CAR_Public/080111.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, January 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 8

                            Headlines


ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor
ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court
BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded
CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases

CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs
DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M

INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan
INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit
NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final
PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit

QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings
REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M
REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008
SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees
SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York

SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed
STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25
TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud

TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: $185M Settlement Checks Out
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits Related to Cipro
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: In Talks to Settle Mass. AWP Lawsuits

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Review Junked
WORLDCOM INC: Request to Distribute Settlement Fund Filed


                         Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bunnell Action Remanded to Madison Court  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Sets Chick Sentencing to Feb. 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Public Park Closed Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 56 Firms Filed Last Dec. 7 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Local Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lab Tests Confirm Hazard in Common Products
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquests Set for 2008 on York's "Time Bomb"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dublin Docklands to Clean Up Bottling Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $354M Liability at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has 38,477 Claims at Sept. 28

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $7.5M Liability Reserve at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Lawmakers Urged Not to Pass Changes  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Panel to Investigate Surge of Filings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claimants File Appeal to Dana Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $9M Awarded to N.Y. Claimants Last Dec. 17

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris’ Bid to Remand Suit v. Viad Junked
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Satterfield Lawsuit v. ALCOA Inc. Continues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Industry Thrives in Indonesia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov’t to Review Inspection Systems in Tokyo
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Objects to Clause in ASARCO Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Retain Dean Baker Filed in ASARCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Braces for Bankruptcy Judge's Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Tex. Senior Center
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Decision in Plymouth's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Nov. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Favor TIG Insurance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Affirms Decision v. Michelin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Owes $5T Over Contract, Creditor Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Sues 71 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. George Re to Center on Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Law Firm Warns of Lung Cancer's Danger
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Begins at Wigginton School in York
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veteran “Demoted” for N.Y. School Claims  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Junks Appeal in Silbersack Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Historic Hall Closed After Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detected at La Habra City Hall
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Delays Mass. Library Opening
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal at Md. Public Schools to Begin June


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in West Va.


                            *********  


ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Homes Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed
Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging it fraudulently failed to disclose terms of
its Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Named plaintiff Paula Idele Keller brings this action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b) on
behalf of the following classes:

     (i) The California Class: all individuals who, within the
         four year period preceding the filing of plaintiff's
         complaint through the date notice is mailed to the
         class, received an Option ARM loan through defendants
         on their primary residence located in the State of
         California; and

    (ii) The National Class: all individuals in the United
         States of America who, within the four year period
         preceding the filing of plaintiff's complaint through
         the date notice is mailed to the class, received an
         Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary
         residence located in the United States of America.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' acts and practices violate the
         Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601, et seq.;

     (b) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section
         226.17;

     (c) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR SEction
         226.19;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices
         aimed at deceiving plaintiff and the class members
         before and during the loan application process;

     (e) whether defendant, by and through their officers,
         employees, and agents failed to disclose that the
         interest rate actually charged on these loans was
         higher that the rate represented and promised to
         plaintiff and the class members;

     (f) whether defendants, by and through their officers,
         employees and agents concealed, omitted and/or
         otherwise failed to disclose information they were
         mandated to disclose under TILA;

     (g) whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable
         nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage
         loans and adjustable rate home equity loans;

     (h) whether defendants failed to properly disclose the
         process by which negative amortization occurs,
         ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment
         structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans;

     (i) whether defendants' failure to apply plaintiff's and
         the class members' payments to principal as promised in
         the form Notes constitutes a breach of contract,
         including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing;

     (j) whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the
         interest rate on consumers' loans so that no payments
         were applied to the principal balance constitutes
         breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

     (k) whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme
         misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were
         fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the
         periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that
         interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;"

     (l) whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option
         ARM home loan are unconscionable;

     (m) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         damages;

     (n) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
         punitive damages; and

     (o) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to
         rescission.

Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows:

      -- an order certifying this case as a class action and
         appointing plaintiff and their counsel to represent the
         class;

      -- for actual damages according to prof;

      -- for compensatory damages as permitted by law;

      -- for consequential damages as permitted by law;

      -- for punitive damages as permitted by law;

      -- for declaratory relief;

      -- for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to
         permanently include in every Option ARM loan and
         disclosure statement:

         (1) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual
             interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure
             statement(s) as required under 12 CFR Section
             226.17 by;

         (2) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual
             interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure
             statement(s) that payments on the variable interest
             rate loan during the initial period at the teaser
             rate will result in negative amortization and that
             the principal balance will increase as required
             under CFR Section 226.19; and

         (3) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial
             interest rate provided is discounted and does not
             reflect the actual interest that plaintiff and
             class members would be paying on the Note(s);

      -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and

      -- for such other relief as is just and proper.

The suit is "Paula Idelle Keller et al. v. Allstate Home Loans,
Inc. et al., Case No. SACV08-0017 DOC," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central Disrtict of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David M. Arbogast
          Ira Spiro
          Spiro Moss Barness LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Phone: (310) 235-2468
          Fax: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: David@SpiroMOss.com or Ira@SpiroMoss.com

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, California 90211
          Phone: (310) 854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812

          Jonathan Shub
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: (215) 564-2300
          Fax: (215) 851-8029

          - and -

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, California 91356
          Phone: (818) 961-2000
          Fax: (818) 867-4820


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 40,000 Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs.

The company said water can enter the throttle position sensor
and freeze, causing permanent damage if the rider forces the
throttle lever. This could cause the throttle to stick open,
posing a risk of injury or death to riders.

Honda has received two reported incidents of the throttle
sticking, no injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs, also
known as the Honda Foreman and Foreman Rubicon. The adult-size
ATVs are designed for use by riders age 16 and older. The 2007
model year ATVs are available in red, black, blue, olive, and
camouflage. The Honda name and wing logo are printed on the fuel
tank and the model name is printed on the side panel just below
the seat.

These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the USA and were sold
by Honda ATV dealers nationwide from June 2006 through December
2007 for between $6,500 and $7,600.

Pictures of recalled ATVs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these recalled
ATVs and contact any Honda ATV dealer to schedule a free repair.
Registered owners of the recalled ATVs have been sent direct
notice.

For additional information, consumers can contact Honda (866)
784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday,
or visit http://www.powersports.honda.com.


ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corp. has settled the securities fraud suit “Jerry Lowry
v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case No. 05-61640,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On October 11, 2005, Jerry Lowry filed a class action complaint
on behalf of purchasers of the Andrx’s common stock during the
class period (March 9, 2005 through September 5, 2005) against
Andrx Corp. and its then Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Rice.

The complaint seeks damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and alleges that during the class period, Andrx failed to
disclose that its manufacturing facilities were not in
compliance with the U.S. FDA’s current Good Manufacturing
Practices (cGMP). The complaint further alleges that Andrx’s
failure to be cGMP compliant led to the FDA placing Andrx on
Official Action Indicated status, which resulted in not being
eligible for approvals of Andrx’s Abbreviated New Drug
Applications.

On July 24, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. On
December 8, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2007, plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking class certification.

On October 2, 2007, the parties entered into an agreement in
principle settling all outstanding claims. The terms of the
agreement are confidential and are subject to the execution of
definitive documentation and approval of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The settlement is not
expected to materially adversely affect the Company’s business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The suit is "Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case
No. 05-CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
         Bernard M. Gross
         450 John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-561-3600
         Fax: 215-561-3000
         E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Louise McAlpin Brais, Esq.
          Holland & Knight
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-789-7715
          Fax: 305-789-7799
          E-mail: louise.brais@hklaw.com


BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brown-Forman Corp. discloses that a series of litigation with
regards to alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage
consumers is concluded with the dismissal or withdrawal of the
cases.

The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged
marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers.

Nine lawsuits were filed, the first three against eight
defendants, including Brown-Forman are:

      -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of
         Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183  (November
         2003);

      -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December
         2003); and

      -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court
         for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)."

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those
in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in
April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight
defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers and are
now consolidated as "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Case No.
1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Northern Ohio.  

Five similar suits were filed in 2005:

      -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany
         County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16,
         2005);

      -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock
         County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M,
         (Feb. 17, 2005);

      -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County
         (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23,
         2005);"

      -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County,
         Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30,
         2005), and

      -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward
         County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30,
         2005).

In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre-
lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act
indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit in
California against many industry defendants, including Brown-
Forman, presumably on the same facts and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers,
negligently marketed their products to the underage, and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.

Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of:

      -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children  whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

      -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21.

The lawsuits seek:

      -- a finding that defendants  engaged in a deceptive  
         scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
         persons and an injunction against such alleged  
         practices;
    
      -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all
         proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since
         1982; and

      -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled  
         award of actual damages, punitive damages, and
         attorneys fees.

The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately
successful, represents significant financial exposure.

Brown-Forman and the other defendants have successfully obtained
orders to dismiss five of the pending cases:

      -- Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005,
      -- Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006,
      -- Tomberlin  (Wisconsin) in March 2006,
      -- Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006,
      -- Alston (Michigan) in May 2006, and
      -- Bertovich (West Virginia) in August 2006.  

In addition, Konhauzer (Florida), and Sciocchette (New York)
voluntarily withdrew their respective suits.  Wilson (North
Carolina) is pending decision on defendant's motion to dismiss.  
The respective plaintiffs in the involuntarily dismissed case
are appealing.  The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Hakki
dismissal in June 2007.

The consolidated Alston and Eisenberg  dismissals  were affirmed
by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth  Circuit
in July 2007; plaintiffs  filed in November 2007 a motion to
withdraw the pending Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

The Colorado and  Wisconsin  Courts of Appeals affirmed the
Kreft and Tomberlin dismissals, respectively, in October 2007;  
those opinions now are final.  

The Bertoviches (West Virginia) filed in November 2007 a
stipulation of dismissal of their appeal to the Federal Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  

As all of the cases have been dismissed or withdrawn, this
series of litigation is concluded, according to the company's
Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31,
2007.

Brown-Forman Corp. -- http://www.brown-forman.com/-- is a  
diversified producer and marketer of consumer beverage products,
including Jack Daniel's and its family of brands, Southern
Comfort, Finlandia, Tequila Herradura, el Jimador Tequila,
Canadian Mist, Fetzer, Bolla, Sonoma-Cutrer wines and Korbel
Champagne.  The Company markets and sells various categories of
beverage alcohol products, such as Tennessee, Canadian, and
Kentucky whiskies; Kentucky bourbon; California sparkling wine;
tequila; table wine; liqueurs; vodka; rum; gin, and ready-to-
drink products.


CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings have been stayed in various “hot fuel” cases that
were consolidated for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

Initially, Casey’s General Stores, Inc. was named as a defendant
in five lawsuits brought in the federal courts in Kansas and
Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers.

The complaints generally allege that the Company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F.  Fuel
is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and
computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri.

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have
been filed in recent weeks in at least 21 states against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or
market gasoline products in the United States.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and assigned to
the Judge Kathryn H. Vratil for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters,
various pretrial motions, and class certification issues
applicable to all of the cases.

All other proceedings, including discovery, have been stayed
pending rulings on various motions now pending in that Court,
according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

Casey’s General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--  
operates convenience stores under the name Casey’s General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Casey’s
General Stores, Inc. seek to file an amended complaint in the
matter, to assert additional claims under state wage laws.

On May 30, 2007, a complaint was filed against the Company  in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by two
former assistant managers, in which the claim is made that
Casey’s failed to properly pay overtime compensation properly to
two or more of its assistant managers.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers were
treated as nonexempt employees entitled to overtime pay, but
that the Company did not properly record all hours worked and
failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week.

The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (essentially equivalent to a class action)
brought on behalf of all “persons who are currently or were
employed during the three-year period immediately preceding the
filing of [the] complaint as ‘Assistant Managers’ at any Casey’s
General Store operated by [the] Defendant (directly or through
one of its wholly owned subsidiaries), who worked overtime
during any given week within that period, and who have not filed
a complaint to recover overtime wages.”

The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all
members of the class during the three-year period preceding the
filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and
costs.

The Company has filed an answer denying the claims.  The case is
now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Iowa sitting.

The Court has conditionally certified the collective action as
to any employees who are or have been employed by Casey’s as an
assistant manager at any time since Nov. 1, 2004, and who have
unresolved claims for unpaid overtime.

The plaintiffs are now seeking leave of the court to file an
amended complaint asserting additional claims under state wage
laws, for which they seek certification as a class action,
according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “Jones et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case
No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa under Judge Mark W. Bennett with
referral to Judge Paul A. Zoss.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq.
         Peters Law Firm PC
         PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street
         Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078
         Phone: 712 328 3157
         Fax: 328 9092
         E-mail: jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, d.b.a. Bryman and Everest Colleges, is
facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 31, 2007 in the
Superior Court of California in the County of Santa Clara
alleging it cheat students by making misleading statements about
their vocational training programs, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiffs Kathryn E. Leask and Judith L. Leask bring this
action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
382 on behalf of all California persons who entered into
Enrollment Agreements (EA) with defendants for an education as a
Medical Assistant during the period within the past four years
of the filing of the complaint.

Plaintiffs also challenge the legality of various provisions of
the EA for the purchase of the education and the financing of
same on behalf of the class and in a representative capacity on
behalf of individual students, borrowers and the general public
pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and
17204.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether California law has been violated by defendants
         as alleged;

     (b) whether defendants participated in and pursued the
         course of conduct complained of;

     (c) whether the EA at issue are violations of the Education
         Code Section 94850 et seq. and/or the Unfair Business          
         Practices Act;

     (d) whether the members of the class have sustained
         damages, and if so, the proper measure of damages;

     (e) whether any loans obtained as a result of the EA were
         or remain valid, and whether refunds should be issued
         and/or the loans rescinded or canceled.

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

     -- for compensatory damages in an amount according to
        proof;

     -- for all consequential and incidental damages;

     -- in the alternative, for rescission of the entire EA
        and/or loans pursuant to Education Code Section
        94877(a);

     -- for prejdugment interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- for attorney fees and costs under Education Code Section
        94877(b); and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        proper.

The suit is "Kathryn E. Leask et al. v. Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., et al., Case No. 107CV102335," filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          John L. Fallat
          Law Offices of John L. Fallat
          523 Fourth Street, suite 210
          San Rafael, CA 94901-3349
          Phone: (415) 457-3773
          Fax: (415) 457-2667


DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Ditech Communications Corp. are appealing the dismissal
of their case.

On June 14, 2005, a lawsuit filed by Richard E. Jaffe against
Ditech Communications Corp., Timothy K. Montgomery and William
J. Tamblyn (Case No. C 05 02406) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased Ditech’s stock
between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Several similar lawsuits were filed.  All of them were later
consolidated into a single action, captioned, "In re Ditech
Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-
JSW."

Although the court has dismissed this action with prejudice, the
plaintiffs in this action have appealed the dismissal, according
to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 31, 2007.

The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.
         425 California Street, Suite 2025
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415/433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com

Representing the defendants is:

         William S. Freeman, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155
         Phone: 650 843-5000
         Fax: 650 857-0663
         E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Brodhead et al. v.
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.,” which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, are
appealing an order dismissing the class-action complaint.

Filed on June 22, 2005, the suit states a claim for damages
growing out of certain California statutory claims with respect
to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed
on folding trailers from 1995 through 2003.

Plaintiffs have further clarified and narrowed the class for
which they are seeking certification, which now encompasses all
original owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood
Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof but not including
original purchasers who received an aluminum roof replacement
and did not pay for freight.

The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class
action previously filed in California state court, entitled,
“Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al.”

The California trial court denied class action certification in
the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the California Court
of Appeal upheld the denial in a decision issued on May 11,
2006.

On March 26, 2007, the federal trial court granted a motion to
dismiss the class-action complaint in the Brodhead case, leaving
pending only the individual claims of the four named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal order,
but the court denied that motion and dismissed the claims of the
four individual plaintiffs on May 29, 2007.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
federal court’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 6,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
         Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
         Gergosian and Gralewski
         550 West C Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0104
         E-mail: ed@gergosian.com

              - and -

         Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
         Karen Lee Hindin, Esq.
         Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
         Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo
         601 California St., Ste. 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Phone: 415-981-4800
         E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                 klh@girardgibbs.com
                 jkl@girardgibbs.com

Representing the company are:

         Howard B. Golds, Esq.
         Best Best & Krieger
         3750 University Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028
         Riverside, CA 92502-1028
         Phone: 951-686-1450
         E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com

              - and –

         Lee Ann Anand, Esq.
         Richard K. Hines, Esq.
         Nelson Mulins Riley & Scroborough
         999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1400
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-817-6000
         E-mail: leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com
                 richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. agreed to pay $39 million to settle a class
action brought by employees and retirees, The Detroit News
reports citing people familiar with the agreement.

In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions
brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against
General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be
fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and
personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under
the case caption, “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation.”

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee
of the General Motors board, its individual members, General
Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of
General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative
class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General
Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among
other things, investing their assets, or offering them the
option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that
it was not a prudent investment.

Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans
from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses
allegedly suffered by the plans.

The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, and
defendants have no means at this time to estimate damages the
plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information
available in the complaint.

On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
class action complaint, which principally added allegations
about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of
cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or
assert any new claims.

Recently, according to the Detroit News report, lawyers for both
sides told U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds they had reached a
settlement during a Dec. 13 conference call.  She issued an
order requiring them to file the proposed settlement by Jan. 15
and set a Jan. 30 hearing to grant preliminary approval to the
deal.

Under the settlement, employees and retirees will split more
than $25 million.  The remainder will be split among the three
law firms representing employees and retirees.  The precise
figures were still being negotiated Tuesday by General Motors'
outside lawyers, according to the report.

As part of the deal, retirees will be offered heavily discounted
financial counseling services from Ayco, a subsidiary of Goldman
Sachs.  GM has also agreed to keep in place structural changes
it made to its 401(k) plans.


INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government's plan for giving an estimated 500,000
Native Americans a long-promised accounting of their Individual
Indian Trust Accounts falls far short of the legal requirements
for an accounting under trust law, a federal judge has been
told.

In a legal brief submitted to U.S. District Judge James
Robertson, lawyers for Indian plaintiffs said that the
government's proposal not only fails to meet the basic
requirements of an accounting, but it would eliminate hundreds
of thousands of Indian accounts from any review.

The lawyers said the losses to Indian Trust beneficiaries
clearly run into the billions of dollars -- not the millions
that some government officials have suggested.

The 80-page document suggested conclusions of law was based on
evidence submitted during a 10-day trial that Judge Robertson
held in October. The judge then told the lawyers to submit final
briefs to him by Nov. 30 instead of offering oral arguments.

The 11-year-old class action , titled “Cobell v. Kempthorne,” is
based on the government's admitted mismanagement of what
Congress has called a "Broken Trust" that was established in
1887. It was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged
leasing of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West.
As the papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was
mismanaged by the government almost from its inception. Despite
repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is
still years away from its long-promised accounting of the
accounts.

The government has “had over 100 years to fulfill their
fiduciary obligations to render an accounting. They have not,”
the brief noted.

Five years after the Interior Department was found by the U.S.
District Court to be failing its trust obligations, “nothing has
changed,” lawyers for the Indians said. “Plaintiffs are no
closer to receiving the accounting than when defendants were
first ordered by Congress to do so in 1899 and by this Court in
1999.

”The attorneys said there is “no reason” to allow the defendants
to take charge of the accounting process because they will only
continue to delay “performance of their accounting obligations.”

Attorneys for the Indian plaintiffs, led by Elouise Cobell of
Browning, Mont., said that that only 8 percent of the trust
records that the government reportedly has at an underground
records center in Kansas have yet been examined.

"Our lawyers have provided the judged with a detailed
examination of the many flaws in the government's plan," said
Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation. "The government's
proposal is nothing more than a cruel hoax: a plan that would
give most Indian Trust beneficiaries little of the information
that a true accounting would provide."

"And it would eliminate the chance of thousands of Indians of
every learning how much money their families never got from
their lands because of the government's mismanagement of their
lands and their monies. This is never was the government's
money. It was always supposed to be Indian money."

Judge Robertson has not indicated when he will rule on the type
of accounting that the government must conduct.


The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Mark Kester Brown, Esq.
           607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC
           20005-2000  
           Phone: (775) 542-4938
           Fax: 202-318-2372
           E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net

           Dennis M. Gingold, Esq.
           607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC
           20005
           Phone: (202) 824-1448
           Fax: 202-318-2372
           E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com

           Richard A. Guest, Esq. and Keith M. Harper, Esq.
           Native American Rights Fund
           1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976
           Phone: (202) 785-4166
           Fax: 202-822-0068
           E-mail: richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org

           Elliott H. Levitas, Esq.  
           Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
           607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005  
           Phone: (202) 508-5800
           Fax: 202-508-5858
           E-mail: elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com

Representing the defendants are:

           Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq.  
           Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq.
           U.S. Department of Justice
           1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008
           Washington, D.C. 20005
           Phone: (202) 616-0328
           E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or
                   sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov


INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intermatic Inc., of Spring Grove, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
8,500 Intermatic DT27 Digital Self-Adjusting Timers.

The company said the recalled timers could have been wired
incorrectly, which poses an electrical shock hazard to
consumers. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Intermatic DT27 digital self-adjusting
timer with a date code of “04B.” This product is a lamp and
appliance timer and is packaged as either the “DT27C Heavy Duty
Digital Timer” or the “DT27CL Time All Digital Lamp and
Appliance Self-Adjusting Timer.” The timer is white with a
rounded top, and measures 3 7/8” tall by 2 3/4” wide by 1 5/8”
deep. The brand name “Intermatic” is molded on the front of the
timer, and the model number (“DT27”) and date code (“04B”) are
printed on the back of the timer.

These recalled digital timers were manufactured by Ewig
Industries Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd., of Macau, China and
were sold at retailers nationwide, including Home Depot and
Lowe's, from February 2007 through December 2007 for between $15
and $25.

Pictures of the recalled digital timers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled timer
immediately and unplug before checking the model number and date
code. Consumers should contact Intermatic to return the timer
and obtain a free replacement.

For additional information, or to request a prepaid shipping
label, call Intermatic at (800) 704-3595 anytime or visit the
company's Web site: http://www.intermatic.com.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 1, 2008 trial is set for Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.'s
motion that seeks for a dismissal of a consolidated securities
fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Between Oct. 5, 2006 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class
actions were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.  

The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to
Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys’ fees and disbursements.  

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four
putative class actions were consolidated as a single action
entitled, “In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Securities
Litigation.”  

On Aug. 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint.  On Oct. 18, 2007, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  

The Company’s motion is currently scheduled to be heard on Feb.
1, 2008, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Oct. 27, 2007.

The suit is “In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-06286-RMW,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq.
         Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
         425 California Street, Suite 2100
         San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
         Phone: 415-433-3200 x241
         Fax: 415-433-6382
         E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com

              - and -

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610/667-7706
         E-mail: sberman@sbtklaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Boris Feldman, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-565-5100
         E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com


NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in the antitrust class action, “Azizian, et al. v.
Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.,” which names
Nordstrom, Inc., as a defendant, has become final after a
deadline to appeal an approval of the agreement lapsed.

Initially, the company was named as a defendant along with other
department stores and specialty retailers in nine separate, but
virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior
Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998.   
The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court.

In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a
number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two
other retailers as additional defendants.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and
the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the
retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics
and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores.

Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on
behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased
cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the
original complaints.

While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to
avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation.

In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re-
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently
reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store"
cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994
through July 16, 2003.

The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement were disseminated to class members.  

On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the
claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety.

On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the
settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other
filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006.  Plaintiffs' and
defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006.  The remaining
objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March
14, 2007 and issued its decision on Aug. 23, 2007, affirming the
District Court’s ruling.

The deadline for the appellant to file a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision ended on Nov.
21, 2007.  

Accordingly, the settlement became final according to its terms
on Nov. 22, 2007, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants will provide class
members with certain free products with an estimated retail
value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
awarded by the Court, of $24 million.

The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
          111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5630
          Phone: 415-217-6810
          Fax: 415-217-6813
          E-mail: guido@saveri.com

Representing the company is:

          Larry S. Gangnes, Esq.
          1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101-2338
          Phone: (206) 223-7036
          E-mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com


PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeals in the purported class action, “Daniel
Herrold, et al. v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc, Premium Standard
Farms, Inc., and PSF Group Holdings,Inc.,” in which an
acquisition of Smithfield Foods, Inc. is named as a defendant,
have been exhausted.

The suit was filed on May 2004 in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Kansas City, Missouri by people living near the Premium
Standard Farms, Inc.'s swine farms in northern Missouri.

The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within
10 miles of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including
contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered
interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective
properties.

The court’s order granting PSF’s motion to sever the case, and
transfer venue stands, the plaintiffs’ appeals have been
exhausted, according to Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007.

Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/-- is  
a hog producer, and pork and beef processor.  The Company
conducts its business through six segments: Pork, Beef,
International, Hog Production (HP), Other and Corporate, each of
which comprises a number of subsidiaries.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc. is seeking interlocutory appellate review
of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissing certain plaintiffs in a
securities fraud class action filed against the company.

The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software,
Inc. and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing
through various false statements and omissions that they did not
properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which
were below fair market value on the actual grant date.

Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated
during the period Nov. 9, 2001 through July 3, 2006.

In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System
as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order
establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs first
amended complaint and the defendants response thereto.

The first amended class action complaint was filed with the
Court in March 2007.

In October 2007, the Court issued its order on the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint.  

The Court dismissed the plaintiffs claims under Section 10(b)
with respect to Michael Lambert, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs claims under Section 20(a)
with respect to the Company and to Doug Garn, the Company's
President, which claims have been dismissed without prejudice.

The Court also held in abeyance the plaintiffs claims under
Section 20A pending plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint
due Dec. 1, 2007.

Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as
it related to the Company and other individual defendants.

The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion
with the U.S. District Court requesting certification of the
Court's order for interlocutory appellate review, according to
the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge David O. Carter, with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Anthony D. Green, Esq.
         Marian P. Rosner, Esq.
         Wolf Popper LLP
         845 3rd Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600
         Fax: 212-486-2093


REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 7, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs in a suit related to the
collapse of Refco Inc. presented a $7,600,000 settlement to U.S.
District Judge Gerard E. Lynch for preliminary approval and
certification of the settlement class.

On December 6, 2007, RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific
Investment Management Company LLC, the institutional investors
appointed by Judge Lynch to serve as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf
of investors victimized by the Refco affair, signed a settlement
agreement with Dennis A. Klejna.

Mr. Klejna was Refco's former General Counsel and Executive Vice
President. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Klejna has agreed to
pay to Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, a total
settlement amount of $7,600,000, including a personal
contribution of $50,000.00 in cash.

In addition to the monetary payment, Mr. Klejna has pledged to
cooperate with Lead Plaintiffs as they pursue the Class’ claims
against other current (and prospective) defendants in the
consolidated securities class action.

The settlement resolves two categories of claims asserted
against Klejna in the Refco class action, namely, claims arising
from Refco’s bond and stock offerings in 2004 and 2005, and
claims arising out of the purchase of Refco securities in the
open market between August 5, 2004 and October 17, 2005 . As
part of the settlement, the Class’ claims against Mr. Klejna
will be released.

This is the second settlement achieved for the Class in the
Refco Securities Litigation. Lead Plaintiffs will continue to
pursue the Class’ claims against the remaining defendants, which
include:

     -- several former Refco insiders (including former CEO
        Phillip Bennett),

     -- Refco’s former board of directors,

     -- Refco’s former auditor (Grant Thornton LLP),

     -- the investment banking concern that helped take Refco
        “public” in August 2005 (Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P. and
        related entities), and

     -- a total of fifteen investment banks that sold Refco
        stocks and bonds to public investors (including Goldman
        Sachs, Credit Suisse and Bank of America).

The attorneys who worked to achieve this settlement are partners
Sean Coffey, Salvatore Graziano and John Browne and associate
Jeremy Robinson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
and partners Stuart Grant, James Sabella, and Megan McIntyre of
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Their work prosecuting the Class’ claims
against other defendants in the Refco debacle continues.

On December 3, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs RH Capital Associates LLC
and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and Plaintiff
PIMCO Funds: Pacific Investment Management Series – PIMCO High
Yield Fund filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint complaint which, among other things, collects and
consolidates all complaints filed and defendants named to date

     * including Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown partner Joseph
       P. Collins,

updates Lead Plaintiffs' existing allegations and claims based
on recently obtained information and adds new allegations
against former Refco Group CFO Robert Trosten.

                    Case Background
   
A securities suit pending against Refco in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern  District of New York, was consolidated
in April 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006).  It
claimed the collapsed commodity brokerage hid more than $5
billion off its books, far more than previously thought.  It
also accuses company executives, company auditors, and
investment bankers of negligence.  

This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the
company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public
offering of common stock, and only 14 months after its issuance
of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012.  The company filed the
fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result.

The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E.
Lynch.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Max W. Berger, Esq.
          John P. Coffey, Esq.  
          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Noam N. Mandel, Esq.
          Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 554-1400
          Fax: (212) 554-1444

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          James J. Sabella, Esq.  
          Megan D. McIntyre, Esq.
          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          Jill Agro, Esq.
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,  
          Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000
          Fax: (646) 722-8501 and (302) 622-7100

For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017-
0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com.


REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
An August 18, 2008 jury trial is set in a putative class action
filed against Rex Energy Operating Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois over hydrogen
sulfide emissions.

In general the suit is asserting that the operation of oil wells
that are controlled, owned or operated by the company has
resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding Bridgeport
and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide, or H2S.

The complaint asserts several causes of action, including
violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,
negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton
misconduct.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint specifically
denying virtually all of the allegations in the complaint and
asserting affirmative defenses thereto.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification
requesting that the court certify the case as a class action.  

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a scheduling and discovery
order stating that the court will schedule a hearing on
plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after Aug. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
seeking permission to file an amended complaint that would add a
claim against the defendants for alleged violation of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, making factual
allegations similar to those previously asserted in the
plaintiffs’ prior pleadings.

A final pretrial conference for this case has been set for Aug.
7, 2008, and the case is scheduled for jury trial on Aug. 18,
2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

The parties to this lawsuit have exchanged initial pretrial
disclosures as required under the applicable rules and each side
has served and responded to pre-deposition written discovery.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov.
14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Leib et al v. Rex Energy Operating Corp., Case No.  
3:06-cv-00802-JPG-CJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge J. Phil Gilbert with
referral under Judge Clifford J. Proud.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Norman B. Berger, Esq.
          Varga, Berger et al.
          Cook County, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: 312-341-9870
          Fax: 312-341-2900
          E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Collins, Esq.
          Collins Law Firm
          Du Page County, 1770 North Park Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: 630-527-1595
          Fax: 630-527-1193
          E-mail: smc@collinslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Kenneth R. Heineman, Esq.
          Husch & Eppenberger
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-480-1500
          E-mail: kenneth.heineman@husch.com

               - and -

          Edward Lewis, Esq.
          Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Phone: 713-651-3760
          Fax: 713-651-5246
          E-mail: elewis@fulbright.com


SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Saks, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over
allegations of breach of contract.

Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005.  The
plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed
chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for
merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class.  

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and
restitution.

The company reported no material development in the matter in
its Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007.

The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05
cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn.   

Representing the plaintiff are:

         Richard T. Dorman, Esq.
         Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown
         P.O. Box 66705
         Mobile, AL 36660
         Phone: 1-251-471-6191
         E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com

         Rachel J. Geman, Esq.
         Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-355-9500
         Fax: 212-355-9592
         E-mail: rgeman@ichb.com

              - and -

         David J. Guin, Esq.
         Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq.
         Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-503-4505
         Fax: 205-226-2357
         E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com
                 tstokes@dglawfirm.com

Representing the defendant is:

         Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq.
         Hand Arendall, LLC
         1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-324-4400
         Fax: 205-397-1310
         E-mail: dsinor@handarendall.com


SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Semtech Corp. faces two purported securities fraud class actions
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In August 2007, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from
September 11, 2002 until July 19, 2006.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the Company’s past stock option
practices.

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary
demand.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.

A very similar lawsuit, filed in October 2007 by another
plaintiff, has not been served, according to the company's Dec.
7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007.

The suit is “Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v.
Semtech Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-07183,” filed in the  
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under
Judge Denny Chin.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY, 10017
          Phone: 212.907.0700
          Fax: 212.818.0477
          E-mail: info@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier
------------------------------------------------------------
May 12, 2008 and June 10, 2008 hearings were set for two
lawsuits that were filed against Sharper Image Corp. in relation
to its “Ionic Breeze” purifier product.

On or before April 15, 2006, there were five class actions filed
against the Company related to claims made with respect to the
performance, effectiveness and safety of its Ionic Breeze
product.

The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic
Breeze in the State Courts of California (San Francisco) and
Florida (Jacksonville), as well as the U.S. District Courts of
Maryland, Florida (Miami) and the Central District of
California.

Only the San Francisco action has been certified for class
representation.  The Florida State Court action was stayed
pending resolution of the ongoing San Francisco case. The
Maryland and Central District of California cases have been
dismissed.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release in the case pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, which if approved by
the court would have covered all persons who purchased an Ionic
Breeze branded product between May 6, 1999 and the effective
date of the Agreement who do not opt out of the Agreement.

The proposed settlement would have required the Company to:

       -- pay up to $1.9 million to the plaintiff’s attorneys
          for fees and expenses,

       -- make available free Ozone Guard attachments,

       -- issue $19 merchandise credits, subject to certain
          terms and conditions, to members of the Settlement
          class, and

       -- agree to certain other measures.

Following a fairness hearing, on Oct. 11, 2007, the Court
rejected the Agreement.  

A trial date for the action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida has been set for May 12, 2008
and June 10, 2008 for the action filed in the State Court in
California (San Francisco).

The Florida suit is “Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-21251-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia
M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted E. Bandstra.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          David L. Aronoff, Esq.
          Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
          333 S Hope Street, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-576-8044
          Fax: 576-8080

          Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Esq.
          Robert L. Parks, Esq.
          Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis
          330 Alhambra Circle, 1st Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 305-446-5700
          Fax: 446-1154
          E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com

               - and -

          Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq.
          Stephen J. Rowe, Esq.
          Jere F. White, Esq.
          Lightfoot Franklin & White
          400 20th Street North
          The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706
          Phone: 205-581-0774
          Fax: 581-0799

Representing defendants are:

           James S. Toscano, Esq.
           Terry C. Young, Esq.
           Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed
           P.O. Box 2809, Orlando, FL 32802-2809
           Phone: 407-843-4600
           Fax: 843-4444


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed
against Smithfield Foods, Inc.

In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx
Foods Inc. and extended Pennexx a $30 million line of credit,
secured by Pennexx's assets.

In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx,
its directors, the company and two of its officers who were
former directors of Pennexx.  

Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege
that:  

      -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx  
         stock by disseminating materially false and misleading  
         statements concerning the company's financial  
         performance, business operations and prospects; and,

      -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the  
         non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its  
         scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business.  

At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit
Agreement.  The company subsequently seized all of the tangible
property assets of Pennexx and transferred the assets to its
wholly owned subsidiary, terminating Pennexx's ability to
continue its business.

In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action, which the court granted in part and denied in part in  
September 2004.  

In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders.  In June 2005,
the court dismissed the class action without prejudice for lack
of prosecution.  The court took this action following the
withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any other
putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff.  

In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the
appeal in November 2006.

In late September 2007, the Third Circuit affirmed the District
Court’s ruling and the case was dismissed, according to
Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended Oct. 28, 2007.

The suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-04318-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova.  

Representing the defendants are:

         Alan K. Cotler, Esq.
         Robert A. Nicholas, Esq.
         Milind M. Shah, Esq.
         Reed Smith, LLP
         1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty Pl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-851-8100, and 215-851-8298
         Fax: 215-851-1420
         E-mail: acotler@reedsmith.com
                 rnicholas@reedsmith.com
                 mshah@reedsmith.com

         Edward J. Fuhr, Esq.
         Terence J. Rasmussen, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd St.
         Richmond, VA 23219-4074
         Phone: 804-788-8201, and 804-788-8632
         Fax: 804-788-8218

              - and -

         Eric F. Spade, Esq.
         Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC
         1835 Market Street, 15TH Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-569-1800
         Fax: 215-569-1822
         E-mail: espade@mittslaw.com


STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Star Gas Partners, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut remains stayed pursuant to the
mandatory stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of
a purported class of unitholders was filed against the
Partnership and various subsidiaries and officers and directors
of the company in the U.S. District Court of the District of
Connecticut.  The suit is “Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et
al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA.”

Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging
the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same
district court.  The class actions were consolidated into one
consolidated amended complaint.

On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim
under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the
applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

On July 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the pending
motion to dismiss.  On Aug. 21, 2006, the court issued its
rulings on defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting the motions
and dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety.  

On Aug. 23, 2006, the court entered a judgment of dismissal.  On
Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to
alter and reopen the court’s Aug. 23, 2006 judgment of dismissal
and for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint
(Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion).

On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum of law in
opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.  Plaintiffs
filed their reply brief on or about Nov. 20, 2006.  

On March 22, 2007 the Court issued its decision denying
Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.

On April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a Motion for a
Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery
of Defendants’ legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA.

On April 24, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to
that motion.  The Star Gas Defendants’ reply was due on May 8,
2007.

On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Court of Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton’s
decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying
Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.  

Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, class
plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against:

     * Hanseatic Americas, Inc.,
     * Paul Biddelman,
     * A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.,
     * RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.,
     * UBS Investment Bank, and
     * Audrey Sevin

On July 6, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal.
The Star Gas Defendants’ opposition brief was due on Aug. 21,
2007, and class plaintiffs’ reply brief was due on Sept. 11,
2007.  Oral argument on the appeal was scheduled to take place
after Oct. 1, 2007.  

In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant
to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 7,
2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.

Representing the plaintiffs are:    

         Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
         Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
         7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
         St. Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-862-6800
         Fax: 314-862-1606
         E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com

              - and -

         David L. Belt, Esq.
         Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
         350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
         New Haven, CT 06503-0606
         Phone: 203-772-3100
         Fax: 203-772-1691
         E-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:   

         Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7300
         Fax: 203-977-7301
         E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com

              - and -

         Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq.
         Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
         205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
         New Haven, CT 06509-1910
         Phone: 203-784-8200
         Fax: 203-777-1181
         E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on June 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. For
a proposed settlement in the matter, “In Re: Grand Theft Auto
Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK.”

The hearing will held before Judge Shirley Wohl Kram in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at
500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before April 25, 2008.  Deadline for the submission
of a claim form is on May 16, 2008.


                          Case Background

In July 2005, the defendants (Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games) received four purported
class actions. Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, one was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and one was filed in the Circuit Court in St.
Clair County, Illinois.

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before
July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer
deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of
merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted in the game
receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment
Software Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults Only 18+ (AO)
rating.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various
violations of law and litigation costs.  In January 2006, the
City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against the company in the
Superior Court of the State of California alleging violations of
California law on substantially the same basis.

The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion
to remand filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the
cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which consolidated them under the caption, “In re
Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-
1739 (SWK)(MHD).”

                              Settlement

In the last half of 2007, defendants reached a settlement in the
matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

        (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
            before July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel.

A copy of the settlement notice is available at:

              http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram.

The Class Counsel is:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC

Representing the company is:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 909-6000


TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan.
8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging that Ticketmaster signs up customers for
"an unwanted online coupon service, without the customer's
knowledge."

Named plaintiff Stephen C. Stearns brings this action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased tickets from
Ticketmaster from April 1, 2004 to the present, and who were
subsequently enrolled in, and charged fees for, the
Entertainment Rewards program.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants' actions in signing up and charging
         customers for a service that they did not want, request
         or use is false, deceptive, misleading and/or unfair;

     (b) whether in signing up and charging customers for a
         service that they did not want, request or use,
         defendants violated the California Consumers Legal
         Remedies Act;

     (c) whether in signing up and charging customers for a
         service that they did not want, request or use,
         defendants committed fraud, deceit, and/or
         misrepresentation;

     (d) whether in signing up and charging customers for a
         service that they did not want, request or use,
         defendants committed conversion;

     (e) whether in signing up and charging customers for a
         service that they did not want, request or use,
         defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing in their contracts with class members; and

     (f) the scope of injunctive relief that should be imposed
         against defendants to prevent such conduct in the
         future.

Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

     -- for restitution;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to,
        without limitation, California Business & Professions
        Code Section 17200, et seq. and California civil Code
        Section 1780 (a)(2);

     -- for compensatory damages, the amount of which is to be
        determined at trial;

     -- for the value of the unlawful charges;

     -- for the greater of actual or compensatory damages
        according to proof or $1000 pursuant to California Civil
        Code Section 1780;

     -- for interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sum from
        and after the date of the unlawful charges;

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof
        pursuant to, without limitation, the California
        Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code
        Section 1750, et seq) and California civil Code Section
        1021.5;

     -- for punitive damages according to proof pursuant to,
        without limitation, California Civil Code Section 1780;

     -- for any class member who is a senior citizen or a
        disabled person, an award of $5,000;

     -- for costs of suit incurred; and

     -- for such further relief as the court may deem just and
        proper.

The suit is "Stephen C. Stearns et al. v. Ticketmaster Corp., et
al., Case No. CV08-00117," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Eric M. George
          Michael A. Bowse
          Dreir Stein Kahan Browne Woods George LLP
          450 N. Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 274-7100
          Fax: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: egeorge@dskbwg.com or mbowse@dskbwg.com

          - and -

          Lee A. Weiss
          Rebecca Tingey
          Dreier LLP
          499 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 328-6100
          Fax: (212) 652-3801
          E-mail: lweiss@dreierllp.com or rtingey@dreierllp.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tween Brands, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.

Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class action complaints
have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company’s common
stock against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting
claims under the federal securities laws.

To date all of these actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

These cases include:

       -- “June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
          852),”

       -- “Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV
          894),” and

       -- “John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV
          925).”

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company’s common stock during various periods beginning
as early as Feb. 21, 2007 and ending on Aug. 21, 2007 and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s
business and prospects during the class period.

These actions also allege that the Company’s CEO sold stock
while in possession of adverse non-public information.

A status conference was held on Oct. 23, 2007, at which time the
actions were consolidated and a preliminary schedule was set.

Three plaintiffs have filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  Non-oral hearing on all motions to appoint lead
plaintiff was set Dec. 7, 2007.   

The chosen lead plaintiff has until Feb. 22, 2008 to file a
consolidated amended complaint, including a definitive proposed
class period and the naming of defendants.  

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due on April 4, 2008.  A non-
oral hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for May
16, 2008.

The suit is “June Gruhn, et al. v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-00852,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Gregory L. Frost.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-519
         E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com

         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101
         Phone: 619.231.1058
         Fax: 619.231.7423

         Paskowitz & Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY, 10165
         Phone: 212.685.0969
         Fax: 212.685.2306
         E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

         Roy Jacobs & Associates
         350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
         New York, NY, 10118
         E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com

         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

         Strauss & Troy
         The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street
         Cincinnati, OH, 45202-4018
         Phone: 513.621.2120
         Fax: 513.241.8250
         E-mail: wlwoods@strauss-troy.com


VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: $185M Settlement Checks Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 2, 2008, Constantine Cannon (formerly Constantine &
Partners), Lead Counsel for United States merchants in the Visa
Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, CV 96-5238, advised
Class Members that:

Lead Counsel has directed the Claims Administrator to mail
checks to Class Members for overcharges on Visa and MasterCard
signature debit and credit card transactions during the period
October 1992 to July 2003. This distribution of approximately
55,000 payments involves more than $185,000,000. This is the
fourth round of distribution, the previous rounds having
occurred in December 2005, June 2006, and December 2006.

                       Case Background

The Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation is a class
action that was filed and litigated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, New York.

The class consists of all businesses and organizations in the
U.S. that accepted Visa and MasterCard debit and credit cards
for payment at any time during the period Oct. 25, 1992 to June
21, 2003.  

The Class Plaintiffs claimed that, through their "Honor All
Cards" policies, Visa and MasterCard forced merchants to accept
Visa and MasterCard signature debit card (also Visa Check,
MasterMoney or Debit MasterCard) transactions at
supracompetitive prices.

The merchants also claimed that Visa and MasterCard were
attempting to monopolize the debit card business in the United
States. In April 2003, just as the trial was about to begin,
Visa and MasterCard settled with the plaintiffs' Class.

As part of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to
eliminate their “Honor All Cards” policies, which required
merchants that accepted their credit cards to also accept their
signature debit card transactions. Prior to this untying of
credit and debit, they also agreed to lower debit card fees for
an interim period by one-third.

In addition, they agreed to re-label the Visa Check and
MasterMoney debit cards with the word "DEBIT" on the front and
to do other things related to the untying of debit cards from
credit cards. Visa and MasterCard also agreed to pay $3.05
billion over time into a Settlement Fund. This Settlement Fund
will be used to provide compensation to Class Members, and will
be distributed to Class Members after the attorneys fees,
expenses and cost of notice and administration approved by the
Court have been deducted.

                   Recent Distribution Notice

With these four distributions, Lead Counsel will have paid out
over $985,000,000 to Class Members. It will have paid 701,026 of
803,258 claims received to date for overcharges on Visa and
MasterCard signature debit and credit card transactions. Lead
Counsel expects that payments for online PIN debit overcharges
will be made to all or most qualifying Class Members in 2008
when the Settlement Fund is replenished.

Merchants may visit the case website at:
http://www.InReVisacheckMasterMoneyAntitrustLitigation.comto  
determine whether their claims are among those being paid in
this distribution.

In addition to this cash monetary relief, the Settlement in this
case includes an injunction valued by the Court in the range of
$25-$87 billion to U.S. Merchants and consumers. In approving
the Settlement, the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit stated that it is “the largest antitrust
settlement in history,” that “the compensatory relief by itself
constitutes the largest settlement ever approved by a federal
court;” and “produced significant and lasting benefits
for America’s merchants and consumers.”

Additional information regarding the claims and payment process
is also available by calling 1-888-641-4437 or visiting
http://www.inrevisacheckmastermoneyantitrustlitigation.com.


VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10M Securities Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of all
federal securities class action claims that were filed against
the Company.

The previously disclosed settlement requires that Vitesse adopt
certain corporate governance measures which include implementing
certain policies for stock option grants and compensation
decisions, incorporating greater shareholder participation in
the procedures for nominating independent directors, adopting
additional standards of director independence, and adding a lead
independent director. Vitesse will also be implementing
additional accounting policies, procedures and guidelines.

The Court has scheduled a final hearing on the matters for March
17, 2008 in Los Angeles.

                           Case Background

On May 2, 2006 an investor sued Vitesse Semiconductor in federal
court, accusing the company of securities law violations.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
acquired Vitesse securities from Oct. 23, 2003 to April 26,
2006, inclusive.

The lawsuit claims that Vitesse and three individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

Vitesse engages in the design, development, manufacturing, and
marketing of integrated circuits for systems manufacturers in
the communications and storage industries.

According to the complaint, Vitesse and three individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the class
period that artificially inflated the company's stock price.

Specifically, the defendants:

     -- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
        requested by customers;

     -- failed to properly apply payments received to the
        appropriate account receivable; and

     -- failed to properly account for the stock options granted
        to senior officers and directors.

                           Settlement

In 2006, Vitesse entered into a proposed settlement of all
federal securities class action claims.

According to a report by WELT ONLINE, Christopher R. Gardner,
Chief Executive Officer stated, "We are very pleased to reach a
settlement with the plaintiffs in these actions.  This
litigation has been a distraction for Vitesse management and
employees as well as its customers and shareholders. This
settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve the
uncertainty associated with these litigations and put an end to
the significant legal expenses we would have incurred in the
event we had to continue to litigate.”

The proposed settlement of the class action will include a cash
payment to the settlement fund of $10.2 million:

       -- $8.75 million to be paid by Vitesse’s directors’ and
          officers’ liability insurers, and
        
       -- a total of $1.45 million to be paid by Louis R.
          Tomasetta and Eugene F. Hovanec, two of the former
          executives of Vitesse.

The same two former executives also will contribute all shares
of Vitesse common stock that they own, totaling 1,272,669
shares.

In addition, Vitesse will contribute 2,650,000 shares of Vitesse
common stock and no cash to the class fund.  

In addition, under the proposed agreement, the Company and
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company
who were named as defendants will be dismissed from the lawsuits
and will obtain releases from the class plaintiffs.

The next step will be the filing of motions in the federal court
asking for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and
authorization to provide current and former shareholders of
Vitesse with notice of the proposed settlement.  The settlement
will require final approval from the federal court before they
become effective.

The suit is “In Re: Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 06-CV-02639,” filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
          212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700
          Fax: 212-684-519
          E-mail: info@abbeyspanier.com

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610.660.0450
          E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Federman & Sherwood
          120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
          Oklahoma City, OK, 73102
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          E-mail: wfederman@aol.com

               - and -

          Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
          World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Ste 2525
          Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410.332.0030
          E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits Related to Cipro
----------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., The Rugby Group and other company
affiliates continue to face lawsuits in relation to Cipro, an
antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections.

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

Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions
seeking class certification. As of March 8, 2006, approximately
42 cases had been filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson
entities. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as,
“In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 001383.”

On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action
granted Watson’s motion to dismiss and made rulings limiting the
theories under which plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby
and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing
the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on all of plaintiffs’ claims, denied the plaintiffs’
motions for class certification, and directed the clerk of the
court to close the case.

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

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

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

The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages,
injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of
certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The
courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the actions.
Plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the New
York action. In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9,
2006, the appellate court reversed the order of dismissal.

On June 8, 2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in
the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

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

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

Pursuant to the appellate court’s ruling, the majority of the
plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims as a class.

On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties’ joint
application to stay the California case pending the outcome of
the appeal of the consolidated case.

In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Aventis has agreed to defend
and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the
claims and investigations arising from the conduct and
agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates
prior to Watson’s acquisition of Rugby, and is currently
controlling the defense of these actions.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the company is:

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


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: In Talks to Settle Mass. AWP Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. is working to settle two lawsuits in
relation to alleged improper or fraudulent reporting practices
made by the company related to the reporting of average
wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain
products.

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

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

The consolidated amended complaint in that case alleges that the
defendants’ acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts
paid by various public and private plans and programs. The
amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class
of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain
drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale
price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide
others with such drugs.

The Company has filed Answers to the various amended
consolidated class action complaints, and has opposed, with
other defendants, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a
Fifth Amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Defendants in the consolidated litigation have been divided into
two groups. The Company and its named subsidiaries are contained
in a large group of defendants (the “Track Two” Defendants) that
is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for
certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a class
action against the drug company defendants.

Certain other defendants, referred to as the “Track One”
defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis. The
presiding judge in the matter granted class certification with
respect to certain companies and individuals in the group of
Track One Defendants.

A trial was held with respect to some of the claims against this
group of defendants, and the judge ruled in favor of the
Plaintiffs as to some defendants and awarded damages. The Track
One Defendants agreed to settle some of the claims filed on
behalf of one of the classes certified in that case, and one of
the Track One Defendants has agreed to settle with all of the
classes certified in that case.

The presiding judge has ordered the Company and other Track Two
Defendants to enter mediation proceedings to explore the
possibility of settling some or all of the claims pending in
that case. These mediation proceedings are ongoing, and the
Company is participating.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Review Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied
appellants’ petition for rehearing of a district court's
judgment dismissing a consolidated securities fraud suit against
Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Beginning in November 2003, several securities class actions
were commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Watson and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.

On February 9, 2004, the federal court issued an order
consolidating all of the federal actions as “In re: Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-8236
AHM.”

In addition to the federal consolidated actions, two shareholder
derivative actions were filed in California Superior Court for
the County of Riverside:

     * “Philip Orlando v. Allen Chao, et al., Case No. 403717;”
     * “Charles Zimmerman v. Allen Chao, et al, Case No. 403715”

These federal and state cases all relate to the drop in the
price of the Company’s common stock in November 2001, and allege
generally that the Company failed to timely advise investors
about matters such as falling inventory valuations, increased
competition and manufacturing difficulties, and therefore, the
Company’s published financial statements and public
announcements during 2000 and 2001 were false and misleading.

The shareholder derivative actions were dismissed without
prejudice on November 16, 2004. On August 2, 2004, the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal
consolidated action, and allowed plaintiffs until August 30,
2004 to file an amended complaint.

On August 30, 2004, the lead plaintiff in the federal
consolidated action notified the court that it did not intend to
file an amended complaint in response to the court’s order
granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 2, 2004, the District Court entered a judgment of
dismissal in favor of the defendants. On October 1, 2004, one of
the non-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of the action with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Pension Fund v.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USCA Docket No. 04-56791).

The court heard oral argument on the appeal on November 17,
2006. On December 1, 2006, the court ordered appellants to file
a new and separate action against defendants within 28 days or
show cause why they had not done so. Appellants did not file a
new and separate action, responding that such a filing would be
time-barred and requesting a ruling on their appeal. As of
August 1, 2007, the appellate court had not ruled on the matter.

On August 16, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court’s judgment of dismissal and on October 15, 2007, the Court
of Appeals denied the appellants’ petition for rehearing and
petition for rehearing en banc.


WORLDCOM INC: Request to Distribute Settlement Fund Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York gives notice in relation to "In Re
Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation," that:

on Dec. 21, 2007, Lead Plaintiff New York State Common
Retirement Fund filed a Motion to Conduct a Second Distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund.  

Any opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion is due Jan. 18, 2008.  
Lead Plaintiff's reply to any opposition received is due Jan.
25, 2008.

The initial notice of distribution was sent in 2006 (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006) after Judge Cote authorized the
release of a $4.52 billion payout in the main class action over
WorldCom, Inc.'s collapse.

Several defendants have made payments billion to resolve
allegations that they helped WorldCom sell bonds when they
should have known the phone company was concealing its true
financial condition.

                        Case Background

The litigation -- http://www.worldcomlitigation.com/-- is a   
consolidated, certified class action that is being prosecuted on
behalf of a court-certified class of all individuals or entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of
WorldCom, Inc. from April 29, 1999 through and including June
25, 2002, and who were injured thereby.  

                         Lead Plaintiff  

On Aug. 15, 2002, Judge Cote appointed the Comptroller of the
State of New York, the sole Trustee of the New York State Common
Retirement Fund, which is the nation's second-largest public
pension fund, to serve as lead plaintiff in the WorldCom
Securities Litigation and approved lead plaintiff's selection of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.  

Fresno County Employees Retirement Association, the County of
Fresno, California and HGK Asset Management are additional named
plaintiffs and class representatives.

The consolidated complaint of the lead plaintiff was filed in
the fall of 2002, and updated in August 2003 and in December
2003.

On Nov. 7, 2002, Judge Cote ordered the parties to participate
in settlement negotiations under the supervision of Magistrate
Judge Michael H. Dolinger.  In the fall of 2003, the court
invited the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, U.S. District Court
Judge, to assist in oversight of the settlement discussions.

Judge Cote certified the lawsuit as a class action on Oct. 24,  
2003.   

                           Defendants

The director defendants were: Bernard J. Ebbers, former
president, CEO; Scott D. Sullivan, former CFO; James C. Allen,
former member of the audit committee; Judith Areen, former
member of the audit committee; Carl J. Aycock; Max E. Bobbitt,
former chairman of the audit committee; Francesco Galesi, former
member of the audit committee; Clifford L. Alexander, Jr.;
Stiles A. Kellett, Jr., former chairman of compensation
committee; Gordon S. Macklin; John A. Porter; Bert C. Roberts,
Jr., former chairman; John W. Sidgmore, former vice chairman;
and Lawrence C. Tucker.

Other individual defendants were: David F. Myers, controller and
senior vice president; Buford Yates, Jr., director of General
Accounting; and Arthur Andersen LLP.

Underwriter defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Salomon
Brothers International Limited; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P.
Morgan Securities, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd.; Banc of
America Securities LLC; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (n/k/a
Deutsche Bank Alex Brown Inc.; Chase Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P.
Morgan Securities, Inc.; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Blaylock &
Partners, L.P.; Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; Goldman, Sachs
& Co.; UBS Warburg LLC; ABN/AMRO Inc.; Utendahl Capital; Tokyo-
Mitsubishi International plc; Westdeutsche Landesbank;
Girozentrale (n/k/a WestLB AG); BNP Paribas Securities Corp.;
Caboto Holding SIM S.p.A.; Fleet Securities, Inc.; Mizuho
International plc.

The Salomon defendants were: Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., as
employer of Jack Grubman; Salomon Brothers International
Limited; Jack B. Grubman, former telecommunications analyst at
Salomon; Citigroup, Inc., corporate parent of Salomon.

WorldCom, Inc. -- http://www.worldcom.com/-- was not a   
defendant because on July 21, 2002, it filed for bankruptcy
protection.  The bankruptcy court in the Southern District of
New York confirmed WorldCom's Plan on Oct. 31, 2003, and on Apr.
20, 2004, the company formally emerged from U.S. Chapter 11
protection as MCI, Inc.

                           Settlements

* Former WorldCom executives                   $6.136 billion
  Scott Sullivan, David Myers,
  and Buford Yates (taken with the  
  anticipated proceeds from the  
  Sullivan settlement)                    

* Arthur Andersen LLP                         $65 million  
  (funds have already been transferred  
   to an escrow account)

* Former Chairman Bert Roberts                 $4.5 million  

* 11 Other former director defendants         $20.25 million  

* Insurance companies that had written        $36 million
  directors and officers liability coverage  
  ($1 million to settle the claims against  
   Mr. Roberts and an additional $35 million  
   to settle the claims against the other  
   former directors)

* Bank of America                            $460.5 million  

* Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs,            $100.3 million
  Credit Suisse First Boston, and  
  UBS Warburg  

* ABN AMRO, Mitsubishi Securities            $428.4 million
  International, BNP Paribas  
  Securities Corp. and Mizuho Int'l.     

* WestLB and Cabato Holding                   $112.5 million  

* Deutsche Bank                               $325 million  

* Blaylock & Partners, L.P.                   $572,840  

* Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P.             $234,000  

* J. P. Morgan Securities  
  and certain of affiliates                   $2 billion  

* Citigroup Defendants                        $2.575 billion  
  (including Salomon Smith Barney,  
  Inc. as employer of Jack Grubman;  
  Salomon Brothers International Ltd.;
  Jack B. Grubman, former  
  telecommunications analyst at  
  Salomon; Citigroup, Inc.)

For more details, contact:

          WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 9000 #6247, Merrick, NY 11566-9000
          Phone: 1-866-808-3556
          Fax: 1-631-940-6549
          E-mail: worldcominfo@gardencitygroup.com


                         Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bunnell Action Remanded to Madison Court  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, remanded an asbestos-
related Federal Employers' Liability Act lawsuit, filed by
William James Bunnell against Union Pacific Railroad Co. and
other defendants, to the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.

The case is styled William James Bunnell, Plaintiff, v. Union
Pacific Railroad Co., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., Metropolitan
Life Insurance Co., Aqua-Chem Inc., CSR Ltd., Ingersoll-Rand
Co., Elliott Turbocharge Group Inc. & Elliott Turbomachinery Co.
Inc., Defendants.

District Judge Reagan entered judgment of Case No. 07-cv-0686-
MJR-DGW on Dec. 19, 2007.

In September 2007, Mr. Bunnell filed a second amended complaint
in Illinois state court naming eight Defendants, one of which
was Union Pacific, which was sued as successor to Chicago &
Northwestern Railway Co. (CNW).

Mr. Bunnell alleged that he sustained personal injuries
(including mesothelioma) from asbestos exposure while working
for CNW for one year between 1948 and 1949. His suit was filed
under FELA. Union Pacific removed the case on Oct. 2, 2007.

Judge Reagan noted that Union Pacific bore the burden of
demonstrating that all jurisdictional requirements have been
satisfied.

The second amended complaint plainly pleaded a FELA claim, but
Union Pacific argued that Mr. Bunnell never worked for Union
Pacific or any other railroad and did not work as a
subcontractor for CNW during the period alleged.

The Court directed Union Pacific to clarify the citizenship
issue and directed Mr. Bunnell to respond to Union Pacific's
argument that the operative complaint stated no real FELA claim.

On Oct. 24, 2007, Union Pacific provided a detailed
jurisdictional memorandum quelling any concern regarding
diversity of citizenship. However, Mr. Bunnell moved to remand
the case.

The District Court granted Mr. Bunnell's Oct. 24, 2007 motion
and remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Ill.

Robert B. Ramsey, Brent Coon & Associates, St. Louis,
represented William James Bunnell.

Allan M. Goodloe, Jr., Thompson Coburn, St. Louis, represented
Union Pacific Railroad Co., Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Aqua-Chem Inc., CSR Ltd.,
Ingersoll-Rand Co., Elliott Turbocharge Group Inc., and Elliot
Turbomachinery Company Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Sets Chick Sentencing to Feb. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. has set the
sentencing of John Chick, who pleaded guilty to illegally
removing asbestos from a Cayuga County, N.Y., building, for
11:00 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008 in Syracuse, N.Y., The Citizen reports.

Judge Scullin set the date following hearing dates in the fall
of 2007 in which attorneys made their cases for what the
sentence should be.

Those hearings included the testimony of then-Cayuga County
Legislature Chairman George Fearon, who said he did not know
about the illegal activity until months after it took place.

Mr. Chick, a county carpenter who has been on paid suspension
for most of 2007, pleaded guilty in January 2007 to illegally
removing asbestos from the county Board of Elections building in
February 2006.

Mr. Chick has insisted he was simply following orders, and
should be given a light sentence.

However, federal prosecutors said Mr. Chick has been deceptive
throughout their investigation and they likely will not be
charging anyone else in connection with the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Public Park Closed Due to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
A public pathway in Knocknacarra Park in County Galway, Ireland,
has been closed two days after an oil tank fire left asbestos
scattered across public and private property, Galway News
reports.

The roofs of two oil tank boiler sheds exploded during the Jan.
1, 2008 blaze and sent shards of white corrugated asbestos into
nearby gardens, cars, driveways and onto a public pathway in
Knocknacarra Park.

Galway city council officials, the Gardai and community wardens
are at the scene and have closed the public pathway in the
housing estate.

The asbestos cannot be touched and only three companies in the
country are licensed to safely dispose of the toxic substance.

Galway city council has undertaken to remove the asbestos on
public property but is refusing to remove any asbestos shards
from inside private property.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 56 Firms Filed Last Dec. 7 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 7, 2007, Barbara Brewster, the widow of Jack Donsell
Brewster Sr. who died of mesothelioma, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 56 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.V., The West
Virginia Record reports.

Filed on Mr. Brewster's behalf, the suit specifically mentions
Guyan International Inc., where he worked from 1953 to 1987.

According to the suit, Mr. Brewster worked in close proximity to
others working with and using asbestos and asbestos-containing
products.

The suit says, "The defendants did manufacture, supply, sell or
install asbestos and asbestos-containing products with which the
decedent came in daily contact with aforementioned, as a result
of which, the decedent contracted and suffered from
mesothelioma."

Mr. Brewster was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died on Dec.
10, 2005. According to the suit, prior to death he suffered
severe physical pain, mental anguish, worry, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of income and medical expenses.

Mrs. Brewster claims she has loss the consortium, guidance,
kindly office, support and services of her husband. She seeks
compensatory and punitive damages for her husband's estate and
for the damages she has suffered.

Attorney John E. Sutter represents Mrs. Brewster.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2627 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Local Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Seward of West Chester, Ohio, on Dec. 27, 2007, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 defendants in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Seward alleges that she was exposed to airborne asbestos
fibers from her father's clothing.

Ms. Seward claims her father was employed by Fox Paper Inc. in
Lockland, Ohio, and on many occasions would work with and around
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials.

The complaint states, "Dust created by working with and around
asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate the
skin, hair and clothing of the plaintiff's father. This dust
contained large amounts of asbestos fiber."

Ms. Seward claims her father would carry the asbestos dust on
his clothing home with him where it would again become airborne.

The suit claims that Ms. Seward was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in 2005, and subsequently became aware that his illness was
wrongfully caused.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to require and
advise their employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce
or prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Seward claims she was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos, and developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her.

Ms. Seward also claims that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Ms. Seward claims that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information, she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

Represented Michael Bilbrey and James Stever of Edwardsville,
Ill., Ms. Seward seeks compensatory damages in excess of
US$700,000, plus punitive damages.

Case No. 07 L 1086 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lab Tests Confirm Hazard in Common Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent tests by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization have
confirmed the presence of harmful levels of asbestos in everyday
products, including toys, according to an ADAO press release
dated Jan. 3, 2008.

The results have been surprising thus far, particularly because
of the emergence of asbestos, which was banned by federal law
nearly a quarter-century ago, within children's products. Some
of the ADAO's findings have resulted in the removal of these
products from store shelves, indicating an acknowledgment of the
gravity of these product's health consequences.

Asbestos, when inhaled is extremely difficult for the body to
break down, resulting in a sustained irritation within the
body's internal structures.

Children in particular, are at a specific risk because they are
often less discriminatory about what products they may ingest or
inhale. Once within a child's body, the asbestos inflammation
may cause a harmful scar tissue over several years, ultimately
leading to mesothelioma.

Because the health complications that result from asbestos
exposure take many years to manifest, childhood exposure could
potentially see a person develop mesothelioma in their 20s or
30s.

Typically prognoses for mesothelioma are between 12 and 18
months, as the cancer slowly collapses the lungs and suffocates
the patient. This and other health complications are the
devastating consequences of an innocent childhood exposure to
asbestos.

Asbestos exposures are not uncommon in occupational settings but
the potential emergence of exposures in the household, and
particularly among children are disturbing. Anything that
contains at least one-percent asbestos is considered an
asbestos-containing material and should be avoided

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center has long been
recognized as the web's leading resource for accurate and up to
date information concerning mesothelioma, asbestos, and their
health implications. In addition the MAAC is recognized as the
leading source of information about mesothelioma treatment and
features a live clinical trials database.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquests Set for 2008 on York's "Time Bomb"
----------------------------------------------------------------
More inquests are set to be held in 2008 into alleged victims of
York, England's asbestos time bomb, The Press reports.

Nearly 100 former workers at York Carriageworks have already
died from asbestos illnesses like mesothelioma, and yet more
inquests are set to be held in 2008.

Coroner's officer George Rawlings said a precise number was not
available, but said there were a number of asbestos-related
hearings waiting to take place.

Among them is the inquest into 81-year-old Roy Anderson, who
spent 45 years at the Holgate Road site before retiring in 1986.
He died in November 2007, and believed his ill-health may have
been linked to exposure to asbestos.

The cause of Mr. Anderson's death was initially given as
pulmonary fibrosis, but that has since been changed to also
include bronchial pneumonia and an inquest will be held later in
2008.

Mr. Anderson worked for two years in the building shop, which
was known as one of the areas most affected by asbestos. He
spent most of the rest of his career as a fitter in the tool
room.

The matter has been taken up by campaigner Paul Cooper, a former
union leader at the Carriageworks, who met with Mr. Anderson
before his death.

Mr. Anderson's widow Joyce said that during the time that her
husband had been ill in hospital, he became increasingly certain
that asbestos must be a factor.

The asbestos scandal at York Carriageworks first came to light
more than 25 years ago, after the then Yorkshire Evening Press
highlighted the rising number of cases of mesothelioma in former
workers.

Workers were widely exposed to asbestos from the 1950s onwards,
unaware of the dangers. Some told afterwards how they threw
clumps of asbestos around like snowballs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dublin Docklands to Clean Up Bottling Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority states that they will
remove asbestos from the Irish Glass Bottle site in Poolbeg in
Ireland as part of their demolition and remediation works that
began there before Christmas, Dublin People reports.

The work is to be handled by Becbay Ltd., which is a joint
venture involving Bernard McNamara, Derek Quinlan and the DDDA.
The site remediation work includes the decommissioning of the
plant, demolition of buildings and the removal of about two
meters of underlying soil material.

The DDDA confirmed that there is asbestos on the site. The
material will be extracted under an integrated control license
issued by the Environmental Agency, they said.

A statement from the DDDA reads, "The soil materials will be
removed from the site to Dublin South Port via South Bank Road
for onward shipment to a suitable processing facility in Europe.
All sub-contractors employed will be suitably licensed and
experienced to handle and dispose of hazardous materials."

In April 2007, the DDDA received approval from the Oireachtas
Committee on Environment for the preparation of a planning
scheme for over 100 acres in the Poolbeg Peninsula area.

According to the DDDA, they plan to transform the area "in a way
that delivers sustainable mixed use development, while at the
same time preserving the natural heritage and developing
amenities."

A spokeswoman said the authority did not yet have any specific
plans for the site and were still in the process of preparing a
'Poolbeg Planning Scheme.'


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $354M Liability at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability, as of Sept. 28,
2007, amounted to US$354,091,000, according to the Company's
registration statement, on Form S-1, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 4, 2007.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company's current accrued asbestos
liability amounted to US$29,032,000 and its current asbestos
insurance asset amounted to US$26,632,000.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$52,276,000 and its long-term asbestos
insurance asset amounted to US$294,910,000.

The Company's legacy asbestos gain amounted to US$23,714,000 in
the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with a legacy
asbestos expense of US$24,376,000 in the nine months ended Sept.
29, 2006.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's legacy asbestos
expense amounted to US$33,816,000.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Colfax Corp.
8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150
Richmond, Va.
Phone: 804-560-4070
Fax: 804-560-4076
http://www.colfaxcorp.com

Description:
The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps,
fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include
rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps,
gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five
markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation,
global navy, and general industrial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has 38,477 Claims at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corp. recorded 38,477 asbestos-related claims in the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 53,291 claims in the
nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006, according to a Company
registration statement, on Form S-1, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 4, 2007.

In the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company recorded
5,986 claims filed and 17,529 claims resolved. In the nine
months ended Sept. 29, 2006, the Company noted 4,451 claims
filed and 10,377 claims resolved.

The Company has established reserves of US$383.1 million as of
Sept. 28, 2007 and US$388.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, for the
probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liabilities
the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay through the next
15 years, and have also established recoverables of US$321.5
million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$297.1 million as of Dec. 31,
2006 for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable
during the same time period.

Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on
a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related claims over the next
15 years was US$61.6 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$91.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many
defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products
manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained
asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third-party suppliers and
were not made by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the
subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The
manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of
the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

In 2003, one of the Company's subsidiaries brought an action in
the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, against a number
of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of
disputes concerning insurance coverage for the asbestos personal
injury claims asserted against it.

In 2004, the Company's primary insurance carrier ceased payments
alleging that its policies were exhausted. The subsidiary
requested proof of exhaustion which the primary carrier refused
to provide.

Thereafter, most of the subsidiary's excess and umbrella
carriers also refused to provide payments for a variety of
reasons, including reliance upon the lack of evidence of
exhaustion and other timing and allocation defenses. Generally,
the insurance companies have not contested coverage.

In 2004, the subsidiary began making substantially all of the
payments required to cover liability and defense costs for the
asbestos-related lawsuits while pursuing a lawsuit against the
insurers. In addition, in this suit, the subsidiary alleges that
its former parent is responsible for any coverage that would
have been provided by any insurance company that is insolvent.

In 2007, certain of the insurance carriers agreed to settle with
the subsidiary by reimbursing the subsidiary for amounts the
subsidiary paid for liability and defense costs in the past as
well as entering into formal agreements detailing the payment of
future liability and defense costs in an agreed to allocation
for that insurer.

In addition, a number of non-settling insurance carriers have
made payments of significant amounts for liability and defense
costs paid by the subsidiary in the past and continue to pay a
share of liability and defense costs as they are incurred. As a
result, the subsidiary’s insurance carriers are once again
paying a substantial portion of the subsidiary's current
asbestos-related costs. Trial is scheduled for April 2008.

To date, the Company's other subsidiary involved in asbestos
litigation has had all of its liability and defense costs,
excluding litigation costs of pursuing insurance coverage,
covered in full by its primary and umbrella insurance carrier,
subject to potential retrospective premiums under its primary
policy. The subsidiary has a substantial amount of umbrella and
excess insurance available to it from solvent carriers.

The subsidiary is in litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court
with its primary and umbrella insurer and with a third-party
company concerning the availability of insurance under certain
policies issued to the then-parent of both the subsidiary and
the third-party company.

While coverage for the claims is not in dispute, the third-party
company is seeking a partition of the insurance policy limits
for its sole benefit.

The subsidiary has also brought an action against all of its
insurers in Massachusetts Superior Court. In that action, the
subsidiary primarily seeks declaratory relief regarding the
excess insurers' obligations to fund in full the defense and
settlement of the asbestos suits following the exhaustion of the
underlying umbrella policies.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Colfax Corp.
8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150
Richmond, Va.
Phone: 804-560-4070
Fax: 804-560-4076
http://www.colfaxcorp.com

Description:
The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps,
fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include
rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps,
gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five
markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation,
global navy, and general industrial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $7.5M Liability Reserve at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corp. has established an asbestos-related reserve of
US$7.5 million at Sept. 28, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006 for probable
and reasonably estimable liability it expects to pay related to
retrospective premiums under primary insurance policies.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries facing asbestos claims have
substantial primary and excess insurance coverage. For one
subsidiary, the primary insurer historically has paid and
continues to pay all liability and defense costs. However,
during 2006, the primary insurer asserted that certain insurance
policies contain provisions specifying retrospective premium
adjustments.

For the other subsidiary, until June 2004, based on an interim
agreement, the primary insurers paid at least two-thirds of all
liability and defense costs, as agreed among the parties.

In 2003, the subsidiary sued a large number of its insurers and
its former parent to resolve a variety of disputes concerning
insurance coverage for asbestos bodily injury claims asserted
against it. Although none of the defendant insurance companies
contested coverage, they disputed the timing, reasonableness and
allocation of payments.

One of the primary insurers and one of the excess insurers
stopped or severely reduced payments alleging that their
policies were exhausted, and the subsidiary began paying various
amounts of liability and defense costs during 2004.

In 2007, certain insurance carriers agreed to settle with the
subsidiary by reimbursing the subsidiary for amounts it paid for
liability and defense costs in the past as well as entering into
formal agreements detailing the payment of future liability and
defense costs in an agreed to allocation for that insurer. In
addition, a number of non-settling insurance carriers have paid
significant amounts for liability and defense costs paid by the
subsidiary in the past and continue to pay a share of costs as
they are incurred.

The subsidiary received US$7.5 million from certain insurers
during the 2007-1st quarter, of which about US$6.3 million
relates to insurance policies which are not included in its 15
year estimate of asbestos-related liability cost and, as such,
was recorded as income. This settlement also eliminates the
insurers' defense and indemnity obligations and transfers the
risk back to the subsidiary.

Subsequent to Sept. 28, 2007, the subsidiary has received about
US$58 million from certain insurers of which US$47.8 million
represents reimbursement of past cost, while US$10.2 million
represents settlement in full from one insurer for future costs
not yet incurred by the subsidiary. Presently certain insurers
are paying about 71 percent of costs for current claims.

For this subsidiary, the Company said it believes, based upon
consultation with legal counsel and application of allocation
models, that recovery is probable for at least 87.5 percent of
all liability and defense costs paid after Sept. 28, 2007. For
the period between Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 28, 2007, the Company
estimated that recovery was probable for 75 percent of all
liability costs paid and 85 percent of defense costs paid.

Prior to Dec. 31, 2005, the Company estimated that recovery was
probable for two-thirds of all liabilities paid. As a result,
the Company recorded a receivable for liability costs in the
amount of US$21.8 million as of Sept. 28, 2007 and US$16.9
million as of and Dec. 31, 2006, for which insurance recovery is
deemed probable.

The Company has also recorded a receivable for defense costs
incurred in the amount of US$30.5 million as of Sept. 28, 2007
and US$24.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, for which insurance
recovery is deemed probable.

In addition, legal defense expense related to these liabilities
was US$1.2 million for the nine-month period ended Sept. 28,
2007 and US$700,000 for the nine-month period ended Sept. 30,
2006, net of estimated insurance recoveries.

Legal costs related to the subsidiaries' action against their
asbestos insurers were US$9.6 million for the nine month-period
ended Sept. 30, 2007 and US$9.2 million for the nine-month
period ended Sept. 29, 2006.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Colfax Corp.
8730 Stony Point Pkwy., Ste. 150
Richmond, Va.
Phone: 804-560-4070
Fax: 804-560-4076
http://www.colfaxcorp.com

Description:
The Company supplies fluid handling products, including pumps,
fluid handling systems and specialty valves. Products include
rotary positive displacement pumps, which include screw pumps,
gear pumps and progressive cavity pumps. The Company serves five
markets: commercial marine, oil and gas, power generation,
global navy, and general industrial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Lawmakers Urged Not to Pass Changes  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Kanawha Circuit Judge Andrew MacQueen, an expert on how
West Virginia courts handle asbestos claims, on Jan. 6, 2008,
urged legislators to avoid proposed changes to the system,
Charleston Daily Mail reports.

For 22 years on the bench until his retirement in 2000, Judge
MacQueen presided over thousands of cases in which workers
alleged injuries from exposure to asbestos.

Judge MacQueen said, "For such a small state, for a number of
reasons, West Virginia used an inordinate amount of asbestos-
containing products."

Judge MacQueen also helped West Virginia's Supreme Court develop
a plan to manage the volumes of asbestos claims filed in the
state. This Case Management Plan has since helped resolve tens
of thousands of asbestos cases.

However, Judge MacQueen said proposed legislation would threaten
that system. Pursued without success during the last several
annual sessions, it would create new standards for the handling
of evidence and the review of medical claims. It is expected to
re-emerge when the Legislature begins this year's 60-day regular
session on Jan. 9, 2008.

Insurance interests and the state Chamber of Commerce are among
the bill's supporters. However, Judge MacQueen said those
involved in asbestos cases, including the companies targeted by
claims and their lawyers, have praised the management plan as
fair.

Sen. Ron Stollings, D-Boone and a physician, suggested the bill
was necessary. He invoked "Unleashing Capitalism," the book
edited by West Virginia University economics professor Russ
Sobel. It applies a libertarian approach to allege problems
throughout the state, particularly with its court system.

Judge MacQueen disagreed. He cited the recent study by two West
Virginia University political science professors, Richard
Brisbin and John Kilwein. They found no objective data to
support the allegations about West Virginia's courts and civil
lawsuit filings as expressed in Mr. Sobel's book and elsewhere.

Judge MacQueen added that those allegations also unfairly and
inaccurately reflect the work he and his colleagues performed
during his decades as a judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Panel to Investigate Surge of Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James T. Vaughn Jr. of Delaware Superior Court, described
as the state's top judge, has appointed a panel to look into
business complaints of a flood of out-of-state asbestos claims
into the state of Delaware, PointofLaw.com reports.

James A. Wolfe, the state Chamber's president and chief
executive officer, noted that there were 62 cases, nearly all
alleging exposure in Delaware, on the court's docket in 2004.

However, between May 2005 and Sept. 30, 2007, 577 more cases
were filed, 445 by non-residents who largely allege they were
exposed to asbestos in another state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claimants File Appeal to Dana Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group, known as the ad hoc committee of asbestos claimants, on
Jan. 3, 2008, filed an appeal with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Manhattan on the confirmation of Dana Corp.'s Plan of
Reorganization, Associated Press reports.

This group represents "tens of thousands" of people who claim
they were injured by asbestos in Dana's products.

The committee has argued that Dana's bankruptcy plan did not set
aside enough money to settle all the asbestos personal-injury
claims against the Company.

In December 2007, the Company said it had US$240 million in cash
and other assets to cover future asbestos and environmental
contamination liabilities. The Company said it has enough money
to satisfy all the claims based on the number of active cases
pending against it and the number of dismissed cases.

Dana spokesman David Lilly said the appeal "was not unexpected."
He said the appeal will not affect Dana's plans to emerge from
Chapter 11 protection by the end of January 2008.

Dana reached settlements with some asbestos personal-injury
claimants as it worked its way through the bankruptcy process.
The Company agreed to pay a total of US$2 million to a group of
about 7,500 who claim they were injured by asbestos in Dana
products. Dana's plan allows other asbestos claimants to retain
their right to sue Dana once the company emerges from
bankruptcy.

The Company filed for bankruptcy in March 2006 amid a downturn
in the vehicle manufacturing industry. Its plan was confirmed by
Judge Burton Lifland in December 2007. The plan calls for
unsecured creditors to be repaid between 72 percent and 86
percent on their claims.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Corp.'s core products include axles and
driveshafts, as well as sealing, thermal, and structural
products. Customers include OEMs like Ford, Chrysler, General
Motors, and Toyota. The Company also supplies companies that
make commercial and off-highway vehicles such as PACCAR and
Navistar.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $9M Awarded to N.Y. Claimants Last Dec. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York City jury, on Dec. 17, 2007, awarded a total of US$9
million to compensate two New York City mesothelioma victims and
their wives for damages caused by asbestos exposure, according
to a Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg LLP press release dated Jan. 4,
2008.

The two cases (Rosenberg and Casale) were joined for a single
trial before Justice Marcy S. Friedman, Supreme Court, New York
County, located in downtown New York City.

The mesothelioma law firm representing both families is Levy
Phillips & Konigsberg LLP. The jury verdicts in these cases are
being viewed as ground-breaking by mesothelioma trial attorneys,
as the verdicts were handed down against companies against whom
no jury verdicts had ever been returned in the long history of
asbestos exposure litigation in New York City.

The case of Joel and Sharon Rosenberg v. Alpha Wire Co., et. al,
Index No. 106697/06 involved the asbestos exposure that Mr.
Rosenberg sustained as the result of working as a life-long
electrician in New York with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 3.

Mr. Rosenberg started in the trade while still a teenager in
1960. He suffered asbestos exposure while working in New York as
an electrician.

Mesothelioma due to workplace asbestos exposure developed in Mr.
Rosenberg from a variety of New York work sites including the
Arthur Kill Powerhouse in Staten Island, the Vista Hotel in the
Financial District, the Cross Bay Bridge and the Deutsche Bank
Building. He sustained asbestos exposure in the workplace from
various sources including the cutting, sawing and skinning of
wire and cable that was insulated with asbestos.

In the Rosenberg case, the New York jury returned a verdict in
favor of the Rosenbergs against a manufacturer of asbestos-
containing power cable. This represents the first verdict
against a manufacturer of cable used in a commercial setting in
the history of asbestos exposure litigation in New York.

The jury awarded US$3 million for Mr. Rosenberg's pain and
suffering and US$1 million to Mrs. Rosenberg for loss of
services and society. Mr. Rosenberg developed mesothelioma
during his retirement while living in New Jersey. He died at the
age of 64.

The Casale case (Joseph and Dolores Casale, Index No.
104299/06), involved the asbestos exposure of Mr. Casale during
his career as a steam fitter (also known as pipe fitter) in New
York. At the time, steamfitters were unknowingly endangered with
asbestos exposure in their workplace due to asbestos being used
on equipment such as valves, steam trap and boilers.

While still a teenager Mr. Casale worked at shipyards, including
the Brooklyn Navy Yard, as a member of the Local 638 Union. He
continued in the same union and worked in the steam fitter trade
at job sites in New York City throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Casale later moved to Florida but his mesothelioma diagnosis
was linked to his asbestos exposure which occurred in New York.
Mr. Casale was exposed to asbestos from various products
including valves and steam traps, from both internal asbestos
components and asbestos insulation that was applied to the
products.

The jury awarded a total of US$5 million in the Casale case:
US$1.5 million for Mr. Casale's pain and suffering up to the
date of the verdict; US$1.5 million for Mr. Casale's future pain
and suffering; US$1 million for Mrs. Casale's loss of service
and society up to the date of the verdict; and US$1 million for
Mrs. Casale's future loss of service and society.

In the Casale case, the New York jury returned a verdict in
favor of the Casales against a manufacturer of valves, as well
as a manufacturer of steam traps. This represents the first
verdicts involving valves and steam traps in the history of
asbestos exposure litigation in New York, and is reportedly the
first asbestos verdict in the nation involving the use of steam
traps.

Mr. Casale, who is living with mesothelioma at age of 66,
testified at trial.

The LPK mesothelioma trial attorneys that obtained the verdicts
in these cases were Jerome H. Block, Patrick J. Timmins and
Holly C. Peterson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris’ Bid to Remand Suit v. Viad Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, denied
Mary Ellen Harris' motion to remand, in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed against Viad Corp. and other defendants.

The case is styled Mary Ellen Harris, Special Administrator of
the Estate of Thomas Lee Harris, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Rapid
American Corp., et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge James B. Moran entered judgment of Case
No. 07 C 6055 on Dec. 18, 2007.

Thomas Harris enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1957 and was
stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. After training
to become a machinist mate, he was assigned to the U.S.S.
Montrose to work on the ship's evaporators, pumps and
compressors. He worked in this capacity until he was discharged
in 1960.

Mrs. Harris alleged that Mr. Harris was exposed to asbestos-
containing evaporators made by Viad's predecessor, Griscom-
Russell. Specifically, the alleged exposure took place while Mr.
Harris was in active service and stationed at Great Lakes Naval
Training Center and on board the U.S.S. Montrose.

Viad did not challenge Mrs. Harris' assertion that Mr. Harris
was exposed to asbestos. However, Viad contended that the Navy
specified all mechanical equipment in question and dictated what
warnings were to be provided with the equipment.

As such, Viad asserted a military contractor defense that, it
contended, allowed it to litigate this case in federal court.

Mr. Harris died of asbestos-caused lung cancer on Sept. 15,
2007. Mrs. Harris brought this action against Viad and other
defendants in Illinois state court. Her claims were derived
solely from state law.

Viad, asserting Federal Officer jurisdiction, removed the entire
action to the District Court. Mrs. Harris moved for remand to
state court.

The District Court subsequently denied Mrs. Harris' motion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Satterfield Lawsuit v. ALCOA Inc. Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related injury lawsuit, filed by Amanda Satterfield
and continued by her father Doug Satterfield against ALCOA Inc.,
is continuing in Tennessee, The Daily Times reports.

The Satterfield action, filed in 2003, was scheduled for trial
on Jan. 8, 2008 in Tennessee Supreme Court.

The Court is expected to rule by April 2008.

Ms. Satterfield filed the lawsuit against ALCOA and Breeding
Insulation Company Inc., of Nashville, Tenn., on Dec. 8, 2003.
In the suit, she alleged ALCOA did not warn her father of the
dangers of asbestos exposure.

Mr. Satterfield previously told The Daily Times that he hauled
asbestos for ALCOA, starting his career with the company in
1973. He served in the military from 1975 to 1978 and then
returned to work at ALCOA.

Ms. Satterfield's lawsuit sought US$10 million in compensatory
and US$10 million in punitive damages.

Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young dismissed the
suit in March 2006, but Mr. Satterfield's attorneys immediately
filed an appeal. In April 2007, the Tennessee Court of Appeals
reversed Judge Young's decision, reinstated the lawsuit and
charged ALCOA with the cost of the appeal.

Mr. Satterfield's lawyers have maintained that Mr. Satterfield
was exposed to asbestos at ALCOA Tennessee Operations and that
he brought home harmful dust and fibers on his clothes,
resulting in Ms. Satterfield contracting mesothelioma.

Ms. Satterfield died Jan. 1, 2005, at the age of 25. Following
her death, her father was named representative of her estate and
the lawsuit continued.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Industry Thrives in Indonesia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos industry in Indonesia continues to grow, in which
most of the consumers are people who live in the countryside and
do not understand the hazards, The Jakarta Post reports.

A few weeks ago, tsunami survivors from Deah village near Banda
Aceh burned five houses built with aid from the Aceh-Nias
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Board (BRR).

The people were angry over the use of asbestos in their houses'
construction. After a BRR official signed a pledge saying the
asbestos would be replaced, the government reversed course, and
ran a media campaign declaring asbestos safe.

BRR may be assuming the tsunami victims don't know that asbestos
can kill. That's why BRR allowed the use of asbestos in the
houses constructed in Deah Village.

Debates had prevailed within the BRR about asbestos. In January
2007, the BRR's deputy of housing, Andi Siswanto, recommended
all houses using asbestos be rebuilt immediately, citing the
hazards of asbestos for humans. However, he retired from BRR a
month later, making him unable to follow up his decision.

Andi's proposal was supported by research conducted by the
Research and Development Division of the Industry and Trade
Ministry. Based on this research, the BRR supervisory council
asked the body to replace the asbestos.

Initially, the BRR promised to remove the asbestos, but
eventually it insisted the houses would not be rebuilt, saying
asbestos is not a dangerous material.

In many countries, asbestos has been banned as a construction
material. In the United States, asbestos became a hot topic in
the 1980s. The issue won a lot of attention because housewives,
children and construction workers have died, originally
seemingly of emphysema.

Medical examiners discovered the disease was caused by
microscopic particles of asbestos used in housing materials.
After 1985, most construction companies in the U.S. stopped
using asbestos.

A U.S. non-profit group called the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization has campaigned about the dangers of asbestos and
promoted the rights of victims. The ADAO estimates that in 20
years more than 100,000 people across the globe will suffer from
the effects of asbestos. This means 30 people fall ill every
day.

Canada, a staunch defender of asbestos, says a ban against the
material will damage industries. Canada also insists that
asbestos is not dangerous if handled correctly. Canada is one of
the biggest asbestos producers in the world, with the commodity
exported mostly to Asia and Africa.

Despite the anti-asbestos campaigns, asbestos is still used in
many countries. Besides being inexpensive, it also employs a lot
of people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov’t to Review Inspection Systems in Tokyo
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three types of asbestos previously thought to never have been
used in Japan recently have been detected at eight public
facilities, including nursery schools for children in Tokyo, The
Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The discovery indicates that three of six types of asbestos may
have been left uncontrolled. It likely will prompt local
governments to recheck public facilities to confirm the
hazardous substances' existence and review their inspection
systems.

In fiscal 2005 and 2006, local governments conducted surveys on
the possible existence of asbestos at schools and other public
facilities.

The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned that about 75 percent of
prefectural governments and government ordinance cities did not
check for the three types of asbestos -- tremolite, actinolite
and anthophyllite -- during the survey.

The World Health Organization defines six types of mineral
substances as asbestos. They are white asbestos (chrysotile),
brown asbestos (amosite), blue asbestos (crocidolite),
tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite. The six types of
asbestos are all carcinogenic and subject to inspection under a
standard analysis method in the United States.

Major domestic building material makers had said they never used
asbestos varieties other than white asbestos, brown asbestos and
blue asbestos. Therefore, it was previously assumed that
tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite have never been used in
the country.

However, according to surveys by local governments as of March
2007, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite were found in
three Tokyo wards, Yokohama, Chiba and Niigata.

At a public nursery school for children in Chuo Ward, Tokyo, a
high density of tremolite -- consisting of 53 percent of sprayed
materials used on the ceiling in a machine room -- was detected.

In fiscal 2005, the government told local governments to check
for the possible use of asbestos in building materials at public
facilities after it was revealed that residents near
construction material and machinery maker Kubota Co.'s plant in
Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, suffered asbestos-related illness.

The government initially planned to conduct inspections that
would cover all six types of asbestos. However, the government
document sent to local governments that requested they conduct a
survey on asbestos did not include a list of the asbestos types
to be checked.

Because the Japanese Industrial Standards stipulating asbestos
analysis procedures only says "mainly white, brown and blue"
asbestos should be inspected, many local governments surveyed
these three types of asbestos only.

The Yomiuri Shimbun contacted 120 local governments including
Tokyo and other prefectural governments, government-ordinance
cities and prefectural capitals. It found that 91 local
governments conducted the survey for the three types of asbestos
at educational facilities, while 89 checked for them at other
public facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Objects to Clause in ASARCO Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Indemnity Co. says it generally supports the request to
extend the neutrality clause to other insurance companies other
than to Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.  

Century, however, believes that certain modifications of the
insurance neutrality clause will help ensure that the estimation
proceedings of ASARCO LLC and the other Debtors' asbestos
liabilities will be unequivocally insurance neutral for all
purposes and contexts, including without limitation, all pending
and future court proceedings, arbitration, alternative dispute
resolution-type proceeding, and other disputes involving one or
more of the Debtors' insurers.

Century says it is concerned that some parties may later argue
that the "insurance neutrality" clause should not be interpreted
as broadly as intended.

Mt. McKinley Insurance Co. and Everest Reinsurance Co., on the
other hand, tell the Court that they did not request for
"insurance neutrality" from the Debtors. Mt. McKinley and
Everest questions the Debtors' fundamental premise of
"neutrality" at this juncture of their bankruptcy cases.  

Representing Mt. McKinley and Everest, Daniel F. Patchin, at
McLain & Patchin P.C., Houston, says without a disclosure
statement or a plan of reorganization filed to frame the context
in which a party's rights or impairment of rights can be judged,
the Debtors have deprived themselves of any basis to argue on
the merits that the insurance companies' rights are unimpaired
by the proposed Addendum.

"They have truly put the cart well ahead of the horse," Mr.
Patchin asserts.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Retain Dean Baker Filed in ASARCO
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2005, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for
the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, in ASARCO LLC's bankruptcy
case, employed L. Tersigni Consulting, P.C., as its financial
advisors.  

Loreto Tersigni, the 100 percent owner and president of the
Tersigni firm, died in May 2007. Following Mr. Tersigni's death,
certain issues of alleged billing irregularities by the Tersigni
firm in other bankruptcy cases had reach the Asbestos
Committee's attention, Al Brayton, at Brayton Purcell, in
Novato, Calif., relates.

As a result, the Asbestos Committee terminated the Tersigni firm
as its financial advisor in June 2007 and informed the U.S.
Trustee for Region 7 of the termination.  

In November 2007, the Tersigni firm filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition before the U.S. District of Connecticut,
Bridgeport Division. The Asbestos Committee wishes to appear in
Tersigni's bankruptcy case to monitor its progress and
developments; pursue any potential claims against Tersigni; and
otherwise protect its interests, Mr. Brayton says.

In accordance with applicable local rules in the state of
Connecticut, the Asbestos Committee seeks the Court's permission
to retain the Law Offices of Dean Baker as its local Connecticut
counsel.

As local counsel, Dean Baker will:

(a) Serve as the Asbestos Committee's representative at any
court hearings and proceedings before the Connecticut Court;

(b) Prepare any pleadings, motions, answers,notices orders, and
reports that are required by the Asbestos Committee in
Tersigni's bankruptcy case;

(c) Provide legal advice and consultations; and assist the
Asbestos Committee in its investigation of the acts, conducts,
assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the Tersigni
firm, the operation of its business and the desirability of the
continuance of its business, and any other matter relevant to
the Tersigni firm's bankruptcy case;

(d) Assist the Asbestos Committee in the negotiation of or
opposition to or support of a plan or plans of reorganization in
the Tersigni case; and

(e) Render other necessary advice as the Asbestos Committee may
require.

Mr. Baker has agreed to represent the Asbestos Committee at a
fee commensurate with his normal hourly rate of US$385 per hour.
The Asbestos Committee seeks the Court's permission to pay Mr.
Baker's fees and reimburse his expenses from either the existing
Wells Fargo Escrow Account or the Escrow Account created under
the settlement agreement with certain London market insurers.

Mr. Baker attests that he does not represent any interest
adverse to the Asbestos Committee or the Debtors' estates, and
is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section
101(14).

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 62; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Braces for Bankruptcy Judge's Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. is getting ready for U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Judith Fitzgerald's asbestos-related ruling to a question that
would otherwise be handled by an army of judges and jurors,
Associated Press reports.

The question set for trial in January 2008 is how much the
Company owes for injuries, death and other damage linked to its
asbestos products. The trial will begin Jan. 14, 2008 in a
Delaware bankruptcy court and will produce the number that will
be the core of the Company's Chapter 11 exit plan.

If the answer from Judge Fitzgerald is US$700 million or a
little more, Grace and its shareholders are safe and on their
way out of bankruptcy, with enough value to cover the asbestos
damage bill and have something left over for shareholders.

However, if Judge Fitzgerald estimates asbestos liabilities at
US$2 billion or US$3 billion or more, Grace will become the
property of people damaged by its toxic products.

Experts for the asbestos camp say Grace's liabilities are at
least US$3.7 billion. Roger Frankel, a lawyer for asbestos
creditors, "If the asbestos experts are even close to right,
then the equity in this company is severely at risk, or it will
simply be wiped out."

Investors are betting heavily that Grace, bankrupt for more than
six years and under criminal indictment for allegedly covering
up its asbestos troubles, will be the Chapter 11 case where
phony claims are finally exposed, and "junk science" trashed.

Speculators pounce on every court filing, and are paying about
US$25 per share for the stock, an unusually high amount for a
company in bankruptcy.

David Bernick, a lawyer with Kirkland & Ellis, said, "Grace is
the last circumstance in which a bankruptcy court has the
ability to say which claims are good and which claims are bad."

Asbestos lawyers say the Company is trying to convert a forum
that was intended to promote negotiation into a platform for
eliminating vast numbers of asbestos-injury claims.

If Grace gets its way, thousands of people who would be entitled
to press their claims before a hometown judge and jury will
instead have their fates determined in a faraway bankruptcy
courtroom.

Grace and its shareholders say the Company is solvent and
capable of paying valid asbestos claims in full. However,
attorneys for asbestos plaintiffs say that assertion is belied
by the Company's six-year stay in bankruptcy.

Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. has restructured from six
product groups into two units. The Company's Davison Chemicals
unit makes silica-based products, chemical catalysts, and
refining catalysts. The Company's Performance Chemicals unit
makes concrete and cement additives, packaging sealants, and
fireproofing chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Tex. Senior Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Big Spring Senior Center in Big Spring, Tex., has been
closed due to the presence of asbestos in the flooring, CBS 7
reports.

On Jan. 3, 2008, state health officials inspecting the center
discovered floor tiles recently removed may pose an asbestos
risk.

The City is in talks to pass over responsibility of the center
to the county, that is why the county removed the tiles to check
the depth of the floor, which created the asbestos abatement.

Until the Senior Center reopens on Jan. 14, 2008, Scenic
Mountain Medical Center will prepare the meals and they will be
delivered as usual.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Decision in Plymouth's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division's ruling, which
granted summary judgment to Plymouth Environmental Inc., in an
asbestos-related Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA)
action filed by David Lau.

The case is styled David Lau, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Plymouth
Environmental Inc., Defendant-Respondent, and Eastern Insulation
Inc., Defendant.

Judges Weissbard and Baxter entered judgment of Docket No. A-
2804-06T5 on Dec. 3, 2007.

In 1998, Archway, a subcontractor of Eastern Insulation Inc.,
hired Mr. Lau as an asbestos removal supervisor. Archway
stationed him at a facility known as Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co.
Eastern had entered into a contract with Coastal to perform
insulation and asbestos removal.

In September 2002, Archway sold its subcontract to Plymouth.
Thereafter, Eastern entered into a new subcontract with
Plymouth. Mr. Lau retained the same position and performed the
same work as he had with Archway.

In January 2004, Sunoco Inc. purchased Coastal. At the now
Sunoco-owned location, Mr. Lau continued his work removing
insulation and asbestos.

Mr. Lau testified that on March 7, 2004, Matt Wilson, Eastern's
onsite supervisor, asked Mr. Lau and his two-man crew to perform
a job on overtime. The job involved stripping insulation from a
large pipe on the roof of a building.

Mr. Lau testified that he told Mr. Wilson that his crew could
not perform the job for reasons including that there was a large
amount of asbestos. Plymouth asserted that Mr. Lau did not
inform Mr. Wilson that he believed that there were safety issues
concerning this job.

About one week after Mr. Wilson's first request, Mr. Wilson
again asked Mr. Lau to perform the job. Mr. Lau declined once
again. Mr. Lau did not inform any of his Plymouth supervisors
about Mr. Wilson's requests.

Mr. Wilson informed Mike Duffy, Mr. Lau's direct supervisor at
Plymouth, that Mr. Lau would not perform the job and asked that
Mr. Duffy speak with Mr. Lau. On March 24, 2004, Mr. Duffy
called Mr. Lau while Mr. Lau was at work to discuss why he did
not perform the job.

On March 26, 2004, two days after the initial conversation
between Mr. Lau and Mr. Duffy, Mr. Duffy went to the refinery
where he informed Mr. Lau that he was being transferred to
another crew. Mr. Duffy further explained that Mr. Lau should
have expressed his concerns about the project directly to
Plymouth.

Plymouth alleged that on two other occasions prior to the events
of March 2004, Plymouth questioned Mr. Lau's job performance.
Mr. Lau maintained that he could not respond to the request
because he was "involved in a different job for another
maintenance team."

Mr. Duffy stated that he told Mr. Lau that he must respond to
the foreman's request and that he could have left his workers
and looked at the requested job.

On May 12, 2004, Mr. Lau filed his complaint against Plymouth
and Eastern alleging violations of CEPA. Eastern was granted
summary judgment on Aug. 18, 2006, and Mr. Lau has not appealed
that order.

On Oct. 5, 2006, Plymouth moved for summary judgment, asserting
that Mr. Lau failed to establish a prima facie case under CEPA.

On Dec. 15, 2006, after hearing oral argument, the court granted
Plymouth's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Lau's
complaint with prejudice. Mr. Lau appealed.

The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the ruling of
the Superior Court, Law Division.

Begelman & Orlow, P.C., represent David Lau (Jordan R. Irwin, on
the brief).

Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola, Lundell, Levitt & Boylan, P.C.,
represent Plymouth Environmental Inc. (Christopher H. Westrick,
of counsel and on the brief; Rey O. Villanueva, on the brief).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liability
stood at US$57,500,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007,
compared with US$58,458,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006,
according to a Company press release dated Jan. 8, 2008.

For the year ended May 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos-
related liabilities stood at US$53 million.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$53 million as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$58,575,000
as of Aug. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities stood at
US$247,895,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, compared
with US$332,626,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006.

For the year ended May 31, 2007, the Company's long-term
asbestos-related liabilities stood at US$301,268,000.

The Company’s long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$278,445,000 as of Aug. 31, 2007, compared with US$346,268,000
as of Aug. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007)

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company paid US$26.1
million in pre-tax asbestos costs, compared with US$13.8 million
in the year-ago period. Excluding transitional costs of US$9.1
million, all of which were directly attributable to management-
initiated changes to the Company's defense and claims handling
capabilities, the Company's total pre-tax asbestos costs would
have been US$17 million.

President and CEO Frank C. Sullivan said, "As noted during the
first quarter, we have been making several changes in how we
will manage our asbestos claims in the future. During the second
quarter, we completed these changes and marked the peak of these
transitional costs. It is also important to note that our year-
to-date cash costs are not indicative of any adverse changes in
the underlying litigation, nor in our key reserve assumptions.
We are tracking consistent with these assumptions and if these
transitional costs were excluded, our ongoing core defense costs
would actually be lower than prior-year levels."

The Company's total asbestos reserve balance stood at US$305.4
million at Nov. 30, 2007.

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc. is a holding company
that owns subsidiaries that deal in specialty coatings and
sealants. The Company's industrial products include roofing
systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings
and specialty chemicals. The Company's consumer products are
used by professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home maintenance
and improvement, automotive and boat repair and maintenance, and
by hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Favor TIG Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st District, 3rd Division,
affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cook County, which
granted summary judgment to TIG Insurance Co., as successor by
merger to International Insurance Co. (TIG), on the Board of
Education of Township High School District No. 211, Cook County,
Ill.'s (Board) claim for coverage of its asbestos-related
damages.

The case is styled Board of Education of Township High School
District No. 211, Cook County, Ill., Plaintiff-Appellant and
Cross-Appellee, v. TIG Insurance Co., as Successor by Merger to
International Insurance Co., Defendant-Appellee and Cross-
Appellant.

Justices Cunningham, Theis, and Karnezis entered judgment of
Case No. 1-05-1732 on Dec. 26, 2007.

The two insurance policies issued to the Board by TIG covered
the periods from April 1, 1981, through April 1, 1984, and April
1, 1984, through April 1, 1986.

It is undisputed that the Board first learned that asbestos in
some of its high school buildings had become friable in June
1983, as reported to it by ARCON Associates, an architectural
firm hired by the Board to inspect the buildings at all five of
its high schools.

At the Board's request, ARCON then prepared an asbestos
remediation program, which it submitted to the Board in August
1983. In that report, ARCON recommended that the Board remove
all asbestos from all five of its high schools, and in January
1984, the Board adopted that recommendation.

The Board began these remedial efforts in June 1985. The cost of
these removal efforts between June 1984 and July 1986 was more
than US$2.6 million. When removal was finally completed in 1994,
the total cost was over US$17.5 million.

No formal written notice of an "occurrence" was given to TIG by
the Board until July 17, 1991, more than eight years after the
Board first learned that it had friable asbestos in some of its
school buildings.

During the spring of 1984, the Board consulted with ARCON and
others regarding safety issues, including air quality levels
arising from asbestos. In compliance with regulations issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Board posted signs in
its buildings alerting the reader to the presence of asbestos.

After the posting of these signs, an individual who was a
representative of the Board's insurance broker and who was also
TIG's designated agent for receipt of notices under the policies
toured some of the Board's buildings, including Hoffman Estates
High School in September of 1983, and again in September of
1984.

In the spring of 1985 the Board asked TIG for the issuance of an
endorsement to the existing insurance policies naming a
contractor as an additional insured in connection with asbestos
removal at Fremd High School.

The Board first sued various asbestos manufacturers,
distributors, and sellers on May 15, 1985, seeking damages for
expenses incurred in connection with the removal of asbestos
from its buildings.

Some of those defendants, including Carey-Canada Inc., W.R.
Grace & Co., and U.S. Mineral Products, were insured by TIG. TIG
received no formal notice of any "occurrence" or claim by the
Board until it received the Board's letter dated July 17, 1991.

TIG rejected the Board's claim and the Board filed an action in
the trial court seeking a declaratory judgment against TIG to
recover over US$20 million.

After the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the
trial court found for TIG on the ground that the Board had
failed to "immediately" give TIG notice of an occurrence causing
costs which would "likely result in payment" by TIG.

The Board appealed from the order of the trial court, which held
that the Board had breached its notice obligations to TIG under
the applicable policies.

However, in the event that the Appellate Court found as a matter
of law that notice was sufficient, the trial court ruled in the
alternative that it would grant summary judgment for the Board,
an order from which TIG has filed a cross-appeal.

The Appellate Court did not reach the findings upon which the
trial court based that alternative ruling, for it determined
that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for TIG
on the basis of the Board's breach of its notice obligations.

The Appellate Court also denied TIG's motion, taken with the
case, to strike certain portions of the Board's amended opening
brief.

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court
of Cook County.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Rice, Sr., of Saylersville, Ky., on Dec. 11, 2007,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 companies in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Rice claims that the defendants are responsible for exposing
him to asbestos, which caused his mesothelioma.

The 63-year-old Mr. Rice was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May
21, 2007. He worked at various job sites in West Virginia,
Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan from 1965 to 2000.

According to the suit filed by attorney Victoria L. Antion, Mr.
Rice breathed the harmful dust created by use of asbestos-
containing products. The suit says the companies failed to warn
Mr. Rice of the dangers of asbestos, and failed to inform of the
importance of sufficient apparel and safety equipment.

Mr. Rice claims he developed severe, permanent and disabling
lung disease and suffered the damages and losses related to the
disease.

In the 18-count suit, Mr. Rice seeks compensatory and punitive
damages for his injuries.

Charleston, W.Va., attorney William K. Schwartz is also counsel
for Mr. Rice.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 07-C-2645 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Affirms Decision v. Michelin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A French Appeals Court, on Jan. 8, 2008, has confirmed Compagnie
Generale des Etablissements Michelin's conviction for gross
negligence in exposing former workers to asbestos in the 1960s
and 1970s, AFX News Limited reports.

The Nov. 16, 2006 decision made by the Tribunal des affaires de
Securite Sociale in Clermont-Ferrand, France, related
specifically to four former employees, including three who had
died from asbestos related cancer.

It was said that, between them, the four men insulated 1,400
meters of pipes with asbestos every month until 1973.

Although Michelin claimed that the employees' exposure to
asbestos occurred in an era when the health dangers of asbestos
were not widely known, the appeals court upheld the decision
related to the three deceased employees. A judgment is still to
be made in the case of the fourth man.

The ruling means that in addition to paying compensation,
Michelin must pay the widows of the workers a monthly allowance
equivalent to their deceased husbands' salaries.

Two of the former Michelin employees who suffered from their
exposure to the disease-causing mineral died in 2002 and 2003.

Michelin said it would analyze the Court's decision and examine
different possible responses.

Clermont-Ferrand, France-based Compagnie Generale des
Etablissements Michelin sells about 36,000 products, including
tires, wheels, and inner tubes used on passenger cars and
trucks, aircraft, bicycles, and agricultural vehicles. Other
company products include travel publications like road maps and
travel guides.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Owes $5T Over Contract, Creditor Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Stone, an asbestos creditor, asserts that he is entitled
to a US$5,000 payment from Dana Corp. and the other Debtors as
cure of their default under a contract between the parties.

Mr. Stone tells the Court that the Debtors, before the Petition
Date, agreed to pay US$5,000 in exchange for a release and
dismissal of asbestos claims he asserted against Dana Corp. in
the Montana 8th Judicial District Court.

Mr. Stone says the Debtors have not paid the US$5,000 required
by the pre-petition agreement.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 68; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Sues 71 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm Henley of Idaho, on Dec. 17, 2007, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 71 defendant corporations in Madison
Circuit Court, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Henley alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while
enlisted in the U.S. Navy from 1965 through 1968 at various
locations including Great Lakes Naval Training in Illinois and
as a mechanic at various locations in Massachusetts and Idaho.

Mr. Henley claims that during the course of his employment and
during home and automotive repairs he was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around.

According to the complaint, Mr. Henley was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on April 24, 2007.

Mr. Henley claims the defendants knew or should have known that
the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of
people.

Mr. Henley also alleges that the defendants included asbestos in
their products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Mr. Henley also claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

Mr. Henley also claims that he has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading him to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Mr. Henley claims that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information he has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Mr. Henley claims he was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him,
the complaint states. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost
of his treatment.

The complaint states that Mr. Henley also suffers "great
physical pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and
prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby
losing large sums of money."

Mr. Henley seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Perry Browder, John Barnerd and Christopher Guinn of
SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Henley.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. George Re to Center on Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. George Re Ltd., on Jan. 9, 2008, said it would begin
operations as the first company dedicated solely to offering
U.S. companies protection against asbestos claims, Reuters
reports.

St. George said it had arranged with units of Berkshire Hathaway
Inc., the insurance and investment company run by Warren
Buffett, for reinsurance coverage that would let it underwrite
the largest of claims, according to St. George Chief Executive
Colin Barnes.

Mr. Barnes said, "We are currently in the underwriting process
for over US$5 billion of coverage." He said the insurance was
designed "to remove uncertainty and provide resolution to
historical corporate asbestos risk."

Asbestos has cost cost companies an estimated US$70 billion and
forced more than 70 firms into bankruptcy.

St. George Re said it would offer insurance coverage to protect
against risk of loss from future asbestos claims and the costs
of defending against those claims.

The Berkshire units' arrangement with St. George Re is not the
first time the Omaha, Nebr.-based insurer has been willing to
take asbestos exposure.

In March 2007, a Lloyd's of London insurer transferred billions
of dollars of liabilities to Berkshire Hathaway. Insurance
executives have said that asbestos claims are beginning to
decline due to court decisions that limit the number of filers.

Berkshire owns more than 70 businesses, including auto insurer
Geico Corp. and reinsurer General Re Corp. It ended September
2007 with more than US$47 billion in cash.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based St. George Re Ltd. was formed to respond
to demand from companies faced with asbestos-related personal
injury liability for true insurance risk transfer products. The
Company's founding investors are funds managed by Context
Capital Management LLC, Plainfield Asset Management LLC, and
Silver Creek Capital Management LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Law Firm Warns of Lung Cancer's Danger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. would like to inform the public of the
risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure, according to a Weitz
& Luxenberg press release dated Jan. 9, 2008.

CancerCare predicts that lung cancer will account for 15 percent
of cancer diagnoses and 29 percent of all cancer deaths in 2008.
While it is common knowledge that cigarette smoking is the
leading cause of the disease, the public is rarely informed that
asbestos exposure can also cause lung cancer.

According to a study compiled by the Environmental Working
Group, about 5,000 people die from asbestos-related lung cancer
every year in the United States.

This is of great concern to Weitz & Luxenberg, which through its
extensive experience with asbestos-related lung cancer cases,
has seen that many of those grappling with the disease are often
unaware that they have legal recourse.

Additionally, the National Cancer Institute states that the
combination of smoking and asbestos exposure significantly
increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the air
passageways in the lung.

Joseph P. Williams, a trial attorney with the Asbestos
Litigation unit, said, "The public should know how dangerous
asbestos is and how exposure to it can multiply a person's
likelihood of developing lung cancer, particularly if that
person smokes."

In May, Weitz & Luxenberg obtained a jury verdict of US$37
million for two smokers with lung cancer who had been exposed to
asbestos (Index Nos. 100016/99 and 113583/05, New York Supreme
Court). The defendant was Robert A. Keasbey Co., a former
insulation contractor and distributor of asbestos products.

In 2006, the firm secured a US$25 million jury verdict in a
trial against DaimlerChrysler AG for a New York City brake
reliner who lost his right lung to mesothelioma.

Asbestos invades people's homes and workplaces through everyday
products like floor and ceiling tile, insulation, brake pads and
boilers that contain the carcinogen. People who are most at risk
include those who worked with asbestos more than 10 years ago.
This is because asbestos-related diseases have a long latency
period.

Boiler-making, automobiles, construction and textiles are some
of the many industries that have exposed workers to the
carcinogen, causing untold numbers to die of asbestos-related
lung ailments like mesothelioma.

It is equally crucial for the household members of those workers
to get tested for asbestos diseases. The family of an exposed
worker is at risk for secondhand contact by inhaling the
asbestos fibers that the worker brought home on his or her
clothes.

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. offers free case reviews from
www.weitzlux.com.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Begins at Wigginton School in York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Decontamination work has begun at the Wigginton School, a school
in York, England, which has been closed since Jan. 7, 2008 after
asbestos was found there, The Press reports.

The Health and Safety Executive gave the go-ahead for City of
York Council to start decontamination of the school on Jan. 8,
2008.

The Press reported how asbestos had been discovered during a
structural inspection at the school over the Christmas holidays.

City of York Council is working with the school and the HSE to
resolve the situation as soon as possible, and the council has
now said some, but not all of the 247 children will be able to
return to school.

Some pupils might have to be found places at neighboring primary
schools if the situation continues for much longer. As yet it is
not known how many children will need to go to other schools and
which schools will take them in.

A spokeswoman for the HSE said, "The HSE are investigating the
reasons around the disturbance of asbestos insulating board at
Wigginton School and the local authority has an obligation to
ensure all the asbestos related material is removed before the
children are returned to the premises."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veteran “Demoted” for N.Y. School Claims  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos whistleblower John Kielbasa is claiming that has been
demoted for speaking out about asbestos problems at New York
City schools, NEWSInferno.com reports.

According to a press release from his lawyer, Mr. Kielbasa, a
22-year veteran steamfitter for the New York City Department of
Education has been reassigned to sweeping warehouse floors.

Nicknamed the "Serpico of the Schools" by co-workers, Mr.
Kielbasa has been vigilant about reporting loose friable
asbestos in various New York City Schools over the last 15
years.

Mr. Kielbasa was informed by a New York City Law Department
employee that the city recovered and continues to pursue claims
against asbestos manufacturers. However, recovered monies are
earmarked for the general fund and not asbestos abatement.

Until 2003, the notification method for loose friable asbestos
in schools was to simply contact a supervisor by telephone. This
outdated system did not mandate documentation so there is no
known proof of asbestos notifications before 2003.

Mr. Kielbasa’s attorney, Pete Gleason, believes the system was
more malevolent than incompetent, guaranteeing no legitimate
record would ever be maintained, much less created.

Public records confirm some city Schools were closed in the
1990s for asbestos contamination. In 2003, the DOE set up a fax
notification system for asbestos in the schools. However, this
system has not resulted in increased asbestos in schools.

Mr. Kielbasa and his lawyer believe he is being punished for
speaking up, "How can they label me a troublemaker if I'm
bringing something important to people's awareness?" Mr.
Kielbasa asked.

Mr. Gleeson contends Eric Wienbaum, who was recently and quietly
transferred for undisclosed reasons, instigated the harassment
Mr. Kielbasa has suffered over the past six years. When his
notifications went unanswered, Mr. Kielbasa collected loose
friable asbestos from the city schools to which he was assigned
and sent them to the EMSL lab. All samples were confirmed
positive for loose friable asbestos. Rather than address the
problem, the DOE chose to discipline Mr. Kielbasa.

This matter is now the subject of a U.S. Department of Labor
complaint.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Junks Appeal in Silbersack Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals has refused to allow the family of Dominic
Casino, who died of lung cancer, to file a wrongful death
lawsuit against asbestos defendants "on ice" while appealing the
dismissal of tobacco defendants, The Maryland Daily Record
reports.

The case is styled Donna Silbersack, Personal Representative of
the Estate of Dominic Casino, et al. v. ACandS Inc., et al. CA
No. 53, Sept. Term 2007.

Judge Alan M. Wilner entered judgment on Jan. 4, 2008.

Judge Wilner said, "Ultimately, the question is whether the case
should remain in trial court until the case is over, which, for
good reason, is what the law generally requires."

Kathleen McDonald of Kerr McDonald LLP, attorney for Lorillard
Tobacco Co., said, "We think the court correctly decided the
case and we are very pleased."

There are only specific circumstances under which a party can
appeal a decision before a final judgment, or determination, has
been issued resolving all claims in a lawsuit. However, one
particular rule allows for an entry of judgment that does not
encompass all claims or parties, which creates an immediate
right to appeal a decision.

Mr. Casino's widow, Donna Silbersack and the personal
representative of his estate, filed suit in Baltimore City
Circuit Court in 1997 against 19 defendants after Mr. Casino
died of lung cancer.

The wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit claimed that Mr.
Casino's death was caused by exposure, during his employment at
the Bethlehem Steel Corp., to asbestos products that were
allegedly manufactured or distributed by the defendants.

A year prior to filing this suit, Mr. Casino was also part of a
class of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Philip
Morris filed by The Law Office of Peter G. Angelos.

After the class certification was vacated in that lawsuit in
2000, requiring each plaintiff to file separate lawsuits, the
appellants amended their complaint to add seven more defendants
from the tobacco industry.

The lower court dismissed the tobacco defendants from the suit,
finding joinder of the defendants improper.

After nine of the asbestos defendants remaining in the lawsuit
filed for bankruptcy, the appellants sought to "reinstate" the
tobacco defendants.

When the lower court denied the request, the appellants asked
the court to enter a "final judgment," which would allow them to
appeal the dismissal and proceed against the tobacco defendants.
The lower court denied the request, and the appellants appealed
to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing that the denial itself
was an appealable, final judgment.

Before the intermediate court could make a decision, the Court
of Appeals decided to take the case, and dismissed the appeal.
The court found that a final judgment had not been entered in
the case by which an appeal could be taken.

R. Bruce McElhone represented Donna Silbersack, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Dominic Casino, et al.

James K. Archibald, David B. Hamilton, Kathleen McDonald and
David W. Skeen represented the appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Historic Hall Closed After Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A historic Grade 1 listed hall in Greater Manchester, England,
U.K., has been temporarily closed after asbestos was found, BBC
News reports.

It was discovered just before Christmas in a boiler room at 12th
Century Ordsall Hall, Salford.

Salford City Council, which owns the building, has called in
contractors to remove the substance, which can cause lung
disease.

The council hopes to re-open the hall by the end of January
2008.

A council spokeswoman said, "Ordsall Hall has been closed as a
precautionary measure to enable checks to be made on the
asbestos that was found during maintenance work.

"We hope to re-open for visitors before the end of the month."

Salford Council and Friends of Salford Museums recently launched
a bid to transform the Grade I listed hall into a state-of-the-
art visitor attraction.

Asbestos, which is heat-resistant and has good insulating
properties, was a popular building material in the 19th Century.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detected at La Habra City Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
City officials of La Habra Heights, Calif., said that
reconstruction of this city's council chambers, damaged by a car
that crashed through its walls, will be more expensive and take
longer to complete due to asbestos discovered there, Whittier
Daily News reports.

The damage to the council chambers was caused Dec. 10, 2007 when
27-year-old Jason Reza Mohammed suffered an epileptic seizure
while driving a 1999 Chevrolet Tahoe and swerved off of Hacienda
Road and crashed into the council chambers, said deputy James
Bickel of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

The asbestos must be removed from the areas exposed to the
atmosphere. City officials still do not know the cost, but hope
the room will be back in service in time for the city's Feb. 14,
2008 council meeting.

In part, it's up to the city's insurance carrier, the Southern
California Joint Powers Authority, said Bruce Barrette, public
works manager.

But for now, yellow warning tape remains outside the chambers
where there is a large hole in the wall. No one is allowed
inside.

Mr. Barrette said the city won't have to pay more than US$5,000,
its deductible, to the authority.

City Hall formerly was Hacienda Elementary School, which was
built in 1953 when asbestos was used for insulation in most
buildings, Mr. Barrette said.

The school was closed in 1979 and sold to the city in 1980 and
then became City Hall.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Delays Mass. Library Opening
----------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of additional asbestos delayed the Jan. 7, 2008
reopening of the West Springfield Public Library in West
Springfield, Mass., The Republican reports.

Instead, library officials are hoping for a Jan. 19, 2008
reopening.

Library Director Antonia Golinski-Foisy said, "We hope to
welcome the public right back in."

Ms. Golinsky-Foisy said laborers discovered the asbestos when
floor tiles popped up as the workers were removing carpeting in
the periodical and nearby sitting areas.

This was the second asbestos surprise for the library on Park
Street. In December 2007, workers found asbestos under the tiles
in the Carnegie wing and the mezzanine. This added US$24,285 to
the US$79,500 cost of replacing the carpet.

This latest asbestos removal will cost US$24,500, but the city
will not be asked to foot the bill. Instead, the West
Springfield Public Library Trustees decided to use some of the
state funds that come to the library to fund the work, Ms.
Golinski-Foisy said.

The asbestos removal started as soon as the asbestos was
confirmed, Ms. Golinski-Foisy said. "Right now, about three-
quarters of the building is sealed in plastic," she said. The
plastic shields the staff from the work area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal at Md. Public Schools to Begin June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Brown, an environmental health specialist with Montgomery
County Public Schools in Maryland, said that asbestos-laden
floor tiles and adhesives will be taken out of a storage room, a
lounge and six classrooms after the school year ends in June
2008, Gazette.Net reports.

Asbestos-containing building materials will be removed from 13
to 14 schools this summer.

Asbestos-containing materials remain in about half of the
county's public schools, according to Lynne Zarate, an
environmental safety coordinator with the school system.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Web
site, asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous mineral commonly
used in many kinds of building materials, can cause cancer or
lung disease if the fibers are released into the air and inhaled
over a period of time.

MCPS began its asbestos removal program after the federal
Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act went into effect in
1989, according to Mr. Brown. The act requires school systems to
inventory asbestos-containing building materials in all its
facilities, create a management plans for each building and
remove the materials if they become damaged or pose a health
risk, according to the EPA.

Mr. Brown said about four or five classrooms with asbestos-
containing floor tiles will remain after the work this summer at
Poolesville Elementary, which was built in 1960 and renovated in
1978. There are no cost estimates for the removal at this time,
and MCPS hopes to receive bids for the project in March, he
added.

Though Mr. Brown said the start date for construction is
tentative, a recent letter to school administrators from Mr.
Brown e-mailed to The Gazette in December 2007 estimated that
the project would run from June 16, 2008 through June 27, 2008.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in West Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced that a class action against
International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of its Officers and
Directors, has been commenced in Federal Court in Charleston,
West Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities who, during
the Class Period of April 18, 2005, through June 6, 2006:

     (1) purchased securities in ICG, Inc.; or

     (2) exchanged ICG, Inc. securities for International Coal
         Group, Inc. (NYSE: ICG),

pursuant to the November 2005 reorganization; or (3) purchased
shares of International Coal Group, Inc. subsequent to November
21, 2005.

The complaint charges International Coal Group, Inc., and
certain of its Officers and Directors, with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

International Coal Group, Inc. is a coal producer with coal
mining operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and
Illinois.

The complaint alleges that statements made by International Coal
Group, Inc., including representations contained in its
registration statements filed in connection with the November
21, 2005 reorganization, and December 7-8, 2005 stock offering,
and post-offering filings with the SEC were materially false and
misleading in describing its business, including its capital
requirements and equipment needs, the impact of their legally
deficient safety and maintenance practices, and the historic
foreseeable ongoing and current result of operations.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk,
          Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
          The Koll Center
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA   92101
          Tel:  619.238.1333
          Fax:  619.238-5425
          E-mail:  jrk@classactionlaw.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  * * *