CAR_Public/080411.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 72
  
                            Headlines

BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of CT Racial Discrimination Suit
CARMAKERS: 1st Circuit Decertifies Car Buyers Price Fixing Suit
CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Allows Discovery to Proceed in "Lewis"
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA): N.Y. Court Mulls Approving $336M Deal
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA): Accused of RICO Abuses in Calif. Suit

CITIGROUP: Babbitt Johnson Sues in Florida for Hedge Fund Fraud
CLS NEVADA: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over "Accident Fund"
FORCE PROTECTION: Federman Expands Securities Suit Class Period
H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuits in Indiana Alleging FCRA Violations
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face DRAM Antitrust Lawsuits

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Not Named in Consolidated Flash Memory Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Finalizes Dismissal of Merger Suit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Ida. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
NEW YORK & CO: Faces Suit Over Meal & Rest Periods for Workers
NEW YORK & CO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Customers' Personal Info

OPTION ONE: Faces Suit Over Title Indemnity, Reconveyance Fees
OPTION ONE: Still Faces Ill. Litigation Over Mortgage Loans
OPTION ONE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Unpaid" Overtime Wages
OPTION ONE: Seeks Nixing of Fair Housing Violations & Bias Suit
SAXON MORTGAGE: Ohio Court Stays Lawsuit Over Loans Servicing

SAXON MORTGAGE: No Arbitration Proceeding Initiated in La. Suits
SAXON MORTGAGE: Seeks Dismissal of "Jones" Litigation in Pa.
SOLEUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces California Lawsuit Over Portable ACs
TEXAS: Commercial Properties Demand Tax Breaks in Lawsuit
UNOCAL CORP: Parties Settle Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline

XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Florida
CANDELA CORP: Brower Piven Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Brower Piven Files Florida Securities Suit
HUMANA INC: Statman Harris Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ken.
MONEYGRAM INTL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Minnesota

SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Cheesman Suit Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Has $16.1M Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trimas Has 1,681 Pending Actions at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Group Has $136.6M Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Re Has $1.841B A&E Reserves at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Re Cites $9.7B Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Sees $11.2B Liabilities at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Records $39.4M Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Cites $69.4M Liability at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Int'l. Shipholding Reserves $350T at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conrail Actions Junked in Defendants' Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has Personal Injury Claims Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 94 Respirator Cases Pending v. North Safety
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ten Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Katy in Ala.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,367 Sterling Fluid Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 383 Lawsuits Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Has $29M Reserves at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx's Settlement Reserve Remains at $375T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions v. Entrx Drop to 222 at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 770 Claims Pending v. AbitibiBowater Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Remands Russell Suit v. Crane
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcatel Lucent Defends v. Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Face 11,350 Active Cases at Feb.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Feb. 29

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Pays $18.7M for Indemnity and Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooney Releases Statement on Grace's Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Asks Court to Name Welsh as Mediator
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Libby Claimants Object to $250M for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Seeks to Exclude Shapo Testimony

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants Seek Court Nod to Lift Stay
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Urges Victims to "Never Give Up"
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solidarity Supports S. Africa Asbestos Ban
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuit v. Texaco, Chevron Filed on April 8
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Downham Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules on Eastbourne Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison Judge Notes Decline of New Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grandfather Launches GBP200,000 Payout Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Settles With Cooper Mechanical
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Community Services Charged for OHSA Breach



                           *********


BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of CT Racial Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Co. is seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit
entitled, "RODRIGUEZ v. EMC Mortgage Corporation and The Bear
Stearns Companies."

The purported class action was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut on Dec. 10, 2007.

The suit seeks certification of a class made up of African-
American and Hispanic borrowers who had a non-prime loan
serviced by EMC and who were subjected to allegedly improper
servicing practices, including imposition of unwarranted fees,
pyramiding of late fees, unjustified forced-placing of
insurance, failure to properly apply payments, improper
reporting of derogatory credit information, and failure to
properly administer escrow accounts.

EMC and Bear Stearns have filed motions to dismiss and to strike
the suit, according to Bear Stearns ARM Trust 2007-3's April 8,
2008 Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended March 25, 2008.

The suit is "Rodriguez et al v. Bear Stearns Co Inc et al., Case
No. 3:07-cv-01816-JCH," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Christa L. Collins, Esq. (ccollins@jameshoyer.com)
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. -FL
         4830 W. Kennedy Boulevard
         Suite 550
         Tampa, FL 33609
         Phone: 813-286-4100
         Fax: 813-286-4174

              - and -

         M. Hatcher Norris, Esq. (rnorris@bnglaw.com)
         Butler, Norris & Gold
         254 Prospect Ave.
         Hartford, CT 06106-2041
         Phone: 860-236-6951
         Fax: 860-236-5263

Representing the defendants are:

         Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. (mdl@severson.com)
         Severson & Werson, PC-CA
         One Embarcadero Center
         Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-3344
         Fax: 415-956-0439

              - and -

         James T. Shearin, Esq. (jshearin@pullcom.com)
         Pullman & Comley
         850 Main St., Po Box 7006
         Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
         Phone: 203-330-2000


CARMAKERS: 1st Circuit Decertifies Car Buyers Price Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Torruella of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit
decertified a class of at least least 13 million car buyers in a
high-stakes antitrust lawsuit accusing automobile manufacturers
of illegally driving up prices by blocking the importation of
cheaper Canadian cars, CourtHouse news Service reports.

This multi-district consumer action alleges a conspiracy by
automobile manufacturers to illegally block lower-priced imports
from Canada, which is alleged to have inflated the price of new
cars sold in America.

The plaintiffs contend that from at least 2001 through 2003, the
currency exchange rate differential between the strong United
States dollar and the cheaper Canadian dollar created arbitrage
opportunities2 in the gray market3 to sell lower-priced Canadian
cars in the United States.  These arbitrage opportunities arose
from the difference between the price at which a broker could
buy a vehicle in Canada (plus the costs of exporting the vehicle
to the United States) and the price at which the broker could
resell the vehicle, whether to a dealer or consumer, in the
United States.

These arbitrage opportunities were enhanced by liberal trade
agreements and the harmonization of automotive safety and
environmental standards between the two countries in the 1990s.

As a result, an exporter could make most new cars sold in Canada
physically indistinguishable from comparable models sold in the
United States by replacing the speedometer and odometer with
gauges that measured miles instead of kilometers.  All of these
circumstances converged in what plaintiffs refer to as a
"perfect storm" of cross-border arbitrage opportunities.

The plaintiffs allege that individual automobile manufacturers
engaged in business practices, both legal and illegal, designed
to restrict the flow of Canadian cars into the United States.
Manufacturers allegedly:

     -- refused to honor warranties on Canadian cars in the
        United States and discouraged dealers from installing
        domestic gauges on Canadian cars;

     -- they mandated "no export" clauses in sales agreements
        between dealers and consumers and required Canadian
        dealers to conduct due diligence into whether potential
        customers were likely to export their cars out of
        Canada; and

     -- they withheld information about safety recalls from
        exporting customers.

Manufacturers also allegedly imposed disciplinary measures on
Canadian dealers who sold to exporting customers.  When Canadian
cars were discovered in the United States:

     -- automakers would impose a "chargeback," a monetary
        penalty sometimes amounting to thousands of dollars, on
        the Canadian dealer who sold the car;

     -- manufacturers threatened to withhold inventory of
        desirable models from offending dealerships; and

     -- they threatened to terminate dealerships that sold to
        exporters.

The plaintiffs allege that these business practices had the
effect of suppressing the supply of Canadian cars in the United
States.

U.S. car makers argued that these and other challenged
businesses practices amount to vertical restraints between
manufacturers and dealers that do not violate antitrust law.

But the plaintiffs maintain that the auto makers knowingly and
intentionally conspired to stop buyers from taking advantage of
the exchange rate between the then-strong U.S. dollar and the
cheaper Canadian dollar.

The alleged wrongdoing all but stopped when the U.S. dollar
tanked and the opportunities for arbitrage disappeared.

Judge Torruella, citing a lack of any ongoing controversy,
dissented in part, expressing concern that the majority's
decision to remand for reconsideration on additional evidence
gives the impression that the court now requires a high level of
fact-finding before certification.

"The district court should now have a complete record before it
from which to test the viability of plaintiffs' novel theory for
proving common impact," Judge Lynch wrote for the majority.

If the district court recertifies the class and allows the claim
to proceed, the damages could top $3 billion.

The suit is "In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust
Litig.," originally filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine.


CIB MARINE: Wis. Court Allows Discovery to Proceed in "Lewis"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has allowed discovery to proceed in a securities fraud lawsuit
against CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc.

On June 3, 2005, a first consolidated complaint was filed by
Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and other alleged shareholders of
CIB Marine, with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois against CIB Marine, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and KPMG, LLP.   

The filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in
January 2005:  

     -- one filed by Mr. Lewis with the U.S. District Court for  
        the Central District of Illinois; and  

     -- another filed with the U.S. District Court for the
        Central District of Illinois by Elaine Sollberger, a
        purported shareholder, whose claims were voluntarily
        dismissed in connection with the consolidation, and have
        not been reasserted in the consolidated complaint.  

The plaintiffs sought to maintain the action as a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of CIB
Marine between April 12, 1999, and April 12, 2004, claiming
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by CIB Marine and other defendants and liability of
certain defendants other than CIB Marine and KPMG under Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act as controlling
persons.  

The substance of the complaint is that the financial condition
of CIB Marine was overstated with the result that members of the
purported class acquired their CIB Marine stock at inflated
prices.  

The plaintiffs seek money damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.  

The court granted CIB Marine and several other defendants'
motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, where the action is now pending.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the action on various
grounds.  On Oct. 12, 2006, the court denied CIB Marine's motion
to dismiss, granted in part the motions to dismiss filed by the
individual defendants and granted the motion to dismiss filed by
KPMG.  

CIB Marine and the individual defendants have filed answers to
the pending complaint denying any liability.  An additional
person has moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the action.

In light of a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that
addressed the pleading standards that must be satisfied by the
plaintiff in a case such as this one, on July 16, 2007, CIB
Marine and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, or in the alternative, a motion for
reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, seeking
dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiffs have
not satisfactorily pleaded one of the essential elements of
their cause of action.  That motion has been fully briefed and
no date has been set for a decision.

On Nov. 10, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint as to KPMG, which KPMG moved to dismiss.  On Aug. 13,
2007, the court granted KPMG's motion and dismissed the action
as to it.

As a result of the filing of the initial motions to dismiss, all
discovery in this action was stayed automatically.  

The plaintiffs moved to vacate that stay of discovery, which all
defendants opposed based on KPMG's pending motion to dismiss the
further amended complaint filed by plaintiffs against KPMG.

In granting KPMG's motion to dismiss, the court noted the
pendency of the motion for judgment on the pleadings described
above and ruled that the stay of discovery will remain in place.

The plaintiffs filed a separate motion for a limited lift of the
stay of discovery, which CIB Marine and the individual
defendants opposed in their response filed on Sept. 11, 2007.

In denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court
denied the motions to vacate the stay as moot, i.e., with the
denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings discovery may
proceed, according to CIB's March 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Lewis et al. v. Straka et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01008-LA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Kristi L. Browne, Esq.
         The Patterson Law Firm
         33 N LaSalle St.
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-223-1699  
         e-mail: tep@pattersonlawfirm.com

              - and -  

         James W. Gardner, Esq.
         Douglas J. Phebus, Esq.
         Lawton & Cates
         10 E Doty St. Ste. 400, P.O. Box 2965
         Madison, WI 53701-2965
         Phone: 608-282-6200  
         e-mail: lawtoncates@lawtoncates.com

Representing the company are:

         Allan Horwich, Esq. (ahorwich@schiffhardin.com)
         John C. Martin, Esq. (jmartin@schiffhardin.com)
         Schiff Hardin LLP
         Sears Tower, 233 S Wacker Dr - Ste 6600  
         Chicago, IL 60606-6473
         Phone: 312-258-5618
         Fax: 312-258-5700


CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA): N.Y. Court Mulls Approving $336M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to grant final approval to $336 million settlement in
the matter, "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," which names Citibank (South
Dakota), National Association, as one of the defendants.

CBSD, some of its affiliates, Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa
International Service Association, MasterCard International
Incorporated and other banks are defendants in a consolidated
class action, captioned, "In Re Currency Conversion Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," which is
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York

The suit seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  It
was originally brought on behalf of certain U.S. holders of
VISA, MasterCard and Diners Club branded general purpose credit
cards who used those cards since March 1, 1997, for foreign
currency transactions, asserts, among other things, claims for
alleged violations of:

       -- Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
       -- the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act, and
       -- as to CBSD, the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices
          Act.

On Oct. 15, 2004, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification of their Sherman Act and TILA
claims but denied the motion as to the South Dakota Deceptive
Trade Practices Act claim against CBSD.  

On March 9, 2005, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motions for reconsideration of certain
aspects of the Oct. 15, 2004 rulings.

Among other things, the District Court narrowed the antitrust
classes to certain VISA-branded or MasterCard-branded
cardholders of CBSD and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.  

On Dec. 7, 2005, the District Court certified a Diners Club
damages subclass, as well as Diners' antitrust and TILA
injunctive relief subclasses.  

In July 2006, without admitting any liability, all defendants,
including the Citigroup defendants, agreed to settle the matter
for a total of $336 million, subject to court approval.

The Citigroup defendants' share of the settlement, which has
been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing
reserves.  

As part of the settlement, the class was expanded to include not
only credit cardholders, but also debit cardholders.  

The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and
the final approval hearing is scheduled for March 31, 2008,
according to Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I's March 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge William H.
Pauley, III.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David J. Bershad, Esq. (dbershad@milbergweiss.com)
         Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
         (mbuchman@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One Pennsylvania Plaza
         New York, NY 10119
         Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387
         Fax: 212-868-1229

         Christopher Burke, Esq.
         Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP
         Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423

              - and -

         Sheldon V. Burman, Esq.
         Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC
         110 East 59th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 935-1600


CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA): Accused of RICO Abuses in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank South Dakota, a credit-card bank, is facing a class-
action complaint filed on April 8, 2008, with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging it
employs collection companies and attorneys to pursue time-barred
debts it purchased, and tries to force payment through
fraudulent concealment, threats and misrepresentations, the
CourtHouse News  Service reports.

Also named as defendants are:

     -- Receivable Acquisition & Management Corp.;
     -- Patenaude & Felix PC, a San Diego law office;
     -- Glass Mountain Capital LLC, and
     -- Nelson & Kennard, a Sacramento law office.

Named plaintiff Oras Jazrawi brings this action on behalf of
consumers whose time-barred debts have been sold by Citibank,
and against whom any named defendants or anyone acting on their
behalf have attempted to collect and succeeded in collecting
time-barred debt by way of litigation, threat of litigation,
fraud, or fraudulent concealment, and all others similarly
situated.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the sale of time-bared consumer debt for
         consideration constitutes a breach of the covenant of
         good faith and fair dealing by the seller under the
         consumer credit contract giving rise to the debt;

     (b) whether attempts to collect time-barred debt by way of
         threats of litigation constitute violations of the
         FDCPA;

     (c) whether attempts to collect time-barred debt by way of
         litigation constitute violations of the FDCPA;

     (d) whether attempting to collect time-barred by way of the
         threat of litigation constitutes actionable fraudulent
         misrepresentation;

     (e) whether attempting to collect a time-barred debt
         without disclosing to the consumer that the debt is
         time-barred constitutes actionable fraudulent
         concealment;

     (f) whether the conduct listed violates California Business
         and Professions Code Section 17200;

     (g) whether the sale and re-sale of time-barred debt
         violates California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200; and

     (h) whether the purchase of, sale of, and attempts to
         collect time-barred debt as alleged constitute
         actionable violations of RICO.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- award her actual damages in an amount subject to proof
        at trial;

     -- award her statutory damages pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1692k(a)(2);

     -- award her attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred
        pursuant to 15 USC Section 1692k(a)(3); and

     -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to F.R.
        Civ. P. 23.

The suit is "Oras Katrina Jazrawi et al v. Citibank South Dakota
N.A., Case No. Cv 08 1865," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joseph A. Creitz, Esq. (joseph.creitz@gmail.com)
          Law Office of Joseph A. Creitz, PC
          22 Battery Street, Suite 9411
          Phone: (415) 269-3675
          Fax: (415) 513-4775


CITIGROUP: Babbitt Johnson Sues in Florida for Hedge Fund Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach trial law firm Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le
Clainche, P.A., filed a prospective class action with the U.S.
District Court in Southern Florida against Citigroup Inc. for
fraud for failing to disclose risk in a hedge fund that has lost
more than 40% of its value in the current credit meltdown.

The suit is filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Falcon
Strategies Two B LLC Hedge Fund from Sept. 30, 2005, through
Jan. 8, 2008.

The suit alleges Citigroup Alternative Investment LLC marketed
the fund as low-risk and low-volatility, and then defrauded
investors by failing to disclose its change to a far riskier
investment strategy.  The suit further alleges that the fund's
management did so to increase income from its "exorbitant fees."

The lead plaintiff, A. Robert Zeff of Boca Raton, Fl., invested
the minimum $500,000 in the fund in April 2007.  The suit says
the fund "was uniformly marketed to all potential investors as
an extremely low risk investment that offered low volatility and
tax protected distributions."

In fact, the suit says, Standard & Poors' had assigned the Fund
an S2 volatility rating (on a scale of 1-6, with one
representing the lowest risk and six the highest) given its
belief that Falcon maintained a low-to-moderate sensitivity to
change in market conditions given its stated investment
strategy.

On Jan. 8, 2008, Standard & Poor's changed the rating to a far
riskier "S5."  By that time, the suit says, the management had
switched to riskier instruments without informing the investors.

"This is a much different product than what was purchased by the
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated who purchased the fund
prior to Jan. 8, 2008," the suit says.  "At all times, the
Defendants were aware and knew high-risk investment and
management strategies were being undertaken managing the Fund,
but failed to disclose those investment strategies to existing
investors and continued to market the fund as a low-risk
investment tool for investors."

The 18-page, four-count suit, filed April 4, accuses the
defendants of: fraud; violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law;
negligent misrepresentation and violation of the 1933 Securities
Act.

In February, Citigroup provided a $500 million line of credit to
bail out its Falcon Strategies hedge funds and consolidated the
funds' $10 billion in assets and liabilities on its own balance
sheet.  It was Citigroup's second hedge fund bailout in as many
months.

The suit is "Robert Zeff et al. v. Citigroup Alternative
Investments LLC, Citigroup, Inc., and Falcon Strategies Two B
LLC., Case No 08-80346-CIV-Zloch/Snow," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ted Babbitt, Esq. (tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com)
          Joe Osborne, Esq. (jaosborne@babbitt-johnson.com)
          Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche
          1450 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: 561-684-2500


CLS NEVADA: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over "Accident Fund"
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Horky III -- doing business as CLS Nevada -- is facing a
class-action complaint filed on April 7,2008, with the District
Court for Clark County, Nevada, alleging that the company
deducted $1,000 apiece from 300 drivers' paychecks for an
"accident fund," then "converted or misused the earned wages,"
the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ronald M. Dorson brings this action pursuant to
Nev. R. Civ. P 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), on behalf of all
individuals employed by or working at CLS Nevada, LLC, doing
business as CLS Transportation Las Vegas from Jan. 11, 2007, who
have had earned wages from their paychecks deducted in the
amounts that purportedly were or are being contributed to or
placed in an accident fund/trust or vehicle damage fund/trust.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) Horky and CLS violated NRS Section 680.100(2) by
         withholding the class' earned wages;

     (b) Horky and CLS are liable for conversion by unlawfully
         exerting possession over the class' earned wages;

     (c) Horky and CLS are liable for unjust enrichment by
         withholding the class' earned wages for Horky's and
         CLS; benefit against the fundamental principles of
         justice or equity and good conscience;

     (d) Horky and CLS should be permanently enjoined from
         withholding the class' earned wages for the accident
         fund/trust or vehicle damage fund/trust; and

     (e) the Jan. 11 authorization was a knowing and intelligent
         waiver by the class of their right to receive earned
         wages.

The plaintiff asks the Court for:

      -- an order certifying the class members against each
         defendant;

      -- for damages against each defendant in an amount in
         excess of $10,000;

      -- for an accounting and restitution against each
         defendant;

      -- for exemplary damages against each defendant in an
         amount to be determined by the triers of fact;

      -- for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
         each defendant;

      -- for Charles Horky to be held personally liable for the
         judgment entered in the case;

      -- for reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the lawsuit
         as stated in the complaint;

      -- for taxable attorney's fees pursuant to NRS 608.140;
         and

      -- for any such further additional relief as the court may
         deem just and proper.

The suit is "Ronald M. Dorson et al v. Charles J. Horky III,
Case No. A560506," filed with the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Malcolm P. LaVergne, Esq.
          The LaVergne Law Group
          320 East Charleston Boulevard, Suite 203
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89104
          Phone: (702) 448-7981
          Fax: (702) 966-3117


FORCE PROTECTION: Federman Expands Securities Suit Class Period
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 3, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
against Force Protection, Inc., expanding the class period to
include those investors who purchased shares of Force
Protection, Inc. between August 14, 2006, and March 17, 2008.

Federman & Sherwood reminds current and former shareholders of
Force Protection, Inc., that they only have until May 9, 2008,
to move for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this case.

For more information, contact:

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


H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuits in Indiana Alleging FCRA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Mortgage Corp. is facing several purported class
action suits that were consolidated for coordinated pretrial
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, according to Structured Asset Securities CORP 2007-
BC1's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On April 29, 2005, H&R Block was named as a defendant and served
with a class action complaint filed by Perrie Bonner with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

The suit is captioned, "Perrie Bonner v. H&R Block Mortgage
Corporation."  It alleges that HRBMC accessed the plaintiff's
consumer report without his consent or for any lawful reason, in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This action is one of several actions filed earlier against
other lenders by the same plaintiff and his attorneys on a
similar basis in the same court.  

Two other actions assert the same allegations:

       1. "Phillips v. H&R Block Mortgage Corporation, Option
          One Mortgage Corporation, and, H&R Block, Inc.
          (California);" and

       2. "Wojtzcek v. H&R Block Mortgage Corporation
          (Wisconsin)."

HRBMC moved before the Multidistrict Judicial Panel to seek a
transfer of the three complaints, which ordered the transfer of
the three actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, under Judge Rudy J. Lozano, for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the Court granted class certification,
certifying three classes:

       -- in "Bonner," all persons within the Northern District      
          of Indiana to whom HRBMC sent a solicitation between
          April 29, 2003 and May 19, 2005 and who did not obtain
          credit in response thereto;

       -- in "Phillips," all persons in Harris County, Texas to
          whom HRBMC sent a solicitation during the longest
          permissible statutory period; and

       -- in "Wojtczak," all persons with a Wisconsin address to
          whom HRBMC sent a solicitation since Nov. 20, 2004.

HRBMC has been ordered to provide class lists to plaintiffs'
counsel by March 7, 2008.  The plaintiffs' counsel then has 36
days within which to mail class notices (at plaintiffs'
counsel's expense) or settle the cases individually.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial  
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.  


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Face DRAM Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random
access memories continue to face several purported class actions
in the U.S. and Canada that allege violations of antitrust
statutes, according to the company's April 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Feb. 28, 2008.

                        U.S. Litigation

At least 68 purported class actions have been filed against the
Company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state
courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect
purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and
state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition
law, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of
DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least
June 2002.  

The complaints seek treble damages sustained by purported class
members, in addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 29, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended
consolidated complaint.  

The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking certification for
interlocutory appeal of this decision, and on Feb. 27, 2008,
filed a third amended complaint.

                      Canadian Litigation

Three purported class actions over DRAM have also been filed in
Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act.  

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the cases filed in the U.S.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.

    
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Not Named in Consolidated Flash Memory Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc., was not named as a defendant in an
amended complaint in a U.S. consolidated antitrust class action
over the sale of flash memory products; however, it continues to
face similar litigation in Canada, according to the company's
April 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2008.

                         U.S. Litigation

At least 34 purported class actions have been filed against the
Company and other suppliers of flash memory products in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and other
federal district courts.  

These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of
individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly or
indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers during the period
from Jan. 1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed.

The complaints generally allege price fixing in violation of
federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair
competition laws and seek monetary damages, restitution, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint that did not name the Company as a defendant.

                       Canadian Litigation

Three purported class actions also have been filed in Canada, on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of
the Canadian Competition Act.  

The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those
asserted in the Flash cases filed in the U.S.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a  
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Finalizes Dismissal of Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County
entered an order holding that the plaintiffs in purported class
action against Micron Technology, Inc., and Lexar Media, in
relation to their merger agreement, have waived any right to
appeal the final judgment dismissing the case.

Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the
defendants breached, or aided and abetted the breach of,
fiduciary duties owed to Lexar shareholders by, among other
things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to engage in efforts
to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and failing to
properly value Lexar in a merger transaction.   

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.   

On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to block the merger.  On May 31, 2006, the
Court denied the motion.  An amended consolidated complaint was
filed on Oct. 10, 2006.  

On June 14, 2007, the Court granted Lexar's and Micron's motions
to dismiss the amended complaint, but allowed the plaintiffs
leave to file a further amended complaint.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the Court granted Lexar's and Micron's renewed
motion to dismiss the case as to all parties with prejudice.  

On Dec. 18, 2007, the Court entered an order holding that the
plaintiffs had waived any right to appeal the final judgment,
according to Micron's April 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 28, 2008.

Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a   
provider of advanced semiconductor solutions.  Through its
worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs,
NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor
components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge
computing, consumer, networking and mobile products.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Ida. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho certified a
class in the consolidated securities fraud class action against
Micron Technology, Inc., according to the company's April 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2008.

On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Four
substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the
same court.

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to
Feb. 13, 2003.

The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006.

The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or
omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct.  It
seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class
but reducing the class period to purchasers of the Company's
stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002.

The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho, Judge Judge B. Lynn
Winmill presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bruce S. Bistline, Esq.
         (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com)
         Gordon Law Offices
         623 W. Hays
         Boise, ID 83702-5512
         Phone: (208) 345-7100
         Fax: 1-208-345-0050

              - and -

         Mary Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: (415) 288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants are:

         Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Phone: 206-883-2529
         Fax: 208-883-2699

              - and -

         Richard H. Greener Esq. (rgreener@greenerlaw.com)
         Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A.
         950 W. Bannock St. 900
         Boise, ID 83702
         Phone: (208) 319-2600


NEW YORK & CO: Faces Suit Over Meal & Rest Periods for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York & Company, Inc., faces a purported class action suit
that was filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda over its alleged failure to
provide meal and rest periods for employees.

The suit was filed on March 25, 2008, under the caption,
"Jannika Schakow v. New York & Company, Inc."

The class action seeks relief for, among other things, meal and
rest periods allegedly not provided or permitted to certain
eligible employees in California, according to the company's
April 8, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008.

New York and Company, Inc. -- http://www.nyandcompany.com-- is  
a specialty retailer of fashion-oriented, moderately priced
women's apparel.  The Company designs and sources its branded
New York & Company merchandise sold exclusively through its
national network of New York & Company retail stores and,
beginning in November 2006, online at
http://www.nyandcompany.com The target customers for New York &  
Company merchandise are fashion-conscious, value-sensitive women
between the ages of 25 and 45. The Company has acquired Jasmine
Co., Inc., a Boston-based, privately held women's retailer of
upscale and contemporary apparel, footwear and accessories sold
through its chain of JasmineSola-branded retail stores.  As of
Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated 560 retail stores with 3.3
million selling square feet in 44 states, including 24
JasmineSola stores.


NEW YORK & CO: Faces Calif. Suit Over Customers' Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York & Company, Inc. is facing a purported class action
lawsuit that was filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego over its alleged
collection of customers' personal information.

The suit was filed on March 25, 2008, under the caption, "Leslie
Johnson v. New York & Company, Inc."

The class action seeks relief for, among other things,
collection of customers' personal information in a manner that
is allegedly in violation of California law, according to the
company's April 8, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Feb. 2, 2008.

New York and Company, Inc. -- http://www.nyandcompany.com-- is  
a specialty retailer of fashion-oriented, moderately priced
women's apparel.  The Company designs and sources its branded
New York & Company merchandise sold exclusively through its
national network of New York & Company retail stores and,
beginning in November 2006, online at its Web site.  The target
customers for New York & Company merchandise are fashion-
conscious, value-sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45.
The Company has acquired Jasmine Co., Inc., a Boston-based,
privately held women's retailer of upscale and contemporary
apparel, footwear and accessories sold through its chain of
JasmineSola-branded retail stores.  As of Feb. 3, 2007, the
Company operated 560 retail stores with 3.3 million selling
square feet in 44 states, including 24 JasmineSola stores.


OPTION ONE: Faces Suit Over Title Indemnity, Reconveyance Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp. continues to face a purported class
action that was filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, according to Structured Asset Securities CORP 2007-
BC1's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is captioned, "Fees, et al. v. Option One Mortgage
Corporation," and was filed in August 2001 on behalf of
borrowers allegedly charged an illegal title indemnity and
reconveyance fee as a condition of releasing their mortgages.

The class certification hearing occurred on Jan. 31, 2006, after
which the court certified a nationwide class.  

Option One's appeal of the certification was denied by the
appellate court on Sept. 14, 2006.

Option One is waiting for plaintiffs' counsel to specify his
classes, which it anticipates will be severely limited, if not
eliminated by, motions to decertify.

Option One Mortgage Corp. -- http://www.oomc.com-- issues and  
services home mortgage loans through its loan production offices
and a network of independent brokers throughout the U.S.  The
wholesale mortgage lender, a subsidiary of retail tax
preparation titan H&R Block, mainly writes mortgages for sub-
prime customers (those with less-than-stellar credit histories
or hard-to-document income.  Option One also services mortgages
originated by other lenders.  In 2007 H&R Block arranged to sell
the company to Cerberus Capital Management, but the two sides
later terminated the deal.  H&R Block is now winding down Option
One's activities.

    
OPTION ONE: Still Faces Ill. Litigation Over Mortgage Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp. continues to face a purported class
action suit that was filed with a Madison County, Illinois court
in relation to its mortgage loans, according to Structured Asset
Securities CORP 2007-BC1's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is captioned, "Freitag, et al. v. Option One Mortgage
Corporation," and was filed on July 29, 2004.  It seeks
certification of a nationwide class and alleges that Option One
Mortgage Corporation engages in the practice of improperly
retaining extra per diem interest on residential mortgage loans
by charging per diem interest up to and including the date of
payoff.  

Settlement in the amount of $25,000 to the named plaintiff
received court approval on Jan. 1, 2005.  

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint naming new
class representatives on June 10, 2005.  

Option One Mortgage Corp. filed a notice of removal to federal
court and a motion to compel arbitration.  

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand.  They later agreed
to stay further proceedings pending a decision of the Illinois
Supreme Court in a case regarding the enforceability of
arbitration agreements that contain class action waivers.  

In that case, the court issued on Oct. 5, 2006, a decision
wherein it held that class action waivers were not per se
unconscionable.

Option One Mortgage Corp. -- http://www.oomc.com-- issues and  
services home mortgage loans through its loan production offices
and a network of independent brokers throughout the U.S.  The
wholesale mortgage lender, a subsidiary of retail tax
preparation titan H&R Block, mainly writes mortgages for sub-
prime customers (those with less-than-stellar credit histories
or hard-to-document income.  Option One also services mortgages
originated by other lenders.  In 2007 H&R Block arranged to sell
the company to Cerberus Capital Management, but the two sides
later terminated the deal.  H&R Block is now winding down Option
One's activities.



OPTION ONE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Unpaid" Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp., and, H&R Block Mortgage Corp. face a
purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California for alleged unfair business
practices, according to Structured Asset Securities CORP 2007-
BC1's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is captioned, "Schueler, et a1 v. H&R Block Mortgage
Corporation and Option One Mortgage Corporation."  It was filed
on April 9, 2007, by Melissa Schueler.

The complaint alleges that Option One Mortgage Corp.'s
affiliate, HRBMC, failed to pay overtime wages to its loan
officers in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and
that such alleged failure constitutes an unfair business
practice under California's Business and Professions Code.

Option One Mortgage is named as a defendant under the theory
that it and HRBMC operate as a single employer.  

Option One Mortgage and HRBMC's motion to dismiss was denied.  

On Jan. 24,2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part plaintiff's Motion for Notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 216(b).

On Feb. 13,2008, a Notice to Present and Former Employees,
Consent to Join and Stipulated Proposed Order was submitted to
the Court for approval.

The suit is "Melissa Schueler v. H&R Block Mortgage Corporation
et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00342-CJC-MLG," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Cormac J. Carney presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mballer@gdblegal.com)
          Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen & Dardarian
          300 Lakeside Dr, Ste 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800

               - and -

          Charles S. Russell, Esq. (charles_russell@cmwlaw.net)
          Callahan McCune & Willis
          111 Fashion Lane
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Phone: 714-730-5700

Representing the defendants are:

          Nicholas L. DiVita, Esq. (ndivita@bowse-law.com)
          Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt
          2600 Grand Boulevard
          # 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: 816-561-7007

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Fuchsman, Esq. (jfuchsman@brgslaw.com)
          Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt
          10 Universal City Plz, 16th Fl
          Universal City, CA 91608-1097
          Phone: 818-508-3700


OPTION ONE: Seeks Nixing of Fair Housing Violations & Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Option One Mortgage Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a
purported class action entitled, "Shavers v. Option One Mortgage
Corporation," according to Structured Asset Securities CORP
2007-BC1's March 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Sept. 4, 2007, Option One was served with a class action
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The suit alleges discrimination and fair housing violations.
Option One Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss the suit on
Nov. 13, 2007.  

Option One Mortgage Corp. -- http://www.oomc.com-- issues and  
services home mortgage loans through its loan production offices
and a network of independent brokers throughout the U.S.  The
wholesale mortgage lender, a subsidiary of retail tax
preparation titan H&R Block, mainly writes mortgages for sub-
prime customers (those with less-than-stellar credit histories
or hard-to-document income.  Option One also services mortgages
originated by other lenders.  In 2007 H&R Block arranged to sell
the company to Cerberus Capital Management, but the two sides
later terminated the deal.  H&R Block is now winding down Option
One's activities.

    
SAXON MORTGAGE: Ohio Court Stays Lawsuit Over Loans Servicing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Common Pleas Court for Cuyahoga County, Ohio stayed court
proceedings in the suit, "Jumar Hooks and Diane Felder, et al.,
v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc.," according to Morgan Stanley Capital I
Trust 2007-HQ13's March 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The case was filed on Oct. 12, 2005, under Case No. CV 05-
574577.  The plaintiffs filed it as a class action on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated Ohio borrowers, alleging that
Saxon Mortgage, a subsidiary of Saxon Capital, Inc., engaged in
unlawful practices in originating and servicing the plaintiffs'
loans.   

The plaintiffs seek certification as a class and a judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs for money damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.   

During the second quarter of 2006, the court granted the Saxon
Mortgage's motion to compel individual arbitration as to each of
the two named plaintiffs and stayed the court proceedings with
no class having been certified.

Saxon Capital, Inc. -- http://www.saxonmortgage.com/- is in the  
business of originating, securitizing, and servicing non-
conforming mortgage loans.  


SAXON MORTGAGE: No Arbitration Proceeding Initiated in La. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
No arbitration proceeding was initiated by either plaintiffs in
two purported class actions, which name the subsidiary of Saxon
Capital, Inc. -- Saxon Mortgage Services -- as defendant.

The suit "Bauer, et al., v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2004-17015," was filed on Dec 1, 2004, with the
Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of
Louisiana.  

On Jan. 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the   
case without prejudice, and the court entered an order
dismissing the case on Jan. 31, 2005.   

On Feb. 17, 2005, the plaintiffs re-filed the case as two  
separate class action lawsuits:

     -- "Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.," filed as Case  
        No. 05-2173 in the Civil District Court for the Parish  
        of Orleans, State of Louisiana; and  

     -- "Patterson, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al.," filed as  
        Case No. 05-2174 in the Civil District Court for the  
        Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.  

In the Bauer case, Saxon Capital is not a named defendant but
may owe defense and indemnification to Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, N.A., as custodian of a mortgage loan for
which one named plaintiff is mortgagor.  Saxon Capital's
subsidiary, Saxon Mortgage Services, is a named defendant in the
Patterson case.  

In both cases, the named plaintiffs allege misrepresentation,
fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment on the part of the
lender defendants and a law firm hired by a number of
defendants, including Saxon Mortgage Services, to enforce
mortgage loan obligations against borrowers who had become
delinquent pursuant to the terms of their mortgage loan
documents.  

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the law firm quoted
inflated court costs and sheriff's fees on reinstatement
proposals to the plaintiffs.  

In both cases, the plaintiffs seek certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, and other unspecified general, special
and equitable relief.   

On Jan. 24, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration in "Bauer, et al., v. Dean Morris, et al."

On Jan. 25, 2006, the U.S District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Saxon Mortgage Services's
motion to compel arbitration in "Patterson, et al., v. Dean
Morris, et al."

At the present time, neither plaintiff has initiated
arbitration, according to Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-
HQ13's March 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Saxon Capital, Inc. -- http://www.saxonmortgage.com/- is in the  
business of originating, securitizing, and servicing non-
conforming mortgage loans.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Seeks Dismissal of "Jones" Litigation in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services, a unit of Saxon Capital, Inc., is
seeking the dismissal of a purported class action titled "Jones,
et al., v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, et al., Civil Action-Law No.
07-10540."

The case was filed with the Court of Common Pleas for Berks
County, Pennsylvania on Sept. 24, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the putative class members were not
credited properly for payments made on their mortgage loans
which were allegedly collected by non-affiliated intermediary
entities and forwarded to the servicer defendants.

Saxon Mortgage Services services two loans for putative class
members.  Saxon Mortgage Services and other defendants filed a
consolidated motion to dismiss the case, according to Morgan
Stanley Capital I Trust 2007-HQ13's March 26, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Saxon Capital, Inc. -- http://www.saxonmortgage.com/- is in the  
business of originating, securitizing, and servicing non-
conforming mortgage loans.


SOLEUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces California Lawsuit Over Portable ACs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soleus International is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California for violations of Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for Breach of
Warranty, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Soleus International had claimed that its portable air
conditioners with "evaporative technology" never need to be
emptied of water, but they do, and they leak too, the complaint
states.

Named plaintiff Lawrence Sypher brings this action to obtain
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief on behalf of all
persons or entities in the United States who purchased, not for
resale, Soleus Portable Air Conditioners which were advertised
as using Evaporative Technology.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Air Conditioners are defective;

     (b) whether Soleus made false and misleading statements
         of material fact to the class and the public concerning
         the Air Conditioners;

     (c) whether Soleus knew, or was reckless in not knowing,
         that its statements about the performance, reliability
         and attributes of the Air Conditioners were false
         and misleading;

     (d) whether Soleus concealed from the class and the public
         that the Air Conditioners are inherently defective;

     (e) whether Soleus had a duty to disclose the defect to
         plaintiff and class members;

     (f) whether Soleus' false and misleading statements of
         fact and its concealment of material fact regarding the
         performance and reliability of the Air Conditioners
         were likely to deceive the public;

     (g) whether, by the misconduct set forth in the complaint,  
         Soleus has engaged in unfair, deceptive or unlawful
         business practices;

     (h) whether, by the misconduct as set forth in the
         complaint, Soleus has engaged in unfair, deceptive,
         untrue, or misleading advertising of the Air
         Conditioners;

     (i) whether, but its conduct, Soleus violated the UCL, FAL,
         and CLRA;

     (j) whether Soleus has breached its warranties to plaintiff
         and the class;

     (k) whether Soleus has engaged in conduct which, under all  
         of the circumstances, renders enforcement of any
         applicable limitations in its warranties unconscionable
         under all of the circumstances; and

     (l) whether, as a result of Soleus' misconduct, plaintiff
         and the class are entitled to compensatory, statutory
         and punitive damages, restitution, equitable relief
         and other damages and relief, and, if so, the amount
         and nature of such relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

      -- an order certifying this case a clas action and
         appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent the
         class;

      -- restitution and disgorgement of all amounts obtained by
         Soleus as a result of its misconduct, together with
         interest thereon from the date of payment, to the
         victims of such violations;

      -- actual and statutory damages for injuries suffered
         by plaintiff and the class and, in the maximum amount
         permitted by applicable law;

      -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the
         trier of fact;

      -- a ruling requiring Soleus to immediately cease its
         wrongful conduct; enjoining Soleus from continuing to
         falsely market and advertise, conceal material
         information and conduct business via the unlawful,
         unfair and deceptive business acts and practices
         complained of; ordering Soleus to engage in a
         corrective notice campaign; and requiring Soleus to
         refund to plaintiff and all members of the class the
         funds paid to Soleus for these defective products;

      -- reasonable attorneys' fees and the costs of prosecuting
         this action; and

      -- statutory pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Lawrence Sypher et al v. Soleus International,
Inc., Case No. 08-02325," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. (tomm@maurlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Thomas D. Mauriello
          209 Clemente, CA 92672
          Phone: (949) 542-3555
          Fax: (949) 6069690


TEXAS: Commercial Properties Demand Tax Breaks in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Spring Branch Management District (Texas) is facing a class-
action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas claiming that the district created a
special tax assessment district to beautify part of Houston, but
unconstitutionally excluded 42 commercial properties from the
taxes "for no apparent reason, other than the fact that the
respective owners did not want to pay the assessment," the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Valco Instruments Co. and Property
Redevelopment IV LP, who want to be excluded from the taxes too,
claim they were assessed special annual taxes of $5,789 and
$3,090, respectively.

They further claim the businesses that were arbitrarily exempted
from the tax "shared no similar characteristics or distinction
that would justify excluding them from Defendant SBMD's district
. . .  The excluded properties and their property owners had
only one thing in common, that they were represented by the same
attorney . . . and requested the exclusion from the district."

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1). They request that the court grant them the following
relief:

     -- declaring that defendants' assessment against the
        plaintiffs is void and invalid because it worked a
        denial of their rights, privileged or immunities secured
        by the United States and Texas Constitutions;

     -- enjoining defendants, its agents, servants, employees,
        attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all persons
        under its direction, control, permission, or license
        preliminarily and permanently from collecting its
        illegal assessments against the plaintiffs;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs all damages directly and
        proximately resulting from the illegal assessments
        imposed by the defendants;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs the costs, attorneys' fees and
        disbursements of this action; and

     -- awarding the plaintiffs all other relief that is just
        and proper.

The suit is "Valco Instruments Company, LP et al. v. Spring
Branch Management District et al.," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jack W. Naranko, Esq.
          Law Office of John H. Polk, PC
          1502 Augusta, Suite 390
          Houston, Texas 77057
          Phone: (713) 266-0846
          Fax: (713) 266-9260


UNOCAL CORP: Parties Settle Lawsuits Over Reformulated Gasoline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal Corp., an acquisition of Chevron Corp., and the
plaintiffs in several lawsuits related to reformulated gasoline  
have reached a tentative settlement for all the cases that
remain pending, according to Chevron Corp.'s March 27, 2008 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Initially, 14 purported class actions were brought by consumers
of RFG alleging that Unocal Corp. misled the California Air
Resources Board into adopting standards for composition of RFG
that overlapped with Unocal's undisclosed and pending patents.

Eleven lawsuits are now consolidated with U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, where a class action has
been certified, and three are consolidated in a state court
action that has been stayed.

Unocal is alleged to have monopolized, conspired and engaged in
unfair methods of competition, resulting in injury to consumers
of RFG.

The plaintiffs in both consolidated actions seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest on
behalf of an alleged class of consumers who purchased
"summertime" RFG in California from January 1995 through August
2005.

The parties have reached a tentative agreement to resolve all of
the above matters in an amount that is not material to the
company's results of operations, liquidity or financial
position.

The terms of this agreement are confidential, and subject to
further negotiation and approval, including by the courts.

Chevron Corp. -- http://www.chevrontexaco.com/-- manages its  
investments in subsidiaries and affiliates, and provides
administrative, financial, management and technology support to
the U.S. and foreign subsidiaries that engage in fully
integrated petroleum operations, chemicals operations, mining
operations of coal and other minerals, power generation and
energy services.


XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Ongoing in Mass. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities fraud class
action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Xerium Technologies, Inc.

On June 7, 2006, Parkside Capital Ltd. filed a purported class-
action complaint on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated against Xerium and Xerium's chief executive officer and
chief financial officer.  The company was served with the
complaint on June 8, 2006.  

The complaint concerns the company's initial public offering of
common stock and alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
and liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933.  

The plaintiff seeks rescission rights, attorneys' fees and other
costs and unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the company's common stock "pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's IPO on or about May 16, 2005 through
Nov, 15, 2005."  The litigation is presently in discovery.

Xerium reported no development in the matter in its April 8,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Parkside Capital Ltd. v. Xerium Technologies Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-10991-RWZ," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W.
Zobel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

         Seth C. Harrington, Esq.
         (seth.harrington@ropesgray.com)
         Ropes & Gray, LLP
         One International Place
         Boston, MA 02110
         Phone: 617-951-7226
         Fax: 617-951-7050


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of ArthroCare Corp. between August 4, 2006, and
January 23, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 3,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


CANDELA CORP: Brower Piven Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation said that it has filed
a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Candela Corporation between February 1, 2006,
and August 21, 2006, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2, 2008  
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Brower Piven Files Florida Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, has commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Darden Restaurants, Inc.  
between June 19, 2007, and December 18, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


HUMANA INC: Statman Harris Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ken.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cincinnati class action law firm of Statman, Harris &
Eyrich, LLC filed a class action lawsuit with the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky against
Humana, Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
Humana common stock between February 4, 2008, and March 11,
2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Humana and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose adverse
facts regarding the operation Humana's business and its
financial performance.  The Complaint further alleges that
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Humana's operations, financial viability, and
performance.  As a result of these materially false and
misleading statements and omissions, Plaintiffs allege that the
price of Humana common stock was artificially inflated during
the Class Period.

On March 12, 2008, Humana announced that it was revising its
earnings estimates because, among others, it was incurring
increased costs regarding its prescription drug plans.  
Following the announcement, shares of Humana fell $6.50 per
share, or approximately 13.7%.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 26,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey P. Harris, Esq. (jharris@statmanharris.com)
          Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC
          441 Vine Street, Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
          Phone: (513) 621-2666 or (888) 876-7881


MONEYGRAM INTL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MoneyGram International, Inc.  
between January 24, 2007, and January 14, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/986-0036


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Coughlin Stoia Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action suit with the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the
Investor Shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund and the Select
Shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund during the period between
March 31, 2005, and April 7, 2008.

The complaint charges The Charles Schwab Corporation and certain
of its related subsidiaries, among others, with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.  Charles Schwab provides a variety
of financial services to individual investors, independent
investment managers, retirement plans, and institutions.

The complaint alleges that the defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the YieldPlus Funds by making statements that
described the YieldPlus Funds as a safe alternative to money
market funds.  As alleged in the complaint, these statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants did not
adequately disclose the risks associated with investing in the
Funds, including, for example, that the Funds were heavily
invested in high-risk mortgage-backed securities.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of the shares of the Funds during the Class Period.

Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
March 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 9210
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Cheesman Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 1, California,
reversed the ruling of the Solano County Superior Court, which
dismissed Jerry Cheesman's case, involving asbestos, against
Vacaville Park Apartments and other defendants.

The case is styled Jerry Cheesman, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
Vacaville Park Apartments et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Marchiano, Stein, and Swager entered judgment of Case No.
A114588 on March 19, 2008.

Mr. Cheesman's amended complaint sought damages for injuries he  
allegedly sustained from defective conditions of an apartment he
rented from Vacaville Park Apartments.

The complaint asserted eight causes of action: breach of the
implied warranty of habitability; negligence (premises
liability); negligent infliction of emotional distress;
violation of statutory duties; retaliatory/constructive
eviction; nuisance (negligent); nuisance (intentional); and
quiet enjoyment.

The alleged defects included mold and mildew growth, lead-based
paint, and asbestos containing drywall.

Mr. Cheesman's first suit for damages arising from the tenancy
was filed in December 2003. Trial in that case was set for
October 2004, but Mr. Cheesman dismissed the action without
prejudice in September 2004. The case at bench was filed in
December 2004.

In April 2005, defendants filed: a demurrer to the causes of
action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and  
retaliatory/constructive eviction; a motion to strike portions
of the complaint; and a motion for a protective order from
discovery.

In July 2005, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to
amend, granted the motion to strike, and granted the motion for
the protective order.

Defendants sought dismissal of the case and recovery of attorney
fees and costs on the ground that the action was frivolous and
being prosecuted simply to harass defendants into a settlement.

On March 14, 2006, Mr. Cheesman filed additional pleadings in
opposition to dismissal of the case; Vacaville objected to
consideration of these pleadings on the ground that they were
not timely submitted.

On May 10, 2006, the court filed its "Order Granting Motion to
Dismiss Frivolous Lawsuit and for Failure to Comply With Court
Order."

Mr. Cheesman appealed from a sanctions order dismissing his suit
for damages against defendants Vacaville Park Apartments et al.

The issue on review of this ruling was whether Mr. Cheesman
complied with earlier orders requiring that he proved that he
had retained experts to demonstrate that the action was not
frivolous.

The Appeals Court concluded that Mr. Cheesman substantially
complied with the orders and that dismissal of the case was an
abuse of discretion.

The Appeals Court further concluded that the court properly
sustained defendants' demurrer to two of the causes of action
without leave to amend.

The order dismissing the case was reversed. The order sustaining
without leave to amend the demurrer to the causes of action for
negligent infliction of emotional distress and  
constructive/retaliatory eviction was affirmed.

Cynthia S. Hernandez, Vineburg, Calif., represented Jerry
Cheesman.

Gary A. Watt, McNamara Dodge Ney et al., Walnut Creek, Calif.,
represented Vacaville Park Apartments et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Has $16.1M Net Loss Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
United America Indemnity, Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2007, had
US$16.1 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2008.

The Company's gross reserves for asbestos and environmental
losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$58,577,000 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$36,010,000 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's net reserves for A&E losses and LAE were
US$26,694,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$11,157,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

One of the Company's insurance companies has been named in a
lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated insurance
companies that involves such issues with regard to about 5,000
asbestos-related bodily injury claims and others that continue
to be filed.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the survival ratio on a gross basis for the
Company's open A&E claims was 13.3 years, compared with 7.4
years as of Dec. 31, 2006.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the survival ratio on a net basis for the
Company's open A&E claims was 23.6 years, compared with 10.6
years as of Dec. 31, 2006.

George Town, Cayman Islands-based United America Indemnity, Ltd.
provides specialty and surplus property and casualty insurance,
including insurance for social service agencies and vacant
properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trimas Has 1,681 Pending Actions at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2007, was party to about
1,681 pending cases involving about 9,544 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2008.

The asbestos was formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company was a party to about 1,697
pending asbestos-related cases involving an aggregate of about
9,662 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted
619 claims filed, 1,484 claims dismissed, and 142 claims
settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$9,243
and the total defense costs during period were US$4,982,000.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted
3,766 claims filed, 12,508 claims dismissed, and 123 claims
settled. The average settlement amount per claim was US$5,613
and the total defense costs during period were US$4,895,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to
distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other
manufacturers prior to acquisition.

Of the 9,544 claims pending at Dec. 31, 2007, 172 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum). Of the 172 claims, 146 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages and 26
sought between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages.

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 151 of the 172
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 21 sought
between $1.0 million and $5.0 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, 146 of the 172 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 26 sought
US$5 million.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.1 million.

To date, about 50 percent of the Company's costs related to
settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered
by its primary insurance.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corporation operates
through five business units: Recreational Accessories, Packaging
Systems, RV & Trailer Products, Industrial Specialties, and
Energy Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Group Has $136.6M Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s total asbestos
reserves were US$136.6 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$143.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The reserve for incurred but not reported asbestos and
environmental claims (net of reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2007, was
US$73.1 million compared with US$86.5 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company, through its subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Company,
is exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through
claims filed against its direct insureds, as well as through its
position as a reinsurer of other primary carriers.

Argonaut Insurance Company has direct liability arising
primarily from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s
which pre-dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos
exposure.

The Company's A&E loss reserves were a gross of US$147.2 million
(net of US$141.4 million) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with a gross of US$166.8 million (net of US$156.8
million) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 1,757
claims closed, 751 claims opened, and 5,245 open claims. During
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 1,540 claims
closed, 592 claims opened, and 6,251 open claims.

Total gross A&E payments were US$39.4 million in the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$17 million in the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.
is an underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Re Has $1.841B A&E Reserves at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Re Corporation's gross reserves for mass tort-
asbestos/environmental unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses were US$1.841 billion.

General Re is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Overall industry-wide loss experience data and informed judgment
are used when internal loss data is of limited reliability, such
as in setting the estimates for mass tort, asbestos and
hazardous waste (collectively, "mass tort") claims.

Unpaid mass tort reserves at Dec. 31, 2007 were about
US$1.2 billion net of reinsurance. Those reserves were about
US$1.9 billion gross and US$1.2 billion net of reinsurance as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

Claims paid attributable to those losses were about US$75
million in 2007. In 2007, incurred-but-not-reported reserve
estimates for asbestos and environmental claims were increased
by US$48 million.

The survival ratio was about 13 years as of Dec. 31, 2007. The
insurance industry's comparable survival ratio for asbestos and
pollution reserves was about eight years.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Re Cites $9.7B Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group's (BHRG) reserves for
asbestos, environmental, and latent injury losses and loss
adjustment expenses were about US$9.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$3.8 billion at Dec. 31, 2006.

BHRG is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The increase during 2007 was due to an Equitas reinsurance
agreement which became effective on March 30, 2007. Losses paid
in 2007 attributable to these exposures were about US$500
million.

The maximum losses payable by BHRG under retroactive policies
are not expected to exceed about US$24.8 billion as of
December 31, 2007.

Absent significant judicial or legislative changes affecting
asbestos, environmental or latent injury exposures, management
said it believes it unlikely that unpaid losses as of Dec. 31,
2007 (US$17.3 billion) will develop upward to the maximum loss
payable or downward by more than 15 percent.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Sees $11.2B Liabilities at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s liabilities for asbestos,
environmental, and latent injury claims and claims expenses net
of reinsurance recoverables were about US$11.2 billion at
Dec. 31, 2007 and US$5.1 billion at Dec. 31, 2006.

These liabilities included about US$9.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2007
and US$3.8 billion at Dec. 31, 2006, of liabilities assumed
under retroactive reinsurance contracts.

The increase during 2007 is primarily as a result of an Equitas
agreement.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company
owning subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business
activities. The most important of these are insurance businesses
conducted on both a primary basis and a reinsurance basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Records $39.4M Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. recorded US$39,400,000 as reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other general liability claims at Dec. 31,
2007, compared with US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has exposure to asbestos, environmental and other
general liability claims arising from its participation in
various reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985. This exposure
arose from a short duration contract that the Company
discontinued writing many years ago.

One of the Company's subsidiaries, American Reliable Insurance
Company (ARIC), participated in certain excess of loss
reinsurance programs in the London market and, as a result,
reinsured certain personal accident, ransom and kidnap insurance
risks from 1995 to 1997.

ARIC and a foreign affiliate ceded a portion of these risks to
retrocessionaires. ARIC ceased reinsuring such business in 1997.

Many of the disputes involving ARIC and an affiliate, Bankers
Insurance Company Limited (BICL), relating to the 1995 and 1997
program years, have been resolved by settlement or arbitration.

As a result of the settlements and an arbitration (in which ARIC
did not prevail) additional information became available in
2005, and, based on management's best estimate, the Company
increased its reserves and recorded a total pre-tax charge of
US$61,943,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2005.

On Feb. 28, 2006, many of the disputes relating to losses in the
1996 program were settled. In 2007, there were two settlements
relating to parts of the 1997 program. Loss accruals previously
established relating to the 1996 program were adequate.

Negotiations, arbitrations and litigation are still ongoing or
will be scheduled for the remaining disputes.

New York-based Assurant, Inc. provides specialty insurance
products. Through Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty
Property, the Company offers products as credit insurance,
manufactured home coverage, creditor-placed homeowners
insurance, pre-need funeral policies, and extended warranties
for electronics, appliances, and vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Cites $69.4M Liability at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s current asbestos liability was
US$69.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 5, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$1.288 billion
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's workers' compensation for asbestos (under current
liabilities) was US$3 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's
workers' compensation for asbestos (under long-term liabilities)
was US$83.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's current asbestos insurance
receivable was US$10.3 million. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$167.5
million.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's current workers' compensation
for asbestos (under assets) was US$3 million. As of Dec. 31,
2007, the Company's long-term workers' compensation for asbestos
(under assets) was US$83.6 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the current deferred income taxes for
asbestos were US$9.1 million. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the long-term
deferred income taxes for asbestos were US$339.5 million.

Asbestos adjustments for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007
were US$1.2 million.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries
N.V., a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement, uses the
material to create products for residential and commercial
construction, including siding, external cladding, walls,
fencing, and roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced
concrete pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Int'l. Shipholding Reserves $350T at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Shipholding Corporation's reserves for asbestos
and hearing loss lawsuits were US$350,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2008.

The Company has been named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits
claiming damages related to occupational diseases, primarily
related to asbestos and hearing loss.

The Company's current overall exposure to the numerous lawsuits
in question, after considering insurance coverage for these
claims, has been estimated by the Company's lawyers and internal
staff to be about US$280,000.

Mobile, Ala.-based International Shipholding Corporation,
through its subsidiaries, operates a fleet of U.S. and foreign
flag vessels that provide international and domestic maritime
transportation services to commercial and governmental customers
primarily under medium to long-term charters or contracts. At
Feb. 29, 2008, the Company owned or operated 27 ocean-going
vessels and related shoreside handling facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conrail Actions Junked in Defendants' Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, dismissed two
asbestos-related actions filed by Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) against various defendants.

These cases were styled Consolidated Rail Corporation,
Plaintiff, v. Gerard A. Ritter and Susan R. Norek ex rel. Gerard
H. Ritter, deceased, Defendants, and Consolidated Rail
Corporation, Plaintiff, v. John M. Gribbin, Defendant.

District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina entered judgment on Civil
Action Nos. 07-1370 (RMU), 07-1371(RMU) on March 27, 2008.

Congress established Conrail under the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973 (Rail Act). In so doing, Congress
transferred the assets from Erie Lackawanna and several other
Northeast railroad companies to Conrail.

Before the transfer and reorganization, the defendants alleged
that their former employer, Erie Lackawanna, negligently exposed
them to asbestos in violation of the Federal Employers'
Liability Act (FELA).

They, or their personal representatives, initiated suits in
Pennsylvania state court against Conrail, as Erie Lackawanna's
alleged successor-in-interest, to recover for injuries or death
that they contend resulted from the exposure to asbestos.

On July 27, 2007, while the defendants' FELA suits were
proceeding in Pennsylvania state court, Conrail filed complaints
in this court requesting that the court determine the scope of
Conrail's successor liability for personal injury claims.

The defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss, asserting
that their personal injury claims do not fall within the
protections envisioned under the Rail Act.

These defendants alleged that Erie Lackawanna negligently
exposed them to asbestos and have sued Conrail, which are  
pending in Pennsylvania state court, to recover under FELA, for
the adverse effects of this exposure.

They contended that the Rail Act does not prevent their claims
from moving forward. The court agreed.

Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has Personal Injury Claims Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., on April 7, 2008, announced an agreement in
principle that would settle all present and future asbestos-
related personal injury claims, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 7, 2008.

The agreement, reached with the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants, the Future Claimants Representative
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, requires
the following assets to be paid into a trust to be established
under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code:

   -- Cash in the amount of US$250 million;

   -- Warrants to acquire 10 million shares of Grace common
      stock at an exercise price of US$17.00 per share, expiring
      one year from the effective date of a plan of  
      reorganization;

   -- Rights to proceeds under Grace's asbestos-related
      insurance coverage;

   -- The value of cash and stock under the litigation
      settlement agreements with Sealed Air Corporation and
      Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.; and

   -- Deferred payments at US$110 million per year for five
      years beginning in 2019, and US$100 million per year for
      10 years beginning in 2024; the deferred payments would be
      obligations of Grace backed by 50.1 percent of Grace's
      common stock to meet the requirements of Section 524(g).

The agreement in principle contemplates the filing of a plan of
reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court.  
The plan will be subject to approval of its co-proponents, exit
financing, and Bankruptcy Court and District Court approvals.

Fred Festa, the Company's Chairman, President, and Chief
Executive Officer, said, "This agreement in principle is a very
important step in emerging from Chapter 11."

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 94 Respirator Cases Pending v. North Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of 631 respirator lawsuits pending against Norcross Safety
Products L.L.C.'s subsidiary, North Safety Products, about 94
cases are related to exposure to dust particles, including
asbestos.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, North Safety Products, along with its
predecessors and the former owners of that business were named
as defendants in about 629 lawsuits involving respirators
allegedly manufactured and sold by it or its predecessors.

The Company is also monitoring an additional two lawsuits in
which it feels that North Safety Products, its predecessors and
the former owners of such businesses may be named as defendants.

Collectively, these 631 lawsuits represent a total of about
8,396 plaintiffs.

About 85 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
injury resulting from exposure to silica dust.

These lawsuits typically allege that the purported injuries
resulted in part from respirators that were negligently designed
or manufactured.

Invensys plc, formerly Siebe plc, is contractually obligated to
indemnify the Company for any losses, including costs of
defending claims, resulting from respiratory products
manufactured or sold before the acquisition of North Safety
Products in October 1998.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Norcross Safety Products L.L.C. is a
designer, manufacturer and marketer of branded products in the
fragmented personal protection equipment industry. The Company
manufactures and markets personal protection equipment for
workers in the general safety and preparedness, fire service and
electrical safety industries. The Company has about 3,100
employees in 30 primary facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ten Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Katy in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. is a defendant in 10 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 324
individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 14, 2008.

Over 100 defendants are named in each case. In all 10 cases, the
Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in the
course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in
Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis,
lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant which were manufactured by each defendant.

In eight of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death
claims.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc.'s principal business
is the manufacturing and distribution of commercial cleaning
products. The Company also manufactures and distributes storage
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,367 Sterling Fluid Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. states that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA)
has tendered over 2,367 asbestos-related cases to it for defense
and indemnification, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 14, 2008.

These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia,
Massachusetts, and California.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200 million settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling
purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the
Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against Katy in
connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed
to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of
their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many
manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently
because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different
products in the course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of
an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and Sterling may have
manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200 million, the Company has
taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to
indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the
1993 Purchase Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in
these matters.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc.'s principal business
is the manufacturing and distribution of commercial cleaning
products. The Company also manufactures and distributes storage
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 383 Lawsuits Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. states that LaBour Pump Company, a former
division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as a defendant in over 383 asbestos-related cases in New
Jersey.

These cases have also been tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems
(USA).

The Company has elected to defend these cases, many of which
have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc.'s principal business
is the manufacturing and distribution of commercial cleaning
products. The Company also manufactures and distributes storage
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Has $29M Reserves at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's long-term reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$29 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$35 million as of Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims
amounted to US$30.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$7 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$8 million at
Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims
amounted to US$7.25 million as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure.

There are numerous insurance carriers which have issued a number
of policies to the Company over a period extending from about
1967 through about 1985 that still provide coverage for
asbestos-related injury claims.

After about 1985 the policies were issued with provisions which
purport to exclude coverage for asbestos related claims.

The Company has engaged legal counsel to review all of its known
insurance policies, and to provide it with the amount of
coverage which such counsel believes to be probable under those
policies for current and future asbestos-related injury claims
against the Company.

Such legal counsel has provided the Company with its opinion of
the minimum probable coverage available to satisfy asbestos-
related injury claims, which significantly exceeds the Company's
estimated US$36 million liability for such claims at Dec. 31,
2007.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation and its predecessors, for
over 30 years, have been providing insulation and asbestos
abatement services, mainly on the West Coast. The Company
provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation
to industrial, commercial, and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx's Settlement Reserve Remains at $375T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation recorded a reserve of US$375,000 at June 2004,
the time it entered into an asbestos-related Settlement
Agreement and Full Policy Release, and nothing has come to its
attention that would require it to record a different estimate
at Dec. 31, 2007.

In June 2004, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, and the Company, entered into the
Agreement releasing Allstate Insurance Company from its policy
obligations for claims arising from injury or damage which may
have occurred during the period March 15, 1980 to March 15,
1981, under an umbrella liability policy (Policy).

The Policy provided limits of US$5 million in the aggregate and
per occurrence.

Allstate claimed that liability under the Policy had not
attached, and that regardless of that fact, an exclusion in the
Policy barred coverage for virtually all claims of bodily injury
from exposure to asbestos, which is of primary concern to
Metalclad Insulation Corporation.

Metalclad Insulation Corporation took the position that such
asbestos coverage existed.

The parties to the Agreement reached a compromise, whereby
Metalclad Insulation Corporation received US$2.5 million in
cash, and Metalclad Insulation Corporation and the Company
agreed to indemnify and hold harmless Allstate from all claims
which could be alleged against the insurer respecting the
policy, limited to US$2.5 million in amount.

Based on past experience related to asbestos insurance coverage,
the Company said it believes that the Agreement it entered into
in June 2004, will result in a probable loss contingency for
future insurance claims based on the indemnification provision
in the Agreement.

Although the Company is unable to estimate the exact amount of
the loss, it believes at this time the reasonable estimate of
the loss will not be less than US$375,000 or more than US$2.5
million (the US$2.5 million represents the maximum loss the
Company would have based on the indemnification provision in the
Agreement).

The US$375,000 estimated loss contingency noted in the above
range represents 15 percent of the US$2.5 million the Company
received and is based upon its attorney's informal and general
inquiries to an insurance company of the cost for it to purchase
an insurance policy to cover the indemnification provision it
entered into.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation and its predecessors, for
over 30 years, have been providing insulation and asbestos
abatement services, mainly on the West Coast. The Company
provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation
to industrial, commercial, and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Actions v. Entrx Drop to 222 at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related cases against Entrx Corporation dropped to 222
at Dec. 31, 2007, from 404 cases at Dec. 31, 2006, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008.

Asbestos-related cases pending against the Company, mainly its
subsidiary Metalclad Insulation Corporation, at Sept. 30, 2007,
dropped to 240. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 163 new
cases filed, 292 defense judgments and dismissals, 53 settled
cases, and 345 resolved cases. Total indemnity payments were
US$7,974,500, average indemnity paid on settled cases was
US$150,462, and average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was
US$23,114.

In the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company recorded 232 new
cases filed, 253 defense judgments and dismissals, 82 settled
cases, and 335 total resolved cases. Total indemnity payments
were US$4,858,750, average indemnity paid on all settled cases
was US$59,253, and average indemnity paid on all resolved cases
was US$14,505.

Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure.

The average indemnity paid on all resolved claims has fluctuated
over the past five-year period ended Dec. 31, 2007 from a high
of US$23,114 in 2007, to a low of US$14,504 in 2006. In
addition, direct defense costs per resolved claim increased from
US$8,514 in 2003 to US$16,700 in 2007.

Although defense costs are included in the Company's insurance
coverage, the Company expended US$215,000 in 2006, ($296,000 in
2007) to administer the asbestos claims.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation and its predecessors, for
over 30 years, have been providing insulation and asbestos
abatement services, mainly on the West Coast. The Company
provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation
to industrial, commercial, and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, and a number of Metalclad's other liability
insurers continue to face an asbestos-related declaratory relief
action filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central
National Union Insurance Company of Omaha, and Industrial
Underwriters Insurance Company.

On Feb. 23, 2005 ACE, Central National, and Industrial, which
are all related entities, filed the action (ACE Lawsuit) in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations on various coverage issues,
but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical
and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against
Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of
liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in
the settlement agreement.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation and its predecessors, for
over 30 years, have been providing insulation and asbestos
abatement services, mainly on the West Coast. The Company
provides these services through Metalclad Insulation Corporation
to industrial, commercial, and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 770 Claims Pending v. AbitibiBowater Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbitibiBowater Inc. faces 770 asbestos-related claims from its
predecessor, Bowater Incorporated, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 17, 2008.

Since late 2001, Bowater, several other paper companies, and
numerous other companies have been named as defendants in
asbestos personal injury actions. These actions allege
occupational exposure to numerous products.

The Company has denied the allegations and no specific product
of the Company has been identified by the plaintiffs in any of
the actions as having caused or contributed to any individual
plaintiff's alleged asbestos-related injury.

These suits have been filed by about 1,800 claimants who sought
monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
Tennessee, and Texas.

About 1,000 of these claims have been dismissed, either
voluntarily or by summary judgment.

Insurers are defending these claims, and the Company has not
settled or paid any of these claims.

The Company said it believes that all of these asbestos-related
claims are covered by insurance, subject to any applicable
deductibles and its insurers' rights to dispute coverage.

Quebec, Canada-based AbitibiBowater Inc. produces newsprint and
coated and specialty papers, market pulp and wood products
globally. The Company owns or operates 28 pulp and paper
facilities and 31 wood products facilities located in Canada,
the United States, the United Kingdom and South Korea. On
Oct. 29, 2007, Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. and Bowater
Incorporated combined in a merger of equals with each becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of AbitibiBowater.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Remands Russell Suit v. Crane
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, N.D. California, granted Russell C.
Roberts, Jr.'s motion for remand, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, in an asbestos-related case in which one of the
defendants is Crane Co.

The Case is styled Russell C. Roberts, Jr., Plaintiff, v. A.W.
Chesterton Company, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge James Larson entered judgment of
Case No. C 08-1338 JL on March 24, 2008.

Mr. Roberts is 58 years old, a California resident, and dying
from mesothelioma. On June 18, 2007, he filed a personal injury
action in Superior Court, County of San Francisco, against Crane  
and 27 other defendants, alleging that the products and
activities of these defendants exposed him to asbestos, which
caused his injuries.

Throughout the course of the litigation, various defendants were
dismissed, while others engaged in negotiations with Mr. Roberts
that yielded different agreements and arrangements with regard
to settlement.

Trial began on Feb. 4, 2008 in Department 303 of the San
Francisco Superior Court before the Honorable Julie Tang. By
March 7, 2008, Mr. Roberts had reached agreements to settle  
with 13 defendants. Three of these defendants have paid
settlement money and been dismissed or are in the process of
being dismissed.

A settlement was reached with a California resident-defendant
Warren Pumps, Inc., and payment was due on Jan. 25, 2008.
However, Mr. Roberts alleged payment has not yet been rendered
and that court intervention to enforce the settlement may be
necessary.

Two defendants whose settlements are not final and who have not
been dismissed are California resident-defendants J.T. Thorpe &
Son, Inc. and Metalclad Insulation Corporation. Thorpe
Insulation remains a defendant.

Thorpe Insulation filed for bankruptcy and its motion for a stay
of state court proceedings was granted.

During the trial on March 7, 2008, counsel for Mr. Roberts
informed the court and opposing counsel for Crane and Durabla
Manufacturing Company that Mr. Roberts had reached a
confidential settlement with Metalclad, pending performance of
certain conditions that Mr. Roberts expected would be completed
in roughly 30 days.

Counsel for Mr. Roberts stated that it was not dismissing
Metalclad from the action until payment of the settlement amount
was received. The court noted that Metalclad remained a party in
the case until dismissed following performance of the agreement.

Crane immediately announced its intent to remove this case to
federal court based on complete diversity, which it did later
that day.

Subsequently, Mr. Roberts filed the instant motion to remand to
the Superior Court, County of San Francisco for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Roberts alleged that at least one California defendant
remains in the action and that Crane failed to obtain unanimous
consent of the remaining defendants (Durabla specifically),
which makes Crane's removal petition procedurally defective.

Mr. Roberts' motion to remand this action to the Superior Court
of California, County of San Francisco, was granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcatel Lucent Defends v. Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel Lucent is a defendant in various lawsuits, including
asbestos-related claims and matters like commercial disputes,
claims regarding intellectual property, customer financing,
product discontinuance, asbestos claims, labor, employment and
benefit claims and others.         

No other details were disclosed in the Company's annual report,
on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 8, 2008.

Company Profile:

          Alcatel Lucent
          54, rue La Boetie
          75008 Paris, France
          Phone: 33(1)40761010
          Fax: 33(1)40761400
          http://www.alcatel-lucent.com

Alcatel Lucent is a supplier of high-tech equipment for
telecommunications networks.  The Company provides network
switching and transmission systems for wireline and wireless
networks.  The Company is made up of five business units:
wireline, wireless, convergence, enterprise, and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Face 11,350 Active Cases at Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries faced a total of 11,350
active asbestos cases as of Feb. 29, 2008, compared with 10,846
cases as of Feb. 28, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 8, 2008.

The Company stated that its subsidiaries had a total of 11,117
active asbestos-related cases as of Nov. 30, 2007, compared with
a total of 11,021 cases as of Nov. 30, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 18, 2008)

Certain of the Company's wholly-owned subsidiaries, principally
Bondex International, Inc., are defendants in various asbestos-
related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts
with most current claims pending in five states: Illinois, Ohio,
Mississippi, Texas and Florida.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company's
subsidiaries or others.

For the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008, Company subsidiaries
secured dismissals and settlements of 225 cases and made total
payments of US$18.7 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$9.4 million.

For the comparable period ended Feb. 28, 2007, dismissals and
settlements covered 736 cases and total payments were US$18.2
million, which included defense-related payments of US$7.2
million.

For the nine months ended Feb. 29, 2008, Company subsidiaries
secured dismissals and settlements of 882 cases and made total
payments of US$67.6 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$32 million.

For the comparable period ended Feb. 28, 2007, dismissals and
settlements covered 1,292 cases and total payments were US$48.4
million, which included defense-related payments of US$20.4
million.

The Company estimates that its subsidiaries have spent about
US$12.1 million more on defense than they otherwise would have
spent due to these added transitional expenses, which were
completed during the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

The average payment made to settle or dismiss a case was about
US$41,000 for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008, compared with
about US$15,000 for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007.

The average payment made to settle or dismiss a case was about
US$40,000 for the nine months ended Feb. 29, 2008, compared with
US$22,000 for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2007.

As of Feb. 29, 2008, the Company's total asbestos liability was
about US$286.7 million, of which US$186.7 million was related to
unasserted-potential-future-asbestos-related claims, and US$100
million was related to pending known claims.

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc., a holding company,
owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings and sealants
serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's
industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion
control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. The
Company's consumer products are used by professionals and do-it-
yourselfers for home maintenance and improvement, boat repair
and maintenance, and by hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Feb. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$57.5 million as of Feb. 29, 2008, compared with
US$53 million as of May 31, 2007, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 8, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$229,173,000 as of Feb. 29, 2008, compared with US$301,268,000
as of May 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities stood at
US$57,500,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, compared with
US$58,458,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities stood at
US$247,895,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007, compared
with US$332,626,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008)

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc., a holding company,
owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings and sealants
serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's
industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion
control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. The
Company's consumer products are used by professionals and do-it-
yourselfers for home maintenance and improvement, boat repair
and maintenance, and by hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Pays $18.7M for Indemnity and Defense
--------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc., during the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008,
paid US$18.7 million in pre-tax asbestos-related indemnity and
defense costs, compared with payments of US$18.2 million made
during last year's third fiscal quarter.

The total asbestos liability balance stood at US$286.7 million
at Feb. 29, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April
3, 2008.

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International Inc., a holding company,
owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings and sealants
serving both industrial and consumer markets. The Company's
industrial products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion
control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. The
Company's consumer products are used by professionals and do-it-
yourselfers for home maintenance and improvement, boat repair
and maintenance, and by hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooney Releases Statement on Grace's Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Principals announced a US$3 billion dollar agreement to resolve
current and future asbestos claims with chemical manufacturer
W.R. Grace & Co. and related entities, which will eventually
allow the multinational corporation to emerge from bankruptcy
with no further obligations for asbestos injury liability,
according to a Cooney and Conway press release dated April 7,
2008.

Grace manufactured asbestos containing products from 1938 until
the 1970s.

Terms of the agreement will require Grace to make cash payments
over a period of time into a trust fund for asbestos victims.  
Additional cash contributions will be paid to the trust by
Sealed Air Corporation, and Fresenius Medical Corporation, both
formerly affiliated with Grace. Grace agreed that all of its
remaining insurance coverage shall be used for the benefit of
the asbestos victims.

Grace also agreed that the trust fund shall receive warrants for
its stock shares at an agreed price. The total value of the
payments and equity is about US$3 billion.

"The victims of asbestos poisoning and asbestos cancer have
walked a long path to reach justice. Certainly nothing can
replace the family members who have been lost as a result of
their exposure to asbestos, but today's settlement represents a
fair resolution for both the victims and Grace," said John D.
Cooney of the Chicago law firm of Cooney and Conway. "It is
appropriate at this time to remember that countless lives were
lost and families damaged because of the needless use of
asbestos products for many decades."

Mr. Cooney is a member of the negotiating committee for the
settlement, as well as a member of the official Asbestos
Creditors Committee appointed by the U.S. Trustee after Grace
filed for bankruptcy protection in April 2001. At the time it
filed for bankruptcy protection Grace stated that it had been
named in 325,000 asbestos personal injury claims.

Cooney, whose law firm represents asbestos plaintiffs, noted
that many individuals had been diagnosed with asbestos disease
since that time. He stated, "Workers and their families were
unknowingly exposed to asbestos for most of the last century.
Thousands of those people  will be diagnosed with mesothelioma,
a deadly cancer, in the future as a result of this exposure. By
structuring this settlement as a trust fund, both present and
future victims will be able to receive just compensation."

The announcement of the settlement was made at a scheduled
bankruptcy hearing before Judge Judith Fitzgerald in Pittsburgh
this morning. It is expected that Judge Fitzgerald will set the
matter for an additional hearing later this month.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 156; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Asks Court to Name Welsh as Mediator
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to appoint
Judge Diane M. Welsh as the mediator for the asbestos-related
property damage claims filed by Speights & Runyan on behalf of
individual claimants.

James E. O'Neill, at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones LLP, in
Wilmington, Del., relates that as of April 7, 2008, about 160
S&R Claims remain pending, all of which have been objected to by
the Debtors on various grounds. He says the Court directed the
Debtors and S&R, in January 2008, to submit to mediation to see
if the remaining claims could be resolved.

Thereafter, the Debtors and S&R exchanged information with
respect to potential mediator candidates. As a result, the
Debtors and S&R ultimately agreed on the selection of Judge
Welsh as the mediator.

Judge Welsh, according to Mr. O'Neill, served as a U.S.
Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for 12 years. As Magistrate Judge,
Judge Welsh conducted nearly 1,800 settlement conferences in
virtually every area of civil litigation.

Judge Welsh also served on the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Committee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District
Court for 10 years, drafting local federal court rules for a
court-annexed mediation program. Since her retirement in 2005,
Judge Welsh has served as a mediation and arbitrator with JAMS,
an alternative dispute resolution organization.  

Under an engagement letter, Judge Welsh will be paid for her
services at a rate of US$550 per hour plus an initial non-
refundable case management fee of US$275 from each of the
Debtors and S&R, plus out-of-pocket fees. The Mediator's fees
and expenses will be paid equally by the Debtors and S&R.

The Debtors and S&R agree to indemnify the Mediator for any
damages.

To the best of the Debtors' knowledge, Judge Welsh is a
"disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14)
of the Bankruptcy Code, and does not have any interest adverse
to the Debtors or their estates or S&R and its clients.

Mr. O'Neill says Judge Welsh indicated that she can conduct the
mediation on April 24, 2008 and April 25, 2008.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 156; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Libby Claimants Object to $250M for Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. states that claimants injured to exposure to
asbestos from the Debtors' Libby, Mont., vermiculite mining,
tell the Court that they do not oppose the environmental
remediation of contaminated property in Libby that may save
lives.

The Libby Claimants, however, assert that it is unjust for the
U.S. Government to collect from the Debtor US$250 million for
damages to Libby property while the damage caused by the Debtors
to the people in Libby goes unpaid even though the people of
Libby are suffering from severe asbestos disease that have
immediate needs for 24-hour care and other medical expenses.

The Libby Claimants maintain that damage suffered by the people
of Libby involves a far greater sum and is immeasurable in its
human cost.

Kerri K. Mumford, at Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., points out that the Grace Libby Medical Program does not
pay for nursing home care of 24-hour home care for patients with
asbestos disease. For the Libby Claimants, especially those on
oxygen, those services are critical as they are unable to care
for themselves, leaving exhausted family members to bear the
burden with no help from the Debtors, she notes.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 156; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Seeks to Exclude Shapo Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------------
David T. Austern, the Court-appointed future claims
representative, opposes W. R. Grace & Co.'s request to exclude
the expert testimony of Marshall S. Shapo as evidence in the
trial estimating the Debtors' asbestos-related personal injury
claims.  

The FCR notes that the Debtors have already sought for the
exclusion as evidence of Mr. Shapo's testimony in their Daubert
motion filed in January 2008.

By repeating its Daubert arguments, the Debtors are trying to
get a second bite at the apple, despite the fact that the Court
has reserved on the parties' Daubert motions and have repeatedly
stated that they intend to hear the expert testimony that is the
subject of the parties' Daubert motions in the trial, John C.
Phillips, Jr., at Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., in
Wilmington, Del., points out.

Mr. Phillips asserts that Mr. Shapo's specialized tort law
knowledge and expertise is helpful to understand the complex
factors currently affecting the tort system, and will greatly
streamline the Court's grasp of the issues. He adds that the
Court will benefit from the opportunity to ask questions of a
preeminent torts expert at trial, rather than rely on the
parties' briefings on the issue of how tort law changes affect
the Debtors' liabilities.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
joins in the FCR's objection.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 156; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants Seek Court Nod to Lift Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. states that the ZAI (Zonolite Attic
Insulation) Claimants ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to lift the
automatic stay with respect to the ZAI litigation and let the
litigation proceed to resolution in the state tort system.

William D. Sullivan, at Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLC, in
Wilmington, Del., notes that the Debtors' representations to the
Court make it clear that they do not believe that ZAI was a
significant threat to the estates before bankruptcy, and
certainly did not become a threat in bankruptcy. Clearly, he
says, the Debtors should have no concern about the ZAI Claimants
being returned to the tort system.

Returning the ZAI Claims to the tort system has numerous,
salutary aspects, Mr. Sullivan states. It would allow the ZAI
Claimants to "get out of the way" of the reorganization.

Rather than taking time to deal with additional ZAI Science
Trial steps, class certification, and motions for appeal, the
Court can focus its energies on speeding the Debtors'
confirmation by releasing the ZAI Claimants to the tort system,
Mr. Sullivan contends.

Mr. Sullivan further states, "While the ZAI Claimants have the
greatest respect for the Court's abilities, they believe that
principles of federalism favor decisions on state law claims by
state courts whenever possible. In fact, the Supreme Court
recently ruled that when bankruptcy courts must address a state
law issue, they must decide it the same way the controlling
state court would."

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 156; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Widow Urges Victims to "Never Give Up"
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unidentified U.K. widow, who has won compensation after a
six-year fight, has told asbestos victims battling for
compensation to "never give up," h&v news reports.

The woman lost her 72-year-old husband to mesothelioma. He had
been exposed to asbestos while performing repairs and
maintainance on in the boiler houses at various collieries
during the 1950s and while working as a fire fighter for
Lancashire Fire Brigade and later Greater Manchester Fire
Brigade.

Victoria Elves, from Raleys Solicitors, pursued claims against
the former British Coal and the fire service, which were finally
settled just a few weeks before they went to court.

The victim started suffering breathing difficulties in June 2001
and was diagnosed following a biopsy in October 2001. During the
last few months of his life, he could no longer walk upstairs
and needed oxygen. He died in September 2002.

During his time at British Coal, the victim had to climb onto
the lagging around the boilers in order to carry out work inside
them, he was also exposed to asbestos dust generated by laggers
working in the same area.

While working for the fire service he attended several fires at
factories where lagging, walls and roofing contained asbestos.

The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)
has been campaigning for pleural plaques to be recognized as a
medical condition deserving compensation.

UCATT feels recognition would assist the whole process of
getting compensation for asbestos related illnesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solidarity Supports S. Africa Asbestos Ban
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South African trade union Solidarity, on April 3, 2008,
expressed its support for the ban on all asbestos and asbestos
products in South Africa, News24.com reports.

Nic Arnold, head of Solidarity's legal services, said, "The ban
was expected for some time before its publication and we support
the regulation - but we are concerned about provision that says
the SADC may still dump its asbestos waste in South Africa."

Solidarity called on the government to amend its asbestos
dumping requirements or find alternative options. Mr. Arnold
added, "We see too many people suffering from asbestosis and
related illnesses at the injury on duty division of our legal
department."

With the banning of asbestos products, Environmental Affairs
Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk's had done the country a good
turn, Solidarity said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuit v. Texaco, Chevron Filed on April 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria English, William English's widow, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against Texaco Inc. and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. in
Jefferson County District Court on April 8, 2008, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed through Provost Umphrey attorney Keith Hyde.

According to the petition, Mr. English worked at Texaco's Port
Arthur facility. During his employment in the labor and
maintenance departments, he used and was exposed to toxic
materials including asbestos dust and fibers.

The suit said, "As a result of such exposure, William English,
developed an asbestos-related disease for which he died a
painful and terrible death on July 8, 2007.

"The Defendants knew for decades that asbestos-containing
products could cause the disease of asbestosis and asbestos-
related cancers and still allowed their employees...to work with
and around asbestos products. The Defendants acted with
malice..."

The suit goes on to allege that the oil companies failed to
timely and adequately warn workers of the dangers of asbestos,
and take the necessary engineering, safety, industrial hygiene
and medical precautions.

The suit said, "As a result of the aforementioned malice and/or
gross neglect of the Defendants, Plaintiffs seek claims for all
elements of damages allowable under the law including exemplary
damages and seek to recover from the Defendants, an amount in
excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court."

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned
Case No. E181-562.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Downham Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 72-year-old James Westgate,
of Downham, England, was due to asbestos, Lynn News reports.

Mr. Westgate died at Lynn's Queen Elizabeth Hospital on
March 29, a hearing at Lynn County Court heard on April 4, 2008.
He had received a payment from the Government for exposure to
asbestos.

Greater Norfolk Coroner Mr. William Armstrong recorded a verdict
of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules on Eastbourne Worker's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest held at Eastbourne Magistrates Court, on April 1,
2008, heard that the death of 92-year-old floor layer James
Newland was linked to asbestos, Worthing Herald reports.

Mr. Newland died at Eastbourne DGH on Nov. 19, 2008. He retired
at the age of 65.

Coroner Alan Craze said Dr. Jane Mercer, who carried out the
post mortem on Nov. 21, 2008 had given the cause of death as
advanced mesothelioma brought on by exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Craze explained a microscopic inspection of Mr. Newland's
lungs revealed he had suffered a "much greater than average
exposure."

Mr. Newman and his family were unaware of the problem until his
death.

Widow Margaret Newland said, "He worked all over the country and
we cannot specifically say where he would have come in to
contact with it."

Mr. Craze agreed it would be difficult to 'pin point' a firm or
employer but said the buildings Mr. Newman worked in would, most
likely, have contained asbestos.

Mrs. Newland confirmed her husband served in the army until 1946
and said there were no hobbies or activities outside of work
which would have involved the substance.

Mr. Craze concluded Mr. Newman had died due to asbestos in his
workplace and recorded a verdict of death from industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison Judge Notes Decline of New Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Ill., Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, the presiding
asbestos judge, is not worried about the rise of asbestos cases
filed, after a three-year decline in the number of case filings,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In 2007, there were 455 asbestos suits filed in Madison County,
which is 130 cases more than in 2006. Prior to last year, there
had not been a gain since 2003.

In 2006, there were 325 cases, the lowest number of asbestos
filings since 1998, when 176 were filed. In 2005, there were
389.

Lately, a large number of asbestos cases filed are from
plaintiffs who live outside of Illinois.

And as of March 21, 2007, about 146 asbestos cases have been
filed so far in Madison County in 2008. As many as 92 percent of
those include plaintiffs living outside of Illinois.

Judge Stack said, "The fact that there are a few hundred more
being filed, doesn't mean that we're getting the same numbers or
types of filings that we had been getting a few years ago. If it
starts to get that way again, then I feel confidant that I will
start seeing many more Forum Motions."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grandfather Launches GBP200,000 Payout Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Gooding, a 66-year-old grandfather dying of malignant
mesothelioma, has launched a bid for GBP200,000 compensation to
provide for his family after his death, Hartlepool Mail reports.

Mr. Gooding issued legal proceedings after developing malignant
mesothelioma, according to a High Court writ.

Mr. Gooding found out he had the disease in January 2007 while
working in Spain. In July 2007, he was given 18 months to live.

Mr. Gooding believes he came into contact with asbestos dust
during his working career in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, before
working offshore and in various European and Asian countries.

Mr Gooding, of Newark Road, Hartlepool, England, hopes any
compensation will provide for his wife and family.

Mr. Gooding claims he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers
when he worked for Telent's and their predecessors Associated
Electrical Industries between 1957 and 1965, and for another
company in the 1960s and 1970s.

The writ is based on claims the companies were negligent and
they failed to warn him of the risks to health from asbestos
dust.

Mr. Gooding started as an apprentice and worked at a factory
which he says contained steel pipe racks lagged with asbestos.
He says he was also exposed to asbestos when he worked as a
contractor for another company as an installation electrician at
the ICI Plant, in Teesside.

Monica Coull, a spokeswoman for Telent, said, "Although we were
only set up in 2006, Telent has a long industrial heritage. As a
result, we receive industrial injury claims of this nature from
time to time and we deal with them appropriately."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Settles With Cooper Mechanical
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of June Harry, of Windsor, Berkshire, U.K., has
received GBP39,380 in an out-of-court settlement with Slough-
based firm Cooper Mechanical Joints, which produced car gaskets,
Slough & Windsor Observer reports.

Mrs. Harry worked for three years from 1950 to 1953 for Cooper
Mechanical. She was one of a number of workers who had to cut
strips of asbestos and press them into shape as part of her job
at the Liverpool Road site.

The Company, which employed more than 800 people, no longer
exists but an asbestos bankruptcy fund set up by a number of
firms has agreed terms with the Harry family awarding them
GBP39,380 in damages.

Now, according to solicitors Charles Lucas Marshall who
represented the Harry family, other members of the workforce who
have developed asbestos related problems could pursue a claim.

Solicitor Brigitte Chandler said, "Mrs. Harry was not provided
with any masks, wore ordinary overalls and had no special
washing facilities.

"There were no warnings given to her about the dangers. Asbestos
was widely used in this company. It is quite possible other
members of the workforce may have developed or will develop
asbestos-related problems in the future and it is well
worthwhile pursuing a claim."

The Harry family has also received compensation from the John
Manville Trust fund in the United States, set up in 1988 to
settle asbestos personal injury claims. John Manville was a
company that exported asbestos to the U.K.

Mrs. Harry first fell ill in November 2005 and a subsequent
chest x-ray revealed she was suffering from excess fluid around
her lungs. A further CT scan showed she had developed
mesothelioma. She died in May 2006 at the age of 71.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Community Services Charged for OHSA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Community Services and three of its employees
face charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA)
after the discovery of asbestos in insulation in public housing
units in Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada, Cape Breton Post reports.

Filed on April 3, 2008, the four counts against the Department
of Community Services include:

  -- Failing to take every reasonable precaution to ensure the
     health and safety of its workers;

   -- Failing to provide information, instruction, training,
      supervision and facilities necessary to the health and
      safety of employees;

   -- Failing to ensure employees, particularly supervisors and
      foremen, were made familiar with any health or safety
      hazard they might meet in the workplace; and

   -- Failing to protect employees from health and safety
      hazards.

Charges were filed against three employees of the department on
April 2, 2008. These employees are James Edward Della Valle, 34
years old; Darryl Todd Routledge, 43 years old; and Joseph
Darrell McNeil, 50 years old.

All face single counts of failing to take every reasonable
precaution to protect their own health and safety and that of
others in the workplace.

Mr. Della Valle is an occupational health and safety coordinator
with Cape Breton Regional Housing Authority, while Mr. Routledge
and Mr. McNeil are maintenance supervisors.

Community Services spokesperson Linda Laffin said she could only
confirm the department was notified of the charges against it on
April 3, 2008. She could not say whether any disciplinary action
had been taken against staff, noting that would be a personnel
matter.

In April 2006, a construction worker approached Cape Breton Nova
MLA Gordie Gosse with a letter dated Oct. 25, 2005, from
Atlantic Indoor Air Audit Co., addressed to Mr. Della Valle, the
Cape Breton Island Housing Authority safety coordinator.

The letter confirmed the presence of actinolite asbestos in a
sample of vermiculite insulation from a unit at Rose Terrace. It
noted that asbestos is one of a handful of substances
conclusively proven to be a human carcinogen, and actinolite
belongs to a group of asbestos considered especially dangerous
because the fibers are more difficult for the lungs to expel. It
added the major health risks associated with asbestos include
asbestosis, a scarring of the lungs, lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a cancer of the chest lining.

When that letter eventually made it into the hands of other
senior housing officials, it prompted a Community Services
Department internal report into the five-month delay in the
discovery being made public, measures to seal off areas where
vermiculite could escape and the Department of Environment and
Labour probe.

While the charges relate to exposure by employees and not the
affected residents of the public housing units, Mr. Gosse said
they should also take some solace in the laying of charges.






                            *********

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  * * *