CAR_Public/080104.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, January 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 3

                            Headlines


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up
BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits
BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case
CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices
DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M
DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M
EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says

FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11
GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard
KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks
KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose
MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays
NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases
PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin  

RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint
RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS
SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock
SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites
TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status
UNITED RENTALS: Asks Cerberus for $100M Merger Termination Fee


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Future Liability Costs Not Disclosed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Management Plan to Start in Jan.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Investigates Possible Breaches by Posen
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bldg. w/ Asbestos May Be Demolished in Jan.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts Demolition of Bldg. in Florida

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to U.K. Const. Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Demolition of S.C. Building
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Hospital in Wales
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owners of Mass. Building to Pay for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Forces Closure of Aussie Warehouse

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Town Granted $25T for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona State to be Fined $24.5T for Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indian Workers Deal w/ Asbestos From Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentence Termination Motion in Kay Denied

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Hartford
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Earls Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiff in ConEd Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in John Crane’s Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Petition in Snyder Case Granted

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Slaughter Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFU Calls for Cleanup in Australian Homes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Ill. Cleanup Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KFSD, EPA Probe Kuwait Site Housing Bldgs.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alimta Drug Added to Aussie Benefits Scheme

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Balfour, Jordan Penalized for OSHA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drug to be Tested as Mesothelioma Treatment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Exits Bankruptcy Protection
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bar Urges Court to Suspend Lawyer's License
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $110,000 Hazard Overcharges Found at School

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Wary of Fire in Abandoned Club
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fire Destroys West Sussex Barns in New Year
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Bldg. with Hazard Destroyed by Fire
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS to Emerge From Bankruptcy Protection
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Trust Deals w/ Hazard at Welsh Hospital

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flytippers Dump Hazard in U.K. Countryside
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. City to Decide on Best Western Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Witness and Exhibit Lists
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer Says Reports Meet "Fit" Test
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BASIN WATER: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
SANOFI-AVENTIS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********  


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that  
accuses it of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales.

                     Charoensak Litigation

Plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.,"
formerly “Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” on Jan. 3, 2005 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of
music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of
iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.  

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the
Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment
and common law monopolization.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005.  A
hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005.  On Sept. 9,
2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in
part.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the
company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005.  

On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs
for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice
and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two
new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                     Tucker Case

Plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as a
purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging various
claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos
purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly
market power.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section
16700 et seq. (Cartwright Act), California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff sought
unspecified damages and other relief.  

On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On Dec. 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the Company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

                     Consolidation of Cases

On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                        Black Litigation

A related class action complaint, “Black v. Apple Inc.,” was
filed on August 27, 2007 in the Circuit Court in Broward County,
Florida, alleging that the Company is attempting to maintain a
monopoly by precluding customers from using non-iTunes downloads
on iPods and from using iTunes music on non-iPod MP3 players.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization
violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.  

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Sept. 28, 2007, and filed a
motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of
California on Oct. 12, 2007.  The Company's motion to transfer
was granted on Oct. 17, 2007.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to
Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: (310) 442-7756
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq.
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415 875 5712
          Fax: 415 875 5700
          E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com


BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. faces a consolidated antitrust class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

                  Direct Purchaser's Litigation

Becton, Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported
class actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of BD’s
products, such as distributors, alleging that Becton, Dickinson
violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for BD’s products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are as follows:

       -- “Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs.
          Becton Dickinson and Company” (Civil Action No. 05-
          1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
          on March 25, 2005;

       -- “SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
          Co.” (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District
          Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
          Sept. 6, 2005;

       -- “Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
          Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
          Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

       -- “American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
          Dickinson & Co.” (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
          District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
          filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

       -- “Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
          and Company” (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District
          Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
          Oct. 26, 2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company and Dik
Drug Company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the
caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.”

                 Indirect Purchaser's Litigation

Becton, Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported
class actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
Becton, Dickinson’s products, alleging that Becton, Dickinson
violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for Becton, Dickinson’s products to the plaintiff
and other purported class members.

The cases filed are as follows:

       -- “Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
          Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
          Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005;

       -- “Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
          and Company” (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
          Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

       -- “Medstar v. Becton Dickinson” (Case No. 06-CV-03258-
          JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
          filed on May 18, 2006; and

       -- “The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
          Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
          District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
          on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
captioned “International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice
v. Becton Dickinson & Company, Case No. 2:07-cv-10602,” filed on
April 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey,
was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class actions seek
monetary damages.  

All of the antitrust class actions have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in federal
court in New Jersey.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical  
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.  

    
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co., along with another manufacturer and
several medical product distributors, still faces three product
liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected
with any disease.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and/or treatment.

In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the
healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs
seek money damages in all of these actions.

Becton, Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in
eight similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been
dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.

Regarding the three pending suits:

     (1) In Ohio, “Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No.
          98CVB075616, Franklin County Court),” on Sept. 21,
          2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial
          court’s grant of class certification.

The matter has been remanded to the trial court for a
determination of whether the class can be redefined.

In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification under the laws of these states in state
court in Oklahoma, under the caption,

     (2) “Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. CJ-98-
          685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on Oct.  
          27, 1998,

and in state court in South Carolina, under the caption,

     (3) “Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. 98-CP-
          40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed
          on Nov. 25, 1998.

Becton, Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification
in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of
appeal, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical  
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.  


BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
consolidated securities fraud class actions filed against
Bodisen Biotech, Inc..

In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations
about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal
controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York
Global Group.

The eight actions are:

      -- "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13220 (filed November 2006),"
      
      -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13254 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13454 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         13567 (filed November 2006),"

      -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No.
         06-13739 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006),"

      -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-
         15179 (filed December 2006)," and

      -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No.
         06-15399 (filed December 2006)."

The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single
proceeding.  The time for the Company to respond formally to
these lawsuits has not come and thus, the Company has not done
so.  

The complaints do not specify an amount of damages that
plaintiffs seek.

The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         Phone: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com   

Representing the defendants is:
       
         Judd Burstein, Esq.
         Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P.
         1790 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 974-2400
         Fax: 212-974-2944
         E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership and Mobile Messenger Americas, a "secondary
aggregator," are facing a class action filed in the Circuit
Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida accusing them of charging customers for services they do
not want, never ordered, and did not authorize, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Lisa Gray brings this action pursuant to Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 seeking to stop defendants'
unlawful practice of charging cellular phone customers for
products and services the customer have not authorized, a
practice which has resulted in defendants unlawfully collecting
money from consumers statewide, and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the
following classes:

     (1) the "Carrier Class": a class consisting of all Verizon
         wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who suffered
         losses or damages as a result of Verizon billing for
         mobile content products and services not authorized by
         the subscriber;

     (2) the "Mobile Content Provider Class": a class consisting
         of all wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who
         suffered losses or damages as a result of incurring
         charges on their cellular telephone bills from or on
         behalf of Mobile Messenger not authorized by the
         subscriber.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Verizon's conduct is in breach of contract

     (b) whether Mobile Messenger has unjustly received money
         belonging to plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider
         class and whether under principles of equity and good
         conscience, Mobile Messenger should not be permitted to
         retain it; and

     (c) whether Mobile Messenger tortiously interfered with
         contracts between plaintiff and the Mobile Content
         Provider class, on the one hand, and their wireless
         carriers, on the other hand, by causing them to be
         charged for products and services by their carrier that
         were unauthorized.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- certify this case as a class action on behalf of the
        classes and appoint Jennifer Baker class representative;

     -- declare that the actions of Verizon, constitute a breach  
        of contract;

      -- enter judgment against Verizon for all economic,
         monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory
         damages caused by its conduct, and if its conduct is
         proved willful, award plaintiff and the Carrier Class
         exemplary damages;

      -- declare that the actions of Mobile Messenger constitute
         unjust enrichment and tortious interference with a
         contract;

      -- enter judgment against Mobile Messenger for all
         economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and    
         compensatory damages caused by defendants' conduct, and
         if its conduct is proved willful award plaintiff and
         the Mobile Content Provider Class exemplary damages;

      -- award plaintiff and the classes reasonable costs and
         attorneys' fees;

      -- award plaintiff and the classes pre- and post-judgment
         interest;

      -- enter judgment for injunctive, statutory and/or
         declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the
         interests of plaintiff and the classes; and

      -- award such other and further relief as equity and
         justice may require.

The suit is "Lisa Gray et al. v. Cellco Partnership et al. Case
No. 0736302," filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          David P. Healy
          2846-B Remington Green Cr.
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          Phone: (850) 222-5400
          Fax: (850) 222-7339


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an order
dismissing a purported class action that alleges Conexant
Systems, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ERISA.

On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and
former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan
Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit.  It was filed
on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's
401(k) Plan during a specified class period.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants
in the Plan.  The defendants believe these charges are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.  

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005.  On
Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this
case.

The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30,
2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006.

On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it
closed.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006.

The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007.  On July 31,
2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated
the District Court’s order dismissing Graden’s complaint and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP
         8 Kings Highway
         West Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Phone: (856) 795-9002
         E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500
         E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com


CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
The nation's leading creditors are facing a class-action
complaint filed Dec. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The suit alleges that defendants created a "credit counseling"
industry "to use third-party, ostensibly nonprofit organizations
to facilitate their collections while concurrently attempting to
shield the creditors from any direct liability for wrongs
committed against consumers."

Named defendants include:

          -- JPMorgan Chase & Co.
          -- Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
          -- Money Management International, Inc.
          -- Money Management By Mail, Inc. and
          -- Money Management International Financial Education
             Foundation

Plaintiffs demand damages for money lost to defendants' "credit
repair" and "debt management" services.

They bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of two
overlapping class that consists of:

     (1) all individuals nationwide who, like them, have paid
         fees to MMI for a debt management plan (DMP) since the  
         MMI commenced doing business as an ostensibly non-
         profit organization (the MMI class); and/or

     (2) all individuals nationwide who had accounts with Chase,
         Bank One or any of their predecessors, which accounts
         were serviced under a DMP for which the individual paid
         initial or monthly fees to any of the DebtWorks, Inc.,
         including AmeriDebt Inc. (DW CCAs), DebtWorks and/or
         MMI (the Chase class).

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Chase, the MMI defendants, DebtWorks and the
         the DW CCAs are "credit repair organizations" within
         the meaning of the Credit Repair Organizations Act;

     (b) whether more than an insubstantial part of MMI's
         activities are not in furtherance of an exempt purpose.
         More particularly:

         (i) does MMI operate for the substantial non-exempt
             purpose of conducting a commercial business?

        (ii) do MMI's operations inure to the private benefit of
             MMI executives and management?

       (iii) do the operations of MMI serve to further the
             private financial interests of Chase, Bank One,   
             their predecessors and other creditors?

     (c) whether the operations of the DW CCAs inured to the
         private benefit of DebtWorks and/or Andris N. Pukke;

     (d) whether MMI and the DW CCAs were organizations
         described;

     (e) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' public claims concerning
         their tax-exempt or non-profit statuses, and self-
         descriptions as "community service" organizations
         constitute unfair, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent
         statements in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3)
         and (4) of CROA;

     (f) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' assertions concerning
         their independence, their "negotiating" services, their
         interest in the individual consumer and in properly
         identifying his or her best interests and providing
         appropriate services, constitute false, deceptive
         and/or misleading representations of credit repair
         services;

     (g) whether MMI and the DW CCAs are or were the partners or
         agents of, or joint ventures with Chase, Bank One,
         their predecessors and other creditors in performing
         the "services" they perform;

     (h) whether MMI, Chase, Bank One and their predecessors or
         any of them are "persons" within the meaning of the
         CROA;

         (i) whose actions, practices or courses of business
             resulted in a fraud or an attempt to commit a fraud
             in connection with the sale of a credit repair
             organization's services;

        (ii) who made or used any untrue or misleading
             representation of the services of a credit repair
             organization's services so as to render them liable
             under the CROA;

     (j) whether any of the defendants were unjustly enriched;

     (k) whether defendant MMI violated fiduciary duties to its
         clients;

     (l) whether defendant MMI violated 15 USC Sections 1679c-
         1679e; and

     (m) whether the MMI defendants violated California's
         Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair  
         Competition Law.

Plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

     -- that the court order that MMI is not entitled to rely
        on, or otherwise assert its administrative grant of tax-
        exempt or non-profit status as defense to any claim in
        this action;

     -- judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in
        the amount of all fees paid by plaintiffs and by each
        class member at any time to MMI, DebtWorks and the DW
        CCAs;

     -- as punitive damages, an amount equal to at least 90% of
        all retained earnings in MMI, or such other amounts as
        the court may deem appropriate;

     -- accrued interest on plaintiffs' and class members'
        damages awarded at the legal rate from the date of the
        filing of the original complaint;

     -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs determined by the
        court; and

     -- all such other relief as the court may deem necessary
        and appropriate under the circumstances.

The suit is "Janice J. Abat et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et
al., Case No. SACV07-1476AHS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Niall P. McCarthy
          Justin T. Berger
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: (650) 697-6000
          Fax: (650) 692-3606

          David J. Vendler, Esq.
          Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
          1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 891-9100
          Fax: (213) 488-118

          Gregory S. Duncan, Esq.
          Law Offices of Gregory R. Duncan
          412 East Jefferson Street
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: (434) 979-8556
          Fax: (434) 979-9766

          - and -

          Garrett M. Smith, Esq.
          Gary W. Kendall, Esq.
          Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC
          500 Court Square, Suite 300
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Phone: (434) 951-7200
          Fax: (434) 951-7218


DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M
--------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle has been reached with Delphi Corp.'s
former outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, to settle claims
against the auditing firm for $38,250,000 in cash.

The announcement of the agreement was made by the law firms of
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Nix, Patterson
& Roach, LLP, who are court-appointed co-lead counsel for the
Lead Plaintiffs in the securities class action litigation
involving Delphi, the U.S. auto parts maker now in Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings.

The case arises out of alleged accounting improprieties at
Delphi that forced the Company, on June 30, 2005, to restate its
financial results for all fiscal periods dating back to 1999 and
to reverse hundreds of millions of dollars in reported earnings
during those periods.

Lead Plaintiffs

      -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma,
      -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi,  
      -- Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft m.b.H., and    
      -- Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP

were appointed by a federal court in June 2005 to represent a
proposed class of investors who acquired Delphi securities
between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005.  

The Complaint filed by those institutional Lead Plaintiffs
asserted claims under the federal securities laws against
Delphi, Deloitte, who was Delphi's outside auditor during the
Class Period, certain officers and directors of Delphi, the
banks that underwrote Delphi's offerings of securities, and
certain other entities.

Judge Gerald E. Rosen, the federal judge in the Eastern District
of Michigan before whom the case is pending, appointed a retired
federal judge, Layn R. Phillips, to serve as a Special Master to
conduct settlement discussions. Following an extensive mediation
conducted by Judge Phillips, Deloitte and Lead Plaintiffs
reached an agreement whereby Deloitte will pay to the Class
$38,250,000 to settle all claims asserted against Deloitte in
the action.

The settlement is one of the larger settlements obtained from an
accounting firm to settle claims of securities fraud. The
settlement is conditioned on approval by Judge Rosen, who will
pass on the settlement after the members of the Class are given
appropriate notice of the settlement and an opportunity to be
heard.

This settlement follows an earlier settlement in the case, also
arising out of a mediation conducted by Judge Phillips, whereby
Lead Plaintiffs obtained a settlement potentially worth at least
$284 million from Delphi and its insurance carriers and its
former banks to resolve all claims against Delphi and certain
other defendants. That settlement is contingent upon final
approval by Judge Rosen as well as approval of Delphi's plan of
reorganization in Delphi's Chapter 11 proceeding.

For more information about this settlement, please contact co-
lead counsel for Lead Plaintiffs:

          Stuart Grant, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
          1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7000

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP
          205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, Texas 75638
          Phone: (903) 645-7333

          John "Sean" P. Coffey, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400

          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 667-7706

          Allan Ripp
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          Phone: 212-262-7477
          E-mail: arippny@aol.com


DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. reached a settlement in a class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee over the sale of dog food that led to the deaths of
more than 100 dogs.

A settlement fund, worth up to $3.1 million, will be established
and pay consumers who purchased recalled Diamond Pet Food
products, and compensate dog owners whose dogs were injured as a
result of eating recalled Diamond Pet Food products.

In December 2005, Diamond Pet Foods issued a recall on some of
their dog food products. The lawsuit alleges that many consumers
have not received a refund for the recalled food.

Subsequently, the suit, "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et
al.," was filed on Dec. 27, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, Jan.
23, 2007).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Nicole D. Bass,
individually and as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, brings the lawsuit against the named
defendants for offering for sale and selling dog food
contaminated with a toxin, aflatoxin, for consumption by her
pet.   

The suit accuses the companies of negligence.  With regards to
Diamond Pet, it also claims breach of warranties and unfair
trade practices.

Under the recent settlement, Diamond denies any wrongdoing and
contends that they have not violated any laws.

Diamond will create a settlement fund of up to $3.1 million to
provide compensation for valid claims. Attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses will also be covered by the settlement as
determined by the court. The complete settlement agreement,
describes all the details of the settlement.

People who reside in the following states and purchased recalled
Diamond Brand or Country Value Brand Pet Food products in 2005,
and did not return the food for a refund are included in this
settlement: Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The court has not made any decisions regarding the facts of the
case, however, a settlement has been reached to resolve the
issues and avoid costly time-consuming litigation.

Deadline to file for objections is on February 26, 2008.
Deadline to file for exclusions is on March 16, 2008. Deadline
to file claims is on April 15, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing on March 26, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

The suit is "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-00586," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas A. Varlan with referral
to Judge H. Bruce Guyton.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          A. James Andrews
          A. James Andrews, Attorney at Law
          905 Locust Street
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Phone: 865-660-3993
          Fax: 865-523-4623
          E-mail: andrewsesq@icx.net

Representing defendants are:

          W. Kyle Carpenter
          Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter
          P.O. Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
          Phone: 865-215-1000
          Fax: 865-215-1001
          E-mail: kylew@wmbac.com

          R. Brad Morgan
          Lewis, King, Krieg, Waldrop & Catron P.C. (Knox)
          P O Box 2425
          Knoxville, TN 37901-2425
          Phone: (865) 546-4646
          Fax: (865) 523-6529
          E-mail: bmorgan@lewisking.com

          - and -

          William A. Young
          O'Neil, Parker & Williamson
          P.O. Box 217
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0217
          Phone: 865-546-7190
          Fax: 865-546-0789
          E-mail: byoung@opw.com


EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Embarq Corp. is facing a class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas accusing it of
illegally terminating health-care benefits, including medical
and prescription drug coverage and life insurance, for all
Medicare-eligible employees, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint alleges Embarq then immediately told its
shareholders that the terminations would save the company $40
million a year.

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, as well as damages and other monetary relief,
to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs and
the members of the class and sub-class by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001,
et. seq.

Plaintiffs are retired employees of various national, regional
and local telecommunications operating and supply companies,
which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Embarq.

They seek relief for the following unlawful actions of
defendants:

     (1) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid
         medical and prescription drug coverage and coverage
         subsidies provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and
         their Medicare-eligible dependents; and

     (2) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid
         life insurance coverage provided to retirees and their
         dependents, including such coverage provided to
         retirees of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company
         who are participants in the Carolina Telephone and
         Telegraph Company Voluntary Employees Beneficiary
         Association Plan (VEBA), also known as the Sickness
         Death Benefit Plan.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons, including all plan participants and all eligible spouse
and dependent plan beneficiaries, whose rights to medical,
prescription drug, and/or life insurance benefits or premium
subsidies have been adversely affected by the terminations,
reductions and changes in retiree benefits which were announced
by Embarq on July 26, 2007.

They want the court to rule on:

      (a) whether the members of the class have been or will be
          unlawfully excluded from and deprived of their rights
          under defendants' ERISA benefit plans and whether
          defendants breached the terms of these plans and
          breached their strict ERISA fiduciary duties to
          plaintiffs and the members of the class;

      (b) whether defendants violated ERISA by cutting off
          Grand-fathered Life Insurance benefits to the members
          of the class who have a right to participate in the
          VEBA; and

     (c) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class are
         entitled to the relief prayed for.

Plaintiffs pray the court grant the following relief:

      -- declare that the actions of defendants are in
         violations of ERISA and issue a preliminary and
         permanent injunction reinstating and restoring to
         plaintiffs and the members of the class the subject,
         medical, prescription drug and life insurance benefits
         and compelling defendants to provide these benefits to
         them for the remainder of their lifetimes;

      -- order equitable reformation of the plans described in
         the lawsuit to reinstate these benefits and provide
         that these benefits shall not be reduced below the
         levels provided to plaintiffs and the members of the
         class on July 25, 2007;

      -- order an accounting of all profits and savings realized
         by the fiduciary defendants and attributable either to
         their misrepresentation or omission of material
         information about the benefits, or to their elimination
         of retiree medical, prescription drug, and life
         insurance benefits, or to their inducement of
         plaintiffs and the members of the class to retire
         early, including all such profits and savings relating
         to salary, compensations, pension benefits, fringe
         benefits, and all other payroll and overhead costs that
         were avoided by the fiduciary defendants as a result of
         inducing them to retire early;

      -- order a surcharge on the fiduciary defendants, and
         grant restitution and other monetary relief, to make
         plaintiffs and the members of the class whole for all
         losses caused by the unlawful actions of the fiduciary
         defendants, including payment of all medical benefits,
         prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and life
         insurance benefits, including death benefits, that have
         been improperly withheld from plaintiffs and the
         members of the class as of the time of judgment;

      -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class
         are vested in the retiree medical and prescription drug
         benefits provided by defendants at the time of their
         retirements, or that these benefits cannot otherwise be
         reduced or terminated;

      -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class
         are vested life insurance benefits provided by
         defendants at the time of their retirements, or that
         theses benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or
         terminated;

      -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class
         are entitled to receive in the future retiree medical
         benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and
         life insurance benefits, unreduced from those promised
         to them at the time of their retirements;

      -- award reasonable attorney's fees, expenses and costs
         pursuant to 29 USC Section 1132(g);

      -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

      -- grant such other relief as the court deems equitable
         and just.

The company is a telecom created in 2006 as a spinoff of Sprint-
Nextel's local carriers.

The suit is "William Douglas Fulghum et al. v. Embarq Corp. et
al., Case No. 07-CV-2602 KHV/JPO," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Diane A. Nygaard
          Jason M. Kueser
          The Nygaard Law Firm
          4501 College Boulevard, Suite 260
          Leawood, Kansas 66211
          Phone: (913) 469-5544
          Fax: (913) 469-1561
          E-mail: diane@nygaardlaw.com or jason@nygaardlaw.com

          Alan M. Sandals
          Scott M. Lempert
          Sandals & Associates, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 1850
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 825-4000
          Fax: (215) 825-4001
          E-mail: asandals@sandalslaw.com

          Stewart W. Fisher
          Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A.
          Post Office Drawer 3865
          Durham, NC 27702
          Phone: (919) 683-2135
          Fax: (919) 688-9339
          E-mail: sfisher@gmf-law.com

          - and -

          Richard T. Seymour
          Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC
          1150 Connecticut Ave., NW
          Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 862-4320
          Fax:(800) 805-1065
          E-mail: rick@rickseymourlaw.net


FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has set
a hearing on April 15, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for a $1.2 million  
settlement of the class action "In Re: Flight Safety
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175."

The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock, warrants or units of Flight safety
during the period from Jan. 14, 2003 through and including but
not limited to stock and warrants of Flight Safety as a unit at
$6.00 per unit in Flight Safety's February 2, 2004 public
offering, and were damaged thereby.

Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on February
18, 2008. Deadline to file claim is on March 21, 2008.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased company securities during the period between Jan. 14,
2003 and July 16, 2004.  

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and
state common laws by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex
Detector.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge
Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.  On December 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.  

In Nov. 2007, Flight Safety reached a settlement in principle
with the plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2007).

Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims
against all of the defendants will be dismissed without
presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing. A one time
settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff
class by or on behalf of the defendants.

Under the settlement, the company has agreed to contribute
$135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement. The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and
execution of appropriate settlement documents between the
parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors.

The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge
Christopher F. Droney.

Plaintiff firms named in complaint:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Ave 34th Flr.
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892
          E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com

          The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY, 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

          - and -

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600
          Fax: 212-686-0114
          E-mail: newyork@whafh.com

For more information, contact:

          Flight Safety Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          Media, PA 19063
          Tel: (866) 274-4004
          Website: http://www.strategicclaims.net


GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 60,000
Full Body Safety Harnesses.

The company said the harnesses could fail during use, resulting
in a hunter falling from the tree stand and suffering serious
injuries or death. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Pullover Style Full Body Safety
Harnesses model SP40300 that were included as an accessory with
Gorilla 2007 ladder stands. The harnesses bear batch code
numbers 020507, 030507 and 040507. The model and batch code
number is printed on the label affixed to the harness.

These recalled full body harnesses were manufactured in China
and are being sold at Sporting goods retailers nationwide from
April 2007 through October 2007 for between $80 and $300.

Picture of recalled full body harnesses:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08139.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled safety harness
immediately and contact Gorilla for a free replacement harness.

For additional information, contact Gorilla at (877) 685-7817
between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
the company's Web site: http://www.gorillatreestands.com.


KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keystone Food Products and Robert's American Gourmet Foods are
facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging it deceptively
mislabeled their "Pirate's Booty" and "Veggie Booty" as "low
fat" snacks.

The snacks were labeled as containing 2.5 grams of fat and 120
calories per serving, though they actually contain 8.5 grams of
fat and 127 calories.

Named plaintiff Rachelle Levy brings this action under Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the Laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all residents and domiciliaries of the
United States who purchased defendant's Pirates Booty and/or
Veggie Booty snacks food during such time that it was mislabeled
as containing 2.5 grams of fat when in fact it contained more
fat.

She wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants misrepresented the nutrition facts
         on the products and otherwise mislabled them so as to
         have the consumer believe that the products were low-
         fat and healthy snack foods;

     (b) whether defendant Keystone knowingly, negligently
         and/or recklessly manufactured said products in a
         manner such that the products did not conform to RAGF
         formulas and labeling;

     (c) whether the actions and activities of defendants
         violated the misbranding provisions of the Pennsylvania
         Food Act, Act 1994-70 codified at 31 PS Section 20.1 et
         seq.;

     (d) whether the actions and activities of defendants
         violated the Consumer Protection Law, 73 PS Section
         201-1 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
         labeling was false when issued;

     (f) whether RAGF breached its warranties to consumers
         concerning the product; and

     (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by the sale
         and distribution of the misbranded or mislabeled
         product to consumers.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

      -- an order certifying the purposed class and appointing
         plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the
         class;

      -- compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as
         permitted by law;

      -- treble damages and/or enhanced damages pursuant to the
         applicable Consumer Protection laws;

      -- reasonable attorneys fees, costs, pre and post judgment
         interests, expert witness fees and expenses; and

      -- any and all such other relief as the court may deem
         just and proper.

The suit is "Rachelle Levy et al. v. Keystone Food Products,
Inc. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Steven E. Angstreich
          Michael Coren
          Carolyn L. Lindheim
          Amy R. Brandt
          Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein &
          Coren, PC
          1616 Walnut Street, 5th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 735-1616


KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose
--------------------------------------------------------------
KYMCO USA, of Spartanburg, S.C., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,350
006-2008 Model Year MXU 500 All Terrain Vehicles.

The company said the pivot bolts holding the rear suspension
onto the frame can become loose, causing the rear swing arm to
detach from the chassis posing a risk of injury or death to the
operator.

KYMCO has received six reports of incidents, including two
reports of minor injuries.

This recall involves all model year 2006-2008 MXU 500 ATVs. The
vehicle is identified by a label on the front as KYMCO and the
model is determined by a label located on each side of the fuel
tank as MXU 500.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured in Taiwan and are being
sold by KYMCO dealers nationwide from November 2006 through
December 2007 for between $6,000 and $6,500.

Picture of recalled ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08532.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
ATVs and contact an authorized KYMCO dealer in their area to
schedule a free repair. Registered owners were sent direct mail
notification of this recall.

For additional information, consumers can contact KYMCO USA at
(888) 235-3417 anytime or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kymcousa.com.


MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. denied a
request by the county Ethics Commission to oust two former
county officials from a class action over impact fees, The
Baltimore Sun reports.

Judge Harris ruled that former County Attorney Phillip F.
Scheibe and Robert J. Dvorak, a former top administrator with
the county can stay in the suit without sanctions.  Mr. Dvorak
served as planning and zoning chief, among other administrative
jobs in the county.  Mr. Dvorak used to work on the department
that was involved in the impact fee program.  

Mr. Scheibe, who oversaw the law office of the government, sued
the county in 2001 on behalf of homebuyers in Seven Oaks
(Odenton) community.  The class action claimed the county should
refund as much as $27 million to property owners because it
misspent impact fees collected or improperly gave itself an
extension on the time limit by which the county should return
money left unspent for roads and other improvements.

Mr. Dvorak, together with Mr. Scheibe’s law partner, John R.
Greiber Jr., won a $4.7 million judgment in the case.  

The Ethics Commission ruled in 2006 that Messrs. Scheibe and
Dvorak had used inside knowledge of the impact fee program in
the suit.

In the latest ruling, Judge Harris also refused a motion to levy
fines against Messrs. Scheibe and Dvorak of up to $1,000 a day
since the start of the case in 2001 and to withhold attorney
fees from Mr. Scheibe and witness fees from Mr. Dvorak.  Judge
Harris rejected the motions in part on grounds that the panel
waited years after the lawsuit against the county was brought in
2001 to claim a conflict of interest.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays
------------------------------------------------------------
Three New Hampshire residents have settled a class action
against the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS). The settlement requires DHHS
to make timely disability decisions about Medicaid eligibility.

New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities
Rights Center brought suit on behalf of individuals who were
going without needed medical benefits due to the long delays in
DHHS’s determination process. The residents sued DHHS in Federal
District Court in February 2007.

NHLA said that under federal law, DHHS is supposed to make
decisions about a person’s Medicaid eligibility within 90 days
unless there are unusual circumstances. However, it would often
take over a year to make a decision about these vital benefits.

Individuals may go without medical treatment or prescription
medications during this time, or use money needed for basic
necessities such as housing, food, or utilities. The three
Plaintiffs waited, respectively, over 273 days, 188 days, and
170 days to hear whether they qualified for benefits. After the
lawsuit was filed, DHHS acknowledged that it had not complied
with federal law and asked the Court to grant judgment in favor
of the Plaintiffs.

The parties filed a proposed joint final order with the Court on
November 5. On December 21, 2007, the Court preliminarily
approved the proposed order which requires DHHS to notify
disabled Medicaid applicants about the proposed settlement.

If approved by the Court, the order would give DHHS 180 days to
start making disability decisions within 90 days or to explain
what unusual circumstances prevented a timely determination.
DHHS would report back about its progress and share monitoring
information with lawyers for the Plaintiffs who brought the
case. DHHS would notify Medicaid disability applicants about
their right to an administrative fair hearing whenever decisions
take longer than 90 days.

“This outcome is a victory for all disabled New Hampshire
residents who need help,” says Ben Mortell, lead counsel for the
Plaintiffs. “I’m very pleased we were able to settle this case
quickly so that DHHS can move forward on resolving the delays
and quickly grant benefits to people in desperate need. The
class action settlement also allows us to make sure that the
delay problem is really fixed.”

New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities
Rights Center (DRC) represented the three NH residents who filed
this case. NHLA is a statewide non-profit law firm which
provides civil legal services to low-income and elderly
residents of New Hampshire. DRC is a statewide non-profit law
firm which provides civil legal services to disabled residents
of New Hampshire.


NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy dismissed a class action
filed against the New York state Department of Correctional
Services over alleged sexual abuses of prisoners at Albion
Correctional Facility and other allwomen prisons, Buffalo News
reports.

The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society Prisoners Rights
Project based in New York city in 2003.  The suit claimed the
department failed to do enough to prevent corrections officers
from rape, sexual molestation and voyeurism aimed at female
prisoners in the state system.  It asked the state for added
protection of female prisoners from male corrections officers.  
The lawsuit alleged sexual abuse by 15 corrections officers,
including six who work or have worked at Albion.

According to the lawsuit, the state receives about 200
complaints a year of sexual misconduct, and the large majority
of those complaints do not result in criminal prosecutions.

Judge Duffy did not rule on whether women prisoners have been
subjected to widespread mistreatment.  He only ruled that the
women involved in the lawsuit did not make exhaustive use of the
prison system's grievance system before taking their complaint
to federal court.

The organization's lawyers have asked Judge Duffy to reconsider
his recent ruling dismissing the lawsuit, according to the
report.

Buffalo attorney Joseph M. La- Tona represents veteran Albion
facility corrections officer Charles Davis who was accused of
sexual abuse in the lawsuit.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph M. La Tona, Esq.
          (716) 842-0416
          403 Main St Ste 716
          Buffalo, N.Y.


NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. faces a purported securities fraud
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

On or about Oct. 4, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of California in the matter filed by
Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against:

     -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp.,
     -- Louis Tomasetta,
     -- Yatin Mody,
     -- Eugene F. Hovanec,
     -- Silicon Valley Bank,
     -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp.,
     -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as
        Titan Logistics Corp.), and
     -- KPMG LLP

Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Nu Horizons, Titan, Silicon
Valley Bank, and KPMG LLP were added as defendants to the
putative class action which had been commenced by certain
purchasers of Vitesse common stock.

In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Nu Horizons and
Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from Jan.
27, 2003 to and including April 27, 2006.  

As of Nov. 21, 2007, a class has not been certified.

Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is  
engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for,
high technology active and passive electronic components.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal in two versions of similarly titled class actions,
“Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.”

                  Original Wheeler Litigation

On July 1, 2002, three individuals, on behalf of themselves and
a putative class of chicken growers, filed their original class
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, styled "Cody Wheeler, et al.
v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp."

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs initially alleged that the Company
violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192)
and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff
growers.

The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers
and Stockyards Act alleging, among other things, breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract.

On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join
Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant.  Two additional former
chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.

This amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's
initial filing, virtually re-wrote most of the allegations.  Now
the plaintiffs contend that the Company and Tyson are involved
in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs' initial allegations, although still contained in
the amended lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case.

On Jan. 3, 2006, the Court entered an Order severing the
plaintiffs' Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims.
The Court ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their
Packers and Stockyards Act claims as set forth in Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.

The Court also ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with
their respective antitrust claims asserted against the Company
and Tyson in a separate cause of action styled "Cody Wheeler, et
al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al."

On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the original lawsuit.  Pilgrim's Pride attacked
the plaintiffs' class certification brief on several grounds,
and ultimately the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Motion
for Class Certification on May 26, 2006.

As a result, the Court canceled the class certification hearing
and on June 2, 2006 the Court entered an Order withdrawing
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and prohibiting the
plaintiffs from filing any additional class-action claims
against Pilgrim's Pride in this lawsuit.

Additionally, the two former growers who joined the lawsuit on
Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case.  

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Company’s pending motion for summary
judgment.  

In the order, the Court ruled that plaintiffs do not have to
demonstrate an adverse effect on competition in order to prevail
under the PSA.  

This ruling is inconsistent with many other jurisdictions’
interpretation of the PSA.  The Court issued an order staying
the lawsuit until the issue is decided by the U.S. Court for
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  

On June 29, 2007, the Fifth Circuit accepted the appeal.  The
matter is currently being briefed by the parties.  

                      New Wheeler Litigation

On Jan. 3, 2006, an action styled, "Cody Wheeler, et al. v.
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," arising out of the original
Wheeler litigation described above, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The lawsuit was filed by the three original plaintiffs and a
former grower, both in their individual capacities and on behalf
of a putative class of chicken growers.

In the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust
laws.  

On Sept. 28, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’
request to certify a class action.  Plaintiffs filed the
Petition for Permission to Appeal the District Court’s Order on
Oct. 15, 2007 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
producer of poultry in the U.S., Mexico and Puerto Rico.  In the
U.S., the Company produces prepared and fresh chicken, and
turkey while in Mexico and Puerto Rico, it produces only fresh
chicken.  Through vertical integration, it controls the
breeding, hatching and growing of chickens, and the processing
and preparation, packaging and sale of its product lines.


PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin  
---------------------------------------------------------
Plexus Corp. and company officers and/or directors face two
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Nov.
21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007.

Two securities class actions were filed against the company, and
several of the company's  current or former officers and/or
directors during June 2007.

The lawsuits allege securities law violations and seek
unspecified damages relating to our July 26, 2006 announcement
of the company's fiscal fourth quarter earnings outlook and that  
its manufacturing facility in Maldon, England would be closed.

One of the suits is “Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees
Pension Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 866-264-3995
          Fax: 414-482-8001
          E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

               - and -

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173


RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action filed against Radian
Group, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
has withdrawn her complaint against a planned merger of the
company with MGIC Investment Corp. after the transaction was
terminated.

On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder filed a class action
related to the company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment
Corp. was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Civil Trial Division in the State of Pennsylvania by
Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger
consideration to be received by Radian stockholders was
inadequate and that the individual defendants, among other
things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good faith and
independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger.

The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive,
declaratory and other equitable relief.

On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on
March 26, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the suit, or, in the
alternative, for a briefing schedule in connection with any
potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit to the
Court of Common Pleas.

On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the
Court of Common Pleas, which motion defendants opposed.  On May
31, 2007, the motion to remand was granted, and the case is now
back in the Court of Common Pleas, where the parties are
preparing initial pleadings.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the company, and MGIC agreed to mutually
terminate its pending merger.  The plaintiff in this matter
withdrew her complaint on Sept. 20, 2007.

The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01068-PD,” originally pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S.
Diamond.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
         The Weiser Law Firm
         121 N. Wayne Avenue
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-225-0273
         Fax: 610-225-2678
         E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joel Mchugh, Esq.
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
         1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
         Phone: 215-751-2437
         Fax: 215-751-2205
         E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com


RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS
----------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group, Inc. faces two purported securities fraud class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class
actions were filed against Radian Group and individual
defendants.

The suits are:

       -- “Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.,” and

       -- “Maslar v. Radian Group Inc.”

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that
Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual
financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group’s
declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C-
BASS.

Two motions have been filed seeking appointment as lead
Plaintiff, the first on behalf of the Institutional Investors
Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor
Employees’ Retirement System and the second on behalf of the
Tulare County Employees Retirement Association.

The suit is “John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA, 19102
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000
          E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631.367.7100
          Fax: 631.367.1173

               - and -

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA, 19087
          Phone: 610.667.7706
          Fax: 610.667.7056
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sasol North America, Inc., which is part of South African
diversified chemical giant Sasol Ltd.'s Olefins and Surfactants
unit, faces a purported class action as a result of a 1994
rupture of the ConocoPhillips ethylene dichloride (EDC) pipeline
connecting their dock to Sasol's vinyl chloride monomer plant in
the U.S.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages as a result
of alleged exposure to EDC.

As of June 30, 2007 there is a class action and 29 lawsuits
pending, brought by over 800 plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege various personal injuries resulting from
exposure to EDC while the plaintiffs were employed as
contractors of ConocoPhillips to clean up the EDC or to perform
other projects on the ConocoPhillips refinery where the rupture
occurred.  

The plaintiffs seek recovery of unspecified compensating and
punitive damages.

Sasol Ltd. -- http://www.sasol.com-- is an integrated oil and  
gas company with substantial chemical interests.  Based in South
Africa and operating worldwide, Sasol is listed on the NYSE and
JSE stock exchanges.  The company is a provider of liquid fuels
in South Africa and a major international producer of chemicals.


SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a lawsuit in California
Superior Court against Google and Yahoo! and several other
popular websites.

The class action relates to the search engines running adverts
from online gambling sites, which HBSS claims made them hundreds
of millions of dollars while violating California law.

The case is to be heard on February 11 and will test the
liability of these companies in California as HBSS is to ask the
Court to further restrict their ability to advertise in the
future.

“We believe these companies have been profiting from this
illegal practice for more than a decade and we believe the
agreement with the Government does not go far enough,” said Reed
Kathrein, Lead Attorney for HHBS.

“The settlements are a great victory and a tacit admission by
these online advertisers but there is still more work to do in
holding these companies accountable for the harm they have done
to Californians and to keep them and others from continuing
these practices.

“Given the amounts the huge profits we believe they made, we
believe these relatively small forfeiture penalties will not
deter them or others in the future.”

Mr. Kathrein stated that the lawsuit calls for the websites to
pay relief and acknowledge that the practice of advertising
online casinos in the state is illegal.

The complaint also calls for disgorgement of profits earned from
online advertisers, a figure that could exceed hundreds of
millions of dollars and benefit education and rehabilitation
efforts aimed at gambling addiction.

This latest lawsuit follows late-December’s $31.5 million
settlement with the Federal Government by Google, Yahoo! and
Microsoft over claimed online gambling advertising
infringements.


TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported shareholder class action filed
against Talon International Inc, formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc.,
has filed his opening appellate brief in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California with regards to a summary
judgment favoring the company.

On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint,
"Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352,"
was filed against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court heard competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth
Huberman as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff thereafter filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
a purported class period between Nov. 13, 2003 and Aug. 12,
2005.  

It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007 and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.
Plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
to intervene a new plaintiff to pursue class certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company’s and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment, and on or about
April 5, 2007, the Court entered judgment in favor of all
defendants.

On or about April 30, 2007,  plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,  
and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.

The suit is “Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real
with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200
         E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated shareholders’ complaint
filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court,
according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 29, 2007.

On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two
previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited
Partnership and certain present and former directors of the
company.  The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with
no relief sought against it.

The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by:

     -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
        Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I);

     -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
        compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
        2003 (Count II);

     -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
        directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
        to make announcements that would cause the stock price
        to increase (Count III);

     -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
        party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
        allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and

     -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
        Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree
        (Count V).

The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative
claims for:

     -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
        Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI);

     -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
        in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and

     -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
        defendants through the various transactions challenged
        in the consolidated complaint (Count IX).

The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action
claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation
(Count VIII).

On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.  

On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants’ motion, including dismissing in
whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts,
contempt of the court’s final order in “Herbets v. Tyson, et
al.,” and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in
part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and
disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party
transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims.

On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with
option grants.

The court denied the outside directors motion on Aug. 15, 2007.
Discovery in the case is ongoing.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- produces,  
distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and
related allied products.


TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A March 3, 2008 trial is set in the class action, "Trollinger v.
Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's
Shelbyville, Tennessee chicken-processing plant filed the case.
It was filed as a putative class action against the company,
raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act.  

It specifically alleged that the company, in conjunction with
employment agencies and recruiters, engaged in a scheme to hire
illegal immigrant workers in 15 of its processing plants to
depress wages paid to hourly wage employees at those plants.

On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case.  Following
appeal, on June 3, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  Discovery has been ongoing since September
2004.

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  The
second amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed
the list of plants at issue to eight and added the allegation
the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil rights groups
to hire illegal immigrant workers.

In addition, the second amended complaint added the following,
all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the
company, as defendants in the case:

      -- John Tyson,  
      -- Richard Bond,  
      -- Greg Lee,  
      -- Archibald Schaffer III,  
      -- Kenneth Kimbro,  
      -- Karen Percival, and
      -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt.
  
On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative
class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company plants
since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in the
U.S., which the defendants opposed.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification.

On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for interlocutory
review of the District Court’s class certification decision.
That petition is pending.

Discovery continues in the case, and a trial date of March 3,
2008, has been set by the District Court.

The suit is "Trollinger, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with
referral to Judge William B. Carter.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Howard W. Foster, Esq.
         Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
         33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700
         Chicago, IL 60603-5404
         Phone: 312-372-0770
         Fax: 312-372-9818
         E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com

              - and -

         William G. Colvin, Esq.
         Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C.
         736 Market Street, Suite 1100  
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-425-7000
         E-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Roger W. Dickson, Esq.
         Miller & Martin
         832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building
         Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289
         Phone: 423-756-6600
         E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com

              - and -

         Thomas C. Green, Esq.
         Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP
         1501 K. Street NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000


UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas District Judge Harry Barnes refused to certify as class
action a suit filed against Union Pacific Railroad Co. over a
2005 railroad accident, Associated Press reports.

At about 5 a.m. on October 15, 2005, Sunday, a Union Pacific  
train coming from Chicago struck the back of another Union  
Pacific train coming from Pine Bluff in a rail yard on the south  
side of Texarkana.  Eight cars derailed, and a tanker car  
containing propylene exploded and fire broke out (Class Action  
Reporter, Oct 21, 2005).  

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in Miller  
County Circuit Court on behalf of residents Troy H. Bradford and  
Gloria Bradford and their business Books Etc.   

The suit charges the Omaha, Nebraska-based company of  
negligence, trespass, and causing a nuisance "in allowing toxic  
and hazardous chemicals" into the community.   

The suit seeks an order requiring the company to clean up any  
damage and pay unspecified monetary compensation for personal  
injuries, evacuation and cleanup costs, property loss, and lost  
income resulting from the derailment.  

In November, Union Pacific filed a petition seeking to move the  
case from Miller County to the U.S. District Court for the  
Western District of Arkansas.  The petition states that the case  
should be tried in federal court due to the Class Action  
Fairness Act of 2005, and due to the amount of money, which may  
eventually be involved in the suit (Class Action Reporter, Nov.  
3, 2005).  That petition was later granted.

Recently, Judge Barnes ruled that the lawsuit should be pursued
only with the specific complaints of Samuel Alexander, Gloria
Bradford, Ned Burnett and Stella Smith.

A trial is scheduled to begin June 2.

The suit is "Bradford et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,  
Case No. 4:05-cv-04075-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court  
for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Harry F.  
Barnes.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          R. Gary Nutter of Dunn, Esq.
          Nutter & Morgan, L.L.P., State  
          Line Plaza, Box 8030, Suite Six, Texarkana
          AR 71854-5945
          Phone: (870) 773-5651
          Fax: (870) 772-2037
          E-mail: rgnutter@dnmlawfirm.com

          -- and --

          Matthew David Karnas, Esq.
          Bellovin Karnas, P.C.
          100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 1105, Tucson, AZ 85701
          Phone: 520-571-9700
          Fax: 520-571-8556
          E-mail: Karnas@Bellovinkarnas.com   

Representing the defendants are:

          William H. Howard, III, Esq.
          Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3600
          New Orleans, LA 70170, U.S.
          Phone: 504-566-5275
          Fax: 504-636-3975
          E-mail: bhoward@bakerdonelson.com
  
          -- and --

         George L. McWilliams, Esq.
         Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP
         2900 Saint Michael Drive, Suite 400  
         Texarkana, TX 75503
         Phone: (903) 334-7107
         Fax: (903) 334-7007
         E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com


UNITED RENTALS: Asks Cerberus for $100M Merger Termination Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Chancery Court Judge William B. Chandler III ruled that
United Rentals, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
knew or should have known that Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
believed they had a right to pull out of the Merger Agreement at
any time as long as Cerberus paid a $100 million fee to United
Rentals.

United Rentals has requested that Cerberus pay the company the
$100 million termination fee required by the Merger Agreement.

On November 21, 2007, Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP commenced
a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of United Rentals between August 29, 2007
through and including November 14, 2007 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that, several weeks after
United Rentals and Cerberus had signed a merger agreement,
Cerberus contacted United Rentals management and expressed its
concern about its ability to proceed with the Merger given the
changes in the credit and financial markets, on which its
financing for the deal depended.

It was not until November 14, 2007, when the Company filed a
Form 8-K that included letters, dated August 31, 2007 and
September 6, 2007 which demonstrated that the Merger had been at
risk since August 29, 2007, and that Cerberus sought to
renegotiate the terms of the Merger Agreement.

Defendants' failure to disclose this information materially
mislead investors and caused the market for United Rentals'
shares to trade at prices artificially inflated by the belief
that the Merger would proceed. Had the August correspondence
between Ceberus and United Rentals been disclosed to the public
in the Proxy, United Rentals' shareholders would have been
alerted to the risk of the transaction not going forward.

On November 14, 2007, United Rentals publicly announced that
Cerberus had informed the Company that Cerberus was not prepared
to proceed with the purchase of United Rentals on the terms set
forth in the Merger Agreement. On this news, the Company posted
its biggest drop since it went public in 1997 and plunged 31%,
or $10.51, from $34.01 per share to a closing price of $23.50
per share.

On November 19, 2007, United Rentals announced that it had filed
a lawsuit against RAM Holdings, Inc. and RAM Acquisition Corp.,
(the acquisition vehicles formed by Cerberus to acquire United
Rentals). The lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, whereby Cerberus was seeking to compel the Cerberus
acquisition vehicles to complete the agreed-upon Merger
Agreement.

On December 21, 2007, Judge Chandler III ruled that United
Rentals and certain of its officers and directors knew or should
have known that Cerberus believed they had a right to pull out
of the Merger Agreement at any time as long as Cerberus paid a
$100 million fee to United Rentals.

As a result of the Delaware Court's decision, on December 24,
2007, United Rentals requested that Cerberus pay United Rentals
the $100 million termination fee required by the Merger
Agreement.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired United Rentals securities during
the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 21,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Susan Lee
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free)
          E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com or  
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com
          Website: http://www.abbeygardy.com


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Future Liability Costs Not Disclosed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Burton Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York declined to determine the exact
amount of Reorganized Dana Corp.'s future costs for asbestos
liabilities for the purposes of confirming the Plan of
Reorganization and determining that the Plan is feasible.

Judge Lifland explained that, in addition to Dana's substantial
available insurance resources of roughly US$1.5 billion,
Reorganized Dana's initial capitalization of US$195 million --
representing nominal amounts for the next five years and
present-valued amounts for years six through 45 at a six percent
discount rate -- is more than sufficient to cover the range of
reasonable forecasts.

The Court finds that the Plan presents a workable scheme of
reorganization and operation from which there is a reasonable
assurance of success and is, thus, feasible and satisfies
Section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code, Judge Lifland said.

Dr. Robin Cantor, a managing director in the Insurance and
Claims Services practice of Navigant Consulting Inc., which was
retained by the Debtors, forecasts that Dana's combined defense
and indemnity costs for asbestos personal injury claims for the
15-year period after emergence from bankruptcy will most likely
total between US$133 million and US$200 million.

Dr. Cantor also forecasts that combined costs for the period
extending through 2049 will most likely total between US$182.4
million and US$291.5 million, not reduced to present value.

Reorganized Dana will be initially capitalized with US$195
million in cash and other assets as of the Effective Date.

Dr. Thomas Vasquez, a partner at Analysis, Research & Planning
Corp., which was retained by the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors, forecasts that the combined costs for the period
extending through 2049 will most likely total between US$700
million and US$1.1 billion, excluding what he termed the "low
probability scenarios" that could be more or less than those
amounts.

Dr. Cantor testified at the trial that, by adopting Dr.
Vasquez's methodology, and then applying appropriate
assumptions, Dr. Vasquez' forecast for Reorganized Dana's
asbestos liabilities decreases to US$244 million.

Judge Lifland said both Dr. Cantor and Dr. Vasquez were very
knowledgeable about the estimation of future asbestos-related
liabilities and were reliable in terms of making calculations
based on the assumptions that they made and the methodologies
they employed.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 67; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Management Plan to Start in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workplaces in Queensland, Australia, have been reminded that new
asbestos management obligations are to take effect across the
state from Jan. 1, 2008, according to a Queensland Government
press release dated Dec. 27, 2007.

The new obligations require the drawing up of a plan by people
working with asbestos, setting out in clear terms what work is
going to be done, when it is going to be done and how it will be
carried out.

The obligations are part of a code, introduced in 2006, which
acknowledged at the time that industry and workplaces needed
time to identify and plan the removal of asbestos.

Employment and Industrial Relations Minister John Mickel said
the code specifies the obligations of anyone dealing with bonded
asbestos material in a workplace.

Details of the code are available at
www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/asbestos/working/practice
s/index.htm

Mr. Mickel said, "The code highlights the need for consultation
and correct handling of asbestos throughout the removal process.

"All asbestos containing material now has to be labeled and
recorded in a register and a risk assessment carried out. The
goal for all is to rid workplaces of asbestos wherever possible,
rather than seek to control risk by sealing or enclosing
asbestos material.”

All workplaces built before Jan. 1, 2008 are already required to
have an asbestos register, as well as safety policies and
procedures for friable asbestos.

http://media-newswire.com/release_1059186.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Investigates Possible Breaches by Posen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Environmental Protection officials are
investigating allegations by Posen Construction Inc. workers who
were ordered to handle asbestos pipe without protective gear and
then ordered to dump it illegally at a new lake south of Alico
Road in Florida, Naples Daily News reports.

In sworn statements, Posen employees and former employees say
their jobs were threatened if they refused to handle the
dangerous material.

In a sworn statement taken in November 2007, truck driver
Virginia Brown said, "If we question the instructions there are
plenty of people looking for truck driving jobs.”

Ms. Brown heard that from crew leader Linda Darnall, she said,
who swore she got the instruction from her boss, Michael Schook.

Ms. Darnall, who claimed she was terminated after she complained
and went for lung X-rays and tests, said, "They've harassed the
hell out of me. People are sick. People are being harassed.
People are being fired. I am livid.”

Other Posen workers said they were instructed to cut up the
asbestos pipe with saws and crush it. The workers said they were
not offered protective gear.

Posen worker Jonathan Herman said he was spotting for an
equipment operator who removed the pipe from the ground.

The various statements claim the pipe, owned by Lee County
Utilities and removed during the widening of Alico Road near
U.S. 41, was crushed and cut up at the site.

Truck drivers claim they were ordered to dump the material at a
newly created lake south of the new Alico Road near 41, and that
equipment operators pushed the asbestos into the lake.

DEP sent warning letters to Posen, Lee County and the Florida
Department of Transportation before Christmas advising of
possible violations of the law.

DEP spokeswoman Audrey Wright said, "We have investigated and we
have sent the warning letter. They have replied and asked for a
meeting after the holidays.”

During that meeting more investigating will take place, DEP's
Sherrill Culliver said. Lee County officials got interested when
Posen employees took their complaints to them.

"Every day phone calls come in about something,” said Tony
Pellicer of the water resources division. "I read the
statements, but I wasn't there. I do know Posen subsequently
instituted asbestos-handling training. They didn't have it
before.”

Bonita City Manager Gary Price said his engineers tell him
there's asbestos buried on the south side of the Imperial River
where Posen built the embankment for the new bridge.

Tony Pellicer of the water resources division said said the
county knew the old asbestos utility lines were there, and
Posen's contract included removal and proper disposal. He said
when the employee complaints reached him he requested copies of
disposal receipts for the asbestos.

Though the county had paid for the removal several months
earlier the disposal receipts were dated after the request was
made.

Ms. Darnall said Posen looked for reasons to fire her, even
removing her from her truck and ordering immediate drug testing,
which she passed, she said. She was fired after an accident in a
company vehicle.

Ms. Darnall said she's contacted Occupational Health and Safety
Administration about the working conditions and has equal
opportunity complaints pending.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bldg. w/ Asbestos May Be Demolished in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Middletown, Ohio's city planning director Marty Kohler said the
demolition of the remains of the Whit Machine Inc. warehouse,
which was damaged in a May 25, 2007 fire and is known to contain
asbestos, could begin in mid-January 2008, Middletown Journal
reports.

The city had asked for US$300,000 to US$400,000 for the
environmental cleanup of asbestos in the building, Mr. Kohler
said. Asbestos also is contained in the cotton paper bales,
which he said will be treated as hazardous waste.

An insurance settlement may mean the warehouse could be
demolished and investigators finally able to determine the cause
of the blaze that caused damages of about US$1.2 million.

Mr. Kohler said the company settled with its insurance company
several weeks ago over the damages caused by the fire that had
flames shoot more than 50 feet above the building and
temperatures exceed 2,000 degrees.

It cost the city US$18,000 in overtime to firefighters to put
out the blaze, which smoldered for months at the 70,000-square-
foot facility most recently used to store prefabrication
materials and cotton paper bales.

The company also will put a deposit on the project with the
city's building department, which Mr. Kohler called "a step in
the right direction."

Once the environmental cleanup is finished, the city's fire
marshal will be able to complete his investigation on the cause
of the blaze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts Demolition of Bldg. in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Haines City, Fla., were set to demolish a known
drug house the city had seized, but workers were held up on Dec.
27, 2007 because asbestos tiles were found underneath the stucco
covering on the house, The Ledger reports.

Haines City police Chief Morris West shows an area containing
asbestos material in the exterior walls of the house, prompting
the city to delay its demolition.

Police won the seizure of Patricia Anthony's house at 1102 Ave.
G and rooming house at 1607 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, in
Circuit Court and evicted Ms. Anthony on Dec. 21, 2007 with
plans to tear down the two buildings where numerous drug arrests
have been made over the years.

The boarding house, just north of the house, also has asbestos
shingles. Ms. Anthony owned both buildings and lived in the
house at Avenue G.

West said a Tampa company, Air Quality Consultants, would be
coming to test the asbestos and recommend the best way to tear
it down.

Michael King, owner of King Trucking, the Haines City company
hired to demolish the buildings, said he could not tear down the
building without first knowing what kind of asbestos it is.

City Manager Ann Toney-Deal said the city may have to do a "wet”
demolition on the building where water is used to keep dust and
flying particles down.

Ms. Toney-Deal said the city had to do "wet” demolitions on the
old Oakland, Fla., gymnasium and auditorium because of asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to U.K. Const. Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest has heard that the death of construction worker Colin
Youngs was linked to asbestos, News & Star reports.

Mr. Youngs was exposed to asbestos while he worked on
construction of the West Cumberland Hospital, in Whitehaven,
England, U.K.

Mr. Youngs was 71 years old when he died on Jan. 3, 2007, two
months after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

At the inquest held into Mr. Youngs' death, West Cumbria coroner
John Taylor formally recorded a verdict that Mr. Youngs had died
from an industrial disease.

A joiner by trade, Mr. Youngs worked for James Laing
Construction Ltd. between 1961 and 1966, where he was employed
on the building of the West Cumberland Hospital.

The inquest heard that, during Mr. Youngs' time with the firm,
his job involved cutting heavy doors which contained sheets of
asbestos.

Mr. Youngs moved on to Marchon Chemical Co. in 1968 where he
worked as a plant operator.

One of Mr. Youngs' colleagues at the time, Colin Rourke, told
the inquest that they worked in an enclosed factory environment
and, after asbestos lagging had been removed from pipework in
the buildings, asbestos particles would remain in the air.

Mr. Youngs' began to develop ill health in 2006.

Following the verdict, Mr. Youngs' son Ged said, "My father's
death from mesothelioma has been horrendous for the family and
today's result will help us to move forward.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Demolition of S.C. Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of asbestos at the Sofa Super Store in Charleston,
S.C., has extended the building's demolition until 2008, The
Post and Courier reports.

Asbestos in some of the building's materials will delay final
clearing of the site for another two to three weeks, said
Brandon Martin, whose company, B&B Demolition Specialists, was
hired by the store's owner to dismantle the structure. The work
originally was expected to wrap up by the end of 2007.

On Dec. 28, 2007, crews maneuvered backhoes and other machinery
around the site, scooping up mounds of twisted metal and charred
wood. The site looks notably clearer than it has since the June
18, 2007 blaze that killed nine area firefighters.

Mr. Martin declined to say how much asbestos is in the building,
parts of which are at least 50 years old. However, a permit
issued by the state Department of Health and Environmental
Control notes the presence of 15,000 square feet of building
materials containing asbestos.

Robert Rosen, the Sofa Super Store's lawyer, said the building
contains "very little" asbestos and it does not pose a hazard to
the public.

Charleston city officials have made an offer to purchase the
land and are waiting for a response, said Mark Ruppel, public
information officer for the Charleston Fire Department.

Some of the more identifiable remnants of the store, its facade
and roadside marquee, will be among the last items hauled away,
Mr. Martin said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Hospital in Wales
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four operating theaters at Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny,
Wales, are closed while asbestos is being removed from part of
the hospital, South Wales Argus reports.

Power has been cut and operating rooms are closed while the work
takes place in plant rooms adjacent to the main theater suite.

A Gwent Healthcare Trust spokesperson told the Argus, "The plant
rooms are adjacent, not in, the theater suite and the work being
carried out is to remove asbestos from these plant rooms.”

The spokesperson said that the work had been planned and that
contingencies had been put in place so that patients would not
be affected.

The spokesperson said, "This work has been planned for some time
and is going to plan, which means the theaters will be fully
functional again on Jan 4th. Surgery is carrying on as usual in
Nevill Hall in the other theaters unaffected by this work.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owners of Mass. Building to Pay for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a document obtained by Gloucester Daily Times, the
owners of Lorraine Apartments, which was demolished by fire on
Dec. 15, 2007 and located in Gloucester, Mass., will be held
responsible for removing the asbestos-ridden ruins from the
site.

The state Department of Environmental Protection, which tested
for asbestos after officials noticed signs of it in the rubble
of the apartment building, sent a notice of responsibility to 80
Middle St. LLC of Lynnfield, listed as the building's owner.

The notice requires the owners to hire a licensed asbestos
contractor to develop a plan for removing the chemical from the
site's debris without releasing any of it into the air.

According to DEP spokesman Joe Ferson, there is no risk to
firefighters who were at the scene on Dec. 15, 2007 or
neighboring homes or businesses because the chemical was
saturated with water when the fire was fought.

Several asbestos handling companies contacted by the Times said
they could not provide a cost estimate without seeing the
project site and understanding what the cleanup would entail.
Typically, asbestos is removed from an intact building, not from
rubble.

Mr. Ferson said that aside from being responsible for the costs
associated with properly disposing of the chemicals, the
building owners, Gary Raso and Daniel Gattineri, will need to
reimburse the DEP for expenses incurred as they monitor air
quality at the site to ensure it remains safe. The final plan
will need state approval.

According to state fire marshal spokeswoman Jennifer Mieth, the
handling of asbestos is one of the issues complicating and
slowing the recovery efforts.

The Cape Ann YMCA and Sawyer Free Library, both neighbors of the
Lorraine Apartments, had their air quality tested in the past
week. Representatives from both said that the tests showed their
air was safe and clean.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Forces Closure of Aussie Warehouse
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Metcash Ltd. warehouse in Blacktown, New South Wales,
Australia, has been closed due to the presence of asbestos in
the building's corrugated roof sheets, The Sydney Morning Herald
reports.

On Dec. 28, 2007, Metcash chief executive Andrew Reitzer said
the warehouse had been closed and sealed to all but specialist
contamination workers for more than two weeks.

The asbestos was contained in corrugated roof sheets that were
broken during a violent storm on Dec. 9, 2007.

Mr. Reitzer said the closure of the Blacktown warehouse had
affected deliveries to 350 IGA, Foodworks and independent
supermarkets at the most important time of the year for the
wholesaler.

Supplies will be taken to supermarkets from Victoria or
Queensland until the warehouse roof is replaced and the building
reopens in April 2008 or May 2008.

The company has also a leased a temporary warehouse at Moorebank
to it help cope with the demand for stock. The center was one of
three warehouses in NSW and only dry and non-perishable items
have been affected by the closure.

Mr. Reitzer said there were about 300 holes the sizes of his
fist in the roof of the warehouse. "Some of the hail must have
been like missiles - there were pieces of hail that went through
the asbestos roof then an inch of insulation and then through an
internal ceiling and damaged the warehouse manager's desk …

"The [hazardous materials] team arrived from the fire department
because it was an asbestos roof and they just shut the warehouse
and sealed it.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Town Granted $25T for Asbestos Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Fowler, Ind. has been granted US$25,000 to remove
asbestos from the closed Fowler Elementary School, Journal &
Courier reports.

School corporation attorney Jud Barce said the grant, from the
Indiana Finance Authority, will cover the cost of the asbestos
removal.

While the school's future remains undetermined, the asbestos
removal will prepare the older portion of the building for
eventual demolition.

Superintendent Steve Wittenauer said, "The US$25,000 for
asbestos removal is the first step. The next thing would be if
the US$400,000 grant for removal were approved.”

The school has been vacant since fall 2006, when Fowler and
Oxford elementary school students were consolidated into the new
Prairie Crossing Elementary School.

Two groups, the Town of Fowler and the Fowler American Legion
Post 57, have expressed interest in buying and reusing the
space.

Fowler wants to install a community center, and the American
Legion wants to move its operations to the newer addition on the
building. Both situations would require partial or complete
demolition of the building.

Once there is a determination on what will become of the former
school, Mr. Barce said the school will apply in May 2008 for
another, larger grant from the same group.

That grant would help defray demolition costs, which have been
estimated at more than US$400,000 dollars.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest into the death of former railway worker Eric Baker
heard that he died from industrial disease following asbestos
exposure, Scarborough Evening News reports.

The 67-year-old Mr. Baker, of Filey, North Yorkshire, England,
was exposed to asbestos while working for British Rail as a
coach builder between 1955 and 1962.

Mr. Baker, who also worked as a joiner, was diagnosed with lung
cancer in October 2006. His condition deteriorated and he died
on Aug. 15, 2007, just over a week after being admitted to St.
Catherine's Hospice.

A post mortem examination carried out by Dr. David Morgan, a
consultant histo-pathologist at Scarborough Hospital, revealed
the cause of Mr. Baker's death to be lung cancer caused by
asbestos exposure and smoking.

Coroner Michael Oakley recorded a verdict that Mr. Baker had
died from industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona State to be Fined $24.5T for Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota State Occupational Safety and Health
Administration said that the Winona State University in Winona,
Minn., faces a proposed fine of US$24,500 for seven workplace
safety violations related to the removal of asbestos, Star
Tribune reports.

OSHA said the university repaired or replaced insulation in
dormitories and other areas of campus without taking the
necessary precautions to protect workers from asbestos.

OSHA spokesman James Honerman declined to provide details about
the citations, which the university received in November 2007,
because Winona State has contested the allegations.

Cristeen Custer, an assistant vice president at the university,
said the school was cooperating with OSHA. She said, "We take it
seriously, and we do believe that we'll come to a very positive
result with our discussions with OSHA.”


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indian Workers Deal w/ Asbestos From Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indian workers struggle to breathe due to asbestos that is still
being imported from Canada, Winnipeg Free Press reports.

Manghabei Patel is one of hundreds of factory and construction
workers in the state of Gujarat who are seriously ill from
inhaling chrysotile asbestos fibers on the job.

More than 120 workers have filed for compensation for asbestos-
related health problems through India's Supreme Court in
Gujarat, a seaside state where ships deliver chrysotile asbestos
from Quebec, Canada, before it is sent to factories and
manufacturing plants across India.

Much of the chrysotile asbestos used in Gujarat comes from
Canada, and dozens of Gujarati workers know colleagues who have
died. Canadian chrysotile asbestos accounts for about one-third
of all asbestos in India and is used to make everything from
corrugated metal roofing to water pipes.

Indian doctors estimate that at least 100,000 workers inhale
chrysotile asbestos fibers every day. Most workers do not wear
masks and are unaware of the hazards of working with the
material.

Gopal Krishna, an activist with Ban Asbestos Network of India, a
Delhi-based non-governmental organization, said, "The rate at
which workers are dying is noticeable.”

Winnipeg MP Pat Martin said by e-mail that Canada's affinity for
asbestos is based on the federal government's refusal to offend
Quebec.

Mr. Krishna said workers often cannot afford to quit their jobs,
even though doctors tell them continuing to work with asbestos
will only make their symptoms worse.

Although India imports chrysotile asbestos from Russia and
Kazakhstan, Mr. Krishna said it is Canada's slick pro-asbestos
marketing campaigns that keep the asbestos industry in business.

Mr. Krishna said Canadians have had scientific experts speak
about the safety of the material for years, without
acknowledging that developing countries like India do not have
or enforce the same health and safety standards as the western
world.

In 2006, India imported more than 63,000 metric tons of
chrysotile asbestos from Canada.

Despite evidence from Indian doctors and workers, Natural
Resources Canada maintains that chrysotile asbestos is safe and
that it's up to countries like India to ensure workers are
protected.

A spokesperson from Natural Resources Canada said more than 93
percent of Canadian chrysotile asbestos is mixed with cement,
which prevents the release of asbestos fibers -- except when
workers saw through the cement.

The spokesperson said Canada provides information to importing
countries on how to manage the risks associated with chrysotile
and supports the work of the Chrysotile Institute, a non-profit
organization that promotes chrysotile and advocates for its
safety.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentence Termination Motion in Kay Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, denied John Kay's
motion to terminate his supervised release from prison, in an
action stemming from improper asbestos removal at a site in
Clifton Heights, Pa.

The case is styled United States of America v. John Kay.

U.S. District Judge Stengel entered judgment of Criminal Action
No. 05-231 on Dec. 10, 2007.

On June 9, 2005, Mr. Kay, entered a plea of guilty to seven
counts of criminal violations of the Clean Air Act, arising out
of his illegal, improper and unsafe removal of asbestos-covered
heating pipes from a factory in Clifton Heights, Pa.

Through his improper removal and disposal of the asbestos, even
after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified him of
his obligation properly to clean up the asbestos at the work
site, Mr. Kay placed numerous people at risk of exposure to
harmful chemicals.

Mr. Kay was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, followed by
three years of supervised release. After serving less than half
of his three-year term, he has requested the court to terminate
his supervised release and discharge him.

Mr. Kay sought early termination in order to obtain a real
estate license in Arizona so that he may continue to work as a
real estate agent following his family's move to Arizona.

Upon consideration of Mr. Kay's Motion to Terminate Supervised
Release and Discharge Defendant, and the U.S. Government's
response thereto, the District Court hereby ordered that the
motion is denied.

Leo R. Tsao, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, represented
the United States of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Hartford
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed a California trial
court's ruling, to favor The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
and several of its affiliates (Hartford).

The case is styled The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et
al. v. ACE American Reinsurance Co., et al.

Judges Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, and Zarella officially
entered judgment of Case No. 17625 on Dec. 25, 2007.

From 1967 to 1975, Hartford issued general liability insurance
policies to the MacArthur Co. MacArthur was a manufacturer,
distributor and installer of asbestos containing products,
including insulation, in northern California and the Midwest.

Beginning in the late 1970s, numerous claims were brought
against MacArthur for asbestos related injuries. Hartford
defended and paid many of the claims until the early 1990s, when
it determined that MacArthur had exhausted its coverage.
Thereafter, MacArthur sued Hartford in California, seeking
coverage for thousands of additional claims.

In December 2003, Hartford settled the coverage dispute with
MacArthur by agreeing to pay about US$1.15 billion to a trust
responsible for paying the asbestos claimants.

In February 2004, Hartford billed its reinsurers under the
treaty for about 10 percent of the US$1.15 billion settlement
with MacArthur. Hartford billed about 3.4 percent of the
settlement to the defendants.

The defendants refused to pay the bill on the ground that
Hartford's losses under the MacArthur settlement could not be
aggregated under the common cause language.

Thereafter, Hartford brought this action seeking a declaratory
judgment that it was entitled to recover under the treaty for
its losses related to the MacArthur settlement. The defendants
brought a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the
MacArthur claims could not be aggregated, and moved for summary
judgment.

The court rendered summary judgment for the defendants.
Hartford's appeal followed.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the case is remanded
to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

Seth P. Waxman, with whom were Jeffrey R. Babbin, Catherine M.A.
Carroll, and Jonathan M. Freiman, Kenneth D. Heath, Edward C.
DuMont, and Danielle Spinelli, represented The Hartford Accident
and Indemnity Co. and the other plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert A. Knuti, with whom was James F. Sullivan, represented
the London Market Insurance Companies and other appellees.

William J. O'Sullivan filed a brief for the Reinsurance
Association of America as amicus curiae.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Earls Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the North Carolina
Industrial Commission's Nov. 16, 2007 ruling, which denied James
Robert Earls' claims for asbestos and/or asbestos-related
pleural disease, in an action filed against Starr Davis Company
Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety (Standard Fire Insurance).

The case is styled James Robert Earls, Employee, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. Starr Davis Company Inc., Employer, Aetna Casualty
& Surety (Standard Fire Insurance), Carrier, Defendants-
Appellees.

Judges McGee, Tyson, and Elmore entered judgment of Case No.
COA07-223 on Dec. 18, 2007.

This was an appeal by Mr. Earls from order entered Nov. 16, 2006
by the Commission. The Appeals Court heard the matter on Sept.
19, 2007.

Mr. Earls filed a Form 18B dated Feb. 14, 2000 claiming benefits
for the occupational disease of asbestosis and/or asbestos-
related pleural disease. Starr Davis denied liability and Deputy
Commissioner Lorrie L. Dollar heard Mr. Earls' claim on July 17,
2001.

Deputy Commissioner Dollar entered an opinion and award on April
30, 2003 denying Mr. Earls' claim.

Mr. Earls appealed to the North Carolina Industrial Commission
(the Commission). On Nov. 19, 2003, the Commission remanded the
case to the Chief Deputy Commissioner for conduct of an
evidentiary hearing for the purpose of obtaining additional
evidence on the issues of compensability and last injurious
exposure.

On remand, the parties advised Deputy Commissioner George T.
Glenn II that "there would not be any additional evidence
offered in this matter and that it should be decided on the
evidence already contained in the record."

Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Glenn referred the case back to
the Commission. The Commission entered an order on Nov. 16, 2006
affirming with modifications Deputy Commissioner Dollar's
opinion and award.

Mr. Earls appealed.

Wallace and Graham P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented Mr.
Earls.

Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe L.L.P., by Matthew D.
Glidewell and Jeffrey A. Kadis, represented Starr Davis Company
Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety (Standard Fire Insurance).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiff in ConEd Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, reversed
a Workers' Compensation Board ruling to favor Jane Lincoln, in
an asbestos-related case filed against Consolidated Edison
Company of New York Inc. and other defendants.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Jane Lincoln,
Appellant, v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., et
al., Respondents. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Cardona, Crew III, Mugglin, Rose, and Kane entered
judgment of Case No. 2007502594 on Dec. 20, 2007.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board, filed Sept. 8, 2006, which ruled that the death of Mrs.
Lincoln's husband was not causally related to his employment and
denied her claim for workers' compensation death benefits.

Mrs. Lincoln's unnamed husband, a heavy smoker, worked as a
meter reader for about 30 years before retiring in 1998. That
year, a workers' compensation disability claim was established
for Mr. Lincoln for asbestosis and, later, a second claim was
established for lung cancer.

After Mr. Lincoln died of lung cancer in 2002, Mrs. Lincoln
submitted a claim for workers' compensation death benefits.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, finding that
the lung cancer was caused by Mr. Lincoln's cigarette smoking
rather than exposure to asbestos.

Finding no credible medical evidence that Mr. Lincoln's exposure
to asbestos contributed to his death, the Workers' Compensation
Board affirmed.

Mrs. Lincoln appealed and the Supreme Court reversed. The matter
was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further
proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

Brecher-Fishman, Pasternack, Popish, Heller, Reiff & Walsh,
N.Y., (Matthew A. Funk of counsel) represented Jane Lincoln.

Leonard B. Feld, Jericho, N.Y., represented Consolidated Edison
Company of New York Inc. and another respondent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in John Crane's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division's ruling, which
granted summary judgment to John Crane Inc., in two asbestos-
related personal injury actions filed by Eleanor Abrams (for
Kenneth Abrams) and Marilyn Shaw (for John Shaw).

Judges Ford Elliott, Stevens, Musmanno, Orie Melvin, Lally-
Green, Klein, Bender, Bowes, and Panella entered judgment of
Case Nos. 1182 EDA 2005 and 1185 EDA 2005 on Dec. 17, 2007.

This was an appeal from the Judgment Entered on April 4, 2005 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division,
February Term 2003, No. 3458.

The Shaws and the Abramses instituted these suits on Feb. 25,
2003, alleging that Mr. Shaw and Mr. Abrams were diagnosed with
lung cancer in December 2002 and that their injuries stemmed
from occupational exposure to asbestos-containing products made
by John Crane and various other companies.

On Feb. 11, 2005, John Crane filed a motion for summary judgment
in both cases arguing that the parties' claims were barred by
the statute of limitations.

Specifically, Crane asserted that both couples successfully sued
numerous companies for asbestos-related injuries in the mid-
1980s, that those lawsuits included claims for increased risk
and fear of developing cancer, and that Crane should have been
named as a defendant in those actions because prior to 1992,
plaintiffs were required to bring all claims for existing
nonmalignant conditions and predictable malignant diseases,
e.g., cancer, within two years of the initial diagnosis of an
asbestos- related disease.

The trial court agreed and granted Crane's motions for summary
judgment. The orders in question became final and appealable on
April 4, 2005, when the trial court entered an order declaring
both actions settled with respect to all remaining defendants.

On June 9, 2006, a Superior Court panel published an opinion in
which the majority reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. John Crane filed a timely application for en banc
reargument, which was granted on Aug. 15, 2006, and the
June 9, 2006 opinion was withdrawn.

The Superior Court now concluded that the trial court's ruling
was correct and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment
in favor of John Crane.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Petition in Snyder Case Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 2, California,
granted a writ petition filed by Mary Hutton Snyder et al., in
an asbestos-related action filed against Caterpillar Inc. and
other defendants.

The case is styled Mary Hutton Snyder et al., Petitioners, v.
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Respondent; Caterpillar Inc., et al., Real Parties in
Interest.

Judges Ashmann-Gerst, Doi Todd, and Chavez entered judgment of
Case No. B197993 on Dec. 18, 2007.

General Order 29 requires a plaintiff in an asbestos action to
file a case report within eight months after filing suit.

The Snyders filed a wrongful death action on Nov. 18, 2005. They
alleged that Gail Richard Snyder, Sr. died on May 18, 2005, of
lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases. The first
amended complaint, filed April 25, 2006, named 79 defendants,
including Caterpillar, and asserted multiple causes of action.
Caterpillar filed an answer on May 16, 2006.

The Snyders filed their case report on Oct. 5, 2006, which
listed each of Mr. Snyder's numerous employers as a source of
occupational exposure.

On Dec. 12, 2006, shortly after the expiration of the one-year
statute of limitations for asbestos-related wrongful death
claims, Caterpillar filed a motion to dismiss under General
Order 29.

In opposition, the Snyders contended that their case report
complied with General Order 29, that General Order 29 had not
been properly promulgated as a local rule, and that General
Order 29 was facially invalid because it conflicted with both
the statutory requirements for a summary judgment motion in
section 437c and with various statutory discovery provisions.

The trial court granted Caterpillar's motion to dismiss, along
with those of about 30 other defendants. The order dismissing
the complaint against Caterpillar was issued seven months before
trial was scheduled to commence.

The Snyders filed a petition for writ of mandate contending that
General Order 29 was facially invalid. After considering
Caterpillar's preliminary opposition to the petition, the
Appeals Court issued an alternative writ of mandate directing
the trial court to set aside the order of dismissal or show
cause why this court should not issue a peremptory writ of
mandate commanding it to do so.

The Snyders contended that the dismissal must be reversed. In
their view, General Order 29 is invalid. Also, they contended
that General Order 29 provides for an invalid terminating
sanction.

The Appeals Court concluded that General Order 29 either
conflicted with, or is inconsistent with, section 2018.030 and,
accordingly, granted the Snyders' writ petition.

Keller, Fishback & Jackson, Daniel L. Keller, Stephen M.
Fishback; Law Office of Bryce C. Anderson and Bryce C. Anderson,
represented Mary Hutton Snyder et al.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Kirk C. Jenkins, Steven D.
Wasserman, Michael C. Scanlon, Jr., Reynold M. Martinez,
Frederick D. Baker and Kelly J. Savage, represented Caterpillar
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Slaughter Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, California, reversed
the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's ruling, to favor
Ronald Slaughter and Edna Slaughter, in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed against Union Carbide Corp. and other defendants.
The matter has been remanded for further proceedings.

The case is styled Ronald Slaughter et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., Defendants and
Respondents.

Judges Zelon, Perluss, and Woods entered judgment of Case No.
B196995 on Dec. 17, 2007.

The Slaughters filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court
against 39 named defendants, asserting claims for personal
injuries arising out of Mrs. Slaughter's alleged exposure to
asbestos.

In August 2006, about five months before Mrs. Slaughter's death,
the Slaughters filed suit in California against 39 manufacturers
and distributors of alleged asbestos-containing products.

The Slaughters claimed that Mrs. Slaughter's mesothelioma was
caused by exposure to asbestos while they were living in the
Philippines, Tennessee and California between 1974 and 1978.
They alleged indirect exposure from Mrs. Slaughter's washing of
Mr. Slaughter's clothes during the time he was employed as a
machinist and performed side jobs involving drywall work.

They alleged direct exposure from Mrs. Slaughter's own work with
Mr. Slaughter on the various drywall jobs. In their suit, the
Slaughters did not claim any exposure to asbestos after leaving
California in 1978.

On or about May 9, 2006, Mrs. Slaughter was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. On Dec. 31, 2006, she died in Tennessee.

Thirteen of the named defendants filed or joined in a motion to
dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens.
These defendants argued that California was an inconvenient
forum for the action and that the case should be tried in
Tennessee.

The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the entire action
without prejudice.

On appeal, the Slaughters contended that the trial court
erroneously determined that Tennessee was a suitable alternative
forum and abused its discretion in balancing the private and
public interests in favor of Tennessee.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the balance of the private and
public interests weighed in favor of litigating the case in
Tennessee.

However, the trial court erred in dismissing the California
action rather than staying the action pending a determination as
to whether all named defendants are subject to jurisdiction in
Tennessee.

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded with directions to the
trial court to enter a new order either (1) denying the motion
to dismiss or stay the action, or (2) granting the motion to
stay the action subject to certain conditions.

Simon, Eddins & Greenstone, Ron C. Eddins and Brian P. Barrow,
represented Ronald Slaughter and Edna Slaughter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFU Calls for Cleanup in Australian Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia is calling on the
Australian Government, under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's
leadership, to help subsidize the removal of asbestos from
Australian homes, ABC News reports.

ADFU will also lobby the Federal Government to speed up the
replacement of asbestos in Australian Defence Force equipment.

Foundation president Barry Robson says asbestos is still common
in Australian homes and he will be trying to meet with the
Federal Government in the next few weeks to get some help for
homeowners.

While the Defence Force received an extension in December 2007
to be allowed to continue importing asbestos products until the
year 2010, Mr. Robson says Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon
needs to act more quickly.

A spokeswoman for the Minister says the most important thing is
to have a process allowing replacement products to be found as
soon as possible.

On Jan. 1, 2008, asbestos cancer drug Alimta, which was used by
the late anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, was listed on
the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Ill. Cleanup Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Appellate Court upheld a previous Cook County
Circuit Court ruling that Palatine-Schaumburg High School
District 211 did not inform its insurance company in a timely
manner of asbestos removal efforts carried out from the mid-
1980s through the early  1990s.

According to court documents, the school board learned of a need
for asbestos removal in June 1983 and began preparing a plan to
do so within months.

By the time the project at all five schools was completed in
1994, the total cost was more than US$17.5 million.

However, the insurance company was notified by the board in July
1991, eight years after the original discovery. The insurance
company claimed that the late notification prevented its own
inspectors from assessing the problem.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KFSD, EPA Probe Kuwait Site Housing Bldgs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwait Fire Services Directorate toxicologists and Environment
Public Authority personnel are investigating three residential
buildings in Salmiya, Kuwait, and sprayed water on "destroyed”
asbestos to prevent the material from causing harm to the
residents, Arab Times reports.

The buildings' owner, in an attempt to force the residents to
vacate the apartments, reportedly disabled the elevators and
when that failed he ordered the cleaning company workers out of
the area. The residents demanded more time, but the owner in a
last attempt destroyed the shaded parking made of asbestos and
spread the material all over the place.

Toxicologists and EPA personnel rushed to the area and sprayed
the destroyed asbestos with water to dampen the material to
prevent the poisonous substance from escaping into the
atmosphere.

Chairperson of the Voluntary Works Center Sheikha Amthal Al-
Ahmed said the Center after receiving information called the
officials from the concerned authorities including the EPA and
Ministry of Interior to secure the area from asbestos.

Director-General of the Toxicology Department Lt. Colonel Jamal
Al-Bulaihes stated toxicologists sprayed water on the destroyed
substance and men from a specialized company wearing protective
gear transported the asbestos to an unidentified location. He
added removing the asbestos took about 10 hours and cost
KWD10,000. The owner of the buildings is expected to bear the
cost of disposing off the asbestos.

EPA representative Fatima Al-Shimmari indicated scientific
research has shown the substance is dangerous and can cause lung
cancer if a person is exposed to such material. She added this
substance was manufactured in Kuwait in 1997 and the EPA had
asked all government departments to report in case the material
was seen anywhere.

Ms. Al-Shimmari added that it is unfortunate that the owner of
the buildings destroyed asbestos in front of the building
without informing the authorities.

Attorney Awad Al-Enezi, a representative of the real estate
company which owns the buildings said the buildings were
purchased by his client on Dec. 1, 2007. He added the company
destroyed the shaded parking in compliance with the Kuwait
Municipality order to remove encroachments on government land.

Mr. Al-Enezi said the owner, after realizing the destroyed
parking contained the dangerous asbestos substance, informed the
EPA. He added the buildings are about 35 years old and
Municipality law mandates buildings which are more than 25 years
old must be destroyed according to Article 19 or Rent Law No. 35
of 1978. He added the owner has given the tenants a grace period
up to May 2008 to vacate the buildings.

Mr. Al-Enezi also claims the owner has already paid some tenants
six months rent as compensation — for tenants who wish to move
out immediately without availing the six month grace period.
However, the tenants accused the owner of intentionally putting
obstacles in their way to force them to vacate the apartments.

It has been reported one of the families which fell ill after
the incident has been admitted to a hospital. The tenants have
called on the concerned government departments to help solve
their problems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alimta Drug Added to Aussie Benefits Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alimta, the drug that the late anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie
Banton fought to have added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme (PBS), is now sold cheaper to mesothelioma sufferers
starting Jan. 1, 2008, ABC News reports.

Alimta has been added to the PBS and will cost around AUD31 for
each prescription.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the addition of Alimta in
particular marks a proud day for Australia's new government
under Kevin Rudd.

Ms. Roxon said, "This is a campaign that people like Bernie
Banton really fought for all of their lives.”

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia says the listing
of Alimta on the PBS may help prolong the life of some victims.
Foundation president Barry Robson says it is an important day
for victims and their families.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Balfour, Jordan Penalized for OSHA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has issued a combined penalty of US$324,000 to
Balfour Beatty Construction LLC and C.F. Jordan LP for 12 safety
violations for asbestos exposure at a military housing
construction site at the federal White Sands Missile Range,
N.M., according to an OSHA press release dated Dec. 31, 2007.

Balfour Beatty is a general construction contractor based in the
United Kingdom. C.F. Jordan is a general utility construction
contractor based in El Paso, Tex.

OSHA began an inspection July 21, 2007 after receiving a
referral from the New Mexico Environment Department alleging
employees were removing underground concrete pipe containing
asbestos from a military housing site without using appropriate
protective clothing or a protective enclosure to contain the
airborne asbestos.

Rich Tapio, OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Tex., said, "The
inspection revealed that the two companies failed to take
appropriate action to protect their employees," said Rich Tapio,
OSHA's area director in Lubbock, Texas. "Employers must remain
committed to keeping the workplace safe and healthful at all
times.”

OSHA has cited Balfour Beatty, proposing US$179,000 in fines,
for three alleged willful and two alleged serious violations.
The willful violations are for failing to assure that C.F.
Jordan, the subcontractor, was in compliance with OSHA's
asbestos standards; to conduct an assessment of asbestos
operations; and to have a competent person oversee work
involving asbestos. The serious violations include failing to
label asbestos-containing materials and to store excavated
asbestos in closed, covered containers.

OSHA has cited C.F. Jordan with US$145,000 in proposed fines for
two alleged willful and five alleged serious violations of its
asbestos standards. The willful violations are for failing to
conduct an assessment of asbestos operations and to provide
protective clothing to employees handling asbestos. The serious
violations include failing to establish a restricted area where
asbestos operations would be conducted; failing to conduct air
monitoring for asbestos; allowing prohibited work practices;
failing to train employees handling asbestos; and failing to
provide a competent person to properly supervise the work area.

The companies have 15 business days from receipt of the
citations to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's
area director in Lubbock, Tex., or contest the citations and
penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers
are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for
their employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drug to be Tested as Mesothelioma Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morning sickness drug Thalidomide, which caused severe birth
defects in the 1950s and 1960s, is about to be tested as a
treatment for asbestos-related mesothelioma, The Courier Mail
reports.

Thalidomide is already listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits
Scheme as a treatment for multiple myeloma, a type of blood
cancer.

Cancer specialist Nick Pavlakis, of Sydney's Royal North Shore
Hospital, said Thalidomide had been shown to inhibit blood
vessel growth within tumors and he planned to test its value in
mesothelioma patients.

Professor Pavlakis hopes to recruit about 100 patients
Australia-wide for the study, which will compare those receiving
chemotherapy with others given the standard treatment as well as
Thalidomide.

Professor Pavlakis said the results of the trial would be
combined with a similar study taking place in the Netherlands.

Studies have found the standard chemotherapy cocktail increases
survival of mesothelioma patients by an average of three months
as well as improving quality of life. Professor Pavlakis said
even if Thalidomide extended that to five months, it would be
considered significant.

About 600 Australians are diagnosed with the disease each year
but that is expected to double by 2020. Professor Pavlakis said
that only about five percent of those diagnosed with
mesothelioma were alive five years later.

The Queensland arm of the Thalidomide trial will be run through
Brisbane's Prince Charles Hospital.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Exits Bankruptcy Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp., on Dec. 27, 2007, exited Chapter 11
protection, ending one of the longest and most expensive
bankruptcy reorganizations in auto history, Crain's Detroit
Business reports.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the Company announced that it would rise out
of protection on Dec. 27, 2007. A Company spokeswoman said that
a disclosure was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company filed for protection in October 2001 after a flurry
of lawsuits resulting from auto parts that contained asbestos.
The parts were made by companies acquired by the Company in the
1990s.

The final price tag for the Company's bankruptcy litigation has
not been determined, but in 2006 the tally had topped US$500
million. Through September 2007, the Company had spent another
US$39.4 million on its bankruptcy restructuring efforts.

Billionaire investor Carl Icahn paid about US$775 million for
Federal-Mogul unsecured debt that could be converted to 43
percent of the Company's equity.

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corp. makes components for
cars, trucks, and construction vehicles. Its products include
chassis and engine parts, pistons, and sealing systems sold
under brand names like Federal-Mogul, Glyco, and Signal-Stat.
The Company also distributes auto parts to aftermarket
customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bar Urges Court to Suspend Lawyer's License
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mississippi Bar has asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to
suspend the law license of attorney Paul Minor, who was
convicted in 2007 of bribing two judges, pending his appeal of
his federal conviction, The Associated Press reports.

The Mississippi Bar also has asked the Supreme Court to suspend
the licenses of former Judges John H. Whitfield and Wes Teel,
who were convicted along with Mr. Minor.

Mr. Minor, who made a fortune in lawsuits against tobacco,
asbestos and other companies, is already serving an 11-year
sentence in a federal prison in Pensacola, Fla.

Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Teel were convicted in March 2007 on
bribery and mail fraud charges. Both former judges have appealed
their sentences, as has Mr. Minor, to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in New Orleans. No hearing date has been set.

Prosecutors say the 61-year-old Mr. Minor, orchestrated a
complicated scheme in which he guaranteed loans for the judges,
then used cash and third parties in an attempt to conceal the
fact that Mr. Minor paid off the loans. The judges were
convicted of giving Mr. Minor's clients favorable rulings in
civil cases in exchange for the money.

Mr. Minor acknowledged lending them money, but said it was only
financial help for friends and he expected nothing in return.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $110,000 Hazard Overcharges Found at School
----------------------------------------------------------------
About US$110,000 of charges for asbestos abatement during the
renovation of New Canaan High School in New Canaan, Conn., have
been questioned in Deloitte's recent assessment, New Canaan
News-Review reports.

Deloitte presented the findings of its construction cost
assessment at the Council's Dec. 19, 2007 meeting. The Town
Council's Asbestos Oversight Committee hired Deloitte.

O&G Industries Inc., the construction management firm, has
credited the town US$20,000 in response to the report. Deloitte
found that O&G had charged a construction management fee on four
change orders. The contract did not permit those charges.

The high school renovation was originally budgeted at US$49.3
million. Unforeseen asbestos removal raised the cost US$11.6
million. The final cost was US$65.5 million.

Other charges that Deloitte has questioned have not yet been
resolved. In two appendices, O&G and Construction Consulting
Group, the owner's representative, questions many of Deloitte's
figures and conclusions.

Deloitte found what appeared to be US$31,000 in excessive
charges during phase 24 of the asbestos removal. Nine time
tickets list the same scope of work as in the bid. The firm
sampled phases 17, 18 and 24 of the 28 phases of asbestos
abatement. It found no problems with phases 17 and 18.

Deloitte also found a US$38,000 overcharge on small tools. The
time-and-material contract indicated a mark-up on small tools,
but they are listed as a direct cost on the change order.

However, O&G maintains that the change orders represent a fair
and reasonable cost for equipment and small tools. They are
contaminated when removing asbestos.

Deloitte also found a discrepancy in labor rates. It appears
that one electrical contractor double-counted on fringe benefits
in the amount of US$18,000.

The final quantitative finding was a discrepancy in the billing
of labor hours. The firm compared one day of time-and-materials
tickets with the certified payroll. They found over-charges of
US$1,800. This represented 14.5 hours that did not appear in the
certified pay roll.

Deloitte also found non-quantifiable issues. The change orders
were issued on a time-and-materials basis rather than on a "not-
to-exceed" basis. Deloitte believes there would have been
greater controls over the cost if the change orders had been
"not-to-exceed."

Some labor charges were high, according to Deloitte. This was a
reflection of the work being specialized and the time
constraints in finishing the project on time.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Wary of Fire in Abandoned Club
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Balby, Doncaster, England, on Dec. 28, 2007, were
put on alert after an asbestos scare was sparked by a fire at
the former Ashmount Club, The Star reports.

The fire completely destroyed the large concert room at the rear
of the premises and flames caused the asbestos roof to shatter
and collapse.

The adjacent street, Furnival Road, was closed to traffic while
firefighters spent several hours tackling the blaze.

Local residents were advised to keep their doors and windows
closed because of the potential danger from asbestos dust but
fire officers say the amount of water sprayed onto the site
should have prevented it blowing around.

A council spokesperson said, "The council will be carrying out
safety work today following the fire on Balby Road including
fencing off the area and putting up warning notices. The
asbestos in the building is believed to be low risk, however we
will also be visiting local residents to offer advice and
reassurance.”

Four fire appliances from Doncaster, Edlington and Adwick
stations and the aerial ladder platform were called in to deal
with the blaze which was reported shortly before 5:00 p.m. By
the time the first crew arrived flames were shooting through the
roof and it was obvious it had been burning for some time.

The club, once one of the most popular in Doncaster, has been
shut for about a year.

Fire investigation experts were due to revisit the site on Dec.
28, 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fire Destroys West Sussex Barns in New Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
A family from West Sussex, England, were evacuated from their
farmhouse after a fire broke out in nearby barns, where asbestos
and gas canisters were both present, BBC News reports.

The blaze had taken hold of the barns rented out for business
use. Three out of five premises were completely destroyed.

Peter Renwick, his wife and their two sons "gatecrashed" their
neighbors' New Year's Eve party when fire crews told them to
leave Crows Hall Farm.

Mr. Renwick said the affected barns had been used by three
companies storing furniture, theatrical props and marquees. He
said his eight-year-old son spotted the fire in the block of
barns just after 2330 GMT on Dec. 31, 2007.

Up to 60 firefighters attended the blaze. It was not
extinguished until about 0700 GMT on Jan. 1, 2008, and crews
were expected to remain at the scene into the evening for
damping down.

The Environment Agency also had to be called out to make sure
Chilgrove Road was cleaned of any asbestos from the roof of the
barns which may have contaminated its surface.

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service said much of the building
was now unsafe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Bldg. with Hazard Destroyed by Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fire destroyed a bungalow, which was made of asbestos sheeting,
in the backyard of a Torquay, Victoria, Australia home on Dec.
31, 2007, Geelong Advertiser reports.

The Price Street blaze broke out about 3:30 p.m., quickly taking
hold of the building. The adjoining house was not damaged in the
fire.

Firefighters donned breathing apparatus, fearing they may inhale
the asbestos dust while fighting the fire which lasted about 20
minutes.  

Hot weather added to the battle for firefighters as temperatures
rose to 40 degrees. Only walls and part of the roof of the
building could be saved.

Captain Phil Campbell from Torquay Country Fire Authority said
an investigator was being sent from Geelong to determine the
cause of the blaze. Five CFA units and 20 firefighters from
Geelong and Belmont fought the fire.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS to Emerge From Bankruptcy Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACandS Inc., which entered bankruptcy on Sept. 16, 2002 with
US$3 billion in asbestos liability, has entered the final stage
of its Chapter 11 restructuring, Associated Press reports.

The Company filed the disclosure statement of its bankruptcy-
reorganization plan that calls for US$500 million in insurance
settlements to resolve the asbestos liabilities. The Company
says no one has objected to the disclosure statement, a sign
that the Company is poised for a smooth end to a long-running
bankruptcy case.

That clears the way for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald
to approve the disclosure statement and authorize ACandS to send
the plan to its creditors for a vote. Once the votes are in and
the Chapter 11 plan confirmed, the Company's asbestos
liabilities would be transferred to a trust funded largely by a
unit of The Travelers Companies Inc.

The Company's exit from bankruptcy also clears the way for a
US$45 million payout to law firm Gilbert Randolph LLC. The
Washington, D.C., firm stands to collect a portion of the
insurance settlement funds under a contingency fee agreement
with the Company.

According to court documents, the Company's case would end in an
estimated six percent recovery for people with asbestos-related
injuries, a figure that takes into account future damages as
well as claims already filed.

That recovery rate reflects a deal struck in September 2007 with
Travelers Casualty that ended decades of litigation over the
insurer's obligations to cover asbestos claims against the
Company. The money Travelers set aside, US$449 million, is
expected to earn another US$10 million in interest by the time
ACandS's Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.

Additionally, the Company stands to collect about US$44 million
under a settlement with a unit of ACE Ltd., once its Chapter 11
plan is confirmed. Most of the money from Travelers, ACE and
other sources will go to a trust to be set up under the Chapter
11 plan to pay claims.

ACandS sought Chapter 11 protection at the height of the race to
bankruptcy by companies swamped with asbestos-related personal-
injury claims. At the time, the Company had already settled
247,000 asbestos claims, but had 300,000 left to deal with.

Since 1969, ACandS Inc. has been a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lancaster, Pa.-based Irex Corp., a holding company that also
owns several subsidiaries that operate within the specialty
contracting business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Trust Deals w/ Hazard at Welsh Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Conwy & Denbigshire NHS Trust is taking urgent action to
deal with the problem of asbestos throughout buildings of the
Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, a hospital at Bodelwyddan, Wales, Daily Post
reports.

The Welsh Assembly has given GBP280,000 for short-term measures
to reduce the highest risks. The reports states that the
asbestos is used as fire protection cladding and is in poor
condition.

Conwy & Denbighshire NHS Trust Board by risk manager Ken Dawes
said, "There is a likelihood that leaks in the ceiling void will
bring the asbestos through the suspended ceiling into the
occupied areas.

"As the bond between the asbestos and beams no longer exists in
many areas fire resistance is reduced to 15 minutes in places
(and this) coupled with the structural weakness, produces a high
risk."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flytippers Dump Hazard in U.K. Countryside
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flytippers dumped potentially dangerous asbestos cement in a
Grantham, Lincolnshire, England, country lane before Dec. 24,
2007, Grantham Journal reports.

The split bags of the material were left in a lane off the A17
near Fulbeck Heath.

Motorist Carole Atkinson, who lives in nearby Claythorpe Heath,
spotted the waste from the A17 on Dec. 24, 2007. She said, "I
think the lane is privately owned but there are no gates so
anyone could have dumped it there.”

Asbestos fibers are hazardous and can lead to fatal illnesses if
inhaled or swallowed. Fibers are thin and sharp so they are able
to get past the body's defenses where normal dust cannot. Once
inside, the fibers will attack the body's tissue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. City to Decide on Best Western Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Seguin in Texas is to decide on the contractor to
facilitate the cleanup, including asbestos removal, of the
structures and debris left over from an April 2007 fire that
damaged the Best Western motel at 1603 W. I.H. 10 at State
Highway 46, Seguin Gazette-Enterprise reports.

The city received eight bids for the removal of the structures
and debris.

Low bids for the job came in at more than US$78,000 from KMAC
Construction Service for removal of the structures, including
asbestos, US$74,000 for removal without asbestos from South
Plains Contracting Inc., and US$3,500 for removal of the
swimming pool from South Plains Contracting Inc.

The Seguin Planning and Zoning Commission in November 2007
decided on a low bidder for the demolition of the property, and
the city council later gave Soham Investments L.P. a 30-day
deadline to arrange the job themselves.

Ray Medrano of TLI & Environmental Services advised the city
that asbestos was removed by Nov. 5, 2007.

Director of Planning Donald Smith said the original bid had a
Jan. 31, 2008 deadline for removal of the structures, but since
the contract award was delayed the deadline will have to be
reset.

Jay Patel, representative from Soham Investments L.P., had
informed the city that he was still negotiating with the
property's insurance company and with an engineer to possibly
rebuild the motel.

The property was damaged by fire in mid-April, causing an
estimated US$1 million in damage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Witness and Exhibit Lists
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co., and its debtor-affiliates, the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and David
Austern, the Court-appointed Future Claims Representative, each
filed with the Court separate lists of exhibits and witnesses
they will present during the PI estimation proceedings scheduled
to start on Jan. 14, 2008.

-- Grace's Witness List is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GRACEwitnesslist.pdf

-- Grace's Exhibit List is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GRACEexhibitlist.pdf

-- PI Committee's Witness List is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_PICommwitnesslist.pdf

-- FCR's Witness List is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_FCRwitnesslist.pdf

-- PI Committee's and FCR's joint Exhibit List is available for
free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_PICommFCRexhibitlist.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 146; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer Says Reports Meet "Fit” Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors' expert reports meet the
Daubert "fit" test, David M. Bernick P.C., at Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, in Chicago, argues on the Debtors' behalf.  

"While [Grace's] case is thus novel in the history of asbestos
Chapter 11 cases, . . . the substance of Grace's estimate –- the
principles of law and science that provide the outcome-
determinative structure of Grace's case -- is anything but
novel. To the contrary, the principles that drive Grace's case
are traditional in the highest sense of that word," Mr. Bernick
states.

"They are the state-law requirement of causation proven up
scientifically under Dauber, a classic toxic-tort law inquiry,
and they must govern [Grace's] case. They call for the
deployment of accepted scientific methods that have been the
bedrock of toxic-tort science for years and the sole guidance
for disease forecasts for just as long," Mr. Bernick adds.

Mr. Bernick tells the Court that the work of Grace's experts has
been completed meticulously, from the industrial-hygiene
analysis of exposure settings for Grace products, to the
calculations of dose and risk, to the criteria for gathering
medical evidence, and finally to the application of the
resulting criteria to the claimants' own evidence of exposure
and disease. "No stone has been left unturned," Mr. Bernick
contends.

"No convenient or ipse dixit junk science has been allowed," Mr.
Bernick adds.

Mr. Bernick argues that, at their core, the attacks made by the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Future Claims Representative against the Debtors' expert reports
is an attack "on the very concept of rule-based liability."

Mr. Bernick asserts that the Debtors' PI liabilities should be
determined by the Court using bankruptcy law and the federal
rules of procedures and evidence, and not by the state law tort
system. The value of the Debtors' PI liabilities should also be
reduced to present value as of the Petition Date.

The reports prepared by the Debtors' experts and the testimony
those experts will provide at the January 2008 estimation trial
are designed to provide the Court with evidence of the Debtors'
actual legal liability on account of asbestos PI claims and
future demands under applicable state law and the federal rules
of procedure and evidence, Mr. Bernick contends.  

The Debtors' experts use reliable and appropriate scientific
methodology in coming up with their conclusions, Mr. Bernick
tells the Court. The conclusions of the Debtors' experts, he
adds, were derived from proofs of claim and questionnaires
obtained from the claimants themselves. Mr. Bernick, however,
admits that obtaining information from the PI Claimants were not
successful because of most of the lawyers representing those
claimants were unwilling to provide information sought by the
Questionnaires.

Mr. Bernick contends that, contrary to the assertions made by
the PI Committee and the FCR, the Debtors did not withhold
privileged medical and exposure data from the PI Committee and
parties-in-interest to the estimation proceedings.  

"At the end of the day, Grace has done its job in bringing the
estimation of asbestos liability to world of law and science,"
Mr. Bernick says.

"This must in the end be the basis of estimation, not the
haggling of the bazaar or the ipse dixit pronouncements of the
claimants all-purpose 'estimation's experts," Mr. Bernick adds.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to deny the requests of
the PI Committee and the FCR to exclude or limit expert
testimony to be presented by the Debtors during the January 2008
PI estimation trial.

A copy of the Debtors' Response is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_GraceDaubertResponse.pdf

In separate filings with the Court, the PI Committee and the FCR
filed under seal their responses to the Debtors' and the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders' Daubert motions.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 146; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, entered
various judgments in insurance coverage-related asbestos
litigation with Weyerhaeuser Co. as the plaintiff.

The case is styled Weyerhaeuser Co., Plaintiff, v. Fireman's
Fund Insurance Co., Defendant and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.,
Third-Party Plaintiff, v. General Insurance Company Of America;
Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
and Old Republic Insurance Co., Third-Party Defendants.

District Judge Marsha J. Pecham entered judgment of Case No.
C06-1189MJP on Dec. 17, 2007.

This case arose from 27 asbestos-related claims asserted against
Weyerhaeuser alleging liability for bodily injury. Four
different insurers collected premiums from Weyerhaeuser for
liability coverage over this period.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. issued policies from 1954 to 1978.
General General Insurance Company of America issued policies
from 1978 to 1985. Northwestern National Insurance Company of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, issued policies from 1985 to 1986. Old
Republic Insurance Co. issued policies from 1986 to 1989.

All four policies provided coverage for "all sums" (up to a
certain limit) that Weyerhaeuser becomes obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily or personal injury.

Weyerhaeuser argued that even though it technically purchased
insurance policies for the 1978-89 period, these "fronting
policies" provided no actual insurance benefit, rendering
Weyerhaeuser effectively self-insured or uninsured during that
time. Fireman's Fund argued that Weyerhaeuser was insured during
that time period.

Because the asbestos-related claims made against Weyerhaeuser
spanned several policy periods, under Washington law, all
insurers during those periods are jointly and severally liable
for the claims.

If, as Fireman's Fund argued, Weyerhaeuser was insured,
Fireman's Fund may seek recompense from the other insurers. If,
however, Weyerhaeuser was not insured during the 1978-1989
years, Fireman's Fund must absorb the entire cost of the claims,
even for those years for which it did not provide insurance.

This matter came before the Court on cross-motions for partial
summary judgment on the issue of whether Fireman's Fund may seek
equitable contribution from the other three insurers.

Having considered the motions and responses, the District Court
granted Weyerhaeuser's cross-motion and denied Fireman's Fund's
cross-motion.

Fireman's Fund's claims against General Insurance, Northwestern
National, and Old Republic Insurance Co. were dismissed.

James Robert McCullagh, Marie G Aglion, Perkins Coie, Jeffrey I.
Tilden, Franklin Dennis Cordell, Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell
LLP, Seattle, represented Weyerhaeuser Co.

John Charles Ditzler, Cozen O'Connor, Seattle, represented
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

Jodi Ann McDougall, Cozen O'Connor, Seattle, represented
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

Curt H. Feig, Nicoll Black & Feig PLLC, Seattle, represented
General Insurance Company of America, Northwestern National
Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Old Republic
Insurance Co.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BASIN WATER: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Basin Water, Inc. from May 14, 2007 through November 13,
2007, inclusive.

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

Basin Water is a provider of long-term process solutions for a
range of clients, which include designing, building and
implementing systems for the treatment of contaminated
groundwater as well as waste reduction and resource recovery.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company had not adequately accounted for
         reserves in connection with its legacy system
         contracts, due to inadequate contracts which did not
         allow the Company to pass on rising costs in a timely
         manner;

     (2) that operating losses from such legacy system contracts
         would continue to negatively impact the Company's
         financial results;

     (3) that the Company's transition efforts were not
         proceeding according to expectations and were not as
         complete as the Company had represented to investors;

     (4) that the Company's statements about projected profits
         and losses from contracts, and the completeness of the
         Company's review and writeoffs of such projected losses
         in prior reporting periods, were false;

     (5) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On November 14, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
reported its third quarter 2007 results, which included a
surprise $4.7 million charge to the Company's cost of revenues
to reserve for future projected losses. The Company stated that
the reserve "was due primarily to poorly priced contracts," and
that many of the Company's older contracts would continue to
operate at a loss "for some period of time."

On this news, the Company's shares declined $2.29 share, or
22.23 percent, to close on November 14, 2007 at $8.01 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 25,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Sanofi-Aventis from February 17, 2006 through June
13, 2007, inclusive.

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

Sanofi is a pharmaceutical group engaged in the research,
development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose material adverse data concerning Zimulti's tendency
to cause a statistically significant increase in psychiatric
problems, including suicidal thoughts and actions.

On June 13, 2007, an Advisory Panel to the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") unanimously voted that Sanfi had not
provided the panel with enough information on the safety of
Zimulti (rimonabant), and unanimously recommended that the FDA
reject Sanofi's Zimulti application. FDA scientists provided an
analysis of 13 studies which showed that 26 percent of patients
taking the recommended dose of Zimulti had psychiatric side
effects, as compared to 14 percent of those patients who
received a placebo. Additionally, studies showed that the drug
also doubled cases of anxiety, depression, and other mood
disorders when compared to placebo. Analysts had predicted that
Zimulti would have been a multibillion-dollar product worldwide,
assuming that it was approved in the US, which would have been
the biggest market for the drug.

On this news, the Company's securities declined $1.31 per share,
or 2.95 percent, to close on June 13, 2007 at $43.07 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, the
Company's securities declined an additional $1.74 per share, or
over 4 percent, also on unusually heavy trading volume, for a
two-day decline of $3.05 per share, or over 6.87 percent.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 14,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


                           *********


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 Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, 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  * * *