CAR_Public/080404.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 67
  
                            Headlines

AFFINION GROUP: Reaches Settlement in Two Consumer Fraud Suits
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Issues Shares to Lawyers as Part of Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Settlement in Strip-Search Suit Gets Final Approval
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Derivative, Securities, ERISA Suits

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Calif., Del. Suits Over BofA Merger
DAVIDSON COMPANIES: Sued Over Data Security Breach
DEERE & CO: DOL Backs Participants in 401(k) Suit in Appeal
DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Markets Manipulation

DUKE ENERGY: July 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation
EL PASO: June Hearing Set for "Bank of America" Royalties Suit
EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Mass. Court Approves Carbon Black Settlement
MENU FOODS: Reaches Settlement on Tainted Pet Food Litigation

MGM MIRAGE: Nevada Court Issues Stay for FACTA Violations Suit
NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery
NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit
NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit
ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes, Fees Litigation Appeals Ruling

ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Units Face Several Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
PHH CORP: N.J Securities Fraud Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed
PHH CORP: Md. Court Nixes Amended Complaint Over $1.8BB Buyout
PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE: Shareholder Suit Settlement Okayed

PXRE GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
RYLAND HOMES: Homeowners to Get $1.8M Award in Water-Damage Suit
SECURE COMPUTING: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
STATION CASINOS: Nev. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
STATION CASINOS: Faces "Luckevich" Labor-Related Suit in Nevada

STEWART INFORMATION: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Antitrust Suits
WAL-MART CORP: Faces S.C. Suit Over Unfair Treatment of Workers


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Vacates, Remands Bethel Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Court Favors Defendants in Woody Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court to Issue Ruling on Sommer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Exited Bankruptcy Last Feb. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Has $1.39B Claims Reserves at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Int'l. Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Quaker Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Still Ongoing v. Joy Global
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Actions Ongoing v. Allis-Chalmers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Leslie Unit Has 707 Cases at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,335 Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Liability Totals $99.72M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chemical May Face Asbestos Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Has $25.7M Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Liability at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,430 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVR Funding Faces Claims from Predecessors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Commission's Ruling Upheld in Jones Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Consolidates Dana Bankruptcy Appeals

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKinley, Everest Oppose Motions in Asarco
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Orders NJDEP to Drop Grace Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Supervisor Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. 45 Firms in Ill. on March 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 More Exposure Cases Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Study Finds No Health Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs $11M Award in Garza Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Choose Hardie Case Judge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probing Disposal at Dublin Integrated
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Africa Announces Total Asbestos Ban

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Finds Fraud Evidence in Tersigni Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welder's Son Sues 25 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong's Cash Flow Rises Due to Refunds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maricopa Defendants Cleared in Covell Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Sparkses in Metalclad Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner Loses 6th Kin Member to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chandler Steps Up Fight for Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Launches Campaign in North West England
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,027 Actions Pending v. Graybar at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $325T for Possible Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Baldor Electric
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved In Liability Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind.'s Coverage Action Ongoing in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 470 Injury Actions Still Pending v. NL Ind.



                           *********


AFFINION GROUP: Reaches Settlement in Two Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc., which was known as the Trilegiant Corp.
prior to 2007, settled two of several purported class actions
filed against it, both alleging violations of federal or state
consumer protection statutes, 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.

                    August 2005 Litigation

On Aug. 9, 2005, a class action suit was filed against
Trilegiant Corp. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The claim asserts violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and various California consumer protection statutes.  The
suit seeks unspecified actual damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

As noted in the description of the 2001 Litigation below, the
parties have obtained preliminary approval of a class-wide
settlement in the 2001 Class Action that, if such approval
becomes final, will result in the dismissal of this lawsuit with
prejudice.

                    January 2005 Litigation

On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The
Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant with the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County.  

The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection
statutes.  The company filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which was denied by the court.  

The company appealed the court's decision, and the case has been
stayed until the appellate court has ruled on the motion to
compel arbitration.

                   November 2002 Litigation

On Nov. 12, 2002, a class action complaint was filed against
Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership
Services, Inc., and Allstate Insurance Co. with the Circuit
Court of Alabama for Greene County alleging, among other things,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good
faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer
fraud and deceptive practices act.  

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama but was remanded to the Circuit Court of
Alabama for Greene County.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was
granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008.  In granting the motion,
the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to
this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis.

                   November 2001 Litigation

On Nov. 15, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in Madison
County, Illinois against Trilegiant alleging violations of state
consumer protection statutes in connection with the sale of
certain membership products.  

Motions to dismiss were denied and a class was certified by the
court.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement that resolves this lawsuit and the August
2005 Suit on a class-wide basis.

On Feb. 15, 2008 the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.  

Under the court's preliminary approval order, a final fairness
hearing was scheduled for July 18, 2008, at which the court will
decide whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com--   
is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty
solutions to companies around the world.  Affinion partners with
other companies to develop customized marketing programs that
provide products and services to their end customers.


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Issues Shares to Lawyers as Part of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Italian Pasta Co. issued more than a half-million
shares of common stock on March 27, 2008, as part of a deal to
settle a class action lawsuit, Kansas City Business Journal
reports.

Business Journal says that, according to a regulatory filing by
American Italian with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
527,903 shares of Class A convertible common stock will be used
to pay the plaintiff lead counsel's fees and expenses.  AIPC now
has nearly 19.4 million shares outstanding.

The company's stock closed at $5.20 a share on March 27.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15, 2008, Judge
Ortrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, on Feb. 12, granted final approval to the
$25-million settlement deal -- pursuant to which American
Italian's insurers will pay $11 million and the company will
distribute $14 million of common stock to the class.

Shares for class members have yet to be issued, the report
notes.

The settlement, which did not include any admission of
wrongdoing by the company, resolves federal securities law
claims in a consolidated class action filed in August 2005.

Business Journal recalls that several shareholders filed the
complaints against American Italian, alleging that its
executives and directors had "cooked the books" to create an
illusion that the company was doing well even as sales slumped
during the low-carbohydrate diet craze. The suits were
consolidated into a single class-action suit.

When the company revealed in August 2005 that it would take a
big accounting charge and that past financial statements on file
with the SEC were inaccurate, the company's stock plunged.
Several key company leaders sold large amounts of their personal
holdings in the company's stock before the accounting errors
came to light.

The suit is "In re American Italian Pasta Co. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:05-cv-00725-ODS," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge
Ortrie D. Smith.  

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, New York 10017-5516
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665
          Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com/  


CALIFORNIA: Settlement in Strip-Search Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson approved on a final
basis a settlement deal in a class action lawsuit that alleged
strip searches at San Bernardino County jails humiliated
inmates, The Press-Enterprise reports.

Under the settlement, claimants will share an aggregate of
$25.5 million settlement minus 25% slated for attorneys' fees,
the plaintiffs' lead attorney, Barry Litt, Esq., told Press-
Enterprise.  This means that roughly 21,000 class-action members
in the suit against San Bernardino County will receive from $350
to $1,500, Mr. Litt said.

The report notes that the settlement was virtually unchanged
from the one tentative agreement signed in by Judge Larsonin
September 2007.  

Press-Enterprise recounts that originally, as many as 160,000
jail inmates were eligible to participate in the suit, which
asserted that body-cavity searches were performed with little
regard for modesty, at times in view of jail visitors and law
enforcement officers of the opposite sex.  The suit also
contended that searches were performed on inmates in groups and
regardless of the severity of criminal offense.

The report further recalls that the complaints stemmed from
searches at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga and
Central Detention Center in San Bernardino, performed over 4 and
a half years from May 2003 to December 2007.

County authorities have said that strip-searching is a key
security measure meant to keep law enforcement officers and
inmates safe.

As part of the settlement, San Bernardino County officials
perform strip searches only on inmates who have been arrested on
drug or weapons charges or if there is reasonable suspicion that
they may be smuggling contraband.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. is facing several purported securities
fraud class action suits that were filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities putative
class actions was filed against the company and certain of its
officers and trustees.  

Thereafter, five other essentially duplicative putative class
actions were also filed with the same court.  The  complaint in
each case asserts that the company and other defendants violated
federal securities law by failing to disclose in a timely
fashion its recently announced transaction with Freddie Mac.  

Each complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and other relief.  

After March 18, 2008, the court will designate a lead plaintiff
for these cases and the company expects that all six lawsuits
will eventually be consolidated into a single action.  

The federal lawsuits are:

       -- "Goldstein v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No.
          08 CV 00505," filed on Jan. 18, 2008;

       -- "Frank v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08
          CV 01026," filed on Jan. 31, 2008;

       -- "Weinrib v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No.
          08 CV 01158," filed on Feb. 4, 2008;

       -- "Lyons v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No. 08
          CV 01458," filed on Feb. 11, 2008;

       -- "Dechter v. Centerline Holding Company, et al., No.
          08 CV 01593," filed on Feb. 15, 2008;

       -- "Quill v.  Centerline Holding Co., Inc, et al., No.
          08 CV 01902," filed on Feb. 26, 2008.

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly  
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  Organized as a statutory trust, the
Company conducts substantially all of its business through its
subsidiaries generally under the designation Centerline Capital
Group.  The Company operates in four groups: Affordable Housing,
Commercial Real Estate, Portfolio Management and Credit Risk
Products.  The Affordable Housing and Commercial Real Estate
groups raise capital through a series of funds to deploy into an
array of real estate debt and equity investments.  The Portfolio
Management group monitors and services the investments within
its funds and servicing portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products
group provides credit support to affordable housing debt and
equity products investing in syndicated corporate debt.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Derivative, Securities, ERISA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corp., and certain of its current and
former officers, directors and retirement plan administrators
are facing several lawsuits alleging claims for derivative
relief on behalf of the Company and securities, retirement plan,
and other class actions, 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 were either filed with the federal district court in
Los Angeles, California, state superior court in Los Angeles or
state court in Delaware.

Among other things, these lawsuits allege breach of state law
fiduciary duties and violation of the federal securities laws
and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

These cases allege, among other things, that Countrywide did not
disclose complete and accurate information about its mortgage
lending practices and financial condition.

The shareholder derivative cases brought in federal court are
brought on Countrywide's behalf and do not seek recovery of
damages from the Company.  

Two consolidated cases alleging claims for derivative relief on
behalf of the Company are also pending in federal district court
in Delaware, and alleges, among other things, that certain
Company proxy filings contain incorrect statements relating to
the compensation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer.

Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is  
a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related
businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage
warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance
underwriting.  The Company operates through five business
segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells
and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking,
which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home
equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an
institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in
trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS);
Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability
insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and
Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to
mortgage lenders in the U.K.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Calif., Del. Suits Over BofA Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Financial Corp., its directors, and Bank of America
(BofA), face various class actions relating to the company's
proposed merger with Bank of America, 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 have been filed with the state courts of California and
Delaware on behalf of a proposed class of Countrywide
shareholders.

The class action lawsuits filed in state court in California
have been removed to federal court in Los Angeles.  

These lawsuits allege that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by entering
into the merger agreement with Bank of America and that Bank of
America allegedly aided and abetted those alleged breaches.

Countrywide Financial Corp. -- http://my.countrywide.com/-- is  
a holding company, which through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
mortgage lending and other real estate finance-related
businesses, including mortgage banking, banking and mortgage
warehouse lending, dealing in securities and insurance
underwriting.  The Company operates through five business
segments: Mortgage Banking, which originates, purchases, sells
and services non-commercial mortgage loans nationwide; Banking,
which takes deposits and invest in mortgage loans and home
equity lines of credit; Capital Markets, which operates an
institutional broker-dealer that primarily specializes in
trading and underwriting mortgage-backed securities (MBS);
Insurance, which offers property, casualty, life and disability
insurance as an underwriter and as an insurance agency, and
Global Operations, which licenses and supports technology to
mortgage lenders in the U.K.


DAVIDSON COMPANIES: Sued Over Data Security Breach
--------------------------------------------------
A Billings law firm filed a class-action lawsuit with the
federal court against Davidson Companies, claiming that the
company was negligent, resulting in a data security breach,
Great Falls Tribune reports.

The two lead plaintiffs in the suit are Lowell Dennis Schafer of
Bozeman, who is a current Davidson client, and Terri Ann
Oppenheimer-Schafer of San Antonio, Texas, a former client.

The report recounts that Davidson Companies, which is a Great
Falls-based investment firm, announced in late January 2008 that
a hacker broke into its data base and obtained the names and
Social Security numbers of some 226,000 of its clients.

According to the class-action lawsuit, "the Davidson Companies
failed to comply with the industry standards designed to protect
such confidential personal and financial information from theft"
and that the company did not provide "adequate safeguards in its
storage and handling of its clients' confidential personal and
financial information."

GF Tribune notes that the suit does not specify a monetary
demand from Davidson.

Other people affected by the breach can join the plaintiffs in
the class-action suit.  According to John Heenan, Esq., the
attorney who filed the suit, he expects more people to contact
him.

The plaintiffs are not aware of any actual identity theft
issues, Mr. Heenan said.

Davidson's legal department, on the other hand, told GF Tribune
that it has not seen the paper work for the lawsuit and declined
to comment.


DEERE & CO: DOL Backs Participants in 401(k) Suit in Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Labor is backing 401(k) participants in an
appeal of the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed against
Deere & Co. and Fidelity Investments, pionline.com reports,
citing Jerome Schlichter, Esq., founding partner at Schlichter,
Bogard & Denton, which represents the Deere participants.

Mr. Schlichter told pionline.com that the DOL said the suit
should not have been dismissed.

The report recounts that Judge John C. Shabaz, of the U.S.
District Court in Madison, Wis., dismissed the suit against the
Moline, Ill.-based Deere, and Fidelity.  Fidelity is trustee and
record keeper for Deere's $2.5 billion 401(k) plan.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 30,
2007, Judge Shabaz, on June 20, 2007, threw out the lawsuit,
saying that Deere was not obligated to disclose the revenue
sharing arrangements in its 401(k) plan.

Deere employees alleged that the plan and Fidelity charged
unreasonable fees to participants, but the judge ruled that
Deere and Fidelity met their fiduciary obligations under ERISA.

The appeal is pending.

The suit is "Hecker, Dennis v. Deere & Co., Case No. 06-C-0719-
S," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin under Judge John C. Shabaz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jerome Schlichter, Esq.
          Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
          Attorneys At Law
          100 South Fourth Street, #900
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 621-6115

               - and -

          Solheim, Billing & Grimmer, S.C.
          P.O. Box 1644
          1 S. Pinckney St., Ste. 301
          Madison, WI 53701-1644, Phone:
          Phone: (608) 282-1200


DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," are appealing the dismissal of
the case, which names Duke Energy Corp., as a defendant.

On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp., were named in
the third amended complaint of the purported class action, which
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi.  

In the case, the plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy and Cinergy,
along with numerous other utilities, oil companies, coal
companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages
relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this
lawsuit.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

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.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Markets Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. and several of its affiliates face purported
class actions that generally allege they and other defendants
manipulated the natural gas markets by various means.

A total of 12 lawsuits have been filed against Duke Energy
affiliates, including Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC,
and other energy companies.

Seven of these cases were dismissed on filed rate and federal
preemption grounds, and the plaintiffs in each of these
dismissed cases appealed their respective rulings.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the prior rulings and remanded four of the
cases to the District Court for further proceedings.

The defendants request for reconsideration was denied.

In July 2007, the judge in two of the cases reconsidered and
reversed his prior ruling dismissing the cases.  

The seventh case was appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals,
where oral argument was heard in November 2007 and a decision is
pending.

In February 2008, the judge in one of the cases granted a motion
to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of DETM.  

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective
plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed
by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas
markets by various means, including providing false information
to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful
arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws
of the respective states.

The plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts, 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.

Duke Energy Corp. -- http://www.duke-energy.com/-- is an energy  
company located in the Americas that provides its services
through four business units.


DUKE ENERGY: July 2008 Trial Set for S.C. ERISA, ADEA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative July 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class
action filed against Duke Energy Corp. with the U.S. District
Court for the District Court of South Carolina, alleging
discrimination and violation of pension laws.

Allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Age
Discrimination in Employment Act violations against Duke Energy
and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan arose out of
the conversion of the Duke Energy Co. Employees' Retirement Plan
into the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.   

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging
errors in the application of Plan provisions (e.g., the
calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the
calculation of lump-sum distributions).  

The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.  They also
seek to divide the putative class into sub-classes based on age.  

Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age
discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.   

The plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/beneficiaries'
benefits under the revised and reformed plan.  Duke Energy filed
its answer in March 2006.

A second class action was filed with U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking
to represent the same class of defendants.   The second case has
been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, effectively
consolidating it with the first case.

The matter is currently in discovery with a tentative trial date
of July 2008, 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 "George et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00373-HFF," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge
Henry F. Floyd presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com)
         Gilreath Law Firm
         P.O. Box 2147
         Greenville, SC 29602
         Phone: 864-242-4727
         Fax: 864-232-4395

         Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com)
         Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
         P.O. Box 8086
         Columbia, SC 29202
         Phone: 803-799-9400
         Fax: 803-799-2017

              - and -

         Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com)
         Wallace and Graham
         525 North Main Street
         Salisbury, NC 28144
         Phone: 704-633-5244
         Fax: 704-633-9434


EL PASO: June Hearing Set for "Bank of America" Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2008 class certification hearing is scheduled for the
purported class action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.,"
which names El Paso Natural Gas Co., as a defendant.

Named as defendant in the suit along with the company is
Burlington Resources, Inc., which is now a subsidiary of
ConocoPhillips.  

The suit was filed in October 2003 with the District Court of
Kiowa County, Oklahoma, asserting royalty underpayment claims
related to specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New
Mexico.

The Plaintiffs assert that royalties were underpaid starting in
the 1980s when the purchase price of gas was lowered below the
Natural Gas Policy Act maximum lawful prices.  They also assert
that royalties were further underpaid by Burlington as a result
of post-production cost deductions taken starting in the late
1990s.

The action was transferred to Washita County District Court in
2004.  

A tentative settlement reached in November 2005 was rejected by
the court in June 2007.  

A class certification hearing has been scheduled for June 2008,
according to El Paso's March 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged  
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended December 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG
system and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per
day (BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


EL PASO: Kans. "Price" Antitrust Suit Awaits Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on
the plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a second
class action suit filed against a number of El Paso Corp.
subsidiaries and other natural gas companies.

The suit "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their
Predecessors, et al.," was originally filed in 1999, alleging
that the defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating
content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American
lands.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of royalty owners
in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas,
Wyoming and Colorado.

The suit also seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages in
the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest,
expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard
to future gas measurement practices.

Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in
the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged  
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended December 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG
system and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per
day (BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Mass. Court Approves Carbon Black Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
approved the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re Carbon
Black Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 03-10191 WGY," which names
an acquisition of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., as a
defendant.

The suit was filed on Jan. 30, 2003, with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.  It was filed against
Columbian Chemical Co., formerly a subsidiary of Phelps Dodge
Corp., which itself is an acquisition of Freeport-McMoRan Copper
& Gold, and several other companies.

The suit was consolidated with 14 other actions that were filed
with four other district courts.  The consolidated suit is "In
re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 03-10191 WGY,"
and is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

It was brought on behalf of a purported class of all individuals
or entities who purchased carbon black directly from the
defendants since January 1999.

On Sept. 27, 2007, the court entered an order approving a
proposed settlement and dismissing with prejudice all claims
against Columbian and other defendants in these actions,
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.

Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. -- http://www.fcx.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Phelps Dodge, and its
majority-owned subsidiary, PT Freeport Indonesia, is a copper,
gold and molybdenum mining company.  In North America, the
Company has six operating copper mines: Morenci, Bagdad,
Sierrita and Safford in Arizona, and Chino and Tyrone in New
Mexico, as well as one operating molybdenum mine: Henderson in
Colorado.  In South America, the Company has four operating
copper mines: Cerro Verde in Peru, and Candelaria, Ojos del
Salado and El Abra in Chile. The Company owns a 53.56% interest
in Cerro Verde, an 80% interest in both Candelaria and Ojos del
Salado and a 5% interest in El Abra.  It owns 90.64% of PT
Freeport Indonesia, including 9.36% owned through its wholly
owned subsidiary, PT Indocopper Investama.  The Company also
operates Atlantic Copper S.A. (Atlantic Copper).  Atlantic
Copper's operations involve the smelting and refining of copper
concentrates.


MENU FOODS: Reaches Settlement on Tainted Pet Food Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Menu Foods Income Fund (TSX:MEW.UN) has announced a
"comprehensive cross-border agreement in principle" on
litigation arising from its tainted pet food scandal, according
to The Canadian Press.

The report relates that Menu Foods will file the settlement
proposal with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 1,
2008, and at an undetermined date in Canada.  The settlement,
the company said, is to be funded by the income trust and its
insurer.

"It's a comprehensive settlement," Amy W. Schulman, a lawyer for
Menu Foods, said.  "It would resolve all the claims."

Ms. Schulman, however, said that she could not disclose how much
the settlements would be worth, but the company did say that it
expects its total costs associated with the massive recall of
its products last year to be about $53.8 million.

Canadian Press points out that the mediated settlement of the
so-called multi-district litigation, which combined various
class-action suits filed in the United States, came just over a
year after dog and cat owners were panicked by news that
products from the maker of store-brand pet food had been tainted
by Chinese-supplied wheat gluten laced with poisonous melamine.

The report recounts that more than 150 brands of pet food were
recalled because of the contamination.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 8, 2007, the
head of Menu Foods said that, as of that time, about 90 class
actions have been filed against the company over its recalled
pet food, which has been blamed for numerous pet deaths, David
Friend of Canadian Press reports.

In the United States, Canadian Press relates, dozens of cases
against Menu Foods and many of the companies that own the
private labels were consolidated in a federal court in Camden,
N.J.

Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., a lead lawyer for the pet owners, told
Canadian Press, "we're pleased we've been able to come to an
agreement in principle on the major terms of the settlement.
We've committed to the court we will have a fully drawn
settlement agreement by May 1," which is the deadline the
company has to file the terms of the settlement in Camden.

U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman set a May 14 hearing to
consider the agreement.

The company told reporters that it expects the court approval
process in Canada to come at roughly the same time.


MGM MIRAGE: Nevada Court Issues Stay for FACTA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada stayed a
purported class action against MGM MIRAGE, Inc., which is
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act, 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.

On June 22, 2007, the Company was served with a purported
nationwide class action lawsuit filed with the federal district
court in Nevada, entitled, "Lety Ramirez v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc., et
al."

The lawsuit asserts that the Company failed to comply timely
with FACTA's directive that merchants who accept credit and
debit cards not display more than the last 5 digits of the card
number or the card expiration date on electronically-generated
receipts provided to customers at the point of sale.

FACTA's compliance deadline for electronic machines that were
first put into service before Jan. 1, 2005, was Dec. 4, 2006,
while electronic machines put into use on or after Jan. 1, 2005,
required immediate compliance.

Although the complaint does not assert that the plaintiff
sustained any actual damage, the plaintiff seeks on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated putative class members
throughout the United States statutory damages of $100 (minimum)
to $1,000 (maximum) for each transaction violation, attorneys’
fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction.

By order entered Dec. 3, 2007, the district court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety but
granted the motion to strike from the complaint plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief.

The Company then filed an answer to the complaint on Dec. 20,
2007.  No discovery has been propounded on the plaintiff or the
Company.  

On Feb. 11, 2008, the court granted the parties' stipulation to
stay this case pending issuance of a decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on review of the order of a
California federal district court denying class certification in
a FACTA case.

The suit is "Ramirez v. MGM Mirage, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00326-PMP-PAL," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Philip M. Pro presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Randal D. Shimon, Esq. (randy@shimon-lovaas.com)
          Shimon & Lovaas, APC
          3016 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Phone: 702-388-1011
          Fax: 702-387-1011

Representing the defendants is:

          Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. (pbyrne@swlaw.com)
          Snell & Wilmer
          3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-784-5201
          Fax: 702-784-5252


NISOURCE INC: W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit Still in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a purported class action pending with the
U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia that  
alleges certain "select shippers," including certain
subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in
an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract
and violated state law.  

Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a
complaint with the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia styled,
"Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.,
et al."  

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource  
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and
Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain
"select shippers" engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that
constituted a breach of contract and violated state law.   

The "illegal gas scheme" complained of by the plaintiffs relates
to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance
transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy  
Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and
subsequent settlement approved in October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss on Sept. 10,
2004.  

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to
amend.  

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their
previously filed motions to dismiss.  

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.  

On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The court has ordered for discovery to
proceed on the issue of class certification as well as the
merits of the case.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge
Robert C. Chambers presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua I. Barrett, Esq.
          Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq.
          Molly McGinley Han, Esq.
          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero
          604 Virginia Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304/342-0133
          Fax: 304 342-4605
          Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/

               - and -

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders
          12051 Upper Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922
          Phone: 301/574-3400
          Fax: 301 574-2153

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202/879-5000
          Fax: 202 879-5200

               - and -

          John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com)
          The Tinney Law Firm
          P. O. Box 3752
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752
          Phone: 304/720-3310
          Fax: 304/720-3315.


NISOURCE INC: Appeals $404.3M Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc., appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals a $404.3-million judgment handed out by a West Virginia
Circuit Court for Roane County jury in the purported class
action, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.,"
according to its March 5, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia
Natural Resources, alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on gas
produced on their land by improperly deducting post- production
costs and not paying a fair value for the gas.  They also
claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction
of post-production charges.

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource, Inc., and Columbia Energy Group as defendants.  
CNR is a former NiSource subsidiary, which was sold in 2003.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict
against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million.  This
amount is comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages
and $270 million in punitive damages.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court issued an order which appears to
also to be its final appealable judgment.

In January 2008, the defendants filed their petition for appeal,
and will be filing an amended petition in March 2008, with the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which may or may not
accept the appeal.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed with the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has
yet to rule on motions seeking dismissal of the purported class
action, "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.,"
which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action,
alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007,
which, among other things, added NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.  

All of the defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully
briefed and await a ruling by the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed with the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com)
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com)
         Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC
         300 W. Vine Street
         Suite 1100
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-288-4613
         Fax: 859-255-2742

              - and -  

         Nora Clevenger Price, Esq.
         (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         1000 Fifth Avenue
         Suite 250
         P.O. Box 2195
         Huntington, WV 25722-2195
         Phone: 304-522-8290
         Fax: 304-526-8089


ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes, Fees Litigation Appeals Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter, "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees
Litigation," are appealing the summary judgment by an Illinois
court, which favored the defendants.  

On May 24, 2005, a consolidated class action complaint,
entitled, "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees Litigation," was filed
with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Orbitz,
LLC; Orbitz, Inc.; and Cendant, Inc.

This case purports to be a national class action brought by
persons who paid a fee in connection with paying for a hotel
room through the Orbitz Web site from March 19, 2003, to the
present.

The plaintiff also seeks actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest and penalties on behalf of the purported class.

On May 31, 2006, the Court dismissed Cendant from the case, and
dismissed all of the claims except for the plaintiff's Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim.

On May 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  This most
recent complaint only asserts a claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and names
only one class representative, an Illinois resident.  

The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz failed to provide proper
disclosures to consumers relating to fees charged by Orbitz when
the consumer is booking a hotel room through the Orbitz website.

Orbitz is also alleged to have misled consumers by failing to
break out the exact amount of the service fee in the taxes and
fees line displayed to consumers before the booking is complete.

On June 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order
certifying the action as a nationwide class action.  On that
same date, Orbitz filed a motion for summary judgment.

At the close of the Dec. 19, 2007 hearing on both motions, the
Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and
granted summary judgment in favor of Orbitz.  

On Jan. 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal,
according to the company's March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global  
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ LLC: Still Faces Calif. Taxes/Fees Assessment Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz, LLC, remains a defendant in the purported class action,
"Ronald Bush, et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et al.," which was
filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.

The suit was filed on Feb. 17, 2005, on behalf of all
Californians who were assessed a "Taxes/Fees" charge when paying
for a hotel, motel, or resort room through the defendants.

Specifically, the defendants are a number of Internet travel
companies, including Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a
Cheaptickets.com); Cendant Corp.; Orbitz, Inc.; and Orbitz.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the California
Business and Professions Code, conversion, and imposition of a
constructive trust.  Their claims are based on allegations that
the defendants charged for taxes that were not legitimate in
that they were not required by the taxing authorities to be
collected.

The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants failed to
disclose this improper practice.  

They seek an order certifying the action as a class action,
actual damages, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement,
attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the California Business and Professions
Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global  
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Units Face Several Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of subsidiaries and affiliates of Orbitz Worldwide,
Inc., including Orbitz, Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Trip Network, Inc.
(d/b/a CheapTickets); Travelport Americas, LLC (f/k/a Cendant
Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.); and Internetwork
Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), are parties to various
cases brought by municipalities and other governmental entities
involving hotel occupancy taxes and the company's merchant hotel
business model.

Some of the cases are purported class actions and most of the
cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet travel
companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.

The cases allege, among other things, that we violated the
jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the
ordinance.

While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally
assert similar claims, including violations of local or state
occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases,
civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.

Some of the purported class actions pending against the company
were filed by:

   -- City of Los Angeles, on Dec. 30, 2004, with the Superior
      Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles;

   -- City of Fairview Heights, on Oct. 5, 2005, with the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;

   -- City of Rome, et al., on Nov. 18, 2005, with the U.S.
      District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;

   -- Pitt County, North Carolina, on Dec. 1, 2005, with the
      U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit;

   -- City of San Antonio, Texas, et al., on May 8, 2006, with
      the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas;

   -- Lake County Convention and Visitor Bureau and Marshall
      County, Indiana, on June 12, 2006, with the U.S. District
      Court for the Northern District of Indiana;

   -- Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, on Sept. 21,
      2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Western
      District of Kentucky;

   -- County of Nassau, New York, on Oct. 24, 2006, with the
      U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;

   -- City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on Feb. 28, 2007, with the
      Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas;

   -- City of Jefferson, Missouri, on June 27, 2007, with the
      19th Judicial Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri;

   -- City of Oakland, California, on June 29, 2007, with the
      U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and

   -- City of Gallup, New Mexico, on July 6, 2007, with the U.S.             
      District Court for the District of New Mexico.

The company reported no development in the cases in its
March 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global  
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The Company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


PHH CORP: N.J Securities Fraud Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in several purported securities fraud class
actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against PHH Corp. have voluntarily
dismissed their respective cases.

In March and April 2006, several class actions were filed
against the company, its chief executive officer and its former
chief financial officer with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the company's common stock during certain
time periods beginning March 15, 2005, in one case and May 12,
2005, in the other cases, and ending March 1, 2006.  

They allege, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

Each of these purported class actions has since been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs, 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 first identified complaint is "Monica Salim, et al. v. PHH
Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-01302," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiff firms in this or similar case:

          Baron & Budd, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX, 75219
          Phone: 1800-946-9646
          e-mail: info@baronandbudd.com

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610.668.7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

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

               - and -

          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA, 19046
          Phone: 215.886.1900
          e-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


PHH CORP: Md. Court Nixes Amended Complaint Over $1.8BB Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland dismissed the
consolidated amended complaint in a purported class action
opposing the sale of PHH Corp. to General Electric Capital Corp.
and The Blackstone Group.

Following the announcement of the $1.8-billion buyout in March
2007, two purported class actions were filed against the company
and each member of its Board of Directors with the Circuit Court
for Baltimore County, Maryland, the first of these actions also
named GE and Blackstone.

The plaintiffs seek to represent an alleged class consisting of
all persons (other than the Company's officers and Directors and
their affiliates) holding the Company's Common stock.

In support of their request for injunctive and other relief, the
plaintiffs allege that the members of the Board of Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
stockholder value in approving the transaction.

On April 5, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the first
filed complaint.  On April 10, 2007, the claims against
Blackstone were dismissed without prejudice.

On May 11, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases into one
action.  On July 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  

The new pleading did not name GE or Blackstone as defendants.  
It essentially repeated the allegations previously made against
the members of the company's Board of Directors and added
allegations that the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the SEC on June 18, 2007 omitted certain
material facts.

On Aug. 7, 2007, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs were seeking to
assert their claims directly, whereas, as a matter of Maryland
law, claims that directors have breached their fiduciary duties
can only be asserted by a stockholder derivatively.  

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.

PHH Corp. -- http://www.phh.com-- is an outsource provider of  
mortgage and  fleet management services.  The Company operates
in three segments: Mortgage Production, Mortgage Servicing and
Fleet Management Services.  


PHILADELPHIA STOCK EXCHANGE: Shareholder Suit Settlement Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Supreme Court, on March 27, 2008, approved a
settlement deal in a shareholder lawsuit against the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, clearing the way for the exchange's
acquisition by Nasdaq OMX Group Inc.,  Thomson Financial
reports.

The report recalls that in 2006, after Philadelphia Stock
Exchange -- the nation's oldest stock exchange -- sold a major
stake to six Wall Street firms, shareholders filed suit, saying
the deal diluted their ownership interests.

The class-action lawsuit, filed with Delaware's Court of
Chancery, also named as defendants Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C),
Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER) (OOTC:MERIZ), Credit Suisse First
Boston, Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), UBS Securities (NYSE:UBS), and
Citadel Derivatives Group.  In the lawsuit, shareholders said
they were not adequately compensated for the deal.

Thomson Financial relates that the terms of the June 2007
settlement were not disclosed.

In November last year, Nasdaq agreed to buy the exchange for
$652 million.

The Philadelphia Stock Exchange, the report notes, is the
nation's third largest options market.


PXRE GROUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PXRE Group, Ltd. -- now known as Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. -- continues to face a consolidated securities
fraud class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Initially, several class actions were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer;
and John Modin, the company's former chief financial officer.  
These suits were brought on behalf of a putative class
consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded
securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005, and Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical
claims and alleges that during the purported class period
certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and
misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business,
prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase
PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the
company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material
adverse facts:

      -- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
         Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

      -- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
         an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

      -- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
         loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
         A.M. Best.

Furthermore, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing
asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss
estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable
basis.  

The class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well
as other forms of relief.  

Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these
lawsuits have been consolidated into one proceeding.

Argo Group reported no development in the matter in its March 5,
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 PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, case
No. 1:06-cv-03410-KMK," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. (jalieberman@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212)-661-1100
         Fax: (212)-661-8665

              - and -

         Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq. (BPDyer@SSBNY.com)
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212 687-7230
         Fax: 212 490-2022

Representing the defendants is:

         Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq.
         (bangiolillo@stblaw.com)
         Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
         425 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-455-2000
         Fax: 212-455-2502


RYLAND HOMES: Homeowners to Get $1.8M Award in Water-Damage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Ryland Homes homeowners who sued over water-damage
claims would share $1.85 million if a preliminary settlement
gets final approval, according to Orlando Sentinel.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the homeowners will receive
$1.1 million, plus $300,000 for costs.

The report says that class members with the 45 largest claims
would share up to $450,000, or up to $10,000 each.  Two hundred
people with the next-largest claims would share up to $700,000,
or $3,500 each.  Another $700,000 is reserved for the lowest
level of claimants, who stand to gain up to $1,400 each.

Orlando Sentinel recounts that in March 2005, homeowners sued
the Ryland Group, claiming that their houses were damaged during
the 2004 hurricanes because water leaked through the exterior
finish.  Ryland, however, did not admit liability.

The class-action suit involves single-family houses built
between 2000 and 2005.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2006,
William Drier, a retired appellate judge from New Jersey,
certified the class action against Ryland Homes, which action
includes approximately 6,000 homes Ryland built across Florida
since January 2000.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     Francis X. Rapprich, Esq. (frapprich@fisherlawfirm.com)
     Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, PA,
     Phone: +1-407-843-2111

     Gary W. Jackson, Esq. (gjackson@thejacksonlawgroup.com)
     The Jackson Law Group
     Phone: +1-704-377-6680

          - and -

     William Dixon Robertson III, Esq.
     (Dixon.robertson@wdrlaw.com)
     Phone: +1-803-988-0040


SECURE COMPUTING: Seeks Nixing of Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Secure Computing Corp. and certain directors and officers of the
company are seeking for the dismissal of an amended securities
fraud class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's March 5, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit was filed against the company by Rosenbaum Capital,
LLC, on Jan. 19, 2007.  The alleged plaintiff class includes
persons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006,
through July 11, 2006.

Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action,
and thus filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges generally that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about our business condition and
prospects for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  It seeks unspecified
monetary damages.  

After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  Those motions are fully briefed, and
the parties are awaiting the court's decision.  

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq. (ecg@classcounsel.com)
           Green Welling, LLP
           595 Market Street, Suite 2750
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Phone: 415-477-6700
           Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants is:

           Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
           (michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com)
           Heller Ehrman LLP
           275 Middlefield Road
           Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
           Phone: 650/324-7000
           Fax: 650 324-0638


STATION CASINOS: Nev. Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eight Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada gave
final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re
Station Casinos Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A-
532367," which is a lawsuit relating to Station Casinos, Inc.'s
definitive merger agreement with Fertitta Colony Partners, LLC.

                        Merger Agreement

On Dec. 4, 2006, Station Casinos announced that it received a
proposal from Fertitta Colony to acquire all of its outstanding
common stock for $82 per share in cash.  

In February 2007, Station Casinos entered into a definitive
merger agreement with Fertitta Colony, pursuant to which
Fertitta agreed to purchase all of the company's outstanding
common stock for $90 per share in cash.  

Fertitta Colony is a company formed by Frank J. Fertitta III,
chairman and chief executive officer of Station; Lorenzo J.
Fertitta, vice chairman and president of Station; and Colony
Capital Acquisitions, LLC, an affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC.

                        Initial Lawsuits

On Dec. 4, 2006, Helen Roessler filed a purported class action
complaint with the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Case
No. A532367, against the company, its Board of Directors, and
Fertitta Colony.   

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and challenges the proposed transaction as
inadequate and unfair to the company's public stockholders.    

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit and an injunction against the proposed transaction.   

Three similar putative class actions were subsequently filed
with the District Court:   

      -- "Goldman v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532395, filed on Dec. 4, 2006;"  

      -- "Traynor v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532407, filed on Dec 4, 2006;" and  

      -- "Filhaber v. Station Casinos, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         A532499, filed on Dec. 5, 2006."

                       Griffiths Litigation

On Jan. 2, 2007, David Griffiths filed a purported class action
complaint with the District Court against the company, its Board
of Directors, Delise F. Sartini, Blake L. Sartini, Colony
Capital LLC, Colony Capital Acquisitions LLC, and FCP.   

The complaint alleges that the company's Board breached its
fiduciary duties and that the remaining defendants aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction,
declaratory relief, the imposition of a constructive  trust upon
the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs.

                 Consolidation of Initial Cases

On Jan. 4, 2007, the District Court consolidated the Initial
Lawsuits under the heading, "In Re Station Casino's Shareholder   
Litigation," and appointed lead counsel and liason counsel in
connection therewith.   

On Jan. 29, 2007, Mr. Griffiths filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's order appointing lead counsel and to establish
a briefing schedule on motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  At the March 5, 2007 hearing on this motion, Mr.
Griffiths' motion was denied.

                    Class and Derivative Suit

On Feb. 14, 2007, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
filed a purported class and derivative action complaint with the
District Court against the company's Board of Directors, Thomas
J. Barrack, Jr., Delise Sartini, Blake Sartini, Colony Capital,
Colony Acquisitions, FCP, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,
and German American Capital Corp.   

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
breached its fiduciary duties and the remaining defendants aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in  
connection with the proposed transaction.   

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, an injunction against the proposed transaction
unless and until the company adopts and implements a fair sale
process, the disclosure of all material information to the
company's stockholders, the imposition of a constructive trust
upon the defendants, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs.

                  Consolidation of All Cases

All of the above-referenced actions have been consolidated into
a single action under the heading, "In re Station Casinos
Shareholder Litigation, Master Case No. A-532367," Dept. No. 13,
District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint with the District Court against Station,
Station's directors, Frank J. Fertitta III, Lorenzo J. Fertitta,
Blake L. Sartini and Delise F. Sartini, Colony, Colony
Acquisitions and FCP.

The Amended Complaint alleges that Station's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Station and its stockholders as
follows:

     (1)  The defendants failed to engage in a fair process that
          would maximize value to Station's stockholders because
          the defendants put into place covenants in Station's
          bond indentures that could, under certain
          circumstances:

          -- require a purchaser of Station not affiliated with
             Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta to
             redeem those bonds;

          -- put into place a stockholder rights plan and a
             staggered board;

       -- adopted a supermajority voting requirement in
         connection with any merger transaction and imposed a
         $160 million termination fee on Station.

     (2) The process being used to sell Station is wrongful,
         unfair and harmful and is an attempt by the defendants
         to aggrandize their personal and financial positions.

         It does not reflect the true inherent value of Station
         that was known only to the defendants.  This value,
         which far exceeds the $90.00 per share merger  
         consideration, includes the returns from Red Rock, the
         Company's Native American casino-management contracts
         and the expected returns from Aliante Station and other
         expansion projects.

     (3) The directors have not and are not exercising  
         independent business judgment and have acted and are
         acting to the detriment of the plaintiff class.  In
         particular, the members of the Special Committee are
         not independent of Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, were handpicked for Station's Board of
         Directors by Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J.
         Fertitta, are loyal and beholden to them and will do
         what Frank J. Fertitta III and Lorenzo J. Fertitta tell
         them to do.  

         The Special Committee failed to properly shop Station,
         artificially depressing the value of Station's stock,
         thereby depriving plaintiffs of the right to receive
         the maximum value for their shares. They are taking
         steps to avoid competitive bidding, to cap the price of
         Station stock and to give FCP and other members of the
         buying group an unfair advantage by, among other
         things, failing to solicit other potential acquirers or
         alternative transactions.

     (4) The Company's preliminary proxy statement filed with
         the SEC on May 7, 2007 misrepresented material facts
         and omits material information necessary for
         stockholders to make an informed decision concerning
         the transaction because, in part, it did not discuss
         whether the defendants considered alternative
         transaction forms, nor did it properly detail the sale
         process.

     (5) The Preliminary Proxy Statement did not detail whether
         Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., financial advisor to the
         Special Committee, performed any sensitivity studies or
         whether it valued Station assuming Station would be
         split into separate operating and holding companies.

         The Preliminary Proxy Statement also failed to detail
         the proper valuation for Station, or the basis for the
         valuation. In addition, Bear Stearns is in a conflict
         position because it owns 36,639 shares of Station
         common stock.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that Frank J. Fertitta III,
Lorenzo J. Fertitta, Blake L. Sartini, Delise F. Sartini, FCP,
Colony and Colony Acquisitions knowingly aided and abetted the
Company's directors in breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders.

The Amended Complaint seeks an injunction preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger transaction, and
demands that the plaintiffs be awarded their costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

                           Settlement

In November 2007, in order to resolve the litigation and avoid
further cost and delay, the Company and the individual
defendants, without admitting any wrongdoing, entered into a
global stipulation of settlement with plaintiffs.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company made
supplemental disclosures in its Definitive Proxy Statement filed
with the SEC on July 9, 2007, to address certain of the
disclosure claims raised in the Consolidated Action.

As part of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' counsel
applied to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $1.9 million, inclusive of costs and expenses.

The Company agreed to pay the fees and expenses on behalf of all
plaintiffs as awarded by the court in an amount up to $1.9
million.

On Dec. 11, 2007, the District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed settlement.  Thereafter, notice of the Proposed
Settlement was disseminated to more than 31,000 former
shareholders of Station and published in the Wall Street Journal
(national edition), the Los Angeles Times and the Las Vegas
Review Journal.

None of the former shareholders objected to the terms of the
Proposed Settlement.  

Consequently, at a hearing on Feb. 11, 2008, Judge Mark R.
Denton approved the proposed settlement of the consolidated
action on a final basis, according to the company's March 5,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Station Casinos, Inc. -- http://www.stationcasinos.com/-- is a  
gaming and entertainment company that owns and operates nine
major hotel/casino properties under the Station and Fiesta brand
names and eight smaller casino properties, in the Las Vegas
metropolitan area, as well as manages a casino for a Native
American tribe.  The Company owns and operates Palace Station
Hotel & Casino (Palace Station), Boulder Station Hotel & Casino
(Boulder Station), Texas Station Gambling Hall & Hotel (Texas
Station), Sunset Station Hotel & Casino (Sunset Station), Santa
Fe Station Hotel & Casino (Santa Fe Station), Red Rock Casino
Resort Spa (Red Rock), Fiesta Rancho Casino Hotel (Fiesta
Rancho), Fiesta Henderson Casino Hotel (Fiesta Henderson), Wild
Wild West Gambling Hall & Hotel (Wild Wild West), Wildfire
Casino (Wildfire), Magic Star Casino (Magic Star), Gold Rush
Casino (Gold Rush) and Lake Mead Casino (Lake Mead Lounge).


STATION CASINOS: Faces "Luckevich" Labor-Related Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc., is facing a labor-related class action
lawsuit that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, according to the company's March 5, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Feb. 4, 2008, Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and Julie St. Cyr
filed the purported class action complaint, Case No. CV-00141,
against the Company.

The plaintiffs are all former employees of the Company.  The
complaint alleges that the Company:

       -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,

       -- failed to pay overtime,

       -- failed to timely pay wages, and

       -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel.

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd.
          Suite 103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: (775) 853-6440
          Fax: (775) 853-6445

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 983-0900
          Fax: (415) 397-9005

Representing the defendants is:

          Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy
          Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-677-3900
          Fax: 702-737-1612


STEWART INFORMATION: Faces N.Y. Title Insurance Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corp. is facing several purported
antitrust class action suits in New York over the price of title
insurance, 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.

In February 2008, several lawsuits, seeking class action status,
were filed against the company's New York underwriters and
several of its competitors.  These suits allege that the company
and its competitors conspired to fix title insurance prices in
New York through membership in a rating bureau.

In addition, certain of the lawsuits also allege that the prices
charged by title insurers constituted overcharges in violation
of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com--  
is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction
management company.  Its two main operating segments of business
are title insurance-related services and real estate information
(REI).  It provides title insurance and related information
services required for settlement by the real estate and mortgage
industries through more than 9,500 policy-issuing offices and
agencies in the U.S. and international markets.  Stewart also
provides post-closing lender services, automated county clerk
land records, property ownership mapping, geographic information
systems, property information reports, document preparation,
background checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges.  Its
international division delivers products and services protecting
and promoting private land ownership worldwide.  Stewart's
primary international operations are in Canada, the U.K.,
Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia.


WAL-MART CORP: Faces S.C. Suit Over Unfair Treatment of Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit stemming
from its alleged unfair and harsh treatment of hourly employees,
Alfonso Coley writes for Associated Content.

The report says that the lawsuit did not come as a surprise to
many associates who are employed at Wal-Mart in the South
Carolina region or to the workers who have already left the
company.  According to Associated Content, there have been many
noted cases of associates harassed while on their meal breaks
and while taking their 15-minute breaks.

Mr. Coley relates that the civil class action suit is comprised
of two parts, one involving the company's unfair practice of
having associates work off the clock without compensation, and
the other involving hourly associates working past their earned
meal break.

Many hourly associates have been subjected to this practice, the
article points out.  It recounts that in Pennsylvania, Wal-Mart
hourly associates won a class action lawsuit in 2007, where The
associates were awarded over $60 million in compensation.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Vacates, Remands Bethel Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded Bethel
Fellowship, Inc.'s lawsuit, which involved asbestos abatement,
against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet.

The case is styled Bethel Fellowship, Inc. (d/b/a Bethel
Fellowship Christian Academy), Appellant, v. Commonwealth of
Kentucky, Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Appellee.

Judges Henry, Stumbo, and Taylor entered judgment of Case No.
2006-CA-002423-MR on March 14, 2008.

The Cabinet issued Bethel a notice of violation on Oct. 24,
2002, for failing to abate asbestos found in a school that it
operated in Breckinridge County, Ky.

Bethel failed to comply with the notice, and the Cabinet
thereafter filed an administrative complaint against Bethel.
Eventually, the secretary of the Cabinet issued an amended final
order on July 27, 2006. It directed Bethel to correct all
violations contained in the notice of violation and fined Bethel
a civil penalty of US$10,000.

On Aug. 23, 2006, Bethel filed an action in the Franklin Circuit
Court seeking review of the Cabinet's decision. Bethel filed a
document entitled "Complaint and Petition for Review"
(complaint) and requested the Franklin Circuit Court Clerk to
serve the complaint on Greg Stumbo, the Kentucky Attorney
General, by certified mail.

The clerk complied and mailed the complaint to the office of the
Attorney General, which was received on Aug. 24, 2006. On Sept.
12, 2006, the Cabinet filed a motion to dismiss claiming that
Bethel failed to serve the secretary of the Cabinet as mandated
by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 224.10-470.

By order entered Nov. 7, 2006, the circuit court dismissed
the instant action.

Bethel contended the circuit court committed error by dismissing
its action. Bethel argued that it substantially complied with
the requirements of KRS 224.10-470 by serving the Attorney
General and that the circuit court erred by concluding that
strict compliance was required.

Bethel brought this appeal from the Nov. 7, 2006 order of the
circuit court dismissing its action seeking review of an adverse
decision of the Cabinet.

The Appeals Court viewed Bethel's remaining contentions to be
moot or without merit.

The order of the Franklin Circuit Court was vacated and this
cause was remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.

Ronald E. Hines, Elizabethtown, Ky., represented Bethel
Fellowship Christian Academy.

Randall S. Royer, Jacquelyn A. Quarles, Frankfort, Ky.,
represented Commonwealth of Kentucky, Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenn. Court Favors Defendants in Woody Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee stated that the Circuit Court
for Hamilton County erred in denying defendants' motions for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related action filed by Wayne
Woody and his wife Rebecca Woody.

The case is styled Rebecca Woody v. A.W. Chesterton Company et
al.

Judges Andy D. Bennett, Herschel P. Franks, and Jon Kerry
Blackwood entered judgment of Case No. M2007-01210-COA-R9-CV on
March 13, 2008.

Mr. Woody, a member of the Asbestos and Insulators Workers
Union, and Mrs. Woody filed suit in federal district court in
June 1979 against 25 corporations that allegedly "caused
asbestos and asbestos insulation materials to be placed in the
stream of interstate commerce."

Mr. Woody had been diagnosed with asbestosis. He and Mrs. Woody
sought damages for his asbestos-related illness, which they
alleged to be caused by occupational exposure to the defendants'
asbestos and insulation materials. They were represented by
counsel and settled the lawsuit in September 1980 for a lump sum
payment of US$35,000.

As part of the settlement, Mr. Woody and his wife signed a
Complete Release of All Claims, the effect of which is at issue
in the present case.

In September 2006, Mr. Woody was diagnosed with pleural
mesothelioma. The present lawsuit was filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Woody in November 2006 shortly before his death as a result of
mesothelioma.

The complaint named 37 defendant corporations; only one of the
corporations, CertainTeed Corporation, was a party to the 1979
lawsuit.

According to the complaint, Mr. Woody was exposed, in both
occupational and non-occupational settings, to "asbestos related
materials and other asbestos containing products mined, or
manufactured, processed, imported, converted, compounded, sold,
distributed or installed" by the defendants. As a result of
these exposures, the complaint alleges, Mr. Woody developed
mesothelioma.

Although the complaint does not specify exposure dates, Mr.
Woody continued to work as an insulator after signing the 1980
release, and the plaintiff's claims are broad enough to include
post-release exposures. Causes of action for negligence, strict
liability, breach of warranty, civil conspiracy, and loss of
consortium are asserted.

Mrs. Woody filed an amended complaint after her husband's death
substituting herself as plaintiff, individually and as the
surviving spouse of Wayne Woody.

After filing answers pleading release as a defense, 27 of the
defendants either filed or joined in motions for summary
judgment, asserting that the 1980 release barred all of the
Woodys' claims.

On April 12, 2007, the trial court entered an order ruling on 21
motions for summary judgment.

The court denied the other 20 motions for summary judgment based
on its conclusion that "the prior release does not bar the
Plaintiff's later claim based upon subsequently diagnosed
mesothelioma."

In agreed orders entered on May 7, 2007, the same ruling was
applied to the other summary judgment motions.

The Appeals Court granted the defendants' application for
interlocutory appeal.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Appeals Court was asked to
determine whether the trial court erred in denying the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

In conclusion, the 1980 release covered all claims arising out
of Mr. Woody's exposure to asbestos before the signing of the
release; this includes conditions, including mesothelioma,
discovered after the signing of the release that resulted from
pre-release asbestos exposure.

The 1980 release did not, however, bar any claims related to
asbestos exposure that occurred after the signing of the
release.

The Appeals Court has concluded that, except as to any claims
arising from post-release asbestos exposure, the trial court
erred in denying the motions for summary judgment.

Dwight E. Tarwater, Thomas A. Bickers, John W. Elder, and Joshua
R. Walker, Knoxville, Tenn., represented Bayer CropScience,
Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, General Electric Company,
Georgia-Pacific LLC, Industrial Holdings Corporation, and Union
Carbide Corporation.

Michael J. King and M. Denise Moretz, Knoxville, Tenn.,
represented National Service Industries, Inc., Mobil
Corporation, and CBS Corporation.

Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn.; John E. "Rett"
Guerry, III, and Robert J. Klug, Sr., Mt. Pleasant, S.C.,
represented Rebecca Woody.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court to Issue Ruling on Sommer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, is to
issue an order on Debtors Gary W. Sommer and Deborah L. Sommer's
bankruptcy action, which involves asbestos.

The case is styled In re Gary W. Sommer and Deborah L. Sommer,
Debtors.

Bankruptcy Judge Russ Kending entered judgment of Case No. 05-
67284 on March 14, 2008.

The Sommers filed a joint Chapter 7 petition on Oct. 10, 2005.
Prior to the filing, Mr. Sommer had been diagnosed with lung
cancer. The Sommers received a discharge on Jan. 25, 2006. On  
Aug. 3, 2006, Mr. Sommer passed away, presumably as a result of
asbestos- related lung cancer.

Following Mr. Sommer's death, a probate case was opened. The
probate estate initiated a personal injury and wrongful death
suit and filed claims with multiple asbestos manufacturers.

At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the actions and claims had
not been filed and thus were not included in the Sommers'
schedule of personal property, nor were any exemptions claimed.

One of the asbestos claims was filed against the Manville
Bankruptcy Trust. Manville offered to settle for US$2,000.

According to chapter 7 trustee Anthony J. DeGirolamo, after the
deduction of attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and fiduciary
fees, US$982.02 remains for the estate, payable in a one-time
lump sum payment.

Mr. DeGirolamo sought Court approval of the proposed settlement
and Mrs. Sommer objected.

In this case, Mr. Sommer's asbestos exposure, leading to his
development of lung cancer, was the prepetition providing the
foundation for the wrongful death claim. As a result, the
proceeds of the wrongful death claim were property of the
estate. However, wrongful death proceeds may be exemptible under
Ohio law.

If the proceeds are exempt, Trustee's motion to compromise the
claim is not well-taken.

The Court provided the parties with additional time for further
review of this issue. An order shall be issued immediately.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Exited Bankruptcy Last Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. and its 14 U.S. Subsidiaries, on Feb. 28, 2008,
consummated its reorganization under chapter 11 of title 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, according to a Company report, on Form
8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 5, 2008.

The reorganization was consummated through a series of
transactions contemplated by the Debtors' Fifth Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization, which was confirmed by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov.
29, 2007, and the Plan became effective.

In accordance with the Plan, Monsanto Company, the Company and
SFC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a subsidiary
of the Company (Funding Co.), entered into the an Amended and
Restated Monsanto Settlement Agreement (Monsanto Settlement
Agreement), and the Company also entered into an indemnification
agreement with Pharmacia Corporation (Pharmacia Indemnity
Agreement).

Under the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, Monsanto has agreed, as
between Solutia and itself, to assume financial responsibility
for all litigation relating to property damage, personal injury,
products liability or premises liability or other damages
related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and
other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off.

Monsanto's funding of the environmental remediation activities
and the resulting claim against Solutia, which Monsanto has
asserted, inclusive of the non-qualified, unliquidated and
contingent components of their claim, are being resolved through
the Plan.

Solutia will remain responsible for the environmental
liabilities at sites that it owned or operated after its spin-
off from Pharmacia on Sept. 1, 1997.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Has $1.39B Claims Reserves at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited's provision for asbestos
claims and allocated loss adjustment expenses was a gross of
US$1.386 billion (a net of US$755.9 million) at Dec. 31, 2007,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2006, the Company's provision for asbestos claims
and ALAE was a gross of US$1.443 billion (a net of US$756.2
million).

The Company is aware of 24 mesothelioma trials concluded in the
U.S. in 2007: (a) 14 plaintiffs' verdicts (58 percent), (b)
seven defense verdicts (29 percent), and (c) three hung
juries/mistrials (13 percent).

The range of plaintiffs' verdicts was US$700,000 to US$35
million and the average was US$9.9 million.

California continues to be the most active and challenging venue
for defendants. Seventeen out of the 24 known mesothelioma
trials in 2007 occurred in California.

The Company's other U.S.-based insurers have asbestos exposure
related mostly to less prominent or "peripheral" defendants,
including a mix of manufacturers, distributors, and installers
of asbestos-containing products, as well as premises owners.

Toronto, Canada-based Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited is a
financial services holding company whose corporate objective is
to build long term shareholder value by achieving a high rate of
compound growth in mark-to-market book value per share over the
long term. The Company has been under present management since
September 1985.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Int'l. Subject to Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is subject to claims related
to illnesses alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure
from component parts found in older vehicles, although some
claims relate to the alleged presence of asbestos in the
Company's facilities.
  
The asbestos related cases are subject to a variety of factors
in that other vehicle manufacturers and various component
suppliers are also named defendants.

Historically, the Company's actual damages paid out to claimants
have not been material.


Company Profile:

   Navistar International Corporation
   4201 Winfield Rd.
   Warrenville, Ill. 60555
   United States

Navistar International Corporation is an international
manufacturer of class 4 through 8 trucks and buses and diesel
engines, and a provider of proprietary and aftermarket parts for
all-makes of trucks and trailers. The Company operates in four
industry segments: Truck, Engine, Parts, and Financial Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Quaker Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive Quaker Chemical Corporation subsidiary, which was
acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos,
is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due
to asbestos exposure.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received in late 2005, late 2006 and in the second
quarter of 2007.

To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been
disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse
judgments against the subsidiary. It is projected that the
subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these
claims is about US$13,800,000 (excluding costs of defense).

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has
challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being
brought against the subsidiary.

In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the first
quarter of 2007 for US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007.

During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the
remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on
behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily
injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may
choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding
the application of the policy limits.

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation develops,
produces, and markets formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Cases Still Ongoing v. Joy Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most
prevalent of which relate to product liability (including
asbestos-related and silicosis liability), employment and
commercial matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 7, 2008.

Milwaukee-based Joy Global Inc. is a manufacturer and servicer
of high productivity mining equipment for the extraction of coal
and other minerals and ores. Its equipment is used in major
mining regions throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron
ore, oil sands and other minerals. The Company operates in two
business segments: underground mining machinery (Joy Mining
Machinery) and surface mining equipment (P&H Mining Equipment).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Actions Ongoing v. Allis-Chalmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since its reorganization under the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws
in 1988, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. has been named in products
liability lawsuits primarily resulting from the manufacture of
products containing asbestos.

In connection with the Company's bankruptcy, a special products
liability trust was established and funded to address products
liability claims.

The Company said it believes that claims against it are barred
by applicable bankruptcy law, and that the products liability
trust will continue to be responsible for products liability
claims.

Since 1988, no court has ruled that the Company is responsible
for products liability claims. The Company has not manufactured
products containing asbestos since its reorganization in 1988.

Houston-based Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. provides services and
equipment to oil and natural gas exploration and production
companies throughout the United States and internationally,
primarily in Argentina and Mexico. The Company operates in six
sectors: Rental Services; International Drilling; Directional
Drilling; Tubular Services; Underbalanced Drilling and
Production Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, Units Still Face Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gorman-Rupp Company and three of its subsidiaries,
particularly Patterson Pump Company, continue to face asbestos-
related litigation, typically as one of hundreds of co-
defendants in a particular proceeding.

Numerous business entities in the pump and fluid-handling
industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other
industries, continue to be targeted in a series of lawsuits in
several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to
claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of
asbestos in their products.

The allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and its
subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases
have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery.

In certain situations, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
the Company and its subsidiaries from some of the lawsuits after
the plaintiffs have acknowledged that there is no basis for
their claims. In other situations, the Company and its
subsidiaries have been dismissed from some of the lawsuits as a
result of court rulings in favor of motions to dismiss and
motions for summary judgment.

In 11 cases, the Company and its subsidiaries have entered into
nominal economic settlements recommended and paid for by
insurers, coupled with dismissal of the lawsuits.

Insurers of the Company have engaged legal counsel to represent
the Company and its subsidiaries and to protect their interests.

Based in Mansfield, Ohio, The Gorman-Rupp Company designs,
manufactures and sells pumps and related equipment (pump and
motor controls) for use in water, wastewater, construction,
industrial, petroleum, original equipment, agriculture, fire
protection, heating, ventilating and air conditioning (“HVAC”),
military and other liquid-handling applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Leslie Unit Has 707 Cases at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. states that, as of Dec. 31, 2007, its
subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. was a named defendant in about
707 active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 27
other states (excluding Mississippi).

Leslie, which the Company acquired in 1989, has been and
continues to be named as a defendant in product liability
actions brought on behalf of individuals who seek compensation
for their alleged exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In some
instances, the Company also have been named individually and as
alleged successor in interest in these cases.

Of these claims, about 338 involve claimants allegedly suffering
from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died from)
mesothelioma. In addition, Leslie was also a named defendant in
about 5,200 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi.

During the Company's 2007 fiscal year, Leslie resolved a total
of 267 asbestos cases for an aggregate indemnity amount of
US$4.3 million, of which 71 percent or US$3.1 million was paid
by insurance.

In two cases in which Leslie has received an adverse verdict,
Leslie has accrued US$3.8 million for such claims at the time
the adverse verdict was rendered. Leslie also recorded an
insurance receivable of US$2.7 million to be paid by its
insurers for these adverse verdicts.

In both cases, Leslie has appealed the judgment rendered against
it and Leslie is not at this time able to determine when or if
those accrued amounts ultimately will be paid or not.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, Leslie recorded an additional
liability of US$9 million for the estimated indemnity cost
associated with resolution of its current open claims.

Leslie expects that payment of the amounts accrued with respect
to the open claims will be made by Leslie and its insurers over
the next three years. The recording of this liability resulted
in a pretax charge of US$2.6 million, net of insurance
recoveries.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, Leslie's existing claim indemnity liability
was US$13,731,000, its incurred defense cost liability was
US$3,028,000, and its insurance recoveries were US$11,899,000.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, Leslie's incurred defense cost liability
was US$1,026,000.

Smaller numbers of asbestos-related claims have also been filed
against two of the Company's other subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering the stock of which it acquired in 1984; and Hoke,
the stock of which it acquired in 1998.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. makes
instrumentation and fluid regulation products, including
precision valves, tube and pipe fittings, and regulators for
hydraulic, pneumatic, cryogenic, and steam systems. The
Company's remaining sales come from making valves and other
products for the oil and gas industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,335 Claims at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation recorded 8,335 open asbestos-
related claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
9,442 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 March 10, 2008.

The Company paid US$19,736,000 for gross settlement and defense
costs for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$11,681,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company resolved 2,638 claims for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, compared with 8,866 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Asbestos-related claims against the Company dropped to 8,274
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, from 9,887 claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries
(Asbestos Liability) and of an inactive subsidiary and another
former division of the Company.

Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are
defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in
cases filed in various state and federal courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending
claims for Asbestos Liability.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, one Paying Insurer responsible
for two years of primary coverage informed the Company that its
policies had exhausted. Another Paying Insurer responsible for
about two and a half years of primary coverage informed the
Company that two of its policies would likely exhaust in the
first quarter of 2008.

In addition, the Paying Insurer responsible for some umbrella
insurance coverage also informed the Company that about one half
of its umbrella insurance coverage had exhausted at the end of
the year. As a result, the Company will bear a portion of the
defense and indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden
Buffalo, Inc., is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability, for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company (Products).

The Company recorded reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of US$140
million, of which about 60 percent was attributable to
settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to
be filed through 2013. The reserve at Dec. 31, 2007 was US$119.7
million.

The Company recorded a receivable as at Dec. 31, 2006 of
US$114.5 million (US$94.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007) for
insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the
Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units,
manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls
unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is
headquartered in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Liability Totals $99.72M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos-related
liability was US$99,723,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$128,015,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$20 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$84,548,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$102,848,000 as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The current asbestos insurance receivable was US$10 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$11.7 million as of Dec. 31,
2006.

Deferred income tax assets for asbestos-related liability were
US$9,871,000 in 2007, compared with US$9,579,000 in 2006.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units,
manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls
unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is
headquartered in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FutureFuel Chemical May Face Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, and
its operations may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits,
claims, investigations and proceedings, including asbestos.

FutureFuel Chemical may also be party to actions on product
liability, personal injury, patent and intellectual property,
commercial, contract, environmental, antitrust, health and
safety, and employment matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 11, 2008.


Company Profile:

   FutureFuel Corp.
   8235 Forsyth Boulevard, 4th Floor
   Clayton, Mo. 63105
   Tel: 805.565.9800
   http://www.futurefuelcorporation.com/

FutureFuel Corp. develops, manufactures, and markets products
for two business units: Biofuels and Specialty Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PMA Capital Has $25.7M Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos-related
losses for its continuing operations were US$25.7 million at
Dec. 31, 2007, US$17.3 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$22.3
million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The Company's net reserves for asbestos-related losses for its
continuing operations were US$10.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007,
US$9.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006, and US$12.6 million at Dec. 31,
2005.

Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$2.2 million at Dec. 31,
2007 (US$$6.6 million at Dec. 31, 2006) related to incurred but
not reported losses.

The discontinued operations' gross reserves for asbestos-related
losses were US$7.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$5.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2006, and US$4.6 million at Dec. 31, 2005.

The discontinued operations' net reserves for asbestos-related
losses were US$1.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007, US$825,000 at
Dec. 31, 2006, and US$560,000 at Dec. 31, 2005.

Of the net asbestos reserves, about US$350,000 at Dec. 31, 2007
(US$38,000 at Dec. 31, 2006) related to IBNR losses.

Blue Bell, Pa.-based PMA Capital Corporation is a holding
company whose operating subsidiaries provide insurance and fee-
based services. The Company's insurance products include
workers' compensation and other commercial property and casualty
lines of insurance, which are marketed primarily in the eastern
part of the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Has $22.6M Liability at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
were US$22,651,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$20,828,000
at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2008.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability amounted to
US$22,682,000 at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9,
2007)

The Company's deferred tax assets for accrued asbestos
liabilities were US$9,501,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$8,691,000 at Dec. 31, 2006.

Earnings (loss) from discontinued operation, net of tax,
reflects legal expenses associated with the Company's asbestos-
related liability and adjustments thereto based on the
information contained in an August 2007 actuarial study and all
other available information considered by the Company.

The Company recorded US$3.2 million as a loss, net of tax, from
discontinued operation for 2007, compared with US$200,000 as
income, net of tax, from discontinued operation for 2006.

The loss for 2007 reflects a US$2.8 million pre-tax adjustment
to increase the Company's indemnity liability in line with the
August 2007 actuarial study, as well as legal fees incurred in
litigation, whereas the income for 2006 reflects a US$3.4
million pre-tax adjustment to reduce the Company's indemnity
liability in line with the August 2006 actuarial study,
partially offset by legal fees incurred in litigation in 2006.

Long Island, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is a
manufacturer, distributor and marketer of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with an
increasing focus on the original equipment and original
equipment service markets. The Company is divided into two
segments: Temperature Control and Engine Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Faces 3,430 Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2007, faces 3,430
asbestos-related cases, for which it was held responsible for
any liabilities, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2008.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company faced about 3,430 asbestos-
related cases, compared with about 3,270 cases at Dec. 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When the Company originally acquired
this brake business, it assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend
upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1,
2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof.

Since inception in September 2001 through Dec. 31, 2007, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6.1 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims. The Company has submitted various
asbestos-related claims to the insurance carrier for coverage
under this agreement.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2007. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from
US$23.8 million to US$55.2 million for the period through 2050.
The change from the prior year study was a US$1.7 million
increase for the low end of the range and a US$1.3 million
increase for the high end of the range.

An incremental US$2.8 million provision in the Company's
discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual
increasing the reserve to about US$23.8 million.

In the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as
incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from US$18.7 million to US$32.6 million
during the same period.

Long Island, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is a
manufacturer, distributor and marketer of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with an
increasing focus on the original equipment and original
equipment service markets. The Company is divided into two
segments: Temperature Control and Engine Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVR Funding Faces Claims from Predecessors
---------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc., from time to time, is named as a defendant in
cases as a result of its distribution of laboratory supplies,
including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its
predecessors or acquired companies.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008.


Company Profile:

   VWR Funding, Inc.
   1310 Goshen Parkway
   PO. Box 2656
   West Chester, Pa.
   Tel: (610) 431-1700

VWR Funding, Inc. provides distribution services by offering
products to manufacturers to a large number of customers.
Products the Company distributes include chemicals, glassware,
equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies
and other assorted laboratory products. The Company maintains
operations in more than 20 countries and process in excess of
50,000 order lines daily from 21 strategically located
distribution centers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Commission's Ruling Upheld in Jones Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the Industrial
Commission's Feb. 2, 2007 ruling, which denied James Earnest
Jones, Sr. workers' compensation benefits for temporary total
disability due to asbestosis and pleural plaques.

The case is styled James Earnest Jones, Sr., Employee,
Plaintiff, v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Employer, and
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Carrier, Defendants.

Judges Stroud, Tyson, and Jackson entered judgment of Case No.
COA07-479 on March 18, 2008.

Mr. Jones started working for E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
at the Company's Brevard, N.C., facility on Feb. 3, 1958. He was
significantly exposed to asbestos in 1969 and occasionally
exposed to asbestos at other times. In 1980, he began to be
examined and x-rayed as part of a broad plan by DuPont to
monitor possible development of asbestosis in its employees.

Mr. Jones was still working at the DuPont facility in January
1987, when he suffered a heart attack and underwent quintuple
cardiac bypass surgery. He returned to work in May 1987, working
half days. After his return to work he experienced shortness of
breath which inhibited his ability to walk and climb steps. His
shortness of breath was attributed to his heart condition.

Mr. Jones subsequently retired in October 1987. In 1991, he was
found by the Social Security Administration to be disabled due
to his heart condition.

Subsequent to his retirement, Mr. Jones continued to be
monitored by DuPont for asbestosis. After an "abnormal x-ray,"
he was sent on Nov. 8, 2001 to Dr. Prechter, a pulmonologist, by
DuPont. Dr. Prechter opined that Mr. Jones' breathing problems
were minimally related to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Jones was seen by Dr. Schwartz, a pulmonologist, on Aug. 23,
2002. Dr. Schwartz diagnosed Mr. Jones "asbestosis and asbestos-
induced pleural fibrosis" which caused restrictive lung
function.

In 2004, Mr. Jones was examined by Dr. Domby, also a
pulmonologist, who concluded that Mr. Jones' December 2003 CT
scan did show "significant amounts of asbestosis."

On Nov. 12, 2002, Mr. Jones filed Form 18B with the Industrial
Commission, seeking benefits for an occupational disease
resulting from exposure to asbestos. Defendants denied that Mr.
Jones was entitled to benefits, contending that he did
not have a compensable occupational disease.

The claim was initially heard before Deputy Commissioner Morgan
S. Chapman on Dec. 1, 2004.

By an Opinion and Award filed on July 29, 2005 (2005 Opinion and
Award), Mr. Chapman concluded that Mr. Jones had "not proven
temporary total disability" and that portion of the claim was
therefore denied. However, Mr. Chapman added that Mr. Jones was
entitled to US$40,000 and medical compensation for "permanent
organ damage" to his lungs.

Mr. Jones appealed the 2005 Opinion and Award to the Full
Commission. The Full Commission reviewed Mr. Jones' claim on
Jan. 12, 2006.

In its Opinion and Award filed Feb. 2, 2007 (2007 Opinion and
Award), the Commission reached the same conclusions as the 2005
Opinion and Award.

Mr. Jones filed notice of appeal to the Appeals Court from the
2007 Opinion and Award.

The Appeals Court concluded that the findings of the Industrial
Commission were supported by competent evidence in the record,
and its conclusions of law were supported by its findings of
fact.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court affirmed the Feb. 2, 2007 Opinion
and Award of the Industrial Commission.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, represented James
Earnest Jones, Sr.

Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, by John D. Elvers and Sarah C. Blair,
represented E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company and Lumbermens
Mutual Casualty Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Consolidates Dana Bankruptcy Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation states that Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York orders the
consolidation of the appeals filed by the Ad Hoc Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Jose Angel Valdez.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 73; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKinley, Everest Oppose Motions in Asarco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company
oppose any procedure by which Asarco Incorporated's objections   
to asbestos-related claims would be filed under seal because
there is no basis or common law to justify sealing the claims
objections or the publicly filed proofs of claim.

Tony L. Draper, at McClain & Patchin, P.C., in Houston, asserts
that permitting Asarco Inc. to file objections under seal would
run contrary to the strong public policy and common law
presumption that all papers filed in a bankruptcy case are
public records open to examination by any entity.

In addition, Mr. Draper contends, the merits and viability of
the asbestos-related claims promise to be significant issues for
confirmation. Assuming the Debtors follow form with all other
asbestos-related bankruptcy cases, the Debtors' plan of
reorganization is expected to include a channeling injunction
under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code for all present and
future asbestos claims, which claims will be addressed by a
trust through trust distribution procedures as contemplated by
Section 524(g)(2)(B)(ii)(V).

Mr. Draper tells the Court that Mt. McKinley and Everest have a
keen interest in the asbestos issue because it is typically the
insurers who are looked to for payment of asbestos claims
channeled to a Section 524(g) trust.

To the extent Asarco Inc. is concerned about disclosure of
Social Security Numbers, Mt. McKinley and Everest do not oppose
to redacting those information to protect the claimants.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Orders NJDEP to Drop Grace Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith Fitzgerald, on April 1, 2008, ordered the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to drop a lawsuit
filed against W.R. Grace & Co., The Associated Press reports.

Judge Fitzgerald barred NJDEP from imposing a US$800 million
fine against Grace for allegedly lying about asbestos
contamination in the state.

The lawsuit said Grace lied to the state about asbestos dangers
at a Hamilton, N.J., plant where it processed vermiculite for
more than 40 years. The vermiculite, from a mine in Libby,
Mont., was found to have contained asbestos.

When Grace closed the Hamilton plant in 1994, it submitted an
environmental report to the NJDEP that said the vermiculite
Grace processed did not contain harmful levels of asbestos,
leading the state to conclude there was no need to test the soil
or clean up the site.

In 2000, however, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found
high concentrations of asbestos.

Grace filed for Chapter 11 protection April 2, 2001. Judge
Fitzgerald said New Jersey's state court lawsuit against the
company ran afoul of the shield that protects bankrupt companies
from legal actions.

New Jersey said its moves against Grace were exempt from the
Chapter 11 shield as an exercise of its police or regulatory
power.

State regulators said they acted to protect the public health
and safety from a company that allegedly filed false reports
about the extent of asbestos contamination at a site in New
Jersey.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Supervisor Pleads Guilty to CAA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland local Charles Victoria, on March 31, 2008, pleaded
guilty to conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act over
the removal of asbestos from the former Woodville State Hospital
in Collier, Allegany County, Md., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reports.

The 49-year-old Mr. Victoria, of Parkville, Md., entered the
plea before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster in federal
court in Pittsburgh.

Mr. Victoria supervised the removal of asbestos from the
hospital after it was decommissioned in 1998. However, numerous
inspections by the Allegheny County Health Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency found failure to properly
contain the asbestos and to dispose it.

EPA inspectors found that insulation containing asbestos fell
into a ravine and was allowed to sit on the ground for nearly a
year. Some of the asbestos eventually reached a creek in the
ravine.

Mr. Victoria's employer, Independent Enterprises and Industrial-
Commercial Consulting International, pleaded guilty to a similar
charge in August 2006 and was sentenced to three years probation
and a US$300,000 fine.

Mr. Victoria faces penalties of five years in prison, a fine of
US$250,000 or both. Sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. 45 Firms in Ill. on March 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Geraldine James, on March 26, 2008, filed an
asbestos lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., against
45 defendant corporations, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Defendants include Bondex International, Inc.; Garlock; Georgia-
Pacific Corporation, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc.;
Pneumo Abex; RPM International, Inc.; RPM Inc.; and Young
Insulation Group.

According to the complaint, Ms. James was employed from 1973 to
1997 as a secretary and school monitor at various locations
throughout Illinois.

Ms. James' estate claims that during the course of her
employment and during home and automotive repairs she was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers emanating from certain products she was working with and
around.

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

According to Ms. James' estate, she first became aware that she
suffered from mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2007. Her estate alleges
that the defendants included asbestos in their products even
when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide
any or adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of
working with and around asbestos.

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

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

The estate seeks at least US$300,000 in damages for negligence
and willful and wanton conduct.

Ms. James' estate is represented by John Barnerd, Christopher
Guinn and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.

Case No. 08 L 253 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 More Exposure Cases Linked to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ward office in Ota, Tokyo, on March 29, 2008, stated that 45
people more have been confirmed with health problems after
exposure to asbestos from a former factory site, The Yomiuri
Shimbun reports.

The victims are all aged between 50 and 90 and have lived near
the former Omori factory of asbestos-related products
manufacturer Miyadera Insulation Corp., which is based in
Shinagawa Ward, Tokyo.

According to the ward office, one man in his 70s died in October
2007 of pericardial mesothelioma and seven other people
developed health problems after inhaling asbestos.

At least 10 people in the ward are believed to have been
affected by airborne asbestos, but none of them came down with
symptoms of asbestos-related conditions like pericardial
mesothelioma.

Asbestos-related health problems were detected in ward residents
who live near the site, with one person dying and eight others
being diagnosed with pleural effusion, also called water on the
chest.

This led the ward office to give free medical examinations to
916 residents and former residents who lived within one
kilometer of the site.

Three of the 45 newly found cases of health problems involved
former employees of the factory and 29 were family members and
associates of employees. A further three used to play on the
site as children, while 10 said they had never entered the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't. Study Finds No Health Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Despite having tested for only one of the six types of asbestos,
Japan's Environment Ministry, asserts that its nationwide
examination of airborne asbestos levels had found no risk to
human health, The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

Blue asbestos (crocidolite) and brown asbestos (amosite) are
often used to manufacture partition walls in buildings and as
material in vaulted ceilings, but they were not subject to the
tests.

The ministry began the examination after residents living near
Kubota Corp.'s former factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture,
were found to have suffered from health problems in 2005.

In fiscal 2005, the ministry examined 361 locations across the
country, including the area near the demolished factory, and 169
locations in fiscal 2006. It said none of the locations
contained asbestos levels that posed a health risk.

The examinations were conducted based on the Asbestos Monitoring
Manual drawn up by the ministry.

The ministry uses the Air Pollution Control Law as its standard,
which requires the air around factories to contain fewer than 10
asbestos fibers per liter of air. This method for verifying
whether air can be called clean was adopted in 1985 specifically
to examine asbestos concentrations in the air around factories.

In November 2006, samples taken near a demolition site in
Yamaguchi were cleared of posing a health risk by the ministry,
but were later found by another panel to contain 56 fibers of
blue asbestos--five times the acceptable level. The carcinogenic
properties of blue asbestos are stronger than those of white
asbestos.

Hiroshi Kosaka, a former researcher at the Hyogo Prefectural
Institute of Public and Environmental Sciences who is a member
of the ministry's panel, said a different method was used the
second time.

The ministry maintains that the six types of asbestos should be
examined, but that the accuracy of methods used to examine all
types of asbestos has yet to be proved.

However, such methods have already been put into practical use
in Britain and the United States.

Mr. Kosaka said just examining asbestos concentrations in the
air in areas around factories to draw conclusions about air
quality generally is problematic.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs $11M Award in Garza Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California, on
March 28, 2008, upheld an award of more than US$11 million to a
former Bay Area couple, Joseph and Mary Garza, for asbestosis
Mr. Garza suffered after being exposed to asbestos in Navy
shipyards in the 1940s and 1950s, San Francisco Chronicle
reports.

Now Colorado residents, the Garzas filed the suit against
Asbestos Corp. Ltd. in 2005 after Mr. Garza was diagnosed with
asbestosis.

The 77-year-old Mr. Garza testified he needs an oxygen unit to
breathe, can walk only half a block, and is losing his ability
to care for his wife, who is almost completely dependent on him
because of her own health problems.

Mr. Garza joined the Navy at the age of 17 and worked for more
than a decade on ships at the Hunters Point shipyard in San
Francisco and elsewhere, using asbestos products to repair
boilers without any warnings or protective gear, the court said,
quoting trial testimony.

Mr. Garza was also exposed to asbestos insulation in later jobs,
but a San Francisco jury assigned 75 percent of the
responsibility for his illness to Asbestos Corp., which made the
sealant used by the Navy, the court said.

In a July 2006 verdict, the jury awarded more than US$1.1
million to Mr. Garza for medical costs and emotional distress,
US$400,000 to Mrs. Garza for loss of her husband's care and
attention, and US$10 million in punitive damages against
Asbestos Corp.

Citing testimony that Asbestos Corp. had been aware of asbestos'
dangers since the 1940s but sold it without warning labels until
1970, the three-judge panel said the company "intentionally
marketed a defective product knowing that it might cause injury
and death."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court to Choose Hardie Case Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Supreme Court is in the process of selecting
a judge to hear a lawsuit, against 10 former James Hardie
Industries N.V. Directors and executives, which is due to start
in September 2008, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

On March 28, 2008, the Supreme Court heard that the prospect of
prominent Sydney lawyers being called as witnesses could
influence the choice of a judge to hear the case against Hardie.

Justice Ian Gzell topped the list of potential judges "because
of his computer skills and his commercial expertise," the chief
judge in equity, Justice Peter Young, said.

However, another factor was whether any party would ask for the
trial judge to be disqualified on the grounds of being "well
acquainted" with lawyers listed to give evidence in the case,
which relates to Hardie's now notorious mishandling of asbestos
compensation in 2001.

Justice Gzell, a tax specialist, spent two-thirds of his career
at the Queensland bar but has worked in Sydney since 1991.

Steven Finch, SC, representing Hardie's former chief executive
Peter Macdonald, said his client did not object to Justice Gzell
hearing the case "despite the fact that he undoubtedly knows
some of the practitioners very well."

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's
barrister, Robert Beech-Jones, SC, said the regulator knew of no
reason why Justice Gzell should not hear the case.

The only potential problem Justice Young identified for Justice
Gzell was that "I strongly suspect he knew Sir Llew Edwards"
from his time in Brisbane.

Sir Llew, a former deputy premier of Queensland, is expected to
be called as a witness because he was a Hardie director until
February 2001, when he became chairman of the Medical Research
and Compensation Foundation set up by Hardie to handle personal
injury claims relating to asbestos exposure.

Hardie's underfunding of the foundation, while assuring the
sharemarket that it was "fully funded" and telling the court
that the Company's October 2001 move to the Netherlands "will
not affect the position regarding asbestos claims," is at the
heart of the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Probing Disposal at Dublin Integrated
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Australia's Environmental Protection Authority is
investigating the disposal of uncovered asbestos at the Dublin
Integrated Waste Service dump in mid-north South Australia, ABC
News reports.

Local residents are concerned the elevated site could pose a
risk of asbestos dust being blown across the community and
threatening the health of dump employees, locals and motorists
on the highway.

EPA waste resources manager Steve Sergi says asbestos should be
wrapped in heavy duty plastic when dumped.

Mr. Sergi said, "The EPA is concerned about that. What we're
looking for is that if the asbestos has been suitably packaged
at the site that it's removed from - when it's taken to a
landfill to be disposed of we want it to remain within that
packaging."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Africa Announces Total Asbestos Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van
Schalkwyk, on April 1, 2008, announced the total ban on the use,
processing or manufacture of products containing asbestos, The
Herald reports.

However, the regulations will not prohibit the continued use of
asbestos-containing materials, like asbestos-cement roof sheets
or ceilings, already in place as the department "is satisfied
that there is no undue risk to the occupants of houses that are
fitted with these materials, but should over time be replaced
with asbestos-free materials."

Mr. Van Schalkwyk said that exposure to asbestos in the
workplace – including, mining, industrial, commercial, retail
and public workplaces, including maintenance of building
materials – was still controlled by the Asbestos Regulations
2001 published by the labor department.

These require employers to draw up a register of all asbestos-
containing materials, conducts a risk assessment, educate and
inform employees, protect employees from exposure to asbestos
and conduct regular dust and health surveillance.

The regulations will prohibit any asbestos or asbestos-
containing product unless it can be proven that no suitable
alternative exists, in which case a phase-out plan may be
approved.

Mr. Van Schalkwyk said a period of 120 days will be allowed to
allow merchants dealing in asbestos or asbestos-containing
materials to clear their stocks.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe Finds Fraud Evidence in Tersigni Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a report filed on March 26, 2008 with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Bridgeport, Conn., a probe on L. Tersigni Consulting
has found evidence that the firm's now-deceased founder
defrauded companies out of millions of dollars through
overbilling, Associated Press reports.

The investigator, Hugh Ray of the Andrews Kurth law firm in New
York said overbilling by Loreto Tersigni caused "significant
financial damage" to companies that were in bankruptcy because
of asbestos-related liabilities. The companies included Federal
Mogul Corp. and W.R. Grace & Co.

Mr. Ray said the Tersigni firm's bills were padded by as much as
23 percent between 2002 and March 2007. He estimated companies
could have overpaid between US$5.5 million and US$10.3 million.

Mr. Ray said in the report, "These actions injured creditors by
harming the ability of the company to continue its operations,
thereby resulting in a complete liquidation and further loss."

Anthony Tersigni, a lawyer who represents Loreto Tersigni's
estate and his wife, Nancy, on March 27, 2008, denied that
Loreto Tersigni defrauded the companies. Anthony Tersigni's firm
also represented L. Tersigni before it filed for bankruptcy in
November 2007.

The Tersigni firm was an adviser to creditors who were pressing
claims against bankrupt companies for asbestos-related injuries.
Although the firm worked for the creditors, the companies were
paying the bills.

The firm, founded in 2001, earned US$45 million in gross revenue
over its six-year lifespan, according to the report.

During that time, Loreto Tersigni pocketed about 65 percent of
that money, or nearly US$30 million, as salary, 401(k)
contributions and year-end profit distributions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welder's Son Sues 25 Firms in W.Va. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennings Bartlett, of Barbour County, W.Va., and his wife,
Beulah, on Feb. 20, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 25 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Bartlett claims he was exposed to asbestos as a child, when
his father came home from work with the dusts on his clothing.
One of the defendants is United States Steel Corporation, where
his father worked.

According to the suit, Mr. Bartlett was exposed to asbestos as a
child. The suit says his father worked as a welder at U.S.
Steel. Mr. Bartlett claims his father carried the asbestos home
on his clothing and his person.

In addition to his childhood exposure, Mr. Bartlett worked at
various automobile dealerships, garages and other similar
locations, performing mechanical repair work.

Due to his repeated asbestos exposure, Mr. Bartlett now has
asbestosis and mesothelioma.

In the 12-count suit, Mr. Bartlett specifically claims Unarco
Industries, Inc.; Johns Manville Corporation, Raybestos,
Manhattan, H.K. Porter, American Asbestos Textile Corp., Asten
Hill Manufacturing Co., and Pneumo Abex Corporation, Friction
Products Division and its predecessors, including American Brake
Block, were part of a conspiracy to suppress the harmful effects
of asbestos.

Mrs. Bartlett claims she suffered loss of general services,
companionship and society of her husband. Together, the
Bartletts' seek compensatory and punitive damages for their
injuries.

Attorney David P. Chervenick represents the Barletts. The case
will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Carpenter's Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 69-year-old carpenter Robert
Leslie Burgess was linked to asbestos, Bucks Free Press reports.

Mr. Burgess, of Sawpit Hill, Hazlemere, England, died on Jan. 3,
2008 from mesothelioma.

The inquest heard that Mr. Burgess had been exposed to asbestos
on a number of occasions throughout his career in the building
trade, when the material was still thought to be safe.

Mr. Burgess, who left widow Margaret, sons Desmond and Darren,
and daughter Deana, had worked as a carpenter since his
apprenticeship in 1953. The inquest heard that he had worked for
several different employers throughout his career.

Mr. Burgess would often use hand tools, such as saws and drills,
on materials containing asbestos before the dangers of the
material were known. This meant he would frequently be exposed
to the dangerous particles of dust.

Coroner Richard Hulett recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease. He said, "There is an abundance of evidence that he was
associated with asbestos. This enables me to record it as an
industrial disease rather than an open verdict."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong's Cash Flow Rises Due to Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., in a press release dated
Feb. 29, 2008, recorded an increase in free cash flow, from
US$247 million in the fourth quarter of 2007 to US$85 million in
2006, primarily due to about US$180 million in refunds of
federal income taxes paid over the preceding 10 years.

The refunds result from the carry back of a portion of tax net
operating losses created by funding of the Asbestos Trust under
AWI's Plan of Reorganization in October 2006.

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: Maricopa Defendants Cleared in Covell Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Arizona, cleared the Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office and Maricopa County, in a pro se action
involving asbestos filed by Frederick W. Covell.

However, another defendant, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M.
Arpaio, must answer Mr. Covell's Second Amended Complaint.

The case is styled Frederick W. Covell, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, et al., Defendants.

District Judge David G. Campbell entered judgment of Case No. CV
07-2213-PHX-DGC (DKD) on March 14, 2008.

On Nov. 14, 2007, Mr. Covell, who is confined in the Maricopa
County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se civil rights
Complaint. In a Nov. 30, 2007 Order, the Court dismissed the
Complaint because Mr. Covell had failed to state a claim.

On Dec. 31, 2007, Mr. Covell filed a First Amended Complaint. In
a Jan. 18, 2008 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended
Complaint because Mr. Covell had failed to allege a proper
jurisdictional basis for the First Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 27, 2008, Mr. Covell filed a Second Amended Complaint.
In his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Covell sued Mr. Arpaio, the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and Maricopa County.

In Count One, Mr. Covell alleged a violation of his due process
rights because Mr. Arpaio, who forms Jail policies, was aware of
asbestos and lead contaminants in the Jails, and, with
deliberate indifference to Mr. Covell's health and safety,
placed Mr. Covell in contaminated living areas and did not
remove the contaminants.

In his Request for Relief, Mr. Covell sought injunctive,
declaratory, and equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive
damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Sparkses in Metalclad Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 5, California,
reversed the order of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which granted summary judgment to Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, in an asbestos case filed by Stanley Sparks and
Linda Sparks.

The case is styled Stanley Sparks and Linda Sparks, Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant
and Respondent.

Judges Needham, Simons, and Stevens entered judgment on Case No.
A117838 on March 21, 2008.

In June 2005, the Sparkses filed a lawsuit against Metalclad and
others, seeking damages for asbestos-related personal injuries
and loss of consortium. Essentially, they contended that Mr.
Sparks was exposed to asbestos-containing thermal insulation
materials supplied by Metalclad and others to the Long Beach
Naval Shipyard (LBNS), where he worked between 1964 and 1974.

Mr. Sparks was diagnosed with lung cancer in or around January
2005.

Metalclad sought summary judgment on the ground that the
Sparkses could not prove causation, because there was no
evidence that Mr. Sparks was exposed to any asbestos-containing
product for which Metalclad was responsible.

Metalclad provided to Mr. Sparks' counsel a proposed order. Mr.
Sparks' counsel approved the form of the order.

The court entered the order, which stated that Metalclad had
demonstrated there was no triable issue of material fact as to
Mr. Sparks' inability to prove causation.

The order explained that the Sparkses had failed to create a
triable issue of fact due to "insufficient competent evidence"
and advised that "Metalclad's evidentiary objections to the
declarations of Charles Ay and Kenneth Cohen are sustained."

Judgment was entered in favor of Metalclad. This appeal
followed.

The Sparkses contended that the trial court erred in sustaining
Metalclad's objections to declarations they filed in opposition
to the motion and in concluding that they failed to demonstrate
a triable issue of material fact.

The Appeals Court reversed the summary judgment order and
vacated the judgment.

Gary Lynn Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Novato, Calif., represented
Stanley Sparks and Linda Sparks.

Daniel Brent Hoye, Lisa L. Oberg, McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP,
San Francisco, represented Metalclad Insulation Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigner Loses 6th Kin Member to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raven Thundersky of Manitoba, Canada, who has been campaigning
against the federal government for using Zonolite insulation,
has lost a sixth family member, Rita Swain, to mesothelioma, The
Expositor reports.

The 50-something Ms. Swain, who was Ms. Thundersky's half-
sister, had been diagnosed with mesothelioma more than three
years ago.

Ms. Swain was exposed as a child growing up in a home with
Zonolite insulation in Berens River, Man.

Ms. ThunderSky has asbestos-related lung disease. Both of her
parents, and four of her sisters have died of asbestos-related
illnesses. Five had mesothelioma, and one had asbestosis.

Most of them were exposed at the family's home in Poplar River,
Man. Ms. Swain is the first in the family whose exposure came
from a different location.

Winnipeg NDP MP Pat Martin, who has been pushing Ottawa to help
Canadians get the product out of their homes, said on Feb. 28,
2008 he was saddened by the latest death in the ThunderSky
family.

The Canadian government had recommended that homeowners use
Zonolite, and even provided grants for its installation under
the Canadian Home Insulation Program between 1977 and 1984. An
estimated 200,000 to 300,000 homeowners took the government up
on the offer.

Canada also paid for it to be installed on First Nations and in
military housing. An estimated 300,000 homes in Canada have the
product in their attics.

Mr. Martin said the federal government has a responsibility to
help Canadians get rid of the insulation because the government
recommended its use.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chandler Steps Up Fight for Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brigitte Chandler, a solicitor for Charles, Lucas and Marshall,
in Old Town, Swindon, U.K., has been lobbying with trade unions,
MPs and charities to overturn a House of Lords ruling, which
prevents people with pleural plaques from claiming compensation,
This is Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in response to a question from
north east Labour MP Stephen Henchard, has now indicated the
Government is looking at the issue and intends to publish a
consultation document and take action.

The Government move follows a decision by the Scottish Executive
that people with pleural plaques can sue employers if they
develop the condition due to exposure to asbestos at work.

Ms. Chandler has represented dozens of people who used to work
at Swindon's railway works and she helped found the charity,
Swindon and South West Asbestos Group, which supports sufferers
and their families.

While pleural plaques do not cause symptoms, they signal the
presence of asbestos fibers that could trigger life-threatening
conditions like mesothelioma or asbestosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Launches Campaign in North West England
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive has launched, in North West
England, its latest asbestos campaign, entitled "Asbestos the
hidden killer!"

The number of asbestos related deaths in the North West is a
reflection of the region's industrial heritage, with four local
authorities included in the top 20 for male and female deaths
from the deadly disease.

Steve Coldrick, Head of HSE's Disease Reduction Programme said,
"The 'Asbestos the hidden killer!' campaign is specifically
aimed at young tradesman such as plumbers, electricians and
joiners after research highlighted that while they recognized
the dangers of asbestos, they didn't believe they were
personally at risk."

Every week 20 tradesmen die simply because they have breathed in
asbestos fibers during the course of their work.

Between 1985 and 2004, there were 3,097 asbestos related deaths
due to past exposure in the North West. In Lancashire, there
were 598 deaths.

By proportion to population, the statistics show that Barrow in
Furness (158) had the highest number of male deaths in the
country. Crewe and Nantwich (103) was in 16th place.

Blackburn with Darwen had the fifth highest number of female
deaths (28) and South Ribble had the 14 highest numbers of
female deaths (14).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant in about 122 asbestos
lawsuits as of both Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008.

The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

These lawsuits relate to the discontinued Heat Technologies
segment which was sold in March 2005 and is now classified as
discontinued operations.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies. The Company has requested that the
carriers substantiate this situation.

The Company said it believes it has additional policies
available for other years which have been ignored by the
carriers.

As of June 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about
122 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 24,
2007)

Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corporation (f/k/a Selas
Corporation of America) is an international firm engaged in the
designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing of body-
worn devices. The Company has facilities in Minnesota,
California, Maine, Singapore and Germany, and operates through
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,027 Actions Pending v. Graybar at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 3,027 individual asbestos cases and 168 asbestos class
actions, as of Dec. 31, 2007, are pending against Graybar
Electric Company, Inc.

These cases allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries
resulting from the use of or exposure to products sold by the
Company. More claims will likely be filed against the Company in
the future.

The Company's insurance carriers have historically borne all
costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are
continuing to do so.

Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to
pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued
solvency of its insurance carriers.

As of Dec. 31, 2006, the Company faced about 3,109 pending
individual cases and 188 pending class actions related to
asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2007)

St. Louis-based Graybar Electric Company, Inc. is engaged in the
distribution of electrical, telecommunications and networking
products and the provision of related supply chain management
and logistics services, primarily to construction contractors,
industrial plants, telephone companies, power utilities,
federal, state and local governments and commercial users in
North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $325T for Possible Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$325,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility, in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, that continues to be evaluated.  

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may
have to be abated in the future, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 12, 2008.

The Company had identified and established a reserve of
US$331,000 over a potential asbestos issue at the Gradall
facility, which is being evaluated. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 23, 2007)

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures,
distributes and services equipment for right-of-way maintenance
and agriculture. The Company's products include tractor-mounted
mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street
sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment,
pothole patchers, agricultural implements and related
aftermarket parts and services. The Company has 2,347 employees
and operates a total of 16 plants in North America, Europe and
Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Baldor Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baldor Electric Company continues to defend against lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
that was used in certain components of Company products many
years ago.  

Currently, there are hundreds of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other
companies. However, most of the complaints do not identify any
of the Company's products or specify which of these claimants,
if any, were exposed to asbestos attributable to the Company's
products. Past experience has shown that most of the claimants
will never identify any of the Company's products.

For those claimants who do show that they worked with the
Company's products, the Company said it believes it has
meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the lack of
asbestos in the Company's products, the integrity of its
products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on
the part of many claimants.

Fort Smith, Ark.-based Baldor Electric Company is a marketer,
designer, and manufacturer of industrial electric motors, power
transmission products, drives, and generators, currently
supplying over 9,500 customers in more than 160 industries.
Products are sold to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and
distributors serving markets in the U.S. and throughout the
world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., or its predecessor
companies, continue to face lawsuits filed by certain
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during
work at formerly owned facilities.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its
reportable business segments are Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate
Pipelines, Field Services and Other Operations. The Company is
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Still Involved In Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in
actions that allege harm caused by products the Company has
allegedly made or used, containing asbestos, silica, and vinyl
chloride monomer.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2008.

Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a
producer of thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are
used in paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for
consumer or industrial uses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind.'s Coverage Action Ongoing in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc.'s comprehensive action, which involves
asbestos, filed against insurance companies is ongoing in Texas,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008.

These insurance companies issued policies to the Company that
could potentially provide insurance for lead pigment actions and
asbestos actions asserted against the Company.

Filed in April 2006, the case is styled NL Industries, Inc. v.
American Re Insurance Company, et al. (Dallas County Court at
Law, Tex., Case No. CC-06-04523-E).

In this action, the Company asserts that defendants have
breached their contractual obligations to the Company under such
insurance policies with respect to lead pigment and asbestos
claims.

The Company seeks a declaration as to the rights and obligations
of each insurance company with respect to such claims.

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company.
The Company operates in the component products industry through
its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The
Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non-
controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 470 Injury Actions Still Pending v. NL Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries Inc. continues to face about 470 pending cases,
including asbestos, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs
and their spouses, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 12, 2008.

The Company has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in
several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the
Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and
mixed dust.

In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have
been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts.

The Company does not expect these claims to be re-opened unless
the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any.

To date, the Company has not been adjudicated liable in any of
these matters.

Asbestos-related cases against the Company total about 470, in
which these cases involve a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and
their spouses. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company.
The Company operates in the component products industry through
its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The
Company operates in the chemicals industry through its non-
controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.






                            *********

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, 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  * * *