CAR_Public/080307.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 48
   
                            Headlines

ALABAMA: Man Jailed For Not Paying Traffic Fines Sues Florence
ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Comer" Case
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Seat Belts
AMERICAN WEST: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Substandard Homes

CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Accuses El Grupo Mayan of Bilking Citizens
CANADA: Students Disqualified in Woodlands School Lawsuit
CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Grants Summary Judgment Motion in "Morrell"
CAREMARK RX: Continues to Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Suit
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Suit by Non-ERISA Members

CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Seeks Stay on Proceedings in Ala. Lawsuit
CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders' Lawsuit
CONSECO LIFE: Accused of Illegal Rate Hikes in Calif. Lawsuit
CVS CAREMARK: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Pharmacists' Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Court Grant Leave to Appeal Petition in N.J. Lawsuit

FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Mulls Canadian Antitrust Suit Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Calif.
GILEAD SCIENCES: Nixing of CA Securities Lawsuit Still on Appeal
GORTON'S SEAFOOD: Recalls Adulterated Battered Fish Fillets

INFATINO LLC: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
LORILLARD INC: Faces Calif. Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits
LORILLARD INC: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in "Engle" Lawsuit
LORILLARD INC: La. High Court Denies Review Petitions in "Scott"
LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Sanders" Seeks Supreme Court Review

LORILLARD INC: Second Circuit Stays Proceedings in "Schwab" Case
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Liability in "Discrimination Impact" Affirmed
MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Claims Valuation Suit in California
MICROSOFT: e-Mails Show Knowledge of Error in "Vista" Lawsuit
NEW YORK: Sued by Two Men Busted on Loitering Law

QUAKER OATS: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mixes Posing Health Risk
REBELETTE INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERNOC INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Fraud Suit
ENERNOC INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
SLM CORP: Charles Johnson Announces Filing of NY Securities Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Dismissal of Beavers Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Still Faces Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire's A&E Loss Reserves Total $5Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel's Cases Rise to 325 at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Forest Has Site Cleanup Reserves

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces Potential 3rd Party Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Still Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Faces 175 Pending Claims at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Beloit Subject to Asbestos Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Action v. PepsiAmericas Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Accrues $4Mil for Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OfficeMax Continues to Face Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Plaintiff in Kellogg Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Cites Net Reserves of $121.9M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Has $36M for Remaining Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Still Faces 26 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 207 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.W. Grainger Inc. Faces 2,800 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeal Court Favors Black & Veatch

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Ford Motor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Pending v. Advance Auto, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 426 Lawsuits Pending v. AK Steel at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Records $22.9M Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 826 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.3B for Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 538 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Flowserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Briefed on Johns-Manville Issues

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Asks Court to Extend Period
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40 Speights Claimants Appeal on Expungement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deadline on Grace's Appeal Set for April 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Favors Plaintiffs in Northshore
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oregon Court Affirms Newman's Remand Motion

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. AG Sues Bldg. Owner for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vancouver Workers Back to Work After Scare
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Chesterton, 29 Firms in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mining Sites' Hazard Limit Set Last Feb. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Americana Tenants Awarded $7,500 in Damages

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Blast Canadian Gov't. Over Policies
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 160 Workers to File Lawsuit v. Japan Gov't.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links U.K. Worker's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rigby's Widow Raises Awareness of Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $19.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. ENSCO Pending in Miss., Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Suits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright in Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Faces Lawsuit from TODCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites $376.8M Dec. Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 131,340 U.S. Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $27.6M for N.Y. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 342 U.K. Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Records $9.7M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Home Operator Given CDN50,000 Fine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wendell Couple of W.Va. Sues 38 Companies

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Faces 105,700 Open Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Sealing Involved in 9 Trials in '07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Appealing $1.4M in Verdicts for '07
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Settlement Commitments Total $76Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $381.5M Coverage at Dec. 31



                           *********


ALABAMA: Man Jailed For Not Paying Traffic Fines Sues Florence
--------------------------------------------------------------
A man filed a federal class action lawsuit against Florence,
Alabama, who jailed him after being unable to pay fines for
numerous misdemeanor traffic violations, the Associated Press
reports.

Matthew Dendy, 19, is described by his attorney, Robert Gonce,
Esq., as indigent.  Times Daily relates that between Feb. 27 and
May 5, 2007, Mr. Dendy was sentenced to varying fines and jail
terms, and on May 24, 2007, part-time Municipal Court Judge
James Hall II  sentenced him to 444 days in jail or a fine of
$6,653.

AP says that the suit, filed on Feb. 28, 2008, claims that
Mr. Dendy's constitutional rights were violated by the court
automatically imposing jail time and failing to examine the
reasons why he could not pay the fines.

According to Times Daily, the lawsuit also includes a claim that
Mr. Dendy was denied medical care while incarcerated and that he
must pay a fee to obtain medical services at the Lauderdale
County Detention Center, where he is being held.

Some say that the ability to pay fines can be questioned, Times
Daily notes.

"Fines are punishment; you can sit in jail in lieu of paying
your fines," Tracy Roberts, assistant general counsel with the
Alabama League of Municipalities, said.  "If you have the
ability to have income, but you do not earn income, you aren't
exactly indigent (totally lacking income)."

Times Daily points out that currently, the inability to pay
fines and court costs is translated into jail time.  Florence
converts fines and costs against defendants into days spent in
jail at a rate of $15 per day of jail time.  The suit claims,
however, that the statutory rate is $25 per day of jail time.

Mr. Gonce said that the city will be served papers on the suit
and that Police Chief Rick Singleton and Judge Hall will have 20
days to respond to the charges before a trial date is set.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Gonce, Esq. (rgonce@alalawyers.com)
          Gonce, Young, Collum-Butler & Messer
          09 North Court Street
          Florence, Alabama 35630
          Phone: (256) 767-7411
                 (256) 764-1481  
          Fax: (256) 767-0320


ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which is
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according
to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The complaint alleges that, among other things:

       -- over 200 of the Company's U.S. based Pharmaceuticals
          sales representatives were denied overtime pay, in
          violation of state and federal labor laws, by being
          paid for forty hour weeks even though they worked in
          excess of fifty-five hours per week, and

       -- that the Company violated federal record-keeping
          requirements.

The suit is "Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250-
GEB-JJH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

       James E. Cecchi, Esq.
       Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Slstein, PC
       5 Becker Farm Road
       Roseland, NJ 07068
       Phone: (973) 994-1700
       Fax: (973) 994-1744
       e-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

Representing the defendants is:

       Michael T. Bissinger
       Day Pitney, LLP
       PO Box 1945
       Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
       Phone: (973) 966-6300
       Fax: (973) 966-1015
       e-mail: mbissinger@daypitney.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Comer" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue
a ruling on an appeal regarding the dismissal the of all
defendants, including Allegheny Energy, Inc., from the purported
class action, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW."

The suit was filed on April 19, 2006 against Allegheny Energy,
Inc., and numerous other companies with coal-fired generation
facilities.  

It was brought on behalf of a purported class of residents and
property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane
Katrina.  

The named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse
gases by defendants contributed to global warming, thereby
causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a
motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim.  

At a hearing on Aug. 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss that Allegheny Energy had joined, and dismissed all of
the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on Sept.
17, 2007, and the appeal will now proceed before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
         Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
         F. Gerald Maples, PA
         902 Julia Street
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Phone: 504/569-8732
         e-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
                 mmayberry@geraldmaples.com

             - and -

         Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
         Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
         Smith & Fawer
         201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
         New Orleans, LA 70170
         Phone: 504/525-2200
         Fax: 504/525-2205
         e-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
                 smwiles@smithfawer.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Seat Belts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 29, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California accusing the company of refusing to inspect or
replace seat belts in cars that have been involved in accidents,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Robert Watts claims that Allstate refused to pay
for inspecting and repairing the seat belts in his 2005 Honda
Civic after they were damaged in a collision.

Mr. Watts says Allstate promised to pay for "the direct and
accidental loss" to insured cars but does not make good on its
promise, leaving policyholders in danger and in violation of the
law in most states.  Mr. Watts demands restitution and an
injunction on charges of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud
and RICO violations.

This class action complaint asserts claims for relief for the
following:

     (i) breach of contract;

    (ii) bad faith;

   (iii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing;

    (iv) fraud/misrepresentation;

     (v) unfair competition; and

    (vi) racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations
         violations.

Mr. Watts brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of any person insured by
Allstate for any length of time from 1998 to the present who was
involved in a collision in which automatic seat belt tensioners
activated, after which Allstate failed to underwrite the
inspection and replacement of the seat belts in the vehicle.

Mr. Watts requests for the following relief:

     -- that the court determine that the action may be
        maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the court find that Allstate has violated Business
        and Professions Coed Section 17200 by developing and
        implementing a uniform policy of wrongfully declining to
        underwrite the post-collision inspections and repairs of
        Allstate-insured vehicles;

     -- that the court find that Allstate has violated 18 USC
        Section 1962(c) by preventing third party auto-repair
        shops from inspecting and repairing defective seat belt
        tensioners in Allstate-insured vehicles;

     -- that the court find that Allstate has violated 18 USC
        Section 1962(c) by operating its own line of auto-repair
        shops in part to further its implementation of its
        uniform scheme to wrongfully avoid underwriting post-
        collision inspections and repairs to Allstate-insured
        vehicles;

     -- that the court find that Allstate's violations as
        described have been knowing and willful;

     -- that Allstate be ordered and enjoined to pay restitution
        to plaintiffs and the class due to Allstate's unlawful
        and unfair and fraudulent activities, pursuant to
        Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-05;

     -- that Allstate further be enjoined to cease and desist
        from unlawful and unfair and fraudulent activities
        in violation of Business and Professions Code Section
        17200, pursuant to Section 17203;

     -- that Mr. Watts and the class be awarded reasonable
        attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the
        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable
        law;

     -- for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
        commensurate with Allstate's ability to pay and
        sufficient to deter such conduct in the future;

     -- that the court award such other and further relief as
        the court may deem appropriate.

The suit is "Robert Watts et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company
et al., Case No. 08 1236," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Wendy C. York, Esq.
          Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
          York Law Corporation
          1111 Exposition Boulevard, Building 500
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Phone: (916) 643-2200
          Fax: (916) 643-4680


AMERICAN WEST: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Substandard Homes
-------------------------------------------------------------
American West Homes is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging
it built and sold dozens of substandard homes, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Residents of the Classics Development subdivision bring this
action on behalf of homeowners of approximately 100 homes within
the the Classics Development.

The complaint alleges defendants knew or in the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have known, that all persons who
planned to purchase and who did in fact purchase said structures
would do so without inspection of the defects -- which include
patent defects, latent defects and defects which defendants knew
or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known
would occur.

As a direct and proximate result of defendants' willful
misconduct, plaintiffs sustained damages in an amount precisely
unknown but believed to be within the jurisdiction of the court,
in that plaintiffs have been and will be required to perform
investigations and works for repair, restoration, and
construction to portions of the structures to prevent further
damage and to restore the structures to their proper condition
and will suffer damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, the
full nature and extent of which shall be ascertained according
to proof of trial.

The suit is "Linda Bennett et al v. American West Homes, Inc.,
Case No. A558243," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Craig D. Fuller, Esq.
          4250 Executive Square, Suite 555
          La Jolla, CA 92037

               - and -

          Mark A. Lobello, Esq.
          The LoBello Law Firm
          2061 E. Sahara, 2dn Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89104
          Phone: (702) 870-8000


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Accuses El Grupo Mayan of Bilking Citizens
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California accuses El Grupo
Mayan Palace of bilking U.S. citizens of "hundreds of millions
of dollars" in Mayan Resorts timeshares, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The complaint names the following as defendants:

     -- Desarollo Marina Vallarta SA de CV,
     -- El Grupo Mayan Palace,
     -- Daniel Chavez Moran,
     -- Daniel Omar Chavez,
     -- Scott Erikson,
     -- Casey Jon Owens,
     -- Canamere Inc.,
     -- Huffsmith-Kohrville Inc.,
     -- Preferred Vacations Inc.,
     -- Premium Travel Services Inc.,
     -- Resort Solutions Inc.,
     -- Seven Oceans US Inc.,
     -- AZM Marketing LLC,
     -- Resort Quality Controls Inc.,
     -- Resort Condominiums International LLC, and
     -- Resorts International Marketing Corp.

The plaintiffs brings the action under Title 18 of the U.S. Code
Section 1961, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Practices Act (RICO) and California state law, seeking monetary
and injunctive relief.

This case concerns a conspiracy operating and managing resorts
in Mexico -- the Mayan Resorts -- which has bilked U.S. citizens
out of hundreds of millions of dollars through the use of high
pressure fraudulent sales tactics that are comparable to the
worst tactics ever employed by used car salesmen in a Hollywood
movie.

The complaint states that the "defendants earn hundreds of
millions each year from such sales by systematically
misrepresenting in sales presentations and documents the value
of the timeshares they are selling.  Defendants as part of their
scheme also have misled Plaintiffs as to their rights under
Mexican law."

The plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who purchased a
Mayan Resorts timeshare within the preceding four years and
executed a document waiving their right to have their deposit
returned if the contract was canceled within five business days.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Mayan Resorts defendants falsely
         represented the nature of the cancellation waiver;

     (b) whether the defendants falsely represented, failed to
         disclose and concealed the investment value of the
         timeshare units;

     (c) whether the defendants conspired with others to falsely
         represent the Rental Return of the timeshare rentals;

     (d) whether the defendants' acts constitute violations of
         the federal RICO statute, 18 USC Section 1961 et seq.;

     (e) whether the defendants' activities related to their
         failure to disclose that the five day right to
         cancellation could not be waived constitute violations
         of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (f) whether the fact that the five business day right to
         cancel was non-waivable was material and relevant
         information under California's Unfair Competition Law,            
         Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (g) whether the defendants' conduct is unlawful, unfair or
         fraudulent within the meaning supplied by California's
         Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et seq.;

     (h) whether the defendants' acts constitute unfair
         competition within the meaning of California's Unfair
         competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section
         17200, et seq.;

     (i) whether the defendants' acts constitute false
         advertising within the meaning of California Business
         and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.;

     (j) whether the defendants' acts constitute common law
         fraud;

     (k) whether the defendants' acts constitute fraud in the     
         inducement;

     (l) whether the defendants' acts constitute civil
         conspiracy to defraud;

     (m) whether the defendants' acts constitute breach of the
         duty of good faith and fair dealing;

     (n) whether the defendants' acts constitute negligence;

     (o) whether the defendants' acts constitute gross
         negligence;

     (p) whether the defendants' acts constitute negligent  
         misrepresentation; and

     (q) whether the defendants' acts constitute grossly
         negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs request that the court grant the following
relief:

     -- grant judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against the
        defendants;
  
     -- grant temporary and permanent injunctive relief;

     -- declare that the defendants' conduct constitutes
        violations of the statutes and common law cited;

     -- award the plaintiffs an appropriate amount in monetary
        damages as determined at trial, including pre- and post-
        judgment interest;

     -- award the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and the costs of
        bringing this action;

     -- award the plaintiffs treble damages against all
        defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in
        excess of $75,000 to be proven at trial together with
        prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees;

     -- impose exemplary and punitive damages against
        defendants in an appropriate amount to be determined at
        trial; and

     -- grant the plaintiffs such other relief as is just and
        appropriate.

The suit is "Jessica Monugian et al. v. Desarollo Marina
Vallarta S.A. de C.V. et al., Case No. CV08-01497," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kevin J. Barry, Esq.
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
          1999 Harrison street, Suite 900
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 874-1000
          Fax: (510) 874-1460


CANADA: Students Disqualified in Woodlands School Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by the survivors of New
Westminster's Woodlands school has been delayed yet again, CKNW
reports.

The suit alleges students suffered years of physical, emotional
and sexual abuse at the school.

According to CKNW, a full third of the applicants has been
thrown out of the lawsuit.  Specifically, students who allegedly
suffered abuse at the school prior to 1974 have been told they
cannot sue the provincial government because laws at that time
make it nearly impossible to do so.

However, lawyer David Klein, who represents the former students,
says that itis the government, not the laws, preventing victims
from seeking compensation.

Mr. Klein says he is appealing the decision.  

The Class Action Reporter reported on Dec. 4, 2007, that Poyner
Baxter filed the class action in 2002 against the Government of
British Columbia on behalf of an estimated 1,500 former
residents of Woodlands School.  Subsequently, the province's
Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit,  
seeking to represent all victims in the class.  The court  
eventually awarded "carriage" to Poyner Baxter.  

In March 2005, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison of the British  
Columbia Supreme Court certified the suit as a class action.

For more information on the case, contact:

          Jim Poyner (jim@poynerbaxter.com)
          Poyner Baxter, LLP
          #408 - 145 Chadwick Court
          North Vancouver, B.C.  
          Phone: (604) 988-6321
          Fax: (604) 988-3632


CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Grants Summary Judgment Motion in "Morrell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
granted a motion for partial summary judgment in the matter,
"Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633."

Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.), a subsidiary of
Caremark Rx, Inc. that merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS
Caremark Corp., was named as a defendant in the putative class
action, which was filed on July 2004 by an individual named
Robert Moeckel.

The suit was brought purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell
Employee Benefits Plan, which is an employee benefit plan
sponsored by a former Caremark client.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and injunctive
relief, alleges that Caremark acts as a fiduciary under ERISA
and has breached certain alleged fiduciary duties under ERISA.

In November 2007, the court granted Caremark Inc.’s motion for
partial summary judgment finding that it is not an ERISA
fiduciary under the applicable PBM agreements and that the
plaintiff may not sustain claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
according to CVS Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00633," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Judge Aleta A. Trauger presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Rebecca Cothran Blair, Esq.
         John A. Day, Esq.
         Branham & Day P.C.
         5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300
         Brentwood, TN 37027
         Phone: (615) 742-4880
         e-mail: rblair@branhamday.com
                 jday@branhamday.com

              - and -
          
         Mike Miller, Esq.
         Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon
         1129 Fifth Avenue South
         P.O. Box 1897
         Fargo, ND 58107-1897
         Phone: (701) 237-3166
         e-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Paul Savage Davidson, Esq.
         Joseph A. Woodruff, Esq.
         Jennifer L. Weaver, Esq.
         Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis
         Nashville City Center
         511 Union Street, Suite 2100
         Nashville, TN 37219
         Phone: (615) 244-6380
         Fax: (615) 244-6380
         e-mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com
                 joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com
                 jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com

              - and -

         Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq.
         Foley & Lardner LLP
         Phone: 312.832.5176
         e-mail: fpasquesi@foley.com


CAREMARK RX: Continues to Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc., which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS
Caremark Corp., continues to face the consolidated class action,
"In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
No. 06-md-01782-JF," which is pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Initially, various lawsuits were filed alleging that Caremark
and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark,
L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and
maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.

                    Bellevue Drug Litigation

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against AdvancePCS in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.

The claims were initially sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and AdvancePCS.

                    North Jackson Litigation

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.,
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark, Caremark Inc., AdvancePCS (acquired by
Caremark in March 2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.),
and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief.  

The case against Caremark and Caremark Inc. was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the AdvancePCS case was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
AdvancePCS.  

The arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending
developments in Caremark’s court case.

                          Consolidation

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with
other cases before the panel, including cases against other
PBMs.

Caremark has appealed a decision which vacated the order
compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the
Bellevue case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending.

The consolidated action is now known as the "In Re Pharmacy
Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. No. 06-md-01782-
JF."

CVS Caremark reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of  
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.  


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Suit by Non-ERISA Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California against Caremark Rx
Inc., which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., on
behalf of all California members of non-ERISA health plans
and/or all California taxpayers.  

Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as
Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March
2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have been named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in California state court by
an individual named Robert Irwin, purportedly on behalf of
California members of non-ERISA health plans and/or all
California taxpayers.

The lawsuit, which also names other Pharmacy Benefit Managers
(PBM) as defendants, alleges violations of California’s unfair
competition laws and challenges alleged business practices of
PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates,
formulary management, data utilization and accounting and
administrative processes.

Discovery in the case is ongoing, according to its Feb. 27, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of  
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.  


CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Seeks Stay on Proceedings in Ala. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Lauriello who had sued Caremark Rx, Inc. over a 1999
settlement of various securities class action and derivative
lawsuits against Caremark and others is seeking for a stay in
his case against the company.

Caremark, which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark
Corp., was named in a putative class action filed in 2003 in
Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of
participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class
action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others.  

Other defendants in the lawsuit include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed the next month by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming Caremark, several insurance
companies and attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was subsequently stayed by the court as
a later-filed class action.

In 2005, the trial court in the Lauriello case issued an order
allowing the Lauriello case to proceed on behalf of the
settlement class in the 1999 securities class action.

Mr. McArthur then sought to intervene in the Lauriello case and
to challenge the adequacy of Mr. Lauriello as class
representative and his lawyers as class counsel.

The trial court denied Mr. McArthur’s motion to intervene, but
the Alabama Supreme Court subsequently ordered the lower court
to vacate its prior order on class certification and allow
McArthur to intervene.

Caremark and other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the
complaint in intervention filed by Mr. McArthur.

In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the attorneys and
law firms named as defendants in the McArthur complaint in
intervention, and denied the motions to dismiss that complaint
filed by Caremark and the insurance company defendants.

In January 2008, Mr. Lauriello filed a motion to dismiss Mr.
McArthur’s complaint in intervention, appealed the court’s
dismissal of the attorney and law firm defendants, and filed a
motion to stay proceedings pending his appeal, according to CVS
Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of  
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the purported class action, "Shaffer v. Continental
Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA
Financial Corp., an 89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp, and
Continental Casualty Co. (CCC), as defendants, have reached
binding agreement settling the matter, according to Loews
Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action on behalf of
certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging
that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial
assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to
plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

CCC and CNAF have denied the material allegations of the amended
complaint and intend to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action.  CCC and CNAF have appealed the grant of class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an
interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC’s and CNAF’s motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
plaintiffs’ claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which
was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision for
claims of awards for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached agreement
on terms, subject to entering into a binding settlement
agreement.

On Jan. 8, 2008, parties entered into a binding agreement
settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms
potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint.

Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain
enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain
non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and
free health screenings.

The agreement, which is subject to notice to the class as well
as Court approval, did not have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the
Company.

The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600
         e-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com

              - and -

         Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
         Neblett Beard and Arsenault
         2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
         Phone: 318-487-9874
         e-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq.
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848
         e-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq.
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000
         e-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com


CONSECO LIFE: Accused of Illegal Rate Hikes in Calif. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance is facing a class-action complaint filed
on March 4, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California accusing it of illegally imposing
"staggering" rate hikes on policyholders that "are so huge and
so sudden that they cannot possibly be based on expectations as
to future mortality," CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint states that the court ruled against the defendant
in a previous national class action "Rosenbaum et al. v.
Philadelphia Life Insurance Co.," (Conseco's predecessor).

After that ruling, "Defendant Conseco Life was forced to return
all the unlawful cost of insurance charges, plus interest, to
its policyholders. The policies at issue in this action have the
exact same cost of insurance provisions as the policies
adjudicated by this Court in the Rosenbaum Action," the
complaint states.

Named plaintiff Celedonia X. Yue brings the action on behalf of
all owners of Valuelife and Valuterm universal life insurance
policies administered by defendant.

The plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the defendant to
reverse the unlawful increases in cost of insurance charges on
the policies and to fulfill their contractual and other
obligations to the class.

The plaintiff seeks a corresponding declaration that the
defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges for the
policies in accordance with the terms of the policies and
reinstate the cost of insurance charges that existed before the
recent unlawful increases.

The plaintiff also seeks corresponding monetary relief requiring
defendant to repay to the class, or restore to the accumulation
accounts of the policies, the amount of any unlawful
overcharges.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's actions to increase the cost of
         insurance charges on the policies violated the terms of
         the policies;

     (b) whether Conseco Life breached its contracts with the
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (c) whether the defendant breached obligations of good
         faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff and members of
         the class;

     (d) whether the defendant committed acts of unfair
         competition as defined by California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are
         entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief or
         other equitable relief against the defendant; and

     (f) whether the plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         receive incidental monetary relief or, alternatively,
         damages as a result of the unlawful conduct by the
         defendant alleged.

The plaintiffs request for judgment providing:

      -- injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently
         enjoin the defendant, its representatives, and all]
         others acting with it or on its behalf:

         (a) from changing the cost of insurance and the
             attendant cost of insurance charges, other than for
             expectations as to future mortality experience,
             respecting the policies; and

         (b) from increasing the cost of insurance charges for
             the policies and requiring those charges to be
             returned to the levels that existed prior to the
             unlawful increases imposed by defendant;

      -- injunctive relief requiring the defendant, its
         representatives, and all others acting with it or on
         its behalf to reinstate any policyholder whose policy
         was canceled or surrendered as a result of the intended
         unlawful cost of insurance increases;

     -- incidental or other monetary relief in the form of
        repayments to the plaintiff and members of the class of
        all overcharges resulting from the cost of insurance
        increases complained of and payment of such amounts  
        into the accumulation accounts of the policies;

     -- alternatively, general damages, consequential damages,
        and other incidental damages in a sum to be determined
        at the time of trial;

     -- restitutionary relief requiring defendant to disgorge
        and divest all money received from policyholders as a  
        result of, or caused by, the artificial and sham
        increase in the cost of insurance (mortality) charges;

     -- a declaration that the increases in cost of insurance
        charges are in material breach of the policies and that
        defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges
        as explicitly set forth in the policies;

     -- attorneys' fees expended and incurred in recovery of
        benefits and enforcement of the terms of the policies
        against defendant in a sum to be determined at the time
        of trial;

     -- costs of suit incurred; and

     -- award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Celedonia X. Yue et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance
et al., Case No. CV08-01506 CAS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillon.net)
          Law Office of Timothy P. Dillon
          361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205
          Laguna Beach, California 92651
          Phone: (949) 376-2800
          Fax: (949) 376-2808

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@BFFB.com)
          Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.
          2901 N. Central, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 776-5902
          Fax: (602) 274-1199


CVS CAREMARK: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Pharmacists' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corp. reached a tentative settlement for a
purported class action filed in California against the company
by Gabe Tong, purportedly on behalf of current and former
pharmacists working in the company’s California stores.

The lawsuit alleges that CVS failed to provide pharmacists in
the purported class with meal and rest periods or to pay
overtime as required under California law.  

In October 2007, CVS reached a conditional agreement, which is
subject to approval by the court to resolve this matter,
according to CVS Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 29, 2007.

CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of  
prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S.  The
Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions
annually.


FORD MOTOR: Court Grant Leave to Appeal Petition in N.J. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has granted the
company's petition for leave to appeal the class certification
order in the matter "Danvers Motor Co., et al. v. Ford Motor
Co., Case No. 2:2002cv02197."

In November 2000, a putative nationwide class of Ford dealers
brought suit with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, claiming that the Company's recently-introduced Blue
Oval Program violated state and federal law (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006).

The plaintiffs specifically allege that Ford's Blue Oval
Certified Program, which was designed to reward dealers who
obtained high customer satisfaction ratings, violated the
Robinson-Patman Act, the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act,
and various state laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and
unspecified damages (including compensatory, statutory, treble,
and punitive damages).  

On Jan. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey certified a nationwide class of dealers who were
franchisees of Ford Motor Company's Ford Division at any time
during the period mid-2000 through March 2005.  

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has granted the
company's petition for leave to appeal the class certification
order, and its appeal is pending, according to its Feb. 27, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Danvers Motor Co., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case
No. 2:2002cv02197," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eric Lewis Chase, Esq.
          Bressler, Amery & Ross, Esqs.
          325 Columbia Turnpike
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (973) 514-1200
          e-mail: echase@bressler.com

               - and -

          Richard Lloyd Hertzberg, Esq.
          Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, & Davis, LLP
          Metro Corporate Campus One
          PO Box 5600
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Phone: (732) 549-5600
          e-mail: rhertzberg@greenbaumlaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          James Steven Dobis, Esq.
          Dobis Russell & Peterson
          326 South Livingston Avenue
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Phone: 973-740-2474
          e-mail: jdobis@drp-law.com


FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Mulls Canadian Antitrust Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal in connection to the certification of a nationwide
class of buyers and lessees in the purported class action, "In
re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation
Cases," which names Ford Motor Co., as one of the defendants.

Initially, eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001
have been filed in various state and federal courts against
numerous defendants, including Ford, General Motors Corp.,
DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co.,
Nissan Motor Co., BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers
Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal and state complaints allege, among other things,
that the manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations,
conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles
produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada
at lower prices than vehicles sold in the U.S.

The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust
law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine.

On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will
certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states
between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2003 for damages under
various state law theories.  The company intends to appeal.

The company's appeal of the class certification order is
pending, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com-- is a producer of cars  
and trucks.  The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in
other businesses, including financing vehicles.  Ford operates
in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services.  The
Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America,
Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and
Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments.  The Financial
Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit
Company (Ford Credit), which is engaged in vehicle-related
financing, leasing, and insurance.


FORD MOTOR: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has
yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a purported
class action against Ford Motor Co., and several of the
company's current or former employees and officers, which is
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

The suit, "Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No.
06-cv-11718," originally filed by Theodore Nowak and Gary
Brockway on April 7, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 31,
2007).

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by
failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee
savings plans sponsored by Ford.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the
defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants
by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option
in the savings plans.

The company's motion to dismiss currently is pending before the
court, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case
No. 06-cv-11718," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384
          e-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jayson E. Blake, Esq.
          The Miller Law Firm
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: 248-841-2200
          e-mail: jeb@millerlawpc.com

Representing defendants are:

          Michelle Thurber, Esq.
          Czapski of Dickinson Wright (Detroit)
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226-3425
          Phone: 313-223-3500
          e-mail: mczapski@dickinsonwright.com
          
               - and -

          Robert N. Eccles, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers
          1625 Eye St., NW
          Washington, DC 20006-4001
          Phone: 202-383-5315
          Fax: 202-383-5414
          e-mail: beccles@omm.com


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fry's Electronics is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 28, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara accusing it of violating the
Labor Code.

This is a class action for violation of California wage and hour
laws brought on behalf of current and former Fry's employees who
have been employed by Fry's in the State of California, at any
time between Feb. 22, 2004, and who have been employed anywhere
in the United States between Feb. 22, 2004, and the date of
notice is mailed to the class.

The plaintiffs allege that during the relevant time period, they
were not paid all earned and vested 'vacation' pay, worked over
40 hours in a week or over eight hours in a day time without
receiving the proper pay rate, received pay stubs that were
inaccurate, were required to purchase shirts from Fry's bearing
a corporate logo and were not indemnified fr the expense of the
shirts, and plaintiffs and the class of Fry's employees who
worked throughout the United States for Fry's who worked in
excess of 40 hours a week and were not properly paid for the
hours worked.

The plaintiffs request judgment as follows:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action;

     -- that plaintiffs be appointed as representatives of the
        classes they seek to represent;

     -- that counsel for plaintiffs be appointed as class
        counsel;

     -- for all vested vacation wages earned;

     -- for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code
        Section 203;

     -- for interest;

     -- for attorneys' fees and costs;

     -- for the difference between earned overtime wages and the
        paid overtime wages, earned for hours worked in excess
        of eight in a day of 40 in a week;

     -- for statutory waiting time penalties up to 30 days;

     -- for all unpaid overtime wages earned for hours worked in
        excess of 40 in a week;

     -- for liquidated damages;

     -- for indemnification of costs and associated with the
        purchasing of defendants' shirts with the defendants'
        logo on them;

     -- for indemnification of costs associated with maintaining
        the uniform shirts;

     -- for damages and penalties for violation of Labor Code
        Section 226; and

     -- for restitution to the class of wages owed.

The suit is "Manuel Rubio et al. v. Fry's Electronics et al.,
Case No. 108CV-106994," filed with the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter K. Levine, Esq.
          Albert J. Gopin, Esq.
          5455 wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1259
          Los Angeles, California 90036
          Phone: (323) 934-1234
          Fax: (323) 934-1230
          e-mail: frys.peterlevine@neverbox.com


GILEAD SCIENCES: Nixing of CA Securities Lawsuit Still on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California of the fourth amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Gilead Sciences,
Inc. is still on appeal.

On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with a purported class action against:

       -- the company,
       -- the chief executive officer,
       -- chief financial officer,
       -- former executive vice president of operations,
       -- executive vice president of research and development,
       -- senior vice president of manufacturing, and
       -- senior vice president of research.

The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb.
27, 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 Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case  
No. 03-CV-4999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins
presiding.

Representing thee plaintiffs are:

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0878
          Fax: 212-818-0477
          e-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710
          e-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

               - and -

          David Jude George, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road - Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 750-3000
          Fax: (561) 750-3364
          e-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          Grant P. Fondo, Esq.
          Cooley Godward, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5000
          Fax: 650-857-0663
          e-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com
                  gfondo@cooley.com


GORTON'S SEAFOOD: Recalls Adulterated Battered Fish Fillets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gorton's Seafood, based in Gloucester, Mass., is voluntarily
recalling one frozen seafood product with a specific date code
because the product may have been adulterated with pills.

While there has been only one isolated case of adulteration and
no reports of illness from the product, the company is taking
this action as a precautionary measure.

The following product is subject to recall:

     * Gorton's 6 Crispy Battered Fish Fillets
           11.4 oz -- UPC #4440015770
           Date code: 7289G1
           Best if used by date: April 2009

The product included in this recall was produced on October 16,
2007, and distributed to retail outlets in Alabama, California,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.  The product is being
removed from retail outlets, and consumers are urged to look in
their freezers for products bearing this particular code.

Gorton's is conducting an investigation into the source of the
problem and working with the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture and the Food & Drug Administration.  There have been
no reported illnesses from consumers.

Consumers who have the product may return it to Gorton's for a
refund by calling 800-896-9479.

Consumers may report any complaints to FDA's local district
complaint coordinators located on the FDA web site:
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html


INFATINO LLC: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
2,000 Infantino Lamb Grabby Rattles.

The company said the tail-piece on the rattles can detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

Infantino has received eight reports of the tail piece on the
rattle detaching. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Infantino Lamb Grabby Rattles are shaped like a
lamb with an Infantino elliptical-shaped logo stamped on the
front right foot of the lamb.  Only rattles with date code 0907
printed on the back of the left ear of the lamb are included in
the recall.  The production batch code is printed in a dial
format with the year in the middle of a circle and an arrow
pointing to the number on the circle that indicates the month.
Rattles that do not have a date code are not included in the
recall.

These recalled rattles were manufactured in China and were being
sold at Wal-Mart, Babies "R" Us and other specialty stores
nationwide from September 2007 through February 2008 for between
$3 and $4.

Picture of the recalled rattle is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08208a.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from young children and contact Infantino for a replacement
rattle or a product of equal value.

For additional information, contact Infantino toll-free at (888)
808-3111 between 8:00 a.m. And 4:00 p.m. PT or visit the firm's
Web site: http://service.infantino.com


LORILLARD INC: Faces Calif. Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp.,
continues to face class actions in California that were on
appeal to the either the California Supreme Court or the U.S.
Supreme Court, according to the Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

                        Brown Litigation

One of the suits is "Brown v. The American Tobacco Company,
Inc., et al.," which was filed with the Superior Court, San
Diego County, California on June 10, 1997.  

The California court granted defendants' motion to decertify the
class.  The class decertification order was affirmed on appeal,
but the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

The class originally certified in "Brown" was composed of
residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants'
cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.

                       Daniels Litigation

The second case is "Daniels v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et
al.," which was filed with the Superior Court, San Diego County,
California on Aug. 2, 1998.

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment during
2002 and dismissed the case.  Both the California Court of
Appeal and the California Supreme Court have affirmed the case's
dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review
"Daniels," but the Court has not determined whether it will hear
the case.

Prior to granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the
court had certified a class composed of California residents
who, while minors, smoked at least one cigarette between April
1994 and Dec. 31, 1999 and were exposed to defendants' marketing
and advertising activities in California.

Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company,  
whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include
commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial
Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale
of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned
subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs
(Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary);
exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural
gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP,
a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels
Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary).


LORILLARD INC: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in "Engle" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida entered an order that
formally decertified the class in the matter, "Engle v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al.," which names Lorillard, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., as one of the
defendants.

The case was originally filed with the Circuit Court, Dade
County, Florida on May 5, 1994.  It was later certified as a
class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of
Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical
conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking.

The case was tried between 1998-2000 in a multi-phase trial that
resulted in verdicts in favor of the class.

During 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that,
among other things determined that the case could not proceed
further as a class action.

During February 2008, the trial court entered an order on remand
from the Florida Supreme Court that formally decertified the
class, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company,  
whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include
commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial
Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale
of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned
subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs
(Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary);
exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural
gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP,
a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels
Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary).


LORILLARD INC: La. High Court Denies Review Petitions in "Scott"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both parties' separate
petitions for review of the matter, "Scott v. The American
Tobacco Company, et al.," which names Lorillard, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Loews Corp.

The suit was filed with District Court, Orleans Parish,
Louisiana on May 24, 1996.  It was filed as a class action on
behalf of certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of
Louisiana.

In June 2004, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs in the case.  The plaintiffs in the case were awarded
approximately $591 million to fund cessation programs for
Louisiana smokers.  The court final judgment also reflected its
award of prejudgment interest.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling
that, among other things:

       -- reduced the amount of the award by approximately $328
          million;

       -- struck the award of prejudgment interest, which
          totaled approximately $440 million as of Dec. 31,
          2006; and

       -- ruled that the only class members who are eligible to
          participate in the smoking cessation program are those
          who began smoking by Sept. 1, 1988, and whose claims  
          accrued by Sept. 1, 1988.  

The Louisiana Court of Appeal has returned the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.  

During January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review,
according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company,  
whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include
commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial
Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale
of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned
subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs
(Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary);
exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural
gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP,
a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels
Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary).


LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Sanders" Seeks Supreme Court Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-02281-SI," which was filed with U.S. District Court
for Northern District of California is seeking for a review of
the dismissal of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 9, 2004, Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Loews Corp., and other major cigarette manufacturers, along with
the Attorney General of the State of California, were sued by a
consumer purchaser of cigarettes in a putative class action
alleging violations of the Sherman Act and California state
antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The plaintiff seeks treble damages of an unstated amount for the
putative class as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.  

All claims are based on the assertion that the Master Settlement
Agreement (http://ag.ca.gov/tobacco/msa.php)together with  
certain implementing legislation enacted by the state of
California, constitute unlawful restraints of trade.

On March 28, 2005 the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit was
granted.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Argument was heard on Feb. 15, 2007, and the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion on Sept. 26, 2007 affirming dismissal of the
suit.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking
certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Loews
Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-02281-
SI," filed with U.S. District Court for Northern District of
California, Judge Susan Illston presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thad Alan Davis, Esq.
          Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-443-3000
          e-mail: thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com

Representing the defendants are:

          D. Eric Shapland, Esq.
          Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street
          40th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5758
          Phone: 213-689-0200
          Fax: 213-614-1868
          e-mail: eshapland@hewm.com

          Margaret Eve Spencer, Esq.
          California Attorney General
          Antitrust
          455 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3664
          Phone: 415-703-5543
          Fax: 415-703-5480
          e-mail: margaret.spencer@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Patrick J. Gregory, Esq.
          Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
          333 Bush Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-544-1900
          Fax: 415-391-0281
          e-mail: pgregory@shb.com


LORILLARD INC: Second Circuit Stays Proceedings in "Schwab" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stayed
proceedings in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris
USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," which was
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and names Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Loews Corp., as one of the defendants.

The case is a nationwide "lights" class action that was filed on
May 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York several tobacco manufacturers, including
Lorillard, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2007).

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each
defendant, jointly and severally, for all losses and damages
suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged wrong-doings
complained of, including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees and costs.  

They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent equitable
and/or injunctive relief, including enjoining future wrong-
doing, rescission, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten funds,
and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon
or otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten
funds.  

The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, challenging the
practices of the defendants in connection with the
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution
and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light."  

They have estimated damages to the class to be in the hundreds
of billions of dollars.  Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs
based on defendants violation of the RICO statute would be
trebled.

The case was certified as a nationwide class action involving
lights cigarettes.  

Defendants including the company appealed the certification to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit has agreed to review the class certification
order, and it has stayed all activity before the trial court
until the appeal is concluded, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb.
27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack
B. Weinstein presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-1980 (fax)
         e-mail: lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com
  
         William P. Butterfield, Esq.
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower     
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone: 202.408.4600
         Fax: 202.408.4699
         e-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com
  
Representing the defendants are:
  
         Mark A. Belasic, Esq.
         Jones Day
         901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: (216) 586-3939
         Fax: 216-579-0212
         e-mail: mabelasic@jonesday.com

              - and -

         Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq.
         Kirkland & Ellis
         Citigroup Center
         153 East 53rd Street
         New York, NY 10022-4675
         Phone: (212) 446-4800
         Fax: (212) 446-4900
         e-mail: peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Liability in "Discrimination Impact" Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals gave a split decision on
Feb. 29, 2008, in a class action lawsuit charging Lufkin
Industries with racially unfair hiring and promotion policies,
The Lufkin Daily News reports.

According to Lufkin Daily, the Appeals Court affirmed Lufkin
Industries' liability for the "discriminatory impact" of a
history of subjective promotional policies.  However, the Court
refused the charge that the company was unfair to blacks in
hiring for the foundry division.

The Court, in its 26-page decision, described the 12-year-old
suit a "wide-ranging, complex discrimination case."  It is known
to be the largest class-action of its kind, Lufkin Daily says.

The report recalls that in 2005, a federal court awarded
$3.4 million in back pay to the nearly 700 employees named in
the suit for decades of alleged racial workplace behavior and
hiring practices.  To date, no money has been awarded in the
case.

A split decision, Lufkin Daily notes, means that the decision on
how much money to pay to the employees and attorneys involved
will be saved for another time.

Nacogdoches attorney Tim Garrigan, Esq., who represents the
class members, said that the Appeals Court's affirmation of the
case "means that civil rights are still viable here in East
Texas."

The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No.  
9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, under Judge Howell Cobb.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 15108351417
  
          Timothy B. Garrigan, Esq. (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com)
          Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936/560-6020
          Fax: 19365609578

Representing the company is:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com)
          Vinson & Elkins
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713/758-2222
          Fax: 17136155014


MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Claims Valuation Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in a class action questioning
Mercury Insurance Corp.'s use of certain automated database
vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co." was
filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on June 16, 2002.  

The plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification
to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the
present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim
reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach
the policy limits for medical payments.  

On Jan. 11, 2007, the Court certified the requested class, and
class notice has been sent to approximately 14,000 class
members.  

The Company has appealed the class certification ruling, and the
Court of Appeal has stayed the case pending their review.

The Plaintiff alleges that these automated databases
systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the
detriment of insureds.  The Plaintiff is seeking actual and
punitive damages.

The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and
also with ten other cases relating to total loss claims.  

The Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment
holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman
sustained any damages as a result of the Company’s handling of
her medical payments claim.

The Company and the Plaintiff have agreed to settle the claims
for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s operations and
financial position.  The settlement is subject to review and
approval by the Court.

Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com-- and  
its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile
insurance principally in California.


MICROSOFT: e-Mails Show Knowledge of Error in "Vista" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Microsoft e-mail messages released with court documents
in a class-action suit suggest that the software giant bowed to
pressure from Intel Corp. in the run-up to the release of
Windows Vista, allowing computers to be labeled "Windows Vista
Capable" despite concerns that they were not up to the task of
running the operating system, news.ebrandz.com reports.

According to the report, a Microsoft executive said that
Microsoft was pressured by partner Intel Corp. to certify some
chips as capable of running the Windows Vista operating system
to help Intel meet earnings estimates.

The e-mail has come to light as a result of a lawsuit filed in
March 2007 against Microsoft, news.ebrandz points out.  The
e-mails were introduced as evidence in the case, which was
recently granted class-action status.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted class-action status to the
lawsuit, which is alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched
itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating
system called "Vista Home Basic."

The slogan, CAR noted, was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006
holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to
maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed.

According to news.ebrandz, the e-mails show that the company's
own executives were frustrated by hardware requirements for
Vista.  The e-mails also suggest that Intel was worried about
keeping up with demand, so it put pressure on Microsoft to lower
its standards for the "Vista Ready" marketing program and accept
an older chip that could not run Vista's Aero interface.

Aero, news.ebrandz explains, is one of the most marketed
features in Vista; it is the cool-looking graphical interface
that critics say resembles a Mac.  However, Aero only works with
PCs running newer graphics hardware.

The lawsuit alleges that the e-mail messages show that Microsoft
went along with misrepresenting the capabilities of computers
with some Intel chipsets, and that consumers wound up with badly
working computers as a result.

news.ebrandz notes that the decision was made over the objection
of some Microsoft officials, who expressed concern that Intel's
915 chipset was not capable of properly displaying Vista's
graphics features, according to e-mails released on Feb. 27,
2008.

"In the end, we lowered the requirements to help Intel make
their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell
motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded," John Kalkman, a
Microsoft general manager who handles relations with personal-
computer makers, said in one message.  Motherboards are the main
circuit boards in PCs.

In another message, executive Mike Ybarra put it more
succinctly: "We are caving to Intel."

In a statement, Microsoft said the e-mail messages "reflect part
of an active discussion about how best to implement the Windows
Vista Capable program."  Vista was widely released in January
2007.

Microsoft confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails on March 2,
2008.  Intel, the biggest maker of computer processors, said the
messages' allegations were unfounded.

"With respect to the statement in the e-mail from one John
Kalkman, we have no idea who he is and we are absolutely certain
he would have zero visibility into Intel's financials, Intel's
financial forecasts or anything to do with any particular
quarter at any time," said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for the
Santa Clara, California-based Intel.  

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Todd Bishop got its hands on
the entire 300-pages worth of Microsoft e-mails that are part of
the lawsuit regarding Microsoft's Vista Capable logo program.  
The e-mails (a 3.5-MB PDF file) can be accessed at:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaexhibitsone.pdf


The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com  


NEW YORK: Sued by Two Men Busted on Loitering Law
-------------------------------------------------
Two men busted on a loitering law declared unconstitutional 25
years ago have filed a federal class-action suit accusing New
York City and the New York Police Department of false arrest,
Daily News reports.

If the suit is certified as a class-action case, it will cover
others illegally arrested and could cost the city a considerable
amount of money, according to the report.

A Daily News computer review found that 2,513 people have been
arrested under the law since it was thrown out in 1983.

The suit is related to a pending class-action case accusing the
NYPD of arresting thousands of people under an anti-panhandling
law that was ruled unconstitutional in 1992.  In 2006, the city
agreed to pay former beggar Eddie Wise $100,000 to drop his
complaint.  That suit remains active as dozens more panhandlers
came forward with similar claims.

In the new suit, Paul Casale, a midtown ad agency coordinator,
and Anthony Garcia, a married Brooklyn dad, were busted at the
Port Authority in March 2007 and strip-searched.

Mr. Casale, who lives on the upper West Side, was walking with
Mr. Garcia, who is on public assistance, when they were
approached by cops on a sidewalk outside the bus depot, their
lawyers said.  Mr. Casale, who had never before been arrested,
had run into Mr. Garcia, a friend, who had just put a woman
friend on a bus.

Katie Rosenfeld, Esq., said it was unclear why the two men were
arrested but the cops did so under a law voided in 1988.  The
men were taken into custody under a law that made a person
guilty of loitering if they were unable to give a "satisfactory
explanation" as to why they were in a transportation facility.

"This action seeks to end -- finally, for all time -- this
pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct by police
officers in the NYPD," the suit says.

"You can't arrest someone for not having a sufficient
explanation -- but they do," said Matthew Brinckerhoff, Esq.,
another lawyer on the case.  "It's even crazier when [the
statute is] long dead."

The men are suing even though the charges were eventually
dropped.

The suit also challenges the enforcement of a second subsection
of the penal code, one that made it illegal to solicit "deviant"
sex in a public place.


QUAKER OATS: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mixes Posing Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Quaker Oats Co. announced the products in the recall are a
small quantity of Aunt Jemima Pancake & Waffle Mix: Original,
Original Complete and Buttermilk Complete, which may have
potential salmonella contamination.

No other Aunt Jemima, frozen Aunt Jemima or Quaker products are
affected.

The products, sold in 2 pound and 5 pound boxes with Best Before
dates of "FEB 08 09 H" through "FEB 16 09 H" stamped on the top,
contain the following UPC codes:

    * 30000 43272: Aunt Jemima Buttermilk Complete, 5 lb.
    * 30000 05040: Aunt Jemima Original, 2 lb.
    * 30000 05070: Aunt Jemima Original Complete, 2 lb.
    * 30000 05300: Aunt Jemima Buttermilk Complete, 2 lb.

Salmonella is a food borne illness that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
persons infected with salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

No illnesses have been reported in connection with this issue to
date.  There is very low risk of illness when preparation
directions on box are followed and product is not consumed raw
or undercooked.  Salmonella bacteria is killed at a temperature
of 160 F.

If consumers have this product with the indicated UPC codes and
Best Before dates, they should return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company by calling the toll-free hotline at 1-800-
407-2247 or by logging onto http://www.auntjemima.com.

Quaker is in the process of recovering the product involved.
Quaker knows specifically to which customer warehouses the
product was shipped.  Approximately 98% of the product is within
Quaker's control.  The 2% of product which is outside of
Quaker's control was shipped to a limited number of retail and
mass merchandiser stores (no direct distribution to West Coast).
Of that small quantity, the vast majority likely has not been
placed on store shelves.  Product was shipped to 17 states
including Texas, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North
Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado,
Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, New Mexico, Kansas and Utah.


REBELETTE INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebelette International Trading Corp., of South El Monte,
Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 4,800 Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts.

The sweatshirt jackets have a drawstring through the hood which
poses a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling
or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in
upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled hooded sweatshirts have a drawstring at the neck.
They zip up the front, and are either blue with pink stripes on
the sleeves with "Red Hot Chili Steppers" printed on the front,
or brown with blue stripes on the sleeves with "Powder Puffs
Touch League" on the front.  The sweatshirts were sold in
children's sizes small, medium, large, and sizes 4, 5, 6, and
6X.  "REBELETTE of Los Angeles" is printed on the collar label.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at Marshalls Stores and specialty children's clothing
retailers nationwide from July 2007 through September 2007 for
about $15.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207c.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207d.jpg

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the hood
to eliminate the hazard, or return the sweatshirt to either the
place of purchase or to Rebelette International for a full
refund.

For additional information, contact Rebelette International
collect at (626) 448-9988 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT
Monday through Friday.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ENERNOC INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against EnerNoc, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is from November 1, 2007, through February 27,
2008.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 5, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


ENERNOC INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a class action lawsuit with
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired securities of EnerNOC, Inc. in the open market from
November 1, 2007, through February 27, 2008, or in the Offering
which closed on or about November 19, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that EnerNOC presented itself throughout
the Class Period as a company that was growing rapidly, and one
which was able to provide services and book revenues on an
almost immediate basis.  At the end of the Class Period,
however, EnerNOC revealed, among other things, that:

     (1) ballooning operational and compensation expenses were
         outpacing revenue growth, resulting in losses greater
         than the market expected; and

     (2) that an increasing number of EnerNOC's forward capacity
         contracts involve substantial upfront costs, but a
         prolonged "lag" in the ability to recognize revenue.

Upon the announcement of this adverse news, EnerNOC's shares
dropped almost 30% in heavy trading, wiping out over $100
million in shareholder value.

On November 1, 2007, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Timothy Healey, told analysts that the Company's sales
force was driving rapid organic revenue growth, but failed to
adequately reveal adverse expense trends, and the fact that an
increasing number of "megawatts under management" involve
prolonged lags in the Company's ability to recognize revenue.

Then, on November 19, 2007, the Company and certain insiders
sold 2.5 million EnerNOC shares at $43.00 per share in a
secondary offering (the Offering).  Mr. Healey sold over 64,000
of his own shares for proceeds of approximately $2.7 million,
and David Brewster, the Company's President sold approximately
140,000 of his own shares for proceeds of $6 million.  In all,
2.5 million shares were sold for proceeds of over $100 million,
including substantial shares sold by large investors who have
representatives on EnerNOC's Board of Directors.  The Prospectus
for the Secondary Offering failed to reveal the material adverse
facts set forth above.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 5, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street
          46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com


SLM CORP: Charles Johnson Announces Filing of NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates announced that a class action
has been commenced with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of SLM
Corporation -- Sallie Mae -- publicly traded securities during
the period January 18, 2007, through January 3, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that Sallie May and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements.
Specifically, Defendants concealed the following:

     1) the Company failed to engage in proper due diligence in
        originating student loans to subprime borrowers,
        particularly those attending non-traditional
        institutions;

     2) the Company was not adequately reserving for
        uncollectible loans in its non-traditional portfolio;

     3) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
        losses and defaults related to its non-traditional loan
        portfolio than previously disclosed; and

     4) given the deterioration of the subprime market and
        reductions in federal subsidies, the Company would be
        forced to tighten lending standards on both federal
        loans and private education loans which would have a
        direct material negative impact on its loan originations
        going forward.

On January 3, 2008, the Company disclosed that it would be
cutting back on its core business of lending to students by
being "more selective" in making students loans due to turmoil
in the credit markets and a new federal law that slashed
subsidies to the private companies that make government-backed
student loans.  On this news, Sallie Mae's stock dropped $2.49
per share to close at $16.67 per share.  Sallie Mae traded as
high as $57.98 per share in July 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN  55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Dismissal of Beavers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
which dismissed an asbestos complaint filed by nearly 100
plaintiffs, including Vera L. Beavers.

The case was filed against A.O. Smith Electrical Products
Company (a division of The A.O. Smith Corporation), A.O. Smith
Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company, Albany International Inc.,
American Optical Corporation, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.,
Crown Holdings, Inc., Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Borg Warner
Corp., by and through its successor in interest, Borgwarner
Morse Tec Inc., Exteco, Inc. f/k/a Thermo Electric Co., Inc.,
Marley-Wylain Co. d/b/a Weil-Mclain Co., Inc., Honeywell Inc.,
John Crane Inc. and other defendants.  

Circuit Judges Tjoflat, Black, and Carnes entered judgment of
Case Nos. 06-15401, 07-11401 on Feb. 13, 2008.

In this case, which is not a class action, the plaintiffs,
nearly 100 individuals, appealed the district court's dismissal
of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as
well as the court's denial of their subsequent motion for relief
from judgment.

The complaint, which sought damages for personal injury and
wrongful death resulting from exposure to asbestos, alleged that
the court had diversity jurisdiction.

However, the district court determined that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity
among the parties. Specifically, the complaint contained
plaintiffs and defendants that were both alleged to be from
California and Georgia.

Accordingly, on Aug. 31, 2006, the court dismissed the
complaint.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal,
challenging the district court's dismissal of their complaint.
On that same day, the plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment.
The plaintiffs also moved to sever each plaintiff's claim and to
amend their complaint.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court struck the plaintiffs'
motion for relief from judgment because it believed that the
pending appeal stripped it of jurisdiction over the motion. On
the next day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.

The district court held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion on
Jan. 9, 2007, and the next day, Jan. 10, 2007, denied their.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen the
case and to file their proposed amended complaint, which was
attached to the motion. The district court denied that motion on
Feb. 28, 2007, for want of jurisdiction because the case was
still pending on appeal in this Court.

On March 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed with the district court
a motion for an extension of time to appeal the court's Jan. 10,
2007, order denying their motion.

The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the
plaintiffs appealed the district court's order denying their
motion.

The district court properly denied the plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)
motion for relief.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Still Faces Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. is a defendant in various various lawsuits
involving alleged workplace exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or
operated by the Company.  It does not manufacture any products
that contain asbestos and all its cases in this area are limited
to workplace exposure claims.

Historically, the Company's aggregate annual settlements related
to asbestos claims have been about US$1 million.

The number of claims has remained relatively constant in the
past few years despite the fact that most of the claims relate
to a facility the Company sold at the end of 1999.

Austin, Tex.-based Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures corrugated
packaging and building products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire's A&E Loss Reserves Total $5Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company's direct and assumed asbestos and
environmental loss reserves were US$5 million at Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$3.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company's ceded A&E loss reserves were US$1.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$600,000 at Dec. 31, 2006.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa-based United Fire & Casualty Company is
engaged in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance.  The Company reports its
operations in two business segments: property and casualty
insurance and life insurance. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company
employed 667 full-time employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel's Cases Rise to 325 at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, face about
325 active asbestos cases involving about 3,000 plaintiffs,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

These cases include cases involving the businesses acquired from
Lone Star Technologies, Inc.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company faced about 300 active
asbestos cases involving about 3,050 plaintiffs, including cases
involving the businesses acquired from Lone Star. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007)

Many of these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from
50 to more than 100).  Almost 2,650, or about 88 percent, of
these claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit
filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.

During 2007, the Company paid about US$9 million in settlements.
These settlements, and other dispositions resolved about 1,230
claims.  New case filings in 2007 added about 530 claims.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 300 active cases
involving about 3,700 plaintiffs.  During 2006, the Company paid
about US$8 million in settlements.  These settlements, and other
dispositions resolved about 5,150 claims.

New case filings in 2006 added about 450 claims.  Most claims
filed in 2006 and 2007 involved individual or small groups of
claimants as many jurisdictions no longer permit the filing of
mass complaints.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos.  The Company is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of about 150
plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation is an
integrated steel producer with operations in North America and
Central Europe.  The Company has annual raw steel production
capability of 31.7 million net tons (24.3 million tons in North
America and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe) and is the fifth
largest steel producer in the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Forest Has Site Cleanup Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Forest Products, Inc. states that a reserve was
established for its affiliate's facility in Thornton, Calif., to
remove asbestos and certain lead containing materials, which
existed on the property at the time of purchase.

The reserve amount was not disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 26, 2008.

Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Universal Forest Products, Inc.
engineers, manufactures, treats, distributes and installs
lumber, composite wood, plastic and other building products to
the do-it-yourself/retail, site-built construction, manufactured
housing, and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces Potential 3rd Party Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco Inc. faces or may face claims alleging exposures of third
parties to toxic substances, such as asbestos or benzene.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 27, 2008.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a
petroleum refiner and marketer and chemicals manufacturer with
interests in logistics and cokemaking.  The petroleum refining
and marketing, chemicals and logistics operations are conducted
principally in the eastern half of the United States. The
Company's cokemaking operations are conducted in Virginia,
Indiana, Ohio and Vitoria, Brazil.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Still Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. is still involved in numerous asbestos-related
proceedings, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company was in April 1977 by Pharmacia Corporation, which
was then known as Monsanto Company (Old Monsanto) to hold and
operate substantially all of the assets, and assume all of the
liabilities of Old Monsanto's historical chemicals business.

Pharmacia spun the Company off to Pharmacia's shareholders and
the Company became an independent company in September 1977
(Solutia Spinoff).

Pharmacia subsequently formed a new company, Monsanto Company,
(Monsanto) to hold its agricultural and seed businesses and then
spun Monsanto off to its shareholders as well.

Monsanto also indemnified Pharmacia on a number of legal
proceedings in which the Company was named defendant or were
defending solely due to the Pharmacia related indemnification
obligations.

The legal proceedings relate to property damage, personal
injury, products liability, premises liability or other damages
relating to exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos and
other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spinoff.

Defense and settlement costs as well as judgments, if any, are
currently being funded by Monsanto for these matters.

Monsanto's funding of these legal activities, and the resulting
claim against the Company, which Monsanto has asserted in the
Chapter 11 case, inclusive of the non-quantified unliquidated
and contingent components of their claim, will be resolved via
the Plan of Reorganization.

The estimated unsecured claim amount, classified as a liability
subject to compromise, was US$106 million as of Dec. 31, 2007,
and US$111 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. manufactures and markets high-
performance chemical and engineered products that are used in
consumer and industrial applications.  The Company has 29
manufacturing facilities, eight technical centers and over 30
sales offices globally, including 20 facilities in the U.S.  The
Company employs about 6,000 individuals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Faces 175 Pending Claims at Dec. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced about 175 pending asbestos-related
claims as of Dec. 30, 2007, compared with about 148 pending
claims as of Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company recorded about 177 pending asbestos-related claims
filed against it as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 16, 2007.)

Over the past several years, there has been an increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related product liability claims
brought against numerous industrial companies where the third-
party plaintiffs allege personal injury from exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

The Company has been named as a defendant in some of these
claims.  In virtually all of these claims filed against the
Company, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, or, if
an amount is specified, it merely represents jurisdictional
amounts or amounts to be proven at trial.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos.  Those products were provided to
industrial users.  The Company stopped manufacturing these
products in 1987.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Mississippi.

Cases that the Company is involved in typically name 50-300
defendants, although some cases have had as few as one and as
many as 833 defendants.

The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these claims. In
2007, the Company was able to have about 59 claims dismissed (76
claims in 2006).  In 2007, the Company has settled 12 claims (15
claims in 2006).

The Company's insurance carriers have paid most costs, including
the majority of costs associated with the small number of cases
that have been settled.  Those settlements totaled about US$2
million in 2007 and about US$5.1 million in 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: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27,
2008.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va.), the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.,
R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC,
Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Beloit Subject to Asbestos Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, a party to
litigation that arises in its operations, including, asbestos
matters, contract disputes, product warranty and liability
claims, and environmental, employment and other litigation
matters.

Litigation may have an adverse effect on the Company because of
potential adverse outcomes, the costs associated with defending
lawsuits, the diversion of management's resources and other
factors.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 27, 2008.

Company Profile:

   Regal Beloit Corporation
   200 State St.
   Beloit, Wis. 53511-6254
   United States
   Phone: (608) 364-8800
   Web site: http://www.regal-beloit.com/

Description:

Regal Beloit Corporation is a manufacturer of commercial,
industrial, and HVAC electric motors, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.  The Company
is based in Beloit, Wis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Action v. PepsiAmericas Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related insurance action filed by Cooper Industries,
LLC against PepsiAmericas, Inc., and other parties is ongoing in
Cook County Circuit Court, Minn., according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against
the Company, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust,
captioned Cooper Industries, LLC v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 05 CH 09214.

The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy.  Cooper
asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that
previously was in the Trust and was used to purchase the
insurance policy.

Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for
underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper.
Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy.

Pneumo Abex, the corporate successor to the Company's prior
subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit.

During the second quarter of 2006, the Trustee's motion to
dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three
counts against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were
dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the
Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it.  The Company's motion was granted
during the second quarter of 2006 and all remaining counts
against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee.

Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court on Sept. 7,
2007, issued an opinion affirming the trial court's opinion.  
Cooper subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois
Supreme Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings.

The Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the
Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the
Company joined in that brief.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Cooper's
petition for leave to appeal the appellate court's Sept. 7, 2007
ruling.

Cooper had until Feb. 27, 2008 to file a petition for certiorari
seeking discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
and markets beverage products in the United States, Central and
Eastern Europe and the Caribbean, and has expanded its
distribution to include snack foods and beer in certain markets.
The Company accounts for about 19 percent of all PepsiCo, Inc.
beverage products sold in the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Accrues $4Mil for Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas, Inc. had accrued US$4 million related to product
liability as of the end of fiscal year 2007, compared with
US$5.5 million as of the end of fiscal year 2006.  These
accruals primarily relate to probable asbestos claim settlements
and legal defense costs.

The Company has certain indemnification obligations related to
product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate out
of a 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex, LLC.  Other companies not
owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible to
Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product
liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date
in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company.

The Company also has additional amounts accrued for legal and
other costs associated with obtaining insurance recoveries for
previously resolved and currently open claims and their related
costs.  These amounts are included in the total liabilities of
US$40.2 million accrued as of the end of fiscal year 2007.

In addition to the known and probable asbestos claims, the
Company may be subject to additional asbestos claims that are
possible for which no reserve had been established as of the end
of fiscal year 2007.

These additional reasonably possible claims are primarily
asbestos related and the aggregate exposure related to these
possible claims is estimated to be in the range of US$4 million
to US$17 million.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
and markets beverage products in the United States, Central and
Eastern Europe and the Caribbean, and has expanded its
distribution to include snack foods and beer in certain markets.
The Company accounts for about 19 percent of all PepsiCo, Inc.
beverage products sold in the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OfficeMax Continues to Face Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past several years and continuing in 2008, OfficeMax
Incorporated has been named a defendant in a number of cases
where the plaintiffs allege asbestos-related injuries from
exposure to asbestos products or exposure to asbestos while
working at job sites.

The claims vary widely and often are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company.  None of the claimants
seeks damages from the Company individually.

Many of the cases filed against the Company have been
voluntarily dismissed, although the Company has settled some
cases.

The settlements the Company has paid have been covered mostly by
insurance.

To date, no asbestos case against the Company has gone to trial.

Naperville, Ill.-based OfficeMax Incorporated engages in office
products distribution.  The Company provides office supplies and
paper, print and document services, technology products and
solutions and furniture to large, medium and small businesses,
government offices, and consumers.  Company customers are served
by about 36,000 associates through direct sales, catalogs, the
Internet and retail stores.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Plaintiff in Kellogg Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division, denied
Geraldine Nicholas' motion to compel arbitration and to stay, in
a lawsuit filed on behalf of James Nicholas against his former
employers M.W. Kellogg Company, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, KBR,
Inc., and Halliburton Co.

The case is styled Geraldine Nicholas, Individually and as
Administratrix of the Estate of James Nicholas, Plaintiff, v.
M.W. Kellogg Company, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal entered judgment of Civil Action
No. H-07-0657 on Feb. 12, 2008.

Mr. Nicholas was an M.W. Kellogg employee who developed
mesothelioma. On Dec. 24, 1998, he and M.W. Kellogg signed a
severance agreement. Under the agreement, Mr. Nicholas released
M.W. Kellogg from liability for any claims he had against M.W.
Kellogg, and M.W. Kellogg agreed to continue Mr. Nicholas'
"company-provided benefits."

Mr. Nicholas took a medical leave of absence from his job in
1998 and continued to receive health insurance benefits at
active employee rates.  He received short-term and then
long-term disability insurance benefits under the parties'
agreement.

On Jan. 2, 2003, Mr. Nicholas' benefits were terminated and he
received a COBRA notification informing him that he was not
entitled to benefits. He contacted the defendants' human
resources department and was instructed to exercise his COBRA
rights to prevent his health coverage from lapsing while
M.W. Kellogg corrected the error in termination.

Mr. Nicholas medical and dental benefits were restored on
Nov. 1, 2003, and the defendants reimbursed Mr. Nicholas for his
out-of-pocket costs associated with the COBRA coverage he had
received in the interim.

In this suit, Mrs. Nicholas alleged that the defendants did not
reinstate her husband's life insurance, which he was entitled to
receive under his severance agreement.

Mr. Nicholas died on Dec. 20, 2006.  Mrs. Nicholas sued the
defendants in Texas state court on Jan. 17, 2007, alleging
breach of contract and seeking damages in the amount of the life
insurance allegedly promised under the severance agreement.  The
defendants removed.

After the District Court denied her motion to remand based on
federal question removal jurisdiction, Mrs. Nicholas sought and
obtained leave to amend to assert causes of action under ERISA.

Mrs. Nicholas now sought to compel arbitration under the
agreement between her husband and his employer.  The defendants
argued that Mrs. Nicholas has waived her right to arbitrate by
substantially invoking the judicial process in this litigation.
Mrs. Nicholas did not respond to these arguments.

Ten months after filing suit, Mrs. Nicholas moved to stay these
proceedings and compel arbitration. The defendants have
responded.

The District Court denied Mrs. Nicholas' motion to compel
arbitration and to stay.

Edward Downs Fisher, Provost Umphrey, Beaumont, Tex.,
represented Geraldine Nicholas.

Michael James Muskat, Muskat, Martinez & Mahony, LLP, Houston,
represented M.W. Kellogg Company and other Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Cites Net Reserves of $121.9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's asbestos reserves were
a net of US$121.9 million (a gross of US$149.4 million) at the
end of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with a net of US$117.3 million (a
gross of US$151.8 million) at the end of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's reserve estimates also include provisions for
indemnity and settlement costs for various asbestosis and
environmental impairment ("A&E") claims that have been filed in
the normal course of business against a number of its insurance
subsidiaries.  Many such claims relate to policies issued prior
to 1985, including many issued during a short period between
1981 and 1982 under an agency agreement canceled in 1982.

Over the years, the Company's property and liability insurance
subsidiaries have typically issued general liability insurance
policies with face amounts ranging between US$1 million and
US$2 million and rarely exceeding US$10 million.

Those policies have, in turn, been subject to reinsurance
cessions which have typically reduced the subsidiaries' net
retentions to US$500,000 or less as to each claim.

In recent times, the Executive Branch and the U.S. Congress has
proposed or considered changes in the legislation and rules
affecting the determination of liability for environmental and
asbestosis claims.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, however, there is no
solid evidence to suggest that possible future changes might
mitigate or reduce some or all of these claim exposures.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's aggregate indemnity and loss
adjustment expense reserves specifically identified with A&E
exposures amounted to about US$190.5 million gross, and
US$158.1 million net of reinsurance.

Based on average annual claims payments during the five most
recent calendar years, such reserves represented 7.7 years
(gross) and 10.7 years (net of reinsurance) of average annual
claims payments.

For the five years ended Dec. 31, 2007, incurred A&E claim and
related loss settlement costs have averaged 2.8 percent of
average annual General Insurance Group claims and related
settlement costs.

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corporation is a
holding company engaged in the single business of insurance
underwriting.  It conducts its operations through a number of
regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three
major segments, namely, its General (property and liability
insurance), Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance Groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Has $36M for Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning has reserved about US$36 million as of Dec. 31,
2007, to pay remaining asbestos claims in the Bankruptcy of
which about US$34 million relates to non-tax claims (the "Non-
Tax Bankruptcy Reserve").

On Oct. 5, 2000, Owens Corning Sales, LLC (formerly known as
Owens Corning) and the 17 U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Until Oct. 31, 2006, the date on which the Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy, the Debtors operated their businesses as debtors-in-
possession in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code.

The Chapter 11 cases of the Debtors (collectively, the "Chapter
11 Cases") were jointly administered under Case No. 00-3837
(JKF).  The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code to address the growing demands on cash flow
resulting from the multi-billion dollars of asbestos personal
injury claims that had been asserted against OCD and Fibreboard
Corporation.

Following a Confirmation Hearing on Sept. 18, 2006, the USBC
entered an Order on Sept. 26, 2006, confirming the Debtors'
Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization for Owens Corning and
Its Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-In-Possession (as Modified),
and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding
Confirmation of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for Owens Corning and Its Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-In-
Possession.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware entered an order affirming the Confirmation Order and
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.  Under the
Confirmation Order, the Plan became effective in accordance with
its terms on Oct. 31, 2006 (the "Effective Date").

Under the terms of the Plan and related Confirmation Order,
asbestos personal injury claims against each of OCD and
Fibreboard will be administered and distributions on account of
such claims will be made, exclusively from the 524(g) Trust that
has been established and funded under the Plan.

In addition, all asbestos property damage claims against OCD or
Fibreboard either:

     (i) have been resolved,

    (ii) will be resolved under the Plan, along with certain
         other unsecured claims for an aggregate amount within
         the Company's Non-Tax Bankruptcy Reserve, or

(iii) are barred under the Plan and Confirmation Order.

Accordingly, other than the limited number and value of property
damage claims being resolved under clause (ii) above, the
Company has no further asbestos liabilities.

Under the terms of the Plan, the Company is obligated to make
certain additional payments to certain creditors, including
certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority
claims and professional advisors in the Chapter 11 Cases.

Under the Plan, the Company has established a Disputed
Distribution Reserve, funded in the amount of about US$33
million as of Dec. 31, 2007, which is reflected as restricted
cash in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, for the potential
payment of certain non-tax claims against the Debtors that were
disputed as of the Effective Date.

Toledo, Ohio-based Owens Corning produces residential and
commercial building materials and glass fiber reinforcements and
other similar materials for composite systems.  The Company
operates within two general product categories: building
materials and composites.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Still Faces 26 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. continues to face 26 pending
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 27, 2007.

To date, one asbestos case has been dismissed.

In the 2007-3rd quarter, the Company faced 26 asbestos-related
cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date.  It is
unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of
the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not
require identifying the amount of the claimed damage.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica cases in 2006 was US$100,000.  Costs for the
legal defense of these cases in 2007 were US$78,500.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and
technology-based company that develops, produces and markets
specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services.  The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 207 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, at Dec. 31, 2007, recorded about 207
asbestos-related cases for which it was potentially liable and
that had not been settled and dismissed, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company had recorded a US$54.5 million liability related to
this matter at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$64.6 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded about 208 asbestos-
related cases for which it was potentially liable and that had
not been settled and dismissed.  (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 23, 2007.)

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

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

Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion responsibility for
future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure
sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Company
locations.

The Company engaged an independent actuary in 2004 to complete
an estimate of future losses.  Based on the actuary's analysis,
the Company recorded an undiscounted liability for its indemnity
for future asbestos claims through 2045.  During the fourth
quarter of 2007, the actuary report was updated and the
liability reduced by US$9 million.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale
electricity to markets in the Midwest.  The Company has a
generating capacity of more than 5,610 MW from its six coal-
fired power plants in Illinois.  The Company is a subsidiary of
Edison International unit Edison Mission Midwest Holdings Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.W. Grainger Inc. Faces 2,800 Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., as of Jan. 14, 2008, is named in cases
filed on behalf of about 2,800 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and silica, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2009.

As of Jan. 17, 2007, the Company faced cases filed on behalf of
about 3,100 plaintiffs, in which there are allegations of
exposure to asbestos and silica.  (Class Action Reporter,
March 9, 2007.)

The Company has been named as a defendant in litigation in
various states involving asbestos and silica.  These lawsuits
typically assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged
exposure to asbestos and silica as a consequence of products
purportedly distributed by the Company.

The Company has denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in
those lawsuits.

In 2007, lawsuits relating to asbestos and silica and involving
about 250 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company,
typically based on the lack of product identification.

If a specific product distributed by Grainger is identified in
any of these lawsuits, Grainger would attempt to exercise
indemnification remedies against the product manufacturer.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based W.W. Grainger, Inc., through its Branch-
based Distribution, Acklands-Grainger, and Lab Safety units,
distributes maintenance, repair, and service equipment,
components, and supplies.  The Company provides more than
180,000 products like compressors, motors, signs, lighting and
welding equipment, and hand and power tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeal Court Favors Black & Veatch
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4, California,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which granted summary judgment to Black & Veatch Corporation
(Black), in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by spouses
Jennifer Drinkwater and Robert Drinkwater.

The case is styled Jennifer A. Drinkwater et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. Black & Veatch Corporation, Defendant and
Respondent.

Judges Ruvolo, Reardon, and Sepulveda entered judgment of Case
No. A118061 on Feb. 14, 2008.

On Sept. 7, 2000, the Drinkwaters' trial counsel filed a "Master
Complaint-Asbestos" in San Francisco Superior Court, under that
court's "General Order No. 55."

On Aug. 23, 2006, the Drinkwaters filed a complaint for personal
injury and loss of consortium-asbestos.  Under General Order No.
55, the complaint referenced in chart form, those claims pleaded
in the "Master Complaint-Asbestos" against the individual
defendants sued in the current action.

A motion for calendar preference was made in October 2006 by the
Drinkwaters based upon a showing that Mrs. Drinkwater was not
expected to live more than six months.  Several of the
defendants, including Black, filed a "Conditional Non-
Opposition" to the motion.

The motion was granted by the trial court on Oct. 31, 2006.  The
order granting calendar preference set strict procedural time
limits for further proceedings.  The case was "singly assigned"
to Judge Katherine Feinstein, and the parties were ordered to
appear before Judge Feinstein on Nov. 3, 2006.

Also in October 2006, the Drinkwaters filed their "Second
Amendment to Complaint," which added another defendant. Black
made a request for leave to file a first amended answer, which
was not opposed by the Drinkwaters, and the motion was granted
by order dated Dec. 6, 2006.  By then, Feb. 20, 2007, had been
set as the trial date.

On or about Jan. 23, 2007, Black filed a motion for summary
judgment, calendared to be heard on Feb. 9, 2007.

The motion was extensively briefed by both sides, and a hearing
was held on Feb. 9, 2007.  That same date the trial court
entered a written order granting Black's motion for summary
judgment, concluding that the Drinkwaters had sued Black on a
theory of premises/contractor liability only, and there was no
triable issue of fact which could establish that respondent
owned, occupied or controlled premises containing asbestos,
which was a factual predicate to the claim against Black.

On Feb. 15, 2007, the Drinkwaters applied to the court for an
order shortening time to allow them to bring a motion before
trial commenced to amend their complaint "to conform to proof."
Alternatively, they intended to move for a new trial or for
reconsideration of Black's motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the trial court issued a written order
entering judgment in favor of Black.

A hearing on the combined, alternative motions was held on March
16, 2007 and a written order denying the motions was filed on
March 29, 2007.

The Drinkwaters appealed after the trial court granted Black's
motion for summary judgment and denied the Drinkwaters' request
for leave to amend the complaint against Black.

The motion for summary judgment was based principally on the
ground that there was no triable issue of fact as to whether
Black owned, occupied, or controlled any property containing
asbestos, a factual element essential to establishing the
premises liability cause of action asserted against Black.

The Drinkwaters contended on appeal that the complaint also
stated a claim for general negligence against Black, but if a
viable negligence claim had not been stated adequately, the
trial court abused its discretion in denying the Drinkwaters'
motion for leave to amend.

The Appeals Court disagreed with the Drinkwaters, and affirmed
the judgment.

Bryce Clay Anderson, Law Office of Bryce C. Anderson, Antioch,
Calif., Gloria E. Chun, Paul Hanley & Harley, Berkeley, Calif.,
represented Jennifer A. Drinkwater and Robert Drinkwater.

Daniel Brent Hoye, McKenna Long & Aldridge, San Francisco, Kurt
Legarde Rasmussen, Kansas City, Mo., Shawn Michael Ridley,
Redwood City, Calif., represented Black & Veatch Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Ford Motor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to be a defendant in actions for
injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged contact with Ford
parts and other products containing asbestos, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

Asbestos was used in brakes, clutches, and other automotive
components from the early 1900s.

Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health
problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component
parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos
products in Company facilities, or asbestos aboard its former
maritime fleet.

Most of the asbestos litigation the Company faces involves
mechanics or other individuals who have worked on the brakes of
Company vehicles over the years.

Most of the asbestos cases asserted against the Company do not
specify a dollar amount for damages, and in many of the other
cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum.  
Most of these cases involve multiple defendants, with the number
in some cases exceeding 100.

Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and the
Company is often unable to tell from the pleadings which of the
plaintiffs are making claims against the Company (as opposed to
other defendants).

With some variation from year to year, the Company's annual
payout and related defense costs in asbestos cases has generally
been decreasing since 2003.  These costs may, however, become
substantial in the future.

Dearborn, Mich.-based Ford Motor Company was incorporated in
Delaware in 1919.  The Company acquired the business of a
Michigan company, also known as Ford Motor Company, that had
been incorporated in 1903 to produce and sell automobiles
designed and engineered by Henry Ford.  The Company produces
cars and trucks combined. The Company and its subsidiaries also
engage in other businesses, including financing vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Pending v. Advance Auto, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc., and some of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company's Western Auto subsidiary, together with other
defendants including automobile manufacturers, automotive parts
manufacturers and other retailers, has been named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products.

The plaintiffs have alleged that these products were
manufactured, distributed and sold by the various defendants.  
To date, these products have included brake and clutch parts and
roofing materials.

Many of the cases pending against the Company or its
subsidiaries are in the early stages of litigation.  The damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial.

Additionally, some of the automotive parts manufacturers named
as defendants in these lawsuits have declared bankruptcy, which
will limit plaintiffs' ability to recover monetary damages from
those defendants.

Roanoke, Va.-based Advance Auto Parts, Inc. operates within the
United States automotive aftermarket industry, which includes
replacement parts (excluding tires), accessories, maintenance
items, batteries and automotive chemicals for cars and light
trucks (pickup trucks, vans, minivans and sport utility
vehicles).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 426 Lawsuits Pending v. AK Steel at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation states that, as of Dec. 31, 2007,
about 426 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against its
subsidiary AK Steel Corporation, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had 421 asbestos-related
lawsuits pending against it. (Class Action Reporter, March 9,
2007)

In 2007, AK Steel noted 71 new claims filed and 138 claims
disposed of.  The total amount paid in settlements was
US$400,000.

In 2006, AK Steel noted 60 new claims filed and 65 claims
disposed of.  The total amount paid in settlements was
US$400,000.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the
premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.  About 40
percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure
at a facility in Houston that has been closed since 1984.

Only 135 of the 426 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2007, in which AK
Steel is a defendant include specific dollar claims for damages
in the filed complaints.  Those 135 cases involve a total of
2,600 plaintiffs and 17,317 defendants.

In each, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim for
compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate
the total monetary claim among the various defendants.

For example, 120 of the 135 cases involve claims of US$200,000
or less, seven involve claims of between US$200,000 and
US$5 million, five involve claims of between US$5 million and
US$15 million, and three involve claims of US$20 million.

It has been AK Steel's experience to date that a small
percentage of asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel
as a target defendant from whom they actually seek damages and
most of these claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled
for a small fraction of the damages initially claimed.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990,
five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in favor of
AK Steel.

West Chester, Ohio-based AK Steel Holding Corporation is a
fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and
electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly owned
subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Records $22.9M Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's asbestos and environmental reserve for
unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses includes
US$22.9 million of gross reserves (US$22.7 million of net
reserves) at Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by Capitol Indemnity Corporation, a
subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica Corporation (CATA), between
1969 and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity exited this business in 1976.

Promptly after the Company acquired CATA in January 2002, CATA's
management commenced a program to settle, or position for
commutation, Capitol Indemnity's assumed reinsurance treaties
and make appropriate payments on a timely basis when deemed
necessary.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the aggregate gross loss and
LAE payments for A&E impairment claims of CATA were
US$1 million, compared with US$1.9 million in Dec. 31 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, reserves of CATA totaled about
US$16.7 million for asbestos liabilities.  At Dec. 31, 2007, the
reserves for asbestos liabilities were about 15.8 times the
average paid claims for the prior three-year period, compared
with 14.5 times at Dec. 31, 2006.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 826 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, had a total of 826
claims in West Virginia alleging exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced two claims in
Pennsylvania and one in Illinois.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded a total of 826
asbestos exposure claims pending in West Virginia. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

The Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company, The
Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have been
named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in
pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture,
sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the
Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company' generation facilities.  The Company's
historical operations were insured by various foreign and
domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers.
However, certain insurers have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is involved in three asbestos and environmental
insurance-related actions:

   -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v.
      Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733
      (Washington County, Md.),

   -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters
      at Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al.,
      Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and

   -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
      Company, Civil Action No (Suffolk Superior Court, Ma.).

The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage
under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental
claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated
energy business that owns and operates electric generation
facilities and delivers electric services to customers in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.  The Company
has two business segments: Delivery and Services segment and
Generation and Marketing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.3B for Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims, at
Dec. 31, 2007, totaled US$1.30 billion, net of reinsurance
recoverables of US$752 million, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's reserves for asbestos claims was
US$1.38 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of
US$823 million.

About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at Dec. 31, 2007 (67 percent at Dec. 31, 2006) were for
incurred but not reported estimated losses.

Reinsurance recoverables include US$240 million at Dec. 31, 2007
(US$$271 million at Dec. 31, 2006) from Lloyd's of London.
Lloyd's of London, through the creation of Equitas Limited,
implemented a restructuring plan in 1996 to solidify its capital
base and to segregate claims for years prior to 1993.

The recoverable from Equitas Limited syndicates is spread among
thousands of Lloyd's of London investors who have unlimited
liability.  The reinsurance recoverables valuation allowance was
reduced by US$46 million in 2007 related to Equitas Limited's
improved financial position as a result of its obtaining
reinsurance coverage with National Indemnity Company.

Underwriting loss of US$54 million in 2007 primarily related to
a US$63 million reestimate of environmental reserves and a US$6
million reestimate of asbestos reserves as a result of the
annual third quarter 2007 ground up reserve review, partially
offset by a US$46 million reduction in the reinsurance
recoverable valuation allowance related to Equitas Limited's
improved financial position as a result of its reinsurance
coverage with National Indemnity Company.

The cost of administering claims settlements totaled
US$14 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$19 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 876 new
claims filed, 795 total claims closed, 9,256 pending claims, and
364 claims closed without payment.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 1,220 new
claims filed, 851 claims total claims closed, 9,175 pending
claims, and 596 claims closed without payment.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation's business
is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company.  
The Company is engaged in the personal property and casualty
insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business.  The Company has four business
segments: Allstate Protection, Allstate Financial, Discontinued
Lines and Coverages, and Corporate and Other.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., including its subsidiaries, is a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits, in which many of these suits either
relate to businesses which were acquired by the Company and do
not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the
Company, or relate to previously owned businesses of the Company
which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new
owners of those businesses have agreed to indemnify the Company
against these claims (Indemnified Claims).

The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, those sellers and new owners.  These sellers and
new owners have met their obligations in all respects, and the
Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would
fail to fulfill their obligations in the future.

To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as
a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

Paoli, Pa.-based AMETEK, Inc. is a manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in
North America, Europe, Asia, and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 538 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company (BGE) face about 538 asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

These 538 individuals who were never employees of BGE or the
Company have pending claims each seeking several million dollars
in compensatory and punitive damages.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions
are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that
BGE and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an
asbestos hazard.

In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority have
been resolved for amounts that were not material to the
Company's financial results.

The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and
Pennsylvania.

Asbestos-related claims against the Company and BGE remained at
about 535. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy
company that includes a merchant energy business and Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company, a regulated electric and gas public
utility in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Flowserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend against a number of
pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple
claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by the Company in the past.

While the aggregate number of asbestos-related claims against
the Company has declined in recent years, there can be no
assurance that this trend will continue.

Asbestos associated with any such products was encapsulated and
used only as components of process equipment, and the Company
said it does not believe that any significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.

The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the
claims are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from
other companies, according to its annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and
aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control
systems. The Company develops and manufactures precision-
engineered flow control equipment, such as pumps, valves and
seals, for critical service applications that require high
reliability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Briefed on Johns-Manville Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel to The Burlington Northern Santa Fee Railway, Anne Marie
Aaronson, at Pepper Hamilton, LLP, in Philadelphia, notified
Judge Judith Fitzgerald that a recent opinion of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in In re Johns-Manville
Corporation touched on certain issues relevant to W.R. Grace &
Co.'s motion for injunctive relief, including:

  (1) Whether the bankruptcy court has subject matter    
      jurisdiction to enjoin claims against a non-debtor that do
      not claim against the res of the bankruptcy estate;

  (2) Whether the Bankruptcy Court has subject matter
      jurisdiction to enjoin claims against a non-debtor, which
      claims seek recovery in excess of and unrelated to the
      debtor's policy proceeds; and

  (3) Whether the bankruptcy court has subject matter
      jurisdiction to enjoin claim against a non-debtor party.

The Appellate Court, in a 28-page memorandum published on
Feb. 15, 2008, ruled that a confirmed Chapter 11 plan of
reorganization dealing with asbestos claims may not give
insurance companies releases from all claims.

Johns Manville Corp., the largest manufacturer of asbestos-
containing products in the United States, sought protection
under Chapter 11 in 1982 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the  
Southern District of New York.

In 1986, Judge Burton Lifland, the bankruptcy judge overseeing
Manville's reorganization, confirmed Manville's plan of
reorganization, which provided for the creation of a trust that
took over all of the company's asbestos liabilities.  Under that
reorganization plan, Manville's insurers were given release from
all liabilities under insurance policies they issued to Manville
in return for a contribution of roughly US$850 million.

However, some asbestos plaintiffs continued individual and class
lawsuits against the Manville insurers asserting that they have
"direct action claims" against the insurance companies not
related to the Manville insurance policies.

In 2004, Judge Lifland approved a settlement where he ruled that
the remaining insurance lawsuits were and always had been
blocked by the confirmed Manville reorganization plan.

The Appellate Court ruled that there is no bankruptcy
jurisdiction that bars independent tort actions where plaintiffs
neither seek to recover insurance proceeds nor rely on the
insurance policies for recovery, in reverse to Judge Lifland's
2004 opinion. The Appellate Court also held that there was no
power in bankruptcy law to stop a lawsuit against a third party
simply because the third party made a financial contribution to
the Chapter 11 plan.

A full-text copy of the Feb. 15 Manville Opinion is available
for free at:

   http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_feb15ManvilleOpinion.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 152; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Asks Court to Extend Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Speights & Runyan asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to extend the
time for three asbestos-related property damage claimants to
file their memorandum in response to W.R. Grace & Co.'s
objection to their claims:

     Claimant                             Claim No.
     --------                             ---------
     Bayshore Community Hospital             6901
     Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh      10962
     Jameson Memorial Hospital              14410

Daniel A. Speights, at Speights & Runyan, in Hampton, S.C.
relates that in November 2007, the Court instructed the
Debtors to attempt to settle the issues relating to the three
Claims before the Feb. 25, 2008, omnibus hearing.

The Debtors, however, have not conferred with the Claimants or
their counsel regarding any settlement, according to Mr.
Speights.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 152; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40 Speights Claimants Appeal on Expungement
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R Grace & Co. states that more than 40 asbestos-related
property damage claimants represented by the law firm Speights &
Runyan take an appeal to the U.S. States Court of Appeals for
the 3rd Circuit from District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter's order
affirming the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's order expunging some PD
Claims.

The Appellants are:

  1. 1199 SEIU,
  2. 99 Founders Plaza,
  3. Abbeville General Hospital,
  4. Baptist Health Medical Center - Little Rock,
  5. Bethesda Rehabilitation Hospital,
  6. Carson Pirie Scott Store #537,
  7. Cayuga County Office Building,
  8. Dodge County Hospital,
  9. First Health Montgomery Memorial Hospital,
10. First Tennessee Bank - Court Thomas Computer Center,
11. First Tennessee Bank,
12. Friendly Home Nursing Care & Rehabilitation,
13. Fulton County Health Center,
14. Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center,
15. Harry C. Levy Gardens,
16. Hotel Captain Cook - Tower #2,
17. IBM Metro Employees Federal Credit Union,
18. Jordan Hospital, Inc.,
19. Keller Building,
20. Manor Oak Two,
21. McKenzie Willamette Medical Center,
22. Mission Towers,
23. Nebraska Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation,
24. New Hanover Regional Medical Center,
25. Ohio Savings Plaza,
26. Oneida County Office Building,
27. Palos Community Hospital,
28. Panda Prints,
29. Pierre LaClede Center No. 1 & 2,
30. Santa Teresa Medical Office Building,
31. Schuyler Hospital,
32. Scottish Rite Cathedral,
33. St. Anthony's Regional Hospital & Nursing Home,
34. St. Joseph's Hill Infirmary Nursing Home,
35. St. Luke's Hospital,
36. St. Mary's Medical Center,
37. The Homeplace of Mondovi Hospital,
38. Titusville Hospital,
39. University of New England - Westbrook Campus,
40. Virtua Health - West Jersey Hospital Voorhees,
41. Virtua West Jersey Hospital Marlton,
42. Washington Township Health Care District, and
43. Y.W.C.A. of Greater Des Moines.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 152; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deadline on Grace's Appeal Set for April 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy gives W.R. Grace &
Co., until April 14, 2008, to file an appeal from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's decision restoring the
conspiracy charges filed by the U.S. Government against Grace
and certain of its officers, the Associated Press reported.

To recall, the Government, in 2005, filed a criminal case in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana against Grace
and seven of its former officers for violations of environmental
law and for alleged conspiracy in hiding the real health risks
associated with the company's vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont.

In 2005, Montana District Court Judge Donald Molloy dropped the
conspiracy charges ruling that they are time-barred. The
Appellate Court, however, reinstated the conspiracy charges in
September 2007, pointing out that Grace did not dispute that the
criminal case was timely filed.

According to The Missoulian, a trial on Grace's criminal case
could begin in May 2008, although no date can be set until the
appeals are settled.

Grace has said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in September 2007 that it may pay as
much as US$280 million in fines if convicted in the criminal
case. Grace added that its former officers may face up to 15
years of imprisonment, if convicted.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 152; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Favors Plaintiffs in Northshore
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota, granted Save Lake
Superior Association and Sierra Club's Motion to Lift the Stay,
in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Northshore Mining
Company.

The stay entered Sept. 24, 2007 was lifted.

The case is styled Save Lake Superior Association and Sierra
Club, Plaintiffs, v. Northshore Mining Company, Defendant.

District Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered judgment of Civil No.
07-3557 (PAM/JSM) on Feb. 12, 2008.

This matter was before the District Court on Save Lake Superior
and Sierra's Motion to Lift the Stay.  In September 2007, the
Court granted Northshore's Motion to Stay the matter, pending
resolution of Northshore's Motions in a related case.

The Court has disposed of the pending Motions in the related
case, and Save Lake Superior and Sierra now argued that the
Court should lift the stay in this matter to allow them to
pursue their claims.

Northshore opposed the Motion.

This lawsuit sought to enforce the "control city" standard in
Northshore's air quality permits.  According to Save Lake
Superior and Sierra, testing has revealed that the ambient air
surrounding Northshore's Silver Bay taconite plant contains more
asbestos and asbestos-like fibers than the ambient air in the
"control city" of St. Paul, Minn.

Save Lake Superior and Sierra requested damages (payable to the
U.S. treasury), as well as attorney's fees and costs, for the
alleged violations of Northshore's permit under the citizen-suit
enforcement provisions of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Court granted a stay because the Motions in the related case  
sought to clarify or strike down the "control city" standard
contained in a 1975 injunction.

Northshore contended that the stay should remain in place
because the Minnesota Court of Appeals is poised to consider
Northshore's attempt to amend its permits to remove the "control
city" standard.

Save Lake Superior and Sierra asserted that, unless and until
the state courts or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
("MPCA") remove the "control city" standard from Northshore's
permit, Northshore is obligated to comply with that standard and
Save Lake Superior and Sierra may seek to enforce the standard.

Accordingly, the District Court ordered that Save Lake Superior
and Sierra's Motion to Lift the Stay (Docket No. 29) was granted
and the stay entered Sept. 24, 2007 (Docket No. 27), was lifted.

Amy L. De Kok, Michael D. Madigan, Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, PA,
Minneapolis, Reed Zars, Attorney at Law, Laramie, Wyo.,
represented Save Lake Superior Association and Sierra Club.

Geoffrey K. Barnes, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Cleveland,
Ohio, James A. Mennell, William P. Hefner, Environmental Law
Group, Ltd., Minneapolis, Vincent Atriano, Square, Sanders &
Dempsey LLP, Columbus, Ohio, represented Northshore Mining
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oregon Court Affirms Newman's Remand Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Oregon, granted Claude E. Newman's
motion to remand, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against
various defendants including Airgas-Nor Pac, Inc. and Ford Motor
Company.

The case is styled Claude E. Newman, Plaintiff, v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and
as successor-in-interest to Mundet Cork Corporation; et al.,
Defendants.

Judge Jones entered judgment of Civil No. 07-1533-JO on Feb. 11,
2008.

Mr. Newman filed this action in Multnomah County Circuit Court
in October 2006, alleging state law claims to the effect that
the products and activities of several named defendants exposed
him to asbestos and caused him severe injuries.

During the course of litigation in state court, Mr. Newman
dismissed the only Oregon defendant, Oregon Airgas, Inc., as
incorrectly named.

On Oct. 12, 2007, before Mr. Newman was able to file an amended
complaint naming the proper defendant, Airgas-Nor Pac and Ford
removed the action to this court based on diversity
jurisdiction.

On Oct. 29, 2007, Mr. Newman filed two motions in this court: a
motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Airgas-Nor Pac,
and a motion to remand the action to state court.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation issued a conditional transfer order transferring this
action as a tag-along to the asbestos litigation now pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, MDL No. 875.

On Dec. 18, 2007, Mr. Newman filed a motion with the MDL Panel
to vacate the conditional transfer order.

In the meantime, Mr. Newman asked this court to proceed with his
motions to amend and to remand, and on Jan. 17, 2008, the Court
heard oral argument on the motions.

As a result of that hearing, Judge Jones granted Mr. Newman's
motion for leave to amend and took Mr. Newman's motion to remand
under advisement.

Mr. Newman's motion to remand was granted, and this action was
remanded to Multnomah County Circuit Court for all further
proceedings.

Patrick D. Angel, Brayton Purcell, Portland, Ore., represented
Claude E. Newman.

Daniel K. Reising, Mark J. Fucile, Fucile & Reising, Portland,
Ore., Michael A. Jaeger, Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson,
Seattle, represented Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and other
Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. AG Sues Bldg. Owner for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a lawsuit
alleging that a Bloomington, Ill., building owner and his tenant
broke the law when they did not use a licensed asbestos
contractor to properly remove asbestos-containing materials
during a major renovation project in 2006, according to an
Illinois Attorney General press release dated March 4, 2008.

The complaint, filed in McLean County Circuit Court, alleges
that the defendants did not follow proper removal procedures
required by law to avoid contamination.

The complaint names Merle Huff, owner of the Front 'N Center
Building at 102 N. Center St., and his tenant Ben Slotky.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Huff allowed Mr. Slotky – during
a March 2006 renovation project – to remove asbestos-containing
flooring materials and place them in unsealed plastic garbage
bags. Mr. Slotky is not a licensed asbestos contractor.

Ms. Madigan said, "Because there is no known safe exposure level
to asbestos, this careless and improper handling of a known
carcinogen created a very serious danger to public health."

Ms. Madigan's complaint alleges that both defendants failed to
inspect and follow required work practices. Mr. Huff allegedly
did not inspect the area for the presence of asbestos before the
start of the renovation as required by National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Mr. Huff allegedly
failed to limit access to the work area and allowed it to be
reoccupied before proper cleanup and air monitoring.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Slotky violated regulations
pertaining to the removal of asbestos-containing materials when
he removed them and loaded them in unsealed plastic bags.

NESHAP regulations require the use of proper containers
distinctly marked with warning labels and the delivery of
materials to a licensed facility.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that Mr. Slotky failed to
properly contain the area where he was removing the flooring
materials and failed to properly decontaminate the external
surfaces of containers and equipment contaminated by the
asbestos containing materials.

Ms. Madigan's lawsuit asks the court to prohibit the defendants
from further violations of environmental law and to impose a
monetary penalty and other relief deemed appropriate by the
Court.

In March 2006, an Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)
inspection found piles of dry broken and chipped flooring
materials and carpeting on site, and an analysis of the samples
confirmed that they contained asbestos.

The complaint notes that the building owner repeatedly failed to
hire a licensed asbestos contractor as demanded by IDPH
following the discovery of the materials and the improper
procedures at the site and failed to respond to the emergency
stop work order issued and posted.

Assistant Attorney General Raymond Callery is handling the case
for Ms. Madigan's Environmental Bureau.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vancouver Workers Back to Work After Scare
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drydock workers from Vancouver, Canada are back to work on
March 3, 2008 after an asbestos scare forced them off the job on
Feb. 27, 2008, CKNW reports.  

There are many areas with asbestos on a ship, but most had been
sealed off for safety.

Union president Toby Charette says specialists were brought in
as soon as a new pocket of asbestos was found. He said, "There
was a company in there called Westcor. They were going in and
going through the whole ship again and ensuring that there was
no asbestos around and cleaning up whatever was there."

As many as 100 workers may have been exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Chesterton, 29 Firms in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Paul A. Wilhelm against
A.W. Chesterton Co. and 29 other companies is pending in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

In the suit filed on July 19, 2007, Mr. Wilhelm sues for
conspiring to mine, process and sell asbestos products,
suppressing the information pertaining to the fiber's hazardous
influence on human health and purposely inflicting him with an
asbestos disease.

Mr. Wilhelm's wife, Moye, is also a plaintiff in the suit.

According to Mr. Wilhelm's original petition, companies such as
American Standard Companies Inc., General Electric Company, and
Zurn Industries Inc. knew that the asbestos products they
manufactured would hit the market without inspection for
defects.

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical
and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for
decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the
information.

The suit indicates that Mr. Wilhelm, a man of may trades, was
most likely exposed to asbestos while working at shipyards,
steel mills, refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, the
military and other facilities in the U.S. However, the suit does
not give specifics on the location or time of his employment.

Mr. Wilhelm is suing for physical pain and suffering in the past
and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages,
loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future,
physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future
medical expenses, including homecare costs. He also seeks
punitive and exemplary damages.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, will preside over
Case No. B181-370.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mining Sites' Hazard Limit Set Last Feb. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, on Feb. 29,
2008, issued a ruling, for mining operations nationwide, that
limits asbestos exposure to two fibers per cubic centimeter, The
Associated Press reports.

That limit already is in place for industries covered by the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. MSHA's
previous limit was 20 times higher than OSHA's cap.

The final rule applies to exposure at metal and nonmetal mines,
surface coal mines and surface areas of underground coal mines.

The U.S. Department of Labor recommended that MSHA toughen its
standard after news reports in 1999 linked asbestos
contamination at the now-closed W.R. Grace and Co. vermiculite
mine in Libby, Mont., to an unusually large number of deaths and
illnesses.

The vermiculite mine provided material for various household
products, fireproofing and insulation. It also blew tremolite
asbestos all over Libby.

Tremolite asbestos is blamed by some health authorities for
killing about 200 people and sickening one of every eight Libby
residents.

Acting MSHA director Richard Stickler said the new asbestos
exposure limit would "help improve health protection for miners
who work in an environment where asbestos is present."

Mr. Stickler added, "Furthermore, it will help lower the risk of
material impairment of health or functional capacity over a
miner's working lifetime."

Celeste Monforton, a former MSHA staffer and a public health
researcher at George Washington University, said the new limit
is good but does not go far enough.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Americana Tenants Awarded $7,500 in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Steven Yep awarded US$7,500 to Ab and Mina Hashemi,
who are former Americana apartment complex tenants exposed to
asbestos fibers during a botched roofing job in October 2007,
Mountain View VOICE reports.

The court in Mountain View, Calif., awarded the Hashemis
US$7,500, the small claims maximum, to compensate for damages
from toxic asbestos contamination that destroyed furniture and
clothes.

Due to the roofing job, which shook dust particles down from the
ceilings of upper-floor apartments, more than a dozen tenants
were exposed to asbestos in Americana's Building Five on
Continental Circle.

The dust settled on clothes and furniture that no one would
guarantee was clean -- even after the landlord, a company called
Prometheus, had a team of workers go through each apartment with
HEPA vacuums and special wipes.

Mr. Hashemi estimated damages of over US$13,000 for two couches,
several business suits and patio furniture that he had to leave
behind because it was still covered in asbestos dust.

Linda Rodriguez, appearing on behalf of Prometheus, admitted
that "This was an unfortunate learning experience," and blamed
the problem on the roof, which was unknown to be missing a
necessary piece of sheet metal above the ceiling.

Ms. Rodriguez said that 18 of the complex's 24 buildings were
built between 1969 and 1972, and that asbestos is in the
ceiling's fire retardant "popcorn" and in the tape used to fill
gaps in the drywall.

Residents say workers, who apparently did not know about the
asbestos, pounded violently on the roof and even cut right
through the ceiling during the project. At one point, a hole in
the roof led to water damage in some apartments after the first
of the season's winter storms hit.

The company's own documents showed that asbestos was found in
Mr. Hashemi's apartment at four times the limit an environmental
contractor found to be safe.

Ms. Rodriguez said that tenants were quickly notified of the
problem and apartments were sealed off. However in court, Mr.
Hashemi played a phone message from Prometheus manager Mike
Drouin telling the couple that air sampling for their apartment
had come back "absolutely perfect" several days after the
problem started.

"Unfortunately there's no hard and fast standards," for dealing
with asbestos cleanup, Ms. Rodriguez said, adding that the
company paid US$700 in moving expenses to the Hashemis and
offered to have clothes dry cleaned at a nearby cleaner.

The Hashemis argued that dry cleaning the clothes would not only
be ineffective, according to standards of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, but that it would contaminate
other people's clothes as well.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Blast Canadian Gov't. Over Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
A number of environment, health and labor groups challenge the
Canadian government to stop promoting the interests of the
asbestos industry and instead help the growing number of
Canadians who are suffering and dying from asbestos-related
disease, according to a Ban Asbestos Canada press release dated
Feb. 29, 2008.

Kathleen Ruff, founder of RightOnCanada, a citizens' human
rights group, said, "It is particularly heartless that the
Canadian government, which put asbestos-contaminated Zonolite
insulation in the houses of First Nations people living on
reserves, has refused to take any responsibility for removing
the deadly material or helping the victims."

Larry Stoffman, chair of the National Committee on Environmental
and Occupational Exposures, said, "Canada's record on asbestos
is shameful. We are one of the few industrialized countries who
have rejected the call by the World Health Organization and all
the independent, recognized scientific organizations around the
world to ban all forms of asbestos."

Increasing numbers of Canadian are dying from asbestos, the
world's biggest occupational health killer. In 2007, in British
Columbia, for example, over half of occupational deaths were
from asbestos-related disease.

Anthony Pizzino, national research director of the Canadian
Union of Public Employees, said, "Yet the Canadian government
refuses to even set up a registry to keep track of the
increasing number of Canadians falling sick and dying from
asbestos-caused disease. It seems they just don't care."

While the Canadian government turns a deaf ear to those whose
lives have been devastated by asbestos, it has given CDN20
million over the years to the asbestos industry.

The science that asbestos is deadly and must be banned is
indisputable, but the Harper government is continuing devious
strategies to avoid action.

Instead of acting, the government continues to deny the science
and blocks action on asbestos both in Canada and
internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 160 Workers to File Lawsuit v. Japan Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 160 construction workers and bereaved families from Tokyo,
Chiba and Saitama prefectures in Japan are to file an asbestos-
related lawsuit as early as May 2008 with the Tokyo District
Court, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

According to the plaintiffs, they may demand JPY35 million  
compensation per person from the central government, which they
say failed to take due action to prevent health damage related
to exposure to asbestos.

Most of the plaintiffs have been officially recognized as
suffering workplace-related sickness, and are receiving
compensation for absence from work. Others are receiving
compensation for the loss of a dead family member's pension.

However, they aim to use the lawsuit to pin ultimate
responsibility on the government, alleging that many sicknesses
and deaths could have been avoided if the government had issued
strong warnings against the dangers posed by asbestos.

Thirty-eight construction workers and others are expected to
file a similar suit with the Yokohama District Court.

According to the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, the lawsuit
will be the largest of the asbestos-related suits. Currently,
such lawsuits are proceeding at the Osaka and Kobe district
courts.

According to the plaintiffs in the Tokyo case, materials
including asbestos remained in use for construction even after
the World Health Organization and other international entities
pointed out the carcinogenic nature of asbestos. They also
allege that insufficient attention was paid to ensuring the
safety of demolition workers. They point out that while the
government banned the use and production of asbestos in 2006, it
could have taken such measures earlier.

Seventy eight-year-old Kazuo Miyajima, leader of the plaintiffs,
worked as a construction-site electrician from the age of 15. He
was found to have lung cancer five years ago, and said he first
thought it was because of cigarettes, which he had been smoking
since he was young.

However, Mr. Miyajima eventually found it was because of his job
after pleural plaques was found in his lungs.

Mr. Miyajima said, "We only ever covered our mouths with a towel
even though the construction sites were covered in dust. Our
work clothes became white with the dust. I had absolutely no
idea at that time that asbestos was hazardous."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links U.K. Worker's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, linked the
death of 73-year-old John Martin, a former power station worker
at Cottam Power Station, to asbestos, The Star reports.

Mr. Martin worked lagging pipes at the station, near Nottingham,
for 10 years from 1969.

However, it was only after Mr. Martin's death, from
mesothelioma, at Rotherham Hospice in October 2007 that his
family discovered his job had involved working with deadly
asbestos.

Pathologist Dr. Terry Marshall said Mr. Martin, who was
otherwise in good health, was found to be suffering from the
cancer-like condition.

Solicitor Simone Hardy, acting for Mr. Martin's widow Shirley,
said, "The dangers of asbestos dust from lagging insulation on
pipework and boilers was well known at the time and Mr. Martin's
employers should have protected him from this hazard."

Coroner Stanley Hooper recorded a verdict of death from
industrial disease.

Mrs. Martin's solicitor is appealing for anyone who worked with
Mr. Martin at the Cottom Power Station in the 1970s to contact
her about the working conditions at the time.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rigby's Widow Raises Awareness of Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vera Rigby, the widow of former electrician Barrie Rigby who was
killed by exposure to asbestos, is fighting to raise awareness
of the deadly material, Manchester Evening News reports.

Mrs. Rigby was a speaker at Manchester town hall for Action
Mesothelioma Day on Feb. 27, 2008 as hundreds of balloons were
released to raise awareness.

Mrs. Rigby said, "Nationally there are more deaths from asbestos
exposure than from car crashes. Look at the emphasis we place on
reducing speeding - yet I still find plumbers and electricians
who couldn't even tell you what asbestos looks like."

Mr. Rigby died in 2005 at the age of 62. He had worked in a
number of cotton mills in Oldham, England, and regularly inhaled
asbestos as he disturbed pipework during the course of his work.
He stopped working in the mills in the early 1970s to become a
lecturer.

On his granddaughter's first birthday in 2003, Mr. Rigby was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $19.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Insurance Group, Inc.'s recorded asbestos
and environmental reserves were US$19.4 million at Dec. 31,
2007, compared with US$24.7 million at Dec. 31, 2006, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The Company's actuarial point estimate for A&E reserves was
US$20 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$20.5 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos reserves were US$11.3 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$13.6 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$56.9 million
in 2007 and US$57 million in 2006.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to
be subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant. The Company participated in the Excess and Casualty
Reinsurance Association voluntary pool during 1950 to 1982,
until it was dissolved and put in runoff in 1982.

The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years. The
Company's participation in this pool has resulted in asbestos
and environmental average paid losses of about US$2 million
annually over the past 10 years.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
(f/k/a Allmerica Financial Corporation) is an all-around
property/casualty insurance holding company. The Company sells
its products through a network of independent agents in the
midwestern, northeastern, and southeastern United States, but
Michigan and Massachusetts account for more than 50 percent of
the Company's business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. ENSCO Pending in Miss., Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits are pending against ENSCO
International Incorporated in Mississippi and California courts,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008.  

In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (2nd
Judicial District) and Jasper County (1st Judicial District),
Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 66 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 63 claims or lawsuits are pending
in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

At present, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits
against the Company has been set for trial.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company
recently received a letter demanding that it defend and
indemnify two parties that formerly held an interest in a
predecessor company named in a lawsuit pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California.

The demand arises under the terms and conditions of an
Assumption Agreement given by the Company's predecessor, Penrod
Drilling Corporation.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages allegedly arising from
exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos while
employed by Penrod.

The Company has yet to conduct discovery.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an
international offshore contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15,
2008, the Company's offshore rig fleet included 44 jackup rigs,
one ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig and one barge rig.
Additionally, the Company has four ultra-deepwater semi-
submersible rigs under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Suits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Company has been named in about 114 pending lawsuits that
allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

In addition, to date, the Company has secured dismissals with
prejudice and without prejudice in about 50 and 107 lawsuits,
respectively, and is in discussions for similar dismissal of
several other lawsuits, and has not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company faced about 120 lawsuits that allege injury from
exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 9, 2007)

Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs and
manufactures highly engineered, advanced technologies that
perform critical functions in demanding conditions in the
defense, commercial aerospace, energy, and general industrial
markets. The Company's general industrial markets include high-
performance automotive, construction, simulation and test
equipment, and engineering services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Faces Lawsuit from TODCO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. faces an asbestos-related lawsuit from
TODCO, which the Company acquired in July 2007, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 27, 2008.

The case is styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66
Company et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain of subsidiaries of TODCO's former
parent to whom TODCO may owe indemnity and other unaffiliated
defendant companies, including companies that allegedly
manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos that
are the subject of the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed
by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served
against specific defendants.

As of Feb. 27, 2008, about 700 questionnaires were returned and
the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire
reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the
respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and
its former parent which could lead to claims against either
company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state in
their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct
claim as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.

To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their
amended complaints.

The Company said that it is possible that some of the plaintiffs
who have filed amended complaints and have not named TODCO as a
defendant may attempt to add TODCO as a defendant in the future
when case discovery begins and greater attention is given to
each individual plaintiff's employment background.

The Company continues to monitor a small group of these other
cases. The Company has not determined which entity would be
responsible for such claims under the Master Separation
Agreement between TODCO and its former parent.

Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas
exploration and production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
and internationally. In July 2007, completed the acquisition of
TODCO for total consideration of about US$2.398 billion,
consisting of US$925.8 million in cash and 56.6 million shares
of common stock.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites $376.8M Dec. Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos related liability was
US$376,803,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007, compared with US$424,628,000
as of Dec. 29, 2006, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
26, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$363,478,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 23, 2007)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$324,588,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007, compared with
US$350,322,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable amounted to US$311,279,000 as of Sept. 28, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

The Company's deferred tax assets for asbestos claims amounted
to US$32,790,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007, compared with
US$43,493,000 as of Dec. 29, 2006.

Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims pending in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by Company subsidiaries during the
1970s and earlier.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd., which is an
international engineering and construction contractor, designs,
builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and
manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 131,340 U.S. Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United States faced
131,340 open asbestos claims for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007,
compared with 135,890 open claims for the year ended Dec. 29,
2006, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008.

The Company recorded 132,810 open asbestos-related claims filed
against its U.S. subsidiaries during the three and nine months
ended Sept. 28, 2007, compared with 150,800 claims during the
three and nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

For the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, the Company noted 5,140 new
U.S. claims filed, 9,690 U.S. claims resolved, 66,040 U.S.
claims not valued in the liability, and 65,300 U.S. claims
valued in the liability at the end of the year.

For the year ended Dec. 29, 2006, the Company noted 8,250 new
U.S. claims filed, 37,180 U.S. claims resolved, 47,820 U.S.
claims not valued in the liability, and 88,070 U.S. claims
valued in the liability at the end of the year.

Of about 131,000 open claims, the Company's subsidiaries are
respondents in about 31,000 open claims wherein the Company has
administrative agreements and are named defendants in lawsuits
involving about 100,000 plaintiffs.

About 65 percent do not specify the monetary damages sought or
merely recite that the amount of monetary damages sought meets
or exceeds the required jurisdictional minimum in the
jurisdiction in which suit is filed. About 11 percent request
damages ranging from US$10,000 to US$50,000. About 11 percent
request damages ranging from US$51,000 to US$1,000,000. About 10
percent request damages ranging from US$1,001,000 to
US$10,000,000. The remaining three percent request damages
ranging from US$10,001,000 to, in a very small number of cases,
US$50,000,000.

Total asbestos-related assets for U.S. claims was US$326,200,000
for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, compared with US$363,700,000
for the year ended Dec. 29, 2006.

Total asbestos-related liabilities for U.S. claims was
US$403,300,000 for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, compared with
US$466,000,000 for the year ended Dec. 29, 2006.

In connection with updating its estimated asbestos liability and
related asset, the Company recorded a charge of US$7,400,000 in
the fourth quarter of 2007.

The amount paid on asbestos litigation, defense, and case
resolution was US$86,700,000 in fiscal year 2007 and
US$83,300,000 in fiscal year 2006. Through Dec. 28, 2007, total
cumulative indemnity costs paid were about US$625,300,000 and
total cumulative defense costs paid were about US$248,400,000.

As of Dec. 28, 2007, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$165,100,000 relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$238,200,000 relating to future unasserted claims
through year-end 2022.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd., which is an
international engineering and construction contractor, designs,
builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and
manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $27.6M for N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of Dec. 28, 2007, estimated the value of
its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$27,600,000, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 26, 2008.

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the Company's subsidiaries' various
insurers and the Company's subsidiaries as self-insurers.

An adverse outcome in the pending insurance litigation could
limit the Company's remaining insurance recoveries and result in
a reduction in its insurance asset. However, a favorable outcome
in all or part of the litigation could increase remaining
insurance recoveries above the Company's current estimate.

If it prevails in whole or in part in the litigation, the
Company will re-value its asset relating to remaining available
insurance recoveries based on the asbestos liability estimated
at that time.

Over the last several years, certain Company subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by the
Company's subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and
defense costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for
portions of out-of-pocket costs previously incurred.

In fiscal year 2006, Company subsidiaries reached agreements to
settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with
four of their insurers. Primarily as a result of these insurance
settlements, the Company increased its asbestos-related
insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$96,200,000 in fiscal
year 2006.

In fiscal year 2007, the Company's subsidiaries reached an
agreement to settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance
coverage with four additional insurers, including two in the
fourth quarter. As a result of these settlements, the Company
increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$4,900,000 in the fourth quarter and US$13,500,000 in
fiscal year 2007.

Also in fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its
appeal of a New York state trial court decision that previously
had held that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in
the above coverage litigation with the subsidiaries' insurers,
and as a result, the Company increased its insurance asset and
recorded a gain of US$19,500,000.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the Company's subsidiaries' insurers were
granted permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision
to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On
Oct. 11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the
appellate court decision in the Company's favor.

The Company funded US$19,000,000 of the asbestos liability
indemnity payments and defense costs from its cash flows in
fiscal year 2007, net of the cash received from insurance
settlements.

The Company expects to fund a total of US$25,000,000 of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs from its cash
flows in fiscal year 2008, net of the cash expected to be
received from existing insurance settlements.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd., which is an
international engineering and construction contractor, designs,
builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and
manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 342 U.K. Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom faced
342 open asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 28, 2007, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company recorded 343 open asbestos-
related claims filed against its subsidiaries in the United
Kingdom. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure
to asbestos. To date, 866 claims have been brought against the
Company's U.K. Subsidiaries. None of the settled claims has
resulted in material costs to the Company.

As of Dec. 28, 2007, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$48,500,000 comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$9,000,000 and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through year-end
2022 of US$39,500,000.

Of the total, US$3,000,000 was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$45,500,000 was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$3,000,000 was
recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and
US$45,500,000 was recorded as asbestos-related insurance
recovery receivable on the consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

Should this ruling be reversed by legislation, the asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$66,100,000.

Clinton, N.J.-based Foster Wheeler Ltd., which is an
international engineering and construction contractor, designs,
builds, and upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and
manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Records $9.7M Liability at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$9,697,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1,026,000 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.
26, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$7,062,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

Revenues for the 2007 fourth quarter were US$174.5 million, an
increase of three percent from US$169.6 million for the fourth
quarter 2006 period. Net income for the fourth quarter of 2007
was US$10.1 million, or US$0.60 per diluted share, compared with
US$10.4 million, or US$0.63 per diluted share, for the fourth
quarter of 2006.

Net income for the fourth quarter of 2007 includes net pre-tax
charges of US$1.6 million, or US$0.06 per diluted share: (i) a
US$0.10 per share charge to accrue estimated indemnity costs
associated with open asbestos claims affecting the Company's
Leslie Controls subsidiary; (ii) US$0.01 per diluted share for a
charge related to accelerated vesting of equity awards for
retiring executives; and (iii) US$0.05 per share from a gain on
sale of the Company's former location in China.

For the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2007, revenues were US$665.7
million, an increase of 13 percent from US$591.7 million for
2006.

Net income for the 12 months of 2007 was US$37.9 million, or
US$2.27 per diluted share, an increase of 26 percent from
US$29.3 million, or US$1.80 per diluted share, in the same
period last year. Results for the 12 months of 2007 include net
pre-tax charges of US$3.3 million, or US$0.15 per diluted share:

   (i) US$0.11 per diluted share for charge from accelerated
       vesting of equity awards for the Company's retiring
       executives;

  (ii) US$0.10 per diluted share for charge to accrue estimated
       indemnity costs associated with open asbestos claims
       affecting the Company's Leslie Controls subsidiary;

(iii) US$0.05 per diluted share for charges related to facility
       consolidation;

  (iv) US$0.06 per diluted share from gain on sale of an
       unrelated business; and

   (v) US$0.05 per diluted share from gain on sale of a former
       Chinese manufacturing site.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company's Leslie Controls
subsidiary, whose results are reported in Circor's
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Segment, recorded an
additional liability of US$9.0 million for the estimated
indemnity cost associated with resolution of its current open
claims for asbestos-related litigation. The recording of this
liability resulted in a pre-tax charge of US$2.6 million, or
US$0.10 per share, net of insurance recoveries.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. makes
instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including
precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for
hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The
Company's remaining sales come from making valves and other
products for the oil and gas industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Home Operator Given CDN50,000 Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Hanover retirement home operator, Retirement Residences Genpar
Inc., failed to notify the Canadian Ministry of Labour of an
asbestos removal project and was fined CDN50,000 in the Ontario
Court of Justice on March 3, 2008, according to CNW Group press
release dated March 5, 2008.

Justice of the Peace Robert Gay heard that on March 27, 2006,
maintenance workers employed by Retirement Residences Genpar
Inc., which operated a retirement home at 101 Tenth St.,
Hanover, were at that location to remove a boiler from a boiler
room. An asbestos-containing material, chrysotile, insulated the
boiler.

The company failed to notify the ministry of the work involving
asbestos. The company pleaded guilty to failing, as an employer,
to provide notice as required by section 11(1) of Ontario
Regulation 278/05, contrary to section 66(1) of the Occupational
Health and Safety Act.

In addition to the fine, the court imposed a 25 percent victim
fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The
surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to
assist victims of crime.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wendell Couple of W.Va. Sues 38 Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wendell and Patricia Wendell, on Jan. 28, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 38 companies in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Wendells claim that Mr Wendell developed mesothelioma after
being exposed to asbestos fibers. He was employed by E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company, located in Belle, W.Va., from 1941
to 1980.

According to the suit, Mr. Wendell was unaware that he was being
exposed to asbestos fibers, which caused him to develop
mesothelioma. He claims his illness is progressive and
essentially untreatable and incurable.

Mr. Wendell also claims he is suffering from pneumoconiosis
caused by the inhalation of products containing asbestos, other
severe and disabling diseases of the body, shock and other
attendant nervous or emotional disorders.

Wendell claims the companies are at fault because they failed to
warn him of the dangers associated with the asbestos found in
the workplace. According to the suit, the defendants should have
known of the dangers of asbestos and should have warned their
employees.

Mrs. Wendell claims she has lost the consortium, companionship,
society and services of her husband.

The Wendells claim they have suffered and will continue to
suffer serious bodily injury, great pain and suffering and
mental anguish, medical expenses, lost earnings and other
damages.

In the 11-count suit, the Wendells seek compensatory and
punitive damages.

Attorney William K. Schwartz represents the Wendells.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-188 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Faces 105,700 Open Cases at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, at Dec. 31,
2007, are defendants in 105,700 open asbestos-related cases,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are defendants
in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury
or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed about 900,000
asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments, settlements
and dismissals) and, together with their insurers, have paid
about US$1.3 billion in settlements and judgments and over
US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six
percent have been claims of plaintiffs with lung or other
cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.

The mix of cases filed in 2007 contains about 26 percent
mesothelioma claims and 19 percent lung or other cancer claims.
In the remaining 55 percent of the new cases, either the
plaintiffs alleged non-malignant impairment or the disease or
condition is not alleged and remains unknown to the Company.

Of the 105,700 open cases at Dec. 31, 2007, the Company is aware
of about 9,500 (nine percent) that involve claimants alleging
mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer.

The number of new actions filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in 2007 (5,200) was lower than the number filed in
2006 (7,700).

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Sealing Involved in 9 Trials in '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, in 2007, was involved in nine asbestos trials
against 12 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
26, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock and The
Anchor Packing Company, are defendants in actions filed in
various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial, winning defense verdicts in one of the two cases tried to
verdict in 2007, and in 12 of 25 cases tried to verdict in the
years 2004 through 2007.

In the successful jury trials, the juries determined that either
Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock was not
negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to Garlock's
products.

In 2007, Garlock began nine trials. A Massachusetts jury
returned a defense verdict in favor of Garlock. In a Kentucky
case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$145,000 against Garlock.
Garlock plans to appeal this verdict. Four lawsuits in
Pennsylvania settled during trial before the juries had reached
a verdict. Garlock also settled cases during trial in Louisiana,
Maryland and Washington.

In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs.
Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.;
Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky.

In Pennsylvania, three other lawsuits involving four plaintiffs
settled during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock
also settled cases in Massachusetts, California and Texas during
trial.

In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less
than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous
trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also
appealed the new verdict.

In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in
Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the
trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Appealing $1.4M in Verdicts for '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC appeals were pending from
adverse verdicts totaling US$1.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007, down
from US$6.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and more than US$41
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

Certain of EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, primarily
Garlock and The Anchor Packing Company, are defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Garlock has historically enjoyed success in a majority of its
appeals. In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of
Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million
verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new
trial. The case subsequently settled.

On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
Garlock's appeal from a 2005 Baltimore verdict, and Garlock paid
that verdict, with post-judgment interest, in the fourth quarter
of 2006.

In a separate Baltimore case in the fourth quarter of 2006, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the second quarter
of 2007.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had US$1.1 million of cash
collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as restricted cash
on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. This amount was reduced from
US$1.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006 and US$41.1 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Settlement Commitments Total $76Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's new settlement commitments
total US$76 million in 2007, compared with US$84 million in
2006.

Certain of EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, primarily
Garlock and The Anchor Packing Company, are defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Garlock settles and disposes of actions on a regular basis.
Garlock's historical settlement strategy was to settle only
cases in advanced stages of litigation.

In 1999 and 2000, however, Garlock employed a more aggressive
settlement strategy. The purpose of this strategy was to achieve
a permanent reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims
through the settlement of a large number of claims, including
some early-stage claims and some claims not yet filed as
lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.

In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments to match insurance
recoveries. As a result, Garlock reduced new settlement
commitments from US$180 million in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001
and US$86 million in 2002.

About US$15 million of the 2006 amount and about US$5 million of
the 2007 amount were committed in settlements in 2006 to pay
verdicts that had been rendered in the years 2003-2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $381.5M Coverage at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, at Dec. 31, 2007, had
available US$381.5 million of solvent insurance and trust
coverage.

Certain of EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, primarily
Garlock and The Anchor Packing Company, are defendants in
actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

The Company said it believes the US$381.5 million will be
available to cover future asbestos claims and certain expense
payments.

In addition, at Dec. 31, 2007, Garlock classified US$56 million
of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. The Company said
it believes that Garlock will recover some of the insolvent
insurance over time.

In fact, Garlock collected about US$1 million from insolvent
carriers in 2007, bringing total collections from insolvent
carriers from 2002 through 2007 to about US$39.3 million.

Of the US$381.5 million of collectible insurance and trust
assets, the Company considers US$333 million (87 percent) to be
of high quality. The Company considers US$48 million (13
percent) to be of moderate quality because the insurance
policies are written with (a) other solvent U.S. carriers who
are unrated or below investment grade (US$42 million) or (b)
with various London market carriers (US$6 million).

Of the US$381.5 million, US$252 million is allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company reached an
agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers.
These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of a
dispute. The agreement provides for the payment of the full
amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various
annual payments to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the
agreement, Garlock received US$22 million in 2007.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolved two lawsuits and an arbitration proceeding. Under
that settlement, Garlock received US$3 million in 2007 and US$4
million in 2006 and will receive another US$14 million in the
future.

During the first quarter of 2005, the Company reached agreement
with two of Garlock's U.S. insurers. The insurers agreed to pay
Garlock a total of US$21 million in three equal bi-annual
payments of US$7 million. The first and second payments were
received in May 2005 and April 2007. The third payment is due in
May 2009.

In the second quarter of 2004, the Company reached agreement
with Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-
1993 Lloyds' of London policies in the Company's insurance
block, concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company's
subsidiaries' asbestos claims. As a result of the settlement,
US$88 million was placed in an independent trust.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company reached agreement
with a group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and
one of its U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured
through the London market. As a result of the settlement,
US$55.5 million was placed in an independent trust. At Dec. 31,
2007, the market value of the funds remaining in the two trusts
was US$43.6 million, which was included in the US$382 million of
insurance and trust coverage available to pay future asbestos-
related claims and expenses.

The Company's liability as of Dec. 31, 2007 was US$524.4
million. The total liability as of Dec. 31, 2007, included
US$86.9 million classified as a current liability and US$437.5
million classified as a non-current liability.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.




                           *********


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, 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  * * *