CAR_Public/080425.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 82
  
                            Headlines

BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches Settlement in Investors' Lawsuit in Canada
CAPITAL BLUEECROSS: June 2008 Hearing Set for "Love" Settlement
CENTENE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal of Junked Ma. Suit Heard
CENTRO PROPERTIES: US Litigation Funders to Represent Investors
CONTAINER SHIPPERS: Face Florida Lawsuit Over Price Fixing

DAN-DEE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in California
DENDREON CORP: Provenge-Related Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
DIEDRICH COFFEE: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in California
HAIN PURE: Workers May Get Back Wages as Part of Suit Settlement
HOMELAND SECURITY: Mayors & Judges Join Texas Border Fence Suit

JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Wage & Hour Suits in Penn. and Calif.
KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case
KINDER MORGAN: AK Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal of "Johnson"
LENDING TREE: Faces Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit in Illinois
MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated TX Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed

NALGE NUNC: Faces California Suit Over "Lexan" Plastic Bottles
NESTOR TRAFFIC: Earns Favorable Ruling in OH Speed Program Case
NETFLIX INC: Lawyers Awarded $2MM in Consumer Fraud Suit Deal
OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Residents Suing "Unneighborly" Camp
OSB LITIGATION: May 29 Hearing Set for $2.35M OSB Antitrust Deal

PACIFIC PREMIER: Still Faces SMLA Violations Suit in Missouri
PACIFIC STEEL: Faces CA Suit Over Alleged Airborne Contamination
R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Considers Appeal in "Schwab" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Suits Over "Light Cigarettes" Reassigned
SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Litigation

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over FAA Safety Violations
TALON INT'L: Files Reply Brief in Calif. Shareholder Litigation
UNITEDGLOBALCOM INC: May 16 Hearing Set for $25M Suit Settlement
VEOLIA WATER: Sued for Overestimating Customers' Water Usage
* Reed Smith Announces Several Leadership Changes in D.C.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Dyer & Berens Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WELLS FARGO: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 86 Hilco Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J. C. Penney Records $43Mil for Remediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stehman Action Still Pending v. Ballantyne
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOTAL S.A. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Settles Two Suits for $93,000

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $579M Settlement at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.4B Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $936M NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Facing Travelers Suit in NY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 51,952 Bendix Claims at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO Records $1.67B for Bendix Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Claims Still Pending v. CSK Auto
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Nelson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Xethanol May Pay for Cleanup at Spring Hope
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Still Pending v. Nevamar at Dec.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Kaanapali Land
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DFH, Premix Continue to Face Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Exposure Claims Still Pending v. CSX
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Judgment in Sandy Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Martin Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wirt County Worker Sues 50 Companies in Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW MP Calls for Baryulgil Issue Resolution
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Teacher Loses Job for Whistleblowing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dempseys Sue Union Carbide et al. in Texas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cottingley Rower's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Posen Fined $6,500 for Mishandling Pipes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Cites $4.2M Net Adjustments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 81,103 Claims Pending v. Crane at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $2.15M Verdict in Norris Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Gets Adverse Verdict in Baccus Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $22.5M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $328M Asset at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Liability Drops to $928M at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Seeing $55M Asbestos Payments in '08

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling to Favor Garzas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Seeks Dismissal of Claimants' Appeals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hacker Couple Sue 3M Co., et al. in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Laborer Gets Payout from Hardie
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Links Welsh Worker's Death to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Examines Blue Star Vicinity for Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Utah Worker Sues 59 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Telford Mom's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wear Valley Scandal Investigation Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie's Restructuring Not to Affect Payout

ASBESTOS ALERT: OSHA Imposes $1,500 Fine on ACM & Environmental



                           *********


BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches Settlement in Investors' Lawsuit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corporation and the named individual defendants have
entered into an agreement to settle the class-action shareholder
litigation brought by the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry
Pension Plan.

On Sept. 21, 2005, the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry
Pension Plan commenced a securities class action in Canada
against Biovail and several of its officers.

The action is purportedly prosecuted on behalf of all
individuals other than the defendants who purchased Biovail's
common stock between Feb. 7, 2003, and March 2, 2004.  

In a statement of claim, CCWIPP said it sustained losses of
about CDN$481,000 from a series of stock purchases during the
13-month period because it relied on statements made by the
company and four executives (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27,
2005).  

Though none of the allegations have been proven in court, the
suit named former chairman and chief executive officer Eugene
Melnyk, senior vice-president Brian Crombie, and vice-presidents
John Miszuk and Ken Howling as defendants.

In its statement of claims, the pension plan revealed that it
purchased a total of 231,000 shares of Biovail in six
transactions on the Toronto Stock Exchange in August and October
2003 at prices ranging from CDN$55.09 in August to CDN$33.93
in October.  It also sold 5,200 shares at CDN$31.42 a share in
October 2003.  

Additionally, the plan said in its statement of claim that
Biovail's stock price in 2003 and early 2004 depended on two
drugs: hypertensive Cardizem LA, which was launched on April 2,
2003, and antidepressant Wellbutrin XL, which was launched in
the third quarter of 2003.

Generally, the claim seeks damages in excess of CAD$100,000,000
for misrepresentation and breaches of Section 134 of the
Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, and Sections 36 and 52 of
the Competition Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-34, as well as class wide
punitive and exemplary damages.

The claim essentially relies on the same facts and allegations
as those cited in the complaint.  The claim was served on the
company and named officers on Sept. 29, 2005.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement in the Canadian
Action, the parties have agreed that the sole source of
compensation for the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action will be
the settlement amount previously agreed to in the proposed
settlement of the parallel U.S. securities class action, as
announced by the Company on December 11, 2007.  The settlement
is subject to final approval by the Ontario Superior Court.

The settlement agreement in the Canadian Action contains no
admission of wrongdoing by Biovail or any of the named
individual defendants, nor is the Company or any of the
individual named defendants acknowledging any liability or
wrongdoing by entering into the agreement.

Biovail Corp. on the Net: http://www.biovail.com/.


CAPITAL BLUEECROSS: June 2008 Hearing Set for "Love" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold a fairness hearing on June 13, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlement by certain defendants in the class
action, "Rick Love, M.D., et al., v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association, et al., Case No. 03-21296."

The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom IV,
Tenth Floor, Federal Justice Building, 99 Northeast Fourth
Street, in Miami, Florida.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 25, 2008, and May 30, 2008, respectively.
Deadline for the submission of accomplished claim forms is on
June 30, 2008.

The defendants involved in the proposed settlement are:

       -- Capital BlueCross;
       -- Capital Advantage Insurance Co.; and
       -- Keystone Health Plan Central.

The case is over payments to physicians, physicians groups, and
physician organizations.  The suit generally alleges that during
a period of 8-1/2 years beginning in May 1999, Highmark and
other insurers "engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny,
delay and/or reduce payment to physicians, physician groups and
physician organizations by engaging in several types of
allegedly improperly conduct," (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28,
2007).

The suit further alleges that the improper conduct violated the
federal statute known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

For more details, contact:

          Highmark/Mountain State
          Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 3775
          Portland, OR 97208-3775
          Phone: (866) 486-1725
          Web site: http://www.highmarkphysiciansettlement.com/

          Harley S. Tropin, Esq. (hst@kttlaw.com)
          Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 372-1800 or (305) 377-0662
          Fax: (305) 372-3508

          Archie Lamb, Esq. (Alamb@ArchieLamb.com)
          2900 1st Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Phone: (205) 324-4644 or (800) 324-4425
          Fax: (205) 324-4649

               -- and --

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq. (ekallas@whatleydrake.com)
          Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, New York 10036
          Phone: 212-447-7070
          Fax: 212-447-7077
          Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com/


CENTENE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal of Junked Ma. Suit Heard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument related to an appeal of the dismissal of a
consolidated class action suit against Centene Corp. was heard
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The consolidated class action dismissed by the Court was
originally two separate class actions filed in July 2006 and
August 2006, respectively.  

Both class actions were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors.  Both were filed on behalf of
purchasers of the company common stock from June 21, 2006,
through July 17, 2006.

The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false statements prior to the announcement
of the company's fiscal 2006-second quarter results.  

According to the suits, these allegedly materially false
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the
issuance of a press release announcing the company's preliminary
fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance.  

The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006, and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri in January 2007.

The consolidated class action asserts the same allegations, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from
April 25, 2006, through July 17, 2006.  

According to suit, the allegedly materially false statements
issued by the company had artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the
issuance of a press release announcing its preliminary fiscal
2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance.

At the company's request, the court dismissed the Consolidated
Lawsuit on June 29, 2007.  However, the plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal order, and briefing on the appeal has been
completed.  

Oral argument on the appeal was held on April 18, 2008,
according to the company's April 22, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corp., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-1142," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Catherine D. Perry
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jill S. Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey & Gardy
          212 E. 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-889-3700

               - and -  

          Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson@stlouislaw.com)
          Green & Jacobson, P.C.
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-862-6800
          Fax: 314-862-1606

Representing the defendants are:

          Jason M. Bohm, Esq. (jbohm@sidley.com)
          Sidley & Austin
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-0526
          Fax: 312-853-7036

               - and -

          Edwin L. Noel, Esq. (enoel@armstrongteasdale.com)
          Armstrong Teasdale, LLP
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-2740
          Phone: 314-621-5070
          Fax: 314-621-5065


CENTRO PROPERTIES: US Litigation Funders to Represent Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centro Centro Properties Group investors burned by the collapse
of the property manager's share price have a unique choice of
two class actions, with separate counsel and separate litigation
funders -- a move that could shake up the existing funding
arrangements for shareholder class actions in Australia.

The US-based litigation funder Commonwealth Legal Funding, LLC
is to team with law firm Slater & Gordon to represent investors
who purchased CNP and CER stapled securities between August 7,
2007, and February 15, 2008.

As with existing litigation funders, CLF indemnifies litigants
who sign with it from adverse costs and meets any "security for
costs" orders.

But a significant CLF advantage is that it takes a lower
percentage of the net amount recovered, from 15 to 30 per cent,
compared with a top rate of 40 per cent for the other proposed
Centro class action.

James Higgins, Esq., of Slater & Gordon, says Centro investors
now have a simple choice.  "The CLF-Slater & Gordon class action
offers cheaper participation rates, greater discounts to larger
shareholders, and further discounts if certain recovery
thresholds are met."

"This is the first time two major funders have competed like
this, and we believe the offer is the most competitive
litigation funding agreement offered to date," Mr. Higgins adds.

Slater & Gordon began contacting major institutional
shareholders yesterday after being authorized by CLF at the
weekend to release its litigation funding proposal.

Litigation funding allows a stress-free attempt at recovering
investment losses, with little work involved other than signing
the funding agreement and providing trading data.

Under Australian law, Slater & Gordon will be paid at court-
approved hourly rates for the work it does, and will also
recover its expenses if the case is successful. Litigation
funders like CLF take a percentage of the net amount recovered,
after expenses and legal fees, for advancing all expenses and
accepting the risk of any adverse cost award.

                    About Centro Properties

Centro Properties Group -- http://www.centro.com.au/-- is a   
Melbourne, Australia-based company that comprises the operations
of Centro Property Trust and its entities, which are engaged in
property investment, property management, property development
and funds management.

The company operates in two business segments: property
ownership business and services business. The Company derives
income from retail property rentals of shopping center space to
retailers across Australasia and the United States.  It also
derives income from its retail property investments in listed
and unlisted entities.  Its services business activities include
incorporating funds management, property management and
development and leasing.  During the fiscal year ended June 30,
2007, the Company acquired New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Heritage
Property Investment Trust and Galileo Funds Management, as well
as assumed full ownership of its United States management
operations.


CONTAINER SHIPPERS: Face Florida Lawsuit Over Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
A class-action antitrust complaint filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida accuses:

          -- Horizon Lines, Inc.
          -- Horizon Line, LLC
          -- Sea Star Line, LLC
          -- Trailer Bridge, Inc.
          -- Crowley Maritime Corporation and
          -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc.

of conspiring to fix prices for "domestic noncontiguous off
shore trades services," CourtHouse News Service reports.

Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services are merchandise
shipping services, primarily by container and barge, in the
coastwise (i.e. domestic) trade.  These services are governed by
the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the
"Jones Act," 46 USC Section 100 et seq.

Named plaintiff C C 1 Limited Partnership brings this action on
behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased Domestic
Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services between Puerto Rico and
the United States, or its territories and possessions, directly
from defendants, their predecessors or their controlled
subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as April 21,
2004, or earlier.

The plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the
defendants conspired to allocate markets or engage in other
anticompetitive conduct concerning Domestic Noncontinguous
Offshore Trades Services sold in the United States and its
territories and possessions.

Because of the defendants' unlawful conduct, the plaintiff and
the other class members paid artificially inflated prices for
Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services and, as a
result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or
property.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a combination and conspiracy among themselves to
         allocate the market for or engage in other
         anticompetitive conduct concerning Domestic
         Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services sold in the
         United States, and its territories and possessions;

     (b) the identity of the participants in the conspiracy;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in the complaint
         and the nature and character of the acts performed by
         defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of
         the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violted Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co-
         conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused
         injury to the business and property of plaintiff and
         other members of the class;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services sold
         in the United States and its territories and
         possessions during the class period; and

     (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiff and other members of the class.

This action is instituted under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act, 15 USC Sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages and
costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees against
defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiff and the
members of the class by reason of the violations, of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1.

The suit is "C C 1 Limited Partnership et al v. Horizon Lines et
al., Case No. 08-21125," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.
          Michael A. Hanzman PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700
          Coral Gables, Florida 33134
          Phone: (305) 529-9100
          Fax: (305) 529-1612


DAN-DEE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Fakhimi & Associates, a litigation firm with
experience in both defending and prosecuting class action
lawsuits, have filed a representative Class Action lawsuit with
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Dan-Dee Transportation.

According to the complaint, Dan-Dee Transportation has failed to
pay its drivers who transport petroleum products throughout the
state of California overtime wages.  The lawsuit alleges that
the truck drivers involved would regularly work more than 40
hours a week and were not compensated for the time they worked
over 40 hours at a 1.5 rate as required by federal law.

The lawsuit is in early stages of litigation.

The suit is "Case Number: CV08 – 01920," filed with the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

For more information, contact:

          Houman Fakhimi, Esq.
          Fakhimi & Associates
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 620
          Santa Ana, California 92707
          Phone: 888-529-2188
          Web site: http://www.employmentlawteam.com


DENDREON CORP: Provenge-Related Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman granted Dendreon Corp.'s
request and dismissed the consolidated class action suit filed
by shareholders, according to Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Seattle Post recounts that in 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration declined to approve Dendreon's Provenge prostate
cancer treatment.  Specifically, on Feb. 17, 2007, the FDA
inspected the Provenge manufacturing facility and found various
"chemistry, manufacturing, and controls" violations.  However,
in a press release dated March 1, 2007, and in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 14, 2007,
Dendreon did not mention the violations and instead said it
anticipated a response from the FDA about the treatment's
approval by May 15.

On March 29, 2007, Dendreon said an FDA advisory committee had
determined that Provenge was both safe and effective.  That day,
the company's stock jumped to $12.93 from $5.22 a share.

Over the course of the following week, three Dendreon directors,
including Chief Executive Officer Mitchell Gold, sold thousands
of shares of the company's stock -- at prices as high as $15.32
a share.  Mr. Gold alone sold 24.5% of his holdings.

When, on May 9, 2007, Dendreon reported that the FDA had asked
for additional information before approving Provenge, the
company's stock tumbled to $6.33 a share.

Shareholders then filed various lawsuits against the company and
some of its directors alleging that they had concealed negative
information about Provenge's chances of getting approved.  The
plaintiffs argued that Dendreon and certain directors had
violated securities laws by omitting the material information
and benefited by selling stock at an artificially high price.

The plaintiffs charged that the company's stock would never have
jumped so much if the company had reported on the results of the
FDA's inspection of its facility.

The various lawsuits were ultimately consolidated in October
2007, under the caption, "McGuire v. Dendreon Corp., et al.,"
and designated a lead plaintiff.  

In her recent ruling, Judge Pechman acknowledged that
information about the inspections was material.  However, she
said that while the company may have omitted information,
Dendreon did not mislead its investors since the company never
said that Provenge would be approved, only that the FDA would
take action on its application.

Judge Pechman also said that the timing of the directors' stock
sales was not "suspicious or unusual."

Dendreon Corp. -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a biotechnology   
company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that harness the immune system
to fight cancer.  


DIEDRICH COFFEE: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diedrich Coffee, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in a
purported class action suit over allegations that it violated
labor laws, according to the company's April 21, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 5, 2008.

On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Jason Reid; Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al."
was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California by two former employees, who worked in the
positions of team member and shift manager.

The case involves the issue of whether employees and former
employees who worked in California stores during specified time
periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest
breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, this case seeks to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in
the purported class.

The parties have now agreed to a tentative settlement wherein
the Company will pay up to a maximum of $900,000 to resolve all
the outstanding matters in this law suit.

This settlement is subject to court approval.  As of March 5,
2008, the Company has estimated that the required amount to
settle these claims is $693,000 and has recorded an accrual for
this estimated amount.  

Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a  
specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer.  The Company
sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages
primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans,
as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories,
through Company operated and franchised retail locations.


HAIN PURE: Workers May Get Back Wages as Part of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Between 500 and 750 current and former employees of Hain Pure
Protein Corp. of Bethel Township could receive back wages as
part of a class-action settlement order entered by Judge Samuel
Kline, Lebanon Daily News reports.

The suit was filed by Shirley Ann Sweigert and Arnaldo Velez on
behalf of themselves and other employees of Hain and its
predecessor, College Hill Poultry Inc., who worked in the
evisceration, cut-up, deboning, packing, quality-control and
shipping departments of the poultry-processing plant along Route
22 between Oct. 16, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006.

The civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs through Unionville
attorney Philip Downey, Esq., on Oct. 16, 2006, with the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  The suit was later
dismissed and moved to the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas
on Sept. 20, 2007.

The suit alleged that Hain and College Hill violated state and
federal laws by failing to compensate employees for time spent
waiting to obtain equipment; walking to and from work stations;
preparing, donning, doffing and sanitizing safety equipment;
sanitizing themselves; and other activities in connection
with job functions before and after paid time and during unpaid
breaks.


The parties reached an agreement and filed a joint motion for
approval with the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas on
Feb. 7, 2008.  Hain has operated the plant since July 1, 2005.
College Hill had owned it until Jan. 24, 2004.  During the
interim period, CHP Acquisition LLC owned the plant, but CHP
Acquisition was not a party to the suit or settlement.

Anyone wishing to opt out of the settlement must do so by
May 30, 2008.  The period for filing objections to the
settlement agreement is until June 13, 2008.  A fairness hearing
is scheduled before Judge Kline at 1:30 p.m. on June 27.

The terms of the proposed settlement are:

   -- From June 1, 2005, through Dec. 31, 2006, employees
      included in the suit were compensated, on average, $10 per
      hour.  The settlement provides an additional $6.25 per
      week.

   -- From Oct. 16, 2003, through Jan. 24, 2004, average
      compensation was $9 per hour.  The settlement provides an
      additional $5.63 per week.

   -- From Oct. 16, 2002, through Oct. 16, 2003; average
      compensation was $9 per hour.  The settlement provides an
      additional $4.50 per week.


HOMELAND SECURITY: Mayors & Judges Join Texas Border Fence Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of Texas mayors, county judges and economic
development commissioners is joining a federal lawsuit
challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's efforts
to build 153 miles of fencing along the Texas-Mexico border, the
Washington Post reports.

According to Washington Post, the Texas Border Coalition, whose
membership collectively represents more than 6 million people
who live along the state's southern border, cited the lack of
consultation required under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of
2007 as the principle reason for the legal challenge.

Texas Border Coalition Chairman Chad Foster said on April 15,
2008, that they do not have many options.  Mr. Foster, also the
mayor of Eagle Pass, said that they had been meeting with the
DHS since 2006 and it "has repeatedly ignored TBC's pleas for
cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local
governments in order to foster smart, effective border security
measures."

Brownsville Herald recounts that five Rio Grande Valley
residents filed the original lawsuit in February 2008, with the
U.S. District Court in Brownsville, in response to lawsuits that
the U.S. Department of Justice brought earlier this year seeking
access to land where the border fence is planned.

Washington Post, meanwhile, says that TBC is joining in a
lawsuit brought last week against Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff by Cameron County landowner Eloisa Tamez.  A
federal judge has not yet certified the suit as a class action.

This suit challenges the way Homeland Security officials have
sought the rights to build a 15-foot-high fence, using lawsuits
to gain access to survey land along the border.

Eagle Pass was the first city to be sued for access, and a
federal judge has ordered it to open its property to surveyors.  
The federal government has since brought separate lawsuits
against more than 50 South Texas landowners.

The Brownsville Herald report writes that the addition of the
TBC as a plaintiff would seem to add considerable weight to the
case against DHS.  The coalition's joining in the lawsuit comes
at a time when the fence is getting greater publicity -- a
development the group's officials hope could slow construction
of the border barrier.

Brownsville Herald points out that local officials from El Paso
to Brownsville have been vocal opponents of the fence since
Congress first ordered it in 2006.  They have lobbied heavily,
arguing the fence would mean loss of land, adverse environmental
effects and damage to the cultural and economic ties with
Mexico.

Meanwhile, Hidalgo County has worked out a deal for a combined
levee-border wall that satisfies Homeland Security's mandate
while partially addressing needed repairs to the county's
deteriorated levee system.

Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas was among those who voted for
the Texas Border Coalition to join the lawsuit.

"It shouldn't affect our project at all," the judge said of the
levee-wall initiative.  "It's a separate issue with the private
landowners."

Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, who is now representing the
coalition, has filed a motion seeking class-action status for
the lawsuit, which would expand it to all affected property
owners along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"(The suit) seeks uniformity in treatment for all property
owners.  That's not happening right now," Mr. Schey told
Brownsville Herald.  "How well they fair really depends on their
resources. . . . It's a checkerboard situation right now -- 80
percent of the landowners don't have lawyers."

Within the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that lands owned by
well connected property owners have been ignored by Homeland
Security, including a Cameron County property owned by Dallas
billionaire Ray L. Hunt.  Mr. Hunt is chairman and chief
executive officer of Hunt Realty Investments Inc., which owns
Hunt Valley Development, according to public records on file
with the Texas Secretary of State.  Hunt Valley developed
Sharyland Plantation in Mission and McAllen.

No date has been set for U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's
ruling on the motion seeking class-action status.

According to Brownsville Herald, Homeland Security plans call
for 370 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers to be
built along the U.S. border with Mexico by the end of 2008.  As
of March 17, 2008, construction was complete on 309 miles of
fencing and barriers, mostly in New Mexico, Arizona and
California, department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told Brownsville
Herald.

"We are confident we'll have it finished by the end of the
year," Ms. Kudwa said.


JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Wage & Hour Suits in Penn. and Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Jones & Co., L.P., the principal operating subsidiary of
The Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P., settled several wage and
hour lawsuits that were filed against the company in California
and Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Jones Financial has been sued in putative class actions that
allege it has misclassified its financial advisors as exempt
from overtime pay, improperly deducted certain business expenses
and otherwise failed to comply with certain state and federal
wage and hour laws.

Those consolidated actions are:

     -- "Booher, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.,
         (National class under federal statutes);"

     -- "Ellis, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
         (Pennsylvania only class);"

     -- "Weaver, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Ohio
         only class);" and

     -- "O'Brien, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (New
         York only class)."

The fifth lawsuit, "Thill, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
L.P." is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern  
District of California and involves a California only putative
class.   

The California and Pennsylvania courts have entered coordination
orders.  No class has yet been certified and the Partnership has
denied the claims.

On Sept. 28, 2007, entered into two settlement agreements
related to several wage and hour class actions, which were filed
against Edward Jones in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

The first Settlement Agreement resolves the federal and state
claims of a California Class.  The second Settlement Agreement
resolves the federal and state claims of individuals in all
other states.

The Settlement Classes provided for by these agreements consist
of all individuals who are or were employed by Edward Jones in
the position of Financial Advisor, a/k/a Investment
Representative and salaried or commissioned Financial Advisor
Trainee, in the United States during the relevant class periods,
including any limited partners who hold such positions, and all
current and former general partners who were in such positions
during the class periods for the time period before they became
general partners.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties filed formal settlement
stipulations with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

Subsequently, on Feb. 1, 2008, the court granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval.  The final approval
hearing in that case is set for June 2008.

On December 17, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania gave the parties permission to proceed
with a settlement of the federal claims, but dismissed the state
claims without prejudice, ruling in part that the state and
federal claims could not proceed in the same action.

Subsequent to dismissal of the state law claims, a new action
was filed in Ohio state court once again asserting state law
claims.

On Feb. 26, 2008, Edward Jones removed the lawsuit to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  Thereafter,
counsel for the plaintiffs who had been proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed
two additional lawsuits in the Northern District of Ohio, one of
which asserts primarily federal law claims and one of which
asserts primarily state law claims, and the parties voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit pending with the Pennsylvania court.

Despite the new filings, the two Settlement Agreements remain in
place.  Edward Jones agreed to pay $21.0 million to settle the
claims of the California Class and up to a maximum of
$19.0 million to settle claims of the National Class.

The California Fund, including all interest thereon, is a common
fund that is not the separate property of Edward Jones and will
not revert to Edward Jones, from which all claims of the
California Class, as well as attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, enhancements and claims administration fees and costs
associated with the California Class will be paid.

The National Class Fund will be made on a claims-made basis with
unclaimed funds to remain the property of Edward Jones.  The
National Class Fund will also include attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, enhancements, administrative costs, and any
other fees or costs associated with the settlement.  

The $21 million for the California Fund was transferred to an
escrow account in February 2008 and was charged against
previously established legal expense accruals.  

The cost of the National Class settlement will also be charged
against previously established expense accruals.

Des Peres, Mo-based The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. --
http://www.edwardjones.com-- is engaged in long-term investing.  
The Company offers its customers low-risk investments such as
certificates of deposit; government, municipal and corporate
bonds; mutual funds; common stocks of companies with histories
of solid growth and sound management; retirement plans and IRAs
(individual retirement accounts), and life insurance products,
including annuities.  It also provides checking, loans and
savings services; college savings programs; estate planning
options; fixed-income investments, and unit investment trusts.
The Company has more than 8,500 offices in the U.S., more than
500 offices in Canada and more than 100 offices in the U.K.

    
KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2008 trial is slated a class action against Kinder
Morgan CO2 Co., captioned, "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope
Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of
all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the
Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v.
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., Case No. 04-26-CL," which was
filed with the Eight Judicial District Court, Union County New
Mexico.

The suit was filed by J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty
Trust and Rio Petro Ltd., individually and on behalf of all
other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo
Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 28, 2007).

It involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan CO2
alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty on the true and proper settlement value of
compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit in
the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter "Doris
Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M.
Civ. No. 95-0012."

They allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying royalty
interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class
Action. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration
of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained
in the Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion
was denied.

Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court
of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.  The
New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006,
and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court
quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review.
The Petition was denied in December 2007.

The case is now proceeding in the trial court as a certified
class action and the case is set for trial in September 2008,
according to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC's Feb. 28, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Kinder Morgan Management, LLC -- http://www.kindermorgan.com--
is a limited partner in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and
manages and controls its business and affairs pursuant to a
delegation of control agreement.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company owned approximately 29.2% of Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.'s limited partner interests.  Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. is the owner and operator of an
independent refined petroleum products pipeline system in the
U.S.  The Company's voting shares are owned by Kinder Morgan,
G.P., Inc., of which Knight Inc. owns all the outstanding common
equity.  Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is the general partner of
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan, Inc., is an
energy transportation and storage company in North America,
operating, either for itself or on behalf of Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.  On April 30, 2007, the Company acquired
the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc.


KINDER MORGAN: AK Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal of "Johnson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court mandated the Circuit Court for Miller
County, Arkansas to dismiss in its entirety the class action
captioned "Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, et al. v. Centerpoint
Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-2," which names Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P., and several other firms, including its
subsidiaries, as defendants.

The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004.  The other defendants in the
suit aside from Kinder Morgan Energy are:

     -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.;
     -- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;
     -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.;
     -- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC;
     -- Tejas Gas, LLC;
     -- Midcon Corp.; and
     -- CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

The complaint was served on the Kinder Morgan defendants on
Oct. 21, 2004.  It purports to bring a class action on behalf of
those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1,
1994, to the date of class certification.

The suit alleges that CenterPoint by and through its affiliates
has artificially inflated the price charged to residential
consumers for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the
non-CenterPoint defendants.

The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's
purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-
CenterPoint defendants sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non-
regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which
in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial
consumers and gas marketers at market price.

The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On June 8, 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the
Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
over any Arkansas plaintiffs' claims that consumers were
overcharged for gas in Arkansas and mandated that any such
claims be dismissed from this lawsuit.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court clarified its
previously issued order and mandated that the trial court
dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, according to Kinder Morgan
Management, LLC's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Kinder Morgan Management, LLC -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/--
is a limited partner in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and
manages and controls its business and affairs pursuant to a
delegation of control agreement.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the
Company owned approximately 29.2% of Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.'s limited partner interests.  Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. is the owner and operator of an
independent refined petroleum products pipeline system in the
U.S.  The Company's voting shares are owned by Kinder Morgan,
G.P., Inc., of which Knight Inc. owns all the outstanding common
equity.  Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is the general partner of
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan, Inc., is an
energy transportation and storage company in North America,
operating, either for itself or on behalf of Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.  On April 30, 2007, the Company acquired
the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc.


LENDING TREE: Faces Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lending Tree, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging its employees gave "a handful of mortgage lenders"
confidential passwords by which the lenders illegally gained
access to consumers' credit reports and personal and financial
information, including Social Security numbers, income and
employment information, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Eugene Miller, Jr., brings this action on behalf
of all persons throughout the United States whose consumer
credit reports, personal information, and financial information
were intentionally and illegally distributed by a
representatives and agents of the Defendant in violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq.
because the defendant deliberately and recklessly did not
maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing
of such information for the permissible purposes outlined under
FCRA.

The defendant's actions constitute violations of FCRA, as well
as common law negligence, breach of contract, and invasion of
privacy.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's employees sold, disseminated or
         otherwise provided access to plaintiff's and the class
         members' consumer reports, personal information, and
         financial information within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.
         Section 1681a(d)(1) without plaintiff's and the class
         members' authorization;

     (b) whether the defendant or its agents had a permissible
         purpose under FCRA to sell, disseminate or otherwise
         provide access to plaintiff's and the class members'
         consumer reports, personal information, and
         financial information within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.
         Section 1681a(d)(1);

     (c) whether the defendant is a consumer reporting agency as
         defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(f);

     (d) whether the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to
         properly maintain reasonable procedures designed to
         limit the furnishing of consumer reports, personal
         information and financial information to the
         permissible purposes outlined under FCRA;

     (e) whether the defendant violated FCRA when it allowed its
         employees access to plaintiff and the class members'
         consumer reports, personal information, and
         financial information;

     (f) whether the defendant violated FCRA when its employee
         sold, disseminated or otherwise provided access to
         consumer reports, personal information and financial
         information to unauthorized third parties in violation
         of FCRA;

     (g) whether the defendant's conduct was intentional;

     (h) whether the defendant's conduct was reckless;

     (i) whether the defendant was negligent in collecting and
         storing personal and financial information of its
         clients;

     (j) whether the defendant took reasonable steps and
         measures to safeguard the personal and financial
         information of its clients;

     (k) whether the defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and the
         class to protect the personal and financial information
         of its clients;

     (l) whether the defendant breached its duty to exercise
         reasonable care in storing its clients' personal and
         financial information by storing that information on
         its computer systems in their physical possession;

     (m) whether the defendant breached a duty by failing to
         keep plaintiff's and the class members' personal and
         financial information secure;

     (n) whether the defendant was negligent in failing to keep
         plaintiff's and the class members' personal and
         financial information secure;

     (o) whether the plaintiff and the class members sustained
         damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of those
         damages; and

     (p) whether statutory damages are proper in this matter.

The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order:

     -- certifying this matter as a class action with plaintiff
        as class representative, and designating plaintiff's
        counsel as class counsel;

     -- finding that the defendant purposefully and recklessly
        violated the FCRA due to its failure to maintain
        reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing
        of reports to the permissible purposes outlined under
        FCRA;

     -- finding that the defendant is responsible for its
        employees' actions as an agent of the Defendant;

     -- requiring the defendant to pay actual damages sustained
        or statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more
        than $1,000;

     -- enjoining the defendant from actions which place
        consumers at a risk of future security breaches;

     -- requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff and class
        reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and

     -- providing for the other legal and equitable relief as
        justice requires.

The suit is "Eugene Miller, Jr., et al. v. Lending Tree, LLC,
Case 1:07-cv-99999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          James R. Rowe, Esq.
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 W. Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Phone: 312.346.7950


MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated TX Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
dismissed with prejudice all of the lead plaintiff's claims in a
consolidated class action against Michaels Stores, Inc. and
certain of its former officers and directors.

Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity
Fund filed a putative class action on behalf of itself and
former holders of Michaels Common Stock.  The lawsuit named
Michaels Stores and all of its then-current directors as
defendants.  

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and
omitted material facts in Michaels Stores' annual proxy
statements for 2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other
things:

     -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its
        reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based
        compensation expense relating to the granting of stock
        options;

     -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented
        it from issuing accurate financial reports and
        projections; and

     -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
        the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and violations of
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate
amount of damages from the defendants and equitable or
injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option
grants.  

       Lead Plaintiff Named, Consolidated Complaint Filed

By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, MLAF was named the lead
plaintiff in this action.

On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine
Ziolkowski (who had previously filed two separate stockholder
derivative actions, which were consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006)
filed a consolidated class action complaint against Michaels and
certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of a
class of other former shareholders.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants
misrepresented and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual
proxy statements for 1993 through 2006, including, among other
things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the defendants'
alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels
and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a
result of those practices.  

The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy
statements failed to disclose:

      -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls
         that prevented it from issuing accurate financial
         reports and projections;

      -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based
         compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial
         results violated GAAP;

      -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated
         view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels'
         past compensation expenses;

      -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past
         and ongoing backdating practices; and

      -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in
         the granting of backdated stock options.  

The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for
violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and sought, among
other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the
defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees and costs.

                   Consolidation of Lawsuits

By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the MLAF action was consolidated
with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski action (Class Action Reporter,
April 9, 2008).

In that action, on May 21, 2007, the MLAF filed a motion for
leave to file a first amended consolidated class action
complaint.  

As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of
its current and former officers and directors as defendants.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented
and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements
for 2004, 2005, and 2006, including, among others, failing to
disclose:

      -- Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating   
         practices

      -- information regarding transactions and holdings of
         Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for
         the benefit of two of Michaels' former officers and
         directors and their family members; and

      -- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false
         financial statements as a result of those practices.

Furthermore, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding
the Company's financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as
well as the recently completed merger with entities affiliated
with Bain Capital Partners LLC, and The Blackstone Group.  

In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims
against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  

The plaintiff seeks, among other relief:

      -- an indeterminate amount of damages,

      -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,

      -- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and

      -- equitable or injunctive relief, including the
         rescission of stock option grants.

On July 3, 2007, the court granted the motion of the lead
plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, for leave to
file the proposed amended complaint.  

On July 5, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint, which names Michaels and
certain of its current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

             Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint

On April 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas dismissed with prejudice all of the lead
plaintiff's claims in a consolidated class action against
Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors.

In its order, the court ruled that (1) claims could not stand
against those defendants who had left Michaels years before the
relevant proxies were issued, (2) allegedly inaccurate
statements in Form 10-Ks were not actionable because the proxy
statements did not specifically incorporate those Form 10-Ks by
reference, and (3) the lead plaintiff failed to plead that the
proxy statements were an "essential link" in any purported loss
suffered by the class.

The Court stated, "with these claims for proxy fraud, plaintiffs
essentially attempt to do through the backdoor what they are
barred from doing through the front."

The suit is "Hulliung v. Bolen et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01083,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge David C. Godbey presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405/235-1560
          Fax: 405/239-2112

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Provost Umphrey Law Firm
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: 214/744-3000
          Fax: 214/744-3015
          e-mail: Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Patricia J. Villareal, Esq. (pjvillareal@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day
          PO Box 660623, 2727 N Harwood St.
          Dallas, TX 75266-0623
          Phone: 214/969-2973
          Fax: 214/969-5100

               - and -

          Michael L. Smith, Esq. (mls@bickelbrewer.com)
          Bickel & Brewer
          1717 Main St., Suite 4800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214/653-4034
          Fax: 214/653-1015


NALGE NUNC: Faces California Suit Over "Lexan" Plastic Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nalge Nunc International Corporation is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California alleging it makes polycarbonate "Lexan"
plastic bottles, under "Nalgene" and other brands, that leak
toxic Bisphenol A into contents, exposing consumers to
miscarriages and breast cancer, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, NNIC manufactures, distributes,
advertises, labels and sells reusable beverage bottles
widely used by consumers.  These come in a variety of types,
including, but not limited to, the NALGENE "Wide-Mouth" and
"Narrow-Mouth Bottles" made of polycarbonate plastic.

Named plaintiff Lani FeliX-Lozano brings this action Pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23, on behalf of all other consumers who purchased the
defendant's Bottles during the Class Period, which is defined as
the four years preceding the filing date of this Complaint.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and
         sale of the Bottles were deceptive, unlawful or unfair
         in any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair
         Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
         et seq.;

     (b) whether defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and
         sale of the Bottles were deceptive or likely to deceive
         consumers in any respect, thereby violating
         California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
         Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.;

     (c) whether defendant fraudulently concealed risks
         associated with use of the Bottles in its marketing,
         advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale of the
         Bottles:

     (d) whether defendant breached implied warranties in its
         sale of the Bottles, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
         and members of the Class and subclasses;

     (e) whether defendant breached California's Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act, Civil Code §1750 et seq., in its
         marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale
         of the Bottles, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members; and

     (f) whether defendant's conduct as set forth above injured
         consumers and if so, the extent of the injury.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action.

     -- an award of equitable relief pursuant as follows:

        (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage, use,
            or employ any practices found to violate the UCL,
            FAL and CLRA as set forth herein; and

        (b) restoring to plaintiff and class/subclass members
            all monies that may have been acquired by defendant
            as a result of such practices.

     -- an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Code of
        Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

     -- actual damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial for the Third and Fourth Causes of Action;

     -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial for the for the Third Cause of Action;

     -- an award of costs and any other award the Court
        might deem appropriate; and

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded.

The suit is "Lani Felix-Lozano et al. v. Nalge Nunc
International, Corp.," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Howard M. Rubinstein, Esq. (howardr@pdq.net)
          Attorney at Law
          914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20
          Aspen, Colorado 81611
          Phone: (832) 715-2788

               - and -

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com)
          Hewell Law Firm, APC
          402 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, California 92128
          Phone: (619) 235-6854
          Fax: (619)235-9122


NESTOR TRAFFIC: Earns Favorable Ruling in OH Speed Program Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a consolidated class action suit
against Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. -- a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nestor, Inc. -- that the City of Akron does have
power under home rule to enact civil penalties for violating a
traffic signal light and speeding, according to the company's
April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The court accepted the case for determination of the question in
relation to two cases naming Nestor Traffic, and the City of
Akron, as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2007).

Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek
damages and injunction against the city's speed program.

These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are:

      1. "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
          00139-DDD;" and

      2. "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD."

Both actions were originally filed with the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court.

                     Mendenhall Litigation

In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, the plaintiff
brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members
in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and
state constitutional violations.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the defendants filed a joint motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  The plaintiff filed an opposition to
that motion on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance
permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper
exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but
deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an
opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed
on Oct. 20, 2006.

The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006, to include
equal protection violations among her federal constitutional
claims.

The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on
Aug. 18, 2006.  

                        Sipe Litigation

In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, the plaintiffs
filed a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified
amount against the company, various past and present employees
of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil
conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the
Consumer Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of
privacy, negligence, and federal constitutional violation.

On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a
joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.  The plaintiffs
filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006.

On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance
permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper
exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but
deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an
opportunity for discovery by the plaintiffs, which was completed
on Oct. 20, 2006.  

              Questions Before Ohio Supreme Court

With respect to both of the cases, final resolution can be
determined only after disposition of the Court's certified
question to the Ohio Supreme Court, namely:

"Whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact
civil penalties for the offense of violating a traffic signal
light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are criminal
offenses under the Ohio Revised Code."

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for
determination of the question presented.  The Ohio Supreme Court
has received briefs from all parties, and oral arguments were
heard on Sept. 18, 2007.    

The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the municipality
does have power under home rule to enact civil penalties for
violating a traffic signal light and speeding.  

This ruling will permit the federal court to resolve any
remaining Constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs,
including issues related to due process.

For more details, contact:

         Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Esq.(j.corgan@justice.com)
         [Mendenhall Plaintiff]
         Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street
         Akron, OH 44304
         Phone: 330-535-8160
         Fax: 330-762-9743

         Antoni Dalayanis, Esq.
         [Sipe Plaintiff]
         5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-315-1060
         Fax: 800-787-4089
         e-mail: lawyer@bright.net

              - and -

         Michael J. Defibaugh (defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us)
         [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant]
         City of Akron, Law Department
         Ste. 202, 161 South High Street
         Akron, OH 44308
         Phone: 330-375-2030
         Fax: 330-375-2041


NETFLIX INC: Lawyers Awarded $2MM in Consumer Fraud Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal, First District, has awarded
$2 million in attorneys fees to Gutride Safier -- a San
Francisco class action law firm -- for its representation of
Netflix Inc. in the matter "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., et
al., Case No. CGC-04-434884," Leigh Jones of The National Law
Journal reports.

On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed the class action against the
company in the California Superior Court for City and County of
San Francisco.  

The Company entered into an amended settlement under which
Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership
before Jan. 15, 2005, and were a member on Oct. 19, 2005, are
eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level
and Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership
before Jan. 15, 2005, and were not a member on Oct. 19, 2005,
are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership of
either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program.  

The Court issued final judgment on the settlement on July 28,
2006, awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of
$2.1 million.

In granting the fee award, the appeals court determined that the
lower court properly calculated the attorney fees, which were
about 22% of the settlement, valued at $7.3 million.

The suit is "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et
al., Case No. CGC-04-434884."  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Adam Gutride Law Offices
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Phone: (415) 271-6469

Representing the company is:

          Keith Eggleton, Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 493-9300

Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlementor     
http://netflixsettlementsucks.com/


OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Residents Suing "Unneighborly" Camp
----------------------------------------------------------
A group of Gilboa residents is suing Oorah Catskill Retreat for
not being a good neighbor, Mark Repasky writes for Capital
News 9.

The residents claim that the summer camp is trying to push them
out of their homes and there is nothing the village or county
can do, Mr. Repasky explains.

Dave Lewis, one of the complainants, related to Capital News
that 11 years ago, he bought his hilltop home, where he planned
to spend his time in peace and quite.  However, since 2006 when
Oorah Catskill bought the camp that had been there for 50 years,
Mr. Lewis has faced loudspeakers blasting and stadium lights
shining right into his kitchen window at all hours of the day
and night.

Another resident, Joe Kraus, said that there are "97 of those
high intensity lights."

Homeowners Barbra and Joseph Kraus said that they would know
when the noise starts "because it's so loud the siding on the
house vibrates."

According to Mr. Repasky, the owners of Oorah Catskill have
already heard complaints against the camp.  In June 2007, the
county Health Department shut the camp down for two days, and in
July immigration authorities arrested 31 undocumented workers.

Ms. Kraus said that the value of their property "has been
destroyed."

The report says that Mr. Lewis and his neighbors have tried
going to the camp to no avail.  They have also tried going to
the Village of Gilboa and Schoharie County, but said there is
not much they can do there because there is no ordinance on the
books.

Mr. Kraus told Capital News, "Gilboa still functions like it's
in the 17th century.  We have no laws that protect the people
from anything."

Now, the residents are filing a $10-million class action lawsuit
to see if it gets any results.

According to Capital News, Oorah Catskill is out of reach.


OSB LITIGATION: May 29 Hearing Set for $2.35M OSB Antitrust Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on May 29, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. for
the proposed settlements by Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., Georgia-
Pacific LLC -- f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp. -- and Huber (J.M.
Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC) totaling $2,350,000
in the matter, "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-
cv-00826-PD."

The hearing will be held before Judge Paul S. Diamond at the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
601 Marks St., in Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Under the settlement, Ainsworth agreed to pay $1,300,000,
Georgia-Pacific agreed to Pay $1,200,000, and Huber agreed to
pay $850,000 into a settlement fund.

                        Case Background

As reported in the April 10, 2008 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania certified a class in the lawsuit composed of
consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly
purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the
following manufacturers in the U.S. from June 1, 2002 through
Feb. 24, 2006:

     -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,

     -- Weyerhaeuser Co.,

     -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp.,

     -- Potlatch Corp.,

     -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd.,

     -- Norbord Industries, Inc.,

     -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and

     -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC

Initially, several complaints were brought on behalf of direct
purchasers of OSB during the period from June 1, 2002, through
the present, and allege violations of the antitrust laws by
defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and
fixing the price at which it was sold.

The cases were later consolidated and a consolidated amended
class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006.  Discovery
of millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions  
were later completed.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and
for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

For more details, contact:

          OSB Class Notice Request
          c/o The Notice Company
          P.O. Box 778
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: 1-800-401-0819
          e-mail: http://www.OSBnotice.com

The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-
00826-PD," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond presiding.   

Representing the defendants are:

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
         1100 New York Avenue
         N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600

              - and

         Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com)
         Spector Roseman and Kodroff
         1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-496-0300

Representing the company are:

         Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com)
         James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com)
         James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
         200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350

              - and -   

         Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com)
         Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
         1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-751-2000
         Fax: 215-972-7475


PACIFIC PREMIER: Still Faces SMLA Violations Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., and Pacific Premier Bank
continues to face a purported class action suit filed filed with
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.

The suit, "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al.," was filed
in February 2004.  It is alleging various violations of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and receiving
fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or in
excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees,
interest rates, and other charges.

The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected
charges and interest plus the right to rescind the mortgage
loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges and
interest against the principal amounts due on the loans.

The trial court denied the Bank's motion for dismissal due to
limitations without comment in 2005 and the company's motion to
dismiss due to federal preemption of state law because the Bank
is a federal savings bank was denied in August 2006.

The Bank has answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties
have exchanged and answered initial discovery requests.   

The company reported no development in the matter in its
April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 15, 2008.

Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.net/home/--   
serves as the holding company for Pacific Premier Bank, which
provides banking services within its targeted markets in
Southern California businesses.


PACIFIC STEEL: Faces CA Suit Over Alleged Airborne Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Steel Casting Co. is facing a class-action complaint
filed April 22 in and for the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda accusing it of polluting the air
with magnesium, nickel, particulates and other toxins from its
three plants in Berkeley, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the complaint, for 75 years, PSC has been releasing
toxic fumes and hazardous metals, magnesium, nickel and
particulate matter on its downwind neighbors in the homes
surrounding the three industrial plants off Second Street in
Berkeley, California.

As a proximate result of defendants' acts of omission and
commission arising from the negligent operation of PSC,
plaintiffs have endured inconvenience, nuisance, trespass upon
their owned or leased property, battery unto their persons,
violation of their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and
such ordinary emotional distress as is reasonably foreseeable
from suffering defendants' acts and omissions.

Named plaintiff Rosie Lee Evans brings this action on behalf of
all persons proximately damaged by defendants' conduct of
polluting the downwind neighborhood with airborne contamination
including particulate matter, manganese, nickel, noxious fumes
and odors generating from PSC.

Plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants committed and participated in the
         acts alleged;

     (b) whether defendants breached duties of care;

     (c) whether defendants acted recklessly and willfully;

     (d) whether defendants committed violations of law;

     (e) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligence;

     (f) whether defendants' conduct constitutes battery;

     (g) whether defendants' conduct constitutes trespass;

     (h) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a public
         nuisance;

     (i) whether defendants' conduct constitutes private
         nuisance;

     (j) whether defendants' conduct constitutes intentional
         misrepresentation;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of
         Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages for
         nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, and loss of
         enjoyment of legal rights, emotional distress, among
         other damages and, if so, what is the appropriate means
         of calculating such monetary damages; and

     (m) what is the liability of defendants, and each of them,
         for causing these damages suffered by all plaintiffs as
         a proximate result of plaintiffs' exposure to the
         harmful or offensive emissions from PSC.

Plaintiff ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the proposed class;

     -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
        trial or other expedited alternative procedures adopted
        by the court;

     -- punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
        appropriate and sufficient to punish defendants, and
        deter others from engaging in similar misconduct in the
        future;

     -- an order requiring defendants to implement
        appropriate mitigation procedures, staffing and
        equipment upgrades to restore and preserve the quality
        of the air in the residential neighborhood downwind of
        PSC;

     -- penalties, disgorged profits and attorneys' fees
        pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.;

     -- costs of removal of any harmful substances from
        plaintiffs' real and personal property and all
        other related remedial action;

     -- interest on the amount of any economic losses,
        at the prevailing legal rate;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to California
        Civil Code 1021.5; and

     -- for costs of suit and any and all such other relief as
        the court deems just and proper.

The suit is "Rosie Lee Evans et al. v. Pacific Steel Casting
Company, Case No. RG08-383068," filed with the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. (tim@rumbergerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger
          2161 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 200
          Berkeley, California 94704-1313
          Phone: (510) 841-5500
          Fax: (510) 841-5501

    
R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Considers Appeal in "Schwab" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to
issue a ruling with regards to an appeal of an earlier court
order certifying a class in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG."
The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on May 11, 2004, and names as
defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Reynolds American, Inc., and several other tobacco
manufacturers.

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

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

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

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

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other
things, granting class certification.  

On Nov. 16, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay the district
court proceedings and for review of the class certification
ruling.

Oral argument occurred on July 10, 2007.  A decision in the
matter is pending, according to Reynolds American, Inc.'s
Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. (lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-1980
  
         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower     
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699
  
Representing the defendants are:
  
         Mark A. Belasic, Esq. (mabelasic@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: (216) 586-3939
         Fax: 216-579-0212

              - and -

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

    
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Suits Over "Light Cigarettes" Reassigned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions over "light cigarettes" that were
filed in Missouri against entities affiliated with Reynolds
American, Inc., and several other manufacturers have been
reassigned to a single general division, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Reynolds American was incorporated as a holding company in the
state of North Carolina on Jan. 5, 2004, and its common stock is
listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI.  

On July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets, liabilities and
operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known
as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and referred to as B&W, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco
p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.

These July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as
the B&W business combination.  As a result of the B&W business
combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of RAIs outstanding
common stock, and previous RJR stockholders exchanged their
shares of RJR common stock for approximately 58% of RAIs
outstanding common stock.

                       Collora Litigation
  
The suit "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," was filed with
the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri in May 2000.

On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all
persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special
lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri
for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants
placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights
and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce
through the date of this Order."   

The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to
inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light"
smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.  

The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the
claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained
"low tar and nicotine."  

On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign
"Collora" to a single general division.  On April 9, 2007, the
Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion.

On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: "Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.," and "Black
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp."

                        Black Litigation

In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005.  

On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was granted on March 17, 2006.  

The plaintiffs motion for class certification is scheduled to be
heard on April 16, 2008.

As discussed above, this case and certain other cases have been
reassigned to a single general division.

Reynolds American, Inc.  -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--    
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.  
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Diaz v.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-
THK," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Scores Holding Company
Inc., formerly Adonis Energy, Inc.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of
all tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding
Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West
Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side,
Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported
class action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same
violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting
the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.

The amended complaint alleges that Scores Holding and the other
defendants are "an integrated enterprise" and that the company
jointly employ the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants
to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and reply
papers were submitted on March 14, 2008.  The matter is now
under judicial deliberation.  

At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of a class of the servers, bartenders and dancers.
The company opposed that motion, and the matter is also under
judicial deliberation.

Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues is
ongoing, according to the company's April 15, 2008 Form 10KSB
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com)
          Outten & Golden Law Firm
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (212) 977-4005

Representing the defendants is:

          Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: (212) 801-9209
          Fax: (212) 805-9209


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over FAA Safety Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is facing two purported class action
suits that were filed by persons who purchased air travel from
the airline while it was allegedly in violation of the Federal
Aviation Administration's safety regulations, according to the
company's April 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

On March 6, 2008, the FAA notified Southwest Air that it will be
fined approximately $10 million in connection with an incident
concerning its potential non-compliance with an airworthiness
directive.  

Southwest Air started an "informal conference" with the FAA,
which is a process through which the airline and the FAA may
explore common ground (or differences) to determine whether the
matter will be formally litigated or resolved.  The FAA is
continuing to audit the airline's compliance with airworthiness
directives.

In connection with the incident, the airline has been named as a
defendant in two putative class actions on behalf of persons who
purchased air travel from it while it was allegedly in violation
of FAA safety regulations.

Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
actions include breach of contract, breach of warranty,
fraud/misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligent and
reckless operation of an aircraft.  

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a  
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the U.S.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated 520 Boeing
737 aircraft and provided service to 64 cities in 32 states
throughout the U.S.  The Company focuses principally on point-
to-point service, rather than hub-and-spoke service.  As of
Dec. 31, 2007, Southwest served 411 non-stop city pairs.
Approximately 78% of the Company's customers fly non stop.
Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with high
frequencies.  It complements this service with more medium to
long-haul routes, including transcontinental service.

   
TALON INT'L: Files Reply Brief in Calif. Shareholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Talon International Inc, formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc., has
filed its reply brief with regards to an appeal in a purported
shareholder class action against the company, according to the
company's April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint --
"Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352"
-- was filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from
Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court heard competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth
Huberman as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff thereafter filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.  

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007
-- the Court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

              - and -

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com)
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200


UNITEDGLOBALCOM INC: May 16 Hearing Set for $25M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery will hold a fairness hearing on
May 16, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $25,000,000
settlement in the matter "In re UnitedGlobalCom, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 1012-VCS)."  

The hearing will be held at the New Castle County Courthouse,
500 North King St., Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

                        Case Background

The suit is about Liberty Global, Inc.'s announcement on
Jan. 18, 2005, of the execution by UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. and the
company of an agreement and plan of merger for the combination
of the two companies under Liberty Global (Class Action
Reporter, March 5, 2008).

Since January 2005, 21 lawsuits were filed with the Delaware
Court of Chancery, and one lawsuit was filed with the Denver
District Court, State of Colorado, all purportedly on behalf of
public stockholders.  

The defendants named in these actions include UnitedGlobalCom
and former directors of UnitedGlobalCom and Liberty Global.

The allegations in each of the complaints, which were
substantially similar, assert that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith and candor
and that various defendants have engaged in self-dealing and
unjust enrichment, approved an unfair price, and impeded or
discouraged other offers for UnitedGlobalCom or its assets in
bad faith and for improper motives.

The complaints sought various remedies, including damages for
the public holders of UnitedGlobalCom's stock and an award of
attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel.

On Feb. 11, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
all 21 Delaware lawsuits into a single action, "In re
UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 1012-
VCS)."  

Also, on April 20, 2005, the Denver District Court, State of
Colorado, issued an order granting a joint stipulation for stay
of the action filed in that court, pending the final resolution
of the consolidated action in Delaware.

On Jan. 7, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court was formally
advised that the parties had reached a binding agreement,
subject to the Court's approval, to settle the consolidated
action for total consideration of $25 million (inclusive of any
award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel).

A stipulation of settlement setting forth the terms of the
settlement and release of claims was filed with the Delaware
Chancery Court on Feb. 20, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com)
          Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess
          Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: (302) 656-4433

          James L. Holzman, Esq.
          Prickett, Jones & Elliott , P.A.
          1310 King Street
          P.O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 888-6509
          Fax: (302) 658-8111

          Kevin G. Abrams, Esq. (Abrams@AbramsLaster.com)
          Abrams & Laster LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
          Wilmington, Delaware  19807
          Phone: 302-778-1002
          Fax: 302-778-1001
          Mobile: 302-547-8000

               - and -

          David C. McBride, Esq. (dmcbride@ycst.com)
          Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street
          17th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 571-6639
          Fax: (302) 576-3315


VEOLIA WATER: Sued for Overestimating Customers' Water Usage
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2008, against Veolia Water,
claiming that the company overestimated water usage for
customers in the Indianapolis area, wthr.com reports.

The complaint, filed with the Marion Superior Court, seeks class
action status on behalf of some 250,000 residential customers.
The suit was filed by Peter Kovacs, Esq., of Stewart and Irwin,
for two plaintiffs in Indianapolis and Zionsville.

The report explains that Veolia Water operates the water works
of Indianapolis Water, a city utility, under a 20-year
management agreement for which it receives about $33 million
annually.

The suit alleges that Veolia failed to read customers' meters at
least every two months, overestimated usage and overcharged
customers for late fees, among other things.

"We believe the facts will show that Veolia Water has harmed its
customers in Central Indiana by the conduct described in the
complaint," Mr. Kovacs said in a news release.

Veolia Water did not comment on the matter, according to
wthr.com.


* Reed Smith Announces Several Leadership Changes in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reed Smith LLP, one of the 15 largest law firms in the world,
announced several leadership changes affecting its Washington,
D.C., office and its firmwide practice group organization:

     -- The firm named A. Scott Bolden as Managing Partner of
        its office in the nation's capital;

     -- former D.C. Managing Partner James P. Gallatin, Jr., as
        firmwide head of the Regulatory Litigation Group; and

     -- Alexander "Sandy" Thomas as head of its newly-formed
        Eastern Commercial Litigation Group.

"Reed Smith has a cadre of highly capable individuals ready and
willing to assume important leadership positions in the firm,"
said Gregory B. Jordan, Reed Smith's Global Managing Partner.
"This is neither accidental nor coincidental, but rather the
result of our making substantial and ongoing investments in
creating an inclusive workplace that nurtures diverse
perspectives, retains and promotes minorities, and is dedicated
to leadership training.  Scott, Jim and Sandy are outstanding
examples of the home-grown talent that positions Reed Smith to
achieve future success."

Mr. Bolden will continue his active practice which focuses on
complex civil and criminal defense litigation.  As part of his
multifaceted practice, he has defended clients in local and
federal courts in connection with claims for fraud and breach of
contract, employment discrimination, real estate tax, education
matters, government contract disputes, tort claims, and other
commercial litigation matters.  Well-known within the beltway
for his many high-profile roles, Mr. Bolden is a Past Chairman
of the D.C. Democratic Party, member of the Board of Directors
and Past President of the District of Columbia Chamber of
Commerce, Individual Development Corporation, Septima Clark
Public Charter School, a former Director of the Sequoia National
Bank, Greater D.C. Cares, and alternate board member of the D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority.

Mr. Bolden is also a member of the Federal City Council,
Economic Club of Washington, D.C. and is a 1997 Leadership
Washington graduate.  In 1998, Mr. Bolden was appointed by Chief
Judge Norma Holloway Johnson of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia to serve as a member of its
Committee on Grievances, a position he held for several years.
He has also served on the Board of Governors of the District of
Columbia Bar.

A 1987 graduate of Howard University School of Law, Mr. Bolden
joined Reed Smith in 1991, after serving four years as an
Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District
Attorney's Office.

"Reed Smith always has been incredibly supportive of my public
service career and my community involvement," said Mr. Bolden.
"I am delighted at the opportunity to give back to the firm by
assuming this important leadership position."

Mr. Gallatin joined Reed Smith's Washington office in April
1997.  He had been the Virginia Managing Partner from 2001
through 2004, when he became the D.C. Managing Partner.  A 1977
graduate of American University School of Law, Mr. Gallatin
primarily handles government contract issues and investigations
on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in the defense, electronics,
IT, and health care industries.  He is also principal outside
counsel to numerous midsized corporations and has a background
in international project finance.

In his new position, Mr. Gallatin will have responsibility for
managing Reed Smith's firmwide Regulatory Litigation Group.  The
Group encompasses more than 70 attorneys in 10 cities across
Reed Smith's U.S. markets, handling a wide range of federal and
state regulatory litigation and regulatory enforcement,
including actions involving securities, government
investigations, antitrust, government contracts, and exports.
The Group also works closely with its counterparts in Reed
Smith's European and Asian offices who handle the same issues
under EU and Chinese laws. With the heightened enforcement
climate in all markets, the firm views regulatory litigation as
a critical growth practice in the years to come.

"It has been a privilege to support all those who have
contributed to the outstanding Washington office that Reed Smith
has today," said Mr. Gallatin.  "I thank them for their help
during my tenure as Managing Partner.  "Scott has a long record
of service in D.C.'s business and legal community, and has been
a long-time, valued member of Reed Smith.  I am confident he
will bring his expertise and many talents to bear to continue
the growth and profitability this office.  As for my next
assignment, with the combined strength of our SEC, Antitrust,
Government Investigations, Government Contracts, and Trade
teams, I am confident that we can continue to grow this critical
practice area, particularly in today's challenging enforcement
climate."

Mr. Thomas, a 1993 graduate of Washington and Lee University
School of Law, is based in Reed Smith's D.C. and Falls Church,
VA, offices.  He will be responsible for managing the firm's
newly-formed Eastern Commercial Litigation Group, which includes
nearly 100 litigators in the firm's offices between New York and
Richmond.

The Eastern Commercial Litigation Group is part of an overall
firmwide litigation team which includes three other groups,
Western, Midwestern, and Europe-Middle East Commercial
Litigation.  The firm's litigators represent business interests
in a wide variety of complex commercial disputes.  The lawyers
have years of experience in trial work and arbitration in the
areas of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
responsibilities and unfair competition and anti-consumer
actions.  Reed Smith litigators defend allegations of fraud and
misrepresentation and disputes among partners and shareholders
in all types of business entities.  The firm is particularly
well-known for its class action defense representation across
industries ranging from consumer and industrial products,
employment, environment and toxic-tort claims in both state and
federal courts.

"Our litigators have significant experience in both state and
federal courts from the trial level through the highest state
and federal appellate courts," said Sandy Thomas, head of the
Eastern Commercial Litigation Group.  "With a geographic reach
that extends from New York to Richmond, the Eastern Commercial
Litigation Group is distinguished by the depth and breadth of
its attorneys' experience.  We're well situated within the firm
and along the Eastern seaboard to handle all our corporate
clients' commercial litigation needs."

All three management changes are effective immediately.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Dyer & Berens Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP has filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of 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 class action complaint alleges that, in connection with its
IPO, Blackstone failed to disclose that certain of its portfolio
companies were not performing well and were of declining value.
As a result, the Company's equity investment was impaired and it
would not generate anticipated performance fees on those
investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners
in its funds.

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

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


CREDIT SUISSE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. disclosed that a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of American Depository Receipts of Credit
Suisse Group and U.S. residents or citizens who purchased Credit
Suisse stock between February 15, 2007, through February 19,
2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Credit Suisse and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Credit Suisse operates as a financial services company.
The Company operates in three segments: Investment Banking,
Private Banking, and Asset Management.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  The complaint further
alleges that defendants failed to write down impaired securities
containing mortgage-related debt.  According to the complaint,
the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (a) that defendants failed to record losses on the
         deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized
         debt obligations on Credit Suisse's books caused
         by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages
         included in the portfolio;

     (b) that Credit Suisse's internal controls were inadequate
         to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related
         assets were accounted for properly; and

     (c) that Credit Suisse's traders had put incorrect values
         on CDOs and other debt securities, concealing the
         exposure the Company had to losses.

On February 19, 2008, Credit Suisse announced that it had
undertaken an internal review that resulted in the repricing of
certain asset-backed positions in its Structured Credit Trading
business. The total fair value reductions of these positions
were estimated at approximately $2.85 billion.  On this news,
Credit Suisse's ADRs collapsed to close at $48.22 per ADR on
February 19, 2008, a decline of almost 31% from $69.61 per ADR
in early October 2007.

The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Credit Suisse ADRs and U.S. residents or citizens who
purchased Credit Suisse stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector Roseman & Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
          Phone: (888) 844-5862


WELLS FARGO: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC and Reese Richman
LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit was filed on April 4,
2008, with the Northern District of California against Wells
Fargo & Company and certain of its affiliates including Wells
Fargo Funds Management, LLC, Wells Fargo Funds Distributor, LLC,
Stephens Inc., and Wells Fargo Funds Trust on behalf of all
persons who purchased one or more of the Wells Fargo Funds, now
known as the Wells Fargo Advantage Funds (except for the Wells
Fargo Diversified Equity Fund, Montgomery Emerging Markets Fund
and Small Cap Growth Fund), from November 4, 2000, through
April 11, 2006, inclusive.

The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Defendants created undisclosed material conflicts of interest
with members of the Class by entering into revenue-sharing
agreements with brokerages and selling agents who sold the Wells
Fargo Funds.  The Defendants financed these arrangements by
illegally charging excessive and improper fees to the Wells
Fargo Funds and their investors that should have been invested
in the underlying portfolio.  The Defendants did not disclose to
investors, at the time of purchase, their pre-existing and
ongoing revenue sharing arrangements, but rather knowingly hid
such information by way of material omissions and half-truths in
the prospectuses and other offering documents.  The Defendants'
failure to disclose the incentives constituted violations of
federal securities laws.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 23,
2008, for lead plaintiffs appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Elizabeth Rosenberg, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC           
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor        
          New York, New York 10036           
          Phone: (212) 447-7070     

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Reese Richman LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, New York 10169
          Phone: (212) 579-4625


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 86 Hilco Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. recorded 86 plaintiffs in lawsuits
relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products
containing asbestos, by its predecessor, Hilco Inc., according
to the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008.

The Company recorded 92 plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to
alleged sales of asbestos products, or products containing
asbestos, by Hilco. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007)

Universal Supply Group, Inc. is a wholly owned Company
subsidiary.  On June 25, 1999, Universal acquired substantially
all of the assets of Universal Supply Group, Inc.  

Subsequent to the sale, Universal Supply Group, Inc., formerly
known as Universal Engineering Co., Inc., changed its name to
Hilco, Inc.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of Dec. 31, 2007, 15 filed actions
in 2007, seven filed actions in 2006, 14 filed actions in 2005,
33 filed actions in 2004, 15 filed actions in 2003, and two
filed actions in 2002.

There are 126 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 12 other plaintiffs that have settled as of
Dec. 31, 2007, for a total of US$3,357,500. There has been no
judgment against Hilco.

Subsequent to Dec. 31, 2007, one of the existing cases was
dismissed by summary judgment.

The Company's Universal subsidiary was named by 36 plaintiffs.
Of these, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006,
11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed
an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Six plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions dismissed
and, of the total US$3,357,500 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500.  No
money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Following these dismissed and settled actions, there currently
exist 28 plaintiffs that name Universal.

The Company said it believes that none of the litigation that
was brought against the Company's Universal subsidiary through
Dec. 31, 2007, is material, and that the material litigation
that was brought against Hilco through that date was Rhodes v.
A.O. Smith Corporation, filed on April 26, 2004, in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket
Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a
US$10 million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005.
The Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

On April 29, 2005, prior to the Rhodes case trial, Hilco filed a
third party complaint against Sid Harvey Industries (Third Party
Complaint) in an action demanding contributor payment in
connection with the Settlement. Sid Harvey Industries moved
successfully for summary judgment. Hilco filed an appeal as to
the dismissal of its Third Party Complaint.

In a decision dated Dec. 29, 2006, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal of Hilco's
Third Party Complaint and remanded the matter for further
proceedings as to Hilco's claim for contribution.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp., through
subsidiaries Universal Supply Group, RAL Supply Group, and
American/Universal Supply, supplies HVAC products, climate-
control systems, and plumbing fixtures to some 6,000 customers
(mostly builders and HVAC contractors) in New York and New
Jersey. The Company provides control system design, custom
fabrication, technical support, training, and consultation
services for engineers and installers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J. C. Penney Records $43Mil for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. estimated to incur US$43 million, as
of Feb. 2, 2008, for potential environmental liabilities, which
was recorded in other liabilities in the consolidated balance
sheet.

As of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company estimated its total potential
environmental liabilities to range from US$38 million to US$49
million.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore
locations, and asbestos removal in connection with approved
plans to renovate or dispose of Company facilities.

Plano, Tex.-based J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was created in 2002
as a holding company for department store operator J. C. Penney
Corporation, its wholly owned subsidiary. J. C. Penney
Corporation is one of the largest department store, catalog, and
e-commerce retailers in the U.S. The retailer runs more than
1,000 JCPenney department stores throughout the U.S. and Puerto
Rico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stehman Action Still Pending v. Ballantyne
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. continues to face an asbestos case
entitled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos
Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. individually
and as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong
Electric Corporation and Century Projector Corporation, et al.

The case was filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco.

The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company.

This case is scheduled for trial in August 2008.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. is a manufacturer,
distributor and service provider to the theater exhibition
industry on a worldwide basis. Through its Strong trademark, the
Company can outfit and automate a theater projection booth. The
Company also designs, develops, manufactures, and distributes
lighting systems to the worldwide entertainment lighting
industry through its Strong Entertainment lighting division.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOTAL S.A. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL S.A. continues to be involved in claims related to
occupational diseases caused by asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2008.

The circumstances described in these claims generally concern
activities prior to the beginning of the 1980s, long before the
complete ban on the use of asbestos in most of the countries
where the Group operates (Jan. 1, 1997 in France).

The Group's various activities are not particularly likely to
lead to significant exposure to asbestos related risks, since
this material was generally not used in manufacturing processes,
except in limited cases. The main potential sources of exposure
are related to the use of certain insulating components in
industrial equipment.

These components are being gradually eliminated from the Group's
equipment through asbestos-elimination plans that have been
underway for several years.

However, considering the long period of time that may elapse
before the harmful results of exposure to asbestos manifest
themselves (up to 40 years), the Group anticipates that claims
may be filed in the years to come.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Group estimates that the ultimate cost
of all asbestos related claims paid or pending is not likely to
have a material adverse effect on the financial situation of the
Group.

Courbevoie, France-based TOTAL S.A. is an integrated oil company
that explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural
gas; refines and markets oil; and trades and transports both
crude and finished products. Operating in more than 130
countries, the Company has reserves of 11.1 billion barrels of
oil equivalent. The Company operates 27 refineries and more than
16,530 gas stations, primarily under the TOTAL and Elf brands,
mostly in Europe and Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Settles Two Suits for $93,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company, during the quarter ended March 1, 2008,  
settled two asbestos-related lawsuits for US$93,000, in which
the Company's insurers have paid or are expected to pay
US$61,000 of that amount.

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
products containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years
ago. The plaintiffs bring these lawsuits against multiple
defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive).

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries
suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by
the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company is typically
dismissed as a defendant in those cases without payment.

The Company has insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of the
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation
involving the Company. However, certain of the Company's
insurers are insolvent.

During 2005, the Company and a number of its insurers entered
into a cost-sharing agreement that provides for the allocation
of defense costs, settlements and judgments among these insurers
and the Company in certain asbestos-related lawsuits.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and a group of
other defendants entered into negotiations with certain law
firms to settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. The Company expects to contribute up to US$4.6 million
towards the settlement amount to be paid to the claimants in
exchange for a full release of claims.

Of this amount, the Company's insurers have committed to pay
US$1.9 million based on a probable liability of US$4.6 million.
Given that the payouts will occur on certain dates over a four-
year period, the Company applied a present value approach and
has accrued US$4.4 million and recorded a receivable of US$1.8
million.

As of March 1, 2008, the Company had US$4.8 million accrued for
probable liabilities and US$2.2 million for insurance recoveries
related to asbestos claims.

St. Paul, Minn.-based H.B. Fuller Company, known for making
adhesives, also makes sealants, powder coatings for metals, and
liquid paints. The Company's industrial and performance
adhesives customers include companies in the packaging, graphic
arts, automotive, woodworking, and non-woven textiles
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $579M Settlement at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. recorded US$579 million as of March 31,
2008 for the asbestos settlement (under current liabilities),
compared with US$593 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a
Company press release filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated April 17, 2008.

PPG Industries, Inc. is a supplier of paints, coatings,
chemicals, optical products, specialty materials, glass and
fiber glass. The Pittsburgh-based Company has more than 150
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries. The Company's sales in 2007 were US$11.2
billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.4B Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.419 billion as of March 31, 2008, compared
with US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 18, 2008.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
recoveries were US$1.007 billion as of March 31, 2008, compared
with US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, were
US$28 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$24 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been
identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in
the vast majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction
products.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $936M NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s insurance receivable on the
liability for settlement of pending and future asbestos claims
of its former unit North American Refractories Company (NARCO)
was US$936 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$939
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO's products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002,
NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in
effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.

The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent
company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO
acceptable to the Company (which amount was paid in December
2005 following the filing of NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent company US$40
million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness to
the Company, upon the effective date of the plan of
reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court's amended confirmation order. This appeal is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007
of US$1.1 billion.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims have been made. About US$95 million of payments due under
these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO
trust.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Facing Travelers Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to be involved in
asbestos-related litigation with Travelers Casualty and
Insurance Company in the Supreme Court of New York, County of
New York.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers sued the Company and
other insurance carriers, disputing obligations for NARCO-
related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage
issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
March 31, 2008.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed in the New
York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the
appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos
liabilities to triggered policies. The Court's ruling is subject
to appeal.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 51,952 Bendix Claims at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded 51,952 unresolved
asbestos-related claims for its Bendix friction materials
business for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared
with 51,658 claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. There is a group of
existing and potential claimants consisting largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 962
claims filed, 668 claims resolved, 5,218 claims attributed to
mesothelioma and other cancers, and 51,952 attributed to other
claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 2,771 claims
filed, 8,221 claims resolved, 5,011 claims attributed to
mesothelioma and other cancers, and 51,658 attributed to other
claims.

From 1981 through March 31, 2008, the Company has resolved about
114,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. Trials covering 126
plaintiffs resulted in 125 favorable verdicts and one mistrial.

Trials covering 10 individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, five are
or shortly will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims
were settled.

About 45 percent of about 52,000 pending claims at March 31,
2008 are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets
established in some jurisdictions for claimants who allege
minimal or no impairment. About 52,000 pending claims also
include claims filed in jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia, and
Mississippi that historically allowed for consolidated filings.

In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs were permitted to file
complaints against a predetermined master list of defendants,
regardless of whether they have claims against each individual
defendant. Many of these plaintiffs may not actually intend to
assert claims against the Company.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85
percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result
of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

The Company recorded US$33,000 as the average resolution values
per claim for malignant claims for the years ended Dec. 31, 2007
and Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company recorded US$500 as the average resolution values per
claim for non-malignant claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with US$250 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$533 at March 31, 2008, compared
with US$517 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix
related asbestos claims, of which US$122 million were reflected
as receivables in its consolidated balance sheet at March 31,
2008, compared with US$197 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO Records $1.67B for Bendix Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1.669 billion as
asbestos-related liabilities for its former unit North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) and its Bendix friction materials
business for the three months ended March 31, 2008.

Of the US$1.669 billion, US$533 million was attributed to Bendix
and US$1.136 billion was attributed to NARCO.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
US$1.058 billion as insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities. Of this amount, US$122 million was attributed to
Bendix and US$936 was attributed to NARCO.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded a total
of US$1.655 billion in asbestos liabilities for Bendix (US$517
million) and NARCO (US$1.138 billion).

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Claims Still Pending v. CSK Auto
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSK Auto Corporation continues to be involved in litigation
incidental to the conduct of its business, including asbestos
and similar product liability claims, slip and fall and other
general liability claims, discrimination and other employment
claims, vendor disputes, and miscellaneous environmental and
real estate claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 18, 2008.

Phoenix-based CSK Auto Corporation is a specialty retailer of
automotive parts and accessories. As of Feb. 3, 2008, through
its wholly owned subsidiary, CSK Auto, Inc., the Company
operated 1,349 stores in 22 states, with its principal
concentration of stores in the Western United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Nelson
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the ruling of the District
Court of the 1st Judicial District, In and For the County of
Lewis and Clark, which ruled in favor of defendants and
appellees, in an asbestos-related action filed by Gene Nelson.

The matter has been remanded for further proceedings.

The case is styled Gene Nelson, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
Cenex, Inc.; Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc.; Harvest
States Cooperative, Inc.; Harold Williams; Louis Day; and Does
A-Z, inclusive, Defendants and Appellees.

Justices James C. Nelson, Patricia Cotter, W. William Leaphart,
John Warner, and Brian Morris entered judgment of Case No. 05-
701 on April 1, 2008.

CHS, Inc. is the successor in interest to Cenex, Inc., Cenex
Harvest States Cooperative, Inc., and Farmers Union Central
Exchange, Inc.

Mr. Nelson worked full-time at the CHS refinery in Laurel,
Mont., from Aug. 18, 1952, until Feb. 1, 1967. During the course
and scope of this period of his employment with CHS, he was
required to work with and around asbestos and materials
containing asbestos.

At that time, CHS did not provide its workers with any
protection from asbestos exposure. As a result, Mr. Nelson was
exposed to, inhaled, and ingested asbestos fibers. He left CHS
in 1967 to pursue other employment opportunities.

On Sept. 22, 1980, Mr. Nelson returned to CHS and worked
sporadically on a part-time basis during 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984
and 1985. He did not work with or around asbestos during this
time.

In February 2002, Mr. Nelson was diagnosed with asbestos-related
lung disease. Because his diagnosis occurred well past the
deadline for filing a claim for occupational disease benefits,
Mr. Nelson sued CHS on Sept. 19, 2003, for damages stemming from
his asbestos-related disease.

Mr. Nelson filed a motion for partial summary judgment in July
2005 requesting that the District Court strike CHS's affirmative
defense regarding exclusivity.

At about the same time, CHS filed its own motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss Mr. Nelson's tort claims on the
basis of exclusivity and to dismiss Mr. Nelson's intentional
acts claim for failure to provide proof to support the claim.

The District Court entered an Order granting CHS's summary
judgment motion and dismissing Mr. Nelson's claims on Oct. 7,
2005.

Two weeks later, the court issued a memorandum outlining its
rationale for granting summary judgment and dismissing the
complaint.

Mr. Nelson appealed from the District Court's order granting
summary judgment in favor of CHS and dismissing his complaint.

The Supreme Court held that the District Court erred in granting
CHS's motion for summary judgment and in dismissing Mr. Nelson's
claims.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

J. David Slovak, Mark M. Kovacich, Lewis, Slovak & Kovacich,
P.C., Great Falls, Mont., represented Gene Nelson.

John G. Crist, Eric Edward Nord, Crist Law Firm, LLC, Billings,
Mont., represented Cenex, Inc.; Farmers Union Central Exchange,
Inc.; Harvest States Cooperative, Inc.; Harold Williams; Louis
Day; and Does A-Z.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Xethanol May Pay for Cleanup at Spring Hope
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xethanol Corporation may be required to pay material amounts to
address environmental issues, including asbestos, at its Spring
Hope, N.C., facility, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March
31, 2008.

The Company is aware of soil, groundwater or surface
contamination involving asbestos at its Spring Hope facility, a
former medium density fiberboard plant it acquired from Carolina
Fiberboard Corporation, LLC in November 2006.

Under the purchase agreement, Carolina Fiberboard is required to
pay or reimburse the Company for all reasonable costs and
expenses incurred for cleanup or other remedial actions
performed at the Spring Hope facility as needed.

Under the purchase agreement, US$128,000 in cash and 1,000,000
shares of the Company's common stock are held in escrow to cover
these costs and expenses.

Atlanta-based Xethanol Corporation is a renewable energy and
clean technology company. The Company owns one operating plant
in Blairstown, Iowa that produces ethanol from corn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Still Pending v. Nevamar at Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries International, Inc. states that, as of
Dec. 31, 2007, its Nevemar Company LLC subsidiary is facing 299
asbestos-related workers' compensation claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008.

These cases have been filed alleging injury due to exposure to
asbestos and unidentified chemicals of which about 195 claimants
are current Nevamar employees.

During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers
compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former
employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility alleging injury in the
course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals.

Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the
Hampton facility manufactured asbestos-based products until
about 1975.

In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper
Company settled 10 workers' compensation claims related to
alleged asbestos exposure.

Under a 2005 agreement with International Paper, Nevamar's
liability for workers compensation claims related to alleged
exposure to asbestos brought by employees hired before July 1,
2002, is capped at 15 percent of any damages it shares with
International Paper until Nevamar has paid an aggregate of
US$700,000, at which point the Company has no responsibility for
any additional shared damages.

Employees hired by Nevamar after July 1, 2002 and who file
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered
by this indemnity agreement.

About eight of the 299 claimants were hired by Nevamar after
July 1, 2002.

As of Sept. 30, 2007, 299 workers' compensation claims were
filed alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals of which about 195 claimants were current
Nevamar employees. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2007)

Shelton, Conn.-based Panolam Industries International, Inc. is a
designer, manufacturer and distributor of decorative laminates
in the United States and Canada. Products, which are marketed
under the Panolam, Pluswood, Nevamar and Pionite brand names,
are used in commercial and residential indoor surfacing
applications, including kitchen and bath cabinets, furniture,
store fixtures and displays, and other specialty applications.
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company generated net
sales of US$424.4 million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kraton Polymers LLC continues to be indemnified by Shell
Chemicals on claims alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the
Company's Belpre, Ohio facility, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 31, 2008.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell
Chemicals on the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell
Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain
liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against
the Company by a third party relating to matters arising before
the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In
particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio
facility.

In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have entered into a
consent order relating to certain environmental remediation at
the Belpre, Ohio facility.

Houston-based Kraton Polymers LLC is a supplier of engineered
polymers. The Company produces styrenic block copolymers (SBCs).
The Company also sells polyisoprene rubber (IR), polyisoprene
latex, and SBC-based compounded materials. The Company offers
about 1,000 products to over 700 customers in over 60 countries
worldwide. Manufacturing network includes six plants, which are
located in the United States, Germany, France, The Netherlands,
Brazil and Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Kaanapali Land
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and D/C Distribution Corporation have been named as defendants
in personal injury actions from asbestos exposure, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2008.

While there are a few cases that name the Company, there are a
substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

Cases against the Company are allegedly based on its prior
business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are
allegedly based on D/C's prior distribution business operations
in California.

Each entity defending these cases believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no
assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases.

Chicago-based Kaanapali Land, LLC is the reorganized entity
resulting from the Joint Plan of Reorganization of Amfac Hawaii,
LLC, certain of its subsidiaries and FHT Corporation under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, dated June 11, 2002. The
Company operates in three primary business segments: (i)
Property, (ii) Agriculture and (iii) Golf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DFH, Premix Continue to Face Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries DFH, Inc. and Premix-
Marbletite Manufacturing Co. still face legal actions and claims
arising in the ordinary course of its business, including three
claims against Premix (one of which includes the Company as a
defendant) and non-affiliated parties which allege bodily injury
due to exposure to asbestos contained in products manufactured
in excess of 30 years ago.

The Company's insurance carriers have accepted coverage and are
proving a defense in each lawsuit. The Company said it believes
that it and Premix have more than adequate insurance coverage
for these asbestos claims and such policies are not subject to
S.I.R. Requirements.

None of Premix's or the Company currently manufactured products
contain asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31,
2008.

Pompano Beach, Fla.-based Imperial Industries, Inc. is engaged
in the manufacture and distribution of building materials to
building materials dealers and others located primarily in
Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana and to a
lesser extent, other states in the Southeastern part of the
United States. The Company has two manufacturing facilities for
its products and 10 distribution facilities through which it
markets certain of its manufactured products and products of
other manufacturers directly to builders, contractors, and sub-
contractors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Exposure Claims Still Pending v. CSX
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation states that it is involved in occupational
claims arising from allegations of exposures to certain
materials in the workplace, such as asbestos, solvents (which
include soaps and chemicals) and diesel fuels or allegations of
chronic physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such
as repetitive stress injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and
hearing loss.

The Company retains a third party specialist with extensive
experience in performing asbestos and other occupational studies
to assist management in assessing the value of the Company's
claims and cases.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation is a transportation
company. The Company's rail and intermodal businesses provide
rail-based transportation services including traditional rail
service and the transport of intermodal containers and trailers.
The Company's principal operating company, CSX Transportation,
Inc., provides a crucial link to the transportation supply chain
through about 21,000 route mile rail network, which serves every
major population center in 23 states east of the Mississippi
River, the District of Columbia and the Canadian provinces of
Ontario and Quebec.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Judgment in Sandy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 2, California,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which ruled in favor of Ronald Sandy, on his father Merle
Sandy's behalf, in an asbestos-related action filed against
Exxon Mobil Corporation.

The case is styled Ronald Sandy, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Richman, Kline, and Haerle entered judgment of Case Nos.
A114238, A114570, A115782 on March 27, 2008.

From 1969 through the early 1970s, Merle Sandy was employed as a
pipefitter by Albay Construction Company. During this period, he
worked exclusively at Exxon's Benicia refinery, where Albay had
a contract to do maintenance.

At the refinery, Exxon provided the materials used by Albay
employees, including gaskets and flanges containing asbestos
that Merle Sandy used. Once Albay learned that it was dealing
with asbestos, it began furnishing its workers with respirators.

Merle Sandy stopped working at Exxon's Benicia refinery in 1974,
when Albay's maintenance contract expired. He then worked
briefly at another refinery, and then moved north to work on the
TransAlaska pipeline, where he stayed for 14 years. During the
Alaskan winter, Merle Sandy did return to work for Exxon three
times, twice in the 1970s, and once in the 1980s. He worked as a
welder.

Merle Sandy discovered he had cancer in 2004, by which time he
had already sued Exxon and other defendants. The case was first
tried, against Exxon alone, in late 2005, but the jury was
unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared.

The second trial against Exxon commenced on Jan. 6, 2006.
Exactly one month later, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Merle Sandy.

The jury further determined that Merle Sandy suffered damages of
US$1,083,000 (US$392,000 in medical expenses, US$327,000
in non-medical economic damages, and US$364,00 in non-economic
damages), and that Exxon was responsible for 15 percent of these
damages. After making deductions for settlements, the court
entered judgment for Merle Sandy for damages of US$636,667.01,
costs of US$65,899.02, and prejudgment interest.

Exxon moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Exxon filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and the
order denying its motion for JNOV.

Exxon contended that: (1) the trial court erred in denying its
motion because there is not substantial evidence to establish
liability; (2) the trial court committed instructional error;
and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the
testimony of two defense expert witnesses.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment and the order denying
the motion for JNOV.

David Robert Donadio, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Brayton Purcell, Novato,
Calif., represented Ronald Sandy, for Merle Sandy.

Stephen Earl Norris, Horvitz & Levy, Encino, Calif., Lisa Ann
Sapcoe, Armstrong & Associates, LLP, Oakland, Calif.,
represented Exxon Mobil Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Martin Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division, issued
split rulings in a case over asbestos payments styled Edwin C.
Martin, Jr., et al, Plaintiffs, v. James P. Holloran, et al.,
Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered judgment of
Case No. 4:05CV1857 AGF on March 27, 2008.

In their eight-count amended complaint filed on Sept. 28, 2006,
Plaintiffs alleged that in 1987 they entered into a written
"association agreement" with Defendants, under which Plaintiffs
were to initiate, organize, and conduct medical screenings of
individuals in Missouri who had been exposed to asbestos, and
then refer to Defendants all such individuals who had tested
positive for an asbestos-related injury.

Defendants were to pursue claims for damages on behalf of these
individuals, who executed a retainer agreement with Plaintiffs
and Defendants as their attorneys for a 30 percent contingency
fee.

Plaintiffs further alleged that under the association agreement,
Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs 1/3 of the 30 percent
contingency fee Defendants received from any settlement or
judgment pertaining to such cases.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants also agreed to maintain an
accounting of all expenses and income relative to the cases in
question, and to disburse promptly the attorneys' fees due
Plaintiffs pursuant to the agreement.

Plaintiffs asserted alternatively that the agreement was oral,
or constituted an oral partnership agreement. They allege that
Defendants did not maintain proper accounts, failed to provide
Plaintiffs with accounts upon Plaintiffs' requests, and failed
to pay Plaintiffs money due Plaintiffs under the agreement, with
the exception of one US$100,000 payment.

Plaintiffs sought damages under theories of breach of a written
agreement (Count I), breach of oral contract (Count II), breach
of partnership agreement (Count IV), breach of fiduciary duty
(Count VI), unjust enrichment and quantum meruit (Count VII),
and misrepresentation (Count VIII).

In Count III, Plaintiffs sought a contractual accounting and in
County V, Plaintiffs sought a partnership accounting.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment.
Plaintiffs have brought their own motion for partial summary
judgment.

The District Court ordered that the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations and
laches was denied in part and granted in part.

The District Court further ordered that Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the basis that the agreement between the
parties is an unenforceable fee-sharing agreement is denied.

The District Court further ordered that Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment is denied.

The District Court further ordered that Plaintiffs' motion to
strike portions of Defendants' statement of material facts is
denied.

John E. Toma, Jr., Melissa M. Zensen, Toma Zensen, LLC, St.
Louis, represented Edwin C. Martin, Jr., et al.

Joel A. Poole, Holloran White, LLP, Paul E. Kovacs, Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP, Paul C. Hetterman, Bartley Goffstein, L.L.C., St.
Louis, represented James P. Holloran, et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wirt County Worker Sues 50 Companies in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas P. McCue and his wife Thelma, on March 13, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 50 companies in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. McCue worked at BorgWarner Inc., also
known as G.E. Plastics, from 1959 to 1991, where he was required
to work directly with asbestos blankets, asbestos rope, asbestos
tape and various other asbestos-related materials. He worked as
a laborer, maintenance worker and mechanic.

The suit says that Mr. McCue claims he was unaware of the
dangers of asbestos and did not know he had a medical condition
relating to his asbestos exposure until he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

According to the suit, Mr. McCue knows that the manufacturing
companies caused his injuries and diseases, which are permanent
in nature. The suit says BorgWarner and General Electric Company
are guilty of "statutory misconduct" in exposing Mr. McCue to
asbestos-containing dust.

Mr. McCue claims he will incur great medical expenses for
treatment, drugs and other remedial medical measures. He seeks
compensatory damages to cover his injuries.

Mrs. McCue claims she will be required to render nursing
services and care beyond what is expected of a spouse, and to
take care of her husband due to his incurable and debilitating
disease, the suit says.

In the 12-count suit, the McCues seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

Attorney William K. Schwartz represents the McCues.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-494 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW MP Calls for Baryulgil Issue Resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greens New South Wales MP Lee Rhiannon says it is time the legal
and health implications of asbestos tailings in roads around
Baryulgil, New South Wales, were resolved, ABC News reports.

Mr. Rhiannon has welcomed a commitment from New South Wales
Environment Minister Verity Firth to investigate the health
risks associated with the use of tailings in road construction.

The James Hardie Industries N.V. asbestos mine at Baryulgil was
closed in 1981 after three decades of operation.

The Nimbin Environment Centre raised the issue of tailings being
used in roads last December 2007 and called for an
investigation.

Ms. Rhiannon says the issue must be resolved and asbestos
tailings from the mine have caused deaths in the area. She says
the responsibility for any civil liability could involve local
and state governments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Teacher Loses Job for Whistleblowing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bartholomew, an American sociology professor working in
Ali Curung in Australia's Northern Territory, lost his job for
whistleblowing, The Australian reports.

Almost 100 people in the small community, also known as
Alekarenge and 170 km south of Tennant Creek, have signed a
petition in support of Dr. Bartholomew, who has blown the
whistle on the Northern Territory's crumbling education system,
which he says is dooming the future of Aboriginal Australia.

Dr. Bartholomew told The Weekend Australian that walking into
the Alekarenge School was like entering the Third World.
Conditions were so bad that only one of six teachers who started
at the school at the beginning of this year made it through to
the second term.

As the school year began, none of the computers were working,
there was no working photocopier, chaos reigned in classrooms as
children turned up for school and then left after an hour, and
scores of dogs and even a donkey roamed the playground.

The animals, which licked the water bubblers, were beaten with
sticks and pelted with bottles by students.

It was the discovery of a 2005 report that identified an
asbestos risk to children and teachers within the playground and
inside the school that particularly alarmed the community.

According to Dr. Bartholomew, the asbestos report and all of its
recommendations were ignored by the Education Department. This
has been denied by the department, which said all of the
recommendations had been implemented.

A department spokesman said, "We can confirm that the asbestos
status at Alekarenge School is safe for staff and students."

Northern Territory Education Minister Marion Scrymgour is under
increasing pressure over the state of remote education. On
April 18, 2008, she told The Weekend Australian that the
Government was working towards increasing teacher numbers in the
Territory, currently recruiting 50 of the 200 extra teachers
promised by the federal Government.

Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard said the Rudd
Government was concerned about the 2000 children of school age
not enrolled in the Territory's school system. A further 2500
did not attend school on a regular basis.

Though no performance issues were ever raised against him, Dr.
Bartholomew said that after weeks of raising concern about
education and safety standards within the school, the department
told him he would be transferred to a different school.

The transfer never happened and, despite having successful
interviews at other schools, Dr. Bartholomew has not been able
to get a job and believes he has been "blackballed" by the
department. He is now technically an illegal immigrant.

The Australian Education Union's Northern Territory branch
secretary, Adam Lampe, said Dr. Bartholomew had been treated
with contempt.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dempseys Sue Union Carbide et al. in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde and Robbie Dempsey of Pasadena, Tex., on April 7, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Union Carbide
Corporation and other chemical and polymer companies in
Galveston County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

The suit alleges the defendants committed negligence,
misrepresentation and conspiracy in subjecting Mr. Dempsey to
asbestos and asbestos-related products while he performed
commercial and industrial plumbing and pipefitting work
throughout Texas for more than 25 years.

In an interview with the Texas Medical Occupation Institute on
Feb. 14, 2008, the 70-year-old Mr. Dempsey reported that he
breathed in asbestos dust from adjacent workers at hundreds of
jobs. He claimed to have been exposed to asbestos for at least
the first 20 years of his career.

Mr. Dempsey retired in 2004 after serving as a maintenance
supervisor for a La Porte refining facility. He was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in 2007 after complaining to physicians of
increasing shortness of breath.

In addition to Union Carbide, the suit names A.W. Chesterton
Co., CertainTeed Corporation, Bondex Inc., Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Alloy Valves & Controls
Inc., General Electric Company, Kaiser Gypsum, Bechtel Group
Inc., Fluor Corporation, Amaco, Shell and Sun Oil and others as
product, premises, equipment or contractor defendants.

The suit also contends "as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' negligence, Mr. Dempsey has sustained a multitude of
severe and incapacitating injuries."

The Dempseys are represented by Williams, Kherkher, Hart &
Boundas LLP. They seek malice and exemplary damages and the suit
states they will continue litigation in the event of Mr.
Dempsey's death.

Case No. 08CV0345 has been assigned to Judge Susan Criss, 212th
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cottingley Rower's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest ruled that the death of 84-year-old Denis Melody, a
world champion rower and marathon runner from Cottingley, West
Yorkshire, England, was linked to asbestos, beeston today
reports.

Mr. Melody, a divorced father-of-two, was a former leather
processing manager who worked until he was 77. He was still
taking part in rowing competitions until September 2006.

Mr. Melody was fit and healthy until he developed chest problems
and was diagnosed with mesothelioman. He died in January 2008 at
the Wortley nursing home where he spent his final months.

The inquest heard Mr. Melody spent his entire working life in
the leather processing industry often in old factories and
around machinery lagged with asbestos. He also served with the
Royal Marines and could also have been in contact with asbestos
on ships.

A well-known marathon runner, Mr. Melody took part in many races
before taking up indoor rowing at the age of 77.

Coroner David Hinchliff told the court, "Mr Melody spent many
years working in factories where machinery and boilers were
lagged with asbestos and the likelihood was that it was in the
work place he was exposed to it. In those days workers did not
realize that fibers from asbestos caused health problems in
later years and he developed mesothelioma."

Pathologist Dr. Lisa Barker told the court Mr. Melody had well
above the normal amount of asbestos in his lungs and had
developed a rare type of tumor as a consequence.

Mr. Hinchliff recorded a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Posen Fined $6,500 for Mishandling Pipes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Posen Construction Inc. has been issued a US$6,500 fine over
improper handling of asbestos pipe at a US$25.7 million Three
Oaks Parkway project, Naples Daily News reports.

In 2007, Posen employees alleged they were ordered to crush and
cut up asbestos pipe, which they claimed was disposed of at the
site of a new retention lake south of Alico Road and another
nearby site north of Alico.

Investigators with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection did find asbestos fragments on the banks of the lake,
and did find ungrouted pipe buried on-site.

Sherrill Culliver, a DEP compliance and enforcement manager,
said, "They have done the remediation, and we have the final
clearance report. We have proposed a settlement and they have
agreed."

According to reports, inspectors found the asbestos fragments on
the western bank of a newly-created lake south of the new
section of Alico. Two, five-foot sections of asbestos pipe that
had been left behind were removed, and another was grouted in
place. Twenty bags of fragments were also removed.

Mr. Culliver said that he went to the lake on the north side of
Alico, where employees said they were ordered to dump truckloads
of crushed asbestos.

Nor is there any way to know whether what was found was left
there accidentally or knowingly. The state and Lee County
officials began investigating when Posen employees gave sworn
statements that they’d been ordered to crush the pipe, load it
into trucks, and dump the material at the site north of Alico.

Posen project engineer Roy Bartlett said no one associated with
the Company did anything wrong intentionally.

Assessing the situation and cleaning up cost Posen perhaps
US$12,000 or more, Mr. Bartlett said. The assessment itself cost
US$6,000.

The actual violation is based on Posen's failure to inform DEP
as the law requires when they were handling asbestos. That
notification would have triggered other requirements for
handling, employee protection and disposal.

Posen employees also complained to the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which investigates workplace safety.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Cites $4.2M Net Adjustments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's net adjustments for asbestos-related
assets and liabilities were US$4.2 million for the three months
ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$43.1 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2007, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2008.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated manufactures and
markets chemical specialties globally for making a variety of
products for home, office and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 81,103 Claims Pending v. Crane at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. recorded 81,103 asbestos-related claims filed against
it as of March 31, 2008, compared with 85,884 claims as of March
31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2008.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
1,041 new claims, 337 settlements, and 600 dismissals. For the
three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded 1,095
new claims, 623 dismissals, and 529 settlements.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 81,103 pending claims as of March 31, 2008, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 24,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,000 claims were pending in Texas
and about 3,500 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement
agreement on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving
claims filed against it in the tort system.

The Company has not re-engaged in discussions with
representatives of current or future asbestos claimants with
respect to such a comprehensive settlement.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $2.15M Verdict in Norris Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. states that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd
District, on March 11, 2008, delivered its opinion affirming a
US$2.15 million verdict against the Company in the Joseph Norris
asbestos claim (Norris Claim).

The Company tried the Norris Claim to verdict in California,
however, and received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15, 2006.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the court entered judgment on this verdict
against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million, together
with interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum until
paid. The Company appealed the judgment.

The Company has filed a petition for review by the California
Supreme Court on the March 11, 2008 ruling.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Gets Adverse Verdict in Baccus Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., on March 14, 2008, received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus' asbestos-related claim in Philadelphia, Pa., with
compensatory damages of US$2.45 million and additional damages
of US$11.9 million.

The Company has filed a post-trial motion asserting numerous
errors in the trial proceedings, and no judgment has been
entered on the trial verdict.

The Company intends to pursue all available rights to appeal the
verdict.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $22.5M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. in the
three-month period ended March 31, 2008 totaled US$22.5 million
in the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$21.1
million in the three months ended March 31, 2007.

In the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company incurred
US$12.1 million for settlement costs and US$10.4 million for
defense costs.

In the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company incurred
US$11.2 million for settlement costs and US$9.9 million for
defense costs.

The Company's total pre-tax cash receipts/payments for
settlement and defense costs totaled a US$2.1 million net
payment in the three month period ended March 31, 2008 and a
US$21.2 million net receipt in the three month period ended
March 31, 2007.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $328M Asset at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of March 31, 2008, recorded an asbestos-related
asset of US$328 million, according to a Company report, on Form
8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 21, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, the Company recorded an asbestos-related asset of
US$340 million. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2008)

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company
for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred.

To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for
those reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place," with nine of
its excess insurer groups.

On March 3, 2008, the Company reached agreement with certain
London Market Insurance Companies, North River Insurance Company
and TIG Insurance Company, confirming the aggregate amount of
available coverage under certain London policies and setting
forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the
Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made.

In addition, with three of its excess insurer groups, the
Company entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all
asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed sum,
totaling US$46.8 million in aggregate.

The Company is in discussions with or expects to enter into
additional coverage-in-place agreements with other of its excess
insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the aggregate
costs included in the updated liability estimate.

An asset of US$351 million was recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007
representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such
claims.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Liability Drops to $928M at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$928,098,000 as of March 31, 2008, compared with
US$942,776,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related liability was US$84
million as of March 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivable
was US$293,940,000 as of March 31, 2008, compared with
US$306,557,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivable was
US$33.6 million as of March 31, 2007, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Seeing $55M Asbestos Payments in '08
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., in 2008, continues to expect asbestos-related
payments (net of insurance recoveries) to be about US$55
million, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2008.

Management still expects cash flow provided from operating
activities before asbestos in 2008 will be about US$275 million,
capital expenditures will be about US$50 million, and free cash
flow will be US$170 million.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. is a manufacturer of highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling to Favor Garzas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3, California,
affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court, San Francisco County,
which ruled in favor of Joseph and Mary Garza, in an asbestos-
related injury lawsuit filed against Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.
(ACL).

The case is styled Joseph and Mary Garza, Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant and
Appellant.

Judges Horner, McGuiness and Siggins entered judgment of Case
No. A116523 on March 28, 2008.

On Jan. 26, 2005, the Garzas filed their complaint for personal
injury and loss of consortium alleging that Mr. Garza's exposure
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products caused him severe
and permanent lung damage, as well as increased risk and fear of
developing mesothelioma and lung cancer.

According to the complaint, Mr. Garza was diagnosed with
asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease in May 2004. The
complaint included causes of action for negligence and strict
liability.

ACL filed an answer to the complaint on Feb. 22, 2006, including
notice of its request for trial by jury. ACL denied the
allegations of the complaint.

On June 14, 2006, ACL appeared at a pre-trial conference, after
which the court continued the matter to June 19, 2006 and  
ordered parties to file any motions in limine by that date.

ACL argued it was a Quebec company that had not consented to
jurisdiction, was not physically present in California, and  
lacked sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume
either general or limited jurisdiction over it.

The Garzas opposed the motion, asserting that ACL had consented
to jurisdiction by making a general appearance. On June 20,
2006, the trial court denied without comment ACL's motion in
limine regarding personal jurisdiction.

The jury heard opening statements from counsel on June 23, 2006.
Counsel delivered closing arguments on the morning of July 6,
2006.

The jury awarded damages to Mr. Garza as follows: US$127,294 in
past and US$325,000 in future medical expenses; US$66,700 in
future lost earning capacity; US$21,000 in past and US$139,000
in future loss of household services; and US$500,000 in non-
economic damages. The jury also determined that Mrs. Garza
suffered damages in the amount of US$400,000 for loss of
consortium.

The jury allocated 75 percent of liability to ACL and 25 percent
to all others, and also found by clear and convincing evidence
that ACL acted with malice or oppression.

Based on the jury's finding of malice, the trial proceeded to a
separate phase on punitive damages. At the conclusion of the
punitive damages phase, the jury returned a verdict of US$10
million in punitive damages.

On Dec. 4, 2006, the trial court denied ACL's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for a new
trial.

ACL filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 4, 2006.

On Jan. 10, 2007, ACL filed its Amended Notice of Appeal from
Judgment and Post-Judgment Orders to include appeal not only
from the judgment but also from the orders denying its motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion for new
trial.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all
respects. ACL shall bear the costs on appeal.

Patrick M. Kelly, Bernard Gehlhar Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman & Dicker LLP, Richard E. Lerner, Pro Hac Vice, Member of
Bar of New York and Connecticut, represented Asbestos
Corporation, Ltd.

Alan R. Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Mary E. Pougiales, David
Fermino, Brayton Purcell LLP, represented Joseph and Mary Garza.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Seeks Dismissal of Claimants' Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation asks the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to dismiss the consolidated appeals of the
Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Jose
Angel Valdez on the ground that the Appeals are equitably moot
because the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization has been
substantially consummated.

Corinne Ball, at Jones Day LLP, in New York, relates that since
the Plan became effective in Jan. 31, 2008, the Reorganized
Debtors have take numerous irreversible steps to implement the
Plan, including:

  -- creation a new holding company, New Dana Holdco, which
     received a new preferred stock equity investment of
     US$790,000,000 from 24 different new equity investors;

  -- repayment of the DIP Loan and Borrowing under the
     US$1,350,000,000, Exit Facility;

  -- transfer of operating assets to New Dana Holdco and
     distribution of cash and common stock to creditors;

  -- termination of retiree benefits and funding of voluntary
     employment beneficiary association trust; and

  -- assignment of collective bargaining agreements to New Dana
     Holdco, freezing of pension plans, and assumption and
     rejection of executory contracts.  

"These steps, along with the myriad of other transactions
implementing the Plan have resulted in its substantial
consummation.  As a result of the failure of Asbestos Claimants
to obtain a stay of the Confirmation Order . . . it is no longer
possible . . . for this or any other court to undo the
Restructuring Transactions that are the subject of these
appeals," Ms. Ball argues.

According to Ms. Ball, if the District Court overturns the
Confirmation Order and belatedly revokes the Plan, all parties-  
in-interest must be returned to the status quo that existed just
prior to the Effective Date. With the reinstatement of the
status quo -- which would require disgorgement by creditors of
all cash and stock distributions made by the Reorganized Debtors
-- is impossible, she argues.  

"Seeking to undo these transactions is impossible and grossly
inequitable," Ms. Ball further argues. Furthermore, the parties
funding the Reorganized Debtors' Exit Facility cannot be
returned to the status quo.

Ms. Ball notes that the Asbestos Claimants have failed to show
clear error in the Confirmation Order's factual findings or
legal error in its conclusions of law. She adds that the
Asbestos Claimants made no attempt either to seek a stay of the
Confirmation Order or to expedite their appeals.

Ms. Ball tells the Court that the Asbestos Claims were not
impaired by the Plan. The record shows, and the Bankruptcy Court
found, that Asbestos Claims were left unimpaired by the Plan,
and because the Asbestos Claims are unimpaired, the Bankruptcy
Court properly held that the "best interests of creditors" test
did not apply to Class 3 Asbestos Claims.

Ms. Ball further argues that the Asbestos Claimants' attempt to
equate the restructuring transactions with that of the creation
of a trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code
misrepresents the effect of the Plan. She points out that none
of the hallmarks of a Section 524(g) plan are present in the
Plan or exhibited by Reorganized Dana.

Counsel to the Asbestos Committee, Douglas Tabachnik, at Law
Offices of Douglas T. Tabachnik, in Freehold, N.J., argues that
the Reorganized Debtors mischaracterize the law of "equitable
mootness" to avoid the fatal flaws in their Plan.

According to Mr. Tabachnik, the Reorganized Debtors mistakenly
contend that "substantial consummation" of the Plan somehow
equates to "equitably moot" as a grounds for dismissal of the
Appeals.

"This is simply a misstatement of the law," Mr. Tabachnik says.   
"Courts have repeatedly held that 'substantial consummation' is
not a magic incantation that automatically results in an appeal
being dismissed. Because effective relief remains available, the
Asbestos Committee's failure to obtain a stay pending this
appeal does not render the appeal moot," he adds.

Mr. Tabachnik maintains that the Asbestos Claimants merely ask
that the Court modify the Confirmation Order in a very
straightforward way without undoing a single Restructuring
Transaction.  He says the Court can simply interlineate a new
clause into the Confirmation Order making clear that the Class 3
asbestos personal injury claimants are not being left without
recourse against the assets that were shuttled out of the
Debtors. He adds that the relief sought by the Appellants would
not affect the financing obtained by the Debtors.

The Asbestos Claimants assert that the Reorganized Debtors
woefully mischaracterize their arguments with respect to Section
524(g). Mr. Tabachnik says the Appellants have never argued that
Debtors must invoke Section 524(g) to effectively reorganize.
Rather, he says, Appellants argue that Reorganized Debtors'
chosen Plan structure requires them to comply with Section
525(g).

The Asbestos Claimants maintain that the Plan does not provide
identical treatment to all asbestos personal injury claims. The
mere fact that the thousands of claims secretly settled on the
eve of confirmation are secured by an escrow fund establishes
the unequal treatment that the Bankruptcy Code forbids, Mr.
Tabachnik says.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 74; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hacker Couple Sue 3M Co., et al. in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Wilbur Hacker and his wife Leslie Hacker, a couple from
Crockett, Va., on April 16, 2008, filed and asbestos-related
lawsuit against Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M
Company) and other defendants in Galveston County, Tex., the
Southeast Texas Record reports.

On April 21, 2008, the Hackers demanded for a properly impaneled
jury to hear their case before Judge Wayne Mallia of the 405th
District Court.

The Hackers' suit (Case No. 08CV0383) alleges 3M Company and
other corporations knowingly subjected Mr. Hacker to asbestos
and related products they reportedly designed, manufactured, and
sold during his respective stints as a boiler technician and
general maintenance man.

The plaintiffs claim that "Larry Wilbur Hacker had been exposed,
on numerous occasions, to asbestos-containing products and
possibly machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos,
thus he had inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers."

The couple also contends that "Larry Wilbur Hacker was unaware
of the hazards and defects in the asbestos-containing products
of the Defendants, which made them unsafe for purposes of
manipulation and installation," explains the suit. "Similarly,
Larry Wilbur Hacker was unaware of the hazards and defects in
the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos or
asbestos-containing materials."

Union Carbide Corporation and Phillips Electronics North America
Corporation are named supplier defendants in the case.

Other counts the suit lists include conspiracy, gross
negligence, and aiding and abetting.

Mr. Hacker is suffering from malignant mesothelioma, of which he
was diagnosed on Jan. 17, 2008.

Attorney Aaron J. Deluca represents the Hackers. They seek
reimbursement for Mr. Hacker's medical expenses, lost earnings,
and net accumulations in addition to punitive and exemplary
damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Laborer Gets Payout from Hardie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Clyde Copp, a 52-year-old laborer from Proserpine,
Queensland, Australia, has received an undisclosed amount of
asbestos-related compensation from James Hardie Industries N.V.,
The Courier Mail reports.

Mr. Copp was given three months to live at the start of this
year after being diagnosed three months earlier with
mesothelioma.

Documents lodged in the Supreme Court in Brisbane reveal Mr.
Copp was exposed to asbestos fibers while working as a laborer
for two different businesses in Oakey, Toowoomba and Brisbane in
the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Copp's duties included sanding back asbestos cement walls
and cutting asbestos cement pipes. He claimed he regularly
inhaled asbestos dust, and also would become covered in the
fibers.

In January 2007, Mr. Copp took his fight for compensation to the
Supreme Court, suing James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (now known as
Amaca Pty Ltd) and Wunderlich Pty Ltd (now known as Seltsam Pty
Ltd), two major suppliers of asbestos building materials during
the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Copp claimed the companies breached their duty of care to
members of the public by failing to "provide adequate warnings
as to any risks or injury or illness" associated with their
products.

Mr. Copp also lodged a claim to sue Workcover Queensland (then
known as the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland), which
was the insurer of Mr. Copp's former employer, the now defunct
Merritt & Booth Pty Ltd.

The Supreme Court allowed Mr. Copp to give evidence about his
illness and his working history from his home on March 12, 2008
because his condition had deteriorated.

The matter never proceeded to trial after the parties settled
for an undisclosed amount during a court-ordered mediation
session.

Court documents suggest Mr. Copp may have been seeking more than
AUD1 million.

A confidentiality agreement between the parties prevents the
amount from being revealed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Links Welsh Worker's Death to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 82-year-old David Green, a
resident of Neath, Wales, was linked to asbestos, icWales.co.uk
reports.

Mr. Green may have been exposed to asbestos during his time
working as a fitters mate at the Metal Box factory in Neath. He
died of mesothelioma at the Old Vicarage Nursing Home, Tonna, on
July 22, 2008.  

Dr. Mudaly at Alfred Street Care Centre in Neath, confirmed Mr.
Green was suffering from malignant mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Examines Blue Star Vicinity for Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is checking the area
around the Blue Star Arts complex in San Antonio, Tex., for the
presence of asbestos, KSAT.com reports.

An EPA spokesman said that examiners have run soil samples and
are working on activity-based sampling.

The test involves creating dust at the site and collecting the
airborne fibers for testing.

Initial tests indicated asbestos in the soil, which has left
some residents concerned.

If excessive levels of asbestos are found, the EPA will begin
removing the contaminated soil and replacing it with clean soil.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Utah Worker Sues 59 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Geisler, a resident of Utah, on April 17, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 59 corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Geisler claims he has been employed since 1978 as a
machinist at various locations in Utah and Illinois. He 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.

Defendants include Bondex International, CBS Corporation, Ford
Motor Company, General Electric Company, General Motors
Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Honeywell
International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, John Crane
Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Philips Electronics North
America Corporation.

Mr. Geisler 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. Geisler, he first became aware that he suffered
from mesothelioma on Feb. 14, 2008. He 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.

Mr. Geisler 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, Mr. Geisler claims he was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos. He developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured him,
the complaint states. He seeks damages to help pay for the cost
of his treatment.

Mr. Geisler seeks at least US$250,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

G. Michael Stewart and Timothy Thompson, Jr., of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Geisler.

Case No. 08 L 328 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Telford Mom's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Ellen Paddock, a mother of
three from Telford, Shropshire, England, was linked to asbestos
exposure, shrophshirestar.com reports.

The inquest heard that Ms. Paddock could have been exposed to
asbestos after a fire ripped through Telford's military depot
and sent debris across the town.

As a seven-year-old, Ms. Paddock had played in the ashes that
were blown across Leegomery following the blaze 25 years ago,
the hearing heard. Her father, Alan Bush, told how she had
caught the ashes in her mouth, believing it was snow.

The jury also heard that Miss Paddock, who died in 2007 at the
age of 31, could also have been exposed to asbestos through her
father's work.

Ms. Paddock died on July 22, 2007 after contracting lung
disease. Before her death, she began legal proceedings to sue
the Ministry of Defense and the company her father worked for,
for an undisclosed six figure sum.

Mr. John Ellery, coroner for Mid and North Shropshire, said Ms.
Paddock's father had come into contact with asbestos in the
1970s when he worked at Rubery Owen, and could have brought dust
home on his clothes.

The inquest also heard that Ms. Paddock may have been exposed to
asbestos in the fallout after the fire at the MoD Central
Ordnance Depot in Donnington on June 24, 1983.

Asbestos in the roof of the building was blown across parts of
Telford, including Leegomery where Ms. Paddock lived. She had
played in the ashes.

Mr. Bush said he gave up his job after learning it was bringing
him into contact with asbestos.

Dr. Vivek Mudaliar, a consultant pathologist, said the cause of
death was broncho pneumonia and mesothelioma. He said, "Given
the degree of exposure of asbestos, I would think that on the
balance of probability, exposure would have been from the fire."

Dr. Mudaliar added that he could not be sure the ashes contained
asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wear Valley Scandal Investigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mystery continues to surround the results of an inquiry
established to find out who was responsible for Woodhouse Close
Leisure Center's asbestos-related breach, The Northern Echo
reports.

Wear Valley District Council bosses ignored official warnings by
asbestos inspectors and allowed staff at a swimming pool in
Bishop Auckland, County Durham, England to work with asbestos
for five years.

After months of investigations, members of an inquiry team set
up to find out why the lives of workers at Woodhouse Close
Leisure Centre were put at risk, were due to sign off their
final report last April 16, 2008.

The Council was fined GBP18,000 by the Health and Safety
Executive in 2007 for failing to deal with asbestos found in the
pool's boiler room, even though inspectors warned them about the
health risk in 2001.

The breach came to light five years later when a worker
contacted the HSE after learning that bosses ignored the report.

Rumors surfaced on April 14, 2008 that councilors had been asked
to delay the release of the report so that solicitors could be
given more time to consider the legal implications of naming
people involved in the scandal.

Once the report is signed off, it will go before an
extraordinary meeting of the council, before being published.

The authority's departing chief executive, Michael Laing, has
instructed members to release the report's findings before he
leaves his post at the end of April 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie's Restructuring Not to Affect Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos campaigners have been assured that compensation
payments from James Hardie Industries N.V. will be safe even if
the Company sells off its Australian operations to move to the
United States, ABC News reports.

It is believed that Hardie plans to liquidate its parent company
in The Netherlands, transfer assets to a new U.S. company and
either sell off or reincorporate its Australian and New Zealand
arms as independent local companies.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation president Barry Robson says the New
South Wales Premier's Department has confirmed the compensation
agreement includes a provision to manage issues such as a change
of country or parent company.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma says asbestos victims who are entitled
to compensation from Hardie have nothing to fear about the
company moving headquarters.

Premier Iemma said, "The structure of the fund takes into
account the potential future movement into other countries or
changes in Hardie's corporate structure."

On April 20, 2008, union leaders and asbestos victims groups
yesterday called on Hardie to provide immediate assurances that
its plan to abandon Australia and move to the U.S. would not
adversely affect their members.

In 2007, Hardie finalized the compensation agreement with the
NSW Government, estimated to be worth AUD4 billion, or AUD1.5
billion when inflation is taken into account.

However, Hardie signed the deal only on the basis that it was
"voluntary" and did not accept legal liability, and stated at
the time that "no absolute assurance can be given that funding
is sufficient."


ASBESTOS ALERT: OSHA Imposes $1,500 Fine on ACM & Environmental
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACM & Environmental Services Inc., an asbestos consultant for
Muncie Community Schools in Muncie, Ind., was ordered to pay a
US$1,500 penalty for alleged violations of the Indiana
Occupational Safety and Health Act, The StarPress.com reports.

The Indianapolis-based ACM & Environmental has been accused of
committing eight serious violations in 2007 during the
renovation of Central High School.

The alleged violations include:

   -- No training records were available for employees who
      performed asbestos work including cleanup of asbestos-
      containing materials such as spray-on fireproofing.

   -- Employees performed spot abatement of spray-on
      fireproofing without using respirators.

   -- No written respiratory protection program for employees
      who voluntarily wore full-face, tight-fitting respirators
      to protect against asbestos exposure.

   -- Employees performed spot abatement of asbestos-containing
      material without establishing a regulated area.

   -- The wrong kind of monitoring was done when employees
      cleaned up spray-on fireproofing that had fallen to the
      floor. Sampling and analysis was not done according to
      approved methodology.

   -- Employees scraped sprayed-on fireproofing off of the
      ceiling and I beams without using plastic dropcloths on
      the floor.

   -- Untrained employees scraped small spots of spray-on
      fireproofing off of the ceiling and I beams.

   -- Basic information about respirators was not provided to
      employees who voluntarily wore respirators.

Sean Keefer, spokesman for the Indiana Department of Labor, said
ACM was expected to sign an expedited informal settlement
agreement (EISA) that calls for the proposed penalty to be
lowered to US$975.

Daleville, Ind.-based Sater Electric Inc., the project's
mechanical-electrical contractor, already has signed an EISA to
resolve eight serious violations it was accused of committing.

Sater's alleged violations included disturbing spray-on
fireproofing without establishing a regulated area, failure to
reduce dust emissions, lack of dropcloths and lack of
respirators, safety glasses, protective clothing and training
for employees. Sater agreed to a penalty of US$796.25.

School Supt. Marlin Creasy has said there was no reason to
believe students were exposed to asbestos.





                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Stephanie Umacob,
Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *