of the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was
a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving
claims for property damage (one of which has since been
dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for
personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors.

The Personal Injury and Property Damage Committees, representing
the interests of property damage and personal injury claimants,
respectively, and the legal representative of future asbestos
claimants (FCR), representing the interests of future personal
injury claimants, have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company's obligations with respect to present and future
claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Faces 460 Damage Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2008, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, 460
asbestos-related property damage claims remain outstanding.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed before the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of
any damages or settlement amounts.

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the Company in
nine cases (excluding cases settled following appeals of
judgments in favor of the Company). Judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases (one of which
is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million. 207 property
damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million; and
16 cases remain outstanding (including the one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic
Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI).

About 4,035 additional property damage claims were filed prior
to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
275 property damage claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$82 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed
as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to
persons and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the
removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The
plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and
that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits (and the U.S. government in
the Montana criminal proceeding) dispute the Company's position
on the safety of ZAI.

On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims. On Dec. 14, 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that,
although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release
asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of
harm from ZAI.

The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion
and order with the District Court in Delaware but that request
was denied. The ZAI claimants have indicated they still intend
to appeal such opinion and order when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for ZAI claims and approved a related
notice program that requires persons with a ZAI claim to submit
individual proofs of claim no later than Oct. 31, 2008.

At the same time as the Debtors' request, the ZAI Claimants
asked the Bankruptcy Court for various forms of relief:

     -- To take such actions as would finalize the December 14
        order and permit an appeal to be taken;

     -- To allow the ZAI claims to return to the state court
        tort system;

     -- To appoint an expert to estimate the number of homes
        containing ZAI; and

     -- To certify a class claim on behalf of Washington state
        residents.

The Bankruptcy Court denied the first three requests and has
taken the motion to certify a class claim under advisement.

The Company's recorded asbestos-related liability at June 30,
2008 assumes the risk of loss from ZAI litigation is not
probable.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Facing Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury
lawsuits, in which claimants allege adverse health effects from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured
by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving 35,720 claims
were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement
amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not
involved) and 55,489 lawsuits involving 163,698 claims were
disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a total of
US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional personal injury claims would have been received
between the Filing Date and June 30, 2008 had such claims not
been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered separate case management orders
for estimating liability for pending and future personal injury
claims and adjudicating pending property damage claims,
excluding Zonolite Attic Insulation claims.

A trial for estimating liability for personal injury claims
began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a
result of the Personal Injury Settlement.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $917Mil Coverage at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2008, there remains
about US$917 million of excess coverage from 54 presently
solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$434 million.

Presently, the Company has no settlement agreements in place
with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess
coverage. In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of
excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which Grace was provided coverage
under the affected policies.

The escrow account balance at June 30, 2008 approximated US$96.2
million, including interest earned on the account. Funds will be
distributed from this account directly to claimants at the
direction of the escrow agent under the terms of a confirmed
plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy
Court.

The settlement agreement provides that unless the Company
confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31, 2008, at the
option of the insurer, exercisable at any time prior to
April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be returned
to the insurer.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $200M Libby Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$200.9 million
(excluding interest) at June 30, 2008, compared with US$270.8
million (excluding) at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, including
the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside
of Libby, was US$276.4 million, excluding interest, at March 31,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

As a result of a 2003 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company
was required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5
million (plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001,
and for all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-
related remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite
mining and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

The Company and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to settle
the EPA's cost recovery claims with respect to the Company's
former Libby operations for a payment by the Company of US$250
million (including the US$54.5 million).

The settlement covers all past and future remediation costs in
the Libby area, except for those relating to the Company-owned
mine. In return, the EPA has agreed to take no action against
the Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site.

In June 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement
agreement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, interest
has accrued on the US$250 million settlement amount since
April 18, 2008.

In June 2008, the Company paid US$100 million of the settlement
amount plus accrued interest of about US$1.6 million. In July
2008, the Company paid the remaining US$150 million, plus about
US$400,000 of accrued interest.

The estimated obligation as of June 2008 includes US$150 million
for the settlement of Libby remediation costs and does not
include the cost to remediate the Libby mine.

The estimated obligation as of Jully 2008 includes US$250
million for the settlement of Libby remediation costs and does
not include the cost to remediate the Libby mine.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $8.5M in 1H08 for Libby Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and seven current and former
senior level employees, over a lawsuit on the Company's former
vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont.,
was US$8.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008,
compared with US$6.3 million for the six months ended June 30,
2007.

Total expense for the Company and the W. R. Grace & Co. and the
employees was US$3 million for the three months ended March 31,
2008, compared with US$2.5 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and the
employees (United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al)
relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and
processing activities in Libby, Mont.

The indictment accuses the defendants of (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice.

The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it
until 1990; vermiculite processing activities continued until
1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from
1976 to 2002.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could
be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax
profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged
loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for
restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after-
tax profits were US$140 million.

In July 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana dismissed a portion of the conspiracy count of a
superseding indictment alleging conspiracy to knowingly endanger
residents of the Libby area and others in violation of the Clean
Air Act.

In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the
defendants to exclude as evidence sample results that included
minerals that do not constitute asbestos under the Clean Air
Act. The Government appealed these and other rulings to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In September 2007, the Ninth Circuit overturned the July 2006
and August 2006 District Court rulings. In December 2007, the
Company's petition for rehearing concerning these rulings was
denied.

The Company appealed the Ninth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme
Court in April 2008 and the appeal was denied in June 2008. The
District Court has scheduled a status hearing for Oct. 24, 2008.
A trial date has not been scheduled.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's
request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees
involved in this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if
it is later determined that the employees did not meet the
standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate
state corporate law.

Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$100.2 million
through June 30, 2008.

For the remainder of 2008, the Company expects legal fees for
this matter to be in the range of about US$8 million to US$10
million per quarter.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeal on Grace Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New Jersey's appeal over the dismissal of an
asbestos lawsuit against W. R. Grace & Co. and two of its former
employees is still pending.

On June 1, 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection sued the Company and the two employees in the
Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County (N.J.
Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.).

The DEP sought civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J.

The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice also
have conducted criminal investigations related to the Company's
former operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not
aware of any recent activity related to those investigations.

The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and
ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the
Company produced spray-on fire protection products and other
vermiculite-based products at this plant. The current property
owners have carried out remediation activities as directed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim
against the Company seeking about US$4.2 million with respect to
the Hamilton plant site. These claims were resolved as part of
the multi-site settlement agreement for a total of about
US$4.1 million.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New
Jersey's motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the
amount of US$31 million. This ruling, which the State of New
Jersey has appealed, does not affect the claims against the
former employees, for which Grace would have an indemnification
obligation.

On April 1, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order directing New Jersey to dismiss its lawsuit against Grace
with prejudice.

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. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Corp. Facing 76 Lawsuits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, as of
June 30, 3008, faced 76 pending asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced 71 pending asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

As of June 30, 2008, the Company noted 366 suits filed, 126
suits settled, and 164 suits dismissed.

The Company, Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public
Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Central
Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company have been
named in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees
of injury from asbestos exposure.

Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 161 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that
were pending as of June 30, 2008, the average number of parties
was 69.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO
plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company. Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc.
subsidiary before the Company's acquisition of IP.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO
generating plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities
associated with asbestos-related claims arising from activities
prior to the transfer. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
which, if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among
various defendants.

From April 1, 2008, through June 30, 2008, nine additional
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP, mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Four
lawsuits were dismissed.

As of June 30, 2008, 10 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims. Ninety percent of cash expenditures in excess
of the amount included in base electric rates are recovered by
IP from a trust fund established by IP and financed with
contributions of US$10 million each by the Company and Dynegy.
At June 30, 2008, the trust fund balance was US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation is a public
utility holding company. The Company's units operate rate-
regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution
businesses, rate-regulated natural gas transmission and
distribution businesses, and non-rate-regulated electric
generation businesses in Missouri and Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18,462 Claims Pending v. Albany at July 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. faced 18,462 asbestos claims as of
July 25, 2008, compared with 18,529 claims as of May 2, 2008,
and 18,789 claims as of Feb. 1, 2008.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally
had a useful life of three to 12 months.

These suits allege various lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company.

As of July 25, 2008, the Company noted 103 new claims and 439
claims dismissed, settled, or resolved. Amounts paid to settle
or resolve claims during the period were US$42,000.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 190 new
claims and 808 claims dismissed, settled, or resolved. Amounts
paid to settle or resolve claims during the period were
US$15,000.

As of July 25, 2008, 12,438 of the claims pending against the
Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, 11,871 are in
federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel (MDL),
either through removal or original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 11,871 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are 888 claims pending against the
Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in
other states. As of July 25, 2008, the remaining 6,024 claims
pending against the Company were pending in states other than
Mississippi.

On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued an administrative order that
required each MDL plaintiff to provide detailed information
regarding the alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The
first set of plaintiffs were required to submit their filings
with the Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for additional
sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until Dec. 1, 2007.

The Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case
and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights.
As of July 25, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 21,962 claims.

The total cost of resolving all claims was US$6,748,000. Of this
amount, US$6,713,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
markets these products to paper mills worldwide through a direct
sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,672 Claims Pending v. Brandon at July 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc. faced 8,672 asbestos claims as of July 25, 2008, compared
with 8,689 claims as of May 2, 2008, and 8,741 claims as of
Feb. 1, 2008.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which in turn is a
subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many
of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a
defendant.

As of July 25, 2008, Brandon noted 10 new claims and 78 claims
dismissed, settled, or resolved. For the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, Brandon noted 88 new claims and 78 claims dismissed,
settled, or resolved.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent,
Abney. It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of July 25, 2008, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,903 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of July 25, 2008, 6,822 (or 79 percent) of the claims pending
against Brandon are pending in Mississippi.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
markets these products to paper mills worldwide through a direct
sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Facing Mt. Vernon Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
In some of the asbestos cases filed against it, Albany
International Corp. is still named both as a direct defendant
and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
before this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon before
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
markets these products to paper mills worldwide through a direct
sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited continues to be subject to litigation and
arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of business,
including litigation generally related to the scope of coverage
with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2008.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited provides claims
administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection
services for firms that acquire and manage domestic and
international reinsurance companies that are in the run-off.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Third-Party Payor Actions were pending against Vector Group
Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, as of June 30, 2008,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Other cigarette manufacturers are also named. The Third-Party
Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for:
funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to
issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking
cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of
cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that
requested damages against cigarette manufacturers in these cases
might be in the billions of dollars.

As of March 31, 2008, one Third-Party Payor Action was pending
against Liggett Group, in which other cigarette manufacturers
were also named. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes
discount cigarettes under brands like Liggett Select, Grand
Prix, Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes
for other companies. The Company also manufactures the QUEST
brand, a line of genetically engineered low-nicotine and
nicotine-free cigarette products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
still face lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim
injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned
facilities.

Some facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors
have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.
owns and operates natural gas distribution systems in six
states. The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nevamar Company Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Nevamar
Company LLC, continues to face asbestos cases filed on behalf of
current and former employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility.

During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers
compensation claims, in which the plaintiffs allege injury in
the course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals.

Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the
Hampton, S.C., facility manufactured asbestos-based products
until 1975.

In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper
Company settled 10 workers' compensation claims related to
alleged asbestos exposure.

Under a 2005 agreement with International Paper, Nevamar's
liability for workers compensation claims related to alleged
exposure to asbestos brought by employees hired before July 1,
2002, is capped at 15 percent of any damages it shares with
International Paper until Nevamar has paid an aggregate of
US$700,000, at which point the Company has no responsibility for
any additional shared damages.

Employees hired by Nevamar after July 1, 2002 and who file
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered
by this indemnity agreement.

As of June 30, 2008, 299 workers' compensation claims have been
filed alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals of which about 195 claimants are current
Nevamar employees. Eight of the 299 claimants were hired by
Nevamar after July 1, 2002.

The Company said it believes these claims are occupational
disease claims and those claims are non-compensable under
current South Carolina law until a claimant can demonstrate a
wage-loss disability.

The Company said it believes that the 195 claimants who are
current employees cannot demonstrate a wage-loss disability and
therefore these claims should be dismissed.

Headquartered in Shelton, Conn., Panolam Industries
International, Inc. designs, manufactures and distributes
decorative overlay products, primarily thermally fused melamine
panels and high-pressure laminate sheets, throughout Canada and
the United States. The Company owns the following companies:
Panolam Industries, Ltd.; Panolam Industries, Inc.; Pioneer
Plastics Corporation; Nevamar Holding Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Catalyst Paper Has $2.6M Cleanup Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Paper Corporation's aggregate contingent liabilities of
US$9.2 million, which have been accrued, includes US$2.6 million
of asbestos removal at the Powell River mill, according to a
Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 18, 2008.

The liabilities also comprise US$3.9 million relating to Port
Alberni asset demolition and US$2.7 million related to long term
landfill rehabilitation.

Company Profile:

     Catalyst Paper Corporation
     2nd Floor, 3600 Lysander Lane
     Richmond, British Columbia
     Canada

Catalyst Paper Corporation produces telephone directory paper,
newsprint, pulp, and specialty papers.  The Company serves
customers in North America and the Pacific Rim.  Other uses for
the Company's products include catalogs, consumer goods
packaging, newspaper inserts, and retail flyers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $40.5M Adjustments for 1Q09
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. recorded asbestos adjustments of
US$40.5 million for the first quarter of fiscal year 2009,
compared with US$30.1 million for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2008.

As of June 30, 2008, under current liabilities, the Company's
asbestos liability was US$82.5 million and its asbestos workers'
compensation liability was US$7.2 million.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company's long-term asbestos liability
was US$1.543 billion and its long-term liability for workers'
compensation was US$82.4 million.

Under current assets, as of June 30, 2008, the Company's
asbestos insurance receivable was US$14.7 million, its asbestos
workers' compensation was US$7.2 million, and its deferred
income taxes were US$9.1 million.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable was US$198.7 million, its long-term asbestos workers'
compensation was US$82.4 million, and its long-term asbestos-
related deferred income taxes were US$47.6 million.

For the first quarter, net operating profit including asbestos
was US$1.4 million, compared to US$39.1 million for the same
quarter last year.

EBIT including asbestos decreased 69 percent from US$75 million
to US$22.9 million.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create
products for residential and commercial construction, including
siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and
roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolcott Action v. 9 Companies Filed in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devere Wolcott, Jr., of Davison, Mich., on Aug. 20, 2008, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against nine defendant corporations
in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

Mr. Wolcott claims he was diagnosed with cancer on March 18,
2008.

According to Mr. Wolcott, from 1952 to 1956, he was a laborer in
the U.S. Navy and from 1957 to 1998 was a boiler operator at
General Motors Corporation. He was also employed as a boiler
operator in 1956 at St. John's Seminary and in Detroit public
schools.

Mr. Wolcott claims his exposure to asbestos was completely
foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.
He claims his illness caused him to become disabled and
disfigured, experience great physical pain and mental anguish,
medical expenses and lost wages.

Mr. Wolcott's wife, Margaret Wolcott, also seeks damages,
alleging she has been deprived of Mr. Wolcott's companionship,
society and services.

The Wolcotts seek compensatory damages in excess of US$250,000,
plus punitive damages in an amount sufficient enough to punish
the defendants for their conduct.

Randy Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates represent Mr. Wolcott.

Case No. 08 L 735 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Howard's Lawsuit v. 60 Firms Filed in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Howard of Illinois, on Aug. 20, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 60 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Howard suffers from colon cancer and alleges the defendants'
asbestos-containing products caused his disease. He claims the
defendants included asbestos in their products when adequate
substitutes were available.

According to the suit, Mr. Howard was diagnosed with colon
cancer in July 2007 and subsequently learned it was wrongfully
caused. He also alleges the defendants failed to provide
adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working
with and around asbestos.

Mr. Howard's wife, Carol Howard, also seeks damages alleging her
husband's illness has deprived her of his companionship,
services and society.

The Howards seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$350,000
and punitive damages in excess of US$100,000.

Randy Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates represent the Howards.

Circuit Judge Daniel Stack handles all asbestos cases, including
Case No. 08 L 738, in Madison County.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lindsay Estate Sues 75 Firms in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Mary Lindsay, of Herrin, Ill., on Aug. 18, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 75 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

According to the complaint (Case No. 08 L 731), Mrs. Lindsay
died from lung cancer after being diagnosed with the disease in
January 2007. Her estate alleges she had secondary asbestos
exposure through her husband, who began working as a sheet metal
worker in 1957.

Mrs. Lindsay's estate alleges her husband would work with and
around asbestos and he would bring those fibers home on his
clothes. Her estate alleges the defendants used asbestos in
their products when safer alternatives were available.

The estate seeks damages in excess of US$250,000. It is
represented by Elizabeth Heller, Esq., Keith Short, Esq., and
Robert Rowland, Esq., of Edwardsville, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davis' Action Filed v. 25 Companies in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related lawsuit filed by the estate of George
Charles Davis, of Nevada, against 25 defendant corporations is
ongoing in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

According to the complaint (Case No. 08 L 732), Mr. Davis died
on July 25, 2008 as a result of mesothelioma. His estate alleges
that he was employed from 1951 to 1983 as an engineer at various
locations in Texas, New Jersey, Colorado and Illinois.

Mr. Davis' estate alleges the defendants failed to provide any
or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working
with asbestos.

Mr. Davis' estate is represented by John Barnerd, Esq., Perry
Browder, Esq., and Chris Guinn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
Alton, Ill.

Mr. Davis' estate seeks damages in excess of US$150,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Sues 73 Companies in Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franz Mueller, on Aug. 19, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 73 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Mueller claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
April 9, 2008 and subsequently learned his disease was
wrongfully caused.

According to the complaint (Case No. 08 L 733), Mr. Mueller was
employed from 1960 to 1992 as a machine operator and welder at
various locations in Illinois and Missouri.

Mr. Mueller claims the defendants failed in their duty to
exercise reasonable care and caution for his safety. He seeks
damages in excess of US$150,000, plus costs.

Mr. Mueller is represented by Tim Thompson, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenant Files Suit v. Hudson Hotel in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Hudson Hotel in New York, in state court
on Aug. 25, 2008 claims a tenant, Thomas Pavese, was poisoned by
asbestos after the hotel ignored environmental safety
procedures, The New York Sun reports.

According to the suit, the hotel knowingly put dozens of
permanent tenants at risk when it removed asbestos from
apartments it was planning to convert into guest suites.

Mr. Pavese stated in the suit that workers dumped asbestos in
"an eight foot box, in very poor condition, which was OPEN at
all times and read 'Danger Asbestos.'"

The workers then proceeded to blow the asbestos out the window
with a metal hose, Mr. Pavese claimed, spreading it over the
street and inside the building. They also allegedly put some of
the asbestos in tenants' garbage containers in the hallways.

Mr. Pavese claims that as a result, he has trouble breathing and
has been hospitalized for a chronic illness. He seeks more than
US$50 million in damages.

The Hudson Hotel, formerly known as the Henry Hudson Hotel,
began the asbestos removal in 1999, according to the suit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fund for Indirect Exposure Cases Opens Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new compensation fund for people who have contracted asbestos
cancer indirectly commences on Oct. 1, 2008, the North-West
Evening Mail reports.

The fighting fund is aimed at those who were either exposed to
asbestos through a relative or those affected because they lived
near a factory which used asbestos.

The scheme offers one-off payments of up to GBP14,000 for
sufferers who cannot claim from employers like shipyards and
factories that used asbestos as a heat insulator before it was
banned.

Dependents of indirect victims will be able to claim payments of
up to GBP6,000.

Details of the new government fund, created by the efforts of
Furness, Cumbria, England, MP John Hutton when he was Work and
Pensions Secretary, were given at the August 2008 meeting of the
Barrow Asbestos Related Diseases Support group.

The new fund is mostly for mesothelioma claims and compensation
for pleural thickening of the lung lining, but not the lung
scarring condition known as pleural plaques.

The new fund is for sufferers not covered by the Pneumoconiosis
(Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which pays out to workers who
got the lethal disease through their job.

Kay Baker is Department of Work and Pensions team leader at the
regional industrial injuries center in Barrow, which handles 250
asbestos-related compensation claims a month from around Britain
and pays out around GBP30 million a year.

Mrs. Baker told the Evening Mail the compensated would include
"ladies who washed their husbands' overalls and people who lived
near to asbestos factory sites."

The new legislation won royal assent in June 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Subject to Product Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, various claims or charges are asserted and
litigation commenced against Harris Corporation arising from or
related to the sale or use of products containing asbestos.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 26, 2008.

Headquartered in Melbourne, Fla., Harris Corporation is a
communications and information technology company that applies a
solutions approach to serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald's Ruling on Grace Action Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. and the State of Montana previously appealed
from Judge Judith Fitzgerald's order denying expansion of the
preliminary injunction to include the Libby Claimants' court
actions against the State.

Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware affirmed Judge Fitzgerald's decision
holding that the Debtors will not be bound by a judgment against
the State in the state court actions. Judge Buckwalter said a
separate adjudication is necessary to affect the Debtors'
estates.

Judge Buckwalter found that notwithstanding the State's pending
proof of claim in the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings, the
State's potential indemnification claim against the Debtors is
not contractual and thus insufficient to establish "related-to"
jurisdiction under the well-established Third Circuit precedent
in In re Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1984).

The claims brought against the State of Montana by the Libby
Claimants are a result of the State's alleged failure to warn
the Libby Claimants of the risks of asbestos at the Debtors'
work place, Judge Buckwalter ruled.

While the claims arguably arise from a common production site,
the State and the Debtors have neither the "unity of interest"
or "derivative liability" presented in In re Dow Corning Corp.,
86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996) to justify "related to"
jurisdiction, he said.

Montana's liability is predicated on its own alleged violation
of a governmental duty imposed under Montana law.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 163; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CARD Predicts Cancer Epidemic in Libby
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Whitehouse and Dr. Brad Black of Libby, Mont.'s, Center
for Asbestos Related Disease, together with three other
physicians, published a report forecasting an epidemic of
mesothelioma -- a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos -- in
years to come, Mesothelioma News said.

According to the physicians' report, published in the American
Journal of Medicine, even a brief period of exposure may cause
the disease to appear decades later. Thus, the report said, town
residents exposed in the 1970s or earlier are just now being
diagnosed.

Dr. Whitehouse said in the report that "the extent of the
epidemic of environmental mesothelioma due to exposures based at
Libby will probably not peak for another 10 to 20 years" because
the source of Libby's "asbestos crisis" - W.R. Grace & Co.'s
vermiculite mine in Libby - was operated by the Company from
1963 until 1990.

As a result of Grace's vermiculite mining operations in Libby,
community residents complained of serious health problems as a
result of the release of asbestos from the mine. In response,
the U.S. Government obtained an indictment in 2005 charging
Grace and seven of its former officers of conspiracy to violate
environmental laws and obstruct federal agency proceedings,
violations of the federal Clean Air Act, and obstruction of
justice.

The indictment, which has reached the U.S. Supreme Court due to
numerous appeals, is scheduled for a status conference before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 24,
2008. The Supreme Court, at Grace's behest, refused to review
the criminal charges and remanded the complaint to the District
Court.

According to Grace's most recent Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2008, the
Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its Libby mine, including the cost of remediation at
vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, was US$200.9
million at June 30, 2008 and US$270.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007,
excluding interest.

The estimated liabilities do not include the cost to remediate
the Grace-owned mine site at Libby, the SEC filing said. In
previous months, Grace has entered into settlements resolving
their environmental response costs liabilities by entitling the
Government with a US$250 million, plus interest, general
unsecured claim in its Chapter 11 case, and the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality a US$5,167,000 unsecured
claim.

Grace also disclosed in an SEC filing that it may pay as much as
US$280 million in fines if convicted in the criminal case. Its
former officers may face up to 15 years of imprisonment, if
convicted, Grace added.

Further, Grace said it expects legal fees for its defense in the
indictment could range from US$3 million to US$4 million per
quarter. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, total expense
for Grace and the employees was US$8.5 million.

For the remainder of 2008, Grace expects legal fees for this
matter to be in the range of about US$8 million to US$10 million
per quarter.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 163; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Seeks Assistance on ZAI Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald has asked the aid and assistance of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice to hear a motion brought by
Lauzon Belanger S.E.N.C.R.L. and Scarfone Hawkins LLP, as
representative counsel on behalf of all Canadian ZAI Claimants.

The Motion is seeking disclosure, under Section 8(1)(c) of the
Privacy Act, of personal information contained in documents and
databases relevant to the identification of potential Canadian
claimants who may have homes that may contain Zonolite Attic
Insulation and vermiculite attic insulation, and to make any
order the Canadian Court deems just or necessary in respect of
the release of personal information by Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 163; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leave to File Longo's Expert Report Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California, Department of General Services asks the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for leave to file the expert report of Dr.
William E. Longo of Materials Analytical Services, Inc., in
connection with the adjudication of W. R. Grace & Co.'s
objection to the Department's property damage claims.

Dr. Longo is an industrial hygienist with extensive experience
in dealing with asbestos-related issues, the Department tells
the Court.

In March 2008, the Department retained Dr. Longo to review the
analyses of dust samples collected from the buildings the
subject of its PD claims that were performed by another one of
its experts, Dr. Tim Vander Wood of MVA Scientific Consultants,
who testified in April 2007.

In Dr. Wood's examination of dust samples, he concluded that the
dust samples contain asbestos at elevated levels and that the
source of the dust's constituents is the Debtors' asbestos-
containing products.

Tobey M. Daluz, Esq., at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP,
in Wilmington, Del., on behalf of the Department, relates that
Dr. Longo reviewed Dr. Wood's data and concluded that the
Debtors' asbestos-containing products have caused contamination
in the buildings.

Mr. Daluz notes that Dr. Longo's conclusions are supported by
past studies and review of published and unpublished data.

Mr. Daluz contends that the Department's request should be
granted because, in addition to the lack of any prejudice to the
Debtors, Dr. Longo's report addresses a significant issue
relating to the hazard objection that would be helpful to the
Court at any trial.

The Debtors replied that they do not object to the Department's
request on the grounds that the filing of the proposed report is
untimely. However, the Debtors, tell the Court that they reserve
the right to raise, at the appropriate time, any objection to
the relevance, weight, validity, and admissibility of the
report.

In addition, the Debtors note that they fully reserve the right
to move for the admission of the testimony of Franco Seif of
Clark Seif Clark, Inc., the Department's original hazard expert,
at any hearing in the proceedings.

The Department notes that the Debtors refer to a March 26, 2007
deposition testimony of Mr. Seif on hazard-related issues when
the Debtors reserved their right to later object to a report on
other grounds. Mr. Seif issued written reports of his visual
inspection of seven of the 16 buildings identified on the
Department's property damage proofs of claim, Mr. Daluz says.

Mr. Daluz contends that in injecting Mr. Seif's testimony, the
Debtors appear to concede that the applicable statute of
limitations does not begin to run until the property is
"contaminated." He argues that the concession is fatal to the
Debtors' summary judgment request because the sole basis for the
Department's application was the unsuccessful effort to obtain
the U.S. Supreme Court's leave to file a complaint on behalf of
29 states against the Debtors and more than 25 other companies,
and that the current filing supposedly bound the Department
based upon principles of judicial admission and estoppel.

"The Debtors never contended in their motion that any of [the
Department's] buildings were actually contaminated at that
time," Mr. Daluz notes. He adds adds that the Debtors never
advanced their theory nor cite Mr. Seif's deposition testimony
at an oral argument on a summary judgment motion held two weeks
after Mr. Seif's deposition.

The Debtors have grossly misrepresented the nature and context
of Mr. Seif's deposition testimony, Mr. Daluz further contends.
Contrary to the Debtors' account, Mr. Seif did not testify that
the asbestos contamination in The Department's buildings
occurred more than 30 years ago.

Instead, Mr. Seif testified that he had no personal knowledge of
the date on which contamination occurred, and merely speculated
that certain environmental factors could cause materials to
erode, Mr. Daluz explains.

Nothing in Mr. Seif's testimony, even if it can be properly
considered by the Court establishes that The Department's
buildings were contaminated beyond the applicable statute of
limitations period, Mr. Daluz tells the Court. He contends that
in order for a property damage claim to accrue and start the
statute of limitations running, the property must have been
actually been contaminated.

For these reasons, the Department asks the Court to grant its
request for leave to file Dr. Longo's expert report and
disregard the Debtors' response.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 163; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Urged to Appoint ASARCO Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Schmidt directed the U.S. Trustee to appoint an
official committee of asbestos claimants to be comprised of (i)
the current members of the existing asbestos committee for
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, and (ii) three additional members
who have asbestos-related claims against ASARCO LLC.

Judge Schmidt also authorized ASARCO to appoint Robert C. Pate
as future asbestos claimants' representative that may assert
asbestos claims against ASARCO. The ASARCO FCR will continue to
serve in his capacity as FCR for the Asbestos Subsidiary
Debtors.

The ASARCO FCR and his professionals will allocate fees and
expenses between (i) work done on behalf of Future Claimants
asserting demands against ASARCO, which will be from the assets
of ASARCO; and (ii) work done on behalf of Future Claimants
asserting demands against the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors as
well as work done on behalf of the Subsidiary Debtors, which
will be paid from the assets of the Subsidiary Debtors.

However, to ensure that all claims are represented against all
Debtors, ASARCO asked the Court to vacate its orders and
requested for an order directing the U.S. Trustee to appoint an
Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and an FCR to represent
the specific class of creditors with asbestos-related claims
against all Debtors.

Asarco Inc. and Americas Mining Corporation objected to the
proposed orders filed by the Debtors with the Court because the
proposed orders failed to allocate costs and expenses incurred
in connection with the representation of ASARCO LLC's asbestos
claimants and the other Debtors' asbestos claimants.

Asarco Inc. and Americas Mining recalled that the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants and Judge Pate have previously
consented to allocation in connection with (i) the services
performed by the Asbestos Committee for ASARCO LLC and the
Asbestos Debtors, and (ii) Judge Pate's duties as the ASARCO FCR
and the Asbestos Debtors FCR.

Asarco Inc. and Americas Mining asserted that allocation of
costs and expenses should be the same and should require
allocation of costs and expenses between work performed for
ASARCO LLC and the other Debtors.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 80; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Creditors Seek ASARCO Stipulation Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the ASARCO LLC
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors asks the Court to approve a
stipulation it entered into with the Debtors supplementing the
Administrative Bar Date Order.

The stipulation provides that the definition of "Excluded
Claims" will be modified to include "Administrative Claims held
by Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants."

In accordance with a separate Court-approved stipulation, the
Debtors, Americas Mining Corporation, and Asarco Incorporated
agree to amend the definition of "Excluded Claims" to include:

"Administrative Claims of one Debtor against another Debtor are
Excluded Claims but only to the extent the Administrative Claims
(i) are less than $1,000,000, or (ii) relate to transaction that
has been expressly approved by prior order of the Court.

"All other Administrative Claims of one Debtor against another
Debtor must be filed by the Administrative Claims Bar Date of
Sept. 19, 2008."

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 80; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Chesterton, 45 Others Filed in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Davis and his wife Jacqueline, on Aug. 26, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against A.W. Chesterton Company and 45
other companies in the Jefferson County District Court, Tex.,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Court papers say Chesterton and 45 other companies conspired to
mine, process and sell asbestos products, suppress the
information pertaining to the fiber's hazardous influence on
human health and purposely inflict employees with an asbestos
disease.

According to the plaintiff's original petition, companies like
Union Carbide Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, and Zurn
Industries knew that the asbestos products they manufactured
would hit the market without inspection for defects.

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical
and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for
decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the
information.

The suit does not give specifics on the location or time of Mr.
Davis' employment, but does say he was required to work with
machinery and was exposed to asbestos.

The plaintiffs are suing for Mr. Davis' physical pain and
suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and
future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in
the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future,
and past and future medical expenses, including home care costs.
The Davises also seek punitive and exemplary damages.

Brent Coon & Associates attorney Lou Thompson Black, Esq.,
represents the Davises.

Judge Gary Sanderson of the 60th Judicial District will preside
over Case No. B182-294.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reed's Action v. 60 Firms Filed in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Reed of Ohio, on Aug. 21, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 60 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Reed claims he was diagnosed with the disease July 10, 2008,
according to the lawsuit. He says he worked from 1947 until 1992
as an engineer, maintenance worker and laborer at various
locations in Illinois.

Mr. Reed alleges his father, Herman Reed, worked from 1941 until
1945 at The Boeing Company and from 1945 until 1973 as an
electrician at North American/Boeing.

Mr. Reed claims asbestos-containing dust he worked around and
his father brought home from work in his clothing contained
toxins, poisons, and had a highly deleterious effect upon the
health of the person inhaling, ingesting or otherwise absorbing
the fibers.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Reed states his exposure was
foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.
He claims the disease has disabled and disfigured him and he has
had to spend large sums of money for hospital, medical and other
health care services for treatment of the disease.

Mr. Reed says he has experienced great physical pain and mental
anguish and will be hindered and prevented from pursuing his
normal course of employment.

Mr. Reed also claims Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
conspired with the defendants to misrepresent the hazards of
exposure to asbestos, which led Mr. Reed to remain ignorant of
the hazards of asbestos.

The suit adds that Mr. Reed alleges defendants had access to
documents warning of asbestos hazards. However, when Mr. Reed
tried to obtain the documents, he could not and claims the
defendants destroyed or disposed of them.

As a result, Mr. Reed alleges he has been forced to dismiss or
unfavorably compromise with some defendants and has suffered the
impaired ability to recover lost or reduced compensation from
the defendants.

Mr. Reed seeks sums in excess of US$200,000 from the defendants,
compensatory damages to exceed US$350,000, and punitive damages.
He is represented by Shane Hampton, Esq., of East Alton, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kruemmelbein Case v. 74 Firms Filed in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Kruemmelbein, on Aug. 20, 2008, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 74 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., on behalf of her late husband, Robert
Kruemmelbein, Sr., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Kruemmelbein claims Mr. Kruemmelbein was diagnosed with
lung cancer on Sept. 2, 2005, and passed away on Dec. 22, 2006,
according to the lawsuit.

According to the suit, Mrs. Kruemmelbein says her husband worked
from 1950 until 1960 as a laborer at Duncan Foundry & Machine
Works Inc., according to the lawsuit. She also claims her
husband worked as a maintenance worker at The Dow Chemical
Company in 1960 and as a machine operator at Owens-Illinois
Glass from 1960 until 1993.

Mrs. Kruemmelbein states her husband's exposure was foreseeable
and should have been anticipated by the defendants, according to
the lawsuit. She claims her husband's disease was caused after
he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers.

Prior to Mr. Kruemmelbein's death, Mrs. Kruemmelbein claims her
husband was compelled to expend and become liable for large sums
of money for hospital, medical, and other health and services
necessary for the treatment of the disease.

Mr. Kruemmelbein also experienced great physical pain and mental
anguish as a result of the disease, Mrs. Kruemmelbein claims in
the lawsuit.

Mr. Kruemmelbein's family has been deprived of his means of
support and has lost the society of Mr. Kruemmelbein and in
addition spent large sums of money for funeral and burial costs,
the complaint states.

Mrs. Kruemmelbein seeks sums in excess of US$350,000 from the
defendants, economic damages in excess of US$50,000,
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, punitive and
exemplary damages and for economic damages which will fairly and
reasonably compensate for Mr. Kruemmelbein's injuries.

Mrs. Kruemmelbein is represented by Randy Gori, Esq., of Alton,
Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MacDougall Pursuing Suit v. MoD for Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was known on Aug. 27, 2008 that Labour MP for Glenrothes,
Scotland, John MacDougall, who died from asbestos-related lung
cancer, was suing the Ministry of Defence at the time of his
death, NEWS.scotsman.com reports.

The news that Mr. MacDougall was suing the MoD for refusing to
pay him compensation for his illness, which he believed he
contracted while working at Rosyth Naval dockyard, has increased
the problems for Gordon Brown, who holds the neighboring
constituency.

It is understood that Mr. MacDougall was exposed to asbestos
while working at Rosyth. The government turned down his request
for a GBP300,000 pay-out, prompting Mr. MacDougall, who was
already ill, to launch his legal action.

Mr. MacDougall's family may now continue the action against the
MoD on his behalf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. AG Settles w/ Sears on CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office settled with Sears,
Roebuck and Co. over alleged asbestos-related violations of the
Massachusetts Clean Air Act and the Consumer Protection Act, the
Wicked Local Pembroke reports.

The agreement was reached on Aug. 19, 2008, after the Company
allegedly improperly removed asbestos from a home on Wampatuck
Street in October 2004.

According to a press release from Attorney General Martha
Coakley's office, Sears must pay a civil penalty of US$55,000 to
the family and adopt policies and practices aimed at preventing
improper asbestos removal in the future.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Commissioner Laurie Burt said, "The improper removal and
handling of asbestos is a serious matter which potentially
exposes families and workers to a known carcinogen. Businesses
that fail to follow the asbestos regulations will end up paying
significant penalties, as well as higher costs for expanded
cleanup and decontamination work."

According to the complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court, in
2004 Blane and Rachel Provost contacted Sears to request an
estimate for removing their existing boiler, which contained
white insulation made of asbestos, and installation of a new
boiler.

After a Sears representative assured the Provosts that Sears
could do the job at an affordable price, he hired two
subcontractors to perform the boiler replacement job. The
Provosts were assured these subcontractors would be properly
licensed and trained.

The Sears representative hired a plumber and a second
subcontractor to remove the boiler from the Provost home.
However, according to reports, neither was licensed, qualified
or trained to handle or remove asbestos.

At no time before the removal of the boiler did Sears or the
subcontractors notify the Department of Environmental Protection
or file an Asbestos Notification Form, letting them know the
boiler was being removed and who was removing it, or how much
asbestos-containing waste material there was and where it would
be disposed.

According to the complaint, in the process of dismantling the
existing boiler to replace it with a newer one, the plumber and
his assistant dropped it on its side, and the boiler was left on
the basement floor with its chamber exposed. The old boiler
remained fragmented and dismantled in the basement of the
Provosts' home, and asbestos-ridden material was scattered over
the basement floor.

When cleanup began, the subcontractors scooped up the waste with
their bare hands and placed it in ordinary black trash bags.
Both the basement and first floor had "a hazy asbestos dust in
the air."

The settlement requires Sears to develop and implement a
customized asbestos training program for salespeople and
managers and provide enhanced supervision on all jobs where
asbestos may be present.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Teacher Penalized for Cleanup Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randal J. Ecker, a 60-year-old former Bridger High School
teacher, who had special education students remove asbestos
tiles from a school building was given a one-year probationary
sentence on Aug. 21, 2008 in federal court, the Billings Gazette
reports.

Mr. Ecker appeared before Chief U.S. District Judge Richard
Cebull and gave an apology.

Last July 2008, Mr. Ecker pleaded guilty at his arraignment to a
single count of violating the federal Clean Air Act by failing
to provide the Environmental Protection Agency a written notice
of a cleanup plan before removing asbestos tiles.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and
a US$250,000 fine.

The case stemmed from a 2003 school project to renovate portions
of a building known as the Old Bus Barn. The plans were approved
by the school board, but it did not include removal of floor
tiles.

Mr. Ecker received permission from the board to have five
students from his vocational education class work on the
project. At his direction, the students removed more than 100
square feet of floor tiles containing asbestos.

Mr. Ecker received permission for the removal of the tiles from
a newly hired superintendent.

The students also removed asbestos floor tiles during a
remodeling project of the home economics room and placed the
waste in a garbage bin at the school. Lab tests later showed the
tiles contained between nine and 11 percent asbestos.

The students' parents sued the Bridger School District in 2005.
The federal civil suit was settled last November 2007 when the
district agreed to pay each student US$251,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.4B Settlement Considered for ASARCO Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A planned reorganization for ASARCO LLC may see more than
US$8.7 billion of environmental and asbestos cancer claims
settle for around US$2.4 billion, TransWorldNews reports.

The settlements have been agreed to by both federal and state
government agencies, as well as two Native American tribes. The
details of the settlements were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Corpus Christi, Tex., where the ASARCO bankruptcy case
has been an ongoing affair since the Company filed for
bankruptcy in August 2005.

When ASARCO originally filed for bankruptcy, a judge removed
parent company Grupo Mexico's control over the Company due to
allegations stating the Company was stripping ASARCO's assets in
an attempt to protect those assets from asbestos and
environmental liability claims.

One of those assets was the Peruvian copper mine, which was
ASARCO's most valuable asset, and arguably the main reason for
Grupo Mexico acquiring the company.

ASARCO claims Grupo Mexico systematically stripped them of
assets, including the Peruvian copper mines that ASARCO once had
a significant stake in.

Now, the Company's reorganization plan must be approved by the
court and the Company's creditors. In addition, the plan may
face opposition or competition from Grupo Mexico.

If the plan is implemented, ASARCO will pay US$750 million to a
fund that will be used to settle around 95,000 mesothelioma and
asbestos-related claims.

The claims are against two of the Company's subsidiaries:
ASARCO's Cement Asbestos Products Co. and Lake Asbestos of
Quebec Ltd.


ASBESTOS ALERT: McJunkin Facing Suits w/ 826 Plaintiffs at June
---------------------------------------------------------------
McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation faces lawsuits involving
826 plaintiffs as of June 2008 alleging personal injury,
including mesothelioma and other cancers, arising from exposure
to asbestos-containing materials included in products
distributed by the Company in the past.

The complaints in these lawsuits typically name many other
defendants.

In most of these lawsuits, little or no information is known on
the nature of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or their
connection with the products distributed.

As of June 2008, lawsuits involving 11,240 claims have been
brought against the Company. Of these claims, 10,414 have been
resolved (7,140 have been dismissed, 33 have been settled and
3,241 were resolved prior to 1995 as part of two mass
settlements with payments not allocated to individual claims).

No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against the
Company to date.

The Company is self-insured for portions of employee healthcare
and maintains a deductible program as it relates to workers'
compensation, automobile liability, asbestos claims and general
liability claims including, but not limited to, product
liability claims, which are secured by various letters of credit
totaling US$3.1 million.


Company Profile:

     McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation
     835 Hillcrest Drive
     Charleston, W.Va. 25311
     Tel.: (304) 348-5211

McJunkin Red Man Holding Corporation distributes pipe, valves
and fittings and related products and services to the energy
industry.  The Company operates over 250 branches that are
located in the oil and gas regions in North America.






                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Leah R.
Felisilda, Stephanie Tolentino-Umacob, Freya Natasha F. Dy,
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  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  * * *