CAR_Public/080229.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, February 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 43
  
                            Headlines

ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit
AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs"
CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations

COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit
DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements
GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman
HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit
INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination

JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion
JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif.
KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors
NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers
SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums

SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices
SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement
SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal
STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif.
TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit

TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit
TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation
TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill.
TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement
VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped

* Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
MORGAN KEEGAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files TN Securities Fraud Suit
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Firm Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
SWISS REINSURANCE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,322 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Cites $172M Defense, Resolution Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $467M Receivable at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Trane Rise to 105,023 at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage Claim in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Has $628.2M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 66,072 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities Rise to $19.3M at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records 5,084 Pending Cases at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Unit Accrues EUR315M for Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Appeals Court Remands Nix's Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms New Trial in Whitlock
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Face Pending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Has Cases Involving AcandS, Inc.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.73B Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Cases from La. Facility
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3.4M in Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Has $11.11M for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Cleared in 3,839 Cases in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $16.72M Net for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Case Agreement Entered Last Nov.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face "Premises" Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has $29M Receivables at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records 10,998 Open Claims at Dec. 2007

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,450 Abex Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $23M Costs for N.Y. Explosion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Faces Unresolved Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard has 8T Suits from Vapor Corp.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling to Favor Pharmacia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M for Abatement at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City Faces Claims from Old Operations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 28,362 Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29T Claims Pending Against FMC at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Sues 52 Companies in Texas Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: V.I. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eyre Widow Seeks Workmates' Help in Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Whisnat v. DuPont Suit Proceeding

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Worker's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Faces 114T Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Foster Wheeler to Danos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Eagle, OneBeacon in Thibodeaux
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has $1.322B Claim Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurer Parties to Appeal A.P. Green Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Pursues Action v. Keasbey in N.Y. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Continues to Face Cases in Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants ASARCO, Creditors Tolling Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holy Cross Owners Sued for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxnard School in Calif. Settles $25T Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Jury Awards $30.3M to Worker's Family
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Warnings to NHS Trust on Hazards

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Firm Seeks to Override Emissions Laws
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Worker Pleads Guilty in Cleanup Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Authorities Probe Claims v. CFMEU Official
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Gets More Appeal Time in Libby Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ThunderSky Urges Gov't. to Warn of Dangers

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victorian Gov't. Defends v. Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Cost Covered in $17M Charge



                           *********

ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Florence (Ala.) is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama for Civil rights Violations, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Matthew Dendy claims that the City of Florence
unconstitutionally imprisons indigent people who cannot pay
traffic fines or court costs, and makes them serve out their
unpaid fines at $15 a day rather than the statutory $25 a day.

Mr. Dendy brings the action because of the defendants':

     -- failure to provide adequate counsel to indigent
        arrestees;

     -- failure to conduct a sufficient hearing to determine
        indigency before imposing fines and costs;

     -- automatically incarcerating indigent people for
        failure to pay fines and costs;

     -- imposing terms of incarceration beyond the statutory
        maximum; and

     -- other civil rights violations and conduct.

Mr. Dendy seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of
all persons who are, who have been, or who will be incarcerated
at the Lauderdale County Detention Center in whole or in part
for failure to pay fines or court costs or whose sentences
include a period of incarceration derived from a failure to pay
fines and court costs ordered by the Municipal Court of
Florence, Alabama.

Mr. Dendy wants the court to rule on:

     (i) whether the defendants' policy and practice of
         automatically converting unpaid fines and costs to days
         of incarceration, without any determination concerning
         an individual's ability to pay, is illegal;

    (ii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of
         converting fines and costs to days of incarceration at
         the rate of $15 per day rather than the statutory rate
         of $25 per day is illegal;

   (iii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of rounding
         up when converting unpaid fines and costs to days of
         incarceration is illegal; and

    (iv) whether the defendants' policy and practice of ignoring
         due process requirements before incarcerating
         individuals for failure to pay fines and costs is
         illegal.

Specifically, the defendants failed to appoint counsel for
indigent arrestees, failed to give adequate notice of the nature
of the hearing, failed to make written findings concerning the
reasons for revoking probation or work release and the evidence
relied upon, and failed to make written findings concerning an
individuals willful nonpayment of fines and costs before
imposing incarceration for nonpayment.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the Court adjudge and decree that the defendants
        have engaged in certain violations of laws;

     -- that the plaintiff recover such actual damages as the
        Court will find the plaintiff has sustained, together
        with double, treble, punitive, or exemplary damages
        as the law will permit;

     -- that the Court enter an injunction which prohibits the
        defendants from engaging in the violations of law set
        forth;

     -- that the plaintiff recover the costs of the lawsuit,
        including reasonable attorneys fees as provided by 42
        U.S.C. Section 1983, §1988, and the common law; and

     -- that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as
        the Court will deem just and appropriate.

The suit is "Matthew Dendy et al. v. City of Florence, Alabama,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elizabeth G. Messer, Esq.
          Gonce, Young, Collum-Butler & Messer
          109 North Court Street
          Florence, Alabama 35630
          Phone: (256) 767-7411
          Fax: (256) 767-0320
          e-mail: contactus@alalawyers.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lakin Law Firm attorneys who have kept a Madison County class
action against American Family Insurance alive for four years
are proposing to replace a dead class representative with a band
of chiropractors, Madison County Record reports.

In its sixth amended complaint filed on Feb. 1, 2008, the firm
introduced chiropractors who claim that American Family
improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car crashes.  
None of these plaintiffs, however, live in Madison County.

Jeff Millar, Esq., of Lakin Law Firm, specofocally introduced
these chiropractors:

   * Kruse and Manley Clinic of Sioux City, Iowa, who claim that
     the insurer cheated them out of a dollar, paying $39 on a
     $40 bill;

   * Matthew Chenault of Greenville Rehab and Pain Clinic in
     Greenville, Illinois, who alleges an improper $4 reduction,
     from $60 to $56;

   * Anthony Wolf of Indianapolis and Breann Moddes of Tempe,
     Ariz., who allege improper $4 reductions, from $40 to $36;

   * Kent Marshall of Henderson, Nevada, who alleges an improper
     $22 reduction, from $60 to $38; and

   * Charles Vifquain of Lees Summit, Mo., who alleges an
     improper $26 reduction, from $75 to $49.

They claim breach of contract but they can't begin to prove it.

The Class Action Reported reported on Jan. 31, 2007, that the
lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel
Hernandez in 2000, who also claimed that the insurer improperly
reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto
accident.  

In 2002, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge,
certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class in 17
states, Madison Record recounts.  As circuit judge, Judge Stack
trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005.

According to CAR, early in 2007, the company discovered that
Mr. Hernandez has been dead since January 2004, and therefore
asked the court to dismiss the case on this basis.  

The Lakins tried to substitute the deceased plaintiff's wife,
Nora, but Judge Stack rejected her because she did not belong to
the class.

Mrs. Hernandez is now suing along with the chiropractors in
Mr. Millar's amended complaint as her husband's personal
representative.

However, Mr. Millar wrote to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that the
class plaintiffs "lack copies of those individual policies and
thus cannot attach them to this pleading."  Madison Record
relates that Mr. Millar figures the defense should supply the
evidence.

According to Mr. Millar, American Family carried out a scheme
with software contractors Mitchell International and ADP Claims
Solution Group.  "AFI purchased, leased and used the Mitchell
and ADP software to systematically underpay Medpay claims," he
stated.  "AFI uses/used Mitchell and ADP reports as a
subterfuge, for their true purpose is to intentionally reduce
AFI's first-party medpay claims payouts, and to increase
profits."

American Family rewards claims adjusters for low payments and
instructs them in adversarial use of Mitchell and ADP reports,
Mr. Millar added.  "Thus, from the beginning of the claims
process, the claims adjuster's interests conflict with the
insured's."

Mr. Millar urged Judge Stack to disregard arbitration clauses,
arguing that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Millar argued that American Family designed the clause to
prevent the class from effectively vindicating statutory and
common law causes of action and that it is part of the insurer's
fraudulent scheme.

"Absent a class action," he wrote, "AFI will continue in its
deceptive course of conduct and will retain its ill-gotten
profits," Mr. Millar, who estimated the class in the tens of
thousands, said.

The class definition covers claims from 1990 to the date of
final judgment, and includes Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa,
Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho, Madison
Record notes.

In addition to breach of contract, Mr. Millar claims consumer
fraud for each class member under the law of his or her own
state.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Millar, Esq.
          Brad Lakin, Esq.
          Jonathan Piper, Esq.  
          The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
          300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.)
          Phone: (618) 254-1127
          Fax: (618) 254-0193
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/

American Family is represented by:

          Anthony Martin, Esq. (amartin@spvg.com)
          Timothy Sansone, Esq. (tsansone@spvg.com)
          Sandberg, Phoenix and Von Gontard
          One City Centre, 15th Floor
          515 North 6th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1880
          Phone: (314) 231-3332
                 (800) 225-5529
          Fax: (314) 241-7604

    
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet  
to rule on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action against Amkor Technology, Inc.

On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action entitled,
"Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al.," was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former
officers.

Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which
were consolidated with the initial complaint.

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs
amended the complaint.  The plaintiffs added additional officer,
director and former director defendants and alleged
improprieties in certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants
improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation
of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures
in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period
from July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs,
and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice.  

On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the dismissal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235

              - and -

         Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com)
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405


BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs"
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. was served with a claim and a request
for approval as a class action, in which the Company is being
sued together with other defendants, including companies
involved in the marketing of eggs and also other food marketing
chains.

The Claim alleges that the defendants are marketing and
displaying for purchase eggs that are classified as "Super Fresh
Eggs" which are not subject to Israeli regulatory price
controls, and are thus minimizing the shelf space and display of
eggs that are subject to regulatory price controls.

According to the claim, the defendants allegedly derive a higher
profit margin from the sale of such "Super Fresh Eggs" instead
of the regulated eggs.  The claim alleges that the defendants
coordinated their actions among each other, and that the
defendants and the companies involved in the marketing of eggs
are misleading consumers in violation of applicable consumer
protection laws.

The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at $66.57 and if the
Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim
against all the defendants is estimated at $305 million.

The Claim requests relief in the form of monetary compensation
and a mandatory injunction to stop the current actions that are
allegedly misleading the consumers.

The Company is currently reviewing the Claim, and at this
preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is unable to evaluate
its likelihood of success in the proceedings, including the
likelihood that the Claim will be certified as a class action.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. is a leading retailer in Israel.  A
pioneer of modern food retailing in the region.  Blue Square
currently operates 186 supermarkets under different formats,
each offering varying levels of services and prices.

CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinram International, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 19 USC Section 1961 et seq., 42 USC
Section 1981, and 42 USC Section 2000e, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Cinram -- based in Richmond, Ind. -- is "one of the world's
largest manufacturers of pre-recorded DVD, CD-Audio and DC-ROM
technology."  It employs 1,100 hourly workers at its
manufacturing plant in Huntsville, Ala. Blair Staffing and Tri
Staffing operate out of Madison, Ala.  The Job Center works out
of an unknown address in Alabama, the complaint states.

Named plaintiff Saul Cruz accuses Cinram of depressing labor
costs by hiring undocumented aliens to work for it, and paying
Tri Staffing, Blair Staffing and Logistics, and The Job Center
to find and recruit the workers.

Mr. Cruz further claims that the defendants harbor the illegal
workers, help them get fake employment documents and help them
evade law enforcement officials.

The complaint states, among other things, that after Cinram
knowingly and recklessly hires aliens with bogus documents and
helps them evade detection, "Cinram has fired unauthorized
workers for complaining about on-the-job injuries and not
meeting production demands and then rehired, via the above-named
staffing agencies, those same individuals weeks later with new
and different fake documents.  In addition to establishing that
Cinram's hiring of unauthorized workers is done with full
knowledge and with complete disregard of the law, this shows
that Cinram's intent is to send a message to other unauthorized
workers that they are to work hard and not complain about
conditions, or else they will be fired."

The plaintiff claims that this systematic abuse has been
continuous since 2004.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all qualified
persons who are legally authorized to be employed in the United
States who were employed by Cinram or who were referred for
employment by any of the staffing agency defendants at any time
from Feb. 22, 2004, to the present.

The plaintiff demands judgment and order relief as follows:

     -- certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

     -- judgment in an amount equal three times the actual
        damages sustained by the class, pursuant to 18 USC
        Section 1964(c);

     -- reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 18 USC Section
        1964(c);

     -- judgment in an amount to be proven at trial that
        requires defendants to disgorge any unlawful profits or
        otherwise return the full amount of its unjust
        enrichment;

     -- trial by jury; and

     -- such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Saul Cruz et al. v. Cinram International, Inc. et
al, Case No. Cv-08-0342-M," filed with the U.S. District Court
for Northern District of Alabama.


COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Superior Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of
Dr. Sanford Sidner and all DC citizens who have subscribed to
Comcast's high-speed Internet service over the course of the
past three year, the CT Reports says.

According to the report, the complaint accuses Comcast of false
advertising stemming from the company's claims that it provides
the "fastest Internet connection" and "unfettered access to all
the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to
offer."

The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm of Gilbert Randolph,
assert that Comcast's representations of its service are
allegedly false owing to Comcast's "intentional blocking or
impeding of subscriber access to peer-to-peer file-sharing
applications."

"There's a growing interest on behalf of consumers in DC that
they're not getting the service that they've paid for," Gilbert
Randolph attorney August Mattias, Esq., said.

The complaint contends that Comcast surreptitiously impersonates
the computers of users attempting to share files and sends
"forged reset packets" that instruct the transmitting computers
to stop sending data.  Thus, the plaintiffs allege, the users of
peer-to-peer applications are denied full access to the Internet
despite paying for a service that Comcast promises is
"unfettered" and the "fastest" possible, the report relates.

The plaintiffs charge "Comcast's clandestine techniques are
similar to those use by totalitarian governments to censor the
use of the Internet."

Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is    
a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer
entertainment and communication products and services.


DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to grant final approval to settlements entered into in a
securities class action against DHB Industries, Inc., and
certain individual defendants, as well as the related
shareholder derivative action, according to the company's
Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.  

                      Securities Litigation

During the third and second quarters of 2005, a number of
purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and directors.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during various periods from Nov. 18,
2003, though Aug. 29, 2005.

The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures were false or misleading.

The suits alleged that the Company's body armor products were
defective and failed to meet the standards of its customers, and
that these alleged facts should have been publicly disclosed.
They were ultimately consolidated into a single class action.

                     Derivative Litigation

During the same time frame, a number of derivative complaints
were filed, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, against certain officers and directors of
the Company, and in certain cases the Company's former auditors.

The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud, misrepresentation,
misappropriation of corporate information, waste of corporate
assets, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment.  They were
ultimately consolidated into a single shareholder derivative
action.

                         The Settlement

On July 13, 2006, the Company signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the class action and the derivative
action.  

Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the class action would be
settled, subject to court approval, for $34,900 in cash and
3,184,713 shares of the Company's common stock.

The derivative action also would be settled, subject to court
approval, in consideration of the adoption of certain corporate
governance provisions and the payment of $300 in legal fees and
expenses to the lead counsel in the derivative action.

As previously reported, these settlements are subject to review
and approval of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007).

On Dec. 15, 2006, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the
court (U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip,
New York, 11722-4438).   

This stipulation, which was signed on behalf of the Company, the
plaintiffs' representatives and individual defendants,
represents the definitive documentation of the settlement.

Under the settlement documents, the class consists of all
Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DHB shares on or
after Nov. 18, 2003 until and including Nov. 30, 2006.

In July of 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted a motion for preliminary approval
of the above-described settlements of the class action and
derivative shareholder lawsuits.

In July of 2007, the United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York, granted the lead plaintiffs motion for
preliminary approval of the above-described settlements of the
class action and derivative action.

The court held a hearing on Oct. 5, 2007, to consider and
determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  

The Court took no action at the hearing, and indicated that it
would issue a decision no sooner than 45 days after the hearing
(or Nov. 17, 2007) in order to allow the Commercial
Litigation Division of the U.S. Justice Department, which had
been notified of the settlement pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, to determine if it wished to make an objection to
the settlement.

DHB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.dhbt.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., and Protective
Apparel Corporation of America is in the protective body armor
industry and is focused on the design, manufacture, and
distribution of bullet resistant and protective body armor for
military, law enforcement, and corrections in the U.S. and
worldwide.


GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman
------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Images Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 25, 2008, with the Superior Court for the State of
Washington in and for the County of King as shareholders want
more from the sale to Hellman & Friedman, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Earlier, Getty announced the acquisition, at $2.4 billion or $34
a share, the report states.  Getty, which owns an archive of
70 million still photos and 30,000 hours of film, reported
$858 million in revenue in FY 2007, up 6% from the year before.

According to the report, shareholders complain that Getty Images
sold itself too cheaply to Hellman & Friedman, and that Getty's
directors "acted quickly for their own benefit and the benefit
of Hellman" but to shareholders' detriment.

Named plaintiff Kaye Davenport, owner of Getty Images common
stock, brings the action on behalf of all holders of Getty
Images stock who are being and will be harmed by the defendants'
actions.

Ms. Davenport wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the proposed transaction is unfair to the
         class;

     (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would be irreparably damaged were the transaction
         complained of consummated;

     (c) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary and
         other common law duties owed by them to plaintiff and
         the other members of the class; and

     (d) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief or
         damages as a result of the wrongful conduct committed
         by defendants.

Ms. Davenport asks the court to enter an order:

     -- declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a
        class action;

     -- declaring and decreeing that the Merger Agreement was
        entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the
        defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;

     -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
        and all persons acting in concert with them from
        consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until
        the company adopts and implements a fair sales process;

     -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the
        best interest of Getty Images' shareholders;

     -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        proposed transaction or any of the terms thereof;

     -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff,
        upon any benefits improperly received by defendants as a
        result of their wrongful conduct;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees; and

     -- granting such other and further equitable relief as the
        court may deem just and proper.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Duncan Turner, Esq. (duncanturner@badgleymullins.com)
          Allysa J. white, Esq. (awhite@badgleymullins.com)
          Badgley-Mullins Law Group
          Columbia Center
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750
          Seattle, Washington 98104
          Phone: 206-621-6566


HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of hygiene products are facing an antitrust class-
action complaint filed with the U.S. District court for the
Northern District of Illinois for conspiring to fix prices of  
hygiene products -- including toothpaste, toothbrushes, and
shampoo, liquid hand soaps, dishwashing liquid and deodorants,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The defendants named in the suit are:

          -- Sara Lee Corporation
          -- Colgate-Palmolive Company
          -- Henkel Chemie Verwaltungsgesellschaft MBH
          -- Henkel Corp.
          -- Unilever N.V.
          -- Unilever PLC
          -- Unilever United States, Inc.

Lead plaintiff Commercial Street Express claims that the
defendants have admitted collusion and anti-competitive conduct
in Europe and have been fined EUR37 million in Germany alone.

Commercial Street further claims that the Federal Cartel Office
of Germany announced on Feb. 20 that Henkel, Sara Lee and
Unilever were fined EUR37 million "for price-fixing and
illegally passing on information on price talks with retailers."

Commercial Street says the Federal Cartel Office said the
conspiracy that had begun by early 2006 hiked by 5% the price of
Pril and Palmolive dish detergents, Duschdas and Palmolive
shower gels and Signal, Dentagard, and Colgate toothpaste.

Commercial Street brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons or
entities who acquired in the United States oral, personal and
home care products manufactured and distributed by one or more
of the Defendants, their agents or entities under their control,
at any time between Jan. 1, 2006, and the present.

Commercial Street wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination
         or conspiracy to fix the prices of oral, personal and
         home care products;

     (b) whether defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
         Act (15 USC Section 1);

     (c) the existence, duration, and illegality of the
         contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein;

     (d) whether defendants and each of them was a participant
         in the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged;

     (e) whether the prices charged for oral, personal and home
         care products during the Class Period were artificially
         inflated as a result of Defendants' contract,
         combination or conspiracy alleged;

     (f) the amount by which defendants' illegal, unfair or
         deceptive trade practices have inflated the price of
         oral, personal and home care products over the amount
         that would have for in a competitive market unaffected
         by Defendants illegal acts;

     (g) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by
         Plaintiffs and members of the Class and the appropriate
         type and measure of damages;

     (h) whether defendants took affirmative steps to conceal
         the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein;
         and

     (i) whether the plaintiffs and the members of the Class are
         entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the Court determine that the Sherman Act, state
        antitrust law, and state consumer protection and
        unfair competition law claims alleged herein may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2),
        and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or
        combination alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to
        be:

          i. a restraint of trade or commerce in violation of
             Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as alleged and
             injunctive relief be awarded;

         ii. an unlawful combination, trust, agreement,
             understanding, and concert of action in violation
             of the state antitrust laws identified;

        iii. violations of the state consumer protection and
             unfair competition laws identified; and

         iv. acts of unjust enrichment;

     -- that the plaintiffs and the Class recover damages, as
        provided by federal and state antitrust laws, and that a
        joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and
        the Class be entered against the Defendants in an amount
        to be trebled in accordance with such laws;

     -- that the defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct,
            contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein,
            or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged,
            or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy
            or combination having a similar purpose or effect,
            and from adopting or following any practice, plan,
            program, or device having a similar purpose or
            effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the sale of oral, personal
            and home care products, information concerning bids
            of competitors;

     -- that the plaintiffs be awarded restitution, including
        disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants as a
        result of their acts of unfair competition and acts of
        unjust enrichment;

     -- that the plaintiffs and the class be awarded pre- and
        post-judgment interest, and that interest be awarded at
        the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the class action complaint;

     -- that the plaintiffs and the class recover their costs of
        this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as
        provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and the class have such other, further,
        and different relief as the case may require and the
        court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

The suit is "Commercial Street Express, LLC et al v. Sara Lee
Corporation et al.," filed with U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq. (mmiller@millerlawllc.com)
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq. (lfanning@millerlawllc.com)
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. (mvantine@millerlawllc.com)
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 332-3400
          Fax: (312) 676-2676

               - and -

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq. (sademi@ademilaw.com)          
          David Syrios, Esq. (dsyrios@ademilaw.com)
          Corey M. Mather, Esq. (cmather@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 E. Layton
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: (414) 482-8000
          Fax: (414) 482-8001


INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Indymac Bank, F.S.B., is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California alleging that the bank racially discriminates in
mortgage lending, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff David Ulloa brings the complaint for:

   -- violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and

   -- violations of the Fair Housing Act.

The class action challenges IndyMac's racially discriminatory
mortgage lending practices.  IndyMac established a specific,
identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of
which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing Policy,"
authorized an unchecked subjective surcharge of additional
points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing
rate.

These subjective, additional finance charges directly lead to
minorities receiving home loans with higher interest rates and
higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority
borrowers.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all minorities who
have entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were
originated, financed or purchased by IndyMac, and who have been
subjected to racial discrimination.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature and scope of IndyMac's policies and
         procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread
         premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans
         it funds;

     (b) whether defendant IndyMac is a creditor under the ECOA
         because, in the ordinary course of business, it
         participates in the decision of whether or not to
         extend credit to consumers;

     (c) whether IndyMacs policies and procedures regarding
         yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees are
         a facially neutral credit pricing system that has
         effected racial discrimination in violation of the
         ECOA;

     (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities
         between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed
         on minorities and the amount of the discretionary
         charges imposed on Caucasians that are unrelated to
         creditworthiness;

    (e) whether IndyMac has any legitimate business
        justification for its policies and procedures;

     (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to
         these policies and procedures;

     (g) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive
         relief; and

     (h) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief.

The plaintiff requests the following relief:

     -- an order determining that the action is a proper class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and
        disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
        including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness
        fees and other costs;

     -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and
        injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity,
        including rescission, restitution, reformation,
        attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust
        upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of
        IndyMac's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and
        the class have an effective remedy;

     -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory
        damages according to proof;

     -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and
        the class;

     -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief
        and all relief that flows from such injunctive and
        declaratory relief; and

     -- a judgment or other order granting such other and
        further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "David Ulloa et al v. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Case No.
CV08-1312SVW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
          Wendy J. Harrison, Esq. (wharrison@bffb.com)
          Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C.
          2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, Arizona 85012
          Phone: (602) 274-1100

    
JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a
class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against
the Jarden Corp. in relation to its plan to acquire The Holmes
Group, Inc.

In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the company and certain company officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through
Jan. 12, 2006.  The company announced the signing of the
agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. on June 29, 2005.

Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006.  No class
has been certified in the actions.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the
company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the
company.  

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs
were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on
Feb. 2, 2007.  

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On July 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying their dismissal request.  
The defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on
July 10, 2007.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 dismissal
order.  

On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.
That motion has been fully briefed and the Court held oral
argument on January 11, 2008.  

The Court has not yet issued a decision, according to the
company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com)
          Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C
          460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 838-3221
          Fax: (212) 508-3695

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com)
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212)-685-0969
          Fax: (212)-685-2306

               - and -

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

          Stephen William Greiner
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 728-8000
          Fax: (212) 728-8111
          e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court scheduled an April 9, 2008 final
approval hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter,
"City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. K2 Inc., et
al.," which names Jarden Corp., as a defendant.

The case was filed on May 4, 2007, by a shareholder of K2 on
behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders against K2
and the members of its Board of Directors.  

It is seeking to enjoin the merger transaction between K2 and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Jarden Corp. on the purported grounds
that the members of the Board of Directors of K2 allegedly
breached fiduciary duties to the K2 shareholders in connection
with the negotiation and structure of the Merger as well as the
disclosures made by K2 to shareholders in its proxy.

On July 30, 2007, K2 announced that it and the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System agreed to a settlement in principle
of the pending litigation pursuant to which K2 made certain
disclosures regarding the transaction in its proxy materials
sent to shareholders and reports filed with the SEC and amended
the merger agreement to reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million
the termination fee that would have been payable by K2 to the
Company under certain circumstances in the event that the merger
agreement had been terminated.

The agreement includes full releases of all the defendants as
well as the Company.

The settlement was approved preliminarily by the California
Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008, and a hearing on final approval
is scheduled for April 9, 2008, according to the company's
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Jarden Corp. -- http://www.jarden.com/-- is a provider of  
consumer products.  Jarden's three primary business segments:
Outdoor Solutions, Consumer Solutions and Branded Consumables,
manufacture or source, market and distribute a number of brands,
including Outdoor Solutions, Abu Garcia, Adio, Berkley,
Campingaz, Coleman, Fenwick, Gulp!, JT, K2, Marker, Marmot,
Mitchell, Penn, Planet Earth, Rawlings, Shakespeare, Sevylor,
Stearns, Stren, Trilene, Ugly Stik and Volkl; Consumer
Solutions, Bionaire, Crock-Pot, FoodSaver, Health o meter,
Holmes, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Patton, Rival, Seal-a-Meal, Sunbeam
and VillaWare, and Branded Consumables, Ball, Bee, Bicycle,
Crawford, Diamond, Dicon, First Alert, Forster, Hoyle, Java-Log,
Kerr, Lehigh, Leslie-Locke, Loew-Cornell and Pine Mountain.


KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc.,
faces a putative class action in California, styled, "Baskall v.
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," according to the YUM! Brands'
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008.

The suit was filed with San Diego County Superior Court on
Dec. 21, 2007.  It was brought on behalf of all current and
former Restaurant General Managers, Assistant Unit Managers, and
Shift Supervisors who worked at KFC's California restaurants
since Dec. 18, 2003.  

The suit alleges violations of California's wage and hour and
unfair competition laws, including denial of sufficient meal and
rest periods, improperly itemized pay stubs, and delays in
issuing final paychecks, and seeks unspecified amounts in
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  YUM consists of six operating
segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS)
and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division) and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 40 regional car dealers who sued Newsday in 2004 on
fraud and antitrust charges tied to the newspaper's circulation
improprieties settled the class-action case this week, a lawyer
for the dealers said.

Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams confirmed the
settlement, whose terms were not disclosed.

Leonard Bellavia, Esq., a Bay Shore attorney who filed the case
on behalf of the dealers, said that settlement talks accelerated
in recent weeks.  He said he believes the movement was prompted
by his firm's offer of experts to help a federal judge determine
the financial impact of the Newsday circulation fraud in
criminal cases against former executives.

The report on the Newsday newspaper relates that a separate
federal class-action suit against Newsday filed by advertisers
who first brought the claims of falsified circulation, remains
unresolved.

While declining to discuss the settlement amount in his case,
Mr. Bellavia indicated the award his clients had sought was
substantial.  "We felt that if the case went to trial we could
recover from $50 million to $100 million" if the dealers got a
favorable judgment, he said.

The suit initially led to a level of acrimony after Newsday
refused to accept advertisements from the dealers.  Newsday
later agreed to carry the ads after the dealers agreed that
future ads would be exempt from damage claims.

Mr. Bellavia said the newspaper's initial refusal to accept his
clients' ads was a tactical error.  "It was gangster-style
tactics and it caused a lot of attention to be drawn" to the
case, he said.  "I'm sure if they had to do it again they would
rethink having blacklisted us."

Most of the dealers have returned to Newsday, Mr. Bellavia said,
but some have not.  He added that he is forming an Internet
advertising co-operative for the car dealers to provide an
online forum to reach buyers.


SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shop-Vac Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for falsely
advertising its vacuum cleaners as "Made in the USA," CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Richard A. Silber files the suit for:

    -- violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code
       Section 1750 et seq);

    -- violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200
       et seq. (California Unfair Competition Law); and

    -- violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7
       (False "Made in the USA" claim).

This is a class action case brought on behalf of all purchasers
of wet/dry vacuum products manufactured, distributed, marketed
and sold by Shop-Vac through a fraudulent, unlawful, deceptive
and unfair course of conduct.  The "Made in the USA" claim is
printed on the products' packaging and typically includes
prominent pictures of the USA flag.

Despite true facts to the contrary, the Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuums
are substantially made, manufactured or produced from component
parts that are manufactured outside the United States, in
violation of California law.

The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated in the State of California who purchased
defendant's Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuum.

The plaintiff requests for the following relief:

     -- damages according to proof;

     -- for a judgment declaring this action to be a proper
        class action;

     -- declaring that defendant violated the provisions of
        California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
        seq.;

     -- pursuant to California Business & Professions Code
        Section 17204, Civil Code Section 1780, and pursuant to
        the equitable powers of the court, enjoining defendant,
        their subsidiaries, affiliates, and their successors,
        agents, servants, officers, directors, employees and all
        persons acting in concert with them, directly or
        indirectly, from engaging in conduct violative of
        California law;

     -- pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17204,
        requiring defendant to provide restitution to
        compensate, and to restore all persons in interest,
        including all class members, with all ill-gotten monies
        acquired by means of defendant's unfair competition;

     -- a declaration that defendant violated Business &
        Professions Code Section 17533.7;

     -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- for costs of suit incurred; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court finds
        just, equitable and proper, including, but not limited
        to, the remedy of disgorgement.

The suit is "Richard A. silber et al. v. Shop-Vac, Corp., Case
No. 37-2008-00078687-CU-BT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court
of California - County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           John H. Donboli, Esq.
           JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
           Del Mar Law Group LLP
           322 8th Street, Suite 101
           Del Mar, CA 92014
           Phone: (858) 793-6244
           Fax: (858) 793-6005


SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada alleging it dumped
"millions of dollars" of their stock at inflated prices while
concealing the company's financial condition, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a shareholder derivative action brought by plaintiff
Cary Green and shareholders of Smith & Wesson against certain
current or former officers and directors of the company seeking
to remedy Smith & Wesson's violations of state law, including
breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and
negligence that occurred from June 15, 2007 through the present,
and that have caused substantial losses to the company.

The plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows:

     -- Against the Individual Defendants and in favor of the
        Company for the amount of damages sustained by the
        Company as a result of the Individual Defendants'
        breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
        mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust
        enrichment;

     -- Extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief as
        permitted by law, equity and state statutory provisions
        sued hereunder, including attaching, impounding,
        imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise
        restricting the proceeds of the Individual Defendants'
        trading activities or their other assets so as to ensure
        that Plaintiff has an effective remedy;

     -- Awarding to Smith & Wesson restitution from the
        Individual Defendants, and each of them, and ordering
        disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other
        compensation obtained by these Defendants;

     -- Awarding to Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses; and

     -- Granting such other and further relief as the Court
        deems just and proper.

The suit is "Cary Green et al. v. Barry M. Monheit et al.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Representing plaintiff are:

          William M. O'Mara, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          David C. O'Mara, Esq.
          The O'Mara Law Firm, P.C.
          311 East Liberty Street
          Reno, Nevada 89501
          Telephone: 775/323-1321
          Fax: 775/323-4082


SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytown will receive $500,884 in back business taxes from Sprint
Nextel as part of a settlement following a class-action lawsuit
against wireless carriers, The Kansas City Star.

City Attorney Nancy Thompson told Kansas City Star that the
amount represents 26 months of back taxes.  In addition, the
city would begin receiving up to $19,000 a month in business-tax
payments from Sprint.

Ms. Thompson further said that Raytown already has settled with
AT&T Mobility for $404,260 and with Verizon Wireless for
$320,872.  Funds from the actual settlements will be subject to
approval by a circuit judge in St. Louis County, where the
class-action lawsuit was filed.

The wireless carriers first contested paying the taxes on the
grounds that the taxes did not apply to them because their
technology was different from telephone companies that provide
land-line services, Kansas City Star recounts.


SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against The
Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public
offering are seeking reconsideration of the court order
dismissing certain claims in the case.

In November 2002, Southern Co., certain former and current
senior officers of Southern Co., and 12 underwriters of Mirant's
initial public offering were added as defendants in a class
action that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against
Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002.

Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were
consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged
improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the
California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions
in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in
subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related
issues previously disclosed by Mirant.

The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  

The remaining claims do not allege any improper trading and
marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements
or omissions on the part of Southern Co. but seek to impose
liability on Southern Co. based on allegations that Southern Co.
was a "control person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date.

Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class
action complaint in September 2003.  The plaintiffs have also
filed a motion for class certification.

During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation
was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery.  Since
Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay
has been lifted.  

On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of
its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based
upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing
activities involving the California energy market.

Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  The plaintiffs have also stated that they
intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend
the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted
against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation.

Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated
under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former
Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the
time of its initial public offering through the date of the
spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit.

The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined,
according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com)
          Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC
          1050 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-724-9990
          Fax: 404-724-9986

               - and -

          Nichole Tara Browning, Esq. (nba@classlaw.com)
          Chitwood & Harley
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. (jcorley@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000

               - and -

          Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., Esq. (ggarrett@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day-Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
          Phone: 404-521-3939


STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain officers of Standard Pacific Corp. continue to face a
purported securities fraud class action filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative
plaintiff Vinod Patel.  The company was not named in the
complaint.

The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the
period between Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements
          regarding our finances, business and prospects;
       
       -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending
          practices; and
   
       -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the Company's
          loans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including
interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem
just and proper.  The complaint has not been served.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement
System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and
the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead
plaintiffs.

On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal
Securities Laws.

The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen
Scarborough, Standard Pacifics Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chairman of the Board, as defendants.  It does not
name the Company as a defendant.  

In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Standard Pacific between Oct. 27, 2005, and
Aug. 2, 2007.  

The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacifics common
stock was artificially inflated during this period because
Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and misleading
earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked a
reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest
rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors
affecting Standard Pacific.

The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and
Mr. Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes for
violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05364-MMM-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
         Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com)
         Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
         660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-623-2221
         Fax: 213-623-2211

Representing the defendants are:

         Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com)
         Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         3161 Michelson Dr.
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Phone: 949-451-3907 and 949-451-3800

  
TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is under way in a a consolidated class action in
California that was filed by a Restaurant General Manager (RGM)
against Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc.,
according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Jan. 28, 2008.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was
filed in Orange County Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action styled, "Marina
Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego County
Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by an RGM purporting to represent all
current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned
restaurants in California from August 2002 to the present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour
laws involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period
violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and
penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
Orange County case and both cases have been consolidated in San
Diego County.

Discovery is underway, with pre-certification discovery cutoff
set for June 2, 2008, and a July 1, 2008 deadline for plaintiffs
to file their motion for class certification.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  YUM consists of six operating
segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS)
and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division) and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a purported class action filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California against
Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc., and other related entities,
and was brought on behalf of all hourly employees who have
worked for the defendants within the last four years.

The suit, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed on
Sept. 10, 2007.  It alleges numerous violations of California
labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on
termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage
statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful
business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.

The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Jan. 10, 2008, and discovery is underway, according to the YUM!
Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008.

The suit is "Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-01314-OWW-DLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Judge Oliver W. Wanger
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Joseph Cho, Esq. (josephcho@initiativelegal.com)
         Initiative Legal Group LLP
         1800 Century Park East, Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 556-5637
         Fax: (310) 861-9051

Representing the defendants are:

         Heather Mactavish Freelin, Esq. (hfreelin@irell.com)
         Irell and Manella
         840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Phone: 949-760-0991
         Fax: 949-760-5200


TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.,
Case No. 3:02-cv-05849," are in discussions intended to get to
mediation.

The purported class action remains pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. It named
Taco Bell Corp. as a defendant on Dec. 17, 2002.

On Aug. 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California accessible to the class.  

The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities –- including parking spaces,
ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not
comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh
Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act.  

The plaintiffs have requested:

      -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

      -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

      -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.
        
The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.  

For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate
minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are
expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company
outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered
discrimination.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The district court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the district court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  

The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief
stage of this action.  During this stage, the company filed a
motion to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule
23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages.  

The district court denied the motion.  The plaintiffs filed
their own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability
relating to a subset of the California Restaurants.  The
district court denied that motion as well.  

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment seeking judicial declaration that
Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three
specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening
force.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part
with regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door
opening force at some restaurants (but not all), and denied the
motion with regard to queue lines.

At a status conference on Sept. 27, 2007, the court set a trial
date of Nov. 10, 2008, with respect to not more than 20
restaurants to determine the issue of liability and common
issues.

Discovery related to the subject of the mini-trial is underway.  
The parties are in discussions intended to get to mediation,
according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Jan. 28, 2008.

The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-
cv-05849," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy P. Fox, Esq. (tfox@foxrob.com)
         Fox & Robertson, P.C.
         910-16th Street, Suite 610
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-595-9700
         Fax: 303-595-9705

              - and -

         Brad Seligman, Esq. (bs@impactfund.org)
         The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave.
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
         Fax: 510-845-3654

Representing the defendant are:

         Gregory A. Eurich, Esq. (geurich@hollandhart.com)
         Jimmy Goh, Esq. (jgoh@hollandhart.com)
         Holland & Hart, LLP
         555 17th Street, Suite 3200
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-295-8000

              - and -

         Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. (sautters@gtlaw.com)
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-708-6564
         Fax: 714 708-6501


TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. continues to face two purported class
actions in Pennsylvania and Illinois that generally allege
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The suits are:

      -- "Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. CA 07-54," which was filed against
         the Company with the U.S. District Court for the
         Western District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and

      -- "Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas
         Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108,"
         which was filed against the Company with the U.S.
         District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
         July 20, 2007.

                       Ehrheart Litigation

The suit alleges liability under FACTA based on the alleged
practice of unlawfully including more information on the
electronically printed credit or debit card receipts provided to
customers than is permitted.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and a
permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.  

Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful
violation.  

The Company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet
begun.

                        Aliano Litigation

The case alleges liability under FACTA.  The plaintiff seeks
statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs.

The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet
begun.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2007.  

Texas Roadhouse, Inc. -- http://www.texasroadhouse.com-- is a  
full-service, casual dining restaurant chain.  It offers an
assortment of seasoned and aged steaks hand-cut daily on the
premises and cooked to order over open gas-fired grills.  The
Company also offers its guests a selection of ribs, fish,
seafood, chicken and vegetable plates, and an assortment of
hamburgers, salads and sandwiches.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted preliminary approval to a $50,000,000 settlement in
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against
Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions against:

     -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005;  
        and  

     -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer.    

The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing
approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during
that period.  
  
On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint
lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all
related cases.   

The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9,
2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class
action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.,
Securities Litigation."

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint against:  

     -- TKT;   

     -- Dr. Selden;   

     -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer;   

     -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead,  
        III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board  
        of directors;   
  
     -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members  
        of TKT's board of directors; and   

     -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities
        Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann.  

Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed Oct. 31, 2003.  
On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the
motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement.  

Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss.
Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on
July 16, 2004.

On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which defendants opposed.  Both parties have
provided briefs to the court regarding class certification.

In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.    

On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink
Swann & Company.  

On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims
alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller,
and Thomas.  

On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on
all claims alleged against him.  

In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court
approval, for $50 million.  

Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its
insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million.  
The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within
SG&A during this quarter.

In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement,
according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 25, 2007.  

The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

          Robert Finkel, Esq. (RFinkel@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-759-4600
          Fax: 212-486-2093

              - and -

          Darren Check, Esq.  
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:  

         Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
         (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02115
         Phone: 617-526-6145
         Fax: 617-526-5000

         Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7000
         Fax: 617-951-7050

              - and -  

         Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         One Beacon Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-573-4800
         Fax: 617-573-4822


VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit against the city of Charlottesville Police Chief Tim
Longo and Officer James Mooney involving charges in DNA sampling
have been dismissed, Charlottesvillenewsplex.com reports.

According to the Daily Progress, Charlottesville resident Larry
Monroe, who filed the suit claiming that city police violated
his rights in their search for a serial rapist, has agreed to
dismiss his case.

Charlottesvillenewsplex recalls that the lawsuit claimed that
Mr. Monroe's constitutional rights were violated when he was
asked to voluntarily provide a DNA sample as a part of the
serial rapist investigation.

Daily Progress points out that Mr. Monroe initially filed a
$15,000-suit in state court naming the city, Police Chief Longo
and police Detective Mooney.  That suit was dismissed in 2004,
but was later filed in federal court on Dec. 16, 2005.  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9, 2007,
Mr. Monroe and nearly 190 other men were approached by
Charlottesville city police to submit to a cheek-swab DNA test
in 2003 and 2004 in the search for the serial rapist.  According
to CAR, the suit alleges two violations of constitutional
rights:  

     (1) the policy of asking Mr. Monroe and other black men to  
         provide their DNA for tests violates their  
         constitutional right to equal protection because the  
         same policy wasn't applied to all white men after  
         unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and

     (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.

Daily Progress says that the rapist, Nathan Antonio Washington,
was arrested in August 2007 and sentenced just this week to more
than four life terms in prison.

Charlottesvillenewsplex relates that U.S. District Court Judge
Norman Moon has already dismissed several of the original
claims, including Mr. Monroe's attempt to pursue the case as a
class action on behalf of individuals who had been asked to
provide a sample.  Judge Moon also dismissed the part of Mr.
Monroe's suit that alleged that his right to equal protection
under the law had been violated because police asked him for a
DNA sample based on his race, Daily Progress says.

However, Mr. Monroe, according to Charlottesvillenewsplex,
retains the right to pursue an appeal to the Fourth Circuit on
Judge Moon's earlier rulings.

Mr. Monroe's attorney, Deborah C. Wyatt told Daily Progress that
her client agreed to drop the remaining portion of the lawsuit
in U.S. District Court so that his equal-protection claim could
proceed to an appeal.  "Instead of waiting for a trial on the
remaining claim that was going to be this summer, we wanted to
go ahead with the issues that are more important to our client
and to us," Ms. Wyatt said.

Mr. Monroe has 30 days to file his appeal, which had not been
entered on Wednesday in federal appeals court in Richmond. Mr.
Monroe may also be seeking a review of the class-certification
issue, Ms. Wyatt said.  

The suit is "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon
with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler.  

Representing the plaintiff are:  

          Neal L. Walters, Esq. (nwalters@scottkroner.com)
          Scott & Kroner, PC
          P.O. BOX 2737,  
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737
          Phone: 434-296-2161  
          Fax: 434-293-2073

               - and -

          Deborah Chasen Wyatt, Esq. (DWESQ@aol.com)
          Wyatt & Armstrong, 300 Court  
          Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160
          Phone: 434-296-4130
          Fax: 297-3083

Representing the defendants is:

          Richard Hustis Milnor, Esq. (rmilnor@cstone.net)
          Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd.
          414 Park Street, Charlottesville  
          VA 22902
          Phone: 434-977-0191
          Fax: 434-977-0198
  

* Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work
------------------------------------------------------------
Filing similar class-action lawsuits in multiple venues in the
hope that one will get allowed is an attorney tactic that won't
work in Oklahoma, the state Court of Civil Appeals stated last
week, according to The Journal Record.

The appeals court cited a ruling issued by the federal 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals, which precluded unnamed members of one
class action from filing a new class-action lawsuit based on the
same claims in a different venue.

"The (federal) Court . . . recognized the filing of multiple
suits suggested the plaintiffs' lawyers had adopted a strategy
of filing in as many courts as necessary until a nationwide
class was certified, thereby rendering insignificant all the no-
certification decisions of other courts," the Court of Civil
Appeals found.  The appeals court applied the "issue of
preclusion" to prevent unnamed members of one class from filing
multiple similar lawsuits.
The federal appeals court rejected the plaintiff's claim that
the preclusion denied them due process.  Even those unnamed
class members who opt out of a class-action lawsuit still have
the right to litigate individually.

"A person who opts out receives the right to go it alone, not to
launch a competing class action," the court found.

Journal Record points out that the state appeals court dismissed
a class-action lawsuit filed in LeFlore County by Paul Rees
against BP America Production Co., asserting the oil and gas
company had underpaid royalties.  Mr. Rees sought to bring
action against BP on behalf of "all similarly situated persons
and entities who have received royalty payments from BP on gas
substances produced from the Red Oak-Norris Field" in LeFlore
County.

"Watts v. Amoco Production Company (now BP)" had been filed in
2001 on behalf of royalty owners in oil and gas drilling in
LeFlore and six other counties in Oklahoma, the court found.
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals had found the Watts case
unsuitable for class-action disposition due to the need for
individualized inquiry to deduce the costs involved.  The
Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to take up the case.

The appeals court ruled that Mr. Rees' new class-action lawsuit
was precluded by the court's refusal to certify the class in
Watts, though Mr. Rees is free to file an individual claim
against the company.


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consortium of law firms filed a nationwide class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington in Seattle on behalf of all purchasers of
Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek(R) decking products.

The plaintiffs filed their suit against:

     -- Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE:WY) (ChoiceDek(r) seller);

     -- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc.
        (Nasdaq:AERT) (ChoiceDek(r) manufacturer); and

     -- Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) (ChoiceDek(r)
        retailer).

ChoiceDek(R) is a composite material, primarily composed of wood
fibers and recycled plastic, used in residential decking
throughout the United States.

The defendants have sold hundreds of millions of dollars of this
product since it was first introduced into the market.

The plaintiffs' legal complaint alleges that ChoiceDek(r) is
defective because it develops extensive and recurring mold and
mildew stains due to inherent manufacturing flaws and that
Defendants fraudulently advertised the product as being "low
maintenance" despite having knowledge of these problems.

The plaintiffs contend that although the products are promoted
as "virtually moisture proof," they are, in fact, highly
susceptible to moisture in the outdoor environment.

Additionally, the manufacturer of ChoiceDek(r) acknowledges that
it utilizes "contaminated" recycled plastic that it fails to
adequately clean, which introduces food waste into the decking
boards.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would require the
Defendants to honor the warranty that comes with the product and
replace defective decks or provide consumers with refunds.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.

The law firms that filed the lawsuit are:

          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206.623.1900
          Fax: 206.623.3384

             - and -

          Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC (Lorain, OH).
          446 Broadway
          Lorain, OH 44052-1797
          Phone: (440) 244-4809
          Fax: (440) 244-3462
          Web site: http://www.gntlaw.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMBAC FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Ambac Financial Group, Inc., between October 19, 2005, and
January 15, 2008, inclusive against Ambac and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements about Ambac's
business and financial results and materially misrepresented,
inter alia, its exposure to collateralized debt obligations and
subprime mortgages.  It is also alleged that defendants failed
to mark down the Company's CDO and other mortgage-backed
security assets in a timely manner, resulting in the Company
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements and
results.  Moreover, it is alleged that certain executives of the
Company reaped millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of
Ambac shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated
prices.

It is also alleged that on January 16, 2008, Ambac announced its
preliminary fourth quarter 2007 results which included an
estimated net loss of $3.4 billion for the fourth quarter,
including an approximate $1.1 billion loss that was attributed
to CDOs backed by subprime mortgages.  As a result, it is
alleged the price of Ambac stock plummeted on January 16, 2008,
to close at $12.97 per share, a 38% decline from the prior day
close.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq. (ffox@kaplanfox.com)
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq. (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com)
          Donald R. Hall, Esq. (dhall@kaplanfox.com)
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York  10022
          Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq. (lking@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, California  94104
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707


MORGAN KEEGAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files TN Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee against Morgan Keegan & Company,
Inc., Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial
Corporation and related companies and officers and directors.

The Complaint charges the Company, the Funds and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

Morgan Keegan served as distribution agent and underwriter for
the Funds' shares during the Class Period, and also served as
the Transfer and Dividend Disbursing Agent.  RMK Advantage
Income Fund, RMK Strategic Income Fund and RMK High Income Fund
are closed-end management investment companies that invest
primarily in debt securities.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Funds'
Registration Statements failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) the true nature and extent of the risk related to the
         concentrated securities within the Funds;

     (2) the extent to which the Funds were invested in illiquid
         securities;

     (3) that the Funds were invested in risky, new investment
         structures in which data was difficult to obtain;

     (4) that due to the Funds' illiquidity, the manager would
         be forced to initially sell first the liquid, lower
         risk assets, thereby penalizing holders of the Funds;

     (5) that the Funds were heavily invested in illiquid and
         subprime structures, such as collateralized debt
         obligations;

     (6) that the Funds were invested in assets that were being
         valued subjectively under "fair valuation" procedures;

     (7) that the Funds' Boards of Directors created a conflict
         of interest by not discharging their responsibilities
         with respect to "fair valuation" and passing said
         responsibilities to the Funds' investment advisor whose
         compensation was tied to the value of the Funds'
         assets;

     (8) that the Funds did not employ sufficient "value-
         investing" strategies, yet they were sold to the public
         as being committed to "value-oriented" investing;

     (9) that although the Funds were said to be independent and
         employ different investment strategies, they were
         managed in a nearly identical fashion and employed
         nearly identical strategies, resulting in increased
         risk;

    (10) that the Funds were heavily invested in risky, non-
         conforming mortgages that did not comply with FHLMC or
         FNMA standards;

    (11) that the Funds' pre-2006 results were attributable to
         their concentration in illiquid, subprime and untested
         investment structures; and

    (12) that adequate internal and financial controls did not
         exist.

Each of the Funds, pursuant to an individual yet substantially
similar Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC
were initially offered for $15 per share.  On December 6, 2004,
the share price for each of the Funds was as follows: RMA at
$15.82 per share, RSF at $16.60 per share and RMH at $18.20 per
share.  As a result of various statements and news stories
issued, the value of the Funds' shares consistently declined.  
By February 6, 2008, each of the Funds was trading far below the
closing price on December 6, 2004.  On February 6, 2008, RMA
declined to $4.10 per share for a cumulative loss of $11.72, or
over 74% of the price on December 6, 2004.  Similarly, RSF
declined to $3.90 per share for a cumulative loss of $12.70, or
over 76% of the price on December 6, 2004.  Finally, RMH
declined to $4.20 for a cumulative loss of $14, or almost 77% of
the price on December 6, 2004.  As a result of defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Funds' securities, the plaintiff and other
class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Firm Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court, Northern District
of California, against SiRF Technology Holdings Inc. and certain
officers of the company.

The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company during the period from October 30,
2007 through February 4, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.

SiRF, headquartered in San Jose, California, engages in the
development and marketing of semiconductor and software products
that are designed for location awareness utilizing global
positioning system and other location technologies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period
defendants issued material misrepresentations to the public
concerning the Company's business and prospects.

In particular, defendants concealed from the investing public
that:

     (1) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc.
         (Centrality) was having an adverse impact on the
         Company's results due to the similar products sold by
         Centrality which were cannibalizing SiRF's sales;

     (2) competitive pressures were having more of a negative
         impact on the Company than acknowledged by Defendants
         in that the Company's customers were moving to
         cellular-enabled products which SiRF could not
         adequately compete with, and

     (3) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would
         lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters.

On February 4, 2008, after the market closed, SiRF announced
disappointing financial results for 4th quarter and fiscal 2007.
The news caused shares of the Company to drop to $8.91 per
share, to close at $7.36 per share on February 8. This was a 54%
drop from the previous day's closing price of $16.27.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW


SWISS REINSURANCE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all U.S. residents or citizens
who purchased Swiss Reinsurance Company (SWX:RUKN) stock during
the period between May 8, 2007, and November 19, 2007.

The complaint charges Swiss Re and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Swiss Re is the world's largest reinsurer with 70 offices
in more than 25 countries.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial condition.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose that Swiss Re's Credit Solutions unit had written two
credit default swaps that exposed the Company to great financial
risk.  In a credit default swap, one party guarantees that a
third party borrower will not default on a debt.  In this case,
Swiss Re guaranteed certain mortgage-backed securities which
included some subprime and collateralized debt obligations.  
When the existence and nature of the credit default swaps was
disclosed, Swiss Re's stock price dropped from CHF97.55 to
CHF87.55 (Swiss Francs) the next day.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all U.S.
residents or citizens who purchased Swiss Re stock during the
Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,322 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded 90,322 unresolved asbestos-
related claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 111,887 claims at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19,
2008.

The Company recorded 103,902 unresolved claims at Sept. 30,
2007, of which 7,696 were newly filed claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 10,157 claims filed, 31,722
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, 28,937
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
61,385 individual claimants.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 16,386 claims filed, 50,824
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved, 38,529
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem, and
73,358 individual claimants.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Company's products.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or even
thousands of claimants.

As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as
to the Company, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even
when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific
disease or injury.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and
polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a
wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Cites $172M Defense, Resolution Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation, at Dec. 31, 2007, recorded US$172
million in defense and resolution costs for asbestos claims, in
which US$84 million was for defense and US$88 million was for
resolution.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded US$179 million in defense
and resolution costs for asbestos claims, in which US$62 million
was for defense and US$117 million was for resolution.

The aggregate defense costs to date as of Dec. 31, 2007 were
US$565 million. The aggregate resolution costs to date as of
Dec. 31, 2007 were US$1.270 billion.

The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the
rate of new claim filings has fluctuated both up and down since
the beginning of 2001.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was
US$84 million in 2007, US$45 million in 2006 and US$75 million
in 2005, and was reflected in "Cost of sales."

In November 2007, the Company requested the Analysis, Research &
Planning Corporation (ARPC) to review the Company's 2007
asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the
appropriateness of updating its December 2006 study. In response
to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through Oct.
31, 2007.

In December 2007, ARPC stated that an update of its study would
not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the
estimate reflected in its study of the previous year and,
therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based
on the Company's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity and ARPC's response, the Company determined that no
change to the accrual was required.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$1.1 billion.

At Dec. 31, 2007, about 31 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 69 percent related to future
claims. At Dec. 31, 2006, about 25 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and about 75 percent related
to future claims.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and
polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a
wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $467M Receivable at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$467 million at Dec. 31,
2007 and US$495 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related
to its asbestos liability, the Company had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers for
reimbursement.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had US$271 million as receivables
for defense and resolution costs, in which US$18 million was for
defense and US$253 million was for resolution.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had US$300 million as receivables
for defense and resolution costs, in which US$34 million was for
defense and US$266 million was for resolution.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights
to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.

This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise have
agreements in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly
resolution and collection of such insurance policies and to
resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of 2007, the
Company has reached settlements with several of the carriers
involved in this litigation.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and
polymers company. Since Feb. 6, 2001, the Company has been a
wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries face various
actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of exposure
to asbestos fibers in products or at Company facilities,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a
significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to
the Company's ownership.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro,
Coltec or its subsidiaries. Also, it is possible that a claim
might be asserted against the Company that Coltec's dividend of
its aerospace business to the Company prior to the spin-off was
made at a time when Coltec was insolvent or caused Coltec to
become insolvent.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

The agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to
effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and
products to the global defense and space markets. Products and
services are principally sold to customers in North America,
Europe and Asia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Trane Rise to 105,023 at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc., formerly known as American Standard Companies Inc.,
recorded 105,023 open asbestos-related claims pending against it
at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20,
2008.

American Standard faced 102,663 open asbestos-related claims in
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 102,223
claims in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 16, 2007)

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of
boilers and railroad brake shoes.

In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named
as one of a large group of defendants. Many of these lawsuits
involve multiple claimants, do not specifically identify the
injury or disease for which damages are sought and/or do not
allege a connection between any Company product and a claimed
injury or disease.

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

During 2007, 3,019 new claims were filed against the Company,
1,826 claims were dismissed, and 740 claims were settled.

The Company's total accrual for asbestos-related liabilities was
US$641.2 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$665.8
million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The decrease of US$24.6 million in 2007 was due primarily to
claims payments made by the Company during the year.

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and
residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air
cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced
building controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage Claim in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc., formerly known as American Standard Companies Inc.,
continues to be in litigation against certain insurance carriers
whose policies it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008.

The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the
Company's right to recovery.

The Company filed the action in April 1999 in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and
lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking coverage for
environmental claims (NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. On Sept. 19, 2005,
the court granted the Company's motion to add 16 additional
insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ Litigation.
The court also required the parties to submit all contested
matters to mediation.

The Company engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time. During the mediation, the parties
agreed to extensions of discovery deadlines and stays of
discovery except for discovery necessary to facilitate the
mediation process.

The continued stay of discovery was confirmed by agreement at
the most recent status conference with the court and the
mediator, which took place on Nov. 26, 2007.

The Company estimates and records a receivable for amounts
recoverable from its insurance carriers for asbestos claims that
have been settled and paid, the reimbursable portion of incurred
legal expenses, and the probable reimbursements relating to its
estimated liability for pending and future claims. The total
asbestos receivable was US$342.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and
US$385.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The receivable decreased in 2007 primarily as a result of cash
payments received from insurance companies of US$55.5 million,
partially offset by the recoverable portion of incurred legal
expenses of US$3.5 million and favorable settlements not yet
recovered of US$9.1 million.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation
would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94
percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of
the recorded receivable relates to policies for which the
Company has not sought resolution of coverage because such
policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations are
triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to be
reached in the near future.

At Dec. 31, 2007, 92 percent of the insurance recovery
receivable is with carriers rated A or better by AM Best.

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and
residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air
cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced
building controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Has $628.2M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$628.2 million
in its consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$652.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 20, 2008.

The Company was formerly known as American Standard Companies
Inc.

American Standard's long-term asbestos-related liability
amounted to US$637 million in its consolidated balance sheet as
of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos receivable was US$336.9 million
in its consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$336.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

American Standard's long-term asbestos receivable amounted to
US$336 million in its consolidated balance sheet as of Sept. 30,
2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. manufactures commercial and
residential heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
The Company offers customers HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air
cleaning products; service and parts support and advanced
building controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 66,072 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A.O. Smith Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of Dec. 31,
2007, are defendants in lawsuits involving claims by about
66,072 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 20, 2008.

The Company and its subsidiaries faced asbestos-related lawsuits
involving claims by about 72,310 plaintiffs. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 23, 2007)

The Company or its subsidiaries have been named as a co-
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's or
its subsidiaries' products or premises. The Company and its
subsidiaries have never manufactured asbestos.

The Company and its subsidiaries have made no payment in a
substantial majority of the cases closed to date.

The remainder of the resolved cases have settled for amounts
that are not material to the Company, and the costs of defense
and settlements have been supported in part by insurance.

Milwaukee-based A.O. Smith Corporation manufactures water
heating equipment and electric motors. The Company is comprised
of two reporting segments: Water Products and Electrical
Products. In 2007, the Company had net sales of about US$2.3
billion, with 61 percent attributable to its Water Products
business and 39 percent attributable to its Electrical Products
business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities Rise to $19.3M at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,341,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$18,694,000
as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
20, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled
US$18,694,000 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$4,303,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with US$4,244,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$19,149,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with
US$18,503,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$4,303,000 as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with
US$4,244,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance,
specialty-material-based products for various applications in
diverse markets including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.
The Company is based in Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records 5,084 Pending Cases at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Philips Electronics N.V. faced 5,084 pending asbestos
cases, representing 9,906 claimants, at Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with 4,370 cases, represented 9,020 claimants, at Dec. 31, 2006,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008.

Judicial proceedings have been brought in the United States,
relating primarily to the activities of a subsidiary prior to
1981, involving allegations of personal injury from alleged
asbestos exposure.

The claims generally relate to asbestos used in the manufacture
of unrelated companies' products in the United States and
frequently involve claims for substantial compensatory and
punitive damages.

The subsidiary's businesses which allegedly gave rise to these
alleged liabilities were completely sold in 1984 and the
subsidiary's ongoing operations are not material to its parent
or the Company.

During 2007, 1,656 cases, representing 2,413 claimants, were
served against the Company's subsidiaries (1,140 cases,
representing 2,930 claimants, were served in 2006 and 2,052
cases, representing 3,283 claimants, were served in 2005).

A number of other cases have been dismissed with no payment.
During 2007, 942 cases, representing 1,527 claimants, were
settled or dismissed (754 cases, representing 1,992 claimants,
were settled in 2006 and 977 cases, representing 1,229
claimants, were settled in 2005).

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics
N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD
players, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs,
electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture
tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Unit Accrues EUR315M for Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Philips Electronics N.V.'s subsidiary, at Dec. 31, 2007,
accrued EUR315.7 million (EUR378 million at Dec. 31, 2006) for
loss contingencies for asbestos product liability, which is
reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

The subsidiary is unnamed in the report, on Form 6-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 19, 2008.

The subsidiary was one of about 160 defendants initially named
in a case filed in August 1995 in Morris County, Tex. Since the
time the case was brought in 1995, the subsidiary had not been
involved in any substantive activity in the case other than
filing an answer to the complaint and had no information
concerning the types of alleged diseases or injuries involved.

Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2005 and continuing
thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel in this matter filed information
concerning the claimants and their alleged diseases with the
Court.

The claims have now been severed into five cases: two cases with
an aggregate of 282 malignant disease claims; two cases with an
aggregate of 223 nonmalignant disease claims with alleged
impairment; and one case with 3,177 claims that have no
impairment at this time.

The cases with the malignant disease claims and nonmalignant
disease claims with alleged impairment are currently pending in
Morris County. The case containing the claims that have no
impairment at this time has been transferred to Harris County,
Tex.

During 2007, the subsidiary incurred asbestos litigation and
claim administration costs totaling EUR15 million (EUR12 million
in 2006).

During 2007 and the last several years, agreements were reached
with certain insurance carriers resolving disputes with respect
to the interpretation and available limits of the policies,
amounts payable to the subsidiaries and terms under which future
settlements and related defense costs are reimbursable.

Pursuant to these settlements, insurers paid EUR27 million in
2007 (EUR34 million was paid in 2006) for asbestos-related
defense and indemnity costs.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the subsidiary's recorded receivable from
insurance carriers, for which settlement agreements have been
reached amounted to EUR62.7 million (EUR80 million at Dec. 31,
2006) for the reimbursement of incurred defense and indemnity
costs as well as for probable recoveries of accrued projected
settlement costs with respect to pending and future claims,
which is reflected in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

At Dec. 31, 2007, an additional EUR10.6 million, for which a
receivable has not been recorded, is payable to the subsidiary
on July 5, 2008, provided asbestos legislation in a certain form
is not passed by the U.S. Congress by that date. The subsidiary
has not recorded a receivable from non-settling insurance
carriers.

The subsidiary continues to pursue its litigation against non-
settling insurance carriers and to hold settlement discussions
with various insurance carriers in 2008.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips Electronics
N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD
players, and fax machines. The Company also makes light bulbs,
electric shavers and other personal care appliances, picture
tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Appeals Court Remands Nix's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded for
further adjudication an asbestos-related action filed by U.S.
veteran Robert D. Nix against James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.

The case is styled Robert D. Nix, Appellant, v. James B. Peake,
M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Kasold entered judgment of Case No. 06-1742 on Jan. 11,
2008.

Mr. Nix appealed a Feb. 17, 2006 decision of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals that denied service connection for
interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (asbestosis) due to asbestos
exposure.

Mr. Nix argued that the Board did not provide adequate reasons
or bases for its decision.

Mr. Peake disputed this and further contended that the Board's
decision is supported by a plausible basis in the record and
sought affirmance.

The Board's Feb. 17, 2006, decision was remanded for further
adjudication.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms New Trial in Whitlock
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California,
affirmed the San Francisco County Superior Court's ruling, which
granted a new trial to Paul and Marguerite Whitlock in an
asbestos case against Foster Wheeler, LLC.

The case is styled Paul Whitlock et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. Foster Wheeler, LLC et al., Defendants and
Appellants.

Judges Horner, McGuiness, and Siggins entered judgment of Case
No. A117221 on Feb. 15, 2008.

The Whitlocks filed their complaint on Feb. 3, 2006, naming
Foster Wheeler as defendant in their suit for damages arising
from Mr. Whitlock's exposure to asbestos. In the complaint, Mr.
Whitlock states he is dying from mesothelioma. Opening
statements in the trial against Foster Wheeler and two other
defendants were delivered on Nov. 7, 2006.

Mr. Whitlock joined the U.S. Navy when he was 17 years old and
after attending boot camp he reported for duty aboard the USS
Kitty Hawk on Jan. 6, 1965, when it was still undergoing an
overhaul at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton, Wash. He
served as a boiler technician in Boiler Room No. 4 of the Kitty
Hawk until discharged from the Navy in October 1967.

In December 2005, Mr. Whitlock was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The Whitlocks rested their case on Dec. 4, 2006, on day 15 of
the jury trial. Foster Wheeler, by then the sole remaining
defendant, also rested without presentation of further evidence.

Foster Wheeler then moved for nonsuit. The trial court denied
the motion for nonsuit.

The trial court instructed the jury on the morning Dec. 8, 2006,
and the jury retired to deliberations armed with a verdict form
containing nine questions. On Dec. 12, 2006, during the third
day of deliberations, the jury answered "No" to the first
question and thereby returned a verdict in favor of Foster
Wheeler.

Judgment on the special verdict was entered on Dec. 27, 2006.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the Whitlocks filed a notice of intention to
move for a new trial on grounds of juror misconduct.

A hearing was held on the Whitlocks' motion for a new trial on
March 7, 2007. On March 12, 2007, the trial court entered its
order granting plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the
Whitlocks' motion for a new trial on the basis of juror
misconduct.

Brydon, Hugo & Parker, Edward R. Hugo, James C. Parker, and John
R. Brydon, represented Foster Wheeler, LLC.

Levin, Simes, Kaiser & Gornick, William Andrew Levin, Laurel L.
Simes, and Sean P. Worsey, Law Offices of Daniel U. Smith,
Daniel U. Smith and Ted W. Pelletier, represented Paul and
Marguerite Whitlock.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Face Pending Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continue
to face asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 21, 2008.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries.

The Company said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.

The vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products
allegedly containing asbestos.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and related
aftermarkets. Of the Company's 2007 sales, about 57 percent were
in Europe, 30 percent were in North America, nine percent were
in Asia, and four percent were in the rest of the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Has Cases Involving AcandS, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., is involved in
three significant proceedings relating to ACandS, Inc., formerly
a national distributor and installer of products containing
asbestos.

The proceedings are pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware (In re: ACandS, Inc.) and the U.S. District
Court for the District of Pennsylvania (ACandS, Inc. v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., No. 03-MC-222 and ACandS,
Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 00-CV-4633).

These proceedings involve disputes as to whether and to what
extent any of ACandS' potential liabilities for current or
future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered by insurance
policies issued by TPC.

On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-
related coverage claims relating to ACandS, including the three
proceedings. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will
contribute US$449 million to a trust to be established under
ACandS' plan of reorganization.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the bankruptcy court overseeing ACandS'
bankruptcy approved the settlement and no appeals from that
approval were taken. As a result, the Company has placed US$449
million into escrow.

The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of
the US$449 million from reinsurers.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a
holding company principally engaged in providing commercial and
personal property and casualty insurance products and services
to businesses, government units, associations and individuals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.73B Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were
US$3.734 billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$4.051
billion at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 21, 2008.

The Company's net asbestos reserves amounted to US$3.785 billion
at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$4.179 billion at and for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in 2007 were US$317
million, compared with US$469 million in 2006. Gross paid losses
in 2007 were lower than in 2006 primarily due to installment
payments made during 2006 on settlements reached in prior years.
Additionally, net paid losses were lower due to increased
reinsurance billings in 2007.

About 20 percent in 2007 and 50 percent in 2006 of total net
paid losses related to policyholders with whom the Company
previously entered into settlement agreements limiting the
Company's liability.

The Company has 1,681 asbestos policyholders at Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with 1,789 policyholders at Dec. 31, 2006.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a
holding company principally engaged in providing commercial and
personal property and casualty insurance products and services
to businesses, government units, associations and individuals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Cases from La. Facility
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc.,
continues to face pending lawsuits related to employee exposure
to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La.,
with more suits expected, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 21, 2008.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers' compensation laws.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have
closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs
associated with future Friction Division claims, including
defense costs, will be well below the Company's insurance
limits.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at Company facilities.

The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases
that it currently believes are probable and estimable.

Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Company is a global specialty
materials company. In 2007, the Company reported sales of US$8.9
billion on a portfolio of global businesses including electronic
materials, specialty materials and salt. The Company has
operations in about 96 manufacturing and 35 research facilities
in 27 countries with about 15,710 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3.4M in Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$3.4 million in
current liabilities to address asbestos and environmental
matters as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$4.1 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has recorded US$2.6 million in current liabilities
to address A&E remediation as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007)

The Company recorded US$2.8 million in long-term liabilities to
address A&E matters as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$3.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has recorded US$3 million in long-term liabilities
to address asbestos and environmental remediation as of Sept.
30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007)

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of asbestos
containing materials, management of hazardous waste material
disposal, and outstanding air quality measures for certain of
the Company's liquids and natural gas assets.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns and operates
crude oil and liquid petroleum transportation and storage
assets, and natural gas gathering, treating, processing,
transportation and marketing assets in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Has $11.11M for Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation's long-term asbestos litigation reserve
was US$11,113,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10,232,000
at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22,
2008.

The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving
exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos
in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
Company subsidiaries. Nearly all of these cases are pending in
Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants.

During 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with
Travelers Indemnity Company resolving certain long-standing
issues regarding the Company's coverage for certain premises
asbestos claims. In addition, the Company's agreement with
Travelers provides a procedure for allocating defense and
indemnity costs with respect to certain future premises asbestos
claims.

The lawsuit the Company had previously filed against Travelers
in the Southern District of Texas was dismissed. The Company
also settled its outstanding receivable from Albemarle
Corporation for certain premises asbestos liability obligations.

The Company has provided an undiscounted liability related to
premises asbestos claims of US$13 million at year-end 2007 and
US$12 million at year-end 2006.

The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos
liabilities was US$9 million at both Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006.

Richmond, Va.-based NewMarket Corporation is a holding entity
for two operating subsidiaries: Afton Chemical and Ethyl. Afton
Chemical manufactures petroleum additives. Ethyl's main product
is the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead (TEL). Though TEL has
lost substantial ground in markets where unleaded gas is
preferred, the Company hopes marketing agreements with Innospec
will help it boost sales of the additive outside Europe and the
U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Cleared in 3,839 Cases in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has been dismissed from
3,839 of 3,866 asbestos claims in Mississippi, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has also been dismissed from
five of six claims in Illinois.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois
and one case in California.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims.
The Company has not made any provision in its financial
statements for the asbestos litigation.

Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. engineers, produces and
markets high-strength, high-technology forged and cast metal
components for load-bearing and fatigue-resisting applications
in the jet engine, aerospace and industrial markets. About 80
percent of the Company's 2007 billings were derived from the
sale of jet engine parts, missile components, landing gear,
helicopter rotors and other aerospace products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $16.72M Net for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves for asbestos exposures was US$16,717,000 for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$21,381,000 for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for asbestos exposures
was US$23,194,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$37,171,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability principally stems
from marine liability insurance written on an occurrence basis
during the mid-1980s.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at Dec. 31, 2007 are for:

(a) One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
    exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved
    in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products
    being paid over several years (two other large settled
    claims were fully paid in 2007);

(b) Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
    distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
    incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
    products that contained asbestos; and

(c) Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
    over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the ceded asbestos paid and unpaid
recoverables were US$10.5 million compared to US$23.5 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

During 2007, the Company increased its provision for
uncollectible reinsurance for asbestos losses by US$1.6 million
which was recorded in incurred losses.

Included in reinsurance recoverable for paid and unpaid losses
is about US$10.5 million due from reinsurers in connection with
the Company's asbestos exposures of which US$6.2 million is due
from Equitas, a separate United Kingdom-authorized reinsurance
company established to reinsure outstanding liabilities of all
Lloyd's members for all risks written in the 1992 or prior years
of account.

The remaining reinsurance recoverable amounts for asbestos
losses are due from various domestic and international
reinsurers with no one balance greater than US$600,000 due from
a single reinsurer.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance holding company focusing on specialty
products for niches within the overall property/casualty
insurance market. The Company's underwriting segments consist of
insurance company operations and operations at Lloyd's of
London.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Case Agreement Entered Last Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc. and Equitas, on Nov. 30, 2007,
entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release
with respect to the Equitas Arbitration, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 21, 2008.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the Company filed a demand for arbitration
against Equitas, a lead reinsurer participating in excess of
loss reinsurance agreements, with respect to unsatisfied loss
payment recovery demands that the Company has previously
presented to Equitas (Equitas Arbitration).

The recovery demands are for the 2005 settlement of two class
action lawsuits involving large asbestos claims (together, the
"2005 Settled Claims"), which 2005 Settled Claims are being paid
through 2007.

Equitas has not indicated any dispute with respect to recoveries
on related pro rata reinsurance agreements for such 2005 Settled
Claims or with respect to excess of loss or pro rata reinsurance
for a 2004 Settled Claim.

The aggregate amount of excess of loss recoveries due from
Equitas for ceded paid and unpaid losses on the 2005 Settled
Claims is about US$2.7 million.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance holding company focusing on specialty
products for niches within the overall property/casualty
insurance market. The Company's underwriting segments consist of
insurance company operations and operations at Lloyd's of
London.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face "Premises" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation is still named as a "premises defendant" in
a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making
claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged
injuries occurred, or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where the alleged exposure occurred prior to the Company's
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 1,192
unresolved cases for which service has bee received that it has
tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. In
the same period, the Company noted 21 cases tendered and 196
cases resolved.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 1,367
unresolved cases for which service has bee received that it has
tendered to the prior owner, all of which have been accepted. In
the same period, the Company noted 998 cases tendered and 207
cases resolved.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had an accrued liability of
US$16.4 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16.4 million relating to its indemnity
protection with respect to these cases.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 39 unresolved
cases that are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or
operators. In the same period, the Company noted 52 cases filed
and 55 cases resolved.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 42 unresolved
cases that are not subject to indemnification by prior owners or
operators. In the same period, the Company noted 19 cases filed
and 11 cases resolved.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$3.2 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The cases for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005 include cases filed
against Rubicon LLC, which became the Company's consolidated
subsidiary on Jan. 1, 2005, as follows: one case filed during
the period, one case resolved during the period and six cases
unresolved at the end of the period.

The Company has made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corporation, a global chemical
manufacturer, supplies products through four segments. Its
products include MDI, amines, surfactants, and epoxy-based
polymers, as well as polyurethanes. The Company's chemicals are
sold in more than 100 countries to customers in the adhesives,
construction products, electronics, medical, and packaging
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has $29M Receivables at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company's collection of asbestos- and silica-related
insurance receivables was US$29 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$167 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

In the first nine months of 2007, the Company received US$24
million in cash payments for asbestos-related claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of subsidiaries DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown
& Root LLC, and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that
had previously been named as defendants in a large number of
asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

The Company has concluded that the likelihood of any claims
triggering the indemnity obligations is remote, and it believes
any potential liability for these indemnifications will be
immaterial.

Further, an estimate of possible loss or range of loss related
to this matter cannot be made. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had
not recorded any liability associated with these
indemnifications.

Houston-based Halliburton Company offers services and products
to customers through its two business segments for the
exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. The
Company serves major, national, and independent oil and gas
companies throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records 10,998 Open Claims at Dec. 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation recorded 10,998 open asbestos claims filed
against it in fiscal year 2007, compared with 11,116 claims in
fiscal year 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22,
2008.

In fiscal year 2007, the Company noted 930 new claims filed, 553
claims settled, and 505 claims dismissed. In fiscal year 2006,
the Company noted 1,504 new claims filed, 767 claims settled,
and 260 claims dismissed.

About 6,000 of the open claims at December 2007 were asbestos
claims against the Company's previously owned international
container shipping business. Because these claims were against
multiple vessel owners, the Company's reserves reflect its
portion of those claims.

The Company had about US$9 million reserved for these shipping
business claims at December 2007 and December 2006. The
remaining open claims were asserted against its subsidiary CSX
Transportation, Inc.

The Company is party to a number of occupational claims by
employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. The
heaviest possible exposure for employees was due to work
conducted in and around steam locomotive engines that were
largely phased out beginning around the 1950s.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
until it was substantially eliminated by 1985.

Additionally, the Company has retained liability for asbestos
claims filed against the previously owned international
container shipping business.

A one percent increase or decrease in either the forecasted
number of IBNR claims or the average claim values would result
in about US$1 million increase or decrease in the liability
recorded for unasserted asbestos claims.

Reserves for asbestos related claims were US$129 million at
December 2007 and US$121 million at December 2006.

At Dec. 28, 2007, the Company's undiscounted liabilities for
INBR claims were US$54 million, its undiscounted liabilities for
asserted claims were US$75 million, and its current liability
was US$15 million.

At Dec. 29, 2006, the Company's undiscounted liabilities for
IBNR claims were US$52 million, its undiscounted liabilities for
asserted claims were US$69 million, and its current liability
was US$30 million.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation operates as a
transportation company. Surface Transportation, which includes
the Company's rail and intermodal businesses, provides rail-
based transportation services including traditional rail service
and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,450 Abex Claims at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, recorded 29,450 of
Pneumo Abex Corporation's asbestos claims that are the
responsibility of Federal-Mogul Corporation, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2007, a total of 143,543
Abex Claims were filed, of which 114,084 claims have been
resolved.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, 2,005 claims were filed and
3,855 claims were resolved.

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul. These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex product line obtained from Pneumo in 1994)
were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of
those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase
and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement).

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any
potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and indicated that
Federal-Mogul may not honor the indemnification obligations to
the Company.

To the extent the Company is obligated to Pneumo for any
asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line (Abex
Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to
significant insurance for such claims.

Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved
Abex Claims was US$2,159 before insurance. A total of US$129.5
million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998
through Dec. 31, 2007.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims.

However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage
(about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of
coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.
Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of
the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawsuits have been filed in New York State and federal
courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Utilities and many
other defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22,
2008.

The Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The plaintiffs in those suits sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.

The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits
total billions of dollars. However, the Utilities believe that
these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition
of previous claims.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10
million.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers' compensation claims.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation was US$41 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$117 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation was US$42 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation was US$41 million.

At Dec. 31, 2006, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$112 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation was US$42 million.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City. It also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $23M Costs for N.Y. Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, incurred US$23
million as estimated operating costs for property damage, clean
up and other response costs over the Manhattan Steam Main
rupture incident.

In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc., steam
main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported
that one person died and others were injured as a result of the
incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

Over 30 plaintiffs have sued the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said
it believes that the policies currently in force will cover most
of the Company's costs, which the Company is unable to estimate,
but which could be substantial, to satisfy its liability to
others in connection with the incident.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded US$10 million in
actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$17
million in capital, retirement and other costs.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company, with respect to the July 2007
pipe explosion, incurred estimated of US$19 million for property
damage, cleanup and other response costs. The Company also
invested US$11 million in capital, retirement and other costs.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City. It also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Faces Unresolved Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. is involved in unresolved legal actions,
including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of
business, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008.

The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.

Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. makes earthmoving machinery
and supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power-
generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells
its equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard has 8T Suits from Vapor Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial
Corp., faces more than 8,000 lawsuits involving claims of
asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor
Corporation, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2008.

Vapor is a former subsidiary that the Company divested in 1990.
Virtually all of the asbestos suits involve numerous other
defendants.

The claims generally allege that the Company sold products that
contained components like gaskets, which included asbestos, and
seek monetary damages.

Neither the Company nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured
asbestos. Several thousand claims have been dismissed with no
payment and no claim has gone to jury verdict.

In a few cases, claims have been filed against other Company
entities, with a majority of these suits being either dismissed
or settled for nominal amounts.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Brunswick Corporation manufactures and
markets recreation products including boats, marine engines,
fitness equipment and bowling and billiards equipment. The
Company also owns and operates Brunswick bowling centers in the
United States and other countries, and retail billiards stores
in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling to Favor Pharmacia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the Iowa District Court
for Marshall County's ruling, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Pharmacia Corporation, in a declaratory judgment action
involving asbestos matters filed by Fisher Controls
International, L.L.C.

The case is styled Fisher Controls International, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant-
Appellee.

Judges Huitink, Zimmer, and Miller entered judgment of Case No.
07-0003 on Feb. 13, 2008.

Fisher Governor Company was incorporated in Iowa in the late
1800s or early 1900s. The company designed and manufactured
industrial control valves at its principal place of business in
Marshalltown, Iowa.

On April 3, 1969, Fisher Governor entered into a "Plan and
Agreement of Merger" with Monsanto Company. Fisher Controls
Company, Inc. was incorporated by Monsanto on March 21, 1969.

Fisher Governor merged with Monsanto on Aug. 12, 1969.
Simultaneously with the merger, Monsanto executed a "General
Instrument of Transfer" with the newly formed Fisher Controls
Company, Inc., now known as Fisher Controls International,
L.L.C.

Following the Aug. 12, 1969 merger, Fisher Controls became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

In 1992, Monsanto sold Fisher Controls to Emerson Electric
Company. After the sale, multiple lawsuits were filed against
Fisher Controls seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained
from exposure to asbestos fibers contained in products
manufactured by Fisher Governor before its Aug. 12, 1969 merger
with Monsanto.

In July 2003, Fisher Controls filed a declaratory judgment
action against Monsanto, now known as Pharmacia, requesting a
determination that Pharmacia is liable for those lawsuits.

Fisher Controls filed a motion for partial summary judgment,
asserting "under the unambiguous terms of the Aug. 12, 1969"
transfer agreement and the earlier merger agreement "Monsanto
Company retained responsibility for any future liabilities of
the former Fisher Governor Company."

Fisher Controls argued the phrase "at Aug. 12, 1969" in the
transfer agreement means Monsanto "transferred only liabilities
of the former Fisher Governor existing on Aug. 12, 1969."
Pharmacia resisted the motion and filed a "cross motion for
summary judgment," asserting Monsanto transferred all
liabilities of Fisher Governor.

Pharmacia argued the phrase "at Aug. 12, 1969" in the transfer
agreement "does not limit what was transferred, it simply marks
when the transfer occurred."

The district court entered a ruling on Dec. 5, 2006, granting
Pharmacia's motion for summary judgment and denying the partial
summary judgment motion filed by Fisher Controls.

Fisher Controls appealed.

The Appeals Court concluded the district court did not err in
determining that Monsanto transferred all of Fisher Governor's
liabilities, not just those existing on Aug. 12, 1969, to Fisher
Controls under the unambiguous language of the transfer
agreement between Monsanto and Fisher Controls and in light of
all the circumstances surrounding the formation of that
agreement.

The judgment of the district court denying Fisher Controls'
motion for partial summary judgment and granting the summary
judgment motion filed by Pharmacia was accordingly affirmed.

O. Thomas Armstrong of von Briesen & Roper, S.C., Milwaukee, and
James A. Brewer and Angelina M. Thomas of Newbrough, Johnston,
Brewer, Maddux & Howell, L.L.P., Ames, represented Fisher
Controls International, L.L.C.

Mark McCormick of Belin, Lamson, McCormick, Zumbach, Flynn,
P.C., Des Moines, Iowa, and Stephanie Scharf of Shoeman, Updike,
Kaufman & Scharf, Chicago, represented Pharmacia Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M for Abatement at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s accrual for asbestos
abatement, on the Company's redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal
Harbour Beach Resort, was US$1 million during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded
US$1 million as accrual for asbestos abatement on its Bal
Harbour redevelopment. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded net
restructuring and other special charges of about US$53 million
primarily related to the Bal Harbour redevelopment.

The Company demolished the hotel in late 2007 and plans to
rebuild a St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and
fractional units.

Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007, and the
majority of employees were terminated.

White Plains, N.Y.-based Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc. is one of the world's largest hotel and leisure companies.
The Company conducts its hotel and leisure business both
directly and through its subsidiaries. At Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company's hotel portfolio included owned, leased, managed and
franchised hotels totaling 897 hotels with about 275,000 rooms
in about 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City Faces Claims from Old Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tube City IMS Corporation has been named as a defendant in
certain asbestos-related claims relating to lines of businesses
that it discontinued over 20 years ago.

The Company said it believes that it is sufficiently protected
by insurance with respect to these asbestos-related claims
related to these former lines of business.

The Company's former landfill and waste management business,
together with two non-operating subsidiaries of IU International
Corporation, were spun off to the Company's stockholders in
October 2002.

The two former subsidiaries of IU were subject to asbestos-
related personal injury claims.

The Company said it believes that it has no obligations for
asbestos-related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries.

Glassport, Pa.-based Tube City IMS Corporation provides
outsourced services to steel mills in North America. With over
80 years of experience, the Company has operations and services
at 69 sites in North America and Europe and has a presence in
China.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 28,362 Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 28,362 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of
2,697 claims from those previously reported.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 26,875 of
those claims were dismissed, 10 were tried to defense verdicts,
four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by
agreement for an immaterial amount, and 513 were decided in
favor of the Company following summary judgment motions.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company was was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about
31,059 plaintiffs, which was a net decrease of 361 claims from
those previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

Cleveland-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a
manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products.
Welding products include arc welding power sources, wire feeding
systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment,
consumable electrodes and fluxes. In addition, the Company has a
global position in the brazing and soldering alloys market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29T Claims Pending Against FMC at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 29,000 premises and product asbestos claims were pending
against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded about 32,000 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against it in several
jurisdictions. (Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation. These cases (most
cases involve between 25 and 200 defendants) allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in Company
premises or to asbestos-containing components installed in
machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued
operations.

The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or
operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component
parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these
components.

Further, the asbestos-containing materials were housed inside of
machinery and equipment and accessible at the time of infrequent
repair and maintenance. The bulk of the claims against the
Company to date have been dismissed without payment.

To date, the Company has discharged about 75,000 asbestos claims
against it, the overwhelming majority of which have been
dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff.

Settlements by the Company with claimants to date have totaled
about US$17.7 million.

Philadelphia-based FMC Corporation is a diversified, global
chemical company. The Company operates in three business
segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and
Industrial Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Sues 52 Companies in Texas Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit, on pipefitter Robert T. Booker's behalf,
was filed, on Feb. 25, 2008, in Jefferson County District Court,
Tex., against A.O. Smith Corporation and 51 other companies, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins filed the suit, failing
to clarify if his client is suffering form an asbestos-induced
illness or dead.

In the suit, Mr. Blevins alleges that 52 companies knowingly and
maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-containing
products throughout Jefferson County.

Mr. Booker worked as a pipefitter for various area refineries,
which caused him to suffer from…industrial dust diseases caused
by breathing the asbestos-containing products, the suit said.

The suit alleges the defendants in the lawsuit were negligent
for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products
before flooding the market with dangerous goods and for failing
to warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include Pfizer Inc.,
Union Carbide Corporation, and iron supplier Zurn Industries,
Inc.

In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corporation) and American Optical Corp.
for producing defective masks that failed to provide respiratory
protection.

Mr. Booker sues for exemplary damages, plus physical pain and
suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and
future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in
the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future,
and past and future medical expenses.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned
to Case No. E181-310.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: V.I. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Justice Department, on Feb. 26, 2008, announced that
Cleve Allen George, the owner of the Virgin Islands Asbestos
Removal, Co. was sentenced to 33 months in prison for multiple
violations of the Clean Air Act, according to a DOJ press
release dated Feb. 26, 2008.

The DOJ stated that Mr. George was also sentenced for false
statements related to the demolition of a low-income housing
neighborhood in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Mr. George and co-defendant Dylan C. Starnes, of Atlanta, were
both convicted after a two-week trial on June 30, 2005, on 15
counts involving the illegal removal of asbestos-containing
material at the Donoe Housing Community (DHC) Project in 2001
and making materially false statements to federal agencies
concerning air monitoring at the project.

Mr. George was also sentenced on Feb. 26, 2008, to three years
of supervised release and required to pay for baseline X-rays
for exposed workers.

Mr. Starnes, the former president of Environmental Contracting
Company (ECC) and a licensed and certified asbestos
contractor/supervisor, was sentenced on July 27, 2007 to 33
months in prison and three years of supervised release.

Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Department's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, said,
"Both George and Starnes were knowledgeable of how to safely
remove asbestos and chose ignore those safe methods in lieu of a
bigger profit. These sentences should serve as a warning to
those in the industry that profiting at the expense of the
community will not pay off and disregarding these safe removal
methods will have serious consequences."

William Lometti, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation
Division's New York Area Office, said, "Exposure to asbestos can
cause serious or even fatal respiratory diseases. The
defendant's criminal acts put the public at risk. Today's
sentence shows that we take this seriously, and will prosecute
others who violate environmental laws."

The DHC, a low-income public residential community located on
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, was owned by the Virgin Islands
Housing Authority (VIHA). Mr. George and Mr. Starnes were hired
as contractors by the VIHA to remove asbestos in an old building
scheduled for demolition.

The evidence at trial established that the defendants, who filed
a work plan indicating that they would follow all applicable
regulations regarding asbestos removal, did not follow the
asbestos work practice regulations, in violation of federal law.

The defendants were convicted of using a power washer to strip
thousands of square feet of asbestos-containing material from
ceilings. The asbestos material then washed out over the ground
and into sewers.

This case was investigated by EPA Criminal Investigation
Division agents and OSHA agents.

The case is being prosecuted by the Justice Department's Stacey
Mitchell, Chief of the Environmental Crimes Section, Joseph
Poux, Trial Attorney with the Environmental Crimes Section, and
Major Coleman, Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of the Virgin Islands.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Carlson of Minnesota, on Feb. 20, 2007, filed an asbestos
suit against 65 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Carlson alleges he was exposed to asbestos from 1953 through
1999 while working as a laborer, engineer, fireman, oiler and
coal passer at various locations including the state of
Illinois.

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

According to the complaint, Mr. Carlson was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Aug. 2, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Carlson seeks at least US$400,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Nicholas Angelides and Taylor Kerns of SimmonsCooper in East
Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Carlson.

Case No. 08 L 129 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eyre Widow Seeks Workmates' Help in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Eyre, the widow of former pipefitter Michael Eyre, who died
from lung cancer following years of suspected exposure to
asbestos, appeals to his former colleagues to help in her fight
for compensation, The Star reports.

Mr. Eyre, from Kiveton Park, U.K., died of lung cancer in
October 2006 at the age of 63. He was diagnosed with cancer just
six months earlier and his family believes he contracted the
disease after regularly being exposed to asbestos at work in the
1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Eyre, joined Sheffield-based Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd. as a
pipe fitter's mate when he was 20 years old in 1964. He
progressed to become a pipe fitter for the Company, on
Collegiate Crescent, Broomhall, and stayed with them for 18
years before leaving in 1982.

During his career with Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd., now called
Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil, Mr. Eyre worked at several school
sites including comprehensives in Hoyland in Barnsley, Swinton
in Rotherham and Bircotes near Doncaster. He is believed to have
been regularly exposed to asbestos which was used as lagging on
the pipes and boilers he maintained.

Mr. Eyre began legal action against his former employers
following his diagnosis but, since his death, Mrs. Eyre has had
to continue the case alone.

Mrs. Eyre is now trying to trace former colleagues who may be
able to share with her information about the conditions in which
they and her husband worked.

Solicitor Simone Hardy, from firm Irwin Mitchell, represents
Mrs. Eyre.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Whisnat v. DuPont Suit Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial on Willis Whisnat Jr.'s asbestos case against E. I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company has been ongoing since Feb. 21, 2008
in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

When speaking about DuPont's asbestos policies during the 1960s,
Mr. Whisnat's attorney Glen Morgan said in his opening remarks
that the chemical company's "conduct was so bad that its right
to exist should be taken away."

Mr. Morgan, a partner in the Reaud, Morgan & Quinn law firm,
represents the family of Mr. Whisnat, who died of mesothelioma.

Mr. Whisnat, a pipefitter who smoked throughout his adult life,
worked at DuPont's Sabine Works facility back in 1966 as an
independent contractor, where he was allegedly exposed to enough
asbestos fibers to contract the fatal disease.

After his death, Mr. Whisnat's family joined an ongoing class-
action suit against DuPont and several other oil and chemical
companies, which was first filed in the Jefferson County
District Court on June 4, 1998.

The class members claim DuPont negligently and maliciously
exposed workers to asbestos when the company knew asbestos dust
ad fibers created health hazards.

Mr. Whisnat's case was severed. The five other defendants named
in his suit settled.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, is presiding over
the trial in Case No. E159-183-Q.

The plaintiffs maintain that DuPont knew about the dangers of
asbestos as early as 1940, but chose to conceal their findings
and focus on a defense to protect the company from lawsuits
rather than implement policies that would save the lives of its
workers.

DuPont's attorneys argue that its 1940s studies focused on
people who were "heavily" exposed to asbestos on a daily basis,
like miners for example, not chemical plant workers.

DuPont also argues that the chemical company was a consumer not
a producer of asbestos-containing products, placing product
liability on the seller - and took steps to protect its
employees from asbestos before OSHA implemented asbestos
guidelines in 1972.

In addition, DuPont contends Mr. Whisnat was an independent
contractor, not a DuPont employee, and therefore Mr. Whisnat's
employer, B.F. Shaw, was directly responsible for his safety.
And even though he was not a DuPont employee, the company still
protected Mr. Whisnat from asbestos by requiring pipe workers to
wear respirators.

DuPont protected its other workers by barricading asbestos-laced
pipe worksites.

However, the plaintiffs argue that asbestos fibers can drift
beyond the barricade, which only consisted of yellow caution
tape.

DuPont is represented locally by the Mehaffy Weber law firm.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Worker's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire, U.K., coroner Peter Bedford, on Feb. 21, 2007, ruled
that the death of 68-year-old builder Grainger Edney was linked
to asbestos, Maidenhead Advertiser reports.

Mr. Edney died of cancer on Oct. 18, 2007 after years spent
working in the construction business.

During his inquest at Windsor Guildhall, Mr. Bedford said that
asbestos was a "'hidden danger" and that Mr. Edney's death was
"very, very awful for everyone."

Mr. Bedford added there would be many people walking around
today oblivious to the fact they are suffering from the effects
of the building material.

Mr. Edney was diagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2007, and a
post-mortem found evidence of a tumor on his left lung.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Faces 114T Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about
114,000 open claims, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
21, 2008.

For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that it should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products manufactured and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation.

The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent
shareholders of PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has
defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh.

As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions
and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against
the Company (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the
filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been
enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed
plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with
the settlement arrangement among the Company and several other
parties.

On May 14, 2002, the Company announced that it had agreed with
several other parties, including certain of its insurance
carriers, the official committee representing asbestos claimants
in the PC bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future
asbestos claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms
of a settlement arrangement relating to asbestos claims against
the Company and PC (PPG Settlement Arrangement).

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had
separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives
of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos
claims that might arise from PC products or operations (Corning
Settlement Arrangement).

The terms of the PPG Settlement Arrangement and the Corning
Settlement Arrangement have been incorporated into a bankruptcy
reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement
describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on
April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement
were filed on Aug. 18, 2003 and Nov. 20, 2003.

On Nov. 26, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
approving such disclosure statement and directing that it be
sent to creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting.

The Bankruptcy Court established March 2, 2004 as the deadline
for receipt of votes. On March 16, 2004, notice was received
that the plan of reorganization received the required votes to
approve the plan with a channeling injunction.

From May 3-7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a
hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including
whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and
future claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in
substantially the same manner, and whether the protection
provided to the Company and its participating insurers would be
fair in view of the assets they would convey to the asbestos
settlement trust (Trust) to be established as part of the plan.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items
on Nov. 17-18, 2004. After further conferences and supplemental
briefings, the Court held final oral arguments on July 21, 2006
during an omnibus hearing.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling denying
confirmation of the second amended PC plan of reorganization.
Several parties in interest, including PPG, filed motions for
reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the Dec. 21, 2006
ruling. Final written submissions were filed on Jan. 26, 2007.
Oral argument on the motions was held on March 5, 2007.

Upon reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court may adhere to its
Dec. 21, 2006 decision, may alter that decision and confirm the
plan or may amend the decision in a manner that may provide
further guidance on how the plan could be modified and become
confirmable in the Bankruptcy Court's view.

During a Jan. 10, 2008 hearing before the Bankruptcy Court,
certain parties in interest, including the Company, reported
progress toward a third amended plan of reorganization. During a
hearing on Feb. 15, 2008, the parties reported continued
progress toward a third amended plan, and the Bankruptcy Court
ordered that a further update be provided at an omnibus hearing
later in the first quarter of 2008.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. is a global supplier of
paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty
materials, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 150
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries. Sales in 2007 were US$11.2 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Foster Wheeler to Danos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, affirmed the
ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which
granted summary judgment to Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., in an
asbestos-related action filed by Faye Thibodeaux Danos, Julie
Danos Landry, Jill Danos Trosclair, and Jana Danos Anzelmo.

The case is styled Golzie Danos and Thibodeaux Danos v. Avondale
Industries, Inc. (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc.) and its
Executive Officers, et al.

Judges David S. Gorbaty, Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr. and Roland L.
Belsome entered judgment of Case No. 2007-CA-1094 on Feb. 13,
2008. Judge Belsome dissented.

This suit was initially filed on behalf of Golzie Danos and his
wife, Faye Thibodeaux, for damages incurred by Mr. Danos in
connection with his employment by Northrup Grumman Ship Systems,
Inc ., f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc., f/k/a Avondale
Shipyards, Inc. (Avondale) from about 1964 to 1977.

Following Mr. Danos' death, his widow and adult children filed
survival and wrongful death actions. The actions alleged that
Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos-containing products developed
and manufactured by Foster Wheeler, which exposure caused him
to contract mesothelioma and to ultimately die from the disease.

Foster Wheeler filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that
it was never a manufacturer of asbestos products. Rather, it is
an engineering company that designs power generation equipment
such as boilers.

The trial court granted summary judgment finding that there was
insufficient evidence to overcome plaintiffs' burden of proof at
trial that Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos from any products
manufactured by Foster Wheeler. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling.

Mr. Danos was employed by Avondale from about 1964 to 1977 as an
electrician's helper, electrician, terminator and foreman.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court found that plaintiffs' have
failed to produce factual support for their claim that Foster
Wheeler caused or contributed to Mr. Danos' disease or death
sufficient to satisfy their evidentiary burden of proof at
trial.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Gerolyn P. Roussel, Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Jonathan B. Clement,  
Lauren R. Clement, Roussel & Clement, LaPlace, La., represented
Faye Thibodeaux Danos, Julie Danos Landry, Jill Danos Trosclair,
Jana Danos Anzelmo.

Lynn M. Luker, Lynn Luker & Associates, LLC, New Orleans,
represented Foster Wheeler LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Eagle, OneBeacon in Thibodeaux
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, upheld the ruling
of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted
summary judgment to Eagle Asbestos & Packing Company and
OneBeacon Insurance Company, in an asbestos-related action filed
by Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken Thibodeaux.

The case is styled Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken Thibodeaux v.
Asbestos Corporation Limited, et al.

Judges Joan Bernard Armstrong, Charles R. Jones, and Edwin A.
Lombard entered judgment of Case No. 2007-CA-0617 on Feb. 20,
2008.

Mrs. Thibodeaux has died. She and her husband, Mr. Thibodeaux,
alleged that the cause of her illness and subsequent death
occurred as a result of contracting mesothelioma.

The Thibodeauxs filed suit on Dec. 11, 2002, alleging personal
injuries as a result of their exposure to asbestos.

The petition named 14 defendants, and after a number of
supplemental petitions, 18 parties were named as defendants. The
defendants were comprised of Mrs. Thibodeaux's employers,
premises owners, and various manufacturers, producers, and
suppliers of asbestos-containing products as well as the
insurers of some of these parties.

The Appeals Court noted that the Thibodeauxs are domiciled in
East Baton Rouge Parish. In their petition for damages, the
Thibodeauxs alleged that jurisdiction is proper in Orleans
Parish because Mrs. Thibodeaux's exposure to asbestos containing
products occurred in Orleans Parish.

In their petition for damages, the Thibodeauxs alleged that Mrs.
Thibodeaux contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos-containing products through both her husband's and
father's clothing.

Two of the named defendants involved in this appeal are Eagle
and its insurer OneBeacon.

On March 10, 2005, Eagle and OneBeacon filed a motion for
summary judgment requesting that the district court dismiss it
from the case. On April 21, 2005, the Thibodeauxs filed an
opposition to Eagle and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment.

The hearing for the motion for summary judgment was held on
April 29, 2005. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district
court ordered the plaintiffs to supplement their opposition with
evidence that Mrs. Thibodeaux was exposed to asbestos-containing
materials manufactured, supplied, or installed by Eagle, within
five days.

In response, the Thibodeauxs hand-delivered correspondence to
the district court, dated May 4, 2005, in which they indicated
that no additional submission of evidence would be filed since
all of the evidence necessary to defeat the motion for summary
judgment had already been provided to the court.

Subsequently, the district court granted Eagle's and OneBeacon's
motion for summary judgment on May 16, 2005.

In its reasons for judgment, the district court indicated that
it granted Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment
on the ground that the "plaintiff failed to offer evidence
demonstrating that Marie Thibodeaux was exposed to asbestos
containing materials manufactured, supplied, or installed by
Eagle, Inc."

This timely appeal followed.

In their sole assignment of error, the Thibodeauxs alleged that
the district court erred in granting Eagle's and OneBeacon's
motion for summary judgment. They requested that the Appeals
Court reverse the district court judgment and remand the case to
the district court for a trial on the merits.

The Appeals Court concluded that the district court did not err
in granting Eagle's and OneBeacon's motion for summary judgment.

Mickey P. Landry, Frank J. Swarr, David R. Cannella, Landry &
Swarr, L.L.C., New Orleans, and John F. Dillon, John F. Dillon,
PLC, Folsom, La., represented Marie Z. Thibodeaux and Ken
Thibodeaux.

Samuel M. Rosamond III, Adam D. deMahy, Crawford Lewis PLLC, New
Orleans, represented OneBeacon Insurance Company.

Susan B. Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, L.L.P., New
Orleans, represented Eagle, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has $1.322B Claim Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation carried US$1.322 billion of claim and
claim adjustment reserves for reported and unreported asbestos
claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.452 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26,
2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company carried about US$1.337 billion
of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007)

The Company's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have
exposure to asbestos-related claims. Estimation of asbestos-
related claim and claim adjustment expense reserves involves
limitations like inconsistency of court decisions, specific
policy provisions, allocation of liability among insurers and
insureds, and additional factors such as missing policies and
proof of coverage.

The Company recorded US$6 million of unfavorable asbestos-
related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$10 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company recorded no asbestos-related net claim and claim
adjustment expense reserve development for the year ended Dec.
31, 2006.

The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$136 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
US$102 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, and US$142
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the Company paid US$31 million to the Owens
Corning Fibreboard Trust. Such payment was made under the
Company's 1993 settlement with Fibreboard.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurer Parties to Appeal A.P. Green Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation states that insurer parties to an A.P.
Green Industries litigation have indicated their intent to
appeal a Dec. 18, 2007 ruling that granted A.P. Green's plan of
reorganization.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow – Liptak
Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization.

The settlement resolves the Company's liabilities for all
pending and future asbestos and silica claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, Bigelow – Liptak Corporation and related
subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products" exposures.

The settlement received initial bankruptcy court approval on
Aug. 18, 2003. The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an
injunction to protect the Company from any future claims.

The bankruptcy court issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007
recommending confirmation of that plan. The district court
affirmed that ruling on Dec. 18, 2007.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Pursues Action v. Keasbey in N.Y. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation is engaged in insurance coverage
litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with a
defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey
Company.

The case is style Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey. However, under New York court rules,
asbestos claims are not cognizable unless they meet certain
minimum medical impairment standards.

Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion
of claims have met medical impairment criteria under New York
court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey's
involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested
issue.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1972-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.

On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the trial held
that all of the Company's primary policy products aggregates
were exhausted and that past products liability claims could not
be recharacterized as operations claims. The Court also found
that while operations claims would not be subject to products
aggregates, those claims could be made only against the policies
in effect when the claimants were exposed to asbestos from
Keasbey operations.

These holdings limit the Company's exposure to those instances
where Keasbey used asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987.
Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the
early 1970s.

The Company noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to
challenge certain aspects of the Court's ruling. Other insurer
parties to the litigation also filed separate notices of appeal
to the Court's ruling.

The appeal was fully briefed and was argued on Dec. 6, 2007.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation still is involved in insurance
coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims
against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.

These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed
in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects. At the time of its
bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it
faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in
which Burns & Roe was involved.

The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.

On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with
Burns & Roe, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
appointed by the Bankruptcy Court and the Future Claims
Representative (Addendum), which provides that claims allegedly
covered by CNA policies will be adjudicated in the tort system,
with any coverage disputes related to those claims to be decided
in coverage litigation.

On Sept. 14, 2007, Burns & Roe moved the bankruptcy court for
approval of the Addendum under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. After
several extensions, the hearing on that motion is currently set
for Feb. 27, 2008.

If approved, Burns & Roe has agreed to include the Addendum in
the proposed plan, which will be the subject of a later
confirmation hearing.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Continues to Face Cases in Tex. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that asbestos-related suits have
been initiated directly against the CNA companies and numerous
other insurers in Texas, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 26, 2008.

About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (E.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Tex.)).

During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed as time-
barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. In other suits,
the carriers argued that they did not owe any duty to the
plaintiffs or the general public to advise the world generally
or the plaintiffs particularly of the effects of asbestos and
that Texas statutes precluded liability for such claims, and two
Texas courts dismissed these suits.

Certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, but
plaintiffs later dismissed their appeals.

A different Texas court denied similar motions seeking dismissal
at the pleading stage, allowing limited discovery to proceed.
After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred those cases to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases, and the cases remain in that court.

In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in
Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district
litigation court to dismiss the cases on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds.

The Texas Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief
supporting the insurers' position. After a long period of no
activity, the court asked the plaintiffs to file a response to
the petition for mandamus.

Based on a letter from the appellate court, the insurers gave
the multi-district litigation court an opportunity to reconsider
the original court's action, but the court declined to do so,
and the case has now been fully briefed and is back in front of
the appellate court on the insurers' mandamus petition.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation states that an asbestos-related action
filed in Montana against the Company, Maryland Casualty, and the
State of Montana is stayed because of W.R. Grace & Co.'s pending
bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all Grace employees) and their spouses
against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos
at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants ASARCO, Creditors Tolling Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approves the stipulation between
ASARCO LLC and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for
the Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors tolling the time by which the
Asbestos Committee may commenced actions under Chapter 5 of the
Bankruptcy Code through July 1, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holy Cross Owners Sued for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of the Holy Cross Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
are named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, in which the
suit alleges that staff and residents were unknowingly exposed
to asbestos, CBC News reports.

According to a statement of claim filed in December 2007,
several buildings that are a part of the center and renovated in
2002 contained large quantities of asbestos. The suit alleges
the asbestos was not properly removed and staff and patients
were not told about it.

Clint Docken, the lead lawyer in the case, said, "The basis of
the claim is that a number of individuals, probably hundreds,
would have been exposed to asbestos and potentially are facing a
health risk as a result of that exposure."

The Holy Cross Centre, a privately run complex that includes
assisted-living units and medical offices, is owned by three
Calgary doctors under the company name Enterprise Universal Inc.

Company spokesman Stephen Carter said he has not seen the
statement of claim, but said the allegations are baseless.

The lawsuit, which is seeking an undetermined amount of damages,
has yet to be certified by a judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxnard School in Calif. Settles $25T Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oxnard School District in Ventura County, Calif., has
settled a case for US$25,000 in penalties and additional costs
for failing to disclose that asbestos was released into the
environment when construction workers remodeled an elementary
school in August 2004.

The announcement was made by Ventura County District Attorney
officials on Feb. 27, 2008.

The District Attorney's Consumer Fraud and Environmental
Protection Unit filed a lawsuit against the district and G-2000
Construction, Inc.

The Unit alleged that both parties removed ceiling tiles
containing "friable" asbestos while workers were retrofitting
Rose Avenue School in August 2004.

Federal law requires the district to compile and review asbestos
materials in its facilities and maintain reports.

According to District Attorney officials, the district and its
project manager, Martinez Architects, Inc., used earlier reports
that did not provide information the tiles contained asbestos
when the district released the bid for the project.

An Aug. 4, 2004 report showed the tiles did contain asbestos,
but the district and Martinez Architects did not share the
report with G-2000 officials until after workers removed the
ceiling tiles, investigators said.

Along with the district, G-2000 also was ordered to pay
US$25,000 in civil penalties, investigation and attorney fees.

Martinez Architects, Inc. was ordered to pay US$30,000 in
penalties and additional costs, officials said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Jury Awards $30.3M to Worker's Family
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Maimon, the lawyer for the family of asbestos victim Mark
Buttitta, said that the family was awarded US$30.3 million from
a New Jersey jury, Associated Press reports.

Mr. Maimon added that the award is believed to be the largest in
New Jersey for mesothelioma, which killed the 50-year-old Mr.
Buttitta in 2002. Mr. Buttitta handled auto parts containing
asbestos while working summers at general motors corporation
warehouses in new jersey.  

The disease killed 50-year-old Mark Buttitta in 2002, although
he had only handled auto parts containing asbestos while working
summers at General Motors Corporation warehouses in New Jersey,
Mr. Maimon said. However, Mr. Buttitta's father worked there and
his brother also spent summers at the warehouse.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the six-person Bergen County jury found
against Asbestos Corp. Ltd. of Canada, which provided material
for GM brakes, and BorgWarner Inc. of Michigan, which made
clutches.

The verdict came after four hours of deliberations following
several weeks of testimony, Mr. Maimon said. He added that both
companies are expected to appeal.

Mr. Buttitta, an advertising executive who lived in Glen Ridge,
grew up in Bloomfield, where the warehouse was located before it
moved to Englewood.

If upheld, the verdict would benefit his widow and three
daughters.

No illness has been reported by Mr. Buttitta's father, Frank
Buttitta Sr., a lifelong GM worker, or brother, Frank Buttitta
Jr., said Mr. Maimon, of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Warnings to NHS Trust on Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wigan, Wrightington and Leigh NHS Trust has avoided
prosecution by the U.K.'s Health and Safety Executive for
breaching asbestos regulations, Wigan Evening Post reports.

The trust was served with three improvement and two prohibition
notices in relation to asbestos at an unknown trust site.

The trust is responsible for running and maintaining Wigan
Infirmary, Leigh Infirmary, Wrightington Hospital, Whelley
Hospital and the Thomas Linacre Centre.

On Feb. 27, 2008, Trust officials refused to reveal which site
the notices related to, but an HSE spokesman confirmed that they
were posted in response to the trust's failure to properly carry
out its management duty in relation to asbestos.

All five notices were in relation to asbestos in areas that are
not accessible to the public but are used by trust staff. Having
addressed the concerns raised by the HSE inspection, the notices
have now been signed off.

Gill Harris, director of nurse and patient services, said, "In
November 2007, the HSE served three improvement and two
prohibition notices on Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust,
all were in relation to asbestos in areas not accessible to the
public.

"We are pleased to report that the HSE – following this period
of extensive activity to make safe areas where asbestos
presented a risk to the health and safety of staff – has been
satisfied by our efforts and signed off all the notices as of
Jan. 31, 2008."

In 2006, HSE regulations prohibiting the use, importation and
supply of asbestos were brought in because asbestos is linked to
serious illness including cancer and asbestosis.

These regulations relate to the new use of asbestos. Any
asbestos-containing materials that remain in good condition can
be left in place so long as they are suitably monitored and
managed to ensure they are not disturbed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Firm Seeks to Override Emissions Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Shore Mining Company in Silver Creek, Minn., attempts
to obtain court permission to override existing legislation that
dictates asbestos emission levels, TransWorldNews reports.

The Minnesota Appellate Court will now decide whether or not to
allow the Company to emit more asbestos into the air.

Existing emissions legislation dictates that asbestos levels of
emission must be lower or equal to asbestos levels in the air. A
court decision ruling with the Company would give it the freedom
to emit as much asbestos as it desires.

The current Minnesota legislation regarding asbestos emissions
standards was passed in 1974.

TransWorldNews reports that it is quite possible that if the
Appellate Court rules in favor of the Company, employees as well
as residents of neighboring Silver Creek could be at risk of
harmful airborne asbestos exposure.

The motion initiated by the mine has been denounced by the
attorney generals of both Minnesota and Wisconsin, in addition
to a bevy of environmental activists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Worker Pleads Guilty in Cleanup Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benny G. Gladding, the 48-year-old building and grounds
Superintendent for Massena Central School District in Massena,
N.Y., has pleaded guilty in the asbestos removal case at the
school, Clear Channel Broadcasting reports.

According to U.S. Attorney Glenn Suddaby, Mr. Gladding, of
Norfolk, N.Y., entered a guilty plea to providing materially
false information to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Special Agents related to illegal asbestos removal and disposal
activities within Massena Central School District buildings and
preparing a materially false report related to the presence of
asbestos in a public school.

In pleading guilty, Mr. Gladding admitted that he was
interviewed on Feb. 22, 2007, by Special Agents of the EPA
regarding illegal removal of asbestos within Massena School
District buildings.

Mr. Gladding falsely stated that he had never removed any
asbestos-containing material from any school building at any
time during his employment with the Massena School District,
when in fact he had engaged in numerous, illegal asbestos
removal actions.

Mr. Gladding further admitted that on Dec. 21, 2006, he
conducted a six-month periodic inspection of asbestos at the
Jefferson Elementary School in Massena, and failed to accurately
record significant amounts of asbestos previously on pipes had
been disturbed and was on the ground within the school building.

As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Gladding has agreed to resign
from the Massena Central School District at the time of
imposition of sentence.

Mr. Gladding faces a maximum term of incarceration of five years
and a fine of US$250,000 for providing materially false
information, and a maximum possible term of incarceration of one
year and a fine of US$100,000 for preparing a materially false
report.

Sentencing has been set for July 11, 2008 in Utica, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Authorities Probe Claims v. CFMEU Official
---------------------------------------------------------------
Australian authorities are checking claims that Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) organizer Shaun
Reardon dumped asbestos on a table in front of two managers at a
construction site, The Age reports.

The incident was said to have occurred at the Sunshine North
site of builders JA Dodd on Feb. 6, 2008.

It is believed the probe will look at claims that Mr. Reardon
dumped asbestos on a table in front of a JA Dodd foreman and
another manager at the Australian Technical College building
site in Sunshine North.

Mr. Reardon had taken the asbestos from a quarantined area on
the site, it is claimed.

Mr. Reardon described the claims as "completely fabricated" and
said they were an attempt by JA Dodd to deflect attention from a
poor record on asbestos.

A WorkSafe spokesman said, "WorkSafe is aware of a complaint
similar to the circumstances described. Inquiries are under
way."

Building industry watchdog the Australian Building Construction
Commissioner also confirmed the investigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Gets More Appeal Time in Libby Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has been granted more time to file an appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court in the U.S. Government's asbestos case
against the Company, Associated Press reports.

Justice Anthony Kennedy granted an extension until April 14,
2008.

The Company is expected to ask the high court to a review a
decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing
certain evidence to be used at trial.

A 2005 indictment charged the Company and seven of its former
managers with conspiring to hide health risks associated with
its Libby, Mont., vermiculite mine, which closed in 1990.

The Company has denied any criminal wrongdoing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ThunderSky Urges Gov't. to Warn of Dangers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestosis sufferer Raven ThunderSky is demanding the Canadian
Government to warn others of the dangers of asbestos, Seattle-
Post Intelligencer reports.

Ms. ThunderSky is from a First Nation family, in which five
members died from exposure to asbestos fibers in Zonolite
insulation that the government installed in their homes and on
military bases.

Ms. ThunderSky's efforts to sue W.R. Grace & Co., which produced
the Zonolite with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore from a
Montana mine, has been thwarted, reports the Winnipeg Sun.

Zonolite's use is not limited to Canada. The United States
goverment says that the product is still in as many as 35
million homes and businesses, but also refuses to institute a
promised "aggressive campaign" to warn of the risk they face.

Ms. ThunderSky, who is originally from Poplar River, Manitoba,
in 2005, sued Grace and its various affiliates, as well as the
Canadian government. The Sun reported that since 1996, her
sisters and both her parents have died of cancer and asbestosis.

The federal Indian Affairs department built Ms. ThunderSky's
family's home in the 1960s insulated with Zonolite, which has
since been found to contain harmful asbestos.

In her suit, Ms. ThunderSky asks that an information package go
out across Canada informing people about Zonolite and how to
check for the form of cancer it may cause.

The Sun said that Ms. ThunderSky's lawyer recently told her
Grace's bankruptcy filing may soon force her lawsuit to be
lumped in with a U.S. class action suit.

This would come despite the fact Ms. ThunderSky's family's
deaths occurred in Canada and the Company's Canadian
subsidiaries and the Canadian government are named as
defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victorian Gov't. Defends v. Workers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The government in Victoria, Australia, is fighting dying
workers' claims against their asbestos exposure, Herald and
Weekly Times reports.

Taxpayers are paying for the Government's attempts to dodge
compensation payments.

Court documents reveal the Government uses a private legal firm
to defend claims, denying workers have been exposed to asbestos
or blaming the claimants for their illnesses.

However, in most cases, it makes big cash payouts in out-of-
court settlements, and taxpayers also foot those bills.

More critically ill workers are suing for the decades they were
subjected to the risk of asbestos-related diseases, before the
State Electricity Commission and other state authorities were
privatized.

Almost a third of common law asbestos claims lodged with the
Supreme Court since November 2007 are against the Government. Of
65 claims, 18 named the Government and 23 named Amaca Pty. Ltd.
Other accused employers include local councils, health
authorities, water authorities, education providers and private
industry employers.

Court records show most claimants are elderly, and are seeking
compensation for pain, suffering and medical expenses of
AUD150,000 to AUD250,000.

Compensation lawyer Stephen Plunkett, of Slater and Gordon, said
despite the Government's refusal to quickly admit liability,
almost all cases were settled out of court within months.

Mr. Plunkett added that when the Government sold the State
Electricity Commission for AUD30 billion it assumed the
commission's liabilities.

Mr. Plunkett said it was easier to prove injured people worked
at the SEC, where they were exposed to asbestos, than to prove
the asbestos product was made by James Hardie Industries N.V.

Barrister Jack Rush who won AUD4 billion compensation from  
Hardie in the Bernie Banton asbestos case, said mesothelioma
cases would peak in the next three to five years.

A spokesman for the Government's insurer, Victorian Managed
Insurance Authority, said it did not have a specific budget for
compensation claims, but "managed our liabilities prudently."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Cost Covered in $17M Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s net operating profit including
asbestos costs and the closure charge of its fiber cement plant
in Blandon, Pa., was US$17.1 million, Reuters reports.

This was up from a loss of US$8 million in the third quarter of
2007, when it was hit by a big charge to top up a fund for
victims of asbestos-related diseases.

Hardie was once Australia's largest asbestos maker, and has set
up a compensation fund for workers at its plants and others who
were sickened by the material. The fund could be worth up to
AUD4.5 billion over 40 years.

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


                           *********


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, Janice Mendoza, Stephanie Umacob,
Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *