CAR_Public/080418.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 77
  
                            Headlines

3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash.

CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims
CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit
CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility
COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens
COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit

COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit
ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes
FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved
FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations
ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System

KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products
MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail
MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M.
TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits
WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit
HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit

ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY
MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota
SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
VERTEX PHARMA: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
WALGREEN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois

WALGREEN CO: Schatz Nobel Files Illinios Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Facing 1 Inactive Injury Suit in Ohio
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star to Perform Pa. Site Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Cases Pending Against Met-Pro at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briefing on 2 Dana Holding Appeals Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Pending v. Dana Holding at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Records $18M Receivable for CCR Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 385 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Inc. in Arbitration with Equitas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $52.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Continues to Face Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Getty Realty, Unit Face Suit in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DXP Ent. Finalizing Remaining Settlements
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.8M for Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orion Marine Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Domtar Ind. in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Actions Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Current Obligations Total $101M at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records 9,500 Exposure Claims at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures LLC Records 15 Active Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $41.3M Reorganization Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Cites $31.2M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,360 Claims at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.6M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ING Groep Has EUR66M Balance for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Pacific Adjusts Liability Estimate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 449 Pending French Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA May Spend $8MM in 2008

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Hauman Suit Okayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Hendleys' Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Incurs $1.4M for Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Incurs $511T Losses at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Has $7.4M for Claims at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 169 Claims at Feb. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Incurs $7.1M for Remediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Residential Uses $807T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Inc. Facing Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NTS Comms Incurs $31T for Tex. Site in 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Moves to End G-I Holdings' Stay
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Inc. Faces 3 Building Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Site Ended on Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks High Court Review on Libby Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Man's Estate Sues 10 Firms in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk MP Campaigns v. Law Lords Decision
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Files Suit v. CBS Corp. Over CSI Toys
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner's Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple to Pay $2,000 Over MassDEP Breaches

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Board Worker's Widow Seeks Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Sailor's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pig Shelter Exposure Led to Farmer's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Color Stillman Gets GBP65T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Town Worker Fired for "Whistleblowing"

ASBESTOS ALERT: Total Environmental Fined $12T for Mishandling



                           *********


3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Chief Judge of Ramsey County, Minnesota has ruled that an
age discrimination suit filed by five 3M employees may proceed
as a class action on behalf of about 6,000 Minnesota-based
current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of
all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M
Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46
or older at any time during the applicable period to be
determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Nob. 7, 2007).

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."  

The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately
selects younger employees for a leadership-training program
called "Six Sigma."

The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms
of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008).

The District Court of Ramsey County in Minnesota recently
granted certification to a class of about 6,000 Minnesota-based
current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45.

According to Susan Coler, Esq., a partner at Sprenger + Lang and
one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, "Almost all age discrimination
class and collective actions have alleged discrimination in
termination decisions, and the remainder of the cases have
alleged discrimination in hiring."

"3M's overt statements about its preference for younger
employees in decisions such as selections for leadership
training and promotions led us to make challenges beyond
discriminatory terminations," Ms. Coler adds.

In addition to a court order requiring 3M to change business
practices, the suit seeks millions of dollars in damages to
compensate class members for the pay and benefits they should
have received.  The suit also seeks up to three times the
economic losses suffered by class members, punitive damages to
deter 3M from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to
send the message to other employers that age discrimination will
not be tolerated.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also are actively exploring a parallel
suit on behalf of non-Minnesota employees.  "3M's practices and
attitudes that we allege resulted in systemic discrimination in
Minnesota applied across the country.  We are developing a
nationwide case to allow non-Minnesota salaried employees to
recover as well," said Thomas J. Henderson, Esq., another
Sprenger + Lang partner and attorney for the plaintiffs.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology   
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. is facing purported class
actions in New York and Delaware over a proposed merger
agreement entered into between the Company and JPMorgan Chase &
Co., according to Bear Stearns' April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Beginning March 17, 2008, various stockholders of the Company
filed several purported class action lawsuits against it, its
board of directors, and certain of its present and former
executive officers.

Among other things, these actions allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to
the Bear Stearns stockholders by agreeing to the proposed
merger.

Five of these actions have been filed with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York and consolidated under the caption, "In re
Bear Stearns Litigation."

Two actions have been filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery
where the plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate their
cases in Delaware.  JPMorgan Chase is named as a defendant in
certain of these cases.

In each of these actions, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
proposed merger and enjoin JPMorgan Chase from voting the
95 million shares acquired pursuant to a Share Exchange
Agreement, other injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.  

On April 9, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court granted JPMorgan
Chase's and Bear Stearns' motion to stay the Delaware action in
favor of the New York action, at least until the preliminary
injunction motion is resolved.   The Delaware court also granted
the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate their cases.

The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/
-- is a holding company.  The Company through its broker-dealer
and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.;
Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International
Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending
Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial
Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns
Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage
Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear
Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an
investment banking, securities and derivatives trading,
clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments,
institutional and individual investors globally.  The segments
of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and
wealth management.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors face several putative class
actions commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York purporting to represent the interests of
participants in the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan
during the time period of December 2006 through the present,
according to the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Feb. 29, 2008.

These actions allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and to the other participants
and beneficiaries of the ESOP by:

       -- failing to prudently manage the ESOP's investment in
          Company securities;

       -- failing to communicate fully and accurately about the
          risks of the ESOP's investment in the Company's stock;

       -- failing to to avoid or address alleged conflicts of
          interest; and

       -- failing to monitor those who managed and administered
          the ESOP.

In connection with these allegations, each plaintiff asserts
claims for violations under various sections of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and seeks reimbursement to the
ESOP for all losses, an unspecified amount of monetary damages
and imposition of a constructive trust.

The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/
-- is a holding company.  The Company through its broker-dealer
and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.;
Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International
Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending
Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial
Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns
Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage
Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear
Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an
investment banking, securities and derivatives trading,
clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments,
institutional and individual investors globally.  The segments
of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and
wealth management.


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors are facing three purported
securities fraud class action suits in New York, according to
the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.

Various shareholders of the Company have commenced purported
class actions against it on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company between
Dec. 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008.

The three actions, commenced with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, allege that the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results and that as a result of
those false statements, the Company's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

In connection with these allegations, the Complaint asserts
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/
-- is a holding company.  The Company through its broker-dealer
and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.;
Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International
Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending
Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial
Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns
Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage
Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear
Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an
investment banking, securities and derivatives trading,
clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments,
institutional and individual investors globally.  The segments
of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and
wealth management.


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CellCyte Genetics Corporation, formerly Shepard Inc., is facing  
three shareholder lawsuits that were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, according
to the company's April 11, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits are:

       1. "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al,
          No. C08-0047,"

       2. "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          No. C08-0163," and

       3. "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No.
          C08-0178."

The three lawsuits are virtually identical and allege, inter
alia, that the Company and its officers and directors filed
misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the Company's products, and that the
Company posted misleading information regarding an officer on
its Web site.

The lawsuits claim that investors purchased the company's stock
based on the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs
are seeking monetary relief.  None of the lawsuits has been
certified for class-action status.

CellCyte Genetics Corp. -- http://www.cellcyte.com-- formerly  
Shepard Inc., is a development-stage company.  The company is
developing clinical-stage therapeutic agents and treatments for
oncology, diabetes, heart, liver, lung and kidney diseases, as
well as for stem cell bone marrow and organ transplants.


CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Channellock, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on
April 15, 2008, with the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, alleging it sells tools by falsely claiming they were
"Made in the USA," CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Blake R. Stewart brings this action on behalf of
all purchasers of defendant's tool products, including the
"Channellock 8" Retaining Ring Pliers, that were manufactured,
distributed, marketed, and sold by Channellock to California
consumers.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

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

     -- damages according to proof;

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

     -- an order, pursuant to California Business & Professions
        Code Section 17204 and pursuant to the equitable powers
        of the court, enjoining Channellock, its subsidiaries,
        affiliates, and successors, agents, servants, officer,
        directors, employees, and all persons, acting in concert
        with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in
        conduct violative of California Business & Professions
        Code Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- an oder, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section
        17204, requiring Channellock to provide restitution to
        compensate, and to restore all persons in interest,
        including all class members, with all monies acquired by
        means of defendant's unfair competition to the extent
        permitted by California law;

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

     -- a declaration that Channellock violated the Consumers
        Legal Remedies Act and that plaintiff, and all others
        similarly situated, are entitled to actual damages
        pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780;

     -- punitive damages to the extent permitted by law pursuant
        to Civil Code Section 1780(a)(4);

     -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees as it relates to
        all three causes of action pursuant to Civil Code
        Section 1780 as it relates to the first cause of action
        and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5
        as it relates to the second and third causes of action;

     -- costs of suit incurred;

     -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and

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

The suit is "Blake R. Stewart et al. v. Channellock, Inc. et
al., Case No. 37-2008-00081963-CU-BT-CTL,"  filed with the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John H. Donboli, Esq.
          JL Sean Slattery
          Del Mar Law Group, LLP
          322 8th Street, Suite 105
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Phone: (858) 793-6244
          Fax: (858) 793-6005


CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chevy Chase Bank and BF Saul Wholesale Lending are facing a
class-action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that the companies charge minority homebuyers higher fees and
interest than they charge white people, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Washington H. Cobb seeks redress for racially
discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Opportunity
Act, 15 USC Section 1691, et seq. and the Fair Housing Act, 42
USC Section 3601 et seq.

This class action challenges the defendants' racially
discriminatory mortgage lending practices.

According to the complaint, the defendants established a
specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a
component of which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing
Policy," authorized an unchecked, subjective surcharge of
additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based
financing rate.

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

This class action is brought pursuant to the ECOA and the FHA on
behalf of all minority borrowers who entered into residential
mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or
purchased by defendants, and who were harmed by defendants'
discriminatory conduct.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature and scope of defendants' policies and
         procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread
         premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans
         they fund;

     (b) whether defendants are creditors under the ECOA
         because, in the ordinary course of business, they
         participate in the decision of whether or not to extend
         credit to consumers;

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

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

     (e) whether defendants have any legitimate business
         justification for their policies and procedures;

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

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

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

The plaintiff asks the court for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The suit is "Washington H. Cobb et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank et
al., Case No. CV08-02474," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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


CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative deal was reached for the settlement of several
purported class actions filed in Louisiana against a subsidiary
of Clean Harbors, Inc., according to the company's March 10,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In September 2002, various plaintiffs filed five lawsuits based
in part upon allegations relating to ownership and operation of
a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana, by
Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the facility to be
located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface
water under state law, payment of civil penalties of $27,500 per
violation per day from and after Nov. 17, 2003, and an
additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the
environment, plus interest.

The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to
remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in
general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the
alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for
alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources
damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees.

On Oct. 17, 2006, CH Plaquemine (which operated at a loss during
the past two years prior to that date) ceased operations and
filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

On Dec. 28, 2006, the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court transferred
the venue of the CH Plaquemine bankruptcy case to the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,where such
case is now pending.  

The Company believes that the filing of that Chapter 11 petition
by CH Plaquemine will have no adverse effect on the Company's
other operations.

On Sept. 13, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved a global
settlement of the five lawsuits, pursuant to which CH Plaquemine
has conditionally agreed to settle all of the pending lawsuits,
subject to certain contingencies and court proceedings which
must still take place before the settlement can be consummated.

Among the conditions to the settlement is that the Bankruptcy
Court approve as fair and reasonable a class action settlement
of one of the five lawsuits which was filed as a class action,
and that CH Plaquemine successfully confirm a plan of
reorganization that incorporates the terms of the settlement.

A motion to approve the class action settlement documents was
filed on Nov. 28, 2007, and a fairness hearing was held on
April 14, 2008.

Clean Harbors, Inc. -- http://www.cleanharbors.com/-- through  
its subsidiaries, is a provider of environmental services and an
operator of non-nuclear hazardous waste treatment facilities in
North America.  The Company performs environmental services for
over 45,000 customers, including more than 325 Fortune 500
companies, in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  It
performs environmental services through a network of more than
100 service locations, and operates six incineration facilities,
nine commercial landfills, six wastewater treatment operations,
and 20 transportation, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs),
as well as six polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) management
facilities, and two oil and used oil products recycling
facilities.  Clean Harbors operates in two segments: Technical
Services and Site Services.


COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copart, Inc., settled a lawsuit filed with the State Court for
the County of Chatham, Georgia over allegations that the company
charges unreasonable amounts for storage liens.

On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking
relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and
expenses.  

The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31,
2007, and was denied.

Subsequent thereto, the parties agreed to settle the case
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and a dismissal
with prejudice was filed on Jan. 23, 2008, according to the
company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31,
2008.

Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of    
salvage vehicle sales services in the U.S.  It also provides
vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies with a range of
services to process and sell salvage vehicles over the Internet
through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2) Internet
auction technology.

    
COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
dismisses several claims in a purported antitrust class action
suit filed against Copart, Inc., according to the company's
March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31, 2008.

On July 28, 2006, Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC filed the
suit against Copart with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, originally alleging antitrust violations
and unfair trade practices.

Relief sought originally included class certification based on
both unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages,
fees, costs and expenses.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the Magistrate required FCS to amend its
complaint.  

A First Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended
Complaint was submitted Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned
its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies simply on
breach of contract claims.

On Aug. 23, 2007, Copart filed:

     -- a motion to dismiss claims for improper venue;

     -- a motion to dismiss for failure to join persons needed
        for just adjudication;

     -- a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction;

     -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for
        failure to state claim; and

     -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for lack
        of diversity jurisdiction.  

On Feb. 22, 2008, the court granted the motions to dismiss with
regard to all claims, leaving only the anti-trust claim pending.

The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-
00535-FJP-SCR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, Judge Frank J. Polozola presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq.
          16137 Berryhill Drive
          Baton Rouge, LA 70817
          Phone: 225-751-3775

Representing the defendants is:

          Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq. (cschutte@gmstl.com)
          Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love
          320 Somerulos Street
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Phone:  225-387-6966
          Fax: 225-387-8230


COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an appeal in connection
with the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging improper use and
collection of deposits and container recycling fees by beverage
companies, including Cott Corp., in British Columbia, according
to Cott's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.

In January 2005, Cott was named as one of many defendants in the
action captioned "The Consumers' Association of Canada and Bruce
Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed with the Supreme
Court of British Columbia in Canada (Class Action Reporter,
March 15, 2007).

This claim has been brought under the British Columbia Class
Proceedings Act as a class action, but has not been certified as
a class action yet.

The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of
beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada),
the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container
deposit program, alleging the improper use and collection by the
defendants of deposits and container recycling fees pursuant to
the British Columbia container recycling program.

The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that
CDN$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted
by the defendants and are held on constructive trust for
consumers and the repayment of CDN$60 million collected as
container recycling fees.

The defendants, including Cott, brought and argued a summary
trial application in January 2006.  On June 2, 2006, the British
Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial application,
which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action
against the company and the other defendants.

On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
action to the British Columbia Court of Appeals.  The appeal was
denied.  A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was
also rejected on Dec. 20, 2007.

In February 2005, similar class action claims were filed in a
number of other Canadian provinces.  Claims filed in Quebec have
since been discontinued, but is unclear how the dismissal of the
British Columbia case will impact the other cases.

Cott Corp. -- http://www.cott.com/-- is a non-alcoholic  
beverage company and a provider of retailer brand soft drink.  
In addition to carbonated soft drinks, the Company's product
lines include clear, still, and sparkling flavored waters,
juice-based products, bottled water, energy drinks and ready-to-
drink teas.  The Company operates its business in North America
through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages
Inc., in the U.S. and through Cott Corp. in Canada.  The Company
operates its International business through several
subsidiaries, including its indirect wholly owned subsidiary,
Cott Beverages Ltd., in the U.K., and Europe, and through an
indirect 90% owned subsidiary, Cott Embotelladores de Mexico,
S.A. de C.V., in Mexico.


ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
A district judge says he probably won't give class-action status
to patients and insurers who paid for Zyprexa for FDA-approved
uses, FiercePharma reports.  

According to Judge Jack Weinstein, he does not expect the
plaintiffs to be able to claim punitive damages.  The case
"ought to be settled," he said.  "I really think that we're not
dealing with very much money."

FiercePharma notes, however, that Judge Weinstein also said he
might reconsider his position before his final ruling.  He did
say he would consider certifying a class of off-label
purchasers.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 31, 2008,
Eli Lilly and Co. is facing several purported federal class
action suits in New York over the side effects and improper
promotion of the drug, Zyprexa.

The CAR recounted that two lawsuits were filed in 2005 with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all
consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental
entities, which have made or will make payments for their
members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa.  These
actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations) statute, and common law theories, seeking
a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were then filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2006 on similar
grounds.  As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits
allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about
side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,   
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The Company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries. Eli Lilly and Company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The Company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  


FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California,
Sacramento County, ended seven years of litigation on April 15,
2008, when he approved the Ford Explorer class action settlement
and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The class action was brought on behalf of all people and
entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a
new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California
between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their
Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed
of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that
defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the report, the claim stems from a class action
suit filed on behalf of more than 414,000 Californians who
bought Explorers and later claimed they had lost resale and
trade-in value because of reports about rollover accidents and a
nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone tires in 2000.

The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw
that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet
concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a
safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford
for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as
well as money from the profits Ford earned on California
Explorer sales, and other legal costs.

Earlier, the Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group
based in Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the
Sacramento Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the
massive Ford Explorer lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 10,
2008).

                        The Settlement

The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co-
counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the
settlement applies to about one million people in California,
Connecticut, Illinois and Texas.

It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy
new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln
Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said.  The settlements apply to
Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said.

Filed less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the
consumer group claims the deal approved in December rewards
lawyers in the case with $25 million in fees but provides
Explorer owners with "no real benefits."

A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to
$30,000.

             Superior Court of California's Approval

Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California's recent
approval means that California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas
consumers who bought, owned or leased 1991-2001 model year Ford
Explorers can get benefits from the settlement.

Consumers must act by April 29, 2008, to get benefits, which
include discount certificates worth $500 toward the purchase or
lease of a new Ford Explorer or $300 toward the purchase or
lease of any other new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury.

See Ford Explorer Cases on the net:

   http://www.explorercasuit.com/   

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq. (hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com)
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont-Rideout Health Group is facing a class-action complaint
filed on April 23, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Yuba alleging it cheated 500 nurses,
technicians and therapists of overtime on 12-hour shifts and
violated other sections of the Labor Code, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is a class action brought by DAvid Cooke and Glenn Green
pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure
section 382 on behalf of all non-exempt, hourly California
employees of Fremont-Rideout who were employed as Registered
Nurses or Licensed Vocational nurses or Monitor Technicians or
Respiratory Therapists who worked 12-hour workdays during the
period March 28, 2004, to the date the class may be certified
and notice given.

This class action complaint asserts claims for relief under
California wage and hour law for the defendants:

     (1) failure to provide meal periods in compliance with
         governing wage and hour law;

     (2) failure to provide a third rest break for employees who
         worked 12-hour shifts;

     (3) failure to pay overtime at one and one half the hourly
         rate for schedules requiring them to work 12 hours;

     (4) failure to provide an accurate itemized statement of
         the hours and wages earned by employees working 12-hour
         shifts;

     (5) failure to pay the amount due to employee class members
         who quit or were discharged; and

     (6) for defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct
         in violation of California Business and Professions
         Code Section 17200, et seq.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants violated California wage and hour
         law by implementing null and void alternative week
         schedules and then failing to pay class members
         overtime wages that were due in violation of California
         Labor Code sections 510, 511, 1194 and applicable Wage
         Order regulations;

     (b) whether defendants violated California wage and hour
         law by means of relief protocols and other systematic
         practices that had the effect of denying class members
         compliant meal periods within the first five hours of
         their shifts in violation of California Labor Code
         sections 512, 226.7 and applicable Wage Order
         regulations;

     (c) whether defendants had a policy or practice to violate
         California wage and hour laws and regulations by
         directing class members to inaccurately or improperly
         report meal periods in violation of California Labor
         Code applicable Wage Order regulations;

     (d) whether defendants violated California wage and hour
         law by their systematic failure to authorize and permit
         class members to take paid third rest breaks in
         violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and
         applicable Wage Order regulations;

     (e) whether defendants violated California wage and hour
         law by failing to itemize the automatic computer
         deductions and by misreporting actual gross pay and net
         pay in violation of California Labor Code section 226
         and applicable Wage Order regulations;

     (f) whether defendants' failure to pay overtime due
         resulted in a failure to timely pay wages upon
         separation in violation of California Labor Code
         sections 201, 202, 203 and applicable Wage Order
         regulations;

     (g) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour
         statutes and regulations are unlawful business
         practices under California Business and Professions
         Code section 17200, et seq.;

     (h) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law are
         unfair business practices under California Business and
         Professions Codes Section 17200, et seq.;

     (i) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law
         were likely to deceive plaintiffs and were therefore,
         fraudulent under California Business and Professions
         Code section 17200, et seq.;

     (j) whether class members are entitle to mandatory interest
         on unpaid wages as provided for in California labor
         Code Section 218.6 and whether such interest is due at
         a rate of 10% or some other rate; and

     (k) whether class members are entitle to restitution or
         other equitable relief, including injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- for compensatory damages;

     -- for restitution of all monies due to plaintiffs, and
        disgorged profits from the unlawful, unfair or
        fraudulent business practices of defendants;

     -- for statutory damages and/or penalties as allowed by
        California wage and hour statutes and regulations;

     -- for interest accrued to date;

     -- for costs of suit and expenses incurred;

     -- for reasonable attorney's fees;

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

     -- for injunctive relief; and

     -- for all such other and further relief that the court may
        deem just and proper.

The suit is "David Cooke et al. v. Fremont-Rideout Health Group,
et al., Case No. 08-0000278," filed with the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Yuba.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William A. Kershaw, Esq.
          Lyle W. Cook, Esq.
          Kershaw W. Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP
          401 Watt Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95864
          Phone: (916) 448-9800
          Fax: (916) 669-4499


ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System
------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is facing a class-
action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging it bungled
its I-Pass transponder system, which issues 85,000 notices of
toll violations each day -- many of them erroneous -- and makes
it impossible to contest them, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Marvin Kushner brings this action to secure
redress for the improper and unconstitutional practices of the
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in sending violation
notices.

Mr. Kushner brings this suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and (b)(2) on behalf of all persons issued notice of violation
who did not either receive a hearing or have their violations
canceled as a result of communication with ISTHA.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether notices in the form represented violate due
         process; and

     (b) whether notices in the form represented comply with
         Illinois law governing such notices.

Mr. Kushner asks the court for:

     -- a declaration in the form represented are violative of
        due process;

     -- an injunction restraining defendants from taking any
        action against customers based on such notices;

     -- damages including a refund of all fines imposed pursuant
        to such notices, except pursuant to a judgment of a
        court;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper.

The suit is "Marvin Kushner et al v. Illinois State Toll Highway
Authority, et al., Case No. 08CV2148," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200
          Fax: (312) 419-0379


KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kadant, Inc., is facing a purported class action that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased
defective decking and railing products manufactured by its
discontinued operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a
consumer class action brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph
Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-
JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the Company on
Jan. 7, 2008.

Other defendants are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty
Diversified Industries, Inc.  

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages under various state consumer protection
statutes.

In subsequent disclosures filed with this litigation, the
plaintiffs claim that such damages exceed $50 million, according
to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.

The suit is "Fisher et al v. Liberty Diversified Industries,
Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Joseph L.
Tauro presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 610-891-9880
          Fax: 610-891-9883

               - and -

          Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes LLP
          30th Floor
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9100
          Fax: 617-526-5000

               - and -

          Edward William Little, Jr., Esq.
          (elittle@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English, LLP
          225 Franklin street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-7018
          Fax: 617-204-8018


MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail
-----------------------------------------------------
Meeker County and Sheriff Mike Hirman are facing a federal
class-action lawsuit filed by a Big Lake resident with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Hutchinson Leader
reports.

The lawsuit alleges that 23-year-old Gail Lynn Simpson was
subjected to strip searches on different occasions prior to
being admitted to the Meeker County Jail, including one instance
of booking photographs taken of her bare breasts.

The complaint alleges that Ms. Simpson was arrested on four
different occasions from September 2004 to April 2005.  Each of
the arrests involved misdemeanor charges ranging from driving
after revocation to theft.  In each case, Ms. Simpson was taken
to the jail, where she was instructed to remove all her
clothing, and while standing naked was told to stand with her
feet wide apart with her hands over her head.  She was told to
squat and turn around, then her hair was searched.

Ms. Simpson, Hutchinson Leader recounts, was booked into the
Meeker County Jail a fifth time on Nov. 28, 2007, after
reporting to the jail on her own to serve time for a failure to
pay child support, another misdemeanor.  On that occasion, she
was asked if she had any body piercings, and she told the
officer she had breast piercings.  She was asked to show her
breasts to the booking officer, who photographed them.  She then
was strip searched by the officer in the same manner as the
previous four arrests.

The report relates that the complaint challenges the county's
strip-search policy, saying it violates the Fourth and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution.  The suit "seeks redress for the
defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional policy, custom and/or
practice of strip searching all arrestees brought to the Meeker
County Jail."

Ms. Simpson is seeking in excess of $75,000.  She is represented
by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi of Minneapolis.  

Jon K. Iverson, Esq., of Iverson Reuvers Attorneys at Law, in
Bloomington, Minn., who was hired through the Minnesota Counties
Insurance Trust to represent the county, told Hutchinson Leader
that the county acted within guidelines established by the legal
system.

"We will evaluate the facts and circumstances (of the lawsuit),"
Mr. Iverson said, but Meeker County's strip-search policy
"comports with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure law."


MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Alameda County has yet to
certify a class in a lawsuit against Modtech Holdings, Inc.,
alleging labor violations.

On Jan. 25, 2006, TRICO Pipes, Aram Hodess, Micah Long and the
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 159 on behalf of those
persons the company employed on California public work projects
from Jan. 25, 2002, up to the filing of the complaint, commenced
a class action suit against the company and Bayside Solutions,
Inc.  The complaint alleges that Modtech failed to pay these
individuals general prevailing wage rates, overtime rates, and
required rates for holiday work.  

The suit also alleges that the company failed to employ
registered apprentices, thereby denying such apprentices the
opportunity to earn wages.

Bayside Solutions is a temporary labor service used by the
company and TRICO Pipes is a joint labor management committee in
the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in Contra Costa County.

The complaint seeks restitution for all underpayments of wages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The court has not yet certified the class.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
April 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Modtech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.modtech.com/-- designs,  
manufactures, markets and installs modular and relocatable
classrooms and commercial and light industrial modular
buildings.  The Company is a provider of modular classrooms in
California and Florida and is a provider of commercial and light
industrial modular buildings in California, Florida, Arizona,
Nevada and other neighboring states.  The Company's modular
classrooms include standardized units prefabricated at its
manufacturing facilities, as well as customized units that are
modular in design but constructed on site using components it
manufactures.  The Company also designs and manufactures
modular, portable buildings to customer specifications for an
array of uses, including governmental, healthcare, educational,
airport and correctional facilities; office and retail space;
daycare centers, libraries, churches, construction trailers,
golf clubhouses, police stations, convenience stores, fast food
restaurants, and sales offices.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., is facing a purported class
action suit in Delaware over offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to
acquire all of the Company's shares.

On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the Company,
filed a purported class action complaint with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.  

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to
explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all
of the Company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly
designed to entrench the current board by preventing
stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors,
agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with
ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual
Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete
information.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescissory and other equitable relief and damages, according to
Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan. 31, 2008.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer  
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The Company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The Company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The Company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing in May 2008 for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game
Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK."

                       Case Background

In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games – were subjects of four
purported class actions.  Two of the four complaints were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, one was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and the other was filed with the
Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before
July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer
deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of
merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas contained "hidden" content, which resulted in the game
receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment
Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only 18+ rating.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred
all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption,
"In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."

                            Settlement

In the last half of 2007, the defendants reached a settlement in
the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

     (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
         before July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel.

In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the foregoing consumer class actions and set a
date for a hearing on final approval in May 2008, according to
Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan.
31, 2008.

A copy of the settlement notice is available at:

              http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC

Representing the company is:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 909-6000


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on motions seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Take-
Two Interactive Software, Inc.

In February and March 2006, four purported class action
complaints were filed against the company, its former chief
executive officer, its former chief financial officer, its
former chief global operating officer, and four of its former
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  A fourth complaint brought in Michigan was
voluntarily dismissed.  

The complaints allege that the company violated Sections 10(b),
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making or causing the company to make untrue statements or
failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic
reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
contained "hidden"content which should have resulted in the game
receiving an "AO" rating from the ESRB rather than an "M"
rating.  The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and
their costs.

In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.  In
September 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint which included claims regarding Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas as well as claims relating to the backdating of stock
options.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former CEO,
its former CFO, its former Chairman of the Board, and two
officers of its Rockstar Games subsidiary.

On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint which included additional allegations based on an
investigation conducted by the Special Litigation Committee of
the Board of Directors, currently comprised of Strauss Zelnick,
John Levy and Grover Brown (Special Litigation Committee), of
options backdating and the Company’s restatement of financial
statements relating to options backdating.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chairman of the Board, two of its directors and one
former director, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer
and one former officer of Rockstar Games.

On June 25, 2007, the company, and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their opposition to these motions to
dismiss on Sept. 4, 2007, and reply briefs were filed on Oct. 4,
2007.  

Now that briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete, the
company is awaiting a decision by the Court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

         Molly S. Boast, Esq. (msboast@debevoise.com)
         Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
         919 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212 909-6000
         Fax: 212 909-6836


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit captioned "St. Clair Shores General
Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00688-MBM" -- which includes Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc. -- are seeking for either the dismissal of the matter or   
consolidation with another case.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal
defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and
certain former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  

The factual allegations in this action are similar to the
allegations contained in the federal securities class actions
pending in New York captioned, "In Re Take-Two Interactive
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK."

The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and breached their
fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the
company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the
company solicited approval to increase share availability under
its 2002 Stock Option Plan.

The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged
insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold
company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest
and their costs in the action.

A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an
investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the court.

On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the
date of the order.

On Jan. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for an order granting
limited relief from the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the
proceedings in order to file an amended derivative and class
action complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2007, the counsel for the Special Litigation
Committee advised the Court that the Special Litigation
Committee had completed its investigation and rendered a report.

On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee
moved to dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its
conclusion that "future pursuit of this action is not in the
best interests of Take-Two or its shareholders."

The plaintiff subsequently conducted discovery concerning the
Special Litigation Committee's motion to dismiss.  

On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and
Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Derivative and Class Action
Complaint alleges among other things that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of proxy
statements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.

On Sept. 24, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its
claims with "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK."

The company reported no development in the matter in its
March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008.

The suit is "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement
System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Judge Michael B. Mukasey presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         James Joseph Sabella, Esq. (jsabella@gelaw.com)
         Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
         45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8520     
         Fax: 212-755-6503

Representing the defendants is:

        Leonard D. Steinman, Esq. (lsteinman@blankrome.com)
        Blank Rome, LLP
        The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue
        New York, NY 10174
        Phone: 212-885-5524
        Fax: 917 332-3746


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico, according to the company's March 11,
2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On Aug. 21, 2007, a securities class action complaint, entitled
"Slater v. Thornburg, et al.," was filed with the District Court
for the District of New Mexico against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors.

Subsequently, three similar class action complaints were filed
in the Southern District of New York, and one more was filed in
the District of New Mexico.  

All five complaints allege that the Company and the other named
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements in financial reports filed with the SEC,
press releases and other public statements, which resulted in
artificially inflated market prices of the Company’s common
stock, and that the named plaintiff and members of the putative
class purchased common stock at these artificially inflated
market prices.

Two complaints allege a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005,
through Aug. 17, 2007, one alleges a class period running from
Oct. 6, 2005 through Aug. 20, 2007, and two more allege a class
period running from April 19, 2007, through Aug. 14, 2007.  

Each complaint seeks unspecified money damages.  The five
actions have been formally consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico, and will be litigated as a
single proceeding The Company believes the allegations are
without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously.

The suit is "Slater v. Thornburg et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00815-
JB-WDS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico, Judge James O. Browning presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Sandoval, Esq.
          (rsandoval@branchlawfirm.com)
          Branch Law Firm
          2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Phone: 505-243-3500
          Fax: 505-243-3534

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7056
          Fax: 610-667-7706

               - and -

         Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
         Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox
         850 Third Avenue
         14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: (212) 687-1980

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert Badal, Esq. (robert.badal@hellerehrman.com)
         Heller Ehrman LLP
         333 South Hope Street
         39th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043
         Phone: (213) 689-0200
         Fax: (213) 614-1868


TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed
the dismissal of a securities class action and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act class action brought in the wake
of the circulation scandal at two of the Tribune Co.'s New York
newspapers, Securities Law360 reports.

The court ruled on April 2 that the inflated circulation figures
at Newsday and Hoy may not have been so obvious to Tribune's
senior management and that the plaintiffs failed to allege any
unusual or suspicious trading of stock during the class period.

The Seventh Circuit also pointed out that Tribune began an
internal investigation directly after the first lawsuits came in
and that it was entitled to a "reasonable amount of time to
investigate until it had a full story to disclose."

"In sum, the plaintiffs fail to establish the primary liability
of any individual defendant, and the alleged misconduct is not
imputable to Tribune by the doctrine of respondeat superior,"
Judge Terence T. Evans wrote.

The court also dismissed the ERISA lawsuit for similar reasons,
pointing out that the retirement plan fiduciaries did not
actually know about the circulation fraud being perpetrated by
Newsday and Hoy employees.

The first case is "Kenneth Pugh et al. v. Tribune Co. et al.,
Case No. 06-3898."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4, 2007, the
first case was filed in February 2004 as a purported class
action with the New York Federal Court by certain advertisers of
Newsday and Hoy, alleging that they were overcharged for
advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers at
these two publications.  The purported class action also alleges
that entities that paid a Newsday subsidiary to deliver
advertising flyers were overcharged.

The second case is "City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and
Retirement et al. v. Tribune Co. et al., Case No. 06-3909."

The CAR reported on Oct. 3, 2007, that several class actions
were filed against Tribune and certain of its current and former
directors and officers as a result of the circulation
misstatements at Newsday and Hoy.  These suits, which were
subsequently consolidated, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
and other managerial and director failings under the federal
securities laws and ERISA.

The securities class action lawsuit and the consolidated ERISA
class action lawsuit were both dismissed with prejudice on
Sept. 29, 2006.


WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified as a class action a securities fraud lawsuit filed
against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and
former chief financial officer.

The class action suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares
during the period from Jan. 14, 2005, to and including April 14,
2005.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that management provided
the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for
the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this
guidance on a timely basis.  

The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act,
and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well
as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
and expert fees and costs.  

In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the
allegations contained in the complaint.  

The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was denied.  The defendants have answered the amended
complaint, denying its material allegations.

The Court has certified the case as a class action and has
approved notice to the class.  

The defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery
has expired, but the plaintiffs have asked the Court for
additional time to pursue discovery.

The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the
U.S. Supreme Court.  

The plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued
on Sept. 28, 2007, and is awaiting court decision.

The court has certified the case as a class action, according to
Workstream's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.

The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v.
Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com)
          Sarraf Gentile, LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 868-3610
          Fax: (212) 918-7967

               - and -
       
          Ralph M. Stone, Esq. (rstone@lawssb.com)
          Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310

Representing the defendants is:
         
          David M. Doret, Esq.
          H. Robert Fiebach, Esq.
          Cozen and O'Connor
          45 Broadway Atrium
          New York, NY 10006-3792
          Phone: 212-509-9400


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the
Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007.

The Complaint charges that Blackstone and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset
management and financial advisory services worldwide.

According to the Complaint, on or about June 21, 2007,
Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration
Statement for the IPO.  On or about June 25, 2007, the
Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective and, including the
exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of
Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per
share, thereby raising more than $4 billion.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were
not performing well and were of declining value and, as a
result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the
Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those
investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners
in its funds.

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth
quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007.  Among
other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down
its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by
$122 million.  As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock
traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45%
below the IPO price of $31.00 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders
of The First Marblehead Corporation with the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Sheetmetal Workers Local 28
Pension Fund, seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased First Marblehead
securities between August 10, 2006, through April 7, 2008,
inclusive.

First Marblehead provides outsourcing services for private
education lending in the United States.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants reported quarter after
quarter of seemingly strong financial results and touted the
Company's ability to complete additional securitizations despite
a difficult operating environment in the lending industry. As a
result of Defendants' statements, the stock traded as high as
$57.56 per share during the Class Period.

The veracity of defendants' Class Period statements was first
called into question on November 26, 2007.  At that time,
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey downgraded First Marblehead to under-
perform from market-perform, citing an increased risk that loss
reserves associated with securitization might not be sufficient.
This meant that the previously reported value of First
Marblehead's back-end rights and all management-supplied
estimates of future earnings were in jeopardy.

On December 4, 2007, Moody's Investors Service announced that it
was performing a review of the Company and that it might lower
ratings on $822 million of securities created by First
Marblehead from 2003 through 2007.  Subsequently, on March 26,
2008, Moody's downgraded 18 classes of notes in 11 First
Marblehead student loan securitizations, affecting approximately
$1.09 billion of the Company's asset-backed securities.
On April 8, 2008, First Marblehead lost over a third of its
value after The Education Resources Institute, Inc., the
Company's guarantor of private student loans, filed for
bankruptcy protection.  As a result, the Company may incur
substantial losses arising from defaults on its student loans.

After the TERI bankruptcy announcement, First Marblehead's stock
sank to $4.89, a decline of 36.5% from the day before.  The
Company's stock had already fallen 50 percent in the several
months since the truth of its precarious financial position was
finally revealed.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph White, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/


GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC discloses that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Global Cash
Access Holdings, Inc. and various individuals and other entities
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of
Global common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
September 22, 2005 Initial Public Offering, and who held such
shares of Global common stock until November 14, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company, certain of its current and
former directors, as well as certain of its controlling
shareholders and underwriters, violated the Securities Act of
1933 by, among other things, maintaining deficient internal
controls, improperly computing commissions the Company was
required to pay to many of its customers, and understating the
Company's expenses during 2005, resulting in an overstatement of
the Company's gross profit margins and net income.

The complaint alleges the disclosure of the forgoing resulted in
a decline in the value of the Company's common stock price,
which caused damages to the Class.

For more information, contact:

          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (770) 392-0090
          Fax: (770) 392-0029
          Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/


HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
American Depository Receipts and call options and sellers of put
options of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (NYSE/Nasdaq:
HMY) between April 2, 2007 and August 7, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Harmony Gold and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Harmony Gold is a gold producer that operates 22 individual
mines and projects across the world.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's costs had significantly increased
         throughout 2007;

     (2) that the Company had underreported these increased
         costs in its previously issued financial statements;

     (3) that the Company had experienced a significant decrease
         in gold production for the third quarter 2007 due to
         production problems at various sites, which had already
         materialized at the time its Class Period statements
         were made;

     (4) that the Company had failed to disclose the full impact
         that these production problems would have on the
         Company's financial and operational results;

     (5) that, as a result of the Company's understatement of
         its costs and its lower production for the quarter, the
         Company had understated its operating costs and
         overstated its net profit for the third quarter;

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         financial statements were materially false and
         misleading at all relevant times;

     (7) that the Company would be forced to take substantial
         charges in the fourth quarter 2007 to remedy such
         failures, causing the Company to report a net loss for
         the quarter;

     (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On August 6, 2007, Harmony Gold reported preliminary financial
and operational results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year
2007 (ended June 30, 2007).  The Company warned that its
financial results for the quarter were "expected to differ
significantly from those of the three previous quarters as well
as from the analysts' consensus."

For the fourth quarter, the Company stated that it expected to
report a headline loss of between 130 and 160 SA cents per
share, compared with a headline profit of 58 SA cents per share
for the third quarter.  This quarterly loss was primarily the
result of the Company recording significantly higher costs for
the quarter, and included a 25 to 28 percent increase in the
Company's total cash operating costs as a result of "the newly
installed accounting software system that resulted in some of
the March quarter's costs being captured in the June 2007
quarter."  Thus, the Company had substantially understated its
costs in previous quarters and was forced to take substantial
charges in the fourth quarter to remedy such underreported
costs.  Additionally, the Company reported that its cost base
had increased by 8 to 12 percent from the previous six months.
Finally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer
had resigned, "with immediate effect."

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.45 per share, or over
18 percent, to close on August 6, 2007, at $11.02 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  The following day, the
Company's shares declined an additional $1.57 per share, or over
14 percent, to close on August 7, 2007, at $9.45 per share,
again on heavy trading volume.  This closing price on August 7,
2007 represented a two-day decline in the Company's shares of
$4.02 per share, or 29.8 percent, and a cumulative decline of
$7.25 per share, or over 43.4 percent, from the value of the
Company's shares at their Class Period high of $16.70 on
April 25, 2007.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood discloses that on April 10, 2008, a class
action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against Inverness Medical
Innovations Inc.

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

The class period is from the date of the Company's secondary
public offering on or about November 14, 2007, through April 10,
2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to the
Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13,
2007.

The Complaint charges that iStar, a finance company focusing on
the commercial real estate industry, and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically,
on or about October 9, 2007, iStar filed a Form S-3 Shelf
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  On or about December 13, 2007, iStar filed a
Prospectus Supplement to the Shelf Registration Statement (the
Registration Statement) with respect to the Secondary Offering,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, and more than 8
million shares of iStar common stock were sold to the public at
$28.41 per share, thereby raising more than $227 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
negligently failed to disclose that iStar was then being
negatively impacted by the adverse conditions in the credit
markets and was failing to recognize more than $200 million of
losses on its corporate loan and debt portfolio.

On February 28, 2008, iStar announced its financial results for
the fourth quarter of 2007 and fiscal year 2007.  For the fourth
quarter, the Company reported a loss of $78.7 million or $0.62
per share.  iStar further reported that its fourth quarter
financial results were impacted by $134.9 million of charges
associated with the "impairment of two credits" and that the
Company had increased its loan loss provisions by $113 million.
In response to this announcement and subsequent analyst
downgrades, iStar stock declined from $22.85 per share on
February 27, 2008, to $13.98 per share on March 6, 2008.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood discloses that on March 28, 2008, a class
action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota against MoneyGram International,
Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from January 24, 2007, through January 14, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of any class of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund (NASDAQ
SYMBOLS: SWYPX for the Investor Shares Class and SWYSX for the
Select Shares Class) from March 17, 2005, through March 18,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants solicited investors to
purchase shares of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund by making
statements in their prospectuses and other sales literature that
described the YieldPlus Fund 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 Fund,
including for example, that the Fund was heavily invested in
high-risk mortgage-backed securities and that the duration of a
material part of the Fund's portfolio was greater than two
years.  During the course of the Class Period, the price of
YieldPlus Fund shares dropped precipitously from approximately
$9.67 per share to $6.80 per share, a 29.7% decrease.

In ignorance of the materially incorrect and misleading
statements contained in the prospectuses and other sales
literature and described in the complaint, plaintiffs and the
other members of the Class relied on these statements and
purchased Schwab YieldPlus Fund securities.  Had plaintiffs and
the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not
have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them
at the prices that were paid.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (800) 575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


VERTEX PHARMA: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated  during the period between June 12, 2007, and
November 2, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Vertex.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


WALGREEN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has commenced a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of an institutional
investor and other purchasers of Walgreen Co. common stock
during the period between June 25, 2007, and November 29, 2007.

The complaint charges Walgreen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Walgreen operates a chain of drugstores in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Walgreen was
experiencing a steady decline in the growth of its core business
-- filling retail drug prescriptions.  Throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose declining growth rates for
the Company's generic prescription business and misled investors
concerning the sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales.

According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Walgreen's public
shareholders, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was
a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest
third-party providers of prescription drug benefits - CVS
Caremark.

During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates
for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the
upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the
Company's earnings.

On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued
a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth
fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006.  For the fourth quarter,
the Company reported net income of $0.40 per share -- far below
analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share.  In response
to the announcement, the price of Walgreen stock declined from
$47.00 per share to $39.96 per share, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Then, on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "after many
months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates
for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy
provider from the plans.  Following this announcement, shares of
Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59
per share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Walgreen common stock during the Class Period.

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 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


WALGREEN CO: Schatz Nobel Files Illinios Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status with the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Walgreen Co. between June 25, 2007, and
November 29, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Walgreen and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that Walgreen was experiencing a steady decline in the
growth of its core business -- filling retail drug
prescriptions.  Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed
to disclose declining growth rates for the Company's generic
prescription business and misled investors concerning the
sustainability of Walgreen's profits and sales.  According to
the Complaint, underlying the erosion of Walgreen's earnings was
a material contract dispute with one of the nation's largest
third-party providers of prescription drug benefits -- CVS
Caremark.

During 2007, Walgreen disputed Caremark's reimbursement rates
for a number of prescription drug plans located primarily in the
upper Midwestern U.S., which were negatively impacting the
Company's earnings.

On October 1, 2007, prior to the market opening, Walgreen issued
a press release announcing its financial results for its fourth
fiscal quarter and fiscal year 2006.  For the fourth quarter,
the Company reported net income of $0.40 per share -- far below
analysts' earnings expectations of $0.47 per share. On this
news, the price of Walgreen stock declined from $47.00 per share
to $39.96 per share.

Then, on November 29, 2007, Walgreen announced that "after many
months" of dispute with Caremark over the reimbursement rates
for four prescription plans, Walgreen withdrew as a pharmacy
provider from the plans.  Following this announcement, shares of
Walgreen common stock declined to a new three-year low of $36.59
per share at the close of trading on November 30, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Facing 1 Inactive Injury Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation is still party to an inactive asbestos-related
lawsuit filed in Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 9, 2008.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury
lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from
exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products. The
plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company
in August 2005, to which it timely responded in September 2005.  

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30,
2007. However, that date has since been postponed and no new
trial date has been set.

Since that time, the Ohio lawsuit has been inactive with respect
to the Company.

Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corporation makes tapes and
protective coatings used by the electronic, public utility, and
oil industries. Products include insulating and conducting
materials for electrical wire; electrical repair tapes;
protective pipe coatings; thermoelectric insulation for
electrical equipment; and moisture protective coatings for
electronics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star to Perform Pa. Site Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC is to perform asbestos abatement
in the 302 Carson Street office building in Pittsburgh, under
the terms of a lease agreement.

The Company will perform the abatement and be reimbursed by the
landlord for all direct and indirect costs not to exceed
US$400,000.

On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a lease with an
affiliate for office space. The Lease has an initial term of
five years and six months (Initial Term) and allows for one
five-year extension under substantially similar terms as the
Initial Term.

The Lease will commence upon receipt of a temporary certificate
of occupancy and abatement of asbestos to the area being
occupied by the Company (Premises).

Additionally, the Company has made general improvements (Tenant
Improvements) to the Premises and will receive from the landlord
a credit of US$500,000.

The Company will be reimbursed for the asbestos abatement and
Tenant Improvements through rent offset.

Company Profile:

         The Majestic Star Casino, LLC
         301 Freemont St., 12th Fl.
         Las Vegas, Nev. 89101
         United States

The Majestic Star Casino, LLC owns and operates four casino
properties, two located in Gary, Ind., and one each in Tunica
County, Miss., and Black Hawk, Colo. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company's properties collectively contain 4,492 slot machines,
110 table games, 21 poker tables and 806 hotel rooms. The
Company is wholly owned by Majestic Holdco, LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Cases Pending Against Met-Pro at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation recorded a total of 38 asbestos-related
cases pending against it as of Jan. 31, 2008, compared with 37
cases as of Jan. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 11, 2008.

The Company recorded a total of 39 pending asbestos cases filed
against it as of Oct. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7,
2007)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to
be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits
filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by plaintiffs
against industrial companies including those in the pump and
fluid handling industries.

More recently, the Company and this division have been named as
one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual
plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife.

To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been
named together with many other pump and fluid handling
defendants in these type of cases in other states as well.

The complaints filed against the Company and this division have
been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company
and the division, along with the numerous other defendants, sold
unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other
related actions which caused injuries and loss to the
plaintiffs.

The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled
a number of these cases. The sum total of payments made through
Jan. 31, 2008 to settle these cases is US$355,000, all of which
have been paid by the Company's insurers including legal
expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about
US$24,000.

During the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008, 18 new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from or
settled 17 cases.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.

Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and
sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for
purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for
corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration
and purification products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briefing on 2 Dana Holding Appeals Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on two of Dana Holding Corporation's bankruptcy
asbestos-related appeals are ongoing, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 14, 2008.

On Jan. 3, 2008, an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants filed a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order
(District Court Case No. 08-CV-01037).

On Jan. 4, 2008, an asbestos claimant, Jose Angel Valdez, filed
a notice of appeal of the Confirmation Order (District Court
Case No. 08-CV-01038).

On Feb. 5, 2008, Prior Dana (Dana Corporation) and the other
post-emergence Debtors (collectively, the "Reorganized Debtors")
filed a motion seeking to consolidate the two appeals.

Briefing on the appeals are ongoing and the Reorganized Debtors
are moving to have the appeals dismissed.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for
global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000
people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major
facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's
emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor
registrant to Dana Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Pending v. Dana Holding at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 41,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with 73,000 at Dec. 31, 2006, including about 6,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment.

The number of active pending claims has been reduced for two
reasons. First, the dismissal of about 17,500 cases in the State
of Mississippi reported in the third quarter of 2007. Second,
updates of the Company's data on asbestos claims during the
bankruptcy process disclosed that about 13,000 additional claims
were inactive. These claims were filed in jurisdictions with
inactive dockets or medical criteria that renders them unlikely
to become active.

The Company had accrued US$136 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending and future claims at Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$141 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's liability for future demands
under prior commutations was US$12 million, bringing its total
recorded liability for asbestos personal injury claims to US$148
million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had recorded US$69 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for pending and
projected asbestos personal injury claims compared with US$72
million recorded at Dec. 31, 2006.

In addition, the Company had a net amount receivable from its
insurers and others of US$17 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared
with US$14 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for
global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000
people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major
facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's
emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor
registrant to Dana Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Records $18M Receivable for CCR Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at Dec. 31, 2007, had an asbestos-
related receivable of US$18 million that it expects to recover
from available insurance and surety bonds relating to Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR) claims.

After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former
CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, its insurers and the claimants over a period of several
years in an effort to resolve these issues.

Through Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had paid US$47 million to
claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance
carriers with respect to these claims.

The Company is continuing to pursue insurance collections with
respect to claims paid prior to March 3, 2006 bankruptcy Filing
Date.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal products for
global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about 35,000
people in 26 countries and the Company operates 113 major
facilities worldwide. As a result of Dana Corporation's
emergence from bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code on Jan. 31, 2008, the Company is the successor
registrant to Dana Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 385 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Dec. 31, 2007, continues to face
about 385 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,500
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2007, the Company had about 385 cases asserting
claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Nov. 30, 2007)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million. In another case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of
US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to
identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., primarily through the
subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and
diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments:
Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured
Products. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company employed about 3,700
persons.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Inc. in Arbitration with Equitas
-------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, INC. is engaged in an arbitration proceeding with
Equitas, a Lloyd's company, to collect about US$6.2 million of
recoverables ceded to them covering various asbestos claims,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008.

Equitas was established to settle claims for underwriting years
1992 and prior. On March 30, 2007, Equitas completed a
reinsurance transaction with National Indemnity Company, a
member of the Berkshire Hathaway group of insurance companies.

As a result, National Indemnity now reinsures all Equitas'
liabilities by providing an additional US$5.7 billion of
reinsurance cover to Equitas.

Equitas has contested coverage and has not paid the US$6.2
million to the Company.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that owns and
operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and
insurance underwriters and managers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $52.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, INC.'s gross loss and loss adjustment reserves for
asbestos/environmental policies were US$52.4 million at Dec. 31,
2007, compared with US$55.4 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's ceded loss and LAE reserves for A&E policies were
US$41.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$43.2 million
at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's net loss and LAE for A&E policies were US$10.9
million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$12.2 million at Dec.
31, 2006.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had reported 74
claims, had 91 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved,
and had 384 claims pending.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company had reported 80
claims, had 148 claims settled/dismissed or otherwise resolved,
and had 401 claims pending.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is a holding company that owns and
operates insurance companies, risk bearing entities and
insurance underwriters and managers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Continues to Face Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and
South Dakota, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17,
2008.

The suits allege that certain wire and cable which may have
contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether the Company
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and it would rely on any warranties from the
manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of
the wire or cable that it distributed contained asbestos which
caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims that the Company believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

The Company maintains general liability insurance that has
applied to these claims. To date, all costs associated with
these claims have been covered by the applicable insurance
policies and all defense of these claims has been handled by the
applicable insurance companies.

Houston Wire & Cable Company is a distributor of specialty wire
and cable and related services to the U.S. electrical
distribution market. During 2007, the Company served over 2,800
customers, including virtually all of the top 200 electrical
distributors in the U.S. During 2007, the Company distributed
about 23,000 SKUs (stock-keeping units) to over 8,200 customer
locations nationwide from 11 distribution centers in 10 states.
The Company is Houston-based.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation states that there are no
active pending asbestos-related cases against it or its former
subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008.

The Company, or NATCO, is named as a defendant in about 263
lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and
2000. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury,
primarily fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on
the Company's vessels.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District
of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to
the inactive docket. No additional cases have been filed against
the Company since 2002.

Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a
future date without being barred by the statute of limitations.
However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company
have sought reinstatement.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation
provides dredging services around the world. The Company's
services include beach improvement or renourishment, rock
dredging, harbor excavation, land reclamation, demolition, and
restoration of aquatic and wetland habitats. Among the Company's
projects are maintenance dredging at the Miami Harbor,
nourishing San Diego beaches, and expanding Pier J in Long
Beach, Calif.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Getty Realty, Unit Face Suit in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Realty Corp. and its subsidiary, since August 2006, have
been facing an asbestos-related action filed in the Circuit
Court, Madison County, Ill., according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 17, 2008.

The suit seeks a recovery of damages arising out of the death of
a person allegedly exposed to asbestos at the subsidiary's
premises.

Jericho, N.Y.-based Getty Realty Corp. is a publicly-traded real
estate investment trust (REIT) specializing in the ownership and
leasing of retail motor fuel and convenience store properties
and petroleum distribution terminals. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company owned eight hundred eighty properties and leased 203
additional properties. Its properties are located in the
Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic regions in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DXP Ent. Finalizing Remaining Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
DXP Enterprises, Inc. states that all asbestos cases filed
against it are all dismissed or dormant pending remaining
settlements, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2008.

In 2003, the Company was notified that it had been sued in
various state courts in Nueces County, Tex. The 12 suits allege
personal injury resulting from products containing asbestos
allegedly sold by the Company.

The suits do not specify what products or the dates the Company
allegedly sold the products.

The plaintiffs' attorney has agreed to a global settlement of
all suits for a nominal amount to be paid by the Company's
insurance carriers.

Settlement has been consummated as to 116 of the 133 plaintiffs,
and the remaining settlements are in process.

Houston-based DXP Enterprises, Inc. distributes maintenance,
repair, and operating (MRO) equipment and products, primarily to
the oil and gas, petrochemical, and wood products industries.
The Company also distributes centrifugal pumps, rotary gear
pumps, plunger pumps, and other fluid-handling equipment as well
as bearings and power transmission equipment, general mill
(cutting tools) and safety supplies, and electrical products
(wire conduit).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is routinely subject to product liability
claims, including claims related to its current products and
asbestos-related claims concerning premises and historic
products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 17, 2008.

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation is a publicly-
traded specialty chemical company operating in the United
States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.8M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, has accrued
a total of US$2.8 million (US$2.6 million relates to City
National Plaza and US$200,000 relates to Brookhollow) for
estimated future costs of asbestos removal.

With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at the
Company's City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties, these
materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and
common areas of the building structures.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, the Company accrued USS$2.6 million for
future asbestos-related removal costs. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 16, 2007)

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full-
service real estate company that owns, acquires, develops and
manages primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential
properties on a nationwide basis. Properties are located in
Southern California and Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia, Pa.;
Northern Virginia; Houston, Tex.; and Austin, Tex. As of
March 14, 2008, the Company had about 180 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orion Marine Subject to Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orion Marine Group, Inc. has been and may from time to time be
named as a defendant in legal actions (including asbestos-
related lawsuits) claiming damages in connection with marine
infrastructure projects and other matters.

These are typically claims that arise in the normal course of
business, including employment-related claims and contractual
disputes or claims for personal injury (including asbestos-
related lawsuits) or property damage which occurs in connection
with services performed relating to project or construction
sites.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 19, 2007.

Company Profile:

          Orion Marine Group, Inc.
          12550 Fuqua Street
          Houston, Tex. 77034
          Phone: (713) 852-6500

The Company is a marine specialty contractor serving the heavy
civil marine infrastructure market. The Company provides marine
construction services on, over and under the water along the
Gulf Coast, the Atlantic Seaboard and in the Caribbean Basin.
Customers are federal, state and municipal governments as well
as private commercial and industrial enterprises.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Domtar Ind. in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation said that several asbestos-related personal
injury claims have been filed in U.S. state and federal courts
against Domtar Industries Inc. and certain other affiliates of
the Company.

These claims were filed in connection with alleged exposure by
people to products or premises containing asbestos.

Quebec, Canada-based Domtar Corporation is an integrated
manufacturer and marketer of uncoated freesheet paper in North
America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company designs,
manufactures, market and distributes paper products for
customers, including merchants, retail outlets, stationers,
printers, publishers, converters and end-users.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is subject to various legal and
governmental proceedings, many involving litigation incidental
to the Company's businesses.

Some matters contain environmental and asbestos exposure
allegations, class action allegations, and other consumer-based
claims, each of which may seek compensatory, punitive or treble
damage claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other
types of relief.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 26, 2008.

Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corporation is a
retailer with 2,317 full-line and 1,150 specialty retail stores
in the United States operating through Kmart and Sears and 380
full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada operating
through Sears Canada Inc., a 70 percent-owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Actions Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary Indianapolis Power & Light
Company, as of Dec. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2006, was a defendant
in about 114 pending asbestos lawsuits, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 26, 2008.

IPL faced about 115 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of
Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2007)

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants.  IPL has been named as a
"premises defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked
for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims.
These cases are being defended by counsel retained by various
insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time
during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s principal
subsidiary is Indianapolis Power & Light Company, a regulated
electric utility with its customer base concentrated in
Indianapolis. Substantially all of the Company's business
consists of the generation, transmission, distribution and sale
of electric energy conducted through IPL.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Current Obligations Total $101M at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's current asbestos obligations were US$101 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$150 million as of Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2008.

The Company's Combustion Engineering, Inc. subsidiary had been a
co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller
number of claims had also been brought against the Company's
former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of
the Company.

A Master Settlement Agreement was entered into that involved the
establishment of the CE Settlement Trust to resolve asbestos
related personal injury claims of certain settling claimants who
had lodged their claims before Nov. 14, 2002 and to provide
partial payment of those claims.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE
plan of reorganization became effective on April 21, 2006 and
the Lummus plan of reorganization became effective on Aug. 31,
2006.

Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created
and are being funded to settle future asbestos related claims
against CE and Lummus and on the respective Plan effective
dates, channeling injunctions were issued under Section 524(g)
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future
asbestos-related personal injury claims filed against the
Company and its affiliates and certain other entities that
relate to the operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the
CE Asbestos PI Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust,
respectively.

Funding of the CE Asbestos PI Trust has been made on certain
scheduled payment dates. In addition, US$204 million was paid to
this Trust on Nov. 14, 2007, as required in conjunction with the
sale of Lummus which occurred on Nov. 16, 2007.

Funding of the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust was completed on May 2,
2007 upon the payment to that Trust of US$28 million.

The asbestos obligations relating to the CE Plan as reflected in
the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements are payable
pursuant to a non-interest bearing promissory note (the ABB
Promissory Note). The Company is also liable on a contingent
basis under the Promissory Note for two additional payments of
US$25 million each.

One additional payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 or
2011 if the Company attains an earnings before interest and
taxes (EBIT) margin of nine percent for 2009 or 14 percent in
2010. The other additional payment of US$25 million is payable
in 2011 if the Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in
2010. These two US$25 million contingent payments are not
included in the provisions for asbestos obligations.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to have
defaulted on its payment obligations under the ABB Promissory
Note, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court
to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the protections
afforded by that injunction to the Company and other ABB
entities as well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd provides power and automation
technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers.
The Company, which operates in about 100 countries, has divested
a number of its businesses to focus on its two core operational
areas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records 9,500 Exposure Claims at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd states that there were about 9,500 asbestos-related
claims outstanding against Company entities other than
Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Lummus Global at Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with 12,100 claims at Dec. 31, 2006.

ABB entities that are subject to such claims will continue to
resolve them in the tort system, or otherwise.

The Company generally seeks dismissals from claims where there
is no apparent linkage between the plaintiff's claimed exposure
and a product of the Company.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd provides power and automation
technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers.
The Company, which operates in about 100 countries, has divested
a number of its businesses to focus on its two core operational
areas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures LLC Records 15 Active Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures LLC states that about 15 active suits are
pending, primarily bodily injury, against Kaiser LLC and Kaiser
Steel Corporation (the bankruptcy estate of Kaiser Steel
Corporation is embodied in KSC Recovery, Inc.).

The Company faced about nine active asbestos-related injury
claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 13, 2007)

Many of the plaintiffs allege that they or their family members
were aboard Kaiser ships or worked in shipyards in the
Oakland/San Francisco, Calif., area or Vancouver, Wash., area in
the 1940s and that the Company and/or KSC Recovery were in some
manner associated with one or more shipyards or has successor
liability.

However, there is an increasing number of claims related to
other facilities such as the former Kaiser Steel Mill Site
Property.

Most of these lawsuits are third party premises claims alleging
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos or asbestos
containing products and involve multiple defendants.

The Company anticipates that it, often along with KSC Recovery,
will be named as a defendant in additional asbestos lawsuits. A
number of large manufacturers and/or installers of asbestos and
asbestos containing products have filed for bankruptcy over the
past several years, increasing the likelihood that additional
suits will be filed against the Company. In addition, the trend
has been toward increasing trial damages and settlement demands.

Of the claims resolved to date, about 75 percent have been
resolved without payment to the plaintiffs.

Ontario, Calif.-based Kaiser Ventures LLC oversees recycling and
solid waste investments. The Company's holdings include an 82.5
percent stake in Mine Reclamation Corporation and a 50 percent
stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer
Station, which separates waste materials for recycling or
storage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $41.3M Reorganization Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
recorded US$41,315,000 as asbestos-related reorganization
charges, according to the Company's annual report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008.

In September 2007, the Company filed the Third Amended Complaint
in an Omnibus Adversary Proceeding adding new counts that
encompass the subject matter and relief requested in the Omnibus
Objection. The Third Amended Complaint remains pending.

In October 2007, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
in the Omnibus Adversary Proceeding seeking a ruling that all
pre-petition settlement agreements, including a Claimant
Agreement, were null and void or should be rescinded.

Argument on the summary judgment motion was heard in November
2007 and by opinion dated Dec. 28, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court
denied the motion for summary judgment. The Company and the
Bondholders' Committee have filed notice of appeal from this
decision to the U.S. District Court.

The second phase of the Coverage Action trial will address all
coverage issues, including but not limited to whether certain
other trial listed settlements were fair, reasonable and
negotiated in good faith and covered by insurance as well as
trigger and allocation of asbestos losses to insurance policies.

In February 2008, the State Court expanded the scope of Phase 2
of the Coverage Action to include obligations of insurers with
respect to the settlement agreement in the Joint Plan with
respect to the Avoidance Actions. The State Court has entered a
new case management order scheduling further discovery.

The Company sought to stay Phase 2 of the Coverage Action
because of the pendency of the solicitation and balloting and
scheduled confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan, but the
Bankruptcy Court denied the stay motion, which decision is being
appealed to the District Court.

The third and final phase of the Coverage Action will address
bad faith punitive damages, if appropriate.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation produces both
sheet and tile floor covering products. The Company also
produces through-chip-inlaid sheet products for both residential
and commercial markets. The Company's products serve both the
residential and commercial hard-surface flooring markets, and
are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction
and commercial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Cites $31.2M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$13,950,000
at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2008.

The Company is a party to a significant number of lawsuits
stemming from its manufacture of asbestos-containing products.  
During 2007, the Company paid US$13.0 million in fees and
expenses related to implementation of its planned reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and litigation with
certain insurance companies.

Based on the Joint Plan, the Company has made provision in its
financial statements for the minimum estimated cost to effect
its plan to settle asbestos liabilities through confirmation of
a plan that complies with section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million
in prior years.

Based on the terms of the Joint Plan, in the fourth quarter of
2007, the Company recorded an additional US$41.3 million charge.
Of this charge, US$14.9 million related to the write-off of
certain insurance litigation costs receivable that will not be
collected under the terms of the Joint Plan and US$26.4 million
was an additional provision for estimated costs for the
reorganization proceedings and coverage litigation.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company also recorded a US$41
million interest expense credit to reverse post-petition
interest accrued on its Senior Notes.

In anticipation of its commencement of the Chapter 11 cases, the
Company entered into a Claimant Agreement, which provides for an
aggregate settlement value of at least US$466 million as well as
an additional number of individually negotiated trial listed
settlements with an aggregate value of about US$25 million, for
total settlements in excess of US$491 million.

Participants in the Claimant Agreement signed releases limiting
their recourse against the Company to what they would receive
from the Plan Trust and the Company has therefore estimated its
liability under the Claimant Agreement as the cost of effecting
the settlement through confirmation of a plan of reorganization.  

In addition, as a result of tabulating ballots on the Fourth
Plan, the Company is also aware of claims by claimants whose
claims were not determined under the Claimant Agreement but who
have submitted claims with a value of about US$512 million based
on the settlement values applicable in the Sixth Plan.

It is also likely that additional new claims will be asserted in
connection with solicitation of acceptances of the Joint Plan.

The Company's asbestos product liability receivable was US$10.5
million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$21.8 million at Dec.
31, 2006.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation produces both
sheet and tile floor covering products. The Company also
produces through-chip-inlaid sheet products for both residential
and commercial markets. The Company's products serve both the
residential and commercial hard-surface flooring markets, and
are used in remodeling, manufactured housing, new construction
and commercial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,360 Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, is a co-defendant
with many other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-
containing products in about 1,360 pending claims involving
about 1,946 individuals, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 31, 2008.

The Company, as of Sept. 30, 2007, is a co-defendant with other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products
in about 1,363 pending claims involving about 1,949 individuals.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007)

These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
Division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum
Corporation. The claimants allege personal injury from exposure
to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The estimated range of liability for settlement of current
claims pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2013
was US$12.6 million to US$41.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company said it believes no amount within this range is more
likely than any other and, accordingly, has recorded a liability
of US$12.6 million in its financial statements, which represents
the minimum probable and reasonably estimable amount for the
future liability at the present time.

The Company said it believes that based on this liability
estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of
recovery is US$11.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007, which has been
included in other assets.

Defense costs historically paid by the Company's carriers have
been about 156 percent of the related indemnity costs.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amidst a
large number of asbestos-related lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$12.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$10.3
million at Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities totaled
US$10.66 milion at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 7, 2007)

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related claims
was US$11.14 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$9.32 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities totaled US$9.32 million at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2008)

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amidst a
large number of asbestos-related lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ING Groep Has EUR66M Balance for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ING Groep N.V. had an outstanding balance of EUR66 million at
Dec. 31, 2007 (EUR66 million at Dec. 31, 2006) relating to
environmental and asbestos claims of the insurance operations,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19,
2008.

In establishing the liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expenses related to asbestos related illness and
toxic waste clean up, the management of ING Groep considers
facts currently known and the current state of the law and
coverage litigation.

Liabilities are recognized for IBNR claims and for known claims
(including the costs of related litigation) when sufficient
information has been developed to indicate the involvement of a
specific insurance policy, and management can reasonably
estimate its liability.

In addition, liabilities are reviewed and updated regularly.

Company Profile:

          ING Groep N.V.
          ING House
          Amstelveenseweg 500
          1081 KL Amsterdam
          The Netherlands

An insurance and financial services company, ING Groep N.V.'s
operations are focused on its home market of Benelux, as well as
Asia/Pacific, Europe, and North America. Key products include
life and non-life insurance, pensions, and retirement services.
Banking operations include wholesale and retail banking and
mortgage lending.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Pacific Adjusts Liability Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited states that adjustments to the
2006 and 2007 asbestos-related liability were not significant,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2008.

In 2005, the Company conducted a study to better measure the
level of accruals for asbestos claims from retired U.S.
employees, and to better calibrate the case-by-case accruals for
other U.S. employee claims to recent safety and other experience
trends.

The result of the study was to increase the Company's liability
accrual for such claims by US$4.1 million with a corresponding
charge to operating expense. These studies are now being
conducted on an annual basis.

Calgary, Canada-based Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, with
operations stretching from Vancouver to New York, Canadian
Pacific Railway hauls freight over a 13,300-mile network in
Canada and the U.S. Its system includes about 9,000 miles of
Company-owned track and another 4,200 miles of track that is
jointly owned, leased, or operated under trackage rights.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 449 Pending French Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal states that the number of claims outstanding for
asbestos exposure was 449 at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 421 at
Dec. 31, 2006, according to the Company's annual report, on Form
20-F, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 19, 2008.

Various retired or present employees of certain French
subsidiaries of the former Arcelor S.A. have initiated lawsuits
to obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the
amounts paid by French social security.

Asbestos claims in France initially are made by way of a
declaration of a work-related illness by the claimant to the
Social Security authorities resulting in an investigation and a
level of compensation paid by Social Security.

Once the work-related illness is recognized by the Social
Security authorities, the claimant, depending on the
circumstances, can also claim in an action for "faute
inexcusable" (inexcusable negligence) additional compensation
from the Company before a special tribunal.

Where procedural errors are made by Social Security, it is
required to assume full payment of damages awarded to the
claimants. This has generally been the case to date.

The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007
was EUR7,500 to EUR615,000 (about US$11,000 to US$905,000). The
aggregate costs for the five month period ended Dec. 31, 2006
were EUR230,000 (about US$300,000).

The aggregate costs were EUR350,141 (about US$515,000) for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Settlements were EUR1,200 (about
US$2,000) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 191 claims
filed and 163 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 17 claims
filed and 32 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.

Based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, ArcelorMittal was formed in
2004 when Ispat International purchased LNM Holdings for US$13
billion. The combined entity stood as the largest steel company
in the world, with annual steel production of 50 million tons.
The Company manufactures flat rolled and long steel products
using direct-reduced iron.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA May Spend $8MM in 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal's subsidiary, ArcelorMittal USA Inc., anticipates
spending about US$8 million during 2008, about US$80 million
over the next 40 years, to address the removal and disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) equipment and asbestos material
encountered during the operation of its facilities.

Based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, ArcelorMittal was formed in
2004 when Ispat International purchased LNM Holdings for US$13
billion. The combined entity stood as the largest steel company
in the world, with annual steel production of 50 million tons.
The Company manufactures flat rolled and long steel products
using direct-reduced iron.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Hauman Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, granted defendants'
summary judgment motion in a case involving asbestos filed by
Darin Lee Hauman.

The case is styled Darin Lee Hauman, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey
Beard, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Kim R. Gibson and Magistrate Judge Keith A.
entered judgment of Case No. 3:05-cv-439-KRG-KAP on March 26,
2008.

Mr. Hauman, incarcerated at S.C.I. Laurel Highlands, filed a
complaint and an amended complaint alleging that defendants, who
are employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment, under Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. s 12101, et
seq., and under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. s 701, et seq.

Although Mr. Hauman also complained that his mail has been
improperly opened by Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
personnel, the heart of his complaint is that his pulmonary
ailments have been caused or aggravated by his exposure to a
variety of environmental pollutants, including emissions from
the coal fired power plant, dust and asbestos from pipe
insulation in buildings and from the mechanical buffing of floor
tiles, and second-hand tobacco smoke.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits of both
claims.

Mr. Hauman also believed that he was exposed to friable
asbestos. Defendants aver that on the one occasion in April 2006
there was a release of asbestos including friable asbestos from
the mechanical room in the Maintenance Annex but that Mr. Hauman
was not in the work crew assigned to the building nor present in
the building.

Mr. Hauman admitted he was not directly exposed to asbestos in
the April 2006 incident but averred that he suffered second-hand
exposure from fellow inmates who were exposed and carried fibers
back to the housing unit.

Mr. Hauman asserted that he was also exposed to friable asbestos
in May 2005 while on a work project at the Officers Dining Room.
He disbelieved that the defendants' denial that there was any
friable asbestos released in the May 2005 incident because
Mr. Hauman averred no testing of these materials was done.

Defendants did not claim that any testing was done. They
admitted that that there are asbestos containing materials in
that building.

This matter was referred to Judge Pesto for pretrial
proceedings. On Feb. 22, 2008, Judge Pesto filed a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the motion for summary judgment
filed by defendants be granted except as to one claim, and that
Mr. Hauman's motions for summary judgment be denied.

The parties were notified that they had 10 days to serve and
file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Mr.
Hauman filed timely objections, which were meritless.

On March 26, 2008, it was ordered that defendants' motion for
summary judgment was granted except for the claim for injunctive
relief based on the allegation that Mr. Hauman was exposed to
asbestos in May 2005 and April 2006.

Mr. Hauman's motions for summary judgment were denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Hendleys' Remand Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division,
granted Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley's motion to remand, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against American Standard,
Inc. and other defendants.

The case is styled Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley, Plaintiffs
v. American Standard, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Thomas B. Russell entered judgment of Case No.
5:07CV-208-R on March 26, 2008.

The Hendleys initiated this action by filing a complaint on Nov.
21, 2007, in Graves County Circuit Court. Mr. Hendley claimed
that he was injured by exposure to asbestos while working at the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which was operated by Defendant
Union Carbide Corporation.

Union Carbide removed the action. The Hendleys filed a motion to
remand on Jan. 15, 2008.

The District Court granted the Hendleys' motion on March 26,
2008.

Donald R. Green, Jr., James W. Owens, Chartered, James W. Owens,
Paducah, Ky., Ethan A. Flint, Richard L. Saville, Jr., Robert J.
Evola, Saville, Evola & Flint LLC, Alton, Ill., represented
Harold Hendley and Linda Hendley.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Incurs $1.4M for Abatement
------------------------------------------------------------
Feldman Mall Properties, Inc. incurred about US$1.4 million of
asbestos abatement in connection with the demolition of the
JCPenney building at Northgate Mall, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2008.

The Company acquired the JCPenney building in July 2007.

The Company accrued about US$1,711,000 for the cost of asbestos
remediation for a parcel of land it acquired in July 2007, of
which amount was added to the book value of the land. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2007)

Great Neck, N.Y.-based Feldman Mall Properties, Inc. is a real
estate investment trust, or REIT, formed in July 2004 to
continue the business of Feldman Equities of Arizona to acquire,
renovate and reposition retail shopping malls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Incurs $511T Losses at Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s incurred asbestos-related losses and
settlement expenses were US$511,000 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, compared with US$945,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008.

The Company's reserves for asbestos-related loss and settlement
expense were US$5,266,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$5,182,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental-related
claims associated with the insurance business written by parties
to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed
from Employers Mutual Casualty Company by the reinsurance
subsidiary.

With regard to the assumed reinsurance business, however, all
asbestos and environmental exposures related to 1980 and prior
accident years are retained by Employers Mutual.

During 2006, the Company elected to strengthen direct asbestos
IBNR loss and settlement expense reserves to the middle scenario
of an independent actuarial review conducted during the year.

Des Moines, Iowa-based EMC Insurance Group Inc. conducts
operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
through its subsidiaries. The Company focuses on the sale of
commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and
medium-sized businesses. While the Company markets its insurance
products in 41 states, most of its business is marketed and
generated in the Midwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Has $7.4M for Claims at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc.'s reserves for asbestos- and
environmental-related claims for direct insurance and assumed
reinsurance business totaled US$7,433,535 (US$7,400,162 net of
reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2007 and US$7,288,116 (US$7,288,116 net
of reinsurance) at Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental related
claims associated with the insurance business written by parties
to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance business assumed
from Employers Mutual Casualty Company by the reinsurance
subsidiary.

Asbestos and environmental losses paid by the Company have
averaged US$424,258 per year over the past five years.

At present, the Company is defending about 600 asbestos bodily
injury lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. Four
former policyholders and one current policyholder dominate the
Company's asbestos claims.

During 2003, the Company was presented with several hundred
lawsuits (primarily multi-plaintiff lawsuits) filed against
three former policyholders representing about 66,500 claims
related to exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos.

During 2006 and 2007, several of the multi-plaintiff lawsuits
(including the vast majority of those associated with one former
policyholder) were dismissed. As of Dec. 31, 2007, about 5,000
of the claims remained open.

During 2006, the Company received notice that another former
insured was a named defendant in about 33,000 claims nationwide.
As of Dec. 31, 2007, about 27,000 of these claims remained open.

To date, actual losses paid have been minimal due to the
plaintiffs’ failure to identify an exposure to any asbestos-
containing product associated with the Company's policyholders.

Des Moines, Iowa-based EMC Insurance Group Inc. conducts
operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
through its subsidiaries. The Company focuses on the sale of
commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and
medium-sized businesses. While the Company markets its insurance
products in 41 states, most of its business is marketed and
generated in the Midwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 169 Claims at Feb. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 169 pending asbestos-related cases as of Feb.
29, 2008, and 160 claims as of Nov. 30, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 26, 2008.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County,
Ill. and San Francisco, Calif.

During the three months ended Feb. 29, 2008, the Company noted
17 claims filed, seven claims dismissed, and one claim settled.
The aggregate settlement costs were US$95,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$95,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company noted 57 claims
filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. The
aggregate settlement costs were US$72,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$9,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the
first quarter of fiscal 2008 were US$200,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases were
US$900,000 for fiscal year 2007 and US$500,000 for fiscal year
2006.

Sacramento, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc. is a manufacturer of
aerospace and defense systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the entitlement, sale, and
leasing of its excess real estate assets. The Company's
continuing operations are organized into two segments: Aerospace
and Defense and Real Estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation, as of March 2, 2008, was a
defendant in asbestos-related cases involving 25 claimants,
compared with 60 claimants as of Nov. 30, 2007.

The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits. These cases seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure
to products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

At this time the Company is generally not aware of the extent of
injuries allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts
supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's
products.

For the quarter ended March 2, 2008, there were new claims
involving three claimants, dismissals and settlements involving
38 claimants and no judgments.

No net costs or expenses were incurred by the Company for the
quarter ended March 2, 2008 in connection with asbestos-related
claims.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Corporation is a
multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered products and
materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation
and infrastructure markets. The Company is a producer of water
transmission lines; fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting
oil, chemicals and corrosive fluids and specialized materials
and products used in infrastructure projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Incurs $7.1M for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2007, had incurred a
total of US$7.1 million (AUD8.1 million) of asbestos and
environmental costs of its 50-acre Burwood site in Melbourne,
Australia, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008.

The Company is in the process of remediating certain
environmental issues with respect to Burwood. That property was
at one time used as a brickwork, and the Company has discovered
petroleum and asbestos at the site.

During 2007, the Company developed a plan for the remediation of
these materials, in some cases through removal and in other
cases through encapsulation.

The total site preparation costs associated with the removal of
this contaminated soil is estimated to be US$7.9 million (AUD9
million).

From time to time, the Company has claims brought against it
relating to the exposure of former employees of its railroad
operations to asbestos and coal dust. These are generally
covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990
with the Company's insurance carriers.

However, this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by
people who were not Company employees and who may claim second
hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and other chemicals or
elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans.

Commerce, Calif.-based Reading International, Inc. owns more
than 50 theaters in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. The
Company also owns three Off-Broadway-style theaters in New York
and one live theater complex in Chicago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Residential Uses $807T for Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oxford Residential Properties I Limited Partnership, for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, incurred cleanup expenses, primarily
related to asbestos removal, of about US$807,000, according to
the Company's annual report, on Form 10-KSB, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008.

During June 2007, one of the Partnership's investment
properties, Raven Hill Apartments, incurred damages as a result
of a fire. The preliminary estimates of building damages were
about US$2,796,000 and lost rents were about US$215,000.

All of the asbestos related work was completed in 2007.

Greenville, S.C.-based Oxford Residential Properties I Limited
Partnership was formed on Jan. 19, 1984 to acquire, own and
operate residential properties. The General Partners of the
Partnership are Oxford Residential Properties I Corporation and
Oxford Fund I Limited Partnership. Oxford Residential Properties
I Corporation serves as the managing general partner and Oxford
Fund I Limited Partnership serves as the Associated General
Partner.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Inc. Facing Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to face lawsuits alleging past
exposure to asbestos contained in gloves manufactured or sold by
one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest.

All actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 28, 2008.

Kewanee, Ill.-based Boss Holdings, Inc. operates primarily in
the work gloves and protective wear business segment. In
addition, the Company conducts operations in the pet supplies
business segment and promotional and specialty products
segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NTS Comms Incurs $31T for Tex. Site in 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xfone, Inc.'s subsidiary, NTS Communications, Inc., during 2007,
incurred about US$31,000 expenses related to the encapsulation
of asbestos insulation.

The insulation was located on certain of the basement piping and
basement boiler jacket of the Metro Tower, a property owned in
Lubbock, Tex.

The expenses were also incurred in connection with the
replacement of the roof of the building to remediate a potential
interior mold problem with originated from a roof leak.

NTS will from time to time incur additional similar expenses in
the future to monitor and encapsulate, where necessary, isolated
areas of asbestos.

On March 21, 2008, NTS received notice that the remediation
project at Metro Tower had been completed.

Flowood, Miss.-based Xfone, Inc. is a holding and managing
company providing international voice, video and data
communications services with operations in the United States,
the United Kingdom and Israel.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Moves to End G-I Holdings' Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America, by notices dated
Feb. 1, 2008, the creditors' committee and legal representative
of present and future holders of asbestos-related demands
elected to terminate the stay of proceedings in the G-I Holdings
bankruptcy and related litigation.

The parties continue to participate in mediation.

G-I Holdings Inc. is the indirect parent of the Company.

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating
to the inhalation of asbestos fiber (Asbestos Claims) of the
Company's indirect parent, G-I Holdings.

As of March 30, 1997, the Company had paid all of its assumed
liabilities for Asbestos Claims. G-I Holdings has agreed to
indemnify the Company against any other existing or future
claims related to asbestos-related liabilities if asserted
against the Company.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due
to Asbestos Claims. Most Asbestos Claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought and the value of the Asbestos Claims
asserted against G-I Holdings is a contested issue in that
bankruptcy which remains pending.

Claimants in the G-I Holdings bankruptcy, including judgment
creditors, might seek to satisfy their claims by asking the
Bankruptcy Court to require the sale of G-I Holdings' assets,
including its holdings of BMCA Holdings Corporation's common
stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's common stock.

In addition, those creditors may attempt to assert Asbestos
Claims against the Company. (About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were
filed against the Company prior to Feb. 2, 2001.)

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company.

By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered
Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary
restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against the
Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action).

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a
counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that the
Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I
Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.

In March 2007, after participating in a mediation which resulted
in the parties agreeing to an outline of the principal terms of
a settlement of the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and all related
litigations, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings pending
the completion of their negotiations.

The judges presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding
and the related litigations, including the BMCA Action and a
fraudulent conveyance action, each entered stipulated orders
dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007,
respectively, implementing the stay.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America is a
manufacturer and marketer of asphalt and polymer-based roofing
products and accessories for the residential and commercial
roofing markets. The Company also manufactures specialty
building products and accessories for the professional and do-
it-yourself remodeling and residential construction industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Inc. Faces 3 Building Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America's indirect parent, G-I
Holdings Inc., is a defendant in three remaining asbestos-
related Building Claims, one of which has been dormant,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2008.

G-I Holdings has been named as a defendant in asbestos-in-
buildings cases for economic and property damage or other
injuries based upon an alleged present or future need to remove
asbestos-containing materials from public and private buildings
(Building Claims).

Most Building Claims do not seek to recover an amount of
specific damages.

Since these actions were first initiated about 20 years ago, G-I
Holdings has successfully disposed of about 145 of these cases.

The three actions have been stayed as to G-I Holdings under the
G-I Holdings' bankruptcy case. No new Building Claims were filed
in 2007.

The Company has not assumed any liabilities with respect to
Building Claims.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America is a
manufacturer and marketer of asphalt and polymer-based roofing
products and accessories for the residential and commercial
roofing markets. The Company also manufactures specialty
building products and accessories for the professional and do-
it-yourself remodeling and residential construction industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Site Ended on Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerex Group Inc. says that asbestos removal at its Pryor,
Okla., site was completed in September 2007, according to the
Company's annual report, on Form 10-KSB, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2008.

In February 2006, Amerex Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
Company subsidiary, acquired about 168 acres of heavily
developed industrial property in Pryor, Okla., from Kaiser
Aluminum and Chemical Corporation in consideration for
US$700,000 which amount was paid in cash at closing.

The Company also delivered to them an irrevocable letter of
credit with JP Morgan Chase Bank to provide financial assurance
for the removal of all asbestos and asbestos containing
materials from the property within 18 months following closing.

The Company received clearance by the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation instructed JPMorgan Chase Bank to release the letter
of credit.

The proceeds from the release of the cash collateralized letter
of credit were deployed in accordance with the Company's
agreements with Asbestos Handlers, Inc. and X Interchange, Inc.

Asbestos Handlers, Inc. is an asbestos abatement contractor
based in Tulsa, Okla. The Company engaged Asbestos Handlers to
remove the asbestos from the Pryor facility.

X Interchange, Inc. is an intermodal transportation logistics
company based in Lealand, Kans. The Company engaged X
Interchange to manage the demolition and scrap metal salvage at
the Pryor facility.

New York-based Amerex Group Inc. makes outerwear for men, women,
and children. Founded in 1946, the Company has licensing
agreements with brands like Jones New York, London Fog, OshKosh,
and Mudd. The Company also sells outerwear under its own labels
(Static and Weather Tamer) and sports-oriented outdoor wear
through subsidiary Gerry (Bombshell and Mambosok).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks High Court Review on Libby Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review
pretrial rulings in the Government's case charging Grace with
trying hide health risks associated with its vermiculite mine in
Libby, Mont., Great Falls Tribune reports.

Grace filed a petition asking the high court to evaluate a
decision by a federal appeals court involving the type of
asbestos found at the Libby mine.

Grace attorneys argue that when the Company operated the mine,
minerals that made up the asbestos found there — winchite and
richterite — were not regulated by the federal government. They
say the Company therefore cannot be prosecuted for them under
the Clean Air Act.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula, Mont., agreed
with the Company but was overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Grace is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals
court's decision.

According to the Company's petition, the government "is trying
to convict defendants of violating the Clean Air Act by
releasing substances that the government itself has excluded
from the list of substances covered by the act."

The government has 30 days to file a response. Following that,
the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case.

If the high court declines, the 9th Circuit's rulings will
stand, potentially clearing the way for the criminal trial to
get under way in Missoula.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its final cases of the 2008
term. If it accepts the Grace petition, the earliest it would
hear oral arguments would be on October 2008.

A 2005 indictment charged Grace and seven of its former managers
with conspiring to hide health risks associated with its Libby
vermiculite mine, which closed in 1990.

The Company has denied any criminal wrongdoing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Man's Estate Sues 10 Firms in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of William Pierce, of Virginia, on April 10, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 10 corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The suit was the 300th civil suit seeking damages in excess of
US$50,000 and the 165th asbestos case filed in Madison County
Circuit Court so far in 2008.

According to the complaint, Mr. Pierce was employed from 1940 to
1984 as a welder and assembly line worker at various locations.

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

The complaint names Atlas Asbestos Company, Bell Asbestos Mines,
Bondex International, Foseco plc, Georgia-Pacific Corp., John
Crane Inc., Pneumo Abex Corp., RPM International Inc., RPM Inc.,
and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition LLC.

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

According to Mr. Pierce's estate, he first became aware that she
suffered from mesothelioma on Oct. 15, 2002, and subsequently
died on Nov. 10, 2003.

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

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

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

The estate claims that prior to his death, Mr. Pierce suffered
great physical pain and mental anguish, and also was hindered
and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment,
thereby losing large sums of money.

The estate seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence
and willful and wanton conduct.

John Barnerd, Robert Phillips and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Pierce's estate.

Case No. 08 L 300 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk MP Campaigns v. Law Lords Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ian Gibson, MP for Norwich North, in Norfolk, England, has
launched a campaign to get compensation for people who are
affected by asbestosis, BBC News reports.

In October 2007, the Law Lords decided that scarring of the
lungs should no longer be a compensatory illness. Dr. Gibson
campaigns to overturn that decision.

The eastern region has one of the highest rates of death from
the disease in the country, and that number is expected to peak
by 2020.

Dr. Gibson said the figures were particularly high in the East
because of the nature of the region's industries and the amount
of asbestos involved.

Dr. Gibson said, "Council houses had it, some of the factories
used asbestos to prevent fires and also in the products they
made, and of course there's been ship building. And the families
at home who washed the clothes the people used in the factories
have also developed the lung cancer, called mesothelioma."

Dr. Gibson said he was confident the campaign could overturn the
decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Files Suit v. CBS Corp. Over CSI Toys
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California asbestos victims advocacy group, the Asbestos
Disease Awareness Organization, on April 11, 2008, sued CBS
Corporation; toy maker Planet Toys, Inc.; and several retailer
over the sale of CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit, which contains
asbestos, NEWSInferno.com reports.

The toy was based on the CBS series "CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation."

ADAO said laboratory tests confirmed the CSI Fingerprint
Examination Kit contained asbestos in a powder used for
fingerprint dusting. Planet Toys removed the toys from the
market late in 2007. However, it maintains that multiple tests
did not reveal asbestos.

Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit said tests showed
the kits' fingerprint powder contained "substantial quantities
of tremolite asbestos," which it described as "one of the most
lethal forms of asbestos."

On its Web site, Planet Toys indicated it issued a "stop sale"
on all "'CSI Fingerprint Kits' until further information can be
ascertained as to the discrepancy between our respective test
findings."

ADAO wants to stop sales of the kits unless they carry a
hazardous material warning and is seeking full refund for return
of the kits.

In December 2007, the Department of Consumer Protection stopped
the sale of the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit in Connecticut.

Consumer Protection Commissioner Jerry Farrell, Jr. said, "With
the success of crime shows like CSI, it's no surprise that kids
want to get in on the excitement by pretending to be crime scene
investigators, but our own investigation of the CSI Fingerprint
Examination Kit identified a real-life culprit that must be
promptly eliminated. We are immediately embargoing and recalling
this item in Connecticut."

The Department purchased the toys and Mr. Farrell contacted the
Department of Public Health to request testing.

Meanwhile, ADAO conducted a study with three independent labs
and revealed in December 2007 that the CSI Fingerprint
Examination Kit contained two types of asbestos. However, kits
remained on the shelves for weeks in Connecticut and continued
to be sold elsewhere.

According to the study, the CSI Fingerprint Examination Kit
contained high levels, five percent were found in the powder of
two asbestos types.

Department inspectors embargoed the product statewide and
contacted the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In late December 2007, Planet Toys finally asked stores to pull
its product from their shelves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner's Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Olive Brown, a pensioner from
Sassoon Walk, Marlborough, England, was linked to asbestos, This
Is Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

Mrs. Brown died 45 years after she used to wash her husband's
asbestos-covered work overalls. She was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in April 2007 and died in September 2007.

The inquest heard that she washed her husband Eric Brown's
overalls weekly for nine months in 1962. At the time, the now
77-year-old Mr. Brown worked for a builders' merchant.

There Mr. Brown came into direct contact with asbestos products
used for insulation. He said he never knew of the dangers of
asbestos and how it could have affected his wife's health in
years to come.

In the hardware store where Mr. Brown worked, they would
frequently sell asbestos products such as asbestos stove mats.

David Ridley, the Deputy Wiltshire Coroner, who presided over
the case, recorded a narrative verdict. He said, "Her husband
didn't wash his hands and instead rubbed them into his overalls.
This was then handled and washed by Olive on a weekly basis."

Mr. Ridley said Mrs. Brown died from the industrial disease
mesothelioma, when she was exposed with contact of her husband's
work clothing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple to Pay $2,000 Over MassDEP Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel and Jacqueline Rutowicz, of Holliston, Mass., are to pay
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a US$2,000 penalty for
violations of the Department of Environmental Protection's
(MassDEP) asbestos regulations, The MetroWest Daily News
reports.

According to a MassDEP press release, the violations occurred
during the removal of asbestos-containing transite roofing
materials from the Rutowiczes residential property located at
667 Highland Street in Holliston.

During an inspection of the property, MassDEP personnel found
that the roofing materials had been removed by a roofing
contractor, hired by the Rutowiczes, without having provided
prior notification to MassDEP and without following the required
handling, packaging and disposal procedures. Dry, uncontained
pieces of asbestos-containing materials were observed on the
ground at the property.

Upon discovery of the violations, the Rutowiczes were required
to hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety licensed
asbestos contractor to properly handle, package and dispose of
all the asbestos-containing waste materials, and to
decontaminate all impacted areas of the property.

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, MassDEP assessed a
penalty of US$27,620 and suspended all but US$2,000 of the
penalty amount provided there is no repeat of the violations for
one year.

MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing transite
materials to be removed wet, in a manner that minimizes
breakage, and then carefully lowered to the ground.

The regulations also mandate that asbestos waste be sealed,
while wet, into leak tight containers that have the appropriate
asbestos warning labels affixed to them.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Board Worker's Widow Seeks Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evelyn Holmes, the widow of Leonard Holmes who had worked for
the British Railways Board, is seeking compensation for Mr.
Holmes' exposure to asbestos, North-West Evening Mail reports.

Mr. Holmes died in November 2006 from mesothelioma. He was
exposed to asbestos throughout his working life.

Between 1947 and 1949, Mr. Holmes worked for the British
Railways Board, cleaning locomotives in its Barrow depot. The
pipework and firebox, which he had to clean were lagged with
asbestos insulation, which, when disturbed, created the asbestos
dust to which he was exposed.

From 1975 to 1993, Mr. Holmes was employed as a laborer by
Vickers-Armstrong Limited in the Barrow shipyard. During this
time he worked mainly with plumbers on pipework throughout the
ships.

There was asbestos lagging on pipes and old lagging that had
fallen to the floor which created asbestos dust when disturbed,
to which Mr. Holmes was also exposed.

Mr. Holmes was never given any warning of the danger of working
with asbestos and never provided with any protective clothing or
equipment.

Lucy Proctor, a solicitor at personal injury firm Irwin
Mitchell, who represents Mrs. Holmes, said, "Mesothelioma is a
devastating form of cancer which affects the lining of the
lung."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Sailor's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest ruled that the death of Wyn Lloyd, a retired sailor,
was linked to asbestos, South Wales Echo reports.

Mr. Lloyd served at Royal Chatham Dockyard in Kent, England, and
spent eight years in the Royal Navy, followed by a job at a
hospital where he worked with asbestos lagging.

Mr. Lloyd died from mesothelioma in October 2007 at the age of
76.

Recording a verdict of death due to industrial disease, coroner
Philip Walters said, "I'm satisfied this was as a result of his
employment."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pig Shelter Exposure Led to Farmer's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Brian Shepard, a former
farmer who was exposed to asbestos after making a contaminated
pig shelter, was linked to asbestos, The Citizen reports.

Mr. Shepard, of Darwen, Lancashire, England, died at East
Lancashire Hospice on Dec. 28, 2007 after suffering from
mesothelioma.

The 69-year-old Mr. Shepard had suffered breathing difficulties
for a few weeks before his death. He was retired after working
as a construction worker and farmer.

The inquest heard evidence that Mr. Shepard had worked in the
mid 1970s building a piggery, which involved cutting sheets of
asbestos. It was the only time that he recalled being in contact
with the material.

Deputy Coroner, Caroline Singleton, concluded that the cause of
death was due to the deceased being exposed to asbestos, which
led to a tumor developing on his lung.

The verdict was death due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Color Stillman Gets GBP65T in Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Douglas, a 66-year-old former stillman from Ellesmere
Port, England, has been awarded GBP65,000 in compensation for
lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos, The Standard
reports.

Mr. Douglas received the payout from his former employer HH
Robertson after developing lung cancer in 2004. He was exposed
to asbestos when he worked as a color stillman at the Ellesmere
Port company from 1966 to 1995.

HH Robertson made asbestos roofing sheets and the paint to go on
them and Mr. Douglas's job involved mixing asbestos fibers into
the paint. He was never warned about the dangers of asbestos and
was not provided with respiratory protection.

Although Mr. Douglas was a smoker, he was told by a cancer
specialist his exposure to asbestos had more than doubled his
risk of lung cancer.

The operations to remove both tumors were successful but Mr.
Douglas has been told the cancer might return. He is also at a
high risk of developing secondary tumors.

Mr. Douglas decided to claim for compensation after meeting
Joanne Candlish, a client representative from Thompsons
Solicitors who was interviewing him as a witness in an asbestos
compensation claim for a former colleague.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Town Worker Fired for "Whistleblowing"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Watson, a town worker from Cherry Creek, in Chautauqua
County, N.Y., says he was fired for blowing the whistle on his
boss over asbestos matters, WGRZ-TV Buffalo reports.

Mr. Watson says he would not sign off on the demolition of
Cherry Creek's old schoolhouse. He says the schoolhouse is
filled with asbestos and proper procedures were not being
followed. However, the Mayor wanted it torn down anyway.

Mr. Watson said, "By me not signing that permit and by speaking
out I'm being fired."

The Department of Labor is looking into the old school's
demolition and if proper asbestos procedures were followed.

The Mayor said at a special meeting on April 9, 2008, the
village board unanimously approved firing Mr. Watson and it has
the right to fire village employees.

The Mayor says Mr. Watson did not work well with the board and
had a temper.

Meantime, demolition on the school is stopped.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Total Environmental Fined $12T for Mishandling
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Toledo, Ohio-based asbestos removal company, Total
Environmental Services, was fined US$12,600 for mishandling
asbestos in Wayne County, Ohio, The Plain Dealer reports.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency said Total
Environmental did not comply with Ohio's asbestos emission
control standards in 2006.

In a press release, the EPA said, "The Company failed to
adequately wet asbestos-containing material that had been
stripped from Gourley Hall at Ohio State University's
Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster. The
Company also neglected to wet the asbestos-containing waste
while collecting and bagging it for disposal."

Ohio EPA inspectors documented the violations in February 2006
after examining the contents of asbestos disposal bags at the
site.

The Company promptly corrected the violations by wetting the
contents inside the bags.

When in a dry state and disturbed, asbestos breaks up into small
fibers that can be released to the air if not properly
controlled during removal and disposal activities.

If inhaled, airborne asbestos can pose health risks including
respiratory diseases.




                            *********

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  * * *