CAR_Public/080201.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, February 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 23

                            Headlines


BANK MIZRAHI: Faces $65M Lawsuit Over Bank Interest Rates
BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Heparin After Adverse Reaction Claims
BIOPURE CORP: Mass. Court Okays $10M Securities Suit Settlement
BULKMATIC TRANSPORT: Settles Ill. Litigation by OOIDA, Truckers
CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of “Garlique”

COLORADO: Suit Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled Certified
ENERGY CONVERSION: Former Workers Sue to Recoup Wage Investment
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Research Coverage of Issuers
GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Securities Suit Class Certification Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: NYSE Case Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over NYSE's SuperDot
GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Futures and Options Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Nixing of Short Sale Antitrust Suit Appealed
HOLLAND AMERICA: Continues to Face Passenger's Lawsuit in Wash.
INLAND WESTERN: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Ill. Securities Suit

JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Negligence Suit Over Evra in B.C. Court
MISSISSIPPI: Court Approves Plan to Improve Foster Care Program
NEW YORK: East Hampton Employees Oppose Health Insurance Switch
NUCEL LABS: Recalls Non-Sterile Eye Drops, Eye/Ear Wash
OHIO: Attorney General, Sheriffs Face Suit Over Sex Offender Law

RITE AID: S.C. Management Trainee Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime
TJ PROMOTIONS: Recalls Coin Banks on Paint's High Lead Level
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Cleared of Gender Equity Complaints

* Coughlin Stoia Adds Intellectual Property Litigation Group


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 160 Claims at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.998B Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals in Plastics Engineering Case Stayed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Settles 48 Claims for $60M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action Suit Claims CSI Toy Has Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.405B Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CertainTeed Drop to 74T at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Names Examiner in Tersigni Inquiry

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Worker Fired Over Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doctor Files GBP1M Suit v. Allen & Hanburys
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Sees Asbestos Payments of $55M in '08
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Liability Drops to $943M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Reserves $546M for Litigation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $15M Charge at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Upholds Ruling in SDG&E Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brit Campaign Urges Govt to Overturn Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death toll in English Town Reaches Its Peak
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Libby Claimants' Stay Appeal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electric Fitter's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. County Courthouse Cleanup to Cost $50T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Gov't. Expends EUR16M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 80,899 Claims Pending v. Crane at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal on Norris Action Pending

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $87.5M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records Asset of $340M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $50.4M Assets, Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.001B Liability at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ormet Corp. 9019 Motion Affirmed on Jan. 23

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Plant Workers Show High Cancer Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Urges Collinsville to Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber Gets Payout From U.K. University
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Africans Still Suffer from Asbestos Illness
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $29M Provision at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Assembly Member Settles Libel Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tremolite Discovered at 3 Tokyo Facilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Astech-Marmon Wins Right to Expand Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa & Wallace Told to Pay $1.72M Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $1.7B Contingency at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Liability Still at $512.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO OKs Moving Limitation Period to July
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants File Appeal to Dana's Third Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor, Inc. Liabilities Drop to $40M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has $43M Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Legacy Receivable Remains at $12M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sherman, Alexander Cases Remanded in Nov.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

SHORETEL INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
UBS AG: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.

                            *********  


BANK MIZRAHI: Faces $65M Lawsuit Over Bank Interest Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank Mizrahi-Tefaho is facing a $65.07 million class action
claiming the bank misled customers regarding interest rates,
Hila Raz of the Haaretz Daily reports.

Daniel Weiss, who held two short-term deposits during 2001-05 at
the bank's Bat Yam branch, claims the bank does not adjust its
interest rate on short-term deposits according to fluctuations
in interest rates at the Bank of Israel.  Allegedly, the bank
lowers interest paid on short-term deposits, when it thought the
Bank of Israel would be lowering its interest rates, but does
not raise it when forecasts that the Bank of Israel would raise
interest rates.

The criteria for increased or decreased interest rates paid by
the bank on short-term deposits should have been the prime
interest rate, which fluctuates according to Bank of Israel
interest, the report said.
"The bank's behavior to its customers was unfair, unacceptable
and in bad faith, when it profited from its customers while
manipulating interest rates at its own discretion," Mr. Weiss
claims, according to the report.

The report said a Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot spokesman said that a
copy of the request for approval of the class action had not
been received yet.

The principal activities of Mizrahi Tefahot Bank Limited,
formerly known as United Mizrahi Bank Limited, is the provision
of commercial banking and mortgage banking services. Other
activities include financial leasing, investment advice,
management of provident and mutual funds, and securities
brokerage.


BAXTER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Heparin After Adverse Reaction Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter Healthcare Corp. has announced a voluntary recall of nine
lots of heparin sodium injection 1000 units/ml. 10 ml. And 30
ml. multi-dose vials.

The company began recalling the lots on January 17, 2008 as a
precautionary measure due to an increase in the number of
reports of adverse patient reactions that may be associated with
the product. Baxter is conducting a thorough investigation of
these reports to identify the cause of the increase in allergic-
type reactions.

Adverse patient reactions have included: stomach pain or
discomfort, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased or low blood
pressure, chest pain, fast heart rate, dizziness, fainting,
unresponsiveness, shortness of breath, feeling your heart beat
strong or fast, drug ineffectiveness, burning sensation, redness
or paleness of skin, abnormal sensation of the skin, mouth or
lips, flushing, increased sweating, decreased skin sensitivity,
headache, feeling unwell, restlessness, watery eyes, throat
swelling, thirst and difficulty opening the mouth. Some of these
reactions may be severe or life threatening.

Heparin is a prescription, injectable blood anticoagulant (also
called a blood thinner). The 1,000 units/mL multi-dose vials are
primarily used for hemodialysis and cardiac invasive procedures.
To date, the company has not observed a significant increase in
adverse event reports occurring with any other of its heparin
presentations.

Customers have been instructed to discontinue use and segregate
the recalled product from the rest of their inventory. Customers
should then contact Baxter to arrange for return and replacement
product. Customers with recalled product purchased indirectly
should contact their wholesaler or distributor for return and
replacement product. Customers with questions may contact Baxter
at 1-800-667-0959. Representatives are available Monday through
Friday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT.

Baxter International Inc. through its subsidiaries, assists
healthcare professionals and their patients with the treatment
of complex medical conditions, including cancer, hemophilia,
immune disorders, kidney disease and trauma.

The company applies its expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to make a meaningful
difference in patients' lives.

For more information about Baxter, visit http://www.baxter.com.


BIOPURE CORP: Mass. Court Okays $10M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered final judgment dismissing claims with prejudice, as well
as granting final approval to a proposed $10,000,000 settlement
in the matter, "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-12628-NG."

                         Case Background

Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was
being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director),
its former chief executive officer, former chief technology
officer and former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a number of similar, purported class-action
complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock (Class Action
Reporter, July 26, 2007) .

According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its
stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the company's
main product, Hemopure.

The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing
communications with the U.S. FDA that regulators had strong
reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly
hype the product throughout the class period.

Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of
acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay
or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients.

It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which
acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body.  Unlike
donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a
patient's blood type.

The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on Dec. 24, 2003. After
the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure announced a
potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for the first
time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure product
and the FDA approval process.

Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action
as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation."

On July 23, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the
period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as
additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman,
Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout.

On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to defendants' motions.  Defendants filed their
replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005.

On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all
outstanding motions.  On March 28, 2006, Judge Nancy Gertner
issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same
date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which
the defendants filed answers to on April 28, 2006.

On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's
motion for class certification on July 25, 2006.

The consolidated matter was settled and the District Court
entered final judgment dismissing the claims with prejudice on
Sept. 24, 2007, according to the company's Jan. 29, 2008 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007.
   
The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134
         E-mail: ted@shulaw.com

              - and -

         Gilman and Pastor, LLP
         Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate Center, 999 Broadway
         Saugus, MA 01906
         Phone: 781-231-7850
         Fax: 781-231-7840
         Web site: http://www.gilmanpastor.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Bingham McCutchen LLP, Esq.
         150 Federal Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-8717
         Fax: 617-951-8736
         E-mail: robert.buhlman@bingham.com

              - and -  

         Mary P. Cormier, Esq.
         Edwards & Angell, LLP
         101 Federal St.
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-2225
         Fax: 617-439-4170
         E-mail: mcormier@edwardsangell.com


BULKMATIC TRANSPORT: Settles Ill. Litigation by OOIDA, Truckers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bulkmatic Transport Co. reached a settlement in a purported
class action pending against the company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit, “Owner-Operator, et al. v. Bulkmatic Trans Co., Case
No. 1:03-cv-07869,” was filed on Nov. 5, 2003.  It names as
plaintiffs:

       -- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.,
       -- Andrey Barslavets,
       -- David P. Paul,
       -- John W. Robertson,
       -- John A. Smith,
       -- Joseph R. Lopez,
       -- Kenneth S. Ward,
       -- Nelson Hernandez,
       -- Peter C. Mango,
       -- Simon Jamel, and
       -- Thomas R Taylor

In general, the suit alleges that Bulkmatic violated the federal
leasing regulations by failing to pay drivers as specified in
the lease agreement.  The lease provided for payment of
compensation based on a percentage of gross revenue.

In August 2007, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
plaintiffs interpreting “gross revenue” as used in the lease
agreement to include all charges made by Bulkmatic to its
customers.  The court found that Bulkmatic’s lease violated the
leasing regulations.

A settlement of the suit resolves all remaining issues in the
litigation, including a compromise on the amounts in alleged
unpaid compensation claimed by each of the 10 individual
plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The suit is “Owner-Operator, et al. v. Bulkmatic Trans Co., Case
No. 1:03-cv-07869,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Michael T. Mason presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Albert Edwin Fowerbaugh, Jr.
         Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP
         111 South Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: (312) 443-0700
         E-mail: afowerbaugh@lockelord.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq.
         Vedder Price P.C.
         222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: (312) 609-7500
         E-mail: jstrubbe@vedderprice.com


CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of “Garlique”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
accusing it of defrauding customers by selling them the dietary
supplement Garlique.

Named plaintiff Robert O. Wilkinson alleges that Chattem
manufactures, markets, distributes and promotes the product
known as Garlique, a diet supplement sold as an enteric-coated
tablet containing garlic that Chattem contends is "America's #1
selling garlic supplement," (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16,
2007).

The complaint, filed on May 24, 2007, claims Chattem has
actively promoted the product as an aid to cardiovascular
health, using celebrities such as television talk show host
Larry King.  

The labeling and packaging of the product states that it is
"Cholesterol's Natural Enemy" and that it "Supports
Cardiovascular Health."

In support of its claims, Chattem has referenced a 2001 analysis
of data pooled from 37 studies that indicated that garlic
slightly lowered high blood cholesterol levels when taken for
three months.  

However, further analysis by those same researchers showed that
garlic had no effect on cholesterol levels when taken for six
months or more.

Furthermore, when a panel of national experts reviewed the two
studies, they determined that the effect of garlic on
cholesterol was unclear.

Plaintiff claims he had purchased, used and ingested the product
for its intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted,
advertised and labeled by Chattem as forth in the complaint.  He
relied on these representations by Chattem in purchasing and
using the product.

However, as he has now learned, the product does not provide the
benefits of cholesterol reduction as claimed by Chattem.  As a
result, he contends that he has been misled by Chattem's false
claims into purchasing and paying for a product that did not
perform as promised when he used it for its intended and
foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and
labeled by Chattem, and that he has as a direct result been
deprived of the benefit of his bargain and has spent money on a
product that did not have any value, a product he would not have
purchased and used had he known the true facts about it.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of himself and all other consumers who purchased, used
and ingested the product.  

The complaint questions whether:

     (a) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or unfair in any respect,
         thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.;

     (b) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or false in any respect,
         thereby violating California's False Advertising Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et. seq.;

     (c) defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (d) defendant breached express warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (e) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense
         of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class
         members;

     (f) defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted,
         advertised, labeled and sold the product;

     (g) defendant breached California's Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et. seq., in its
         sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
         and class members; and

     (h) defendant's conduct as set forth injured consumers
         and if so,. the extent of the injury.

Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

     -- for an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- for an award of equitable relief as follows:

        (i) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and
            advertising described in the complaint;

       (ii) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described;

      (iii) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains
            flowing from the conduct described;

       (iv) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the product.

     -- for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
        amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
        may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a
        First Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections
        not take place within the 30-day notice period;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure
        section 1021.5;

     -- for actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- for an award of costs and any other relief the court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

The company was served with this lawsuit on July 5, 2007.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its
Jan. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2052

The suit is "Wilkinson v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00952-
W-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, under Judge Thomas J. Whelan, with
referral to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq.
          Hewell Law Firm
          402 West Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 235-6854
          Fax: (619) 235-9122
          E-mail: hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com


COLORADO: Suit Over Medicaid Eligibility of Disabled Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court greatly expanded the state's
responsibility to provide an opportunity to appeal decisions
denying eligibility for services for people with developmental
disabilities, ruling that all persons denied services or whose
services were terminated between July 10, 2004 and the date of
the court's future entry of judgment should be so entitled.

Two weeks ago that court found the Colorado Departments of Human
Services and Health Care Policy and Financing liable to the
three named plaintiffs for those services. In this ruling the
Court expanded the State's responsibility to many more persons
similarly situated.

On July 10, 2006, the Legal Center for People with Disabilities
and Older People and the law firm of Fox & Robertson, PC filed a
class action on behalf of three plaintiffs and other similarly
situated individuals with developmental disabilities (Class
Action Reporter, July 14, 2006).

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs were denied eligibility for  
Medicaid services or was terminated without being afforded  
notice and an opportunity to appeal the adverse decisions  
through a state-level hearing.  

The suit brings claims on behalf of all individuals with  
developmental disabilities who applied for Medicaid-funded  
developmental disabilities services and were found ineligible  
and those who were eligible for Medicaid services and  
subsequently had their eligibility terminated by the state  
system in place to provide developmental disabilities services.

Initially, The Legal Center filed its complaint on behalf of Ann  
Rossart, a 50-year-old-woman with developmental disabilities  
whose application for Medicaid services was denied by  
Developmental Pathways, Inc., the Community Centered Board  
responsible for determining eligibility, and administering  
Medicaid programs in the city of Aurora as well as Adams,  
Arapahoe and Douglas counties.  

Upon denial of Ms. Rossart's application, the plaintiff contends  
that she should have been given notice that she had the right to  
appeal to a state-level evidentiary hearing before an  
administrative law judge.  As stated in the lawsuit, Ms. Rossart  
was only offered a dispute resolution conference with  
Developmental Pathways and a paper appeal to Marva Livingston  
Hammons, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Human  
Services.  

In the recent ruling the court agreed that the problem involved
more people than could be individually named. The court then
required the parties to draft the language of a permanent
injunction directing the defendants to cease the conduct it had
found illegal and also a plan to rectify the problem in the
future.

Defendants in this case are:  

     -- John Meeker, Executive Director for Developmental  
        Pathways, and Developmental Pathways, Inc. -- a  
        community centered board charged with providing services  
        and support to persons with developmental disabilities;

     -- Marva Livingston Hammons, Executive Director of the  
        Colorado Department of Human Services; and

     -- Stephen Tool, Executive Director of the Colorado  
        Department of Health Care Policy and Financing.  

The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People -
http://www.thelegalcenter.org-- is a nonprofit organization    
established in 1976.  The Legal Center uses the legal system to  
protect and promote the rights of individuals with disabilities  
and older people through direct legal representation, protection  
and advocacy, education and legislative analysis.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrea Faley
          Liz Fuselier
          Mark Ivandick
          The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and
          Older People
          Phone: 303-722-0300 ext. 241 or 303-722-0300 ext. 229
                 or 303-722-0300, ext. 231
          E-mail: afaley@thelegalcenter.org or
                  fuselier@thelegalcenter.org or
                  Ivandick@thelegalcenter.org

          - and -

          Tim Fox
          Fox & Robertson, P.C.
          910-16th Street, Suite 610
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303.595.9700
          Fax: 303.595.9705
          E-Mail: mail@foxrob.com
          Website: http://www.foxrob.com/attorneys.htm


ENERGY CONVERSION: Former Workers Sue to Recoup Wage Investment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Conversion Systems is facing a class action accusing it
of failing to reimburse former employees for their contributions
to a mandatory Wage Investment Plan, Steve Reed of Dunn Daily
Record reports.

Dunn attorney Brent Adams filed the complaint on behalf of two
dozen former employees.  He is requesting jury trial in Wake
County Superior Court.

Mr. Adams is suing on behalf of people who no longer worked for
the company and did not receive reimbursement when the company
paid some amount to workers in 2007.

According to Mr. Adams, the plaintiffs are asking to be paid
back all the money they lent the company with 8 percent
interest, treble damage, and punitive damages in excess of
$10,000.

Energy Conversion General Manager Danny Avery said he was not
aware of the lawsuit, according to the report.

The plaintiffs are Connie Pope, Delma Ricky Wood, Annie McNair,
Johnny Bryant, Jeff Thomas, Gwendolyn A. Poe-Pittman, Jeremy
McLamb, Michael Floyd, Mabeline Harris, Deborah Register, Martin
Denton, Sandra Frazier, Linda Herring, Sharon Coley, Francine
Reese, Gloria Devone, Vivian C. Bordley, Martha Turlington,
Linda Pittman, Alice Smith, Saundra Jorge, Rosa Crowell, Agnes
Holden, June Gilliam.

The company underwent a major restructure in October 2007 in
which 100 jobs were eliminated, according to the report.

For more information, contact:

         Brent Adams, Esq.
         Brent Adams & Associates
         119 Lucknow Square
         Dunn, N.C. 28334
         Phone: 1-800-849-5931
               (910) 892-8177
         Fax: (910) 892-0652


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suits Over Research Coverage of Issuers
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that
have been named as defendants in substantively identical
purported class actions alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain
issuers and seeking compensatory damages, according to Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Nov. 30, 2007.

The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                   RSL Communications Lawsuit

In one such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications,
Inc. and commenced on July 15, 2003, Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s
motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, by an order dated Jan. 26, 2007, vacated the district
court’s class certification and remanded for reconsideration.

                 Exodus Communications Lawsuit

Goldman, Sachs & Co. is also a defendant in several actions
relating to research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc.
that commenced beginning in May 2003.

The actions were consolidated, Goldman, Sachs & Co.’s motion to
dismiss was granted with leave to replead, and plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
was granted by order dated Dec. 4, 2007.  Plaintiff moved for
reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2007.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.

    
GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Securities Suit Class Certification Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, "Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case
No. 1:04-cv-02236-KMK," are seeking class certification for the
case, which was filed against Goldman, Sachs & Co., and its
chief executive, Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

The purported class action was originally filed on July 18, 2003
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf
of purchasers of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. stock from July
1, 1999 through May 7, 2002.  

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary  
duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection  
with the firm's research activities.  The complaint seeks, among  
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or  
rescission.  

The action was transferred on consent to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on Aug. 30, 2004, and the district
court granted the motion with leave to amend by order dated Feb.
17, 2005.  

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Feb. 25, 2005,
and defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 24, 2005.

In a decision dated Sept. 29, 2006, the federal district court
granted Mr. Paulson’s motion to dismiss with leave to replead
but otherwise denied the motion.

Plaintiffs have moved for class certification, according to
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Lapin v. Goldman Sachs & Co., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02236-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ira M. Press, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 371-6600
          Fax: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: ipress@kmslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Pocker, Esq.
          Dickerson, Dickerson, Consul & Pocker
          Rainbow Corporate Center
          777 N. Rainbow Blvd.
          Las Vegas, NV 89107
          Phone: (702) 388-8600;

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Braff, Esq.
         Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP
         125 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10007
         Phone: +1-212-558-4705
         Fax: +1-212-558-3588
         E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: NYSE Case Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action alleging violations of
the federal securities laws and state common law in connection
with New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) floor specialist activities,
are seeking for the certification of a class in the matter,
which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. as a defendant.

Beginning in October 2003, Goldman Sachs; Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg, L.P.; and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists, LLC were
among numerous defendants named in purported class actions
brought on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York with regards to NYSE floor
specialist activities.

The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of
unspecified securities between October 17, 1998 and October 15,
2003.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 16,
2004.  The defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint
was granted in part and denied in part by a decision dated Dec.
13, 2005.

On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a
class, according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.

    
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over NYSE's SuperDot
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. along with Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Specialists LLC and numerous other defendants continue to face a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York over alleged violations of the
federal antitrust and securities laws, as well as common law, in
connection with execution of transactions through the New York
Stock Exchange’s SuperDot system.

The complaint, brought in June 2007 on behalf of several
investors, seeks, among other things, unspecified treble
damages.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. reported no development in the matter
in its Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/-- is  
global investment banking, securities and investment management
firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client
base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Certification Sought in Futures and Options Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of short
positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the
morning of Oct. 31, 2001 are seeking class-action status for the
matter.

The suit, which names Goldman, Sachs & Co., as a defendant,
alleges that the firm purchased 30-year  bonds and futures prior
to the Treasury’s refunding announcement that morning based on
non-public information about that announcement, and that such
purchases increased the costs of covering such short positions.

The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-
based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the
information, a former Goldman, Sachs & Co. economist who
allegedly received the information, and another company and one
of its employees who also allegedly received and traded on the
information prior to its public announcement.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and
antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law,
and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including
treble damages under the antitrust laws.

The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state
law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to
proceed.

On Dec. 20, 2006, plaintiff moved for class certification,
according to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/-- is  
global investment banking, securities and investment management
firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client
base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Nixing of Short Sale Antitrust Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter, “In re Short Sale Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-02859-VM,” are appealing a
dismissal of the case, which names The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; and Goldman Sachs Execution &
Clearing, L.P., as defendants.

The three are among the numerous financial services firms that
have been named as defendants in the purported class action,
which was filed on April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in
short-selling transactions in equity securities since April 12,
2000.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the customers were
charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the
applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect
delivery, resulting in failed deliveries, and that the
defendants conspired to set a minimum threshold borrowing rate
for securities designated as hard to borrow.

The complaint asserts a claim under the federal antitrust laws,
as well as claims under the New York Business Law and common
law, and seeks treble damages as well as injunctive relief.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by a
decision dated Dec. 20, 2007.

On Jan. 18, 2008, plaintiffs appealed this decision, according
to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:06-cv-02859-VM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26 Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212) 894-7200
         Fax: (212) 894-7272
         E-mail: http://www.entwistle-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

         William Joseph Fenrich, Esq.
         Davis Polk & Wardwell
         450 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212)-450-4000
         Fax: (212)-450-3800
         E-mail: william.fenrich@dpw.com


HOLLAND AMERICA: Continues to Face Passenger's Lawsuit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holland America Line, a wholly owned subsidiary of Carnival
Corp., continues to face a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington for
allegedly defrauding passengers traveling on Alaska cruises
through a series of deceptive actions.

Plaintiff J.B. Miller, an Ohio resident who took an Alaska  
cruise on July 15, 2006, claims injuries as a result of the
company's alleged illegal omissions of the nature of the
financial relationships underlying the shore excursions it
offers (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2006).  

The focus of the complaint is that the company did not disclose,
either orally or in writing, that the third-party businesses
that the company features and promotes, which conduct shore
excursions for Holland America passengers in Alaska, have paid
the company to be included in promotions.  

Such omissions allegedly directly contravene the mandate of
Alaska Statute which governs "Required Disclosures in Promotions
on Board Cruise Ships."  Violations of the statute constitute
unfair trade practices under Alaska's consumer protection
statutes.

In addition, Holland America allegedly failed to follow Alaska
law with respect to disclosure of its kickbacks on shore
excursions, it has also stolen from its passengers in the guise
of "collecting" fines that the government has never imposed.

In July 2006, Ohio resident J.B. Miller's flight to Seattle was
delayed, causing him and his family to miss the sailing of a
Holland America cruise to Alaska.  

According to the complaint, Mr. Miller and his family were
instructed to fly to Juneau, Alaska, in order to meet the ship.
Once aboard, Holland America charged the Millers $300 per person
for what it characterized as a "Jones Act Penalty."

According to Mr. Berman, while the government does have the
ability to fine passengers under a similar act, the Passenger
Vessels Service Act (PVSA), the government never imposed the
fine on Holland America.  

"Holland America forced the family to come up with $1,200 under
the guise of a federal fine, and we know that Holland America
knew the government would never ask for the money in return, and
the government did not do so here," Mr. Berman noted.  "In our
view this is an egregious fraud and we believe this may be a
wide-spread practice, involving a large percentage of those
fined."

The named plaintiff filed the action on behalf of:

     -- a class of "Shore Excursion Kickback Class" consisting  
        of all persons and entities who took Alaska cruises or  
        "cruisetours" with Holland America who also purchased  
        shore excursions or other services offered on  
        promotional material distributed by Holland America or  
        on promotions by the company; and

     -- and a class of "Jones Act Phony Penalty Class"  
        consisting of all persons and entities who took Holland  
        America cruises or "cruisetours" within six years of the  
        date of this lawsuit, who were assessed purported "Jones  
        Act Penalties" by Holland America when the U.S.  
        government did not actually assess any such penalties.

The plaintiff is requesting:

     * an order certifying the action to be maintained as a  
       class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  
       and appointing Mr. Miller and his counsel to represent  
       the class;

     * statutory damages suffered by class members in the amount  
       of $500 per shore excursion taken per class member and   
       $500 per phony Jones Act or PVSA charge;

     * contract damages of $300 for each class member improperly  
       charged for a JOnes Act or PVSA penalty when no such  
       penalty was ever actually imposed;

     * a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order providing  
       for equitable and injunctive relief enjoining Holland  
       America from omitting to disclose that the third-party  
       businesses they promote for shore excursions pay Holland  
       America money for that privilege; and

     * attorneys fees, costs of the suit, pre- and post-
       judgment interest.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:  

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1242  

Carnival Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Jan.
29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007.

The suit is "Miller v. Holland America Line Inc., Case No. 2:06-
cv-01363-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western  
District of Washington under Judge Robert S. Lasnik.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         1301 5th Ave., Ste 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292
         Fax: 206-623-7292
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 jeniphr@hagens-berman.com


INLAND WESTERN: Co-Lead Counsel Named in Ill. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois have appointed the law firms of:

     -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP,
     -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, and
     -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

as Co-Lead Counsel and two institutional investors as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs in a securities class action charging Inland Western
Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (Inland REIT), certain of its
directors, officers and affiliates, and William Blair & Company,
L.L.C. with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or state law claims.

Inland REIT, a real estate investment trust whose stock is not
traded on a national stock exchange, is focused on the
acquisition, development and management of retail properties. As
of September 30, 2007, Inland REIT's portfolio consisted of 305
properties totaling approximately 46.2 million square feet,
located in 38 states. Since its inception in 2003, Inland REIT,
through two public offerings and the issuance of shares through
its distribution reinvestment program, raised net offering
proceeds from investors of over $4.5 billion.

The case was filed on Nov. 1, 2007 by a company stockholder.  It
attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of all persons
who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 10, 2007, as
amended or supplemented, and derivative claims on its behalf
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2007).

The Complaint was filed on behalf of a proposed class of Inland
REIT's shareholders who were entitled to vote on a Schedule 14A
Proxy Statement that was filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2007.

The Proxy sought shareholder approval of the merger of Inland
REIT with its affiliated Advisor and Property Managers for $375
million worth of Inland REIT's stock (Internalization).

The Complaint alleges that the Proxy, the Internalization and
defendants' conduct misled Inland REIT's shareholders, violated
federal securities laws and/or constituted breaches of fiduciary
duty. Such allegations include:

     (a) the Proxy incorporated false and misleading financial
         statements of the Advisor and Property Managers;

     (b) defendants caused Inland REIT to pay millions in
         excessive and unjustified fees historically to their
         affiliates, the Advisor and Property Managers;

     (c) the values attributed to the Advisor and Property
         Managers in the Internalization were excessive and
         improperly inflated the amount of consideration paid in
         the Internalization; and

     (d) defendants, assisted by William Blair who served as a
         "financial advisor," included in the Proxy a flawed and
         misleading "opinion" that $375 million for the
         Internalization was fair to the shareholders.

The suit is “City Of St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System, et al. v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate
Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-06174,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge
Robert W. Gettleman.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 888.805.7848
          Fax: 610.649.3633
          E-mail: mail@chimicles.com

          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

               - and -

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212.545.4600
          Fax: 212.686.0114
          E-mail: newyork@whafh.com


JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Negligence Suit Over Evra in B.C. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Terrace, B.C. man filed a suit under the Class Proceedings Act
on behalf of a purported class of people in the British Columbia
who were prescribed Evra, a transdermal contraceptive patch.

Edward Ansems brought the suit on behalf of his daughter
Jennifer Ansems, who was born with Down Syndrome, and was
prescribed Evra.  Jennifer commenced using Evra on or about Oct.
8, 2006.  She later suffered a deep vein thrombosis in her left
leg.  

The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on
Dec. 18, 2007 against:

     -- Janssen-Ortho Inc.,
     -- Johnson & Johnson Inc.,
     -- Johnson & Johnson,
     -- Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC (fka
        R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute, and
     -- Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc.

The suit states the risk of developing and/or dying from a blood
clot is substantially higher among women who sue Evra compared
to women who use traditional oral contraceptive pills.  Although
Evra and most oral contraceptives contain the same amount of
estrogen, hormones from the Evra patch go directly into the
bloodstream while oral contraceptives are digested first,
reducing much of the estrogen that eventually enters the blood.

The plaintiff claims that following Health Canada's approval of
Evra in 2002, the defendants aggressively marketed it without
properly disclosing the safety hazards associated with Evra.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, general damages,
aggravated damages, punitive damages, special damages.

For more information, contact:

          Poyner Baxter LLP
          #408-145 Chadwick Court
          North Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1
          Phone: 604-988-6321
          Fax: 604-988-3632


MISSISSIPPI: Court Approves Plan to Improve Foster Care Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Jackson approved a settlement of a
class action seeking improvements in Mississippi's foster-care
program, Biloxi Sun Herald reports.

Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 13 that the Mississippi
Dept. of Human Services and attorneys representing children in
the state's foster care submitted a plan to the court to correct
deficiencies in the state's foster care system.

The plan was made with the cooperation of the Children’s Rights
out of New York, the Attorney General’s office, and the Office
of the Governor.

The plan includes:

     -- providing foster children with required medical and
        mental health screenings, assessments, and care;

     -- providing foster children with at least two in-person
        caseworker visits per month to monitor their safety and
        well-being;

     -- licensing all foster family homes, including kinship     
        care homes;

     -- increasing foster care reimbursement rates to reflect
        the actual costs of caring for foster children;

     -- limiting caseloads to 14 cases per worker;

     -- appointing an independent court monitor to ensure the
        timely implementation of reforms.

The ruling came in the suit “Olivia Y. v. Barbour.”  The case
was filed in March of 2004 on behalf of six plaintiffs --
children who had allegedly fallen victim to physical and
psychological harm while in the custody of the Mississippi DFCS
or had simply been neglected by DFCS altogether.  

These six plaintiffs were representative of the over 3,500
foster children dependent upon the care of DFCS, as well as
thousands more who are improperly diverted from the system.  In
May of 2004, seven more children joined in the lawsuit through
an amended complaint.

The suit alleged that the substantive constitutional due process
rights of over 3,500 Mississippi foster children in state
custody had been violated through the State's repeated failures
to provide essential medical care, protection against neglect
and abuse, and minimally acceptable placement and adoption
services.  

Rather than face trial, Mississippi agreed to a court-supervised
process of reforming its child welfare system such to meet and
exceed constitutional, federal, and national child protective
standards.

The suit was filed against the Governor of Mississippi, the
Executive Director of the Department of Human Services, and the
Director of DHS’s Division of Familyand Children’s Services, all
in their official capacities.  

The suit is “Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 04-CV-251,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March
30, 2004.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marcia Lowry
          Eric Thompson
          Tara Crean
          Margaret Ross
          Children's Rights, Inc.
          404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 683-2210
          Fax: (212) 683-4015
          E-mail: ethompson@childrenrights.org

          Wayne Drinkwater, Esq.
          Melody McAnally, Esq.
          Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP
          One Jackson Place, Suite 450
          188 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Phone: (601) 948-8000
          Fax: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: wdrinkwater@bradleyarant.com

          John Lang, Esq.
          Christian Carbone, Esq.
          Loeb & Loeb, LLP
          345 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10037
          Phone: (212) 407-4000
          Fax: (212) 407-4990
          E-mail: jlang@loeb.com

          Stephen H. Leech, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3623
          Jackson, MS 39207
          Phone: (601) 355-4013
          E-mail: s.leech@sleech.com


NEW YORK: East Hampton Employees Oppose Health Insurance Switch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union employees in East Hampton filed a class-action grievance
against the town to object a possible change in health insurance
coverage, it emerged in a report by Susan J. Greenberg of
Suffolk Life Newspapers reports.

The East Hampton Town Board decided in the beginning of December
to switch, as of January 1, from a self-insured employee health
benefit plan to the New York State Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield
plan.  The plan aims to provide taxpayers with almost $2 million
in savings in 2008.  

The union summarily filed a grievance against the proposal at a
December 11 board meeting.  

The change allegedly defies stipulations made in a recently
negotiated contract, which specify that the current health
insurance coverage will remain the same, said East Hampton Civil
Service Employees Association President John Kremm, according to
the report.

Pending, the outcome of the grievance filing, a resolution
passed by the town board at a Dec. 21 meeting will continue the
current employee health insurance plan on a month-to-month
basis, the report said.


NUCEL LABS: Recalls Non-Sterile Eye Drops, Eye/Ear Wash
-------------------------------------------------------
NuCel Labs of Idaho Falls, Idaho is conducting a voluntary
nationwide recall of all Eye Drops and Eye/Ear Wash. This recall
follows an FDA inspection in which product testing indicated
that there was bacteria and particulate matter in the product
deeming these products non-sterile. Non-sterile eye drops pose
an unacceptable risk of causing eye infections, which in rare
cases could lead to blindness.

Products are packaged in 1/4 oz plastic bottles. Eye drops are
labeled: Eye Drops Caution: Do Not Use With Implants. Wash is
labeled Eye/Ear Wash. All products labeled "Eye Drops Caution:
Do Not Use With Implants" or "Eye/Ear Wash" are subject to the
recall action. There are no lot numbers or expiration dates on
the product. Approximately 500 units of these products have been
distributed nationwide through retail outlets and the internet.

No illnesses or injuries have been reported to date.

The company has ceased the production and distribution of the
product. Consumers who may have any of these products on hand
are advised not to use them. Consumers are asked to return them
to NuCel Lab, 1380 Curtis Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 or
discard them and send NuCel Lab a purchase receipt for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may call NuCel Lab at 208-542-
0325.


OHIO: Attorney General, Sheriffs Face Suit Over Sex Offender Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Attorney General's Office, and Ohio's 88 county
sheriffs face a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which challenges a law
that increases the length of time convicted sex offenders must
register with police, The Associated Press reports.

The Office of the Ohio Public Defender was among those who filed
the federal lawsuit against the state attorney general's office,
and several county sheriffs.  

That office along with several others are challenging the new
law, which took effect on Jan. 1, 2008.  That new law states
that sexual offenders are to be classified under a three-tier
system requiring longer registration times for felons and
mandatory community notification for some offenders once
considered low level.

Ohio's Legislature passed the new law last year, in an effort to
comply with a federal law named after Adam Walsh, a 6-year-old
Florida boy abducted and killed in 1981,.

The suit over the new law was brought on behalf of all
individuals in the state whose sex offender classification
status has been changed by the new law.

It seeks a temporary court order preventing the new law from
being enforced until those affected by it can have
reclassification hearings and that the 60-day deadline for
challenging reclassifications be suspended.  It also wants to
prevent community notification from being imposed on people
retroactively.

The suit is “Bell v. State of Ohio, Case No. 5:08-cv-00210-SL,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Judge Sara Lioi presiding

For more details, contact:

          The Office of the Ohio Public Defender
          8 East Long Street - 11th Floor
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Phone: (614) 466-5394 or (800) 686-1573
          Web site: http://opd.ohio.gov/


RITE AID: S.C. Management Trainee Files Suit for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corp., and Eckerd Corp. face a purported class action
that was filed by a management trainee who claims that he was
not paid proper overtime wages, The Associated Press reports.

Edward L. Reece, III of South Carolina, said in the lawsuit that
the firms had a policy to pay assistant managers half-time
overtime for more than 45 hours a week.  However, the lawsuit
says that the company then stopped paying any overtime and that
both policies violate federal law.

The suit includes assistant managers who worked between 2004 and
2007.

Mr. Reece, who is represented by Andrew Allen, Esq., also has
sued Rite-Aid contending he was wrongly fired for questioning
the overtime policy.

Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE:
RAD) -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a drugstore chain with  
more than 5,000 stores in 31 states and the District of
Columbia.  Rite Aid Corp., purchased the U.S. Eckerd and Brooks
operations of Canada’s Jean Coutu Group Inc. for about $2.55
billion in cash and stock.  Rite Aid and Eckerd merged last
year.

For more details, contact:

          Andrew C. Allen, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
     Phone: (205) 328-9576 or 205-328-9576
          Fax: 205-328-9669
          E-mail: aallen@whatleydrake.com
          Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com


TJ PROMOTIONS: Recalls Coin Banks on Paint's High Lead Level
------------------------------------------------------------
TJ Promotions, of South El Monte, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,300 Fish Coin Banks.

The company said the surface paint on the coin banks contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves coin banks made of plaster that are shaped
as a fish. The coin banks are orange with white stripes.

These recalled coin banks were manufactured in China and were
provided as a free gift to Coastal Federal Credit Union members
in North Carolina from February 2006 through September 2007.

Picture of the recalled coin banks can be found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08158.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled coin bank away from
children immediately and return it to where it was received for
a free replacement as soon as one is available.

For additional information, contact T J Promotions toll-free at
(866) 742-2493 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.tjpromo.com


UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI: Cleared of Gender Equity Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas M. Rose of the U.S. District Court in Dayton, Ohio
ruled that the University of Cincinnati did not violate gender-
equity requirements in college sports when it eliminated its
women’s crew, Chronicle of Higher Education reports.

The university was accused in a 2002 suit that it failed to
provide the women's team with sufficient equipment, training
facilities, and coaches.  The plaintiffs also said they had
received less support than comparable men’s teams had.

In 2006, Cincinnati announced that it would cut women’s crew and
replace it with women’s lacrosse because of financial
considerations.

This month, Judge Rose ruled that Cincinnati had not violated
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, because the
percentage of female athletes at the university was higher than
the percentage of female undergraduates, according to the
report.  The university had also remedied claims of unequal
facilities, the judge said.


* Coughlin Stoia Adds Intellectual Property Litigation Group
------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced the
addition of a premier Intellectual Property Litigation Group.
John C. Herman and Ryan K. Walsh will lead a team of IP
litigators for Coughlin Stoia, focused on enforcing the rights
of inventors, innovators and universities.

Mssrs. Herman and Walsh join Coughlin Stoia from the Atlanta
office of Duane Morris LLP after previously practicing at King &
Spalding LLP.

"Our clients include a number of the country's leading academic
institutions, and they are asking for top-notch IP counsel. We
are extremely pleased that some of the nation's most talented IP
litigators have selected Coughlin Stoia as the law firm to help
them grow their practice," said Darren Robbins of Coughlin
Stoia. "Now, investors, innovators and academic institutions
with sophisticated IP claims can turn to a firm with the ability
and resources to stand toe-to-toe against the world's largest
corporations."

"Joining forces with the world's leading plaintiffs' firm allows
us to leverage Coughlin Stoia's tremendous resources in building
the leading plaintiffs' Intellectual Property Litigation Group.
True innovation in this country comes primarily from small
companies, universities and individuals who are too often
overmatched by the resources of powerful corporations," Mr.
Herman said.

Citing a few examples of Coughlin Stoia's notable victories,
Walsh pointed to the firm's securities class action against AT&T
that recovered $100 million for investors after two weeks of
trial, and the recently approved $600 million Cardinal Health
securities class action recovery, the largest shareholder
recovery ever in the Sixth Circuit. Coughlin Stoia is perhaps
best known for recovering more than $7 billion for Enron
shareholders, an effort that led renowned Professor John C.
Coffee Jr. to state recently that Coughlin Stoia "...is the
adversary most feared today by the defense bar...."

"This unique fusion of legal powerhouses gives inventors,
innovators and universities an ally with the ability and
resources necessary to ensure that they are fairly compensated
for their innovations," noted Herman. "Our clients have
extraordinarily challenging and complex patent and copyright
claims, and we are now uniquely positioned to provide them with
the highest quality legal services available. We will continue
to represent only those innovators with the strongest patents in
the clearest cases of infringement."

"Our firm's continuing success has been driven by our ability to
provide our clients with the best litigation services in a
variety of practice areas including securities, mergers and
acquisitions, options backdating, individual opt-out actions,
antitrust, consumer, and now intellectual property disputes,"
said Paul J. Geller, Managing Partner of Coughlin Stoia's
Florida office. "The expansion of our southeastern presence
through the opening of an Atlanta office enables us to be even
more responsive to the needs of our growing roster of
institutional clients, which now includes more public and multi-
employer funds than any other plaintiffs' firm in the country."

Mr. Herman's practice focuses on vindicating the rights of
famous innovators. Noteworthy cases of his include representing
renowned inventor Ed Phillips in the Phillips v. AWH Corp. case
in which the Federal Circuit sat en banc in 2006; representing
pioneers of mesh technology - David Petite, Edwin Brownrigg and
IPCo - in a series of patent infringement cases; acting as
plaintiffs' counsel in the In Re Home Depot shareholder
derivative actions pending in Fulton County Superior Court; and
representing the Georgia Tech Research Corporation in connection
with its patent licensing, intellectual property portfolio and
securities issues.

Mr. Herman most recently served as Co-Chair of the Intellectual
Property Practice Group at Duane Morris and is recognized by his
peers as being among the leading intellectual property
litigators in the South East. He is regularly named as a Georgia
Super Lawyer by Atlanta Magazine, and in 2007 he was named to
the "Top 100" Georgia Super Lawyers list. Herman also has been
named one of "Georgia's Most Effective Lawyers" by Legal Trend.
He is a graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School.

Mr. Walsh is a seasoned intellectual property litigator who has
prosecuted numerous high-profile IP cases involving medical and
telecommunications technologies. Georgia Super Lawyers has
honored Walsh as a "Rising Star" in the field of Intellectual
Property Litigation in each of the last three years. Walsh
graduated magna cum laude from the University of Georgia School
of Law, where he was a Bryant T. Castellow Scholar and a member
of Order of the Coif.


                      Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is routinely subject to civil claims, litigation
and arbitration (including asbestos-related), and regulatory
investigations, according to the Company's Registration
Statement filed on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2008.

Some of these claims and litigations include claims related to
the Company's current services and operations, and asbestos-
related claims concerning historic operations of a predecessor
affiliate.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to
these claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event
any asbestos-related claim is not resolved in the Company's
favor.


COMPANY PROFILE:

MYR Group Inc.
3 Continental Towers
1701 W. Golf Rd., Ste. 1012
Rolling Meadows, Ill.
60008-4270
United States

Fiscal Year-End:             December
2007 Sales:                  US$154.1 million (est.)
2007 Employees:              2,050

Description:
MYR Group Inc. is a specialty contractor serving the electrical
infrastructure market in the United States. The Company is a
national contractor servicing the transmission and distribution
sector of the United States electric utility industry. The
Company also provides commercial and industrial electrical
contracting services in the western United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 160 Claims at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. recorded 160 pending asbestos-related claims filed
against it as of Nov. 30, 2007, compared with 154 pending claims
as of Nov. 30, 2006, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan.
25, 2008.

As of Aug. 31, 2007, the Company faced 161 pending asbestos
cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007)

For the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 57 claims
filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. Aggregate
settlement costs amounted to US$72,000 and average settlement
costs amounted to US$9,000.

For the year ended Nov. 30, 2006, the Company recorded 62 claims
filed, 55 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. Aggregate
settlement costs amounted to US$67,000 and average settlement
costs amounted to US$14,000.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.

Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill., and
San Francisco. Since 1998, more than 200 of these asbestos
lawsuits have been resolved with the majority being dismissed.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e.,
as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions)
filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.

Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued
for such contingencies.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases was
US$900,000 for fiscal year 2007 and US$500,000 for fiscal year
2006.

Based in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer
of aerospace and defense systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and
leasing of the Company's excess real estate assets. The
Company's continuing operations are organized into two segments:
Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.998B Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., in the three and 12
months ended Dec. 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related
liability of US$1.998 billion, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on Jan. 24, 2008.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded
net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses amounting to US$111
million and net incurred losses and LAE amounting to US$24
million.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded net
paid losses and LAE amounting to US$287 million and net incurred
losses and LAE amounting to US$43 million.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group
Inc. offers personal and commercial life and property/casualty
insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and workers'
compensation. In business since 1810, the Company sells its
products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than
100,000 registered broker-dealers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $34M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp.'s underwriting loss in 2007 included US$34 million
of loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental
exposures, compared with US$16.7 million in 2006, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 24, 2008.

The Other segment produced an underwriting loss of US$14.3
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 compared to an
underwriting loss of US$23.4 million in 2006.

The increase in A&E loss reserves in 2007 and 2006 was a result
of the completion of the Company's annual review of these
exposures during the third quarters of 2007 and 2006.

During these reviews, the Company noted higher than expected
settlements on existing claims, which caused the Company to
increase its estimate of ultimate loss reserves for A&E
exposures.

The increase in loss reserves for A&E exposures during 2007 was
partially offset by favorable development of loss reserves in
other discontinued lines of business.

Based in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corp. markets and underwrites
specialty insurance products and programs to a variety of niche
markets. Subsidiaries include Essex Insurance Co. (excess and
surplus lines), Shand Professional/Products Liability (excess
and surplus, professional and products liability), Markel
Insurance (specialty program insurance), and Markel Southwest
Underwriters (excess and surplus, brokered).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals in Plastics Engineering Case Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, stayed appeals from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin filed
by Plastics Engineering Co. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., in
an asbestos-related coverage action.

The case is styled Plastics Engineering Co., Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Defendant-
Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

Circuit Judges Flaum, Manion, and Kanne entered judgment of Case
Nos. 06-4397, 07-1041 on Jan. 22, 2008.

Plastics Engineering began manufacturing molding compounds in
1934. Plastics Engineering had been named as defendant in
hundreds of lawsuits for claims arising from individuals'
exposure to the Company's asbestos-containing products, which
the Company manufactured from 1950 until 1983.

Liberty Mutual provided primary general liability insurance
policies to Plastics Engineering beginning September 1957.
Plastics Engineering began purchasing umbrella excess liability
policies from Liberty Mutual in May 1970, and continued to
purchase umbrella policies from Liberty Mutual at least until
2003.

To date, Liberty Mutual has paid all of Plastics Engineering's
defense costs, settlements, and judgments stemming from the
asbestos lawsuits.

In 2004, Liberty Mutual advised Plastics Engineering that it
would only pay "its proportionate share of reasonable and
necessary defense costs."  However, Liberty Mutual has continued
to pay all of Plastics Engineering's defense costs, settlements,
and judgments under a reservation of rights.

On Sept. 1, 2004, Plastics Engineering sued Liberty Mutual, on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

The parties stipulated to a joint statement of facts, which
outlined the insurance policies at issue in the suit and
detailed the particular policy language in dispute. Thereafter,
both Plastics Engineering and Liberty Mutual filed cross-motions
for summary judgment.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the district court granted in part and denied
in part each party's motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 6,
2006, the court entered a final declaratory judgment, to which
both parties consented.

Liberty Mutual appealed the first and third holdings of the
district court's final declaratory judgment in a case that
determined the defense and indemnity obligations of Liberty
Mutual over asbestos lawsuits against Plastics Engineering.

Plastics Engineering, in turn, appealed the second holding.

The three challenged holdings presented important questions of
Wisconsin law that are presently unresolved by Wisconsin
appellate courts and are likely to recur in future lawsuits.

Because current Wisconsin law does not provide sufficient
guidance as to how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would resolve
these issues, the Appeals Court stayed this appeal and certified
three questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Jeffrey O. Davis, Quarles & Brady, Milwaukee, represented
Plastics Engineering Co.

Michael J. Cohen, Meissner, Tierney, Fisher & Nichols,
Milwaukee, John C. Sullivan, Post & Schell, Philadelphia,
represented Liberty Mutual Insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace & Co. Settles 48 Claims for $60M
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and other Debtors, as of Jan. 9, 2008, have
entered into settlement agreements with 48 asbestos-related
property damage claimants represented by Dies & Hile LLP in the
aggregate amount of US$60 million, and eight PD claimants
represented by Motley Rice LLC, in the aggregate amount of
US$17.9 million.

However, despite these settlements, numerous PD Claims remain
unresolved, many of which were filed by Speights & Runyan. The
Speights & Runyan Claims are currently being litigated before
the Court. Various issues like statute of limitations are being
contested by the Debtors.

David T. Austern, the Court-appointed future claims
representative, believes that a resolution of the remaining PD
Claims would remove a potential objecting party; provide clarity
with respect to a significant number of claims; and save the
Court a significant amount of time that would otherwise be spent
adjudicating the PD claims.

To that end, the FCR has decided to take the necessary steps,
including the retention of a settlement counsel, that would
allow him to propose a settlement of the PD Claims.  

The FCR's counsel, Roger Frankel, at Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP, in Washington, D.C., says that the FCR has
advised the Debtors and Speights & Runyan of his intent. Both
parties have expressed willingness to cooperate, he says.

Accordingly, the FCR seeks the Court's authority to retain Hanly
Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, as its special PD
settlement counsel, nunc pro tunc to Jan. 4, 2008.

As the FCR's settlement counsel, Hanly Conroy will:

(a) Provide advise in the formulation and implementation of a
settlement strategy for resolving PD Claims;

(b) Assist the FCR with respect to the Debtors' ongoing PD
Claims litigation;

(c) Assist the FCR with respect to the plan of reorganization
the FCR and the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants jointly filed as it relates to PD Claims; and

(d) Assist the FCR with respect to the review and estimation of
PD Claims.

Hanly Conroy will be paid for its services according to its
customary hourly rates of US$350 to US$700 per hour for
attorneys and US$125 to US$200 for paraprofessionals. The firm
will also be reimbursed for any necessary out-of-pocket
expenses.

Clinton Fisher, a member of the Hanly Conroy firm, assures the
Court that his firm does not represent any interest adverse to
the FCR, and is a "disinterested party" as the term is defined
under Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 148; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Action Suit Claims CSI Toy Has Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Toys Inc. and CBS Broadcasting Inc. are facing a class-
action complaint filed in federal court claiming its "CSI
Fingerprint Examination Kit-CSI Field Kit" toys contain
Tremolite, a form of asbestos, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Jeffrey Morris says the fibers are contained in
the white fingerprint powder and Planet Toys' claim that the
toys are safe is false and deceptive.

According to a statement found in their website, the Company
responded the day after a Seattle Washington newspaper published
a story regarding a Consumer Awareness Organization the
"Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization" (ADAO) reporting their
testing for asbestos and subsequent findings within selected
products from several consumer products companies.

Their random testing ranged from companies such as 3M Co.,
alleging asbestos content in some of their home improvement  
tape, to Planet Toys' CSI Fingerprint kits, which they further
alleged, contained up to seven percent asbestos in some of the
powders.

The Company contacted Paradigm Testing Laboratories in
Rochester, N.Y., per the suggestion of Bureau Veritas (BV), and
conducted same day testing on 18 different samples of the
fingerprint powder, all of which clearly stated, "No Asbestos
detected."

The Company then tested another 12 samples from the same lot
that the ADAO tested-(Lot 100) claiming their findings of an
asbestos content, here again Paradigm Labs confirmed "No
Asbestos detected."

New York-based Planet Toys Inc. is an international toy
manufacturer specializing in the development of a wide variety
of children's products. Categories span from preschool through
radio control cars for the child and adult to enjoy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.405B Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$1.262 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to
a Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$1.146 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 26, 2007)

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
recoveries was at US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$1.1 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities amounted to US$1.111 billion as of Sept. 30,   
2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007)

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc. is
a diversified technology and manufacturing firm, serving
customers with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. CertainTeed Drop to 74T at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CertainTeed Corp., a subsidiary of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain,
recorded 74,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31,
2007, compared with 76,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, according to a
Company press release dated Jan. 24, 2008.

CertainTeed recorded 75,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims
at Sept. 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 26, 2007)

Some 6,000 claims were filed against CertainTeed in 2007, versus
7,000 in 2006. Around 8,000 claims were resolved over the
period.

A total of US$73 million indemnity payments were paid over the
last 12 months, compared with US$83 million over 2006.

In light of these trends, an additional provision of EUR90
million was recorded in 2007 (compared with EUR95 million in
2006), increasing the total coverage for CertainTeed's asbestos-
related claims to US$473 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$451 million at end-2006.

Courbevoie, France-based Compagnie de Saint-Gobain is a glass
producer that controls more than 1,000 companies in five
sectors: Building Distribution, Construction, Flat Glass,
Packaging, and High-Performance Materials. The Company makes 30   
billion glass containers a year and provides insulation for 20    
percent of all U.S. homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trustee Names Examiner in Tersigni Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Justice Department's Office of the U.S. Trustee has
named Hugh M. Ray, a Partner with Andrews Kurth, as the Examiner
to investigate the billing practices and related conduct of L.
Tersigni Consulting, according to an Andrews Kurth press release
dated Jan. 24, 2008.

The U.S. Trustee's office in New Haven, Conn., filed notice of
Mr. Ray's appointment in the case on Jan. 23, 2008. The notice
is subject to approval by Judge Alan H.W. Schiff of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Bridgeport, Conn.

L. Tersigni filed for bankruptcy protection in November and has
outlined plans to liquidate its assets. Founded in 2001, the
Stamford, Conn.-based company advised a number of asbestos
creditors in major bankruptcy cases, including W. R. Grace &
Co., Federal Mogul Corp. and USG Corp.

Among the Company's unsecured creditors are more than a dozen
other companies that filed for bankruptcy protection in order to
manage their asbestos-related liabilities.

According to court documents filed in the case, Judge Schiff has
directed the inquiry to investigate "any fraud, dishonesty,
incompetence or gross mismanagement of the affairs" of L.
Tersigni by its management. The company's founder, Loreto
Tersigni, died in May 2007.

Employees of the firm had notified federal authorities of
possible billing discrepancies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Worker Fired Over Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Chick, the former Cayuga County, N.Y., worker who pleaded
guilty to illegally removing asbestos from a county office
building, was fired on Jan. 25, 2008, after a lengthy legal
process, The Citizen reports.

On the night of Jan. 25, 2008, Mr. Chick said that he could not
discuss his case because he had not yet spoken to his attorney
or seen any legal paperwork regarding his job status.

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

Mr. Chick was U.S. District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.
has set sentencing for 11 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008 in Syracuse, N.Y.

Judge Scullin set the date following hearing dates in the fall
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.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doctor Files GBP1M Suit v. Allen & Hanburys
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ian Campbell, who was Queen Elizabeth's trusted doctor,
filed a GBP1 million asbestos-related lawsuit against Allen &
Hanburys, now owned by GlaxoSmithKline plc, Associated
Northcliffe Digital reports.

Dr. Campbell held the title of Apothecary to the Royal Household
at Sandringham for 15 years before being forced to retire in
2007 after contracting mesothelioma.

Dr. Campbell is now suing Allen & Hanburys because he claims his
illness is the result of being exposed to asbestos while
employed there.

In a High Court writ, Dr. Campbell alleges that during his teens
and early 20s at the Allen & Hanburys plant in Ware,
Hertfordshire - where his adoptive father, Dr. Norman Campbell,
was managing director - he repeatedly polished, screwed, shaped
and drilled Ferobestos, a plastic which contained asbestos
fibers.

The writ alleges the Company failed to provide workers with
suitable protection.

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline said, "We have the deepest
sympathy for Dr. Campbell. A claim has been received by our
insurers and is being progressed with all due diligence."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Sees Asbestos Payments of $55M in '08
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s management expects asbestos-related payments net of
insurance will be about US$55 million in 2008, according to a
Company press release dated Jan. 28, 2008.

Management expects cash flow provided from operating activities
before asbestos in 2008 will be about US$275 million, capital
expenditures will be about US$50 million, and free cash flow
will be US$170 million.

For the full year 2007, the Company reported a net loss of
US$62.3 million, or US$1.04 per share, which included a
previously disclosed US$254 million after-tax provision, or
US$4.22 per share, to extend its asbestos liability to 2017. Net
income in 2006 was US$165.9 million, or US$2.67 per diluted
share.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Liability Drops to $943M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was at US$942,776,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$459,567,000 as of Dec. 31,
2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 28, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$975
million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26,
2007)

The Company's current asbestos liability was at US$84 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$70 million as of Dec. 31,
2006.

The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$80
million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26,
2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was at
US$306,557,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$170,400,000
as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted
to US$319,249,000 as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 26, 2007)

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was at
US$33.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$52.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to  
US$32 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
26, 2007)

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, was at
US$17,509,000 for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$10,606,000 for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, was at
US$10,198,000 for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$40,563,000 for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company provided US$390,150,000 for asbestos-related matters
for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Reserves $546M for Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was at
US$546 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$577 million at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan.
28, 2008.

Under its non-current liabilities, the Company also recorded
US$560 million as asbestos litigation reserve at Sept. 30, 2007
compared with US$585 million estimated at Sept. 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was at
US$448 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$440 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company recorded US$458 million in asbestos insurance
receivables at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$444 million
recorded at Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2,
2007)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global
chemical company, provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $15M Charge at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2007-4th quarter, Corning Inc. recorded an asbestos
charge of US$15 million (pretax and after-tax) including a mark-
to-market credit of US$17 million reflecting the decrease in
Corning's common stock from Sept. 30, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007 and
a US$32 million charge to adjust the estimated settlement value
of certain other components of the proposed asbestos settlement.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC), which might arise
from PCC products or operations.

The proposed settlement, if approved, will require the Company
to relinquish its equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity
interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian
corporation, and contribute 25 million shares of Corning common
stock.

The Company also agreed to make cash payments with a value of
US$131 million, in March 2003, over six years from the effective
date of the settlement and to assign insurance policy proceeds
from its primary insurance and a portion of its excess insurance
at the time of the settlement.

As a result of the proposed asbestos settlement, any changes in
the estimated settlement value of the components of the proposed
settlement agreement will be recognized in Corning's quarterly
results until the date of the contribution to the settlement
trust.

Beginning with the 2003-1st quarter, the Company has recorded
total net charges of US$1 billion to reflect the estimated
settlement value of its asbestos liability.

For the three months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded
an asbestos settlement credit of US$139 million.

The Company recorded an asbestos settlement charge of US$185
million for the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with an
asbestos settlement credit of US$2 million in the 12 months
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Corning Inc. deals with specialty glass and ceramics. The
Company creates and makes keystone components that enable high-
technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile emissions
control, telecommunications and life sciences. Products include
glass substrates; ceramic substrates and filters; optical fiber,
cable, hardware & equipment; optical biosensors; and other
advanced optics and specialty glass solutions. The Company is
based in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Judge Upholds Ruling in SDG&E Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, on Jan. 25, 2008, said he is
sticking to his ruling ordering a new criminal trial for San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. and two workers convicted of violating
asbestos safety standards, SignOnSanDiego.com reports.

Prosecutors had asked Judge Sabraw to reconsider his ruling in
December 2007 ordering a new trial for SDG&E, David Williamson,
an SDG&E environmental specialist, and Kyle Rheubottom, a
contractor who worked for the company on a project to remove
asbestos from a Lemon Grove, Calif., site in 2001.

SDG&E was convicted in July 2007 of three counts of improperly
removing asbestos and one count of making a false statement. The
two workers were each convicted of one count of improperly
disposing of asbestos.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Pierson said she will decide
within 20 days whether to appeal the ruling. A hearing was set
for Feb. 22, 2008 to check on the status of the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brit Campaign Urges Govt to Overturn Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Hewitt, a 73-year-old former ship building worker and a
sufferer of asbestos-related pleural plaques, has backed a
campaign to win back compensation denied to thousands of
workers, The Journal reports.

Mr. Hewitt has lived with pleural plaques for four years and has
the constant fear of developing mesothelioma as a result. He is
calling on the British Government to bring in new legislation to
overturn a House of Lords ruling that denies victims the right
to compensation.

The decision removed the right to compensation, a right that had
existed for 20 years until insurance companies argued
successfully to end the pay-outs and the Lords ruled on it in
2007.

In almost every case the condition is caused by workers being
exposed to asbestos due to negligence of their employers.

Mr. Hewitt is backing Blaydon Labour MP Dave Anderson who was
among those debating the issue in parliament.

Fellow Blyth Valley and Wansbeck MPs Ronnie Campbell and Denis
Murphy have signed a Commons motion that urges action on the
issue of pleural plaques. They are urging secretary of state for
justice Jack Straw to help reverse the decision.

For 20 years, pleural plaques sufferers were able to claim
compensation where it was proved their former employers were to
blame for the exposure.

The right to compensation was established in the High Court in
2005 but the insurance companies successfully appealed that
decision and the Law Lords gave a final ruling in 2007.

MPs also called for the Government to force the insurers to set
up a fund to compensate the victims for asbestos disease whose
claims fail because their employer no longer exists and an
insurer cannot be traced.

It is estimated that the House of Lords ruling will save
insurance companies GBP1.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death toll in English Town Reaches Its Peak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwich, a town in Cheshire, England, is reaching a peak in
the number of people dying from asbestos-related mesothelioma,
thisisCheshire.co.uk reports.

Vale Royal has the third highest mortality rate in Cheshire,
with 78 deaths from mesothelioma recorded between 1985 and 2004.
Asbestos was readily used at engineering sites like ICI at
Winnington.

Between 1985 and 1989, five men died in the borough from the
disease, but between 2000 and 2004, this figure had risen to 31,
as trend experts expect to continue.

Mesothelioma can take up to 60 years to develop and asbestos was
widely used until the late 1970s, meaning many cases are yet to
emerge.

An inquest into the death of a former ICI employee from Rudheath
revealed he developed mesothelioma because of exposure to
asbestos in the 1950s and 1960s.

The hearing at Crewe last Jan. 23, 2008 heard how 72-year-old
Kenneth Hickson came into contact with asbestos while working as
an electrical engineer at ICI's Fleetwood plant.

Mr. Hickson would remove the asbestos to carry out his job, and
it was then reapplied in his presence.

Solicitor Janet Finney said, "The prognosis from being diagnosed
is usually 12 months but Mr. Hickson didn't even live that long.
It came as quite a shock because he was exposed so early on in
his career."

Ms. Finney, who works for national group Thompsons Solicitors,
is now pursuing a claim against ICI and urges anyone affected by
mesothelioma to seek legal advice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Libby Claimants' Stay Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware denied the state of Montana's motion for
reconsideration of the injunction denial decision and W.R. Grace
& Co.'s motion to expand the injunction to include actions
against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Co.

The Bankruptcy Court also temporarily stayed all actions
commenced against Montana and BNSF arising out of the alleged
asbestos exposure caused by the Debtors in Libby, Mont.

Certain claimants injured by exposure to asbestos in Grace's
former Libby, Mont. Vermiculite Mine took an appeal of the Stay
Order, and asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware to vacate the Stay Order for these reasons:

(a) The Stay Order constitutes a preliminary injunction entered
in violation of Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

(b) The Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
enjoin litigation between non-debtor parties not related to the
Grace bankruptcy within the meaning of Section 1334(b) of the
U.S. Judiciary and Judicial Procedures Code and 3rd Circuit
precedent.

(c) The Stay Order was entered without meeting the four-part
test for issuance of an injunction and other requirements to
stay third-party litigation in the context of a Chapter 11 case.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter concurs with the Libby
Claimants that an order staying further litigation is
"appropriate whenever the policy of preserving the court's power
to decide the case effectively outweighs the risk of imposing an
interim restraint before it has done so," citing In re Ortho
Pharm. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 882 F.2d 806, 813-14(3d Cir. 1989).

However, Judge Buckwalter opines that a temporary stay of
indefinite duration has the potential to restrict the Libby
Claimants to the point that it surpasses the interest in
preserving the status quo.  

In light of the circumstances, Judge Buckwalter says he is
disinclined to rule on the merits of the Libby Claimants' Appeal
prior to giving the Bankruptcy Court sufficient time to consider
the injunction motion and motion for reconsideration.

Accordingly, Judge Buckwalter dismisses the Libby Claimants'
appeal to the Stay Order, without prejudice.

If the Bankruptcy Court has not made a decision on the
injunction motion and motion for reconsideration on or before
April 15, 2008, the Libby Claimants may re-file their Appeal.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 149; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electric Fitter's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest, held at Loughborough Coroner's Court in England,
heard that the death of fitter Michael Letts was linked to
asbestos, Leicester Mercury reports.

Mr. Letts was a fitter at an electric company and his exposure
to asbestos, through his career spanning more than 30 years,
caused him to develop mesothelioma.

The inquest into the 59-year-old Mr. Letts' death was told the
former Powergen worker died at his home in Short Hill, Wilson,
on Aug. 5, 2007.

Assistant deputy coroner Olivia Davison recorded that Mr. Letts
had died from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ark. County Courthouse Cleanup to Cost $50T
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Safety and Environmental Investigations of Little
Rock, Ark., it will cost the county US$50,000 to rid the 73-
year-old courthouse of asbestos, Log Cabin Democrat reports.

County Administrator Jeff Johnston said discussion on when
repairs will begin and where the funds will come from will soon
be discussed by the Budget and Finance Committee.

In November 2007, the Quorum Court voted to increase the county
general millage tax from 3.6 to 4.5 to finance repairs to the
county courthouse's roof and plumbing and electrical systems.
However, asbestos must be removed before repairs to the plumbing
and electrical systems can begin.  

Though the roof has been patched, other repairs will depend on
when the Budget and Finance Committee receives funds to cover
repairs.

Mr. Johnston said that the Quorum Court will not get any money
from the millage increase until the last of 2008's property
taxes are collected.

Justice of the Peace Jimmy Bryant said repairs will start
relatively soon. As far as covering costs, Mr. Bryant, who also
serves on the Budget and Finance Committee, said he expects the
county to shop around for loans to cover repair costs.

Mr. Johnston said the bid process for asbestos removal will
begin shortly after the county receives money from loans and
County General to cover the repairs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Gov't. Expends EUR16M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland has spent nearly EUR160 million for removing asbestos
from state buildings, including Leinster House, Independent.ie
reports.

Figures obtained by the Irish Independent show the nine-year
project recorded its greatest expense of EUR42.5 million in
2007.

However, a spokesman for the Office of Public Works (OPW) said
most of the costs has gone on replacement rather than the
removal and safe disposal of asbestos.

The Irish government has cleared asbestos from over 4,000
schools in the past nine years, averaging 450 schools a year.
Most schools had the substance in their ceiling tiles because of
building practices in the 1970s.

The OPW prioritizes removal in buildings which are undergoing
renovation. The OPW spokesman said, "Sometimes, it's best if we
leave it and 'manage' it. But if it's a danger we arrange to
take it out by a specialist contractor.

"Our number one priority is to remove it from areas where it is
likely to be interfered with. Lagging on pipes is a very high
priority for us now."

The OPW also has to carry out a lot of work on schools which
have the asbestos-laden ceiling tiles because new technology
means wires are being put through the tiles. Drilling holes to
take the wires turns the substance into the lethal dust form.

Most of the OPW expense goes on refurbishment, such as re-
roofing, and they are now "winding up" the program as the bulk
of buildings have been dealt with.

Although most of the OPW's work has been carried out in schools,
they have also carried out works on other state buildings,
including their own.

In 2000, OPW removed asbestos from Leinster House when a new
extension was being built.

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the State has paid out EUR217,000
on asbestos claims from members of the public. And the State is
owed EUR2.5 million from a series of failed asbestos-related
claims by around 500 workers.

Figures show EUR217,000 was paid out for two "genuine" claims
which were resolved in 2006.

A spokesman for the State Claims Agency (SCA) said they are
continuing to work to recover the EUR2.5 million from people who
took cases against the Office of Public Works.

The workers claimed they had suffered psychological trauma due
to fears they would suffer ill-health in the future following
their exposure to asbestos. However, none had actually suffered
any lung disease related to the deadly dust.

The workers were originally awarded compensation ranging from
EUR62,000 to EUR76,000 in the High Court. However, this award
was successfully challenged by the State in the Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 80,899 Claims Pending v. Crane at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded 80,899 asbestos-related claims filed against
it as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 85,941 claims as of Dec.
31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008.

The Company recorded 81,251 asbestos-related claims filed
against it as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
26, 2007)

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 the Company recorded 3,417 new
claims filed; 1,441 settlements; and 6,918 dismissals. For the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006 the Company recorded 4,853 new claims
filed; 1,043 settlements; and 6,886 dismissals.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 80,999 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 24,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in Texas
and about 4,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement
agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving
claims filed against it in the tort system.

The Company has not re-engaged in discussions with
representatives of current or future asbestos claimants with
respect to such a comprehensive settlement.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Appeal on Norris Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal, on an adverse judgment of an asbestos-
related case filed by Joseph Norris, is still pending, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Jan. 28, 2008.

The Company tried the Joseph Norris asbestos claim to verdict in
California and received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15,
2006. On Oct. 10, 2006 the court entered judgment on this
verdict against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million,
together with interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per
annum until paid.

In addition, the Company said it believes that procedural
irregularities prevented an appropriate determination of the
Company's alleged responsibility for plaintiffs' injuries.

The Company’s post-trial motions were denied by order dated Dec.
15, 2006.

On Jan. 3, 2007, the Company appealed the judgment.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $87.5M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled US$87.5 million
in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$69.1 million
in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Jan. 28, 2008.

Asbestos settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance   
and tax effects) for the Company totaled US$64.7 million in the
nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with US$49.5
million in the nine-month period ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007)

The Company's pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense
costs, including payments from insurers, in the year ended Dec.
31, 2007 totaled a US$10.2 million net payment (reflecting the
receipt of US$31.5 million in previously escrowed funds from
Equitas Ltd. in January 2007 and the receipt of US$10 million
for a full policy buyout from Employers Reinsurance Co. in April
2007).

The Company's pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense
costs, including payments from insurers, in the year ended Dec.
31, 2006 totaled a US$40.6 million net payment in 2006.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, settlement costs incurred
totaled US$41.6 million and defense costs incurred totaled
US$45.9 million.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, settlement costs incurred
totaled US$26.3 million and defense costs incurred totaled
US$42.8 million.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records Asset of $340M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of Dec. 31, 2007, recorded an asbestos-related
asset of US$340 million, according to a Company report, on Form
8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Jan. 28, 2008.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company
for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred.

To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for
such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place," with eight of
its excess insurer groups.

With three of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered
into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other
coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling US$46.8 million
in aggregate. The Company is in discussions with or expects to
enter into additional coverage-in-place agreements with other of
its excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to
the aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate.

Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies
remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage
for the Company's present and future asbestos claims on
specified terms and conditions that address the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations.

Reimbursements from such insurers for past and ongoing
settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have
been made as coverage-in-place and other agreements are reached
with such insurers.

All of these agreements include provisions for mutual releases,
indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place,
claims handling procedures.

The Company determined its probable insurance reimbursement rate
for the aggregate liability recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007 to be
33 percent.

An asset of US$351 million was recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007
representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such
claims. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other
payments from insurers are received.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of
highly engineered industrial products. The Company provides
products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has five business segments: Aerospace
& Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems,
Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $50.4M Assets, Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's net asbestos-related assets and
liabilities were at US$50.4 million for the 12 months ended Dec.
31, 2007, compared with US$37.1 million for the 12 months ended
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan.
29, 2008.

The Company's net asbestos-related assets and liabilities
amounted to US$46.8 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30,   
2007, compared with US$9.5 million for the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 26, 2007)

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated manufactures and
markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of
products for home, office and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $1.001B Liability at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were at US$1.001 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$1.079 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to
a Company press release dated Jan. 29, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$1.061 billion as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were at US$696 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$725
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivable
amounted to US$687 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

The Dow Chemical Company, which is based in Midland, Tex., is a
company that produces plastics, chemicals, hydrocarbons, and
agrochemicals. The Company also produces performance plastics.
Other products include polyethylene resins for packaging,
fibers, and films, as well as performance chemicals like acrylic
acid. The Company makes more than 3,000 products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ormet Corp. 9019 Motion Affirmed on Jan. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ormet Corporation states that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, approved the 9019
motion on Jan. 23, 2008, according to a Company press release
dated Jan. 29, 2008.

690,000 Shares will be issued after 11 days with a reservation
of shares for a group of 11 asbestos and hearing loss cases that
did not enter into releases.

The Company is awaiting approvals before releasing the shares
that will be reserved.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Ormet Corporation
43840 State Rte. 7
Hannibal, Ohio
United States
http://www.ormet.com/

Description:
Ormet Corporation is a major U.S. producer of aluminum. The
Company employs about 1,000 people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nuclear Plant Workers Show High Cancer Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
A study shows that workers, at the Savannah River Site, a South
Carolina nuclear facility, suffered higher-than-average rates of
certain cancers, including asbestos-related, American Journal of
Industrial Medicine reports.

The study looked at nearly 19,000 employees the Savannah River
facility, which processed nuclear materials since the 1950s.

Researchers found that while death rates from many causes were
lower than national rates, workers had higher-than-expected
rates of death from certain cancers.

Among men, leukemia and cancer of the pleura, the tissue
covering the lungs and lining the chest cavity, caused an
abnormally high number of deaths, while female workers had
elevated rates of kidney and skin cancers.

Pleural cancer is strongly related to long-term exposure to
asbestos. Some workers at the Savannah River Site were
apparently overexposed to asbestos, based on "industrial
hygiene" reports from the early 1970s, according to the
researchers.

Dr. David B. Richardson and colleagues at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N.C., report the findings in the
American Journal of Industrial Medicine.

The study included 18,883 employees of the Savannah River Site
who were hired before 1987 and worked there for at least three
months.

When the researchers looked at deaths from all causes and deaths
from all cancers as a whole, the workers had rates that were
below the U.S. norm. However, as mentioned, there was an excess
of certain cancers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Urges Collinsville to Contain Asbestos   
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has asked the state
attorney general's office to compel the city of Collinsville,
Ill., to contain the asbestos-containing material left from the
demolition of Beck's Lodge, bnd.com reports.

The IEPA said the city improperly razed the vacant, 40-room
motel on Jan. 14, 2008. The agency said the city did not
appropriately remove more than 10,000 square feet of asbestos
that had initially sprayed on the 45-year-old building's
ceilings.

The IEPA's asbestos inspector is in contact with the city to
discuss a plan.

The IEPA wants the city to maintain a fence around the perimeter
of the property and continue putting water on the remaining
material until it is transported to a landfill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Plumber Gets Payout From U.K. University
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest has heard that Ernest Hitchin, a retired plumber
suffering from mesothelioma won his legal battle for
compensation against the University of Nottingham, in
Nottingham, England, shortly before dying, Evening Post reports.

The Evening Post reported how the 87-year-old Mr. Hitchin
launched a bid for up to GBP100,000 in compensation against his
former employers.

Now it has been confirmed that Mr. Hitchen won his damages,
shortly before his death on Jan. 10, 2008. It is not known how
much the university eventually paid out.

In the High Court writ, Mr. Hitchin said he was often exposed to
large amounts of asbestos dust and fiber while inspecting and
maintaining pipework lagged with asbestos between 1975 and 1985.

Mr. Hitchin worked at the main campus in Lenton as well as at
the Sutton Bonnington campus and the student accommodation in
Beeston and Lenton. He also worked on welding in the plumbers'
workshop.

Mr. Hitchin alleged the university negligently failed to warn
him of the risks, exposed him to a risk of injury and failed to
give him protective equipment. He began to become short of
breath in 2004 and was hospitalized several times.

Notts coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of industrial
disease.

A University of Nottingham spokesman confirmed the case had been
settled by the organization's insurers. He said, "We extend our
condolences to Mr. Hitchin's family."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Africans Still Suffer from Asbestos Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite shutting down asbestos mines in the mid-1980s, dozens of
South Africans still die of asbestos-related diseases every
year, Cape Argus reports.

The most recent victims, a 19-year-old and a 60-year-old man
from Kuruman in the Northern Cape, died from secondary pollution
from asbestos.

The deaths came in the wake of a 2005-2006 government study on
the extent of pollution at former mining sites. The objective of
the study was to highlight the potential extent of secondary
pollution.

The two deaths came after the announcement of the government's
intention to introduce new legislation to prohibit the use,
manufacture, import and export of asbestos and any materials
containing asbestos.

Dr. Shahieda Adams, a medical specialist in occupational and
environmental health, said although the government was trying to
prohibit the use and manufacture of asbestos, the fiber had a
long latency period and problems could manifest only years after
people were exposed to it.

Dr. Adams said that in some cases it could take up to 30 years
for the disease to manifest. She added, "That's why we still see
people dying today. We are actually hitting the asbestos
epidemic now. And, on top of that, people in the Northern Cape
are still exposed to secondary pollution from asbestos as a
result of the fiber being used in their homes and buildings and
to insulate structures in that area."

Dr. Adams said although Capetonians were seldom infected with
the deadly lung disease, there had been asbestos-related cases,
especially among those in the asbestos cement, manufacturing and
construction industries.

Dr. Adams welcomed the government's move to ban materials
manufactured from asbestos, but said the country would still see
a lot of asbestos-related cases over the next 10 to 20 years.

Meanwhile, the Asbestos Relief Trust, with its head office in
Johannesburg, has been assisting victims of asbestos-related
diseases since 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $29M Provision at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., recorded a charge in the 2007-4th quarter
of US$29 million (US$29 million, net of tax, or US$0.18 per
diluted share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve,
according to a Company press release dated Jan. 30, 2008.

The Company estimates that its asbestos liability for pending
and future asbestos claims will range between US$201 million and
US$243 million. At Dec. 31, 2006, the reported range was US$198
million to US$247 million.

After the US$29 million charge, the Company's recorded liability
at Dec. 31, 2007 was US$201 million compared with US$198 million
at Dec. 31, 2006.

Asbestos-related payments totaled US$26 million in 2007,
including US$9 million under existing settlement agreements,
consistent with 2006 payments of US$26 million, which also
included US$9 million under existing settlement agreements.

Cases filed against the Company declined to 3,600 in 2007
compared to 4,800 in 2006.

In the three and nine months ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company
recorded US$10 million for asbestos-related matters.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, supplies packaging products to consumer marketing
companies around the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Assembly Member Settles Libel Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Burns, an assembly member of Northern Ireland's Social
Democratic and Labour Party, issued a High Court apology after
being sued over allegations made about an asbestos plant
planning application, BBC News reports.

Mr. Burns agreed to pay undisclosed damages and costs as part of
the libel settlement, which was reached out of court with
contractor Eastwood Ltd., a Carryduff, Northern Ireland-based
firm specializing in asbestos removal.

A court statement said Mr. Burns accepted he was wrong to claim
that Eastwood was "in cahoots with the planners or in bed with
the Planning Service."

Eastwood took legal action over statements Mr. Burns made about
its application to establish an asbestos transfer station at
Crosshill Quarry in Crumlin, County Antrim.

In a letter sent to former Environment Minister Angela Smith in
December 2004, Mr. Burns claimed to have evidence that Eastwood
had crushed railway carriages at the quarry in May 2004. It was
alleged there were sworn affidavits from witnesses who described
the carriages being broken up.

The apology read out by a QC for Eastwood said, "He now fully
acknowledges that this evidence was entirely incorrect."

The court heard that Mr. Burns also acknowledged that Eastwood
had been open in attempting to communicate the facts about their
application.

Suzanne Eastwood, part owner of the Company, which has also
received damages from newspapers as part of its legal action,
said she was delighted with the outcome.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tremolite Discovered at 3 Tokyo Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tremolite, a form of asbestos thought never to have been used in
Japan, was detected at three more Tokyo facilities, including a
private nursery school, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Along with anthophyllite and actinolite, tremolite is one of
three highly carcinogenic forms of asbestos that were thought to
have been absent from Japan.

The discovery raises the possibility that tremolite has been
widely used in Japan as a building material. Early in January
2008, it was learned that surveys by municipal governments had
found the three types at eight public facilities in Tokyo, Chiba
and Niigata.

When repairing or demolishing a building, it is a requirement to
check whether the building contains asbestos. However, many
inspection companies have excluded tremolite from the checks.

The tremolite was detected on the ceiling of a boiler room at a
private nursery school in December 2006, the ceiling of a pump
room at a condominium in May 2007, and in the wall and beams of
an office building in August 2007.

In all three cases, the tremolite had been contained in spray-on
wall coatings. Concentrations of tremolite in the sprays used
hit 60 percent at the nursery, 20 percent at the condominium and
7 to 10 percent at the office building. In all three cases, the
tremolite was found during inspections conducted before
demolition or alteration work.

If the inspections had not been done to the U.S. standard, it is
likely that the tremolite would have remained undetected, with
no prevention measures taken, as no other asbestos had been used
at the facilities.

The carcinogenicity of tremolite is said to be the same as blue
asbestos, crocidolite -- the most carcinogenic of all asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Astech-Marmon Wins Right to Expand Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement firm Astech-Marmon Inc. won the right to add
additional charges and seek more damages in its federal lawsuit
alleging it was shut at work because of corruption in Joseph P.
Ganim's administration, Connecticut Post reports.

Senior U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas permitted David Golub,
the lawyer representing Astech-Marmon, to sue Alfred Lenoci Sr.
and Jr., Michael Schinella and their United Properties groups
for violating their constitutional rights to due process and bid
rigging.

Judge Nevas did give Christian Young and J. Robert Gulash, the
lawyers for Alfred Lenoci Jr. and his companies, and Ira
Grudberg, the lawyer for the elder Mr. Lenoci and his companies,
additional time to question witnesses and file a motion for
summary judgment.

Judge Nevas set June 30, 2008 and July 31, 2008 for those
deadlines. respectively.

The ruling comes at a time when Mr. Young and Mr. Grudberg are
among the lawyers preparing for trial in a multimillion-dollar
lawsuit brought by the jilted developer of Steel Point against
the city, the Lenocis and the Ganim administration.

That trial, which will involve Alex Conroy's claims that former
Bridgeport Mayor Joseph P. Ganim conspired to stonewall his
project in order to get it into the hands of the Lenocis, will
start March 4, 2008 before Superior Court Judge Barry Stevens
and a six member jury in Waterbury. It is expected to last
through April 2008.

On Jan. 25, 2008, Mr. Stevens, a former federal prosecutor,
ruled that Mr. Conroy would not be allowed to present evidence
on his claim of US$100 million in lost profits because his
project was never developed.

The Astech-Marmon suit is not expected to move forward until
2009 at the earliest. The suit, which also claims violations of
the civil racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act,
alleges that Mr. Ganim illegally authorized emergency no-bid
orders to demolish blighted homes.

The contracts were given to the younger Mr. Lenoci's United
Environmental Redevelopment Co., which in turn hired Scott
Arena, the general manager of ChemScope Inc., a Wallingford-
based asbestos surveying company, and Brian Bannon, an official
with Asbestos Abatement and Insulation Services of West Haven,
an asbestos removal firm.

During Mr. Ganim's corruption probe and resulting trial, Mr.
Arena admitted inflating the amount of asbestos in each building
and then billing the city US$191,750, which prosecutors say was
US$100,000 more than the going rate.

Mr. Bannon then took these inflated reports and charged the city
US$817,586 to remove asbestos.

The Astech-Marmon suit alleges that Mr. Bannon and ChemScope
kicked back US$320,000 to the Lenocis and Mr. Schinella, who in
turn paid Paul Pinto, Mr. Ganim's admitted bagman, US$160,000.

That money was split between Mr. Pinto and Mr. Ganim with
US$10,000 going to Patrick Coyne, Mr. Ganim's director of
mayoral initiatives, who signed off on the United Environmental
Redevelopment contracts.

All of these people were convicted of federal charges, but only
Mr. Ganim is still serving prison time.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scapa & Wallace Told to Pay $1.72M Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scapa Group PLC states that a jury in a January 2008 trial at
the U.S. Circuit Court for Baltimore, Md., has asked Scapa
Dryers Inc. and its co-defendant, the Wallace & Gale Settlement
Trust, to pay damages amounting to total US$1.72 million in an
asbestos exposure case, Thomson Financial News reports.

The supplier of technical adhesive tapes said it is examining
the verdict and expects to appeal, adding its insurance cover
remains intact.

On Nov. 29, 2007, Scapa said it continues to be involved in a
number of cases in the U.S. arising from the alleged exposure of
papermill workers to asbestos in a product which was
manufactured by a business sold to J M Voith AG in 1999.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $1.7B Contingency at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related contingencies were at US$1.7
billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release dated Jan.
30, 2008.

The Company's asbestos-related insurance was at US$500 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31,
2006.

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

As part of determining the confirmability of a plan of
reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court has approved a process and
timeline for determining the cost to resolve asbestos-related
property damage and personal injury claims.

The trial to determine the Bankruptcy Court's estimate of the
Company's pending and future asbestos personal injury liability
began in January 2008 and is currently scheduled for about 20
trial days ending in mid-May.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing-entity interest income, were US$23.7 million in the 2007-
4th quarter, compared with US$17.7 million in the prior year
quarter, and US$86.4 million for full year 2007 compared with
US$49.9 million in the prior year, reflecting a higher level of
activity in the bankruptcy proceeding related to claims
adjudication and estimation.

Most of the Company's noncore liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

The Chapter 11 proceedings, including related litigation and the
claims valuation process, could result in allowable claims that
differ materially from recorded amounts.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Corp. Liability Still at $512.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's current asbestos settlement liability
was at US$512.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company press release
dated Jan. 30, 2008.

The effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement shares was
at US$18 million in the quarter and year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
the same as for the periods ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications.
Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach
generated revenue of US$4.7 billion in 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO OKs Moving Limitation Period to July
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for
the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors agree to further toll and
extend, through and including July 1, 2008, all limitations
period that bar the Asbestos Debtors from asserting or
commencing any claim or action under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy
Code against ASARCO.

The Asbestos Committee asks the Bankruptcy Court to approve its
current tolling agreement with ASARCO LLC.

The parties previously agreed to extend the limitations period
for commencing Chapter 5 causes of actions to Feb. 1, 2008.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 64; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claimants File Appeal to Dana's Third Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ad Hoc Committee of Personal Injury Asbestos Claimants and
Jose Angel Valdez submitted issues for appeal from Judge Burton
Lifland's order confirming Dana Corporation's Third Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization.

The Asbestos Claimants want the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to find whether the Bankruptcy
Court erred in confirming the Plan:

(1) Notwithstanding the fact that the Plan impaired Class 3
Claims -- asbestos personal injury claims -- yet denied Asbestos
PI Claimants the ability to vote to accept or reject the Plan?

(2) When the Debtors did not meet their burden to demonstrate
that the rights of Class 3 Claimholders were not altered?

(3) When Class 3 Claimholders were not allowed to vote to accept
or reject the Plan although the Plan did not leave the legal,
equitable, and contractual rights of Class 3 Claimholders
unaltered?

(4) When the Plan creates a two-entity structure and channels
asbestos claims to the lesser-funded entity without the
safeguards mandated by Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code?

(5) When the Plan channels asbestos claims to a non-operating
entity?

(6) When the Plan effectively channels future asbestos claims
without the appointment of a future claims representative as
mandated by Section 524(g)?

(7) When the Plan denied the Class 3 Claimholders access to the
Debtors' assets to satisfy their claims to which the Class 3
Claimholders previously had access?

(8) Was in the best interests of creditors when the Plan denied
Class 3 Claimholders access to the Debtors' assets to satisfy
their claims, which would have been available to satisfy Class 3
Claims in a liquidation under Chapter 7?

(9) When the Plan provides Class 3 Claimholders with a thing of
value that has less value than they would have received under
Chapter 7?

(10) When the Plan allows the Debtors to denude certain
reorganized Debtors of assets that otherwise would be available
to pay Class 3 Claims?

(11) When the Plan exculpates the Reorganized Debtors from any
liability for transactions that impair or impede Class 3 Claims?

(12) When the Plan denies the asbestos claimants their existing
rights under Section 548 and state law to challenge corporate
Restructuring Transactions?

(13) When the Plan works as a court-approved fraudulent transfer
by placing the Debtors' significant estate assets beyond the
reach of asbestos claimant?

(14) When the Plan strips the entity to which asbestos claimants
must look for payment of signification assets?

(15) When some Class 3 asbestos claimants receive more favorable
or different treatment under a secret settlement?

(16) When the Plan improperly places liquidated and unliquidated
asbestos PI claims in the same class when those claims are not
substantially similar?

(17) When the Plan does not provide all of the Class 3 Claims
with the same treatment?

(18) When the Debtors provided no business reason or other
justification for classifying asbestos PI claims separately from
other general unsecured claims under the Plan?

(19) When the Debtors provided no business reason or other
justification for classifying asbestos PI claims separately from
other tort claims under the Plan?
   
(20) When the Plan effectively channels asbestos claims to an
entity without the protections of Section 524(g)?

(21) When the Plan provides the Debtors with some of the
protections afforded by Section 524(c) without meeting all of
the requirements specified in Section 524(g)?

(22) When the Plan deprives holders of Class 3 Claims of
protections afforded by the Bankruptcy Code?

(23) When the Plan does not comply with the provisions of
Section 1129(a)(1)?
                                                                   
(24) When the Plan was not proposed in good faith as required by
Section 1129(a)(3)?

(25) When the Plan does not comply with the requirements of
Section 1129(a)(7)?

(26) When the Debtors did not demonstrate that the Plan is
feasible under Section 1129 (a)(11)?

(27) When the Plan likely will lead to the liquidation or
further reorganization of some of the Debtors?  

(28) When the Plan violates the absolute priority rule provided
in Section 1129(v)(2)(B)?

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 69; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor, Inc. Liabilities Drop to $40M
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
at US$40 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$44 million
at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan.
29, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were at US$8
million at Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related recoveries were at
US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Corp. Has $43M Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, recorded
asbestos-related reserves of US$43 million as of Dec. 31, 2007
and Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan.
29, 2008.

Maremont's corresponding asbestos-related recoveries were at
US$28 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Sept. 30, 2007.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases
where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have
established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named
defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.

Maremont had about 27,912 pending asbestos-related claims at
Sept. 30, 2007. There was no significant change in pending
asbestos-related claims during the three months ended Dec. 31,
2007.

Bates White LLC provided an estimate of the reasonably possible
range of Maremont's obligation for asbestos personal injury
claims over the next three to four years of US$28 million to
US$38 million.

After consultation with Bates White, Maremont determined that as
of Sept. 30, 2007 the most likely and probable liability for
pending and future claims over the next four years is US$37
million.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Legacy Receivable Remains at $12M
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. still records US$12 million, at Dec. 31, 2007
and Sept. 30, 2007, as insurance receivable related to Rockwell
Automation Inc. asbestos liabilities, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Jan. 29, 2008.

The Company, along with many other companies, was named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago. Liability for these claims was
transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the
automotive business to Meritor Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in
1997.

There are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name the
Company, together with many other companies, as defendants.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products,
and past experience has shown that most of the claimants will
never identify any of Rockwell's products.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast
majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a global supplier of
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to face certain lawsuits alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in its
products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 29, 2008.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos
lawsuits that named the Company as a defendant.

Those previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it was shown
that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled by the Company for amounts below
expected defense costs.

Neither the outcome of these lawsuits nor the potential for
liability can be determined at this time.

Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corporation is a designer,
manufacturer and worldwide supplier of ejectors, liquid ring
pumps, condensers and heat exchangers. Principal markets for the
Company's equipment are the petrochemical, oil refinery and
electric power generation industries, including cogeneration and
geothermal plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sherman, Alexander Cases Remanded in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. New York, remanded asbestos-
related actions filed by Moses Sherman, Leola Sherman, and John
Alexander to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The case is styled Moses Sherman and Leola Sherman, Plaintiffs,
v. A.J. Pegno Construction Corp., et al., Defendants. The other
case is styled John Alexander, Plaintiff, v. Amchem Products
Inc., et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Richard S. Sullivan entered judgment of Case
Nos. 07 Civ. 6433(RJS), 07 Civ. 6441(RJS) on Nov. 30, 2007.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the Shermans commenced an action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On Nov. 21,
2006, Mr. Alexander commenced a separate action in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

In the Actions, plaintiffs sought damages on the basis of
personal injuries allegedly arising from Mr. Sherman's and Mr.
Alexander's exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each action containing a
single allegation as against all of the defendants.

On July 26, 2007, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.
removed the Actions to federal court, asserting federal
jurisdiction on the basis of the complete diversity of the
parties.

In the petitions, defendants asserted that diversity
jurisdiction over the Actions is appropriate notwithstanding the
fact that one non-diverse defendant, Union Carbide Corp., was
named in the amended complaints filed in the Actions in New York
State court.

Specifically, defendants asserted that Union Carbide was
fraudulently joined in the Actions solely for the purpose of
destroying diversity of the parties, and, thus, its presence in
the Actions does not defeat removal.

On July 31, 2007, Mr. Alexander submitted a motion to remand the
Alexander Action to state court. On Aug. 1, 2007, Sherman
submitted a motion to remand the Sherman Action to state court.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a
conditional order transferring the Actions to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs had submitted a joint
opposition to the Panel's conditional transfer order, which is
currently pending before the Panel.

The respective motions to remand the Sherman Action and the
Alexander Action were granted.

Stephen Jeffrey Riegel, Weitz and Luxenburg P.C., New York,
represented Moses Sherman, Leola Sherman, and John Alexander.

Jay Allen Rappaport, Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch LLP,
New York, represented Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


SHORETEL INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a proposed class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
ShoreTel, Inc.,(NASDAQ:SHOR) in connection with the Company’s
initial product offering (IPO) on or about July 3, 2007 until
present.

The suit alleges defendants failed to conduct an adequate due
diligence investigation into the company prior to the IPO and
failed to reveal that the company was not operating according to
plan or as reported in registration statements sent to the SEC.
Shareholders paid over $6 million in combined fees to compensate
the underwriters for conducting such an investigation which is a
critical component that provides investors with important
safeguards and protections.

The suit alleges had the investigation been appropriately
carried out misleading information would not have been given to
investors and shares would not have been sold at artificially
inflated prices. ShoreTel’s IPO raised gross proceeds of at
least $86 million with more than 9 million shares of common
stock made available.

On January 7, 2008 ShoreTel announced results for the second
quarter of fiscal 2008 that were well below expected. Investors
learned that fourth quarter results from 2007 would post
revenues almost 20 percent lower than previous estimates.

Additionally information regarding the Company’s inadequate
internal controls, as stated in an IPO registration statement,
became obvious to investors – information that should have come
out in the company investigation. According to the complaint
ShoreTel was already evidencing a deterioration across its
product line at the IPO and in an effort to mask these problems
defendants prematurely recognized revenues by pulling sales
forward into earlier periods and by stuffing its distribution
channel with excess products and inventory.

As a result of these findings ShoreTel stock fell over 50
percent in one trading day. Shares plummeted from more than
$13.00 per share prior to trading day, to a close of $6.02 per
share on January 7, 2008. ShoreTel also experienced
exceptionally heavy trading volume with more than six million
shares traded – more than 30 times the Company’ s recent
average daily trading volume.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants including ShoreTel,
its entire board of directors, its chief financial officer and
the underwriters involved in the IPO are each charged with
violating sections of the Securities Act of 1933.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
January 16, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          E-mail: info@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com


UBS AG: Curtis V. Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP has commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of UBS AG between
February 13, 2006 and December 11, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that UBS and certain of its officers and
directors failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts which were known to, or were recklessly disregarded,
including:

     (1) UBS-held debt securities were severely impacted;

     (2) that defendants ignored adverse facts disclosed to them
         by Dillon Read, a UBS hedge fund subsidiary;

     (3) defendants knew or should have known that additional
         securities being held were impaired;

     (4) defendants had reported artificially inflated earnings
         based on unsupportable assumptions regarding likely
         defaults and loan repurchase requirements;

     (5) defendants falsely forecasted future earnings, even
         though they knew that the deteriorating financial
         markets would inevitably lead to a significant write-
         down of the Company's impaired assets;

     (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
         about its financial well-being and future business
         prospects were materially false and misleading.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
          New York
          Phone: 212-490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.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  * * *