CAR_Public/080328.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 62
  
                            Headlines

ALLCO FINANCE: IMF to Fund Shareholders' Suit vs. Fund Managers
ALLIED CAPITAL: D.C. Court Considers Dismissal Motion v. "Ross"
AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Good" Case
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gallus" Case

APPLE INC: Settles "Millions of Colors" Lawsuit Out-of-Court
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Says TILA Claims are Time-Barred
AWB LTD: Court Dismisses Wheat Farmers' Lawsuit
BANKERS LIFE: Sued in WA Over Fraud on Long-Term Care Contracts
BLUESKY BRANDS: Laid Off Fulfillment Workers Commence Lawsuit

CARMAKERS: UCanImport Pledges Support in C.A. Violation Suit
CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Denies Motion in Payday Loans Litigation
CASH AMERICA: Files Arbitration Motion in Pa. Consumer Lawsuit
CENTRO PROPERTIES: IMF to Fund Investors' Non-Disclosure Lawsuit
CLUB MED: Settles Male Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

ELI LILLY: March 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in N.Y. Litigation
GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over "Dex-Cool" Engine Coolant
HOME DEPOT USA: Faces MO Suit Over 10% Rental Cost Overcharges
IMAGITAS INC: Faces Consolidated DPPA Violations Suit in Fla.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Retiree Insurance Payment

INNOVEX INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MBIA INC: No Hearing Set on Appeal of Dismissed of N.Y. Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Chippewa County to Sue Over 911 Surcharge
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Rental Car Policy
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Ala. Suit Over Alleged Overinvestment
SU WHOLESALE: Recalls Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard
U.S. RAILROADS: Sued by Archer Daniels for Fixed Fuel Surcharges
URGENT GEAR: Kids' Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Wages Payment Failure Lawsuit in Alabama

WESTERN REFINING: Units Still Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kansas


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NEUROMETRIX INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Coughlin Stoia Files LA Securities Fraud Suit
WELLPOINT INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in In.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors McCanns in Foster Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $339.3M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Faces Lawsuits in Calif., Ohio, Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Cites $793M Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne's Reserves Total $200T at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. FirstEnergy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $100,000 for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Pride Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Wrights' Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.864B at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $422.8M at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Asserted v. American Fin'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Faces Hickey Case in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air, Units Still Face Grace Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $158.4M Interest at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $700,000 for Legal Fees

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $87.7M A&E Reserves at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Quigley to Solicit Amended Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 106,000 Claims Pending v. American Optical
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 491 Open Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Remain v. Owens-Illinois at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Injury Suits Pending v. Noble at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Junks Century Indemnity's Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Lawsuit v. Century in Discovery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling to Favor St. Paul
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $257M Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Sees $1Mil Costs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 30 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,383 Claims Pending v. Harsco at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Face 1,331 Lawsuits at Feb. 15
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 1,275 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Richoux's Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest's A&E Losses Total $827.4M at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Provides $677.6M for Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Pending v. Fluor Corporation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Phelps Dodge

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Suits Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l. at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx May Incur Costs Over GP Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL & Associates Records $2.6M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Reinstated Actions Pending v. Chiquita
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $123M for A&E at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 75 Suits Pending v. Ameren Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritime Suits Ongoing v. Cleveland-Cliffs
ASBEST0S LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Action Settled on Dec. 21
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Celanese Drop to 626 at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 38 Cases Set for Trial in 2008

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,789 Claims at Feb. 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,741 Claims at Feb. 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Losses, ALAE Total $442.8M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Still Faces Kelly-Moore Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.924B at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Faces Workers Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkley Has $41.59M Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global N.V. Party to Asbestos Matters
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Plaintiffs in Crane Co. Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Court Issues Split Ruling in TIG Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges Court to Junk Allegheny Request

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Opposes Speights Appeal for Extension
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Estimation Trial to End in May 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Seek to Add More Evidence
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in New York State Bldg. to Cost $7M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pipe Lagger's Death to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150T in Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Actions Filed in Ill. Court on March 13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 17
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 18

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurers to Pay $500M Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Jury Awards $25.2M in Consolidated Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Rules v. John Crane in Newinski
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Figgins' Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Favors DuPont in Whisnant Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death of Lecturer Baffles Coroner's Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Inquiry at Wis. Apartments Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colo. Builders Win $6.4M in Cleanup Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Overturns Harenda Case Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie State Gov't. to Close Legal Loophole

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Cases Filed in Ill. Court on March 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kings College Fined for Workers' Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Reconsideration in Harris Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northumberland MP Raises Asbestos Awareness
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits v. Dana Removed to Federal Court  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim to Sue Richard Dunston Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota to Pay for Claim Made After Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Examine Law Lords' Decision

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Art Teacher's Death Linked to Hazard



                           *********


ALLCO FINANCE: IMF to Fund Shareholders' Suit vs. Fund Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Listed litigation funder IMF (Australia) will fund shareholder
class actions against four Australian fund managers that hit
trouble after the global credit crisis emerged last year,
Melbourne Herald Sun reports.

These four fund managers are:

         1. Allco Finance Group
         2. MFS
         3. Centro Properties
         4. Centro Retail

Herald Sun says that the claims against each of the companies
relate to alleged breaches of their continuous disclosure
obligations between August 2007 and January-February 2008.

The report relates that during this six-month period, shares in
the four finance companies slid dramatically as they struggled
with heavy debt loads and complex financial structures.  The
four companies have all embarked on rescue plans, selling off
some of their assets and funds to pay down crippling levels of
debt.

John Walker, IMF Australia managing director, told Financial
Times that legal action had not yet commenced against the four
groups as it required "sufficient claim value to make it
commercially viable," adding that each case would require close
to AU$10 million in funding.

IMF "underwrites the litigation in return for a share of the
recovery, if any," Mr. Walker said.

IMF said it would announce the claim value in its quarterly case
investment reports as they are published, Herald Sun notes.

Law firm Maurice Blackman will pursue the class actions against
the two Centro property funds.


ALLIED CAPITAL: D.C. Court Considers Dismissal Motion v. "Ross"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of an amended
securities fraud class action filed against Allied Capital
Corp., entitled "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-0402-
EGS."

On Feb. 26, 2007, Dana Ross filed a class action complaint in
which she alleges that the company and certain members of its
management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

The complaint, "Dana Ross v. Walton, et al., CV 00402," claims
that, between March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10, 2007, Allied Capital
either failed to disclose or misrepresented information
concerning the loan origination practices of Business Loan
Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company.

The court had appointed new lead counsel and approved new lead
plaintiffs later.  On July 30, 2007, the plaintiffs served an
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs claim that, between Nov. 7, 2005, and Jan. 22,
2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented
information about its portfolio company, Business Loan Express,
LLC.  The are seeking unspecified compensatory and other
damages, as well as other relief.

On Sept. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The motion is pending, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402-
EGS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steven Richard Freeman, Esq. (srf@fwglaw.com)
          Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A.
          409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: (410) 321-8400
          Fax: 410-321-8407


AMBAC FINANCIAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambac Financial Group Inc. is facing several purported
securities fraud class actions filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, a suit was filed on Jan. 16, 2008, entitled, "Reimer
v. Ambac Financial Group."  It was brought on behalf of buyers
of Ambac's shares from Oct. 19, 2005 to Nov. 26, 2007.  The
complaint charges Ambac, and certain of its officers, and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results related to its insurance coverage on collateralized debt
obligations contracts.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- that the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
          ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and
          its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
          adequate, and, as a result, the Company's projections
          and reported results issued during the Class Period
          were based upon defective assumptions and/or
          manipulated facts;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were
          materially misstated due to its failure to properly
          account for its mark-to-market losses;

       -- that, given the deterioration and the increased
          volatility in the mortgage market, the Company would
          be forced to tighten its underwriting standards
          related to its asset-backed securities, which would
          have a direct material negative impact on its premium
          production going forward;

       -- that the Company had far greater exposure to
          anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO
          contracts containing subprime loans, including even
          highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed;

       -- that the Company had far greater exposure to a
          potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit
          ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and
       -- that defendants' Class Period statements about the
          Company's selective underwriting practices during the
          2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed
          by subprime assets were patently false; as the
          Company's underwriting standards were at best
          aggressive and at a minimum were completely
          inadequate.

Three other suits were later filed, making substantially the
same allegations as the Reimer action.  Those suits are:

       -- "Babic v. Ambac Financial Group Inc. et al." (filed on
          or about Feb. 7, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for
          the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV  
          1273);

       -- "Parker v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed
          on or about Feb. 22, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
          for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08 CV
          1825); and

       -- "Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association v. Ambac
          Financial Group, Inc. et al." (filed on or about Feb.
          26, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
          District of New York, Case No. 08 CV 1918).

The first identified suit is "Reimer v. Ambac Financial Group,
Case No. 1:08-cv-00411-NRB," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Denies Certification in "Good" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The district court denied a motion that sought for the
certification of a class in a lawsuit against Ameriprise
Financial, Inc., which suit alleges that the company
miscalculated advisors' fees, according to Ameriprise's Feb. 29,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The lawsuit, "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," was filed in March 2006 with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  It has been
brought as a putative class action and the plaintiffs purport to
represent all of the company's advisors who sold shares of Real
Estate Investment Trusts and tax credit limited partnerships
between March 22, 2000, and March 2006.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and restitutionary
damages as well as injunctive relief, saying the company
incorrectly calculated commissions owed advisors for the sale of
these products.

In September 2007, the company moved for summary judgment on all
claims.

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on Jan. 18, 2008.  The court requested supplemental briefs
addressing whether it continues to have subject-matter
jurisdiction over the two individual plaintiffs' claims.

The suit is "Good, et al. v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. et al.
Case No. 00-cv-01027," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, Judge Donovan W. Frank presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bryan L. Crawford, Esq. (bcrawford@heinsmills.com)
         Samuel D. Heins, Esq. (sheins@heinsmills.com)
         Stacey L. Mills, Esq. (smills@heinsmills.com)
         Brian L. Williams, Esq. (bwilliams@heinsmills.com)
         Heins Mills & Olson, PLC
         80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550
         Mpls, MN 55402
         Phone: 612-338-4605
         Fax: 612-338-4692

Representing the defendant is:
        
         Edward B. Magarian, Esq. (magarian.edward@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-7873
         Fax: 612-340-2807


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Gallus" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action "John E. Gallus et
al. v. American Express Financial Corp. and American Express
Financial Advisors Inc.," which was originally filed in June
2004 against American Express -- now known as Ameriprise
Financial, Inc. -- are appealing a decision by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona granting the defendant's
summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs allege that they are investors in several of the
Company's mutual funds and they purport to bring the action
derivatively on behalf of those funds under the Investment
Company Act of 1940.  They also allege that fees paid to the
defendants by the funds for investment advisory and
administrative services are excessive.  

The plaintiffs seek remedies including restitution and
rescission of investment advisory and distribution agreements.  

They later would voluntarily agree to transfer this case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  

In response to the company's motion to dismiss the complaint,
the court dismissed one of the plaintiffs' four claims and
granted the plaintiffs limited discovery.

In April 2007, the company moved for summary judgment on all
claims.  This motion was granted by the court, while all claims
were dismissed with prejudice.  The plaintiffs are appealing the
ruling.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. -- http://www.ameriprise.com/-- is   
engaged in providing financial planning, products and services
that are designed to offer solutions for its clients' asset
accumulation, income and protection needs.


APPLE INC: Settles "Millions of Colors" Lawsuit Out-of-Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. decided to settle a class action lawsuit initiated by
two photographers who accuse the company of false advertising
and misleading costumers, Portal IT reports.

The report says, however, that the terms of the settlement were
not disclosed.

The lawsuit was filed by Fred Greaves and Dave Gatley in May
2007, Portal IT recounts.  As reported in the Class Action
Reporter on May 22, 2007, the class action suit was filed with
the San Diego County Superior Court, and accuses the company of
falsely advertising its MacBook and MacBook Pro screen displays.

According to CAR, the suit accuses Apple of improperly playing
up the capabilities of the displays for the MacBook Pros and
MacBooks launched in the first part of last year.  For example,
it notes that Apple advertised the MacBooks as capable of
displaying "millions of colors" when they can only do that using
a technique called "dithering."

Dithering, the CAR report had explained, is a procedure used in
computer displays in order to trick the human eye into seeing a
color by painting nearby pixels with different shades of a color
to produce the desired shade.

Also, the suit points to complaints lodged by MacBook users on
various Apple discussion boards about the "grainy" or "shiny"
quality of their displays, CAR stated.

Portal IT says that the plaintiffs' main argument was that
Apple's little scheme interfered with their work, as color
accuracy becomes the VIP when taking the photos from the digital
realm to old-fashion print.  The two plaintiffs stated that the
notebook displays were not reliable for post-production purposes
even at the highest resolutions.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Says TILA Claims are Time-Barred
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
determined that all named plaintiffs' "Truth in Lending" claims
in a lawsuit against Astoria Financial Corp. over mortgage loan
preparation fees are time-barred.  

In 2004, David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated filed the suit
against Astoria Financial Corp., and other defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit is claiming that the company's charging of attorney
document preparation fees, recording fees, and facsimile fees
for mortgage loans violate state laws.

The action, commenced as a punitive class action, alleges that
in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans
made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB,
which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related
entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation
fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation
of:

     -- the federal Truth in Lending Act,
     -- the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
     -- the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCA), and
     -- the New York State Deceptive Practices Act

The suit also alleges unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part,
dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA.  The
Court further determined that class certification would be
considered prior to considering summary judgment.

On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  Astoria Federal has denied the claims set
forth in the complaint.

Both the company and the plaintiffs have filed motions for
summary judgment.

The District Court, on Sept. 12, 2007, granted the company's
motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named
plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time barred.   

All other aspects of the plaintiffs' and the defendant's motions
for summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice.

The Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class
representatives and provided plaintiffs' counsel an opportunity
to submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new
named plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the District Court
for partial reconsideration of its decision.  The District
Court, by order dated Jan. 25, 2008, granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial reconsideration and again determined that all
named plaintiffs' Truth in Lending claims are time barred.  

The District Court has given plaintiffs' counsel until Feb. 29,
2008, to move for substitution or intervention of new named
plaintiffs, according to Astoria's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "McAnaney et al. v. Astoria Financial Corp. et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01101-JFB-WDW," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Joseph
F. Bianco.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         G. Oliver Koppell, Esq. (okoppell@koppellaw.com)
         99 Park Avenue, Suite 800
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-368-0400
         Fax: 212-973-9494

              - and -

         Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (joseph@whalen-tusa.com)
         Whalen & Tusa, P.C.
         90 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-786-7377
         Fax: 212-658-9685

Representing the defendants are:

         Alfred W.J. Marks, Esq. (awjmarks@dbh.com)
         Day, Berry & Howard, LLP
         875 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-829-3634
         Fax: 212-829-3601


AWB LTD: Court Dismisses Wheat Farmers' Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 20, 2007, that AWB
Ltd. has asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to dismiss a class action that was brought by a
group of U.S. wheat growers.  

In an update, Bloomberg News relates that Judge Gerard Lynch
dismissed the lawsuit on March 25, 2008.

The suit was filed in April 2007 by U.S. law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll on behalf of American wheat farmers
with the federal district court in New York.  The lead plaintiff
is John Boyd of Baskerville, Virginia.  Four Kansan farmers, and
one from Montana -- Veryl Switzer, Gillan Alexander, Rod
Bradshaw, Wilburt Howard and Pat Dailey -- are also part of the
action.

The complaint was lodged on behalf of farmers who produced hard
red winter wheat, of the type grown across the great plains,
including Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming,
South Dakota and Montana.

The lawsuit stemmed from probes of the United Nations' Oil-for-
Food program, which found that former AWB employees paid
kickbacks to the Iraqi regime in exchange for sales.  The
antitrust suit claimed AWB depressed world wheat prices by
winning a monopoly in Iraq through its allegedly illegal
payments.

The suit sought up to $100 million in damages from AWB Ltd. and
its U.S. subsidiary, AWB (USA) Ltd.  It alleged Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations.  It had
asserted that AWB "paid bribes to the Iraqi government" to
"exploit a monopoly on wheat sold into Iraq."

The U.S. farmers claimed that they were "stuck with an
oversupply of wheat" between 1999 and 2003 because Iraq dealt
only with AWB Ltd., which was paying kickbacks to Saddam
Hussein's regime.

According to Bloomberg, AWB, which is considered to be
Australia's largest wheat exporter, rose to its highest in more
than two months in Sydney after winning dismissal of the
lawsuit.

According to the March 27 Bloomberg report, the Melbourne-based
AWB rose as much as 17 cents, or 6.7%, to AU$2.72 and traded at
AU$2.70 at 10:25 a.m. Sydney time on the Australian Stock
Exchange, its highest since Jan. 17.


BANKERS LIFE: Sued in WA Over Fraud on Long-Term Care Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bankers Life and Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed on March 19, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington alleging it breached contract and
took millions of dollars in bad faith for long-term convalescent
care policies, while concealing the inevitability of rate hikes,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs, who are elderly policyholders, find themselves
forced to "let their LTC policy lapse when they need coverage
the most," and this has gone on since 1988, they say.

This class action is brought on behalf of all persons who,
beginning in 1988, purchased long- or short-term convalescent
care insurance polices from Bankers in the State of Washington,
and who have been damaged:

     (1) by Bankers' misleading and deceptive non-disclosure,
         concealment and misrepresentation of material facts at
         the time of purchase and concerning the long-
         term stability of the premium rates for its LTC
         policies which were designed to and did conceal the
         inherent unreliability and heightened volatility of the
         assumptions not typical of other lines of insurance
         underlying Bankers' LTC premiums and the resulting
         certainty, or at least, heightened likelihood, that
         such premiums would need to be increased; and

     (2) by Bankers' raising premiums for in-force LTC policies
         once the negative effects of its unreliable and
         volatile pricing assumptions became imminent in breach
         of Bankers' contractual promise in its LTC policies
         that premiums would only be raised if there was an
         unforeseen change in federal or state law or regulation
         that changed Bankers' risk under the LTC policies.

LTC policies are designed to cover expenses incurred by people
when they are unable to take care of themselves due to an
injury, chronic illness, advanced age, or cognitive impairment.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the assumed
         persistency rates used for pricing its LTC policies
         were not based on actual experience;

     (b) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that the
         anticipated interest rates assumed in pricing its LTC
         policies was in appropriate based on reasonable
         economic projections;

     (c) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed
         to properly underwrite new risks;

     (d) whether Bankers disclosed to consumers that it failed
         to maintain adequate reserves to cover future
         anticipated claims;

     (e) whether Bankers failed to disclose that its closing
         blocks of LTC policies would inevitably lead to rounds
         of premium increase;

     (f) whether Bankers' inherently unreliable, volatile and
         flawed pricing assumptions set forth in the complaint
         made future premium increases for its LTC policies
         inevitable, or at least significantly heightened the
         risk thereof which it never disclosed to consumers;

     (g) whether Bankers increased its premiums for plaintiffs'
         and class members' LTC policies in absence of a change
         in federal or state law that changed the risk Bankers
         assumed;

     (h) whether Bankers' actions described in the complaint
         violate Washington's Consumer Protection Act, RCW
         Section 19.86.020;

     (i) whether Bankers breached its contracts with plaintiffs
         and the class;

     (j) the appropriate measure of damages, restitution and
         other remedies.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the suit as a class action, and
        appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives and
        the plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- compensatory damages;

     -- costs of litigation;

     -- all remedies available, pursuant to Washington's
        Consumer Protection Act, RCW Section 19.86 et seq.,
        including actual damages, treble damages, attorneys'
        costs, fees and expenses;

     -- restitution in such amount that plaintiffs and all class
        members paid for Bankers' services, or the profits and
        fees Bankers obtained for them;

     -- an order enjoining Bankers from raising its premiums on
        its LTC policies barring a truly unforeseen change in
        law that actually changes the nature of the risk Bankers
        assumed when it issued said policies; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary
        or appropriate.

The suit is "Susan W. Taylor et al. v. Bankers Life and Casualty
Co., Case No. C 08-0447," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael E. Withey, Esq. (mike@witheylaw.com)
          Law Offices of Michael Withey PLLC
          601 Union Street
          Two Union Square #4200
          Seattle, Washington 98101
          Phone: (206) 405-1800


BLUESKY BRANDS: Laid Off Fulfillment Workers Commence Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Paul Taylor, Esq., filed a class action suit on
March 25, 2008, on behalf of the workers laid off from AB&C
Group's Martinsburg facility in Jefferson County Circuit Court,
Multichannel Merchant reports.

AB&C is BlueSky Brands' third-party fulfillment arm.  According
to Multichannel Merchant, it's been nearly two weeks since
BlueSky closed its doors, although the catalog holding company
has yet to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, or respond
to any media requests.

The report relates that a similar lawsuit had been filed last
week with the Berkeley County Circuit Court.  

Multichannel Merchant notes that AB&C's two distribution centers
employed about 400 people.  

According to a former supervisor in AB&C's Orange, VA, call
center, employees in both states are pursing legal action
against Bluesky Brands for violations to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act Guide to Advance Notice of
Closings and Layoffs.  The WARN Act requires employers to
provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and
covered mass layoffs.

The report explains that, owned by Chicago-based private equity
firm Reliant Equity Investors, BlueSky Brands included Paragon
Gifts, Bits and Pieces, Bits and Pieces U.K., National Wildlife
Direct, and Winterthur catalogs.  Like the fulfillment center
workers, the catalog employees are still trying to deal with the
abrupt loss of their jobs and benefits.

Ileane Strong, a former buyer for National Wildlife Direct, told
Multichannel Merchant that she was laid off from the cataloger
on March 7 and showed a document saying that March 31 would be
the last day of her health insurance coverage.

However, Ms. Strong said the insurance company told her the
policy had been canceled on March 15, which was the day after
BlueSky Brands shut down.  Because Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act documents say Ms. Strong is insured
through March 31, she cannot get interim insurance until the
(canceled) policy expires.


CARMAKERS: UCanImport Pledges Support in C.A. Violation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Auto industry newsletter UCanImport Publications announced that
it is supporting the British Columbia-based law firm, Dinning
Hunter Lambert & Jackson, which has filed a lawsuit in British
Columbia against various auto manufacturers for practices in
contravention of Canada's Competition Act.

UCanImport has agreed to act as a conduit for this lawsuit by
hosting related information and registration documentation on
its Web site: http://www.UCanImport.com

The lawsuit, filed on February 26 2008, at Victoria, British
Columbia, alleges that certain automakers:

      * BMW Canada Inc.
      * Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.
      * Hyundai Canada Inc.
      * Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.
      * Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada Inc.
      * Subaru Canada Inc.
      * Toyota Canada Inc.
      * Volvo Cars of Canada
      * Volvo Group Canada Inc.

have, contrary to the federally-regulated Competition Act,
implemented unlawful policies designed to curtail imports from
the United States into Canada.  These policies include:

     -- preventing U.S. dealerships from selling new vehicles to
        Canadians,

     -- implementing new mandatory documentation requirements
        with exploitive fees for distribution, voiding OEM
        warranties, dictating unnecessary modifications and
        charging exploitive labor rates for modifications and
        inspections, as well as forcing Canadians to wait up to
        90-days for the service and inspections deemed
        mandatory prior to vehicle registration.

In addition, some manufacturers have refused to provide the
mandatory documentation to Canadians, effectively blocking their
vehicle certification in Canada.

For more information, visit:

http://www.ucanimport.com/lawsuit.aspx

Media Contact:

          David Davies
          Tel: (250) 382-4332
          e-mail: ddavies@harbourwerks.com


CASH AMERICA: Ga. Court Denies Motion in Payday Loans Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., is appealing the denial of its
motion to stay and compel arbitration by the State Court of Cobb
County, Georgia in connection with a purported class action over
payday loans, according to Cash America's Feb. 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed the purported class
action against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America
International, Inc., Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed
officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America.  

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The lawsuit claims that Community State Bank is not the true
lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and
that its involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."
Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the
"de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on
Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration)
was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24,
2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.  

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the discovery
sanction was handed down by the Court.  

Cash America is currently in the process of appealing these
latest orders from the Court.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com-
- provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.

    
CASH AMERICA: Files Arbitration Motion in Pa. Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., along with other defendants in
a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania with regard to certain
loans to Pennsylvania consumers, are seeking to compel
individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims in the matter.

The federal class action complaint was filed on Oct. 23, 2007,
by Ryan Bonner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against:

     -- Cash America International, Inc.,  
     -- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC,
     -- Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC, and
     -- Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com

The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The suit is alleging, among other things, that the company and
three of its subsidiaries located outside Pennsylvania made
certain loans to Pennsylvania consumers in violation of
Pennsylvania law, including its usury, fair credit extension,
and unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws.

The complaint also alleges that the arbitration clause in the
relevant loans is unenforceable and seeks a declaratory judgment
that the loan agreements issued to Pennsylvania residents are
void and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law or, in the
alternative, that the arbitration clause in those loan
agreements is void and unenforceable.

The plaintiff also seeks an injunction barring the company and
the three named subsidiaries from offering, arranging, making or
collecting allegedly illegal loans in Pennsylvania, as well as
an award of monetary damages (including treble damages),
penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants have filed a motion to compel arbitration seeking
to compel individual arbitration of the plaintiff's claims and  
they are presently awaiting plaintiff's response to this motion,
according to the company's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007

The suit is "Bonner v. Cash America International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-04444-NS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Norma L. Shapiro
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. (jmeltzer@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, L.L.P.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056


CENTRO PROPERTIES: IMF to Fund Investors' Non-Disclosure Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Maurice Blackburn will be financially backed by IMF
(Australia) to pursue class action suits on behalf of investors
who bought shares in Centro Properties Group, MFS and Allco
Finance Group, Inside Retailing reports.

According to press reports, investors who bought shares within
the six-month period to February 2008 will be eligible to join
the class action suit, which will focus on the beleaguered
companies' non-disclosure of material information about their
debt and liquidity.

Inside Retailing notes that Maurice Blackburn will argue that
the three fund managers breached the Corporations Act by
engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct and failing to
inform the market as they were required to do.

Financial Times points out that Listed companies in Australia
and elsewhere with opaque leveraged structures have been hit
hard by nervous stock market investors since soon after the
credit crisis took hold in the second half of last year.  Their
problems have been compounded if they relied heavily on short-
term borrowings after the era of cheap debt finance abruptly
ended.

Shares in the four groups targeted by IMF Australia have fallen
heavily in recent months, with some down by close to 90% from
their trading highs.  All four are grappling with their debt
positions and some have embarked on asset sales to improve their
balance sheets.

The Australian Securities Exchange monitors companies'
compliance with their continuous disclosure obligations as laid
down by the listing rules, Financial Times further explains.  If
the ASX believes there is a breach, it is referred to the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which decides
whether or not to prosecute.

The ASX recently announced new disciplinary and appeal processes
for participants in both the cash and futures market, including
an increase in the maximum penalty for the most serious market
abuses, such as market manipulation, from AU$250,000 to AU$1
million.  This follows calls for Australian regulators to
improve transparency around short selling, stock lending and
director margin loans.  There have also been concerns about
hedge funds planting false rumors in the market.


CLUB MED: Settles Male Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
California men have won in a class action lawsuit against French
resort chain Club Mediterranee S.A. claiming male
discrimination, Union-Tribune reports.

Union-Tribune recounts that in 2003, San Diego resident Alfred
Rava challenged Club Med's "Ladies Fly Free" travel promotion in
a class-action lawsuit filed with the Orange County Superior
Court.  The promo offered women -- but not their male companions
-- free or discounted travel to Club Med's Cancun resort or its
Turks and Caicos resort southeast of the Bahamas.

"It sends a strong message to businesses in California," Mr.
Rava's attorney, Erik Jenkins, Esq., says of the case.  He adds
that gender discrimination has taken a back seat to
discrimination based on race, national origin and sexual
orientation.  "It has taken society a long time to catch on that
females should not be used as sexual bait to draw men into a
business."

According to the report, Club Med, while not admitting guilt,
has agreed to pay $400,000 in attorney and court fees.  Plus it
will pay $1,149 in cash and $1,200 in Club Med vouchers to more
than 50 male claimants who had bought airline tickets during
Club Med's five-week promotion.

A Florida Club Med spokeswoman told Union-Tribune that there was
no intentional wrongdoing.  She said that the promotions have
stopped, and the chain now focuses more on family travel.
Discount offers still are made, but they focus on couples by
using ambiguous wording such as: "Half off for the better half"
-- referring to either sex.


ELI LILLY: March 2008 Hearing Set for Motion in N.Y. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A March 2008 hearing is slated on a motion for summary judgment
filed by Eli Lilly and Co. in a consolidated securities fraud  
litigation pending against it, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits, which were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the company and various
current and former directors, officers and employees, are:

       -- "Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed
          on March 28, 2007, and

       -- "Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed
          on April 5, 2007.

The suits have been consolidated under the caption, "In re Eli
Lilly and Company Securities Litigation."

In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, seeking certification of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Aug. 1, 2002, through
Dec. 22, 2006.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.

In October 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  That motion has been converted
in part to a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on the
motion is scheduled in March 2008.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,   
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Lawsuits Over "Dex-Cool" Engine Coolant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Girard Gibbs LLP announced that a nationwide class action
settlement involving General Motors' Dex-Cool engine coolant was
granted preliminary approval last week by Judge Robert Freedman
of the Alameda County, California Superior Court.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of owners of General Motors
vehicles, which were factory-filled with "Dex-Cool" coolant.

The lawsuits alleged that Dex-Cool coolant caused damage to
certain vehicles' engines, and that in certain other vehicles,
Dex-Cool formed a rusty sludge, which clogged the vehicles'
cooling systems, causing them to overheat.

According to the complaints, Dex-Cool failed to protect the
vehicle engines and cooling systems as was represented by the
manufacturer.

GM asserted that Dex-Cool protected engines for a longer period
than traditional coolants, caused less wear on certain engine
parts than traditional coolants, and provided environmental
benefits.  GM also argued that the alleged problems with the
vehicles' engines or cooling systems were caused by the owners'
failure to follow the manufacturer's maintenance instructions
for their vehicles and other outside factors.

Under the proposed settlement, current and former owners and
lessees of certain 1995-2004 model year GM vehicles with 3.1-
liter, 3.4-liter, 3.8-liter or 4.3-liter engines will be
eligible to receive reimbursement for Dex-Cool related engine
repairs that occurred within 7 years or 150,000 miles (whichever
is earlier) of original vehicle purchase; these repairs include
intake manifold gasket replacements, cooling system flushes, and
heater core repairs.

Vehicle owners or lessees who paid for a qualifying repair will
be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to $400 per
repair made within the first five years of the vehicle's life,
up to $100 per repair made in the sixth year, and up to $50 per
repair made in the seventh year.  Those who paid for multiple
covered repairs may be eligible to receive multiple cash
reimbursements.  In addition, those vehicle owners or lessees
who had more expensive repairs as a result of internal coolant
leaks, will be entitled to cash reimbursement from GM of up to
$800.

"The settlement is the result of a lot of hard work over a 5-
year period in what was a vigorously contested series of class
action lawsuits," said Eric Gibbs of San Francisco-based Girard
Gibbs LLP, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs.

"In the end, we believe the settlement is good for the class
members, and we think it was appropriate for GM to ultimately
agree to provide compensation to its customers," said Jack
Brady, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel and shareholder at Shughart
Thomson & Kilroy, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
Dex-Cool Settlement on the net: http://www.dexcoolsettlement.com
    
General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily   
engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing
of cars, trucks and parts.  The Company develops, manufactures
and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive
regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.


HOME DEPOT USA: Faces MO Suit Over 10% Rental Cost Overcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot USA, Inc. -- d/b/a/ The Home Depot -- is facing a
class-action complaint filed on Mar. 20, 2008, with the Circuit
Court in St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging that the company's
computers automatically add 10% to the cost of rental tools for
a deceptive and worthless "damage waiver," CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiffs say the store does not tell customers that the
waiver is optional, and it's worthless anyway, because it
provides no coverage not already provided under the tool rental
contract.

The plaintiffs bring this statutory fraud action pursuant to the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Mo. Ann. Stat. Section
407.020 on behalf of all Home Depot customers who were charged a
"Damage Waiver" in connection with a tool or equipment rental
from a Home Depot retail store in Missouri during the relevant
period.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for an order certifying the class, and appointing
        plaintiff as the class representative and plaintiff's
        lawyer as class counsel;

     -- for an order finding that Home Depot constitutes unfair
        and deceptive practices;

     -- for an order awarding damages and restitution, plus
        interest thereon, to plaintiff and the class;

     -- for an order awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and
        the class;

     -- for an order awarding to plaintiff and the class the
        costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this
        action, including, reasonable attorney's fees; and

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

The suit is "Janet Chochorowski et al. v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
Case No. 08SL-CC01183," filed with the Circuit Court in St.
Louis County, Missouri

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gerald R. Walters, Esq.
          Paul A. Marks, Esq.
          The Lakin Law Firm, PC
          300 Evans Avenue
          P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095-1127
          Phone: (618) 254-1127


IMAGITAS INC: Faces Consolidated DPPA Violations Suit in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Imagitas, Inc., a unit of Pitney Bowes, Inc., a multi-district
litigation in Florida, which is generally alleging that the
company violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, according
to Pitney Bowes' Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, Imagitas was named as a defendant in 10 purported
class actions filed in six different states.  These litigations
have been consolidated into a single federal multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District for the Middle District of
Florida, "In re Imagitas, Inc., Drivers' Privacy Protection Act
Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1828," (Consolidated, May 28, 2007).

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Imagitas DriverSource
program violates the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

Under the DriverSource program, Imagitas enters into contracts
with state governments to mail out automobile registration
renewal materials along with third party advertisements, without
revealing the personal information of any state resident to any
advertiser.

The DriverSource program assists the state in performing its
function of delivering these mailings and funding the costs of
them.

During the second quarter of 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation consolidated the ten purported class actions
before a single judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking both statutory
damages under the DPPA and an injunction against the
continuation of the program.

Pitney Bowes, Inc. -- http://www.pb.com/-- is a provider of
mail processing equipment and integrated mail solutions.


INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Sued Over Retiree Insurance Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Urbia, a 34-year Chisholm teacher, and his wife, Sharon,
have sued Independent School District No. 695, alleging that the
district breached its contractual obligations regarding its
payment of retiree group health and hospitalization insurance
set forth in the collective bargaining agreement in effect when
Mr. Urbia retired, Duluth News Tribune reports.

Duluth lawyer Tom Andrew, Esq., filed the lawsuit last week with
the St. Louis County District Court in Hibbing as a proposed
class action.  Mr. Andrew said the proposed class contains about
100 Chisholm teachers and spouses.

Duluth Tribune recalls that Mr. Urbia was employed by Chisholm
schools as a teacher and coach from 1966 until he retired at age
57 in June 2000.  He continues to coach the Chisholm High School
girls and boys cross country teams.  Ms. Sharon is a plaintiff
as a dependent spouse.

The plaintiffs say that the action is being brought to enforce
the Chisholm school district's contractual obligations to them
that were set forth in the collective bargaining agreement
between the school district and the teachers' union, Chisholm
Local 1276.

The plaintiffs allege that the school district violated its
contractual obligations starting on July 1, 2003, by reducing
its contribution towards premiums for Mr. Urbia's single
coverage and its contribution towards his wife's family coverage
to the levels set forth in a July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005
collective bargaining agreement, instead of the contribution
levels in effect at the time Mr. Urbia retired.

The lawsuit seeks enforcement of the contractual promises the
plaintiffs relied upon.

According to the suit, since July 1, 2003, in order to avoid
cancellation of their retiree health insurance benefits, about
100 retirees have had to pay the school district monthly
payments in varying amounts, dependent upon whether they elected
single or dependency coverage and whether or not they or their
dependents were eligible for Part A or B of Medicare in excess
of amounts they would have to pay if the school district honored
its contract.

"One of the most important decisions that each worker must some
day make is whether they should or should not retire," Mr.
Andrew told Duluth Tribune.  "An important factor in making this
decision is whether the worker can afford to retire.  The cost
the worker must pay for health insurance and the medical
expenses that will not be covered by health insurance, including
deductibles and co-pays, after the worker retires are important
issues each worker must review to decide whether they can afford
to retire."

Chisholm schools Superintendent James Varichak declined to
comment on the Urbias' lawsuit, the report relates.  Mr.
Varichak said the matter had been turned over to the school
district's insurance company and its legal counsel.

The school district has until April 1 to answer the complaint,
20 days from the date it was served.


INNOVEX INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Innovex (North America) Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California accusing the company of refusing to pay overtime, and
other Labor Law violations, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jerri Pazdernik brings the action on behalf of
present and former Sales Representatives employed in the United
States by Innovex for unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and
damages.

Mr. Pazdernik alleges that the wage violations at issue arose
out of a policy and practice of defendant applicable to other,
similarly situated workers.

The plaintiff ask the court:

     -- to certify the action as a FLSA representative action on
        behalf of "all Sales Representatives employed by
        defendant in the United States during the claim period;"

     -- to grant judgment in favor of plaintiff and all
        similarly situated workers, awarding them their unpaid
        regular wages and overtime, and an equal amount of
        liquidated damages;

     -- to award the plaintiffs their costs of court and
        reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
        Standards Act;

     -- for compensatory damages, including lost wages,
        commissions, bonuses, and other losses, during the
        period commencing on the date that is within four years
        prior to the filing of the complaint according to proof;

     -- for general damages, according to proof;

     -- for an award of interest, including prejudgment interest
        at the legal rate;

     -- for statutory damages, including reasonable attorneys'
        fees and cost of suit; and

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

The suit is "Jerri Pazdernik et al. v. Innovex (North America)
Inc., Case NO: SACV08-0265 AHS," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District Court of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
          Mark C. Hinkley, Esq.
          Morris and Associates
          444 West C Street, Suite 300
          San Diego, California 92101
          Phone: (619) 239-1300
          Fax: (619) 234-5666
          e-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com


MBIA INC: No Hearing Set on Appeal of Dismissed of N.Y. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has yet to be set on a motion appealing the dismissal
of the purported class action, "In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

                        Case Background

Initially, several class actions were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
MBIA Inc. and certain of its officers and directors (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).

The suits were:

      -- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3514) (filed April 4, 2005);

      -- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005);

      -- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636;
         S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005);

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No.
         05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and

      -- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc.,
         et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April
         26, 2005).

The suits named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the company's
chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C. Dunton, the
company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri, the
company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice
president of the company and the company's former chief
financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's
controller.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Section
10(b)of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives
for a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Aug. 5, 2003, to March 30, 2005.  

Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include,
among other things, violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and the defendant's
failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts:

      -- that the company, during the class period,
         over-leveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against
         possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
         guaranteeing risky structured financings;

      -- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income
         by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as
         advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted
         for over the life of the bonds insured;

      -- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment
         received from Converium Re (then called Zurich
         Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time
         was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery
         for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan;

      -- that as result, MBIA financial statements were
         materially overstated by $60 million;

      -- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and
         portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the
         secondary market that were attracting prices lower than
         their stale credit ratings would dictate;

      -- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's
         practice to defer recognizing problems rather than
         providing layers of excess collateral, other
         underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed
         prowess at restructuring;

      -- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the
         loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and
         Research Foundation bond issuance, with a
         retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance
         recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of
         the future AHERF interest and principal payments, which
         resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in
         pretax income that year -- $565 million over what the
         income figure would have been without resort to the
         reinsurance;

      -- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
         Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest,
         performing but troubled policies from its existing
         portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any
         quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by
         getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet
         in order to make its financial results appear better;
         and

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading
statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with purchases by members of the putative class of
the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the
class period.

On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order
consolidating these five cases into one action under the
caption, "In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CV
3514," and named as lead plaintiffs in the case:

      -- the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and

      -- the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
         System.

The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds.  

On Feb. 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed
the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that these claims
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  

The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued
by the Company and the other defendants.  

The plaintiffs filed a  notice of appeal on March 14, 2007.  
They have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  

The plaintiffs argue that the dismissal should be reversed on
several grounds.  The appeal has been fully briefed.  No date
for arguing the appeal has been set, according to the company's
Feb. 29, 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 MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L. Stanton.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven Klugman, Esq. (sklugman@debevoise.com)
          Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212 909-6000
          Fax: 212 909-6836

               - and -

          Steven Robert Peikin, Esq. (peikins@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 558-7228
          Fax: (212) 558-3588


MICHIGAN: Chippewa County to Sue Over 911 Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------
Joining more than a dozen other counties, the Chippewa County
Board of Commissioners unanimously agreed at Monday's special
meeting to bring a class action lawsuit disputing the recent
decision of the Michigan Public Services Commission, according
to Sault Ste. Marie Evening News.

The report recounts that the county board had approved a $1.50
monthly surcharge on every phone line, which would have
generated $525,071 for the county -- providing enough funds to
cover 911 expenses.  While the county earned a recommendation
from the Emergency 911 Service Committee for this package, the
final decision by the MPSC set the rate at 99 cents, which will
only generate $415,865.

"That's not enough," said Office of Emergency Services Director
Tim McKee, predicting another deficit for Chippewa County
Central Dispatch if the county is forced to assess the smaller
surcharge.  "I'm projecting right now we will be somewhere
between $40,000 and $60,000 short on our budget."

Mr. McKee said there were three avenues of appeal.  The county
could request a new hearing but, without bringing any new
information to the table, it is unlikely that this would be a
successful tactic.  Dispute resolution, it appears, would also
be a dead end.

Left with only one alternative, Mr. McKee expressed the belief
that the class action lawsuit with other affected counties
provided the best option.

"I can't tell you what the chances are of winning this appeal,"
He said, lobbying for board action.  "I have never been down
this road."

Mr. McKee also provided some reassurance to the county
commissioners.  "There's no need to take drastic action," he
said.  "We have a fund balance to take from -- but you are only
going to be able to do that so many times."

Commissioner Dick Timmer asked what it would cost for Chippewa
County to join in the lawsuit.  While Mr. McKee was unable to
put an exact price tag on the county's share at this juncture,
it appears as though Chippewa County's share would not exceed
$2,000, Sault Ste. Marie Evening News says.  The exact figure
will be influenced by the number of other counties that sign on
during the 30-day appeal period with each additional county
further reducing the costs.

The commission unanimously agreed to pursue the appeal through a
class action lawsuit, authorizing up to $2,000 from the general
fund toward this effort.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in Ohio Over Rental Car Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging that it cheats policyholders by
terminating their rental car benefits as soon as they receive a
settlement offer, regardless of whether they accept the offer,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michael Peddicord brings the action on behalf of
all other individuals who paid for insurance services issued by
Nationwide Mutual at any time since the 15 years preceding the
filing of this action, and continuing while this action is
pending.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the elements of breach of contract are
         substantially similar between defendants and
         plaintiffs;

     (b) whether the insurance contract is substantially
         similar, if not identical, between defendants and all
         plaintiffs;

     (c) whether the declarations issued to all plaintiffs by
         defendants are substantially similar, if not identical;

     (d) whether the Endorsements issued to all plaintiffs by
         defendants are substantially similar, if not identical;

     (e) whether defendants and each of them made the same or
         substantially similar promises and warranties to all
         plaintiffs;

     (f) whether defendants and each of them breached the
         promises, representations and warranties about rental
         car benefits to all plaintiffs; and

     (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by the wrongs
         complained of, and if so, the measure of those damages
         and the nature and extent of other relief that should
         be afforded.

The plaintiff asks the court:

      -- for certification of the proposed class and notice
         thereto to be paid by defendant;

      -- to adjudge and decree that defendants have engaged in
         the conduct alleged;

      -- for restitution and disgorgement on certain causes of
         action;

      -- for an injunction ordering defendants to cease and
         desist from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and/or
         fraudulent practices alleged;

      -- for compensatory and general damages according to proof
         on certain causes of action;

      -- for special damages according to proof on certain
         causes of action;

      -- for both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum
         allowable rate on any amounts awarded;

      -- for costs of the proceedings; and

      -- for reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute.

The suit is "Michael Peddicord et al. v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., et al., Case No 1:08 CV 605," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alberto Nestico, Esq. (Nestico@KNRLegal.com)
          Gary W. Kisling, Esq. (Kisling@KNRLegal.com)
          Robert W. Redick, Esq. (Redick@KNRLegal.com)
          Thomas M. Vasvari, Esq. (Vasvari@KNRLegal.com)
          Kisling, Nestico & Redick LLC
          3200 W. Market St, Suite 300
          Akron, Ohio 44333
          Phone: (330) 869-9007
          Fax: (330) 869-9008


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Calif. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action against Pacific
Capital Bancorp are appealing the dismissal of their case to the
California Supreme Court, according to Pacific Capital's
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, a purported class action was filed by Canieva Hood
and Congress of California Seniors against:

     * Santa Barbara Bank & Trust,
     * Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and
     * Jackson-Hewitt, Inc.

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan application and agreement with the
company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt owed
by the applicant to another RAL lender.

It was filed on March 18, 2003, with the Superior Court in San
Francisco, California as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."

The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.

This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.  

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara.  The
company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross complaint
for indemnification against the other RAL lenders.  

On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted
a motion filed by the Company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of a judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing the suit.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal.  A hearing before the Court
of Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken
under submission.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision,
issued an opinion, which held that the claims in the Complaint
that the Company had violated certain California consumer
protection laws were not preempted by Federal law and
regulations.

The Company and the Cross-Defendants have filed a Petition for
Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to
reverse the Court of Appeal's opinion.  This petition was
denied, and the plaintiff then filed an amended complaint in the
superior court.  

The Company filed a demurrer to the cause of action in the
amended complaint based on the California Legal Remedies Act.

The superior court granted the demurrer/dismissal without leave
to amend.  The plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking
to reverse the superior court's decision was denied by the Court
of Appeal.

The plaintiff has filed an appeal to the California Supreme
Court.  Their other causes of action remain pending.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a  
bank holding company and has one subsidiary Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A. (PCBNA).


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Ala. Suit Over Alleged Overinvestment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed
March 12 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama alleging that Regions Financial overinvested
employees' retirement money in its own stock despite knowing of
its exposure to the sub-prime real estate meltdown, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This is a class action brought pursuant to Sections 409, 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC Section
1109, 1132.

Named plaintiff Barbara Williams brings this action as a class
action Pursuant to Rules 23(a)(b)(1), and (b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the plans, at any time
between Nov. 4, 2006, and the present and whose plan accounts
included investments in Regions Financial common stock, the RMK
Select High Income Bond Fund and the RMK Selected Intermediate
Fund.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to the
         plans, plaintiff and members of the class;

     (b) whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
         the plans, plaintiffs and members of the class by
         failing to act prudently and solely in the interests of
         the plans and the plans' participants and
         beneficiaries;

     (c) whether defendants violated ERISA; and

     (d) whether the plans and members of the class have
         sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper
         measure of relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them,
        have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the
        participants of the respective plans;

     -- a declaration that the defendants, collectively and
        separately, are not entitled to the protection of ERISA
        Section 404(c)(1)(B), 29 USC Section (c)(1)(B);

     -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
        respective plans all losses to the plans resulting from
        defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
        including losses to the plans resulting from imprudent
        investment of the plans' assets, and to restore to the
        plans all profits the defendants made through use of the
        plans' assets, and to restore to the plans all profits
        which the participants would have made if the defendants
        had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;

     -- imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by
        which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense
        of the plans as the result of breaches of fiduciary
        duty;

     -- actual damages in the amount of any losses the plans
        suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
        individual accounts in proportion to the accounts'
        losses;

     -- an order that defendants allocate the plans' recoveries
        to the accounts of all participants who had any portion
        of their account balances invested in the common stock
        of Regions maintained by the plans in proportion to the
        accounts' losses attributable to the decline in the
        stock price of Regions;

     -- an order that defendants allocate the plans' recoveries
        to the accounts of all participants who had any portion
        of their account balances invested in shares of the
        Funds maintained by the plans in proportion to the
        accounts' losses attributable to the decline in the
        value of the Funds;

     -- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 USC Section
        1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and

     -- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
        equitable monetary relief against the defendants.

The suit is "Barbara Williams et al v. Regions Financial
Corporation et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Craig P. Niedenthal, Esq. (craign@nlflegal.com)
          Niedenthal Law Firm, PC
          2015 Stonegate Trail, Suite 101
          Birmingham, AL 35242


SU WHOLESALE: Recalls Toys Violating Lead Paint Standard
--------------------------------------------------------
S.U. Wholesale Inc., of Vernon, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
5,000 X Force Commander Toy Airplanes and Super Famous Toy Cars
and Motorcycles.

The company said the recalled toys contain excessive levels of
lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No injuries
have been reported.

The "X Force Commander" is a set of six plastic jet airplanes.
Item number 5689 is printed on the front of the packaging.  The
airplanes are painted green, red, blue, silver, black and
yellow.  The "Super Famous" is a set of a plastic toy car and a
motorcycle.  The car is yellow or red and the motorcycle is
gray.

These recalled toys were manufactured in China and were being
sold at Dollar Stores nationwide from September 2006 through
November 2007 for about $1.

Pictures of recalled toys are found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08219c.jpg

Consumers should immediately take these toys away from children
and return to them to the store where purchased for a refund.

For additional information, contact S.U. Wholesale toll-free at
(877) 580-8883 between 10:00 a.m. And 6:00 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday.


U.S. RAILROADS: Sued by Archer Daniels for Fixed Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co., a major food processor, has filed a
lawsuit against five major U.S. railroads, alleging they schemed
to fix fuel surcharges, Reuters reports.

ADM has paid more than $250 million in fuel surcharges since
2003 and is seeking treble damages, according to the lawsuit
filed on March 25 2008, with the Minnesota District Court.  ADM
moves millions of tonnes of corn, soybeans and other
agricultural products using rail lines each year.

The suit was filed against:

     1. CSX Transportation Inc. -- a subsidiary of CSX Corp.,
     2. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.,
     3. Union Pacific Corp.,
     4. Norfolk Southern Corp, and
     5. Kansas City Southern .

CSX spokesman Garrick Francis told Reuters that it believed its
fuel surcharges have always complied with all laws and
regulations.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe also denied the allegations.  

"The allegations in this case do not have any merit and we
intend to vigorously defend," Burlington Northern Santa Fe
spokesman Pat Hiatte expressed to Reuters.  "We also expect this
case will be consolidated with previously filed lawsuits before
Federal Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C."

Reuters relates that in 2007, Dust Pro Inc., a Phoenix, Arizona-
based maker of soil stabilizers, filed a suit seeking class-
action status against the same five railroads alleging price
fixing.

U.S. rail shippers have been angry over fuel surcharges levied
by railroads to move their goods, the report points out.  In
2007, the Surface Transportation Board, a U.S. government
regulator, said the railroads must change the way they levy fuel
surcharges.  Surcharges are intended to help U.S. railroads
recoup the rising cost of fuel.


URGENT GEAR: Kids' Hoodies Recalled Due to Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Urgent Gear Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
700 Micros Boys' Hooded Jackets.

The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, which can pose 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.

This recall involves Micros boys' 100% cotton jackets.  The
hooded sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood.  They
were sold in black with a peace sign patch and a "MCC Micros"
patch on the chest, silver with a silver stitched design on the
front, and gray with skulls on the front. Style numbers BZAT 718
(Black) / BZAT 722 (Silver) / BZAT 724 (Dark Gray) are printed
on a label sewn into the jacket's inner side seam.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold exclusively at Nordstrom stores nationwide from November
2007 through December 2007 for about $50.

Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08217c.jpg

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings to eliminate
the hazard or return the sweatshirts to Nordstrom or to Urgent
Gear for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Urgent Gear collect at (213)
741-9926 ext. 247 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:      
http://www.urgentgear.com


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Wages Payment Failure Lawsuit in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The nation's fourth largest bank, Wachovia Corporation, stands
accused of failing to pay call center employees for preparatory
at the start of their shift according to an announcement by
Campbell Law of Birmingham, Alabama.

Wachovia's call centers are located in Rancho Cordova (Ca.),
Salem (Or.), Allentown (Pa.), Birmingham (Al.), Charlotte
(N.C.), Columbia (S.C.), Jacksonville (Fl.), Miami (Fl.),
Richmond (Va.) and Roanoke (Va.).

Carrie Williams sued Wachovia on March 21, 2008 in Birmingham,
Alabama.  Ms. Williams is asking Senior U.S. District Court
Judge William M. Acker, Jr. to permit all other current and
former call center employees to participate in the case.

Call center employees are not paid for powering up and logging
into numerous computer programs that the employees must be able
to access to fully serve customers who call the centers.

Employees cannot "clock-in" until all computers are up and
running properly.  Employees at all of the Wachovia locations
are urged to join the case.

Other large employers settled similar complaints brought by the
U.S. Department of Labor including T-Mobile, Convergys
Corporation, and Enron.

"Call center managers seem to have a problem realizing that time
spent on these preparatory activities must be recorded and
employees paid for it," according to Tom Campbell, a Birmingham
Alabama labor lawyer representing the employees.

Mr. Campbell says, "Friends who are bank managers would not dare
to refuse to pay their tellers for time spent counting their
cash drawers before the bank opens to serve customers.  
Likewise, there is no moral or legal reason to refuse to pay
employees who service the same customers over the phone for the
work done before they are available to provide direct customer
support."

Millions of dollars in back pay and statutory penalties may be
at stake in the litigation.

The suit is "Carrie Williams et al.  v. Wachovia Corp., Case No:
07-CV-500," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Judge William M. Acker, Jr., presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Thomas F. Campbell, Esq.
          (tcampbell@campbelllitigation.com)
          Campbell Law
          A Professional Corporation
          Complex and Class Litigation
          100 Concourse Parkway, Suite 115
          Birmingham, Al. 35244
          Direct: 205-397-0307
          Fax: 205-278-6654
          Web site: http://www.campbelllitigation.com


WESTERN REFINING: Units Still Face "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Western Refining, Inc., continues to face a
consolidated class action entitled, "In re Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840,"
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.

Initially, on March 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed in
New Mexico naming numerous retail suppliers of motor fuel as
defendants, including subsidiaries of the Company.  

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that, by consciously
selling gasoline at a temperature greater than 60 Fahrenheit,
the defendants are depriving consumers of the full amount of
energy that should be delivered when gasoline is delivered at a
cooler temperature.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and also
seek to require the defendants to install temperature-adjustment
devices at the pumps.  

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in several other
jurisdictions.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the actions and unsigned them under the title, "In
re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket
No 1840," to Judge Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007).

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Western Refining, Inc. -- http://www.westernrefining.com/-- is    
an independent crude oil refiner and marketer of refined
products based in El Paso, Texas, and operates in the Southwest
region of the U.S., including Arizona, New Mexico and West
Texas.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

NEUROMETRIX INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against NeuroMetrix, Inc. and various individuals on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock
between October 27, 2005, and March 6, 2007.

Specifically, the shareholder class action lawsuit alleges that
the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it
issued certain false and misleading statements about sales and
risks associated with certain of its medical products.

For more information, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)


SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Coughlin Stoia Files LA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of
purchasers of Superior Offshore International, Inc. common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 20, 2007 Initial
Public Offering.

The complaint charges Superior Offshore and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

Superior Offshore provides subsea construction and commercial
diving services to the crude oil and natural gas exploration and
production and gathering and transmission industries on the
outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.

The complaint alleges that on April 20, 2007, defendants
conducted the IPO pursuant to a false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Specifically, defendants failed to
conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into the Company
prior to the Offering.

They also failed to reveal, at the time of the Offering, that
the Company's core business was not performing according to
plan, that its core market in the Gulf of Mexico was in decline,
and that defendants would be forced to immediately transform and
reorganize the Company and enter into new, untested markets.

As a result, at the time of the Offering, the Company's business
had already been and would continue to be adversely affected.  
On August 14, 2007, defendants revealed that the Company's
problems, which existed at the time of the Offering, would
result in extremely disappointing results for the foreseeable
near term and would force defendants to reorganize the Company.

As a result, Superior Offshore's stock price dropped from $13.46
to as low as $10.79 in two days.  Then on November 14, 2007,
Superior Offshore's stock price again declined precipitously
when defendants revealed that the Company was operating below
its recently revised forecasts and that its core business was
operating even worse than previously disclosed.  On this news,
Superior Offshore's stock price dropped from $9.74 to as low as
$6.56 per share in two days.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Superior Offshore common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's April 20, 2007 IPO.

For more information, contact:

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


WELLPOINT INC: Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing in In.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
against WellPoint, Inc., and various individuals on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock
between January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 when it issued false and misleading statements to
the public concerning medical costs and medical enrollment
levels.

The lawsuit also alleges the Company misrepresented its future
earnings potential.

For more information, contact:

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq. (cholzer@holzerlaw.com)
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors McCanns in Foster Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8, reversed the
ruling of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, to
favor Terry McCann and Lucille McCann in an asbestos-related
action filed against Foster Wheeler.

The case is styled Terry McCann et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. Foster Wheeler, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Cooper, Rubin, and Flier entered judgment of Case No.
B189898 on Feb. 28, 2008.

In the 1950s, Mr. McCann was employed by a construction company
at an oil refinery in Oklahoma. While working at the refinery,
he was exposed to asbestos during the installation of a boiler
designed and manufactured by Foster Wheeler, a New York company.
The McCanns moved to California in 1975.

In April 2005, Mr. McCann was diagnosed with mesothelioma
allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos while working at
the refinery in Oklahoma. The McCanns filed a personal injury
action against Foster Wheeler and others.

Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment on the ground that
Oklahoma's statute of repose applied and barred the lawsuit.

Foster Wheeler claimed the boiler was an improvement to real
property and required specific engineering and designing to fit
the needs of the customer.

The McCanns' opposition to the summary judgment motion argued
that California's borrowing statute, Code of Civil Procedure
section 361, precluded application of Oklahoma's statute of
repose.

The McCanns asserted that California's governmental interests,
as expressed in section 361, would be significantly impaired by
the application of the Oklahoma statute.

The trial court denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary
judgment, finding triable issues of material fact. The court
determined that Oklahoma law applied, but found a triable issue
of fact as to whether Foster Wheeler was a designer of an
improvement to real property and was thereby protected by the
statute of repose.

After summary judgment was denied, Foster Wheeler sought a
hearing to determine the applicability of the Oklahoma statute
of repose.

Foster Wheeler asked the court to decide "the narrow factual
question" as to whether Foster Wheeler acted as the designer of
an improvement to real property under the terms of the statute.

The McCanns joined in the request for a hearing, but asked the
court to preclude Foster Wheeler from presenting the statute of
repose defense to the jury. The McCanns asserted that Foster
Wheeler could not establish one of the fundamental elements of
the defense and was therefore not entitled to present the
defense to the jury.

After conducting a hearing and considering the evidence
presented, the trial court found that Foster Wheeler was a
designer and that the boiler was an improvement to real
property. Based on these findings, the court concluded
Oklahoma's statute of repose applied as a matter of law.

Judgment was entered in favor of Foster Wheeler, and this appeal
followed.

The judgment was reversed and the case is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings.

Waters & Kraus, Paul C. Cook and Michael B. Gurien, represented
Terry McCann and Lucille McCann.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold and Frederick D. Baker; Gordon
& Rees and James G. Scadden, represented Foster Wheeler.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $339.3M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expense totaled US$339.3 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$308.7 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and LAE
totaled US$269,959,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept.
30, 2007, compared with US$279,969,000 in the nine and three
months ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30,
2007)

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE was
US$222.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$189 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE totaled   
US$170,270,000 in the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2007, compared with US$168,003,000 in the nine and three months   
ended Sept. 30, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$63
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$27.1
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's survival ratio for A&E-related liabilities as of
Dec. 31, 2007 is 11 years. The Company's underlying survival
ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is 11 years.

The A&E liability survival ratio represents the asbestos and
environmental reserves, net of reinsurance, on Dec. 31, 2007,
divided by the average paid asbestos and environmental claims
for the last three years of US$22.8 million, which is net of
reinsurance.

The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec.
31, 2007 was 1,554, amounting to US$216.8 million in gross case
losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims
accounted for 14.9 percent of the gross case reserves, with an
average reserve of US$3.2 million.

The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of
Dec. 31, 2006 was 1,553, amounting to US$228.5 million in gross
case losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims
accounted for 15.2 percent of the gross case reserves, with an
average reserve of US$3.5 million.

The Company has exposure to asbestos, environmental pollution
and other latent injury damage claims on policies written prior
to the mid 1980s. Included in the Company's reserves are amounts
related to asbestos-related illnesses and environmental
impairment, which, net of related reinsurance recoverables,
totaled US$256.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and US$215.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an
underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty
products. We offer both treaty and facultative reinsurance to
property and casualty insurers and reinsurers. We also write
insurance business, primarily focused on liability lines, in the
United States and London.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Faces Lawsuits in Calif., Ohio, Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation and its subsidiaries, particularly Chubb
Indemnity Insurance Company, are subject to asbestos-related
litigation in Texas, Ohio, and California courts.

Beginning in December 2002, Chubb Indemnity was named in a
series of actions commenced by various plaintiffs against Chubb
Indemnity and other non-affiliated insurers in the District
Courts in Nueces, Travis and Bexar Counties in Texas.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Chubb Indemnity and the
other defendants breached duties to asbestos product end-users
and conspired to conceal risks associated with asbestos
exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to impose liability on insurers directly.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and punitive
damages.

Under the asbestos reform bill passed by the Texas legislature
in May 2005, these actions were transferred to the Texas state
asbestos Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 1, 2005.

Chubb Indemnity is defending all of these actions and has been
successful in getting a number of them dismissed through summary
judgment, special exceptions, or voluntary withdrawal by the
plaintiff.

Beginning in June 2003, Chubb Indemnity was also named in a
number of similar cases in Cuyahoga, Mahoning, and Trumbull
Counties in Ohio. The allegations and the damages sought in the
Ohio actions are substantially similar to those in the Texas
actions.

In May 2005, the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained the trial
court's dismissal of a group of nine cases for failure to state
a claim. Following the appellate court's decision, Chubb
Indemnity and other non-affiliated insurers were dismissed from
the remaining cases filed in Ohio, except for a single case
which had been removed to federal court and transferred to the
federal asbestos Multidistrict Litigation. There has been no
activity in that case since its removal.

In December 2007, certain of the Company's subsidiaries were
named in an action filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Calif., that contains allegations similar to those made
in the Texas and Ohio actions.

Based in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation offers
comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company
also offers property/casualty insurance to companies. The
Company's specialty commercial insurance includes the executive
risk business that offers professional liability policies to
executives. Other specialty commercial insurance includes
policies written for marine, surety, and financial institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Cites $793M Net Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation's net loss reserves related to asbestos
claims totaled US$793 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$789 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's gross loss reserves related to asbestos claims
were US$838 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$841 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's actuaries and claim personnel perform periodic
analyses of its asbestos related exposures. The analyses during
2005 noted an increase in the Company's estimate of the ultimate
liabilities for two of its asbestos defendants.

The analyses during 2006 noted positive developments, including
several settlements, related to certain of its traditional
asbestos defendants. At the same time, the analyses indicated
that the Company's exposure to loss from claims against its
peripheral defendants was somewhat higher than previously
expected.

The analyses during 2007 noted an increase in the Company's
estimate of the ultimate liabilities related to certain of its
traditional asbestos defendants.

Based on these analyses, the Company increased its net asbestos
loss reserves by US$35 million in 2005, US$18 million in 2006
and US$75 million in 2007.

Based in Warren, N.J., The Chubb Corporation offers
comprehensive homeowners insurance for yacht owners. The Company
also offers property/casualty insurance to companies. The
Company's specialty commercial insurance includes the executive
risk business that offers professional liability policies to
executives. Other specialty commercial insurance includes
policies written for marine, surety, and financial institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, was a defendant in
about 180 asbestos-related cases in the State Courts of
Maryland, of which about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19,
2000.  

These 90 cases were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense
and indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and
Sale Agreement between the Company and Mirant under which the
Company sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints
filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County,
Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Company property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added the
Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not
entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of
cases have been dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has
had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with
prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.

The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining
suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360
million.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes
electricity to about 1.9 million customers and natural gas to
more than 120,000 customers in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
and Washington, D.C., through its utility subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne's Reserves Total $200T at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corporation has reserves totaling US$200,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2007 for asbestos-related claims that are probable and
estimable.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had reserves totaling
US$500,000 for asbestos-related claims that are probable and
estimable. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007)

The Company has been named in various lawsuits involving
multiple claimants and defendants for alleged asbestos exposure
in the past by workers and contractors and their families at
plants owned by the Company or its predecessors, or on board
ships owned or operated by the Company or its predecessors.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 29, 2008.

Avon Lake, Ohio-based PolyOne Corporation provides specialized
polymer materials, services and solutions with operations in
thermoplastic compounds, specialty polymer formulations, color
and additive systems, thermoplastic resin distribution and
specialty polyvinyl chloride (PVC) vinyl resins, with equity
investments in manufacturers of caustic soda and chlorine, and
PVC compound products and in a formulator of polyurethane
compounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. FirstEnergy
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to be named as a defendant in
pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple defendants, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 29, 2008.

In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances are, and
may continue to be, present at Company facilities where suitable
alternative materials are not available. The Company said it
believes that any remaining asbestos at its facilities is
contained.

The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated
substances at these facilities, however, could result in
additional actions being brought against the Company.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,000 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $100,000 for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has reserved $100,000
for environmental cleanup matters, including asbestos, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
their properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such
environmental matters, and is not aware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform
testing relating to these matters.

The Company has insurance coverage for certain environmental
claims up to US$5 million per occurrence and up to US$5 million
in the aggregate.

The Company has reserved US$200,000 for asbestos-related
remediation and groundwater contamination in its properties.
(Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2007)

Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a primary
investment focus on retail shopping malls and power and strip
centers located in the eastern half of the United States,
primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. Its portfolio consists of
a total of 55 properties. The Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Third-Party Actions Pending v. Liggett
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of Dec. 31, 2007, two Third-Party Payor Actions were still
pending against Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary Liggett Group
LLC, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

Other cigarette manufacturers are also named. The Third-Party
Payor Actions typically have been commenced by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for:
funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to
issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking
cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of
cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate
courts have ruled that Third-Party Payors did not have standing
to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, relying
primarily on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs'
appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of
appeals.

Miami-based Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes. The
Company also makes the QUEST brand, a line of genetically
engineered low-nicotine and nicotine-free cigarette products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Continues to Face Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to face lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission
control products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

The Company said it believes it is unlikely that mechanics were
exposed to asbestos by the Company's former muffler products and
that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of
asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a
variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved
favorable resolution.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. produces automotive
emission control and ride control products and systems. The
Company serves both original equipment vehicle manufacturers
("OEMs") and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket,
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Pride Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2004, certain of Pride International, Inc.'s subsidiaries
have been facing several asbestos-related complaints filed in
the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

These cases were filed by several hundred individuals that
allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants
between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Eight individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have
been identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Houston-based Pride International, Inc. is an offshore drilling
contractor operating, as of Feb. 27, 2008, a fleet of 64 rigs,
consisting of two deepwater drillships, 12 semisubmersible rigs,
28 jackups, 10 platform rigs, five managed deepwater drilling
rigs and seven Eastern Hemisphere-based land drilling rigs. The
Company provides contract drilling services to oil and natural
gas exploration and production companies through the use of
mobile offshore drilling rigs in U.S. and international waters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Faces Suits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling- related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
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 under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
has joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none of the
plaintiff complaints naming the Company are included in the
first 60 (Group I).

The initial discovery of Group I reaped dismissals with
prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two withdraws
from Group I, leaving only 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group I.

No amounts were accrued at Dec. 31, 2007.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Company provides contract drilling
and drilling-related services. Since beginning operations in
1934, the Company has operated in 53 foreign countries and the
United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Denies Wrights' Remand Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California denied the Motion to
Remand filed by Albert Wright Jr. and Marva Wright, in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler Ltd. and
Leslie Controls, Inc.

The case is styled Albert Wright Jr., Plaintiff, v. A.W.
Chesterton Company Inc., Defendant.

District Judge Martin J. Jenkins entered judgment of Case No.
C07-05403 MJJ on Feb. 25, 2008.

This is a personal injury action arising out of injuries
allegedly sustained by Mr. Wright due to exposure to Defendants'
asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

The Wrights alleged that Mr. Wright contracted lung cancer as a
result of his exposure to these products during his employment
as a machinist and flange turner for the Navy. He worked aboard
26 or more Navy ships and vessels in his career.

Mr. Wright worked aboard various Navy vessels including, but not
limited to, the USS Midway, USS Enterprise, USS Kitty Hawk, USS
Coral Sea, USS Oriskany, USS Constellation, USS Mount Hood, USS
John F Kennedy, USS Hancock, USS Ticonderoga, USS Providence,
USS Mount Baker, USS Mauna Kea, USS Pigeon, USS Pyro, USS
Guitarro, USS Drum, USS Pintado USS Hawkbill, USS Permit, USS
Swordfish, USS Halibut, USS Grayback, USS Brinkley Bass, USS
Trigger, and USS Wahoo.

The Wrights filed this action on Sept. 13, 2007 in San Francisco
County Superior Court against Foster Wheeler, Leslie Controls
and dozens of other defendants. The Wrights brought claims of
negligence, strict liability, false representation, intentional
tort, premises owner/contractor liability and loss of
consortium.

In this Motion, the Wrights argued that their claims against
Foster Wheeler are based only on its failure to warn about the
dangers of asbestos that Foster Wheeler incorporated into the
design and manufacture of its boilers.

Indeed, in the Complaint, the Wrights "disclaim any cause of
action or recovery for any injuries and damages resulting from
exposure to asbestos caused by the acts or omissions of
defendants committed at the specific direction of an officer of
the United States Government acting within his official
capacity."

Foster Wheeler filed a Notice of Removal on Oct. 23, 2007.

The Wrights sought an order remanding this case to state court.

The District Court denied the Motion to Remand. Given the
evidence in the record, Defendants have established the
requisite basis for removal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.864B at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Inc.'s gross asbestos-related reserve for
losses and loss expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was
US$3.864 billion, compared with US$4.523 billion for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related reserves amounted to a gross of
US$3.869 billion (net of US$1.533 billion) in the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with a gross of US$4.039 billion
(net of US$1.696 billion) in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

The Company's net asbestos-related reserve for losses and loss
expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$1.454 billion,
compared with US$1.889 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

In 2007, the Company's gross loss and loss expenses incurred was
US$96 million and its gross losses and loss expenses paid was
US$755 million. In the same year, the Company's net loss and
loss expenses incurred was US$5 million and its losses and loss
expenses paid was US$440 million.

In 2006, the Company's gross loss and loss expenses incurred was
US$572 million and its gross losses and loss expenses paid was
US$550 million. In the same year, the Company's net loss and
loss expenses incurred was US$267 million and its losses and
loss expenses paid was US$218 million.

The gross incurred but not reporter reserve for losses and loss
expenses was US$2.701 billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$3.270 billion at Dec. 31, 2006.

The net IBNR reserve for losses and loss expenses was US$1.145
billion at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.469 billion at
Dec. 31, 2006.

During 2007, the Company recorded 656 claims opened, 150 claims
settled, 821 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,563
claims at end of year.

During 2006, the Company recorded 643 claims opened, 150 claims
settled, 908 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and 6,878
claims at end of year.

New York-based American International Group, Inc. operates as an
insurance firm. Domestically the Company is known as a provider
of property/casualty, life, and specialty insurance to
commercial, institutional, and individual customers. Overseas,
the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement
services, asset management, and financial services in more than
130 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $422.8M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s asbestos & environmental
reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable, were US$422.8 million
at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$432.3 million at Dec. 31,
2006.

The Company's A&E reserves for its property and casualty group
amounted to US$446 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, at
Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007)

The Company's gross asbestos-related reserves were US$486.4
million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$517.7 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's property and casualty group has A&E claims arising
in most cases from general liability policies written in years
before 1987.

The Company has undertaken periodic reviews of its A&E reserves
with the aid of an independent actuarial firm and specialty
outside counsel.

In the second quarter of 2007, the Company completed a
comprehensive study of its A&E exposures relating to the run-off
operations of its property and casualty group. As a result of
its study, the Company recorded a pretax charge of US$44.2
million, net of US$16.4 million in reinsurance recoverables.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's three year survival ratio was
11.5 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves.

Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Inc., is a holding
company that, through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in
property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized
commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of
traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety
of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Asserted v. American Fin'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s insurance company subsidiaries
and its 100 percent-owned subsidiary, American Premier
Underwriters are parties to litigation and receive claims
asserting alleged injuries and damages from asbestos,
environmental and other substances and workplace hazards and
have established loss accruals for such potential liabilities.

As previously reported, Great American Insurance Company and
certain other insurers were parties to coverage litigation
(arising from claims alleging asbestos exposure resulted in
bodily injury) under insurance policies issued during the 1970s
and 1980s to Bigelow-Liptak Corporation and related companies,
subsequently known as A.P. Green Industries, Inc.

A.P. Green sought to recover defense and indemnity expenses
related to those claims from a number of insurers, including
Great American.

In February 2002, A.P. Green filed petitions for bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (In Re Global
Industrial Technologies, Inc., et al, filed Feb. 14, 2002).

In 2003, Great American Insurance Company entered into an
agreement, which was approved by the bankruptcy court, for the
settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P. Green asbestos
claims.

The settlement is for US$123.5 million (Great American has the
option to pay in cash or over time with 5.25 percent interest)
and allows up to 10 percent of the settlement to be paid in AFG
Common Stock.

The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a
plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting
the assertion against Great American of any present or future
asbestos personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P.
Green and related companies.

During the third quarter of 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed
the A.P. Green Plan of Reorganization which includes the
injunction required by Great American's settlement agreement.

Certain parties appealed the confirmation on issues that
management believes are ancillary to the Great American
settlement.

Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Inc., is a holding
company that, through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in
property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized
commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of
traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety
of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Still Faces Hickey Case in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is a defendant in the case of Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Hickey, et al.
(Case No. 03-CV-4372) in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark).

This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company
during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former
officers and directors of the Company as defendants. One of
these individuals and the Company remain as defendants after a
partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the above period the defendants materially misled
the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, or GAAP, by failing to properly account and accrue
for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims
arising from past operations of W.R. Grace & Co.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

If the Court determines that the Company is liable in this case,
the Company could be required to pay substantial damages.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator
and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials
and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business
through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and
Sealed Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air, Units Still Face Grace Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation and specified subsidiaries, since
November 2004, have been named as defendants in a number of
cases, including a number of putative class actions, brought in
Canada as a result of W.R. Grace & Co.'s alleged marketing,
manufacturing or distributing of asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its
subsidiaries in these cases. The Canadian cases are currently
stayed, and the Grace Plan provides for payment of these claims.

The Cryovac transaction was a multi-step transaction, completed
on March 31, 1998, that brought the Cryovac packaging business
and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the
common ownership of the Company.

The parties to the agreement in principle signed a definitive
settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the
terms of the agreement in principle. On June 27, 2005, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where the Grace
bankruptcy case is pending, signed an order approving the
definitive settlement agreement.

Although Grace is not a party to the settlement agreement, under
the terms of the order, Grace is directed to comply with the
settlement agreement subject to limited exceptions.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator
and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials
and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business
through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and
Sealed Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $158.4M Interest at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation recorded an accrued asbestos-related
interest of US$158.4 million, in its consolidated balance
sheets, at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$123.5 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the fourth
quarter of 2002, of which US$512.5 million is to be utilized for
a cash payment that the Company is required to make upon the
effectiveness of a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of
W. R. Grace & Co.

The Company did not use cash in any period with respect to this
liability, and the Company cannot predict when it will be
required to make this payment.

The Company expects to fund this payment by using a combination
of accumulated cash and future cash flows from operations and
funds available under its US$500 million senior unsecured multi-
currency credit facility or its accounts receivable
securitization program or a combination of these alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5
percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21,
2002 to the date of payment.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator
and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials
and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business
through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and
Sealed Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Records $700,000 for Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's asbestos settlement and related costs
reflected legal and related fees for asbestos-related matters of
US$700,000 in 2007 and US$1.6 million in 2006, which are
included in other, net, on the Company's consolidated statements
of operations.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the bankruptcy case of W.R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current
and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and
its affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction.

The settlement will also resolve the fraudulent transfer claims,
successor liability claims, as well as indemnification claims by
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies,
that had been made against the Company in connection with the
Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the agreement in principle was approved by the
Company's Board of Directors. The Company received notice that
both of the Committees had approved the agreement in principle
as of Dec. 5, 2002.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million as a result of
the asbestos settlement in its consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended Dec. 31, 2002.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is an innovator
and manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials
and equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts all of its business
through two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and
Sealed Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $87.7M A&E Reserves at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd.'s net reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses
at Dec. 31, 2007 included US$87.7 million (US$95.2 million at
Dec. 31, 2006) that represents estimates of its net ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental claims.

The gross liability for such claims was US$97.8 million at
Dec. 31, 2007 and US$104.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Of the US$97.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$89.1 million relates
to U.S. casualty exposures arising from business written by
PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S.

Of the US$104.9 million at Dec. 31, 2006, US$98.3 million
relates to U.S. casualty exposures arising from business written
by PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S.

The Company's reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses, as of
Dec. 31, 2006, includes US$95 million that represents an
estimate of its net ultimate liability for A&E claims. (Class
Action Reporter, March 30, 2007)

Pembroke, Bermuda-based PartnerRe Ltd. is an international
reinsurance group. The Company provides reinsurance on a
worldwide basis through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Partner
Reinsurance Company Ltd., PartnerRe SA, Partner Reinsurance
Europe Limited, and Partner Reinsurance Company of the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Quigley to Solicit Amended Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. states that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, on Feb. 26, 2008, authorized
Quigley Company, Inc. to solicit its amended reorganization plan
for acceptance by claimants.

If approved by the claimants and the courts, the amended
reorganization plan will result in a permanent injunction
directing all pending and future claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to Quigley products to a Trust.

Quigley is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small
amounts of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.
In September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were
intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the
Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal
injury from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos,
silica or mixed dust.

The Company took a charge of US$369 million before-tax (US$229
million after-tax) to third quarter 2004 earnings in connection
with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy
Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

In March 2005, Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the
Bankruptcy Court that needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy
Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York after receipt of the vote of 75 percent of the
claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80
percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley
products against Quigley and the Company.

The agreements provide for a total of US$430 million in
payments, of which US$215 million became due in December 2005
and is being paid to claimants upon receipt by the Company of
certain required documentation from each of the claimants.

The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a
Trust (the Trust) for the payment of all remaining pending
claims as well as any future claims alleging injury from
exposure to Quigley products.

In June 2007, Quigley filed an amended plan of reorganization to
address the Bankruptcy Court's concerns regarding the voting
tabulation methodology. In July 2007, the Bankruptcy Court held
a hearing to consider the adequacy of Quigley's disclosure
statement.

In October 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted Quigley's
application to approve its disclosure statement.

Under the amended reorganization plan (as under the original
reorganization plan), the Company will contribute US$405 million
to the Trust through a note, which has a present value of US$172
million, as well as about US$100 million in insurance, and will
forgive a US$30 million secured loan to Quigley.

In addition, the Company entered into an agreement with the
representative of future claimants that provides for the
contribution to the Trust of an additional amount with a present
value of US$88.4 million.

In December 2007, the Bankruptcy Court modified its 2004
preliminary injunction order as it relates to the Company. As a
result, while asbestos claims against the Company that are based
on alleged exposure to a Quigley product remain stayed, asbestos
claims that are not based on alleged exposure to a Quigley
product are no longer stayed.

In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to
certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to the
Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405
million.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global
pharmaceutical company. The Company discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets prescription medicines for humans and
animals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 106,000 Claims Pending v. American Optical
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. states that, as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 106,000
claims naming American Optical Corporation and numerous other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials.

American Optical and other defendants, as of Dec. 31, 2006,
faced about 110,200 asbestos-related claims. (Class Action
Reporter, March 23, 2007)

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert Company owned American
Optical, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing.

In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-
Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other
claims.

The Company is actively engaged in the defense of, and will
continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims.

Several of the insurance carriers that provided coverage for the
American Optical asbestos and other allegedly hazardous
materials claims have denied coverage. The Company said it
believes that these carriers' position is without merit and is
pursuing legal proceedings against such carriers.

Separately, there is a small number of lawsuits pending against
the Company in various federal and state courts seeking damages
for alleged personal injury from exposure to products containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by
Gibsonburg Lime Products Company, which was acquired by the
Company in the 1960s and which sold small amounts of products
containing asbestos until the early 1970s.

There also is a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by the Company or
its subsidiaries.

New York-based Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global
pharmaceutical company. The Company discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets prescription medicines for humans and
animals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Records 491 Open Claims at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. recorded 491 accounts with
asbestos claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
542 accounts with claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

In 2007, the Company recorded 102 accounts reporting asbestos
claims opened during the year and 153 accounts of which asbestos
claims were closed during the year. In 2006, the Company
recorded 121 accounts reporting asbestos claims opened during
the year and 171 accounts on which asbestos claims were closed
during the year.

The Company incurred asbestos and environmental losses via its
participation in industry pools and associations. The most
significant of these pools was Excess Casualty Reinsurance
Association (ECRA), which provided excess liability reinsurance
to U.S. insurers from 1950 until the early 1980s.

ECRA incurred significant liabilities for A&E, of which the
Company bears about a 4.7 percent share at both Dec. 31, 2007
and Dec. 31, 2006, or US$59.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007 and
US$64.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006, which is fully reflected in
its loss and LAE reserves.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, there were about 261 active claims by
insureds against the Company without product liability coverage
asserting operations or premises coverage.

Immediately preceding the purchase of the Company by White
Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. in 2001, the Company purchased a
reinsurance contract with NICO under which it is entitled to
recover from NICO up to US$2.5 billion in the future for
asbestos claims arising from business written by the Company in
in 1992 and prior, environmental claims arising from business
written by the Company in 1987 and prior, and certain other
exposures.

Of claim payments from 1996 through 2007, about 49 percent of
A&E losses have been recovered under the historical third party
reinsurance.

The Company estimates that on an incurred basis it has ceded
estimated incurred losses of about US$2.1 billion to the NICO
Cover at Dec. 31, 2007. Since entering into the NICO Cover,
US$39.8 million of the US$2.1 billion of utilized coverage
relates to uncollected amounts from third party reinsurers
through Dec. 31, 2007.

Net losses paid totaled US$986 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, with
US$139 million paid in 2007.

The Company's reserves for A&E losses, net of Third Party
Recoverables but prior to NICO recoveries, were US$1 billion at
Dec. 31, 2007.

An industry benchmark of reserve adequacy is the "survival
ratio," computed as a company's reserves divided by its
historical average yearly loss payments. This ratio indicates
about how many more years of payments the reserves can support,
assuming future yearly payments are equal to historical levels.

The Company's survival ratio was 14.2 at Dec. 31, 2007.

Minnetonka, Minn.-based OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. provides
personal auto and homeowners, commercial, and specialty
insurance, including agricultural, marine, media liability,
medical malpractice, and even tuition coverage for when a
student is forced to leave school unexpectedly. Its subsidiaries
include AutoOne Insurance and International Marine Underwriters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Remain v. Owens-Illinois at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, continues to face
14,000 pending asbestos-related claims filed against it,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company determined that it faced
asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 14,000 plaintiffs
and claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

During 2007, the Company received about 9,000 new filings and
disposed of about 13,000 claims.

The fourth quarter 2007 charge for asbestos-related costs was
US$115 million (pretax and after tax), compared to the fourth
quarter 2006 charge of US$120 million (pretax and after tax).

These charges resulted from the Company's comprehensive annual
review of asbestos-related liabilities and costs. In each case,
the Company concluded that an increase in the accrued liability
was required to provide for estimated indemnity payments and
legal fees arising from asbestos personal injury lawsuits and
claims pending and expected to be filed during the several years
following the completion of the comprehensive review.

Asbestos-related cash payments for 2007 were US$347.1 million,
an increase of US$184.6 million from 2006. Deferred amounts
payable at Dec. 31, 2007 were about US$34 million, compared with
about US$82.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
Dec. 31, 2007, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
361,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$6,900.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities
were US$210 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$149
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$245.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$538.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, is the successor to a business established in
1903. The Company is a manufacturer of glass containers, with
markets in Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and South
America. On July 31, 2007, the Company completed the sale of its
plastics packaging business for about US$1.825 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Injury Suits Pending v. Noble at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation states that, at Jan. 31, 2008, there were
about 38 asbestos lawsuits in which it is a defendant, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

Two of those actions are scheduled for trial in 2008.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

From time to time, the Company is party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

At Oct. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 31 asbestos-related
lawsuits, in which the Company is one of many defendants. None
of these suits were scheduled for trial in 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs
contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 mobile offshore
drilling units located worldwide. This fleet consists of 13
semisubmersibles, three dynamically positioned drillships, 43
jackups and three submersibles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Faces Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is a defendant of product
liability claims, including asbestos-related, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,600
lawsuits primarily involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively,
these lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there
has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect
people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety
products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland
security, construction, and other industries, as well as the
military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus,
or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection,
respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and
ballistic helmets and body armor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Junks Century Indemnity's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, on
Feb. 26, 2008, upheld a trial court ruling dismissing a coverage
action filed by Century Indemnity Company against Mine Safety
Appliances Company.

Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey
seeking a declaration of Century's obligations with respect to
certain asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance
policies issued to the Company by Century.

The New Jersey Superior Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss this case on jurisdictional grounds.
Century appealed that order.

It is unknown whether Century will seek to appeal that decision.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect
people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety
products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland
security, construction, and other industries, as well as the
military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus,
or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection,
respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and
ballistic helmets and body armor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Lawsuit v. Century in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A coverage lawsuit filed by Mine Safety Appliances Company
against Century Indemnity Company is currently in discovery in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa.

The suit alleges that Century breached five insurance policies
by failing to pay amounts owing to the Company.

This suit is related to a prior lawsuit filed by Century in the
Superior Court of New Jersey seeking a declaration of Century's
obligations with respect to certain asbestos, silica and other
claims under the five insurance policies issued to the Company
by Century.

The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or
dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of the New Jersey
action and the Pennsylvania action is proceeding.

The Company said it believes that Century's refusal to indemnify
it under the policies is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that protect
people's health and safety. The Company's line of safety
products is used by workers in the fire service, homeland
security, construction, and other industries, as well as the
military. Products include self-contained breathing apparatus,
or SCBAs, gas masks, gas detection instruments, head protection,
respirators, thermal imaging cameras, fall protection, and
ballistic helmets and body armor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to be a defendant in
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report.

The Manitowoc Company, Inc., founded in 1902, is a diversified
industrial manufacturer in three principal markets: Cranes and
Related Products; Foodservice Equipment and Marine. For the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had net sales of about US$4
billion. The Company is based in Manitowoc, Wis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Ruling to Favor St. Paul
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the
ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, which
granted summary judgment in favor of The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc. (Aetna), in an asbestos-related case filed by
Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman.

The case is styled Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman, h/w,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lac d'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee and
Rapid American Corporation, Defendants, and The St. Paul
Travelers Companies, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.

Judges Cuff, Lihotz, and Simonelli entered judgment of the case
on March 3, 2008.

Mr. Fackelman commenced this action against Lac d'Amiante du
Quebec, Ltee, Rapid American Corporation, and Aetna.

The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. acquired Aetna Casualty &
Surety Company.

Lac d'Amiante and Rapid American mined, manufactured and
supplied asbestos products to Mr. Fackelman's employer, Owens
Corning Fiberglas Corporation. Aetna performed industrial
hygiene studies at the Owens Corning facility in Berlin, N.J.

Mr. Fackelman was employed by Owens Corning at the Berlin
facility, where he was exposed to asbestos, from 1967 to 1968.
He commenced employment at the facility of Owens Corning in July
1967 at the age of 19. His principal job during the next 10
months was a "stripper on the line."

Mr. Fackelman explained that he took Kaylo, or asbestos pipe
covering, out of a mold and stacked it in a bin. Sometimes the
product broke or shattered. He gathered the fragments and threw
them in a dumpster.

When he commenced his employment, Mr. Fackelman was placed on a
practice line to determine if he had the dexterity to do the
job. His employer gave him no information about asbestos. He was
not required to wear a mask or other breathing protection,
although "white painting masks" were available for use by
employees and some employees wore these masks.

Mr. Fackelman left his employment with Owens Corning in May
1968. In 2002, his physician advised him that he had asbestosis.

The record reflects that between 1958 and 1972, Aetna performed
various air sample surveys, industrial hygiene studies, and
special hazard studies at the Berlin plant. The engineering
department of the Philadelphia division of Aetna performed
inspection and advisory work for Aetna underwriters on new and
existing accounts.

Between 1958 and 1965, Aetna may have been the only entity
performing air sampling at the Berlin plant.

In August 1969, Owens Corning adopted a safety program. Upon
receipt of the program, Aetna requested its personnel to
"attempt to determine whether or not the plant is complying with
the program."

Moreover, the Berlin plant manager confirmed that Owens Corning
adopted a more affirmative program to address health hazards
posed by asbestos in 1968-69 and that the company consulted with
Aetna.

Judge Little granted Aetna motion for summary judgment.

Mr. Fackelman appealed from the order granting Aetna's motion
for summary judgment.

Lac d'Amiante filed a petition in bankruptcy. Mr. Fackelman
settled with Rapid American. Thus, the order granting Aetna's
motion for summary judgment was a final order appealable by
right.

Hal Pitkow represented Daniel Fackelman and Barbara Fackelman.

Francis X. Manning represented The St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc. (Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, attorneys; Samuel J.
Arena, Jr., of counsel; Mr. Manning and Sean R. Adam, of counsel
and on the brief).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Has $257M Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation's asbestos-related reserves, at Dec. 31,
2007, were US$256.9 million on a gross basis and US$153.3
million on a net basis, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
29, 2008.

Incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses for 2007, 2006 and
2005 were primarily due to adverse development of asbestos-
related reserves.

Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not
reported reserves for asbestos exposures were US$120 million at
Dec. 31, 2007.

Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses
for asbestos- and environmental-related exposures totaled
US$326.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007, which includes US$51.2
million of litigation-related expense.

In 2007, incurred losses and loss adjustment expenses included
US$197.3 million of favorable development on prior years' loss
reserves, which was primarily due to US$166.6 million of loss
reserve redundancies experienced at the Markel Shand
Professional/Products Liability unit and Markel International as
a result of the favorable insurance market conditions
experienced in recent years.

The favorable development on prior years' loss reserves in 2007
was partially offset by US$34 million of adverse development on
prior years' loss reserves on A&E exposures.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Sees $1Mil Costs at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2007, incurred or expected
to incur about US$1 million of costs related to asbestos-related
claims not subject to certain arrangements, as to which it
either has received or expects to receive about US$800,000 in
insurance reimbursements.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC.

Substantially all of these contingent claims are the financial
responsibility of third parties and include various
environmental and asbestos-related claims. As a result, the
Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on
its own behalf material amounts related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988
sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-
containing friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named as a defendant in various personal
injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to
asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement
(Transfer Agreement).

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division (Aerospace) and certain contingent liabilities and the
related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement provides for appropriate transfer,
indemnification and tax sharing arrangements, in a manner
consistent with applicable law and previously existing
contractual arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded
only when it receives amounts under related indemnification and
insurance agreements.

Such administrative and funding obligations would be terminated
as to these categories of asbestos-related claims in the case of
a bankruptcy of Pneumo Abex or the Company or of certain other
events affecting the availability of coverage for such claims
from third-party indemnitors and insurers.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for
asbestos-related claims are managed and paid by others.

Based in New York, M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Mafco Worldwide
flavorings firm makes licorice extract. The Company's primary
flavoring brand is Magnasweet, but the Company also sells Right
Dress, gardening mulch that is a byproduct of processing
licorice root. The Company has expanded into the security
printing business through its acquisition of Clarke American
Checks from Honeywell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in 30 States Pending v. IDEX, 5 Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits
claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly
as a result of exposure to products made with components that
contained asbestos.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all
of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs
of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant
amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

No provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment and fire, safety
and other diversified products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,383 Claims Pending v. Harsco at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, faces 26,383 pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 26,376 asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 30, 2007)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades.

In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

Any component within a Company product which may have contained
asbestos would have been purchased from a supplier.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the 26,383 pending cases, 25,927 were pending in the New York
Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other
claims, totaling 456, are filed in various counties in a number
of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert
lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or
do not state any amount claimed.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,385
cases.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 368 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and
settlement costs and expenses to date. The Company has liability
insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies
that the Company said it believes will be available to
substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be
incurred on these claims.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation provides industrial
services and engineered products. The Company's operations fall
into two reportable segments: Access Services and Mill Services,
plus an "all other" category labeled Minerals & Rail Services
and Products. The Company has locations in 50 countries,
including the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GATX Units Face 1,331 Lawsuits at Feb. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation's current or former subsidiaries, as of Feb.
15, 2008, faced 1,331 pending asbestos-related cases, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

As of Oct. 29, 2007, the Company recorded 1,303 asbestos-related
cases pending against its subsidiaries or the former subsidiary
where the Company has provided a limited indemnity. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 16, 2007)

Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to
asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises
liability or, in the case of American Steamship Company, the
Jones Act, which makes limited remedies available to certain
maritime employees.

In addition, demand has been made against the Company under
limited indemnities for asbestos related claims given in
connection with the sale of subsidiaries.

Out of the total number of pending cases, 1,203 are Jones Act
claims, most of which were filed against ASC before 2000.

During 2007, 47 new asbestos-related cases were filed and 70
cases were dismissed or settled. During 2006, 124 new asbestos-
related cases were filed and 112 cases were dismissed or
settled. During 2005, 22 new cases were filed and 46 cases were
dismissed or settled.

For this three-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle
asbestos-related cases filed against the Company's subsidiaries
and the former subsidiary was less than US$290,000.

Chicago-based GATX Corporation leases, operates and manages
long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and
industrial equipment markets. The Company also invests in joint
ventures that complement existing business activities. The
Company has three financial reporting segments: Rail, Specialty
and American Steamship Company. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company
had balance sheet assets of US$4.7 billion, comprised of
railcars, marine vessels and joint venture investments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 1,275 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, was a defendant
in about 1,275 asbestos cases brought in various jurisdictions
throughout the United States.

The Company has been a defendant in asbestos litigation for
about 20 years. As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company was a defendant
in about 34,715 lawsuits. About 33,440 of these lawsuits have
been brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law
firm (MARDOC) and seek unspecified damages.

Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases allege that they formerly worked
in the maritime industry and sustained asbestos-related injuries
from products that the Company ceased manufacturing in the mid-
1970s.

The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket.

During 2002, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the District
Court allow discovery in about 15 cases. Prior to this
discovery, plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they believed that
product identification could be established as to many of the
about 100 defendants named in these MARDOC cases.

To date, in this discovery, the Company has not been identified
as a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which any
of these plaintiffs were exposed.

With regards to about 1,275 remaining cases, the Company has  
defended these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to the Company manufactured asbestos-
containing product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from
the use of General Cable product.

In the last 20 years, the Company has had no cases proceed to
verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was dismissed as a
defendant before trial for lack of product identification.

For cases outside the MDL as of Dec. 31, 2007, plaintiffs have
asserted monetary damages in 389 cases. In 253 of these cases,
plaintiffs allege damages in excess of some dollar amount (about
US$232,000 per plaintiff). In these cases there are no claims
for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant.

In 135 other cases pending in state and federal district courts
(outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek about US$236 million in
damages from as many as 110 defendants.

In five cases, plaintiffs have asserted damages related to the
Company in the amount of US$2 million. In addition, in relation
to these 389 cases, there are claims of US$74 million in
punitive damages from all of the defendants.

To date, the Company has resolved the claims of about 11,277
plaintiffs. The cumulative average settlement for these matters
is less than US$235 per case.

The Company has accrued on its balance sheet, on a gross basis,
a liability of US$5.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, and had
recorded insurance recoveries of US$500,000.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and installs copper,
aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to face a number of asbestos
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of
silicosis personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these
suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple
sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or more
named defendants.

In the Company's experience to date, the substantial majority of
the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company
bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silicosis litigation lawsuits (the "Products").

However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or
silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury
underlying the lawsuits.

Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products
were enclosed within the subject Products.

Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures
and markets compressor and vacuum products and fluid transfer
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation still faces claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC on its
electric generation plants prior to 1985.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled
about US$1.082 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$1.159 billion as of Dec. 31, 2006.

These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in the
Company's best estimate of the range of loss of US$1.082 billion
to US$1.350 billion for current and future asbestos claims
through 2027.

The reserves balance of US$1.082 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007
consists of about US$182 million related to known claimants and
about US$900 million related to unknown claimants.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million.

Through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has made about US$460 million
in payments that apply to this retention. The insurance policy
limit for potential insurance recoveries for indemnification and
medical cost claim payments is US$1.107 billion in excess of the
self insured retention.

Probable insurance recoveries of about US$1.040 billion and
US$1.020 billion related to this policy are classified in the
Consolidated Balance Sheets primarily in Other within
Investments and Other Assets as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006, respectively.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also
been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation has 3.9 million
electric customers and about 500,000 gas customers in the U.S.
South and Midwest. Its U.S. Franchised Electric and Gas unit
operates primarily through its Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke
Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky
regional businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Chemical Still Faces Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company continues to face lawsuits in various
state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos at the Company's manufacturing sites.

More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an
asbestos-containing plastic, which the Company manufactured in
limited amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Company has also obtained insurance coverage that applies to
a portion of certain of the Company's defense costs and payments
of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related
lawsuits.

Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company is a chemical
company, which manufactures and sells a broad portfolio of
chemicals, plastics, and fibers. The Company has 13
manufacturing sites in eight countries that supply chemicals,
plastics, and fibers products to customers throughout the world.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court OKs Richoux's Remand Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, granted Ronald
Richoux's motion to remand, in an asbestos-related case filed
against Capital One, N.A., CSR, Ltd., Eagle, Inc., ReillyBenton
Company, Inc., and The McCarty Corporation.

The case is styled Ronald Richoux v. CSR Limited, et al.

District Judge Helen G. Berrigan entered judgment of Civil
Action No. 08-931 on Feb. 29, 2008.

Mr. Richoux alleged that he suffers from mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos, a portion of which occurred
while he was employed by Delta Steamship Company at the Hibernia
Bank Building.

The building was owned by defendant Capital One's predecessor-
in-interest, Hibernia National Bank. Mr. Richoux alleged that
for many months after a 1965 fire at the Delta Steamship Company
offices, he assisted in cleanup efforts, during which time he
was "exposed to asbestos products manufactured and/or installed
by CSR, Eagle, ReillyBenton and McCarty.

A Louisiana resident, Mr. Richoux filed suit in Louisiana state
court on Dec. 10, 2007. Capital One was served on Dec. 13, 2007.

Mr. Richoux claimed that he also properly served CSR, an
Australian corporation, on Dec. 17, 2007. Capital One contended
that as of the date of removal, there was no proof of service in
the record for CSR.

Because of Mr. Richoux's rapidly deteriorating condition, a
perpetuation deposition of Mr. Richoux was taken on Jan. 12,
2008. On Feb. 11, 2008, Capitol One removed the action to this
Court, without obtaining the consent of any of the other named
defendants.

In his deposition, Mr. Richoux was asked if he had "any personal
knowledge or information as to whether or not Eagle Asbestos and
Packing ever supplied or installed or distributed any asbestos
or asbestos-containing products that you may have been exposed
to during the course of your life?" He answered "no" to this and
similar questions regarding the other two non-diverse
defendants.

Mr. Richoux filed the instant motion to remand and requested
that Capitol One be assessed fees and costs on Feb. 12, 2008. He
contended that Capital One's removal is improper for lack of
joinder by the four other named defendants, and that it is
untimely.

In addition, Mr. Richoux claimed the dearth of evidence
supporting removal demonstrates that the removal was not filed
for a proper purpose, but was instead merely a dilatory tactic.
Accordingly, he requested that the Court assess fees and costs.

Capital One argued that the removal was timely because it
occurred within 30 days of Mr. Richoux's deposition, from which
it became evident that the Louisiana defendants, Eagle, Reilly-
Benton, and McCarty were improperly joined in the action.

In addition, Capital One claimed that the consent of CSR,
indisputably a foreign corporation, was not required because, at
the time of the removal, there was no proof in the record that
CSR had been properly served.

Accordingly, the District Court remanded Mr. Richoux's action to
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana, for lack of jurisdiction. The determination of the
amount of fees and costs was referred to the Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the District Court dismissed as moot Mr. Richoux's
motion for leave to file a supplemental exhibit to its reply
brief.

F. Gerald Maples, Alexander J. Williamson, Carlos Alberto
Zelaya, II, Stephen Michael Wiles, F. Gerald Maples, P.A., New
Orleans, La., represented Ronald Richoux.

Francis Philip Accardo, Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Lawrence G.
Pugh, III, Montgomery Barnett, New Orleans, La., Douglas R.
Elliott, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Paul H. Spaht,
Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Baton Rouge, La., Diane
Michelle Sweezer, Beason Willingham, LLP, Houston, represented
CSR Limited, et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest's A&E Losses Total $827.4M at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net total reserves for asbestos &
environmental losses were US$827.4 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$650.1 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29,
2008.

The Company's net A&E loss reserves totaled US$558,101,000 in
the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$480,271,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007)

The Company's gross total reserves for A&E losses were US$922.8
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$650.1
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's gross A&E loss reserves totaled US$652,192,000 in
the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$643,096,000 in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007)

At Dec. 31, 2007, 10.2 percent of the Company's gross reserves
reflected an estimate of the Company's ultimate liability for
A&E claims for which ultimate value cannot be estimated using
traditional reserving techniques. The Company's A&E liabilities
stem from Mt. McKinley Insurance Company's direct insurance
business and Everest Reinsurance Company's assumed reinsurance
business.

Gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves totaled US$9.041
billion at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$8.840 billion at Dec. 31, 2006.
The increase in 2007 was primarily attributable to an increase
in the Company's asbestos reserves, partially offset by
favorable reserve development.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. is the holding
company for Everest Reinsurance Company, an underwriter of
property & casualty reinsurance and insurance. Everest Re
assumes risks of certain policies written by other insurance
companies. The Company offers specialized underwriting in
several areas, including property & casualty, marine, aviation,
and surety, as well as medical malpractice, directors and
officers liability, and professional errors and omissions
liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Provides $677.6M for Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited's gross provision for asbestos &
environmental claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses was
US$677,610,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$666,075,000 at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's net provision for A&E claims and ALAE was
US$417,977,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$389,085,000 at
Dec. 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 19 separate insurance
and/or reinsurance subsidiaries whose reserves are categorized
into about 146 reserve categories in total, including 22
distinct asbestos reserving categories and 20 distinct
environmental reserving categories.

The liability for unpaid losses and LAE, inclusive of A&E
reserves, reflects the Company's best estimate for future
amounts needed to pay losses and related LAE as of each of the
balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein
in accordance with GAAP.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had net loss reserves of
US$355.2 million for asbestos-related claims.

During 2007, excluding the impact of loss reserves acquired
during the year, the Company's reserves for A&E liabilities
decreased by US$34.5 million on a gross basis and by US$2.2
million on a net basis.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited swings its
investments into firms that acquire and manage domestic and
international reinsurance companies that are in run-off. The
Company basically provides claims administration, adjustment and
settlement, and collection services for the companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Pending v. Fluor Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to
work that the Company may have performed at various locations.

The Company has substantial third party insurance coverage to
cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost,
settlements or judgments. No material provision has been made
for any present or future claims.

The Company has resolved a number of cases to date, which in the
aggregate have not had a material adverse impact.

Irving, Tex.-based Fluor Corporation is a professional services
firm, providing engineering, procurement and construction
management ("EPCM") and project management services on a global
basis. The Company serves industries including oil and gas,
chemical and petrochemicals, transportation, mining and metals,
power, life sciences and manufacturing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Pending v. Phelps Dodge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s subsidiary Phelps Dodge
Corporation and other subsidiaries, since about 1990, have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related product liability or
premises lawsuits.

These lawsuits claim injury from exposure to asbestos contained
in electrical wire products produced or marketed many years ago,
or from asbestos at certain Phelps Dodge properties.

Phoenix-based Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. is a mining
company that produces copper, gold, and molybdenum. The
Company's principal asset is the Grasberg minerals district in
Papua, Indonesia, which based on the latest available reserve
data provided by third-party industry consultants, contains the
largest single recoverable copper reserve and the largest single
gold reserve of any mine in the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Suits Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l. at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has been named
as a co-defendant in 299 personal injury liability cases
alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other
substances, involving about 575 plaintiffs.

The cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense.

These cases are in various pre-trial stages, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 290 personal injury
liability cases, involving about 567 plaintiffs. (Class Action
Reporter, March 16, 2007)

South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. is a
designer and manufacturer of high productivity mining equipment
for the extraction of coal, copper, oil sands, iron ore and
other minerals in major mining centers worldwide. In addition to
the manufacture of original equipment, the Company also provides
the aftermarket replacement parts and service for this
equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BlueLinx May Incur Costs Over GP Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings, Inc. may incur substantial costs relating to
Georgia-Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related product liability  
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

Georgia-Pacific is a defendant in suits brought in various
courts around the nation by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to products
containing asbestos.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia-
Pacific.

Prior to May 7, 2004, the Company's assets were owned by the
distribution division of Georgia-Pacific Corporation.

Atlanta-based BlueLinx Holdings Inc., operating through its
wholly owned subsidiary, BlueLinx Corporation, distributes
building products. As of Dec. 29, 2007, the Company distributed
more than 10,000 products to about 11,500 customers. The Company
distributes products in two principal categories: structural
products and specialty products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL & Associates Records $2.6M for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. has recorded in its financial
statements a liability of US$2.6 million related to potential
future asbestos abatement activities, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

Chattanooga, Tenn.-based is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages,
and operates regional malls and open-air and community shopping
centers. Its shopping center properties are located in 27
states, but primarily in the southeastern and midwestern United
States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Reinstated Actions Pending v. Chiquita
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. states that while six
asbestos-related MARDOC cases have been reinstated against it,
one of the cases has been dismissed and there has been little
activity in the remaining five reinstated cases to date.

Over the last 21 years, a number of claims have been filed
against the Company on behalf of merchant seamen or their
personal representatives alleging injury or illness from
exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned
ships at various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s.

The claims are based on allegations of negligence and
unseaworthiness. In these cases, the Company is typically one of
many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of
products containing asbestos, as well as other ship owners.
Seven of these cases are pending in state courts in various
stages of activity.

Over the past 10 years, 25 state court cases have been settled
and 36 have been resolved without any payment. In addition to
the state court cases, there are about 5,300 federal court cases
that are currently inactive (known as the "MARDOC" cases).

The MARDOC cases are managed under the supervision of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Federal
Court).

In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all then-
pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide
evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos.
Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against
the company have also been administratively dismissed.

The MARDOC cases are subject to reinstatement by the Federal
Court upon a showing of some evidence of asbestos-related
disease, exposure to asbestos and service on the Company's
ships.

As a matter of law, punitive damages are not recoverable in
seamen's asbestos cases.

Cincinnati-based Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and its
subsidiaries operate as a marketer and distributor of bananas
and other fresh produce sold under the "Chiquita" and other
brand names in more than 70 countries and of packaged salads
sold under the "Fresh Express" and other brand names primarily
in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $123M for A&E at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried US$123 million of net
loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental
claims as of year-end 2007, compared with US$131 million for
such claims as of year-end 2006.

These amounts constitute 3.6 percent and 3.9 percent of total
loss and loss expense reserves as of these year-end dates.

The Company said it believes its exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims is limited, largely because its reinsurance
retention was US$500,000 or below prior to 1987. The Company
also predominantly was a personal lines company in the 1960s and
1970s when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely
used.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of the Company's overall business and its exposure to
asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly. Over that
period, the Company endorsed to or included in most policies an
asbestos and environmental exclusion.

Additionally, since 2002, the Company has revised policy terms
where permitted by state regulation to limit its exposure to
mold claims prospectively and further reduce its exposure to
other environmental claims generally.

Between 2005 and 2007, total asbestos and environmental reserves
decreased 1.3 percent.

Fairfield, Ohio-based Cincinnati Financial Corporation's
flagship Cincinnati Insurance sells commercial property,
liability, auto, bond, and fire insurance; personal lines
include homeowners and liability products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 75 Suits Pending v. Ameren Corp. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, had 75 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

As of June 30, 2007, the Company had 71 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 24, 2007)

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 349 claims filed, 123
claims settled, and 151 claims dismissed.

The Company, Union Electric Company (UE), Central Illinois
Public Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating Company (Genco),
Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), and Illinois Company
(IP) have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a
number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees
of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 189 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that
were pending as of Dec. 31, 2007, the average number of parties
was 70.

The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and IP
allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO
plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company (AERG).

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary
prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of the
transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants,
CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and
AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-
related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.

From Oct. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2007, six additional
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP, mostly in the circuit court of Madison County, Ill. Seven
lawsuits were settled.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, nine asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms. Beginning in
2007, 90 percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount
included in base electric rates are recoverable by IP from a
trust fund established by IP and financed with contributions of
US$10 million each by the Company and Dynegy.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the trust fund balance was US$22 million,
including accumulated interest.

St. Louis, Mo.-based Ameren Corporation distributes electricity
to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost 1 million
customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries
Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company,
Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maritime Suits Ongoing v. Cleveland-Cliffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc states that its subsidiaries, The
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship
Company, have been named defendants in 485 asbestos actions
brought from 1986 to date.

These actions were brought by former seamen in which the
plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses
allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne
asbestos fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels
previously owned or managed by the Company's entities until the
mid-1980s.

All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict
proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose
docket now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed
by seamen against ship-owners and other defendants.

All of these cases have been dismissed without prejudice, but
can be reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel. The
claims against the Company's entities are insured in amounts
that vary by policy year.

The Company's entities continue to vigorously contest these
claims and have made no settlements on them.

Founded in 1847, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc is an international mining
company, the largest producer of iron ore pellets in North
America and a supplier of metallurgical coal to the global
steelmaking industry. The Company operates six iron ore mines in
Michigan, Minnesota and Eastern Canada, and three coking coal
mines in West Virginia and Alabama. The Company is based in
Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBEST0S LITIGATION: Cleveland-Cliffs Action Settled on Dec. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc, on Dec. 21, 2007, settled an asbestos-
related litigation in Ohio for an amount within the limits on
available insurance coverage, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 29, 2008.

In April 2007, a lawsuit was filed naming the Company, The
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, The Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship
Company and other subsidiaries as defendants in a maritime
asbestos lawsuit brought in the Court of Common Pleas in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The plaintiff has alleged exposure to asbestos while serving as
a crew member aboard vessels previously owned or managed by the
Company's entities between 1967 and 1971.

This case was not subject to the multidistrict proceedings in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and accordingly, was not
subject to the dismissal.

Founded in 1847, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc is an international mining
company, the largest producer of iron ore pellets in North
America and a supplier of metallurgical coal to the global
steelmaking industry. The Company operates six iron ore mines in
Michigan, Minnesota and Eastern Canada, and three coking coal
mines in West Virginia and Alabama. The Company is based in
Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Celanese Drop to 626 at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings, Inc., are defendants in about 626 asbestos-related
cases, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of Sept. 30, 2007, faced
about 672 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, 92 new cases were filed
against the Company, 80 cases were resolved and 33 cases were
revised after further analysis by outside counsel.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Dallas-based Celanese Corporation produces chemicals and
advanced minerals. The Company produces acetyl products, which
are intermediate chemicals for nearly all major industries, as
well as produces high performance engineered polymers that are
used in various high-value end-use applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 38 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. has 38 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial
in 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company is party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions that are incidental to its operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 144 of
which the Company was aware at Feb. 6, 2008.

Electricians have filed most of these cases, primarily in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory, special
and punitive damages. In these cases, the claimant alleges
injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained asbestos, but ceased production of such
products more than 20 years ago.

Through Feb. 6, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in about 208 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with 16 of these involving any payment
to the claimant.

The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a
significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by
the Company in these types of cases.

St. Louis, Mo.-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures and
markets signal transmission solutions, including cable,
connectivity and active components for markets ranging from
industrial automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and
aerospace. The Company reports in four segments: the Belden
Americas segment, the Specialty Products segment, the Europe
segment and the Asia Pacific segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,789 Claims at Feb. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of Feb. 1, 2008, was defending
against 18,789 asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company faced 18,791 such claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, 18,813
claims as of July 27, 2007, 19,120 claims as of April 27, 2007,
and 19,388 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally
had a useful life of three to 12 months.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company.

As of Feb. 1, 2008, about 12,611 of the claims pending against
the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 12,031
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel
(MDL), either through removal or original jurisdiction.

As of Feb. 1, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 21,635 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,706,000. Of this amount,
US$6,671,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent
suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric
doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as
synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company
is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,741 Claims at Feb. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., as of Feb. 1, 2008, was defending against 8,741 asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission at Feb. 29,
2008.

Brandon Drying, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a
subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many
of the asbestos cases in which the Company is named as a
defendant.

Brandon Drying faced 8,741 claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, 9,023
such claims as of July 27, 2007, 9,089 claims as of April 27,
2007, and 9,189 claims as of Feb. 16, 2007.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999.

In 1978, Brandon Drying acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets
acquired by Brandon Drying from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold
dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of Feb. 1, 2008, Brandon Drying has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,825 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon Drying's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of
rights. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne
directly by Brandon Drying.

During 2004, Brandon Drying's insurance carriers agreed to cover
100 percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to
policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to
reimburse Brandon Drying for all indemnity and defense costs
paid directly by Brandon Drying related to these proceedings.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent
suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric
doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as
synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company
is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Ongoing v. Albany Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In some of these asbestos cases, Albany International Corp. is
named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in
interest" to Mount Vernon Mills, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.

Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of those products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing. The
Company produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used
in its paper machine clothing and relies on independent
suppliers for the remainder. It also makes industrial fabric
doors, such as aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well as
synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters. The Company
is based in Albany, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene.

These employees worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma.

Based in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is
an independent oil and gas exploration and production company,
with 2.43 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of proved
reserves as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's major areas of
operation are located onshore in the United States, the Gulf of
Mexico and Algeria.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Losses, ALAE Total $442.8M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holding Corp.'s net unpaid latent losses and
allocated loss adjustment expense for asbestos, environmental
and other latent exposures was US$442.8 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$443.5 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's gross unpaid latent losses and ALAE for asbestos,
environmental and other latent exposures was US$580.1 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$586.2 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has written general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella policies under which its policyholders
continue to present claims alleging asbestos-related injury and
claims alleging injury, damage or clean up costs arising from
environmental pollution and other latent claims. The vast
majority of these claims are presented under policies written
many years ago.

The increase in net latent losses incurred during 2007 as
compared to 2006 was due to the combined strengthening of
asbestos, environmental and other latent reserves. Gross and net
latent payments have continued to decline since 2005.

In 2005, latent loss and ALAE payments included a large policy
buyback payment, which was 100 percent reinsured and did not
affect net payments, and adverse developments related to one
asbestos policyholder which affected both gross and net
payments.

For 2007, the Company recorded 48 claims opened during the year,
47 claims closed during the year, and 401 policyholders open in
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

For 2006, the Company recorded 68 claims opened during the year,
96 claims closed during the year, and 400 policyholders open in
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a
national commercial property and casualty insurance company with
a focused underwriting strategy targeting specialty classes of
business and underserved market opportunities. The Company
writes commercial coverage including workers' compensation,
general liability, commercial automobile, property, commercial
multi-peril, accident and health and other lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Still Faces Kelly-Moore Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. continues to face litigation filed
by Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. in the San Francisco Superior
Court (California) in connection with certain general liability
and umbrella liability policies issued to it.

The litigation seeks coverage for bodily injury claims arising
out of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore
and a subsidiary sold between 1960 and 1978. It also seeks
breach of contract and bad faith damages.

In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint
seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly
paid to defend asbestos claims. Kelly-Moore also seeks payment
of sums for contribution and subrogation under three other
excess insurers' assigned claims based on defense payments
allegedly made on Kelly-Moore's behalf.

The Company has learned through discovery and submissions to the
court filed by Kelly-Moore that Kelly-Moore seeks US$53 million
for the defense costs, plus interest, and an additional US$33
million for the contribution/subrogation claims. Kelly-Moore
also seeks to recover extra-contractual damages as part of its
bad faith claim.

The Company filed a cross-complaint against Kelly-Moore seeking
reimbursement of certain substantial loss and expense payments
made to or on behalf of Kelly-Moore to date.

The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial motions and
discovery. Jury selection is scheduled to commence on March 3,
2008 and trial was set to begin with opening statements on
March 5, 2008.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a
national commercial property and casualty insurance company with
a focused underwriting strategy targeting specialty classes of
business and underserved market opportunities. The Company
writes commercial coverage including workers' compensation,
general liability, commercial automobile, property, commercial
multi-peril, accident and health and other lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Gross Reserves Total $2.924B at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's gross reserves, allocated and unallocated loss
expense reserves for asbestos exposures were US$2.924 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$3.221 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's net reserves, allocated and unallocated loss
expense reserves for asbestos exposures were US$1.492 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.611 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's asbestos-related loss reserves amounted to a gross
of US$3.061 billion (a net of US$1.560 billion) at June 30,
2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

For asbestos, the Company faces claims relating to policies
issued to manufacturers, distributors, installers, and other
parties in the chain of commerce for asbestos and products
containing asbestos.

Claims can be filed by individual claimants or groups of
claimants with the potential for hundreds of individual
claimants at one time. Claimants will generally allege damages
across an extended time period which may coincide with multiple
policies for a single insured.

In 2007, the number of newly reported asbestos claims rose nine
percent to 87, compared with 80 new claims in 2006. The total
pending asbestos claims decreased 16 percent to 1,169 at
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 1,391 at Dec. 31, 2006.

This decrease in pending claims is influenced by the number of
closings during the period. This decrease in claims was
attributable, in part, to the formal closing of files that had
been inactive for some time.

A review of the inactive files revealed that payment was no
longer sought on the files, therefore, the files were closed.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Limited and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization. The Company provides products and
services to commercial and individual customers in more than 140
countries and jurisdictions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Faces Workers Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. has six pending workers'
compensation claims, and a U.K. subsidiary has six employer
liability claims involving alleged asbestos exposure, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 29, 2008.

On Oct. 2, 2006 (Effective Date), the Company's plan of
reorganization, which was confirmed by order dated Aug. 18,
2006, became effective, and the Company emerged from Chapter 11.

Prior to Dec. 6, 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant
in personal injury cases and property damage cases related to
asbestos-containing products. On Dec. 6, 2000, the Company filed
a voluntary petition for relief (the Filing) under Chapter 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to use the court-supervised
reorganization process to achieve a resolution of the Company's
asbestos-related liability.

Upon the Company's Plan of Reorganization becoming effective on
Oct. 2, 2006, the Asbestos PI Trust was created for the purpose
of addressing and resolving the Company's personal injury
(including wrongful death) asbestos-related liability.

As of Oct. 2, 2006, all present and future asbestos-related
personal injury claims against the Company, including
contribution claims of co-defendants, arising directly or
indirectly out of the Company's pre-Filing use of or other
activities involving asbestos were channeled to the Asbestos PI
Trust.

The Company has no recorded liability for asbestos-related
personal injury claims as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

On Oct. 2, 2006, under the POR becoming effective, the Company
transferred to the Asbestos PI Trust rights arising under
liability insurance policies issued to the Company with respect
to asbestos-related personal injury claims. As of Oct. 2, 2006,
resolution of asbestos-related personal injury insurance matters
is the responsibility of the Asbestos PI Trust.

As part of accounting for emergence, the Company reflected the
transfer of these rights to the Asbestos PI Trust. Therefore,
there is no recorded insurance asset in respect of asbestos
claims as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006.

In addition, workers' compensation claims brought against the
Company or its subsidiaries or other affiliates will not be
channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust. These claims remain subject
to the workers' compensation process. Historically, workers'
compensation claims against the Company and its subsidiaries
have not been significant in number or amount.

The Company honored its obligations with respect to such claims
during the Chapter 11 Case and following emergence. Workers'
compensation law provides that the employer is responsible for
evaluation, medical treatment and lost wages as a result of a
job-related injury.

Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries, Inc. designs
and manufactures floors, ceilings and cabinets. In 2007, the
Company's consolidated net sales totaled about US$3.5 billion.
The Company operates 40 plants in 10 countries and has about
12,900 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkley Has $41.59M Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental
claims were US$41,590,000 at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$37,473,000 at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment
expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were
US$60,836,000 at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$49,937,000 at Dec. 31,
2006.

Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and
environmental claims were about US$7,029,000 in 2007 and
US$3,000,000 in 2006. Net paid losses and loss expenses for
reported asbestos and environmental claims were about
US$2,912,000 in 2007, and US$2,980,000 in 2006.

Greenwich, Conn.-based W. R. Berkley Corporation is an insurance
holding company that is a commercial lines writers in the United
States and operates in five segments of the property casualty
insurance business: Specialty lines of insurance, Regional
commercial property casualty insurance, Alternative markets,
Reinsurance, and International.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Continues to Face Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fairchild Corporation continues to face asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 4, 2008.

On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were
served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New
York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action,
purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the
right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase
agreement. The aforementioned case was discontinued as to all
defendants, thereby extinguishing the indemnity claim against
the Company in the instant case.

However, in September 2003, the purchaser notified the Company
of, and claimed a right to indemnity from the Company in
relation to thousands of other asbestos-related claims filed
against it. The Company has not received enough information to
assess the impact, if any, of the other claims.

During the last 49 months, the Company has been served directly
by plaintiffs' counsel in cases related to the same pump
business. A couple of these cases were dismissed as to all
defendants based upon forum objections.

The Company was voluntarily dismissed from additional pump
business cases during the same period, without the payment of
any consideration to plaintiffs.

During the last 49 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has
been served with separate complaints in actions filed in various
venues by non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or
wrongful death as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products other than those related to the pump business.

The plaintiffs' complaints do not specify which, if any, of the
Company's former products are at issue, making it difficult to
assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims.

During the same time period, the Company has resolved similar,
non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were previously served
upon the Company. In most of the cases, the Company was
voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any consideration
to plaintiffs. The remaining few cases were settled for a
nominal amount.

The Company's insurance carriers have participated in the
defense of all of the aforementioned asbestos claims, both pump
and non-pump related.

The Fairchild Corporation's Banner Aerospace unit distributes
aircraft products -- including avionics, radar products, liquid
crystal displays, GPS products, and communications systems --
and offers aircraft repair, overhaul, sales, and inspection
services. The Company is based in McLean, Va.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global N.V. Party to Asbestos Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNH Global N.V. and its subsidiaries are party to various legal
proceedings in the ordinary course of its business, including
asbestos, product warranty, environmental, dealer disputes,
disputes with suppliers and service providers, workers'
compensation, patent infringement, and customer and employment
matters.

No other matters were disclosed in the Company's annual report,
on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 5, 2008.

CNH Global N.V. is a global, full-line company in both the
agricultural and construction equipment industries. The Company
markets its products globally through its two brand families,
Case and New Holland. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company made its
products in 39 facilities throughout the world and distributed
its products in about 160 countries through a network of about
11,100 dealers and distributors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: K-Sea Affiliate to Settle Exposure Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-Sea GP Holdings LP's affiliate, EW Transportation LLC, and its
predecessors are pursuing settlement of an asbestos-related
action, according to its registration statement filed on Form S-
1, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2008.

EW LLC and its predecessors have been named, together with a
large number of other companies, as co-defendants in 39 civil
actions by various parties alleging unspecified damages from
past exposure to asbestos and second-hand smoke aboard some of
the vessels that it contributed to K-Sea Transportation Partners
L.P. (KSP) in connection with the initial public offering of
KSP's common units.

EW LLC and its predecessors have been dismissed from 38 of these
lawsuits for an aggregate sum of about US$47 million.

EW LLC and KSP may be subject to litigation in the future
involving these plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to
asbestos due to alleged failure to properly encapsulate friable
asbestos or remove friable asbestos on its vessels, as well as
for exposure to second-hand smoke and other matters.

East Brunswick, N.J.-based K-Sea GP Holdings LP's assets consist
of partnership interests in K-Sea Transportation Partners, which
provides marine transportation and logistic services for
petroleum products in the U.S. KSP has a fleet of more than 70
tank barges, some 60 tugboats, and one tanker.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Plaintiffs in Crane Co. Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, California, upheld the ruling
of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which favored Peggy
Irene Norris and other plaintiffs and respondents, in an
asbestos-related action filed against Crane Co.

The case is styled Peggy Irene Norris et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. Crane Co., Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Kriegler, Turner, and Mosk entered judgment of Case No.
B196031 on March 11, 2008.

Joseph Henson Norris was born in August 1936 and joined the Navy
in December 1954. He reported to the U.S.S. Bremerton in April
1955. The ship was midway through a complete overhaul in dry
dock at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in California. The Navy
never recommended that Joseph Norris take any measures to reduce
his exposure to asbestos.

On Sept. 26, 2005, Joseph Norris and Peggy Norris sued Crane and
17 other defendants, alleging negligence, breach of warranty,
strict liability, and loss of consortium, based on Joseph
Norris' exposure to asbestos from defendants' products while he
served on the U.S.S. Bremerton.

On March 1, 2006, Joseph Norris and Peggy Norris filed a motion
requesting a preferential trial date, because Joseph Norris was
terminally ill and not expected to survive four months. The
trial court granted the request.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the trial court considered the parties'
motions in limine.

Joseph Norris died in North Carolina on Aug. 14, 2006.

Plaintiffs' attorney informed the trial court of Joseph Norris'
death on Aug. 17, 2006. The court granted his oral request for
leave to amend the complaint to substitute Peggy Norris as
Joseph Norris' successor in interest and to add a cause of
action for wrongful death.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the first amended complaint was filed by Peggy
Norris, individually and as successor in interest to the estate
of Joseph Norris, Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia
Norris against Crane and Thorpe Insulation Company for
negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and loss of
consortium.

On Aug. 28, 2006, plaintiffs finished the presentation of their
evidence. Thorpe moved for nonsuit on the ground that there had
been no proof that Thorpe products had caused any injury to
Joseph Norris. The trial court granted the motion.

The trial court excused the jury for two days to return on
Aug. 30, 2006. A remand order was issued and the trial
proceedings continued on Aug. 30, 2006.

On Sept. 6, 2006, the trial court granted Crane's motion for
nonsuit on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

On Sept. 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed a written motion to allow the
pending action to be continued by Peggy Norris as Joseph Norris'
successor in interest. The trial court granted the motion.

The jury found that Peggy Norris sustained economic damages of
US$541,557, medical bills of US$60,822, and noneconomic damages
of US$3 million as a result of Joseph Norris' mesothelioma.  
Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia Norris had each
sustained noneconomic damages of US$100,000 as a result of
Joseph Norris' mesothelioma.

The trial court entered judgment on Oct. 10, 2006, finding that
plaintiffs had settled with other joint tortfeasors for a total
settlement of US$640,330, and therefore, reducing the amount of
economic damages by a total offset amount of US$98,842.56.

The court awarded Peggy Norris US$2,003,536.44 against Crane and
awarded Karen Norris, Kathy Norris, and Patricia Norris each
US$50,000 against Crane.

On Oct. 25, 2006, Crane filed a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial. The
trial court denied both motions.

Crane filed a timely notice of appeal from the Oct. 10, 2006
judgment and the order denying the motions for new trial and
judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Crane contended:

There is no substantial evidence that Joseph Norris was exposed
to asbestos from Crane products, or that Crane products were a
substantial factor in causing his illness;
The trial court should not have instructed the jury on the
"consumer expectations" test to determine whether Crane valves
were defective;
Crane owed no duty to Joseph Norris, because Crane could not
have appreciated a risk to bystanders from its use of asbestos;
Crane was prejudiced by the trial court's denial of a
continuance after Joseph Norris' death;
Crane was prejudiced by an amendment of the verdict form during
deliberations; and
the judgment should account for post-verdict compensation that
plaintiffs recover from other sources.

The Appeals Court concluded that substantial evidence supported
the jury's findings, the consumer expectations test was
appropriate in this case, Crane had a duty to Joseph Norris, and
the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the
procedural matters.

Therefore, the Appeals Court affirmed the ruling of the trial
court.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP, Raymond E. Gill
and Robert E. Feyder represented Crane Co.

Baron & Budd, P.C., John L. Langdoc, Renee M. Melancon; Kiesel,
Boucher & Larson, LLP and Paul R. Kiesel represented Peggy Irene
Norris, Karen Lee Norris Francis, and Patricia Robin Norris
Matthews.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Court Issues Split Ruling in TIG Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division,
granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by
TIG Insurance Company and a Motion for Leave to File Amended
Counterclaim filed by Alfa Laval, Inc.

The case is styled TIG Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Alfa
Laval, Inc., Defendant.

Chief U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer entered judgment of
Civil Action No. 3:07CV683 on March 5, 2008.

TIG is a successor to American Surety Corporation. Alfa Laval, a
New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in
Richmond, Va., is presently involved in several asbestos product
liability lawsuits (Underlying Actions).

Alfa Laval asserted that American Surety sold commercial general
liability insurance policies to Alfa Laval's predecessor, The
DeLaval Separator Company, for the policy periods of 1951 to
1962.

Under those insurance contracts, Alfa Laval contended that it
has paid all premiums due and owing under the polices and,
therefore, TIG is obligated to defend, pay defense costs, and
indemnify Alfa Laval in the Underlying Actions.

Conversely, TIG claimed that after a diligent search it has not
located any such insurance contracts nor has Alfa Laval located
and produced the insurance contracts.

Accordingly, TIG brought the present action seeking a
declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify
Alfa Laval or, in the alternative, that any obligations it may
have with respect to the Underlying Actions are barred or
limited under the terms, conditions, definitions, and exclusions
contained in the alleged insurance contracts.

In response, Alfa Laval filed a Counterclaim alleging that TIG
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Alfa Laval
sought an award of compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages
for TIG's alleged bad faith.

TIG moved to dismiss Alfa Laval's claim for breach of good faith
and fair dealing, asserting that because a bad faith claim
sounds in contract, not tort, Alfa Laval may not seek punitive
or exemplary damages. Alfa Laval countered that punitive damages
may be awarded in breach of contract actions if an independent,
willful tort beyond a breach of a duty imposed by a contract can
be demonstrated.

In the alternative, Alfa Laval argued that even if the Court
determines that punitive damages are not available, dismissal of
the entire claim is unwarranted because Alfa Laval also sought
other forms of relief.

The District Court shall dismiss Alfa Laval's prayer for
exemplary and punitive damages. Additionally, the Court granted
Alfa Laval leave to amend its Counterclaim in accordance with
this Memorandum Opinion, but not as currently proposed.

John Becker Mumford, Jr., Hancock Daniel Johnson & Nagle PC,
Richmond, Va., represented TIG Insurance Company.

Robert Francis Redmond, Jr., Williams Mullen, Richmond, Va.,
Cort Malone, William Gorman Passannante, Anderson Kill & Olick
PC, New York, represented Alfa Laval, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Urges Court to Junk Allegheny Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors ask the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to deny Allegheny Center Associates' request to dismiss
their summary judgment request.

The Debtors maintain that Allegheny and its counsel had:  

  * Actual notice of the Debtors' request for summary judgment
    on Allegheny's claims;

  * Actual notice of the consequences of any failure to respond
    to the Debtors' summary judgment request;

  * Ample opportunity to file a written response; and

  * A full and fair opportunity to be heard in the Court.

Despite the ample notice they received, however, Allegheny and
its counsel remained silent and ignored the summary judgment
request, the Debtors note.

The Debtors assert that Allegheny is not entitled to an
"excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Timothy P. Cairns at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, in
Wilmington, Del., argues that inaction on the part of a party or
its attorney does not constitute excusable neglect. He notes
that Allegheny hired the law firm Speights & Runyan to file its
Claim, however, Speights & Runyan did not confer with Allegheny
to determine that Allegheny:

  * Had already filed a proof of claim for the same buildings;

  * Had removed asbestos from its buildings in the 1980s; and

  * Disclosed its asbestos removals in the proof of claim it
    filed before Speights & Runyan filed the duplicative claims.

Mr. Cairns relates that during the oral argument on the Debtors'
summary judgment request, Speights & Runyan sat silent when the
Court asked if anyone present was representing Allegheny.
Speights & Runyan's failure to know their client's name is not
excusable, he asserts.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 153; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Opposes Speights Appeal for Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. and the other Debtors oppose Speights &
Runyan's request to extend the time for it to file memoranda of
law on behalf of three asbestos-related property damage
claimants, Bayshore Community Hospital, the Children's Hospital
of Pittsburgh, and the Jameson Memorial Hospital.

"It has become crystal clear that the Speights & Runyan firm has
absolutely no desire to have the Court rule on the legitimacy of
their property damage claims," James E. O'Neill at Pachulski
Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., argues.

It is equally clear that Speights & Runyan is promoting a "stall
and delay" approach to its claims so that, when the Debtors move
forward toward confirmation of a Plan, the law firm will have
sufficient claims to have not been expunged to demand a large
piece of the reorganization pie, Mr. O'Neill adds.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 153; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Estimation Trial to End in May 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald will continue the estimation trial of
W.R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related personal injury liabilities
on March 24, 2008. The estimation trial is expected to continue
until May.

In light of the anticipated trial dates, the Debtors, the
Official Committee of Personal Injury Claimants and David T.
Austern, the Future Claims Representative, filed with the Court
updated lists of witnesses they intend to call during the
estimation trial.

The Debtors relate that they intend to call on 12 witnesses
during the March trial date to address these topics:

  Witness                  Topic
  -------                  -----
  Dr. Peter Lees           Grace's asbestos containing products
                           and the magnitude of claimants'
                           potential exposure to those products

  Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar    Principles of epidemiology, the
                           epidemiology of asbestos-related
                           diseases, and the impact of exposure
                           to Grace products on a person's risk
                           of disease based on the
                           epidemiological literature

  Dr. Elizabeth Anderson   Risk assessment techniques,
                           claimants' exposure to Grace
                           products, and whether those exposures
                           could have caused disease

  Drs. Andrew Harron,      Methods they used to diagnose
  Walter Allen Oaks,       plaintiffs with asbestos-related
  Jay Segarra, and         diseases for purposes of litigation
  Alvin Schonfield

  David Austern            The practices and criteria of the
                           Manville Trust in accepting or
                           denying claims and the lack of a
                           nexus between claim criteria and
                           claim trends and either (i) the
                           validity of claims under state law,
                           (ii) valid medical criteria, or (iii)
                           valid exposure criteria

  Patricia Houser          The practices and criteria of the
                           Manville Trust in accepting or
                           denying claims

  John Mekus               The practices and criteria of the
                           Celotex Trust in accepting or denying
                           claims

  William Nure             The practices and criteria of the
                           Eagle-Picher, UNR and Keene trusts in
                           accepting or denying claims

The Debtors also intend to call on Dr. B. Thomas Florence to
testify about the estimate of Grace's current and future
asbestos personal injury claims and liabilities on March 31,
2008.

The PI Committee and the FCR said they intend to present Drs.
Arnold Brody, Laura Welch and Victor Roggli, as witnesses during
the March estimation trial.

The PI Committee and the FCR said they will present as witnesses
Steve Hays, Dr. John Parker, Jay Hughes, Robert Beber, Marshall
Shapo, Steve Snyder, Joseph Radecki, Peter Kraus, Jeff Posner,
David Siegel, Dr. Mark Peterson, Jacob Jacoby, and Jennifer
Biggs during the April estimation trial.

Three witnesses, William Longo, Daniel Myer, and Prof. Eric
Stallard, will be presented in May 2008.

The PI Committee and FCR added that they expect to present
testimony by deposition or prior trial from Donald Prouty,
Braxton Colley and representatives of Rust Consulting, Inc., and
The BMC Group, Inc.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 154; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Seek to Add More Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. states that the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants and David T. Austern, the Future
Claimants Representative, ask the Court to admit past
settlements and settlement criteria as evidence to estimate
pending and future asbestos personal injury claims pursuant to
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

The PI Committee and the FCR assert that, under Federal Rule of
Evidence 703, evidence of past settlements and settlement
criteria may serve as the basis for expert testimony in the
Debtors' estimation trial.

The PI Committee's counsel, Elihu Inselbuch, at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, relates that the Debtors have
maintained that the PI Committee and the FCR cannot use the
Debtors' past settlements and settlement criteria to estimate
pending and future asbestos PI claims or to rebut the Debtors'
contention that the tort system compelled them to settle
meritless claims. But, at the same time, he notes that the
Debtors contend that they are free to use their own cherry-
picked selection of past settlements to estimate pending and
future asbestos claims against them.

Mr. Inselbuch asserts that past settlements and settlement
criteria are clearly admissible to estimate pending and future
asbestos PI Claims and may be used for that purpose. The
Debtors' argument ignores Rule 408 and the binding case law and
should be denied, he contends. But if the Court were to accept
the Debtors' argument and exclude the settlement-based evidence
that the PI Committee and FCR's witnesses would rely on, Mr.
Inselbuch argues that the Court must bar the Debtors' own use of
settlement-derived evidence as well.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 154; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in New York State Bldg. to Cost $7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation states that
removing asbestos from a vacant state office building in
downtown Buffalo, N.Y., could cost more than US$7 million,
Associated Press reports.

The Erie Canal Harbor Development approved the contract for the
asbestos removal project on March 21, 2008.

Meanwhile, crews are set to begin a US$4.5 million asbestos
abatement project at a nearby auditorium.

Both buildings are to be demolished by early 2009 as part of a
US$500 million redevelopment effort.

The sweeping plan includes construction of a Bass Pro Shops
Outdoor World store, along with another 500,000-square-feet of
new retail, entertainment, hotel, office and residential
development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pipe Lagger's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Burnley Coroner's Court heard that John Kenny,
a former pipe lagger, died from exposure to asbestos after
working at Padiham Power Station more than 40 years ago, The
Citizen reports.

In the 1960s, Mr. Kenny worked as a subcontractor for a firm
called Babcock & Wilcox, the Court was told.

East Lancashire deputy coroner Mark Williams heard that part of
Mr. Kenny's duties as a pipe lagger was to mix asbestos into a
paste, before it was applied to pipework.

Mr. Kenny died on Nov. 13, 2007 at the Royal Blackburn Hospital.
In a statement, his widow, Joyce Kenny, said he began to
experience breathing difficulties two years ago.

The inquest heard that after working at Padiham Power Station,
Mr. Kenny transferred to a similar facility at Thorpe Marsh, in
Doncaster, before returning to his previous occupation as an
excavator driver.

Tests by the Lung Diseases Research Group showed the
concentration of asbestos in Mr. Kenny's system was
significantly above normal expected background levels.

Recording an industrial disease verdict, Mr. Williams said, "The
pathologist's report gives his cause of death as severe broncho-
pneumonia, asbestosis and left ventricular hypertrophy."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Worker's Widow Seeks GBP150T in Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Thomas, whose husband William Thomas died from
mesothelioma, has launched a legal bid to win up to GBP150,000
in compensation, Liverpool Echo reports.

Mr. Thomas died on February 2007 at the age of 78.

Mrs. Thomas, of Netherton, Liverpool, U.K., has started a fight
to get compensation from Mr. Thomas' former employers Tate &
Lyle and Kraft Foods UK Ltd.

A writ has been lodged at the high court alleging that Mr.
Thomas was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers when he worked
for Tate and Lyle between 1962 and 1968, and Kraft Foods from
1968 and 1982.

The writ says that during his illness, Mr. Thomas needed
intensive care and assistance and claims his life expectancy was
cut short.

The claim, which was started by Mr. Thomas before his death,
accuses his former employers of negligence, saying they failed
to provide ventilation or suitable breathing equipment.

The claims also alleges they failed to damp down asbestos, warn
Mr. Thomas of the risks or provide him with a safe place to
work.

Mr. Thomas worked for Tate & Lyle as a plant maintenance
operative, repairing pumps and spray drying machinery. The writ
claims he was exposed to asbestos lagging on pipes and fittings
during his job. He also worked near to laggers mixing up
asbestos fiber in open containers, and applying it to pipes and
fittings, it is alleged.

At Kraft, Mr. Thomas worked as a project engineer at various
factories, and visited one in Haverford West where an old
asbestos lagged boiler was removed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Actions Filed in Ill. Court on March 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded six asbestos-
related lawsuits filed on March 13, 2008, the Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

These cases are:

-- Marcella Waters of Nebraska claims she was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Dec. 6, 2007. She claims she was exposed to
   asbestos while working from 1946 through 1977 as a secretary.
   She also claims she was exposed to asbestos on the clothing
   of her husband who worked as a laborer. SimmonsCooper of East
   Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Waters.

-- The estate of Mary Hazelrigg of Indiana claims Ms. Hazelrigg
   was exposed to asbestos during the 1970s working as a welder
   assistant and from the clothes of her ex-husband who worked
   as a laborer. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Ms. Hazelrigg was
   diagnosed with mesothelioma on Oct. 6, 2006, and died on
   April 2, 2007.

-- Darrel Henderson of Kansas City, Kans. claims his lung cancer
   was caused from working with and around asbestos during his
   career in the U.S. Navy as a printer and as a concrete
   laborer. Represented by the Goldenberg firm in Edwardsville,
   Ill., Mr. Henderson claims he was diagnosed with the cancer
   on Oct. 16, 2007.

-- Represented by the Goldenberg firm, the estate of Nancy
   Foster claims she died from lung cancer after working with
   and around asbestos from 1965-75 as a laborer and hotel
   housekeeper. Ms. Foster resided in Independence, Mo. at the
   time of her death.

-- Edward Kronsperger of Belleville, Mich., claims he was
   diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 22, 2008. Represented by
   the Lanier Law Firm in Houston, Mr. Kronsperger enlisted in
   the U.S. Navy from 1956-1960, and was a material handler and
   maintenance man in Wayne, Mich., from 1960 until 1985. He
   also claims he was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of his
   father who worked in Dearborn, Mich., from 1938 to 1956.

-- The estate of James Price of Lebanon, Tenn., claims he was
   exposed to asbestos while working as a painter for Texaco
   Inc., Shell Oil Company, Amoco Corporation, Anheuser-Busch
   Companies Inc., Chrysler LLC, and American Zinc Company Inc.
   from 1964 to 1993. Represented by the Goldenberg firm, Mr.
   Price was diagnosed with lung cancer just prior to his death
   on June 17, 2007.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to
all of the cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Four Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded four asbestos-
related lawsuits filed on March 14, 2008, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

These cases are:

-- William Yeager of Jefferson City, Mo. claims he was exposed
   to asbestos during his 39-year career as a boilermaker in
   various locations in the U.S., including Cahokia. Represented
   by the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, Mr. Yeager was
   diagnosed with mesothelioma on Dec. 7, 2007.

-- Forrest Bateman of Idaho claims he was exposed to asbestos
   while working as a dairy farmer, machinist and x-ray
   technician from 1949 to 1990. He also claims that he was
   exposed to asbestos that was on the clothes of his wife when
   she would come home from working as an assembly line worker
   at General Motors Corporation. Represented by SimmonsCooper,
   Mr. Bateman was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Jan. 10, 2008.

-- Nina Anderson of Illinois claims she was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Nov. 5, 2007. She claims she was exposed to
   asbestos while working in Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois
   from 1962 through 2008 as a laborer, waitress, key punch
   operator and secretary. She also claims she was exposed to
   asbestos on the clothing of her ex-husband who has worked as
   a brick layer since the 1970s. She is represented by
   SimmonsCooper.

-- The estate of Daniel Malcolm claims he was exposed to
   asbestos while working as a teacher from 1965 to 1994 in East
   Peoria, Carpentersville and Bloomington. Mr. Malcolm was
   diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 13, 2006. Represented by
   Barry Julian of Alton, Mr. Malcolm also worked in a foundry
   in the summer of 1964.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to
all of the cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded five asbestos-
related lawsuits filed on March 17, 2008, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

These cases are:

-- Larry Marlow of Texas claims he was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on June 22, 2007, after working 41 years as a
   laborer. He is represented by SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
   Ill.

-- The estate of Doyle Clayton claims he died from mesothelioma
   after working from 1956 to 1990 as a machinist in various
   locations. Represented by SimmonsCooper, Mr. Clayton resided
   in North Carolina at the time of his death.

-- The estate of Lois Nisi claims she died from mesothelioma
   after working as machinist for 48 years. Represented by the
   Goldenberg firm, Ms. Nisi resided in Chicago at the time of
   her death.

-- Gloria LaBarge of California claims she was exposed to
   asbestos while working from 1968 through 2008 in various
   occupations throughout the U.S. Represented by SimmonsCooper,
   Ms. LaBarge claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
   March 27, 2007.

-- Roy Brown of Indiana claims his mesothelioma was caused by
   working with and around asbestos fibers from 1972 to 1974 as
   a laborer in Indiana and Illinois. He was diagnosed with his
   disease on Dec. 6, 2007, and retained SimmonsCooper to
   represent him.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to
all of the cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Five Suits Filed in Ill. Court on March 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., recorded five asbestos-
related lawsuits filed on March 18, 2008, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

These suits are:

-- John Barringer of Pennsylvania claims he was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on June 6, 2007. He was employed from 1955 to
   1991 in management of computers at various locations
   throughout Pennsylvania and also stationed at the U.S. Navy
   Terminal at Great Lakes Naval Base in Illinois from 1946 to
   1947. He is represented by SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.

-- Dolores Joppa of Arkansas claims she was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Sept. 20, 2007. She was employed at Western
   Electric in Cicero, Ill., from 1945 to 1950 and by Phillips
   Oil Inc. in Enid, Okla., from 1950 to 1951. She also claims
   she was exposed to asbestos on the clothing of her husband
   who worked with and around asbestos on many occasions. Mrs.
   Joppa is represented by Mike Bilbrey of Edwardsville, Ill.

-- The estate of Frederick Shuberg claims he was exposed to
   asbestos while working as a technician from 1964 to 2004 in
   various locations. Mr. Shuberg was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Aug. 6, 2007. Represented by SimmonsCooper,
   Mr. Shuberg lived in Minnesota at the time of his death.

-- Lawrence Schmidt of Collinsville, Ill., claims his colon
   cancer was caused by working with and around asbestos as a
   painter at various locations including the Venice Public
   School System. He is represented by the Goldenberg firm.

-- The estate of Charles Lampin, Sr., claims the St. Charles,
   Mo. resident was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in December
   2007. The estate claims Mr. Lampin was in the U.S. Navy for a
   few years prior to joining the local electric union until his
   retirement in 1989. The estate is represented by the
   Goldenberg firm.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned to
all of the cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurers to Pay $500M Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Pittsburgh said that Federal-Mogul Corporation insurers may have
to pay more than US$500 million in asbestos damages under the
Chapter 11 plan that got the Company out of bankruptcy in 2007,
The Associated Press reports.

The insurers include Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Co., AIG
Casualty Co., Allianze Global Corporate & Specialty AG,
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., and Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Co.

Judge Fitzgerald's ruling was made public on March 20, 2008. She
ruled against more than two dozen insurance companies, who were
fighting to avoid paying claims for damages linked to Federal-
Mogul's asbestos products.

The insurers argued they had bargained to cover damage claims
against the Company, and should not be forced to pay into a
trust Federal-Mogul set up in Chapter 11.

Peter Van N. Lockwood, an attorney for the asbestos plaintiffs,
said the face amount of the insurance policies at stake in the
dispute is more than US$500 million.

Judge Fitzgerald told the insurance companies to pay claims now
being handled by the Federal-Mogul asbestos trust, just as they
would have had to pay the Company itself if it had never filed
for bankruptcy.

The insurers challenged Federal-Mogul's right to make them pay
into the asbestos trust on the grounds the company was motivated
to defend itself against potentially worthless claims, but the
trust was not.

Judge Fitzgerald's ruling preserved a favored strategy for
corporations troubled by massive tort liabilities. Companies
that want to divert damage claims away from themselves and into
trusts often use their insurance policies as part of the trust
funding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Jury Awards $25.2M in Consolidated Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia jury awarded US$25.2 million in compensatory and
punitive damages in an asbestos-related lawsuit, The Legal
Intelligencer reports.

In two cases, consolidated with the other suit in a reverse-
bifurcated trial, the jury established potential damages of
US$12.6 million. However, the two cases were settled before the
liability phase.

The US$18.2 million in punitive damages was awarded by the jury
in one of the three cases in which the defendants requested
Kentucky law be applied. The other two cases ended when the
defendants all settled after the compensatory damages phase.

The jury in the six-week-long trial before Philadelphia Common
Pleas Court Judge James Murray Lynn was picked Jan. 30, 2008.
The jurors came back with a damages verdict on Feb. 14, 2008 in
all three cases and handed up a liability verdict in the
remaining case on March 14, 2008, according to one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, Benjamin Shein of the Shein Law Center.
He worked on the case with Bethann Schaffzin of his law firm.

The estate of James Baccus, the one plaintiff whose case went to
the liability phase and was awarded punitive damages, will
receive US$7 million in compensatory damages and US$18.2 million
in punitive damages.

In all three of the cases, there were several defendants who
settled prior to even the damages phase of the trial, Mr. Shein
said.

James Baccus, who has since died of malignant mesothelioma,
allegedly worked around asbestos while he served in the U.S.
Navy in Philadelphia. However, most of his injuries allegedly
occurred in Kentucky, where his family now lives, and he once
worked for American Synthetic Rubber Company L.L.C., according
to Mr. Shein.

His case, Baccus v. Crane Co., was brought against the Crane
Co., John Crane Inc. and Yarway Corporation.

The jury had previously awarded US$7 million in compensatory
damages to Mr. Baccus and apportioned liability in the amount of
45 percent against John Crane, 35 percent against Crane Co. and
20 percent against Yarway, Mr. Shein said.

The jurors assessed US$11.9 million in punitive damages against
Crane and US$6.3 million against Yarway.

Richard Scherr died from mesothelioma at the age of 71 and was
survived by his wife, Constance, and nine children. He was
allegedly exposed to asbestos while working for PFK-Mark III
Inc., a construction company that used asbestos material while
building water and sewer treatment facilities, Mr. Shein said.

In the compensatory damages portion of the trial, Scherr v.
Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., the jury awarded Mr. Scherr's
wife and estate US$8.6 million against companies Garlock,
Fairbanks Morse, and Durabla. All three had settled for an
unknown amount after the damages phase.

William Wheeler was a union painter who worked in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey from 1954 to 2001. He was allegedly exposed to
asbestos at several different work sites after he personally
used asbestos joint compounds. He died at the age of 67, 12
months after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.

The jury, in Wheeler v. Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc.,
awarded Mr. Wheeler's estate US$4 million in compensatory
damages against Garlock. Garlock settled with the Wheeler estate
for an undisclosed amount after the damages phase of trial, Mr.
Shein said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Rules v. John Crane in Newinski
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
(RPWB) in conjunction with Sieben Polk Attorneys at Law, on
March 19, 2008, announced a verdict handed down in Minnesota
District Court against John Crane, Inc. on behalf of Dennis
Newinski and his wife, according to a RPWB press release dated
March 19, 2008.

Mr. Newinski was exposed to asbestos gaskets and packing
materials manufactured by John Crane while working for Northern
States Power Company (now a subsidiary of Xcel Energy) in
Minnesota from 1968 until 2000.

Mr. Newinski, a three-time candidate for the U.S. House of
Representatives, was diagnosed in 2007 with malignant
mesothelioma. The jury found John Crane negligent and awarded
the Newinski family more than US$4.6 million in damages.

RPWB attorney, Christian Hartley says, "The dangers of asbestos
in the work place have been known for many years yet Crane
continued to manufacture and sell products containing asbestos
without warning those exposed."

The jury returned the verdict after 10 days of trial and several
hours of deliberations in District Court, 2nd Judicial District,
Ramsey County, Minn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Figgins' Death
---------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that Thomas Duncan Figgins, who died at the the
age of 82, spent more than 40 years insulating boilers and pipes
and also had furnace duties for Hick Hargreaves & Company Ltd
engineering firm, This is Lancashire reports.

Mr. Figgins, a widower who lived on Deane, Greater Manchester,
England, had retired aged 65. He had been ill for several weeks
when he died in Bolton Hospice on Oct. 18, 2007.

Although the number of asbestos fibers in Mr. Figgins' lungs was
below that expected for someone who had been exposed to the
material, it was still a major factor in his death.

Dr. Saiyyid Raza, a consultant at the Royal Bolton Hospital,
said, "It is possible that he spent 28-30 years of those 40
years at work without protection because the problem of asbestos
was not known at the time."

Coroner Jennifer Leeming recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease and said, "The medical cause of death was
bronchial pneumonia. On the evidence the underlying cause was
industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Favors DuPont in Whisnant Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
After deliberating two full days, jurors in the case of Willis
Whisnant vs. DuPont returned with a verdict in favor of E. I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company on March 25, 2008, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The trial began on Feb. 21, 2008 and took place in Judge Floyd's
172nd Judicial District Court.

In February 2008, plaintiff's attorney Glen Morgan said DuPont's
past asbestos safety policies had been so egregious that the
company had no right to exist. However, a Jefferson County jury
did not agree, and found no negligence on the part of DuPont in
the death of Mr. Whisnant of mesothelioma.

The trial focused on Willis Whisnant Jr., a former B.F. Shaw
pipe fitter who worked at DuPont back in 1966 as an independent
contractor. His family claims he was exposed to enough asbestos
fibers to contract mesothelioma that took his life in 1999 at
age 72.

Even though Mr. Whisnant was an independent contractor, jurors
ruled that DuPont was still at least partially responsible for
his safety, but decided that DuPont did not negligently
contribute to his cancer by purposely exposing him to harmful
asbestos.

After his death, Mr. Whisnant's family joined an ongoing class-
action suit against DuPont and several other oil and chemical
companies, which was first filed in the Jefferson County
District Court on June 4, 1998. The class members claim DuPont
negligently and maliciously exposed workers to asbestos when the
company knew asbestos dust and fibers created health hazards.

Mr. Whisnant's suit against DuPont, which included around five
other defendants, was severed from the original case. A court
official said the other defendants in the case had settled.

According to medical testimony, Mr. Whisnant's chest was riddled
with bone-eating tumors, a condition the plaintiffs attempted to
link to Mr. Whisnant's stint at DuPont.

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

DuPont's attorneys, which include Larry Cotten of Cotten &
Schmidt in Fort Worth and Sandra Clark of Beaumont's Mehaffy
Weber, argued that its 1940s studies only focused on people who
were "heavily" exposed to asbestos on a daily basis, like miners
for example, not chemical plant workers.

DuPont also argued that the chemical company took steps to
protect its employees from asbestos before the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration implemented asbestos guidelines
in 1972.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Death of Lecturer Baffles Coroner's Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Cheshire Coroner's Court inquest heard that 65-year-old
lecturer Raymond Williamson died of mesothelioma but was not
exposed to asbestos, this is Cheshire.co.uk reports.

The inquest has raised questions into the incidence of naturally
occuring mesothelioma. Cheshire Coroner Nicholas Rheinberg
addressed the issue during the inquest on March 20, 2008.

Mr. Williamson, of Halton Road, in Great Sankey, England, died
at Warrington Hospital from mesothelioma on July 20, 2007.

The inquest heard it was ambiguous how and when Mr. Williamson,
a retired lecturer at both Liverpool and Manchester
universities, could have been exposed to asbestos.

Mr. Williamson's brother, Kenneth, presented several theories
including the possibility that he was exposed while conducting
research on lasers in the 1960s.

But what was more baffling was that a post-mortem examination
did not reveal any asbestos fibers in Mr. Williamson's body
although there was evidence of mesothelioma in the lining of his
lung and abdomen.

Dr. Mohammed Al-Jafari, who conducted the post-mortem, said: "Up
to 10 to 15 percent of mesotheliomas are not related to asbestos
exposure but if there is any suggestion of asbestos exposure,
even very brief or mild, that would override the possibility of
non-asbestos-related mesothelioma."

Mr. Rheinberg recorded an open verdict, saying, "It is
impossible for me to say whether he died of natural or unnatural
causes. There is nothing obviously outstanding to suggest
asbestos exposure albeit there are a number of possibilities.
But what is quite extraordinary is that while most of us would
have shown up evidence of asbestos exposure because we live in
an industrial society, not one fiber was found."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Inquiry at Wis. Apartments Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation into possible asbestos-related Clean Air Act
violations at a 1930s-era apartment building in New London,
Wis., is ongoing, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Asbestos dust was showering down on people working without masks
and protective suits as they removed heating pipes from the
apartment building last summer, according to federal documents.

The search warrant, unsealed week in federal court, says that in
2007, one of the building owners, Michael D. Phillips, had the
asbestos removed illegally from the apartments.

According to the warrant, Mr. Phillips told the building manager
that if the tenants did not like the way asbestos was being
removed, he would evict them.

Mr. Phillips, who owns the building with Perry A. Petta, denied
he said that and said he did not know that asbestos was
dangerous.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mel Johnson, who is handling the case,
said such environmental cases against property owners were rare.

The building on S. Pearl Street is empty. Health officials
ordered it vacated in January 2008. The building is in
foreclosure, Mr. Phillips said, and there are 10 bags full of
asbestos debris in the building.

Mr. Phillips said he bought the 20-apartment building in 2006 as
an investment. He said he figured he did not need an inspection
because the bank did not require it. He said he had not gotten
inspections on other buildings he had purchased.

Mr. Phillips hired a local company to replace the heating system
and said he learned in August 2007 that there was asbestos. He
later contacted an asbestos removal company.

According to the warrant, which the criminal division of the
Environmental Protection Agency secured, former building manager
Sandy Kurth, who was later fired and evicted, said he worked
with the contractor starting in July 2007 to remove pipes that
appeared to be covered in asbestos. At one point, asbestos dust
showered down on the workers after a pipe was hit.

Also, the workers jumped on the bags of asbestos to make them
more compact, according to the warrant. In all, an estimated
1,000 feet of pipe was removed.

Mr. Phillips was present for some of the work, and one of the
tenants told him it looked like asbestos, according to the
warrant.

No masks, gloves or protective suits were used, and the pipes
were "dry cut," instead of the required wet-cutting technique to
avoid dust, according to the warrant.

A New London building inspector and a state Department of
Natural Resources warden responded to complaints in 2007, took
samples confirming the asbestos and later ordered the building
be emptied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colo. Builders Win $6.4M in Cleanup Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver-based law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck won
US$6.4 million on behalf of Richmond American Homes of Colorado
and other builders regarding asbestos claims at Lowry Air Force
Base, Rocky Mountain News reports.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against the U.S. Air
Force for reimbursement of costs incurred to clean asbestos in
the soil at Lowry.

According to Brownstein Hyatt, it marks the first time in an
environmental cleanup case that the court awarded indirect
damages known as "unabsorbed overhead," which are losses the
home builders incurred as a result of delays in their
construction schedule caused by the contamination.

Aside from Richmond, which is owned by MDC Holdings, other
clients who were party to the lawsuit included Metropolitan
Development, Metropolitan Builders Inc., Standard Pacific of
Colorado Inc. and Touchstone Homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Overturns Harenda Case Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme Court, on March 13, 2008, overturned a
Court of Appeals ruling in the case styled In State of Wisconsin
v. Harenda Enterprises, Inc. (docket #2005AP1829),
LegalNewsline.com reports.

The Supreme Court ruled that averaging asbestos-contents of
multiple layers of building materials is the correct method. The
state favored the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
interpretation of treating each layer's results separately.

The state also argued that the state statute relied on by the
Court of Appeals is ambiguous in whether it prescribes averaging
asbestos test results. The Supreme Court agreed and concurred
with using EPA guidelines instead.

Justice Anne Walsh Bradley in the split decision wrote, "[W]e
conclude that the EPA's interpretation is controlling because it
is neither inconsistent with [the statute] nor clearly
erroneous. We further determine that the clarifications do not
constitute impermissible rule making; rather, they are valid
interpretive rules."

In dissent, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler said the EPA
"clarifications" of the state rule on asbestos removal did not
clarify the situation and in fact are even "contrary to he
promulgated rule."

Justice Ziegler was joined by Justices Patience Drake Roggensack
and David T. Prosser.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie State Gov't. to Close Legal Loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian State Government is trying to close a legal
loophole affecting asbestos victims' families, ABC News reports.

Compensation payments for the families of asbestos victims have
been reduced by up to a third after a Court of Appeal ruled that
damages pay-outs made to victims should offset any separate
compensation awarded to relatives.

Attorney General Jim McGinty says he wants to amend the Fatal
Accidents Act, which would see damages payouts for family
members returned to their previous level.

Opposition leader Troy Buswell says he will support the move. He
said, "We need to see the detail of the Government's plan, but
look, certainly in principle."

The Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia is confident State
Parliament will pass an amendment to close the loophole.

ADS president Robert Vojakovic says it is important the
amendment is backdated so about 30 families that have already
settled their cases will be able to claim up to an extra
AU$160,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Cases Filed in Ill. Court on March 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six mesothelioma victims from New Hampshire, Texas, North
Carolina, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan and one lung cancer
victim from Tennessee filed asbestos complaints in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., on March 3, 2008, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Three different law firms filed the suits against a combined 250
defendants which will net Madison County US$32,513.50 just in
filing fees.

Brent Coon and Associates filed one suit on behalf of the estate
of a Tennessee man who died from lung cancer, the Goldenberg
Firm in Edwardsville filed one on behalf of an Indiana man and
East Alton based SimmonsCooper filed five on behalf of
plaintiffs from New Hampshire, Texas, North Carolina, Illinois
and Michigan.

Goldenberg's client, Terry Treber, alleges he first became aware
he had mesothelioma on Nov. 8, 2007.

According to Mr. Treber, he was employed from 1960 through 1990
in Illinois, New Mexico, Colorado, Rhode Island, Ohio and
Indiana as laborer, fireman, packer boy, machinist and for four
months in the U.S. Navy.

The suit filed by Brent Coon & Associates was on behalf of the
estate of O.D. Dampher of Tennessee. The estate alleges Mr.
Dampher died from lung cancer on March 4, 2006, after working as
a laborer in various locations including Illinois.

SimmonsCooper filed the remaining five suits:

1. The estate of Thomas Whall of New Hampshire claims he worked
   as an organic chemist at various locations from 1969 through
   1987. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 1, 2006,
   and died on Nov. 19, 2006.

2. David Franklin of Texas claims he was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Dec. 3, 2007. He claims his father would
   carry asbestos dust home on his clothing where it would again
   become airborne.

3. Craig Rice of Michigan he was exposed to asbestos while
   employed from 1972 to 1996 as an electrician and lathe
   operator. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 1,
   2006.

4. Dale Applegate of Illinois claims he was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Feb. 7, 2008. He was employed 1973 until 2008
   as a laborer, maintenance worker and construction worker in
   various locations in Illinois.

5. John Ciolek of North Carolina was exposed to asbestos from
   1952 until present as a laborer and inspector in various
   locations including Illinois. He was diagnosed with
   mesothelioma on Jan. 22, 2008.

Each case seeks compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000,
plus punitive damages in order to punish the defendants for
willful, wanton, intentional and reckless misconduct and to
deter them and others from engaging in like misconduct in the
future.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has been assigned Case
Nos. 08 L 175, 08 L 176, 08 L 177, 08 L 178, 08 L 179, 08 L 180,
and 08 L 181.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kings College Fined for Workers' Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive warned about managing the risks
from asbestos, after its prosecution of Kings College, Cambridge
after painters were exposed to asbestos containing materials
while working at the college, abeceder reports.

Kings College in Cambridge was fined GBP16,000, including
GBP14,500 in costs, at Cambridge Magistrates Court on March 6,
2008, after pleading guilty to breaching the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006.

The College Clerk of Works Geoff Cunnington was also fined
GBP1,000 with GBP500 costs after pleading guilty to breaching
the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

HSE Principal Inspector, David Head said, "Every year 1,000
people who worked in building maintenance and repair trades die
from past exposures to asbestos fibers. The exposure of
employees to asbestos at Kings College could and should have
been avoided by straightforward safety precautions. HSE will not
hesitate to take action against those who fall short of the law
in such a way."

The prosecution arose following an incident on Nov. 29, 2006 at
the College, when a number of college employees, who were
painting asbestos containing material under the balcony of
Keynes Hall Theatre, were exposed to asbestos fibers.

The HSE investigation found that Kings College had allowed its
employees to work on asbestos containing materials without
taking the appropriate precautions.

The asbestos containing material was of a type that requires
persons to hold an HSE license before working on it.

An HSE license is only granted to employers who can meet the
standards required by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Reconsideration in Harris Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division denied
Mary Ellen Harris' motion for reconsideration in an asbestos-
related action filed on behalf of Thomas Lee Harris against Viad
Corp.

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

Senior District Judge James B. Moran entered judgment of Case
No. 07 C 6055 on March 7, 2008.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the court denied Mrs. Harris' motion to remand
this case to state court. She moved the court to reconsider, and
the motion was denied.

Mrs. Harris brought her motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(1) and argued that this court mistakenly relied
on the affidavit of Admiral Ben Lehman in deciding the motion to
remand.

Mrs. Harris characterized the affidavit as hearsay and asserts
that Admiral Lehman formed his opinions by relying on the
affidavit of another individual, S.A. Forman.

In the alternative, Mrs. Harris moved the court to sever the
claims against Viad and remanded the claims against the
remaining defendants to the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Mrs. Harris had provided the court with no reason to justify why
the non-state actors in this case should be remanded to state
court.

In the interest of judicial economy, the court denied the
motion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northumberland MP Raises Asbestos Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northumberland, England MP Alan Beith is backing a campaign to
ensure people are "asbestos aware," Northumberland Gazette
reports.

The senior Liberal Democrat has joined the British Lung
Foundation and others at the House of Commons to raise awareness
of the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

To mark Action Mesothelioma Day, the British Lung Foundation is
monitoring the progress of the Mesothelioma Framework, an NHS
action plan for people with the disease.

The charity carried out a survey of cancer networks in England
and presented its findings to the National Cancer Director,
Professor Mike Richards at the reception at Westminster.

Mr. Beith signed an Early Day Motion calling for greater efforts
to be made to improve treatment and care for people with
mesothelioma after the survey showed that time and resources
were major barriers to the full implementation of the Framework.

Mr. Beith said, "I am delighted to be supporting the British
Lung Foundation's Action Mesothelioma Campaign, as it is helping
to bring about real improvements for people with this cruel
disease and continues to work for more research into the disease
and more awareness about the dangers of asbestos.

"The British Lung Foundation's survey shows that there is a
dangerously low level of awareness about the dangers of asbestos
amongst the very people who are most at risk of mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Electrician's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Oldham, Greater Manchester, England heard that the
death of 61-year-old electrician Christopher Scully was related
to asbestos, Oldham Advertiser reports.

Mr. Scully worked as an electrician since the age of 15.

In a statement written before his death, Mr. Scully noted that
he had been exposed to asbestos throughout the 1960s and
remembered working at one site where blue asbestos was being
sprayed.

Mr. Scully wrote that employees were rarely provided with
overalls, or masks, and that they never received advice about
the risk of asbestos.

Mr. Scully also stated that he would often be exposed to
asbestos dust as a result of fitting electrical appliances to
ceilings and removing storage heaters.

In October 2006, Mr. Scully visited his GP after suffering
continual catarrh and exhaustion. Six months later, he was found
to have a lung tumor so large it could not be operated on.

Although he was given chemotherapy, Mr. Scully died in September
2007. A postmortem found that as well as the right lung, the
liver and lymph nodes all contained tumor deposits.

Oldham Coroner Simon Nelson recorded a verdict that Mr. Scully
died from carcinoma of the right lung, to which exposure to
asbestos would have been a contributory factor.

Speaking after the inquest, Mr. Scully's family said more should
be done to prevent other people dying from exposure to asbestos.
His daughter, Anne-Marie Sidaway, said, "My dad visited the
doctors nine times before he received an x-ray. It was only
after he went to the reception and coughed up blood in front of
them that they realized how ill he was."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest on March 25, 2008 heard that the death of former
Royal Navy engineer Andrew Jakeman was linked to asbestos,
getreading reports.

The 77-year-old Mr. Jakeman died after being exposed to asbestos
during his time as an engineer for the electricity board.

Mr. Jakeman died at the Duchess of Kent House hospital in
November 2007, after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma
in December 2005.

Mr Jakeman, from Waverley Road in West Reading, Berkshire, U.K.,
joined the Navy in 1946 when he was aged 16 and spent 10 years
in the forces before starting work as a maintenance engineer for
the electricity board in 1956.

The inquest heard that Mr. Jakeman was aware that he had been
exposed to asbestos during his time working for the electricity
board as he often worked on substations and power stations where
asbestos was known to be present, but at that time not known to
be harmful.

Berkshire Coroner Peter Bedford said, "There is clear evidence
that Mr. Jakeman had been exposed to this during his employment
and I am therefore recording a verdict of death from the
industrial disease of malignant mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Suits v. Dana Removed to Federal Court  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Companies LLC has removed nine Madison County, Ill.,
asbestos actions to federal court, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Dana, a supplier of axles, driveshafts, structural sealings, and
thermal management products, was recently reorganized under
Chapter 11 after having declared bankruptcy March 3, 2006. It
emerged from bankruptcy on Jan 31, 2008.

On March 3, 2008, Dana argued that the parties have a complete
diversity of citizenship and the plaintiffs from four different
states seek damages in excess of US$75,000.

The cases removed to federal court in East St. Louis were filed
prior to its bankruptcy, however under Section 326 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code the cases were automatically stayed until
bankruptcy proceedings were completed.

Represented by Heyl, Royster, Voelker and Allen of Edwardsville,
Dana Companies argues for removal since it is the only remaining
defendant in the cases.

Dana Companies also argues that since a one-year period it has
to remove cases was tolled during bankruptcy, its notices of
removal are timely.

Dana argues that the 7th Circuit has held the jurisdiction is
established where there is a "reasonable probability" that more
than US$75,000 is in controversy. It argues that each count in
the nine cases removed seek damages in excess of US$75,000.

One case has already been remanded back to Madison County by
U.S. Chief District Judge Daid Herndon. Two days after the
removal of Wisconsin plaintiff Joseph Berger's case, Judge
Herndon remanded on a sua sponte order.

Judge Herndon said federal judges are "obliged to police the
constitutional and statutory limitations on their jurisdiction"
and should raise and consider jurisdictional issues regardless
of whether the matter is ever addressed by the parties to the
suit.

For the purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a
corporation is deemed a citizen of both the state in which it is
incorporated and the state where its principal place of business
is located.

"In this suit, Defendant, although formerly a corporation, is
now an LLC," Judge Herndon wrote.

Judge He wrote that Dana's failure to properly plead the
citizenship of the LLC places into question whether the
citizenship between the parties is completely diverse which
causes him to approach the case as if jurisdiction does not
exist.

The other eight cases are assigned to District Judge G. Patrick
Murphy after fellow district Judges Reagan and Stiehl recused
themselves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Victim to Sue Richard Dunston Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Beddoes, of Doncaster, England, seeks out former
workmates in the hope they can help him with his claim for
asbestos compensation against the insurers of Richard Dunston
Shipyard, where he worked for 25 years, The Star reports.

The 70-year-old Mr. Beddoes worked for Richard Dunston Shipyard
of Thorne for 25 years from Sept. 27, 1955 when he began as an
apprentice driller, to 1980 when he was made redundant. The
shipyard no longer exists and he is hoping to take action
against their insurers.

Mr. Beddoes carried out drilling work in the engine rooms of
ships being built at the yard at the same time as the exhaust
systems of the boats were being lagged with different asbestos.

As well as working in an asbestos dust-filled environment, the
buildings at the shipyard were made of asbestos and, while
drilling, Mr. Beddoes wore asbestos gloves which left a white
powder on his hands.

Personal injury specialist Neil Pratt, an expert in industrial
and asbestos related illnesses, said, "This is a terrible
illness which is putting Dennis and his family under a lot of
stress and strain.

"Dennis was exposed extensively to asbestos during his time at
the shipyard and we desperately need to contact his former co-
workers in order to support and progress his claim."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota to Pay for Claim Made After Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
It has been learned that Kubota Corporation has agreed to pay
compensation to the family of an unnamed Japanese woman who
lived near the Company's former Kanzaki factory in Amagasaki,
Hyogo Prefecture, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The family's application for the money was rejected on the
grounds that it was made after her death. It will be Kubota's
first payment of relief money over an application not covered by
the law, but which the Company thinks is eligible for relief.

The decision was announced on March 16, 2008 during a press
conference held by the bereaved family from Osaka Prefecture and
its support organization.

The woman had lived about 1.5 kilometers from the factory for
about for about five years in the 1960s. She died at age 67 in
May 2006.

The cause of death was initially diagnosed as cancerous
pleurisy, but was later discovered to have been mesothelioma.

In October 2006, her family applied for compensation to the
Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency.

However, the law requires those applications to be made when
sufferers are still alive. In February 2007, the agency
announced that it had decided not to pay.

The family therefore began negotiating with Kubota through the
support organization.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Examine Law Lords' Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government is to examine a
decision to end compensation for people with asbestos-related
pleural plaques, Building reports.

The move follows a ruling by the Law Lords last October 2007
that compensation for pleural plaques should end.

Prime Minister Brown said he is "determined to take some action"
on the issue and will meet a delegation of MPs who have been
campaigning.

When Labour MP Stephen Jarrow asked Prime Minister Brown about
the decision, he replied, "Asbestosis and mesothelioma are
terrible diseases, and all of us who have seen the effects that
they cause know that we have to do more to help the victims of
those diseases. On pleural plaques, we are looking at the matter
at this very moment. We will publish a consultation document
soon."

However, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and
Technicians (Ucatt) is concerned that a consultation could slow
down the process to overturn the decision and cause delays to
claims.

Alan Ritchie, general secretary of Ucatt, said, "Last year the
Law Lords, delivered a cruel attack on thousands of ordinary
work people, made ill by callous employers. While I appreciate
that the government is now looking seriously at the matter, we
need swift action. The clock is ticking for asbestos victims."

The Scottish Executive is already looking at overturning the ban
on compensation for the condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Art Teacher's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Wales coroner Dewi Pritchard Jones says asbestos in
Flintshire, Wales' schools likely caused the death of art
teacher Renee Blodwen Eden, Building reports.

Mr. Jones said he would write to Flintshire County Council about
the dangers of asbestos in schools following the death of the
69-year-old Ms. Eden.

During an inquest, Mr. Jones said Ms. Eden had died of
mesothelioma and it was "more than likely" she contracted it
after exposure to asbestos in Flintshire's schools.

Ms. Eden taught in Castell Alun, Hope Argoed Mynydd Isa and
Elfed at Buckley and retired in 1998. She was diagnosed with
mesothelioma last April 2007.

The council said it constantly monitored the safety of its
buildings.

National Union of Teachers figures show 145 teachers died from
asbestos-related disease in England and Wales between 1991 and
2000.




                           *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Stephanie Umacob,
Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *