CAR_Public/080502.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 87

                            Headlines

CHARLES SWHWAB: Judge Issues Order in CA Securities Fraud Suit
CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Gives Final OK to $14M Focal Agreement
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
CITIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. IAA Violations Lawsuit
CITIGROUP INC: Settles TARGETS Securities Litigation in N.Y.

CREDIT INVESTIGATION: Faces California Suit Over Service Payment
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Florida Suit Calls Chryslers & Dodges Defective
DESERET CHEMICAL: $4.2MM Overtime Pay Settlement Gets Final OK
DVI INC: Securities Lawsuit in Penna. Denied Class Certification
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Oakland Claims 'Bid Rigging' in Lawsuit

FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs
FIRST BANKS: $5 Check Fee Suit Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court
HANAROTELECOM: Subscribers Sue Over Leak of User Information
ILLINOIS: Motorists Complain of Outrageous Toll Fines
INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Andean Ops Suit in Calif. Belongs in Peru
SIRVA INC: Establishes Separate Class for Antitrust Claims
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA: Employees Seek Unpaid Back Wages in Suit
WM WRIGLEY: Illinois Suit Challenges Sale of Company to Mars Inc


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Finkelstein Thompson Files MA Securities Suit
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $872M Receivable at Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Expends $2.5M for Claims at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. DT Solutions Still Pending in Md.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 631 Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing 3rd-Party Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Suits in Miss. & Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $50M Claims Reserve at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Pending v. Goodrich, Units

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $261M Liability at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Morton Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 103T Claims Still Pending v. ITT at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Rise to 118T at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric Cites $200M Charge in 1Q08
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Facing Pending Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Liability Totals $221M at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Hercules Drop to 25,320 at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $3M Net Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 28,320 Claims Pending v. Lincoln at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd Cites $77M Obligations at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Keeton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chervenick Files Suit v. 131 Firms in W.Va.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hynus Files Action v. 80 Companies in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Plumber's Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Union Sues Health Agency Over Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malaysian Trade Union Moves to Ban Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Jury Awards Over $24M to Guilders

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Presents Witnesses in Estimation Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Gov't. Seeks to Include ZAI Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Continue Montana Medical Program
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Examiner Says Overbilling Could Reach $10MM
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACTU to Raise Awareness of Work Carcinogens

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Mechanic Sues 66 Firms in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Completes Study at Clear Creek, Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East Liverpool to Discuss $30T Fine w/ EPA
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Contingency Remains at $1.7B in March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Cases Remain at 325 at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Olin Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Gets $3.1M Trust Payment in March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Cites $539M Reserve at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,827 Claims Pending v. Burlington at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Cites $1.275B Reserves at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal to A.P. Green's Ruling Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Actions Ongoing v. CNA Fin'l.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy



                           *********


CHARLES SWHWAB: Judge Issues Order in CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A United States District Court judge issued an order on
April 28, 2008, clarifying important procedural issues in the
class-action lawsuit against Charles Schwab Corporation by the
law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro which claims the company
misled investors about the diversification and safety of Schwab
YieldPlus Funds Investor Shares.

The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup,
states, "that any member of the purported class may move to the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice."

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed the suit on March 18, 2008.

The lawsuit, filed with U.S. District Court in Northern
California, alleges Schwab omitted important information from
the funds' SEC Registration Statement, Prospectus and selling
representation, including how heavily the funds were exposed to
sub-prime mortgage risks.  The lawsuit claims more than 50
percent of the funds' assets are invested in the risky mortgage
industry -- a percentage that grew as the company abandoned the
original objectives of the funds in pursuit of higher yields.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has received requests to join the
action from hundreds of investors from across the country who
felt they were misled by Schwab.  Losses from those investors
alone total millions of dollars.

According to Reed Kathrein, Esq., the range of investors
inquiring about the class action runs the gamut from investment
advisors to retirees.  Money managers and registered investment
advisors who followed Schwab's advice are also upset as their
clients are inquiring whether they can join or have losses large
enough to be the lead plaintiff.

"The common thread is Schwab's representation that the YieldPlus
funds were an alternative to cash, CDs and money market funds,
which we are finding to be far from the truth," said Mr.
Kathrein.

Charles Schwab advertised the YieldPlus funds as ultra-short
bond funds that serve as a higher-yielding alternative to money-
market funds and offer low risk to investors.  Charles Schwab
also claimed to offer 'investments in a large, well-diversified
portfolio that a seasoned team of taxable bond portfolio
managers actively managed,' the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks to represent investors or their money managers
who purchased shares after March 17, 2005.  By mid-2007, the
funds held more than $13.5 billion in assets.  The share price
for the funds began decreasing in July 2007, suffering a total
loss of more than 21 percent throughout the year, compared to a
drop in the S&P 500 index fund, SPY, of less than six percent.
Today the funds stand at an all-time low of $6.58.

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

Judge Alsup issued the order on April 10, but served it on
April 28, 2008.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein, Esq. (Reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101  
          Phone: (510) 725-3000

               - and -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          2505 Second Ave., Suite 700
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Phone: (206) 443-9357


CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Gives Final OK to $14M Focal Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval to the proposed $14,000,000 settlement in a
putative class action suit filed by purchasers of Focal
Communications Corp. common stock.

                        Case Background

On July 28, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association,
asserting claims under Section 10 and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against:

     -- Citigroup, Inc.;

     -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith
        Barney); and

     -- Jack B. Grubman, telecommunications research analyst at
        Salomon Smith.

Defendant Citigroup, Inc., is the indirect parent to defendant
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., which was formerly known as
Salomon Smith Barney Inc., (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 5,
2007).

Salomon Smith provided a range of investment services to its
clients, including the preparation of private research reports
and ratings concerning publicly traded companies.

During the class period, individual defendant Jack B. Grubman
was a telecommunications research analyst at Salomon Smith.  In
this capacity, Mr. Grubman was responsible for issuing research
analyst reports on companies operating in the telecommunications
sector, including Focal Communications Corp.

In April 2002, the New York State Attorney General announced
that it was investigating the defendants' preparation and
issuance of research analysts' reports and ratings during the
period 1999 through early 2002.  The investigation focused on
the defendants' reports regarding numerous companies, including
Focal.

It was after the extensive investigation, including the review
of documents made available by the NYSAG and the defendants,
that LACERA filed the complaint.  The original complaint
asserted securities fraud claims against defendants under
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The original complaint asserted claims on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased shares of Focal Common Stock during
the period from July 29, 1999, through Aug. 13, 2001.

By order dated Aug. 30, 2004, the court transferred this case to
Judge Gerard E. Lynch.  On Sept. 24, 2004, LACERA moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to 21D(a)(3)(B) of the
Exchange Act.

By Order dated Jan. 7, 2005, the Court:

      -- appointed LACERA as lead plaintiff; and

      -- appointed Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, as lead counsel.

On March 15, 2005, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Focal Common Stock during the period July 27, 1999 through Oct.
1, 2002, alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) (and
Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,by publishing false and
misleading analyst reports concerning Focal and by engaging in
market manipulation.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by causing fraudulent Salomon Smith research
reports concerning Focal and authored by Mr. Grubman to be
issued, and by artificially inflating the price of a portion of
the telecommunications equities market.

The amended complaint also alleged that the reports were
fraudulent because, at least since June 2000, the defendants
believed that Focal Common Stock truly warranted a "Sell" rating
even though Salomon Smith rated it a "Buy."  Moreover, since at
least July 29, 1999, the defendants had failed to disclose their
true opinion regarding Focal.

According to the amended complaint, the fraudulent Focal reports
were part of a quid-pro-quo arrangement between defendants and
Focal, whereby Salomon Smith rated Focal positively, in return
for which Focal retained Salomon Smith as an underwriter.

The amended complaint further alleged that Mr. Grubman's
subsequent critical statements about Focal, and his ultimate
downgrade of the stock, caused Focal's stock price to decline,
and resulted in significant losses for lead plaintiff and the
class.

On April 29, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the amended complaint.   On July 1, 2005, the lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

In addition to the review of several hundred thousand pages of
documents produced by the defendants in connection with the
NYSAG investigation, lead counsel engaged consultants who
prepared a comprehensive analysis of loss causation and damage
issues prior to the initiation of settlement discussions in late
spring 2005.

This required an extensive review of information gleaned from
analyst reports regarding Focal, as well as analysis of factors
impacting Focal stock on key dates.

                          Settlement

Beginning in late spring of 2005, the parties engaged in
numerous telephone calls and face-to-face meetings concerning
the possibility of settlement.  

During these preliminary meetings, documents were exchanged and
the strengths and weaknesses of the claims were discussed and
debated.

Throughout the negotiations, various consultants and experts,
including individuals with expertise in estimating potential
damages in cases involving allegations of securities fraud,
advised the settling parties.

The parties finally reached an agreement to settle all claims in
the Focal class action for $14 million.  The settlement was
finally approved on March 23, 2007, and is no longer subject to
appeal, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

For more details, contact:

          Salomon Analyst Focal Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 9014
          Jericho, NY 11753-8914
          Phone: (800) 766-3330
          Fax: (516) 931-0810
          Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in Metromedia Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion seeking review of the district court's decision
certifying a class in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst
Metromedia Litigation, Case No. 02 Civ. 7966."

Shareholders sued Citicorp, Inc. -- an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. -- Citicorp USA; Salomon Smith
Barney, now known as Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; and analyst
Jack Grubman for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).

The shareholders allege that the defendants issued false and
misleading analyst reports as to Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.
stocks.

The district court dismissed several claims, but allegations
that analyst reports containing false buy recommendations issued
between March 8 and July 25, 2001, survived.  The shareholders
moved for certification of a class as to these claims.

The plaintiffs had sought certification of the class comprised
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Metromedia from March 8, 2001, through July 25,
2001, inclusive, and who were therefore damaged.

In order to allege a violation of Section 10(b), a complaint
must allege with particularity that the defendant made
fraudulent misstatements or omissions in connection with the
sale or purchase of securities with scienter, upon which the
plaintiffs relied, that caused plaintiffs' economic loss.

Certification requires numerous class members to share common
claims.  

On June 20, 2006, Judge Gerard E. Lynch granted class
certification, ruling that all elements of Rule 23 were
satisfied.  He then appointed three law firms as class counsel,
finding that the firms were qualified to adequately represent
the interests of the class.

The three firms certified as class counsel are:

     -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP;
     -- Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP; and
     -- Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw.

The plaintiffs' motion to certify Technology Associates
Management Co. and Techgains I, II, III, IV and V as class
representatives is denied.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit accepted an appeal of the class certification order,
which appeal was argued on Jan. 30, 2008, and remains pending.

Fact discovery has concluded, and expert discovery has been
stayed, by agreement of the parties, pending resolution of the
appeal, according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

The suit is "In Re: Salomon Metromedia, et al v. Salomon Smith
Barney, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-07966-GEL," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Alan Abrams, Esq. (rabrams@katskykorins.com)
          Katsky Korins, LLP
          605 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10158
          Phone: (212) 716-3237
          Fax: (212) 716-3337

               - and -

          Richard A. Adams, Esq.
          Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP
          Century Bank Plaza
          2900 St. Michael Drive
          Suite 400
          Texarkana, TX 75505-6128
          Phone: (903) 334-7000

Representing the defendants are:

          Eric S. Goldstein, Esq. (egoldstein@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, L.L.P.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212)-373-3000
          Fax: (212)-492-0204

               - and -

          Robert Bruce McCaw, Esq. (robert.mccaw@wilmer.com)
          Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P.
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-230-8810
          Fax: 212-230-8888


CITIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of Ill. IAA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a
Salomon Smith Barney) are seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action suit in Illinois that generally alleges violations
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Initially, four putative class actions were filed against
Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, including Citigroup
Global, and certain of their current and former directors,
officers and employees, along with other parties, on behalf of
persons who maintained accounts with Citigroup Global.

These actions assert, among other things, common law claims,
claims under state statutes, and claims under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, for allegedly failing to provide objective
and unbiased investment research and investment management,
seeking, among other things, return of fees and commissions.

The four cases were:

     1. "Norman v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,"
     2. "Rowinski v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,"
     3. "Politzer v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.," and
     4. "Disher, et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc."

In "Norman," the judge denied our motion to dismiss, class
certification was briefed by the parties, and the action was
subsequently settled for $50 million, an amount covered by
existing litigation reserves.

The settlement was finally approved on May 18, 2006, and is no
longer subject to appellate review.

In "Rowinski," the judge granted the company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, which affirmed the earlier decision.

The "Politzer" case was dismissed by the judge -- a decision
that was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review.

In "Disher," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the district court's decision to remand the case to
state court, and directed the district court to dismiss the case
as preempted.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Seventh Circuit's decision,
and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit in light of the
Supreme Court's decision in "Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust."

On Jan. 22, 2007, the Seventh Circuit dismissed Citigroup's
appeal.  On Feb. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs secured an order
reopening this case in Illinois state court, and on Feb. 16,
2007, Citigroup removed the reopened action to federal court.

On May 3, 2007, the District Court remanded the action to
Illinois state court, and on June 13, 2007, Citigroup moved in
state court to dismiss the action.  That motion remains pending,
according to Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/
-- is a diversified global financial services holding company
whose businesses provide a range of financial services to
consumer and corporate customers.  The Company is a bank holding
company.  As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into
four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards,
Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management.  The
Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does
business in more than 100 countries.  In July 2007, the Company
merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary
of the Company.  In July 2007, Citigroup completed the
acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners,
GP, LLC.  In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group,
Inc.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group
into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards.


CITIGROUP INC: Settles TARGETS Securities Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a
Salomon Smith Barney) reached a settlement in the matter, "In Re
TARGETS Securities Litigation."

The case is a putative class action against Citigroup and
Citigroup Global, and certain former employees, leaving only
claims under the 1934 Act for purchases of Targeted Growth
Enhanced Terms Securities with respect to the common stock of
MCI WorldCom, Inc., after July 30, 1999.

On June 28, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed all claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 and certain claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

On Oct. 20, 2004, the parties signed a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement of all
remaining claims in this action.

The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on Jan.
11, 2005, and finally approved on April 22, 2005, according to
Shearson Mid-West Futures Fund's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, acts as the general partner of Shearson Mid-West.  Both
have Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a unit of Citigroup Inc., as
its commodity broker.

Citigroup, Inc. -- http://www.citigroup.com/citigroup/homepage/
-- is a diversified global financial services holding company
whose businesses provide a range of financial services to
consumer and corporate customers.  The Company is a bank holding
company.  As of March 31, 2008, Citigroup was organized into
four major segments: Consumer Banking, Global Cards,
Institutional Clients Group and Global Wealth Management.  The
Company has more than 200 million customer accounts and does
business in more than 100 countries.  In July 2007, the Company
merged with Citigroup Japan Investments LLC, a 100% subsidiary
of the Company.  In July 2007, Citigroup completed the
acquisition of Old Lane Partners, L.P. and Old Lane Partners,
GP, LLC.  In August 2007, Citigroup acquired The BISYS Group,
Inc.  In March 2008, Citigroup reorganized its consumer group
into two global businesses: Consumer Banking and Global Cards.


CREDIT INVESTIGATION: Faces California Suit Over Service Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Investigation and Arbitration, of Santa Rosa in Sonoma
County, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging
it defrauds customers by charging $1,200 or more for services it
cannot provide, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named lead plaintiff Timur Geffe claims that the defendant's
employee, Ernesto Rodriquez, claimed his company had a "close
relationship with the credit bureaus" and that "he 'guaranteed'
he could eliminate the unwanted credit information, accurate or
not, currently on Plaintiff's consumer credit report."

Mr. Rodriquez claimed the company did that "by mailing the three
major credit-reporting agencies a dispute every month for a year
until the credit-reporting agencies got tired of it and took off
the unwanted credit information, whether that information was
accurate or not. . . . In this telephone conversation, Rodriquez
stated that once Defendant began sending these letters to the
major credit reporting agencies, unwanted credit information
would 'come off automatically.'"

The plaintiff claims he paid $1,200 for this, and it did not
work, and the statements that induced him to spend the money
were untrue and misleading.

Mr. Geffe brings this suit on behalf of all persons with
addresses within the United States who defendant charged, or
from which defendant received, money or other valuable
consideration for the performance of a service that the
defendant agreed to perform for said persons but was not yet
fully performed at that time as prohibited in 15 USC Section
1679(c)(b).

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1679h(a)(1);

     -- an award of punitive damages pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1679h(a)(2);

     -- an award of costs of litigation and reasonable
        attorney's fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679h(a)(3);
        and

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

The suit is "Timur Geffe et al. v. Credit Investigation and
Arbritration," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

           Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (bob@westcoastlitigation.com)
           Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
           (josh@westcoastlitigation.com)
           Hyde & Swigart
           411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
           San Diego, CA 92108-3551
           Phone: (619) 233-7770
           Fax: (619) 297-1022


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Florida Suit Calls Chryslers & Dodges Defective
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Chrysler LLC are facing a class action
complaint filed on April 23, 2008, with the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida calling Chryslers & Dodges
defective, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint claims that defective 2.7-liter V6 engines in 1998
to 2004 model Chrysler Concordes and Sebrings and Dodge
Intrepids and Stratuses produce harmful oil sludge that caused
thousands of engines to fail catastrophically.

Named plaintiff Joan Capobianco brings this action on behalf of
all other persons in the State of Florida who purchased or
leased a model year 1998-2004 Chrysler Concorde, Chrysler
Sebring, dodge Intrepid or Dodge Stratus equipped with a 2.7
liter V6 engine.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the engine in the class vehicles have a common
         design defect;

     (b) whether the engine in the class vehicles are fit for
         their ordinary and intended purpose;

     (c) whether the useful life of the engine in the class
         vehicles is reduced as a result of the design defect
         and the oil sludge malfunction;

     (d) whether the defendants sought to conceal the design
         defect from the public, and to suppress or
         misrepresent the existence of the defect;

     (e) whether the class vehicles were merchantable when
         defendants placed these vehicles into the stream of
         commerce and thereafter;

     (f) whether the defendants have engaged in an
         unconscionable commercial practice, including
         aggravated acts, as defined under Florida's Deceptive
         and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Section
         501.201 et seq.;

     (g) whether the defendants have been unjustly enriched to
         the detriment of the consumers owning or leasing the
         class vehicles;

     (h) whether the class members are entitled to an inspection
         and cleaning of the engines in class vehicles;

     (i) whether class members are entitled to restitution; and

     (j) whether the class members are entitled to actual
         damages and if so, the appropriate amount thereof.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class, pursuant to Fed. R.
        Civ. P 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), appointing plaintiff as
        representative of the class and appointing the law firms
        representing plaintiff as counsel for the class;

     -- compensatory damages incurred by plaintiff;

     -- payment of costs of suit incurred;

     -- both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
        awarded; and

     -- payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and expert
        fees.

The suit is "Joan Capobianco et al v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. et
al, Case No. 2:08-Cv-329-FHA-345PC," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          T. Omar Malone, Esq. (omalone@fdlaw.net)
          Randy Rosenblum, Esq. (rrosenblum@fdlaw.net)
          Manuel L. Dobrinsky, Esq. (mdobrinsky@fdlaw.net)
          Freidin & Dobrinsky, PA
          One Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3100
          2 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, Florida
          Phone: (305) 371-3666
          Fax: (305) 371-6725


DESERET CHEMICAL: $4.2MM Overtime Pay Settlement Gets Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dee Benson gave final approval to a
settlement that will pay approximately $4.2 million to workers
at the Deseret Chemical Depot who claimed that they were cheated
out of overtime pay, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

According to Salt Lake Tribune, the settlement deal covers EG&G
Defense Materials Inc. employees who worked any time on or after
May 24, 2000, at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility,
which is located on the depot.  About 300 of the 500 eligible
workers have opted in to the settlement, according to Jesse
Brar, Esq., one of the workers' attorneys.

EG&G, the report explains, is a contractor to the U.S. Army and
has about 750 employees at the facility, about 40 miles
southwest of Salt Lake City.  Under an international treaty,
these workers are destroying the nation's stockpile of chemical
weapons.

Salt Lake Tribune recounts that some workers filed the class-
action lawsuit in 2004, asserting that they should have been on
the clock and paid for the time spent on tasks like waiting to
clear security stations; putting on protective gear; and picking
up kits that contain masks and nerve agent antidotes.

Lawyers for EG&G had responded that the law exempts from pay
activities that are preliminary to an employee's principal
activity, including the walk to their workstation.  They also
said picking up the mask kits takes only a few seconds to a few
minutes.

However, Judge Benson rejected the defendants' argument and
ruled in 2007 that picking up the kit is "integral and
indispensable" to the employees' work.  He noted that each
worker is fitted with a personalized mask and required to carry
a kit at all times.

After negotiations, the two sides agreed to the settlement
presented in court.  EG&G denies any liability but acknowledged
that continued litigation would be expensive and contrary to its
best interests.

Of the total settlement, $425,000 has been designated for
attorneys' fees and costs, the report notes.  Most of the
remainder will be given in cash payments to eligible workers and
$100,000 will be used for matching contributions to a 401(k)
plan.

Salt Lake Tribune relates that still to be resolved in this case
and a similar lawsuit against Battelle Memorial Institute, an
EG&G subcontractor, is a claim that the companies failed to pay
monitoring technicians overtime for work performed during meal
breaks.


DVI INC: Securities Lawsuit in Penna. Denied Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooley Godward Kronish has achieved a major victory in a
securities class action in which the firm represented the law
firm of Clifford Chance.

It is one of the first opinions applying the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v.
Scientific-Atlanta.

The plaintiffs alleged that Clifford Chance was liable under a
10-b(5) scheme liability theory for a fraud allegedly
perpetrated by its former (and now defunct) client, DVI, a
medical equipment finance company.

The district court denied class certification as to Clifford
Chance, holding that the fraud on the market presumption did not
apply since no public statements were attributed to the firm and
the firm had not engaged in any conduct that could be relied
upon by investors.

The suit is "In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:03-CV-5336," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis.  
  
For more information, contact:

          William J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Celia G. Barenholtz, Esq.
          Cooley Godward Kronish
          The Grace Building
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-7798
          Phone: 212-479-6000
          Fax: 212-479-6275


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Oakland Claims 'Bid Rigging' in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oakland City Attorney John Russo filed a federal lawsuit against
some of America's most powerful financial institutions, saying
they conspired to rip off taxpayers in Oakland and other cities,
Kelly Rayburn writes for Tri Valley Herald.

According to Tri Valley, the antitrust suit piggybacks on an
investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into allegations
that financial firms and brokers conspired to provide lower-
than-market bids to municipalities on so-called guaranteed
investment contracts.

The report explains that cities rely on bond sales for public
projects of all kinds.  Often times they take bond proceeds and
deposit them into guaranteed investment contracts, allowing for
a higher rate of interest on the money while still having it
available when needed.

Tri Valley says that Mr. Russo's lawsuit alleges "bid rigging"
by financial firms and brokers, saying they colluded to keep
interest rates below market, costing cities such as Oakland
hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.

Named in the lawsuit, among others, are:

          * Bank of America,

          * JPMorgan Chase,

          * Merrill Lynch,

          * Morgan Stanley, and

          * Bear Stearns.

Bank of America, however, did strike a deal with the federal
government over that investigation, Tri Valley says.  In 2007,
the bank agreed to cooperate with the feds in exchange for
amnesty from criminal antitrust prosecution.  The bank then
released a statement saying that it does "not admit to any
conduct that would be subject to liability under the Internal
Revenue Code."

According to the report, no indictments have been issued in the
federal investigation, but a number of companies have been
subpoenaed.  Mr. Russo said Bank of America's decision to
cooperate was crucial to the city's suit.

Councilmember Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel), who heads the
council's finance committee, said the money allegedly lost could
have been used to benefit city residents.  Mr. Russo said the
scheme cost Oakland at least $500,000 since 1992, possibly more.

"What this really means, in practical terms, is affordable
housing, this is open space we could have bought, this is
improvements that could have been made that weren't made,
because we weren't getting the interest rate we should have been
getting," Ms. Quan said.

Ms. Quan added that the city has tens of millions wrapped up in
guaranteed investment contracts, including $38 million for
affordable housing, $12 million for the zoo, $8 million for
museum upgrades and millions more for redevelopment zones.  She
provided these data, she said, only to point out how much money
is placed in such investments.  

Mr. Russo is seeking class-action status in the suit.

The legal action is the first of its kind in California, Mr.
Russo noted, but jurisdictions in other parts of the country
have filed similar lawsuits.

Mr. Russo, however, said that he does not believe the defendants
specifically targeted Oakland.  "I'm sure these folks just
wanted to make as much money as they could," he said.

JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns did not
return phone calls by Tri Valley seeking comment.  A Bank of
America spokeswoman said she could not comment because the
company had not seen the lawsuit yet.


FINANCIAL SECURITY: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bidding of GICs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd., is facing two
purported class action suits seeking damages for alleged
violations of antitrust laws in connection with the bidding of
municipal guaranteed investment contracts and derivatives,
according to GSAMP 2007-HSBC1's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits are:

     1. "Hinds County, Mississippi et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A. et al., Case No. 08 CV 2516," filed on March 12,
        2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
        District of New York; and

     2. "Fairfax County, Virginia et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
        N.A., et al., Case No. 08-cv-00432," filed on March 12,
        2008, with the U.S. District Court for the District of
        Columbia.   

In both lawsuits, a large number of financial institutions,
including the company and the Financial Security Assurance,
Inc., are named as defendants.  

New York-based Financial Security Assurance Holdings, Ltd. --
http://www.fsa.com/-- through its subsidiary, Financial  
Security Assurance, Inc. provides guaranty insurance on
municipal bonds and asset-backed obligations.  The company
insures new issues and those already trading in the secondary
market; it also writes portfolio insurance for securities held
by investment funds.  The company is licensed as a guaranty
insurer in the US and in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands; it also operates in Europe and the Pacific Rim.  
French-Belgian financial services company Dexia owns almost all
of Financial Security Assurance Holdings.


FIRST BANKS: $5 Check Fee Suit Dismissal Upheld by Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 8, 2007, that Gail
Renshaw, Esq., of the Lakin Law Firm, appealed to the Fifth
District in Mt. Vernon the Madison County Circuit Court's
dismissal of a check cashing fee class action complaint filed
against First Banks.

In an update, the Madison County Record relates that in a
unanimous Rule 23 order, the Fifth District Appellate Court
affirmed former Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber's ruling
dismissing the class action complaint.

According to Madison County Record, Justices James Wexstten,
James Donovan and Stephen Spomer concurred with the dismissal.

                        Case Background

The Lakin Law Firm filed the suit on March 9, 2004, on behalf of
Darryl Johnson of Collinsville, alleging that Mr. Johnson paid
$5 each time he cashed a check drawn on First Banks because he
had no account there.

First Banks, through Troy Bozarth, Esq., of the Hepler Broom law
firm, in Edwardsville, asked the court to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that Mr. Johnson lacked standing to sue because he was
not a customer.

Judge Weber reluctantly dismissed the class action complaint on
Nov. 14, 2006, Madison County Record says.

"It seems to be unwise policy to allow a bank to charge a fee to
cash a check drawn on the bank," Judge Weber wrote.  "However
unwise this policy seems, it appears to be the law."

"Although the court is of the opinion that there should be a
cause of action when a bank charges a fee for cashing a check
drawn on the bank, that is, apparently not the law," he added.

Mr. Johnson claimed that by charging a fee, the bank wrongfully
dishonored the check and moved to certify a class action, with
him representing thousands who had paid the fee in the United
States.

Mr. Bozarth objected, arguing that Mr. Johnson had no claim
because he paid the $5 voluntarily.  Mr. Bozarth also argued
that Mr. Johnson did not have standing to assert a cause of
action for wrongful dishonor under Section 4-402 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and that his claims were preempted by the
National Bank Act and the regulations and regulatory
interpretations issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency.

Judge Weber ruled that the voluntary payment doctrine does not
apply because the act to refuse to honor a check drawn on the
bank under these circumstances is coercive.

"A reasonable consumer should be able to cash a check drawn on
First Bank at First Bank without a fee," Judge Weber wrote.  He
said that the holder of the check is a third party beneficiary
to the contract between the bank and the payor of the check.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          The Lakin Law Firm
          300 Evans Ave.
          P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, Illinois 62095
          Phone: (618) 254-1127
          Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/


HANAROTELECOM: Subscribers Sue Over Leak of User Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribers of South Korean broadband and fixed-line operator
Hanarotelecom (KSE:033630) launched a class-action lawsuit
against the company on April 28, 2008, amid allegations that
former management officials were involved in illegally selling
customer information in the past, Asia Pulse reports.

The report recalls that last week, the police revealed that
several former managers, including Hanarotelecom's former
president, allegedly sold the private information, including
resident registration and phone numbers, of some 6 million users
to telemarketing companies over the past two years.

Namkang Law & IP Firm, the Seoul-based law firm representing 30
Hanarotelecom subscribers, told Asia Pulse that it filed a
lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court, requesting that
the company offer compensation of KRW1 million (US$1,004) to
each client for illegally selling their information.

Meanwhile, the report relates, National Council of the Green
Consumers Network in Korea, together with other consumer
advocacy groups, launched a buyer's strike against Hanarotelecom
products.

The NCGCN, with the Consumers Korea and the Korea YMCA, held a
press conference recently, calling for the Broadcasting and
Communications Commission to cancel Hanarotelecom's business
permit and urging users to join in class-action lawsuits.

Asia Pulse further says that a recent spate of private
information leaks and theft online have raised serious questions
about South Korea's Internet security, tarnishing its image as
an information technology powerhouse.  

The report recounts that Internet Auction Co.'s -- the local
unit of U.S. online auction house eBay Inc. -- Web site was
hacked in early February, leading to the theft of 10.8 million
users' information, while mobile carrier LG Telecom Co.
(KSE:032640) was found last week to have been attacked by a
hacker who managed to access the private information of its
subscribers.


ILLINOIS: Motorists Complain of Outrageous Toll Fines
-----------------------------------------------------
A Chicago lawyer is taking on the Illinois State Toll Highway
Authority over the issue of more than $50 million in fees and
fines imposed on drivers accused of skipping out on tolls,
according to TheNewspaper.com.

The report recalls that earlier last month, the Southtown Star
newspaper reported that Daniel Edelman filed a class action
lawsuit against the toll agency for depriving motorists of their
due process rights.

In addition, motorists like Leslie Boudreau were accused of
cheating because the credit card set up to keep their electronic
toll transponder account current had expired.  These drivers
never received notification of any problem between July 2006 and
August 2007 because the tollway had changed its billing
contractors.

In Mr. Boudreau's case, TheNewspaper.com notes, this delay
turned $180 in tolls that inadvertently went unpaid into a bill
for $4,620.  Motorists who attempted to call the tollway and
complain or challenge a citation met a near continuous busy
signal.

The Southtown Star also reported on the case of Michael Healy,
who the tollway accused of cheating to the tune of $3,106.60.
Mr. Healy, who gave up driving entirely three years ago, never
received any notice until the massive bill hit.  His son, Jim
Healy, was actually the one driving the car and was responsible
for skipping the tolls.  When Jim attempted to transfer the
fines to his name, the agency refused and his father was forced
to pay the full amount on his credit card.

"The registered owner of the vehicle is liable," tollway
spokesman Joelle McGinnis told the Star.  "It is something a
family must settle amongst themselves."

Outraged motorists in Orange County, California, filed a similar
lawsuit in 2007 after being hit with individual toll bills that
ballooned up to $90,000, TheNewspaper.com points out.


INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Approval of "Nuanes" Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Court of Appeals in California affirmed an order approving the
settlement in matter, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al."

In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited
partnership units of National Property Investors 5, commenced a
purported class action entitled, "Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v.
Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al." with the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the
Partnership, its Managing General Partner, NPI Equity
Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and
Management Co., and several of their affiliated partnerships and
corporate entities.

The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of
limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named
as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things:

       -- the acquisition of interests in certain Managing
          General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group,
          Inc., and entities that were, at one time, affiliates
          of Insignia;

       -- past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to
          acquire limited partnership units;

       -- management of the partnerships by the Insignia
          affiliates; and

       -- the series of transactions which closed on Oct. 1,
          1998, and Feb. 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia
          Property Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.

The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief,
including judicial dissolution of the Partnership.

In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint
captioned, "Heller v. Insignia Financial Group," was filed
against the same defendants that are named in "Nuanes."

On Aug. 6, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.  
The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action,
and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary
duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
judicial dissolution.

On Jan. 28, 2002, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to strike the complaint.  The Plaintiffs took an appeal from
this order.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement
in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller
action.

On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the
settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller
actions.

On Aug. 12, 2003, an objector filed an appeal seeking to vacate
and reverse the order approving the settlement and entering
judgment thereto.  

On May 4, 2004, the objector filed a second appeal challenging
the court's use of a referee and its order requiring objector to
pay those fees.

On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both
pending appeals.  

With regard to the settlement and the judgment entered, the
Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to
the trial court for further findings on the basis that the
"state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful
appellate review."

The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21,
2005.  

With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the order requiring the objector to pay referee fees.  With
respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the
first amended complaint.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the objector and his counsel filed a motion to
disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and
filed a motion to disqualify for cause on Oct. 17, 2005, both of
which were ultimately denied and struck by the trial court.

On Oct. 13, 2005, the objector filed a motion to intervene and
on Oct. 19, 2005, filed both a motion to take discovery relating
to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and
a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with
settlement.  

On Nov. 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Further
Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals.
The defendants joined in that motion.  

On Feb. 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters
pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the
parties and the objector.  

On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming
its approval of the class action settlement and entering
judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the
matter for further findings.  

The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain
unchanged.  

The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1,
2006, denying the objector's Motion to File a Complaint in
Intervention, the objector's Motion for Leave of Discovery and
Objector's Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice
of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.

On Aug. 31, 2006, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Court's June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders.  

The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal
issued an opinion on Feb. 20, 2008, affirming the order
approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto.

On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant's
Petition for Re-Hearing.  Appellant has until April 1, 2008, to
file a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court,
according to National Property Investors 5's March 28, 2008 Form
10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Andean Ops Suit in Calif. Belongs in Peru
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles superior court judge recently ruled that a class-
action lawsuit filed by an indigenous group in Peru against
Occidental Petroleum Corp. in Los Angeles County Superior Court
belonged in Peruvian rather than U.S. jurisdiction.

In 2007, 25 Achuar Indians -- who claim they suffered health
problems from cancer to lead poisoning due to exposure to
contaminants from Occidental's oil production operation --  
brought the complaint (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2007).

It claimed Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s oil production
operations in the Andean nation resulted in toxic levels of
pollution that left many people sick or at risk of serious
illness.

The group, native to Peru's Upper Corrientes Basin, claims the
region gradually became contaminated by pollutants over the
three decades since Occidental first established operations
there.

According to the lawsuit, Occidental discharged millions of
gallons of water used to process crude oil back into local
waterways, flooding rivers with heavy metals, radioactive
compounds and other harmful compounds.  The crude oil processing
also released gasses that have contributed to air pollution and
acid rain, the group claims.

The suit further alleges the Achuar's land was also exposed to
contamination from chemical waste, which the company stored in
unlined earthen pits.

Government health studies have found that Achuar Indians in the
zone suffer high blood concentrations of cadmium and lead -- a
problem that Peruvian officials have said goes back to the 1970s
when Occidental operated in the region.

The company pumped oil in Peru's northern jungle until 1999,
when its operations were bought by the Argentine-run company
Pluspetrol, the report said.

The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

Apu Tomas Maynas Carijano is the lead plaintiff in the suit.

But in light of the recent court decision, the plaintiff's
lawyers are now considering whether to appeal that decision or
whether to launch a new lawsuit in Peru.

"Whether it is here in Los Angeles or back in Peru, we will get
justice. Oxy will clean up," said Henderson Rengifo, an Achuar
leader who has traveled to LA this week.


SIRVA INC: Establishes Separate Class for Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
SIRVA, Inc., a global relocation services provider, reached an
agreement with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
that will resolve the Committee's objections to the Company's
proposed Plan of Reorganization.

The agreement is supported by representatives for all major
creditor groups and includes all individual members of the
Committee.

Under the agreement, all allowed claims of Class 5 creditors
will receive a distribution of 25%.  A separate class for
certain putative antitrust class action claims will be
established.

Members of that class would receive a pro rata share of
$5 million, consisting of $3 million in cash and $2 million in a
second lien note.  The specific terms are set forth in a
modified Plan of Reorganization.  The settlement will be funded
by the Company's secured lenders.

All other terms of the Company's reorganization plan will remain
the same, including providing payment in full to all members of
Class 4, which includes ongoing business partners.

The Plan of Reorganization will be filed with the court today.
Judge James M. Peck of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York will hold a Confirmation Hearing
on the revised Plan following a brief solicitation of Class 1
creditors to be completed early next week.  A favorable ruling
at the Confirmation Hearing will mark the last major milestone
in SIRVA's Chapter 11 case, paving the way for SIRVA's emergence
from Chapter 11.

Headquartered in Westmont, Illinois, SIRVA Inc. (Pink Sheets :
SIRV.PK) -- http://www.sirva.com/-- is a provider of relocation
solutions to a well-established and diverse customer base.  The
company handles all aspects of relocation, including home
purchase and home sale services, household goods moving,
mortgage services and home closing and settlement services.
SIRVA conducts more than 300,000 relocations per year,
transferring corporate and government employees along with
individual consumers.  SIRVA's brands include Allied, Allied
International, Allied Pickfords, Allied Special Products, DJK
Residential, Global, northAmerican, northAmerican International,
Settlement.  The company has operations in Costa Rica.
Pickfords, SIRVA Mortgage, SIRVA Relocation and SIRVA

The company and 61 of its affiliates filed separate petitions
for Chapter 11 protection on Feb. 5, 2008 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case
No. 08-10433).  Marc Kieselstein, Esq. at Kirkland & Ellis,
L.L.P. is representing the Debtor.  An official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors has been appointed in this case.  When the
Debtors filed for bankruptcy, it reported total assets of
US$924,457,299 and total debts of US$1,232,566,813 for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.


SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA: Employees Seek Unpaid Back Wages in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Speedway SuperAmerica LLC commenced a
federal lawsuit in St. Paul against the Ohio-based company over
unpaid back wages, Pioneer Press reports.

Constantine Thompson, who once lived in Minnesota, and Tina Dado
of Illinois, are the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which also
seeks unspecified damages aside from the back wages.  The suit
is asking class-action status.

According to Pioneer Press, the lawsuit involves current and
former assistant managers, shift leaders or co-managers employed
by Speedway SuperAmerica during the past three years. The suit
could potentially involve several thousand employees, an
attorney for the plaintiffs told Pioneer Press.

Mr. Thompson said in a statement that he was pressured by
Speedway to work off the clock while employed at SuperAmerica
locations in Mounds View, Brooklyn Park, and Maple Grove.

Speedway SuperAmerica, a subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Co.,
operates about 1,600 locations in nine Midwest states, including
217 SuperAmerica locations in Minnesota, Pioneer Press points
out.

"Many nights I took phone calls relating to store business. I
was never compensated for this work, which interrupted my family
life and contributed to Speedway's successful operation," said
Mr. Thompson, who now lives in Miami.

Jon Tostrud, Esq., a Los Angeles attorney representing the
plaintiffs, told Pioneer Press that the jobs covered in the suit
are typically $8 to $10 an hour positions.

"They're not salaried managers," Mr. Tostrud said.  "They're
hourly paid employees.  When you're an hourly paid employee,
you're to be paid for every hour you work."

Specifically, according to the complaint against Speedway
SuperAmerica:

   -- The plaintiffs regularly worked several hours per week off
      the clock beyond their regularly scheduled hours;

   -- They received calls at home relating to customer
      complaints, store alarms, missed shifts, computer and
      register problems and other store issues.  In response,
      they routinely returned to the store to address these
      issues but were not compensated for the time actually
      spent answering and responding to these calls.  They also
      were required to work through mandatory meal and rest
      breaks without compensation; and

   -- Speedway SuperAmerica failed to accurately record actual
      hours worked and willfully encouraged and directed
      employees to perform tasks and work additional time,
      including overtime, off the clock.  Speedway knew it
      failed to pay these employees for all hours actually
      worked, including regular and overtime wage compensation.

Linda Casey, a spokeswoman for Speedway SuperAmerica, told
Pioneer Press that the company does not comment on pending
litigation.


WM WRIGLEY: Illinois Suit Challenges Sale of Company to Mars Inc
----------------------------------------------------------------
WM. Wrigley Jr. Company is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois challenging the $23-billion sale to Mars Inc., for $80
a share, and object to the more than $70 million in "change of
control benefits" for Wrigley directors, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a shareholder derivative action brought by a shareholder
of the company on behalf of the company and a class action
brought by company shareholder Robert L. Garber on behalf of the
holders of Wrigley common stock.

The action is brought against the company's Board of Directors
for breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant's
efforts to sell the company to Mars Inc. via an unfair process
and at the inadequate and unfair price.

Defendant William Wrigley Jr. controls 40% of the voting stock,
the class states.  The plaintiffs say the rapidly negotiated
sale illegally provided "Wrigley insiders and directors with
preferential treatment at the expense of the public
shareholders."

They claim Wrigley shares were expected to "pop" -- i.e., rise
in value -- even before the sale was announced.  They claim the
$80 per share sale price effectively capped the price of the
stock.  "Thus, Company insiders get to 'have their cake and eat
it took' while the Company's public shareholders are frozen out
of the Company's brightening future prospects."

They claim Wrigley Jr. will get $26 million "change of control
benefits" and CEO William Perez will get $15 million.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendants have engaged and are continuing
         to engage in a plan and scheme t benefit themselves at
         the expense of the members of the class;

     (b) whether the individual defendants have fulfilled, and
         are capable of fulfilling, their fiduciary duties to
         plaintiff and the other members of the class, including
         their duties of loyalty, due care and candor, which
         include, in this assistance, the duty to maximize
         shareholder value;

     (c) whether defendants have unlawfully employed lock-up
         provisions in order to impede, thwart or prevent the
         successful emergence of any alternative bid for Wrigley
         shares that offers greater value to plaintiff and the
         class than does the proposed buyout;

     (d) whether the individual defendants are engaging in self-
         dealing in connection with the proposed buyout;

     (e) whether the individual defendants are unjustly
         enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates
         of Wrigley;

     (f) whether the proposed buyout is entirely fair to the
         members of the class;

     (g) whether the defendants have disclosed all material
         facts in connection with the true value of the company
         and the challenged transaction; and

     (h) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would be irreparably harmed if the defendants are not
         enjoined from effectuating the conduct described.

The plaintiffs demand injunctive relief:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class and derivative action;

     -- declaring and decreeing that the proposed buyout and
        merger agreement was entered into in breach of the
        fiduciary duties of defendants and is therefore unlawful
        and unenforceable;

     -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
        and all persons acting in concert with them from
        consummating the proposed buyout, unless and until the
        company adopts and implements a procedure or process to
        obtain the highest possible price for shareholders;

     -- directing defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties
        to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of
        Wrigley shareholders until the process for the sale or
        auction of the company is completed and the highest
        possible price is obtained;

     -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        proposed buyout or any of the terms thereof;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees; and

     -- granting such other and further equitable relief as the
        court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Robert L. Garber et al. v. William Wrigley et al.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Phone: (312) 634-0057
          Fax: (312) 634-0059


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP disclosed that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Arbitron, Inc.
common stock during the period between July 19, 2007, and
November 26, 2007.

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

The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides media and
marketing information services in the United States and
internationally.  The Company's Portable People Meter ratings
service is purportedly capable of measuring radio, broadcast
television, cable television, Internet broadcasts, satellite
radio and television audiences, and retail store video and audio
broadcasts.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company's scheduled implementation of its
         Portable People Meter ratings service in certain major
         markets was not performing according to internal
         expectations and the Company was experiencing
         significant difficulties such that it would have to
         delay its implementation; and

    (ii) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the timing of the
         implementation of Arbitron's Portable People Meter
         ratings service and the Company's prospects and future
         earnings.

On November 26, 2007, Arbitron announced that "it (would) delay
the commercialization of its Portable People Meter (PPM) radio
ratings service in nine markets" and that the Company would be
revising its financial guidance for 2007 and its outlook for
2008. In response to this announcement, the price of Arbitron
common stock declined $7.21 per share, or over 14.74%, to close
at $41.70 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Arbitron common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          e-mail: djr@csgrr.com


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Stull & Brody Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action suit 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 complaint alleges that Blackstone and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially inaccurate
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
Company's IPO.

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

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2007,
the periods ending December 31, 2007.  Among other disclosures,
the Company announced that it was writing down its investment in
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million.

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

For more information, contact:

          Tzivia Brody, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983
          Fax: 1-212-490-2022
          e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
          Web site: htpp:/www.ssbny.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Finkelstein Thompson Files MA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
First Marblehead Corporation between August 10, 2006, and
April 7, 2008 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that First Marblehead and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

First Marblehead engages in the packaging and securitization of
student loans.  The Education Resources Institute is a nonprofit
organization that guaranteed nearly all student loans originated
by First Marblehead that resulted in default.

According to the Complaint, First Marblehead misrepresented or
failed to disclose that:

     (a) First Marblehead's portfolio had experienced increasing
         default rates and was not performing according to the
         Company's representations;

     (b) TERI, as guarantor of First Marblehead loan securities,
         was not financially equipped to handle the increasing
         defaults;

     (c) a securitization in the second quarter of fiscal year
         2008 was unlikely;

     (d) First Marblehead had a larger role in the management of
         TERI's day-to-day affairs than represented to
         investors;

     (e) First Marblehead was unable to manage the risk of
         TERI's portfolio; and

     (f) First Marblehead lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls.

On April 8, 2008, First Marblehead revealed that TERI had filed
for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.  On this news, First
Marblehead shares plunged 37% to close at $4.86 per share on
April 8, 2008, on unusually heavy trading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (877) 337-1050
          e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Murray Frank Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of The First Marblehead Corporation during the
period August 9, 2007, through April 8, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges First Marblehead and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that recently enacted and impending legislation would
         have a significant negative impact on the Company's
         business and prospects; and

     (2) that the Company's student loan guarantor, The
         Education Resources Institute Inc., was under-
         reserved and facing bankruptcy.

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

For more information, contact:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          http://www.murrayfrank.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Labaton Sucharow
LLP filed a class action lawsuit on April 29, 2008, with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. between September 13, 2006, and July 30,
2007, inclusive.

The complaint names Lehman Brothers, Richard S. Fuld,
Christopher M. O'Meara, and Joseph M. Gregory as defendants.  
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements about
Lehman Brothers' financial well-being, business operations and
prospects, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that Defendants failed to
fully disclose the nature and extent of the Company's exposure
to losses incurred from trading in subprime mortgage-backed
derivatives and that the Company failed to timely writedown its
positions in these securities.  On July 10, 2007, Lehman
Brothers announced that it had "unrealized" losses of
$459 million in the quarter ended May 31, 2007, from mortgages
and mortgage-backed assets in its inventory.

On the same day, it was reported that Standard & Poor's
indicated that it may cut ratings on $12 billion of bonds backed
by subprime mortgages, a move that would significantly cut into
the Company's trading profits, since it is Wall Street's largest
underwriter of mortgage bonds.  As a result of the news, Lehman
Brothers' stock fell $3.76 per share on July 10, 2007, on
unusually high trading volume.  Throughout the remainder of the
Class Period, Lehman Brothers continued to downplay the risks
associated with owning these mortgage-backed securities, and the
nature and true extent of the Company's exposure to subprime-
related assets and financial positions.  On July 26, 2007, it
was reported by Bloomberg that the risk of owning Lehman
Brothers' bonds "soared" and its share price plunged "as
concerns escalated that investment banks will be hurt by losses
from subprime mortgages and corporate debt."

The report detailed the soaring cost of credit-default swaps
used to bet on Lehman Brothers' creditworthiness, signaling a
significant deterioration in investor confidence.  On this news,
Lehman Brothers' shares fell an additional $3.16 per share on
July 26, 2007, again on unusually heavy trading volume.  
Finally, on July 31, 2007, Bloomberg reported that ". . . Lehman
Brothers (is) as good as junk" because the prices of credit-
default swaps for the Company equated to a Ba1 rating, implying
that the Company's credit ratings were below investment grade.
On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $2.80 on
heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 30,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476
         
               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 888-299-7706


TD AMERITRADE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all those who purchased Auction Rate Securities from TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation between March 19, 2003 and
February 13, 2008, inclusive, to recover damages caused by TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp. and TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s violation of
the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that TD Ameritrade violated the securities
laws by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics
of Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these
securities traded.

Auction Rate Securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions."  Auction Rate Securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.

The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, TD Ameritrade offered and
sold Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid
cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money
market mutual funds.  According to the Complaint, those who now
hold Auction Rate Securities sold by TD Ameritrade cannot
liquidate their positions since the auction market for these
securities has collapsed.

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

For more information, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com


TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
commenced a class action with the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers
of securities of TETRA Technologies, Inc. from January 3, 2007,
through October 16, 2007, inclusive.

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

TETRA is an oil and gas services company, which includes an
integrated calcium chloride and brominated products
manufacturing operation that supplies feedstocks to energy
markets, as well as other markets.  The Company operates in
three divisions: Fluids, Well Abandonment and Decommissioning  
Services, and Product Enhancement.

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

      (1) that the Company's WA&D Services division was
          performing below internal expectations;

      (2) that the Company had not taken timely charges for
          uncollectable insurance receivables;

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

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

On August 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was reducing its 2007 earning guidance from
$1.80-$2.15 per diluted share to $1.30-$1.50 per share, due to
the fact that second quarter earnings were below Company
expectations.  The Company stated that its Fluids Division was
impacted by higher inventory costs and that WA&D Services
generated substantially less profits than anticipated.

Nonetheless, the Company stated that the reasons for its weak
performance were transitory, and that the second half of 2007
should exceed the first half, due to lower Fluids production
costs and a more efficiently run WA&D Services operation.  Upon
the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $6.64
per share, or 25.14 percent, to close on August 3, 2007 at
$19.77 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Then, on October 16, 2007, the Company further shocked investors
when it announced the withdrawal of the 2007 earnings guidance
it had issued on August 3, 2007, stating that the negative
factors that affected the first half of 2007 would also
adversely impact the third quarter.  The Company disclosed that
it would record impairments of certain oil and gas properties,
and that by the end of the year, the Company could experience
earnings impacts from insurance related issues, changes in asset
retirement obligations, asset sales, and successful efforts
impairments.  Upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined $1.76 per share, or 8.14 percent, to close on
October 16, 2007 at $19.86 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Exxon in Altimore Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), reversed
the ruling of the 405th District Court, Galveston County, Tex.,
which ruled against Exxon Mobil Corporation, in an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Louise Altimore.

The case is styled Exxon Mobil Corporation, Appellant v. Louise
Altimore, Appellee.

Justices Charles Seymore, Hedges, and Murphy entered judgment of
Case No. 14-04-01133-CV on April 3, 2008.

Mrs. Altimore's deceased husband, Mike Altimore, was employed at
Exxon's Baytown refinery from 1942 until he retired in 1977. He
was a machinist until 1972, when he was promoted to a
supervisory position and worked in an air-conditioned tool room
at the polyolefins unit.

Mrs. Altimore sued Exxon and 69 other defendants alleging
negligence and gross negligence in connection with injuries
claimed as a result of exposure to asbestos dust brought home on
her husband's clothes. Before trial, she settled or dismissed
her claims against all defendants except Exxon.

Following presentation of the evidence and arguments of counsel,
the jury awarded actual damages totaling US$992,001. The jury
also assessed the same amount in exemplary damages. After
allocating settlement credits, the trial court rendered
judgment based solely on the jury's assessment of exemplary
damages.

Exxon's post-trial motions for new trial, remittitur and to
modify the judgment were overruled by operation of law.

This was a personal injury case wherein Exxon sought reversal of
a judgment for exemplary damages.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's award
of exemplary damages and rendered judgment that Mrs. Altimore
take nothing.

Reagan W. Simpson, Aditi Dravid, Gary D. Elliston, Glenna M.
Kyle, Bryant Robert Bremer, Amy C. Eikel, represented Exxon
Mobil Corporation.

Troy Damon Chandler, Daryl L. Moore, Denmon Heard, represented
Louise Altimore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Has $872M Receivable at Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Mogul Corporation's long-term asbestos-related insurance
receivable amounted to US$872.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos liabilities were US$1.389 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$1.392 billion as of Dec. 31,
2006.

Southfield, Mich.-based Federal-Mogul Corporation is a global
supplier of parts, components, modules and systems to customers
in the automotive, small engine, heavy-duty, marine, railroad,
aerospace and industrial markets. The Company is organized into
six primary reporting segments: Powertrain Energy, Powertrain
Sealing and Bearings, Vehicle Safety and Protection, Automotive
Products, Global Aftermarket, and Corporate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Expends $2.5M for Claims at Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the five-year period ended Oct. 31, 2007, Veolia
Environnement's average annual expenses relating to claims
(asbestos, silica, and other potentially harmful substances),
have been about US$2.5 million, excluding any reimbursements by
insurance companies.

Several present and former indirect subsidiaries of Veolia Eau,
a Company subsidiary, in the United States are defendants in
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs seek to recover for personal
injury and other damages for alleged exposure to asbestos,
silica and other potentially harmful substances.

With respect to the lawsuits against Veolia Eau's former
subsidiaries, certain of Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries
remain liable and sometimes have to manage the outcomes.
Further, the acquirers of Veolia Eau's former subsidiaries in
some instances benefit from guarantees given by Veolia Eau or by
the Company relating to such lawsuits.

These lawsuits typically allege that the plaintiffs' injuries
resulted from the use of products manufactured or sold by Veolia
Eau's present or former subsidiaries or their predecessors.
There are generally numerous other defendants, in addition to
Veolia Eau's present or former subsidiaries, which are accused
of having contributed to the injuries.

Reserves have been accrued by Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries
for their estimated liability in these cases based on the
relation between the injuries claimed and the products
manufactured or sold by Veolia Eau's subsidiaries or their
predecessors, the extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by
the plaintiffs, the involvement of other defendants and the
settlement history in similar cases.

A number of such claims have been resolved to date either
through settlement or dismissal. To date, no court decisions
have been issued relating to any of these claims.

Paris, France-based Veolia Environnement engages in water
management, waste management, energy, and transportation. The
Company's Veolia Water unit provides water and wastewater
services to more than 110 million people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation states that occupational claims
(including asbestosis and other respiratory diseases, as well as
conditions allegedly related to repetitive motion) it faces are
often not caused by a specific accident or event but rather
result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.

The actuarial firm provides an estimate of the occupational
claims liability based upon the Company's history of claim
filings, severity, payments and other pertinent facts. The
liability is dependent upon management's judgments made as to
the specific case reserves as well as judgments of the
consulting actuarial firm in the periodic studies.

The actuarial firm's estimate of ultimate loss includes a
provision for those claims that have been incurred but not
reported. This provision is derived by analyzing industry data
and projecting the Company's experience into the future as far
as can be reasonably determined.

Adjustments to the recorded liability are reflected in operating
expenses in the periods in which such adjustments become known.

Norfolk Southern Corporation's subsidiary, Norfolk Southern
Railway, transports freight over a network consisting of more
than 21,000 route miles in 22 states in the eastern U.S. and in
Ontario, Canada. The rail system is made up of more than 16,000
route miles owned by Norfolk Southern and about 5,000 route
miles of trackage rights, which allow the Company to use tracks
owned by other railroads. Norfolk Southern transports coal and
general merchandise, including automotive products and
chemicals. The Company is based in Norfolk, Va.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. DT Solutions Still Pending in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diversified Thermal Solutions, Inc.'s subsidiary, DT Solutions,
Inc., continues to face an asbestos-related lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of Allegheny County, Md.

On Sept. 25, 2005, First Capital Insulation, Inc. filed a
complaint against DT Solutions and Mt. Savage Firebrick Company.

DT Solutions entered into an agreement for the purchase of real
property from Mt. Savage Firebrick Company. First Capital
Insulation seeks about US$38,000 for its removal and disposition
of asbestos containing material from two brick ovens.

As of April 23, 2008, the date of the filing of the annual
report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, this
matter had not been resolved.

Based in Memphis, Tenn., Diversified Thermal Solutions, Inc.
manufactures refractory products, such as clay and brick, for
the linings of high-temperature furnaces and reactors. The
Company is expanding in the Southeast and Northeast of the U.S.,
primarily targeting non-ferrous industries such as aluminum,
incineration, paper, and petrochemical operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Face 631 Actions at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, are defendants in about
631 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 23, 2008.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, 27 new cases were
filed against the Company, 24 cases were resolved and two cases
were added to the count after further analysis by outside
counsel.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Celanese Ltd. CNA Holdings, Inc. faced about about 626 asbestos-
related cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008)

Dallas-based Celanese Corporation, with its subsidiaries, is a
leading global integrated chemical and advanced materials
company. The Company's business involves processing chemical raw
materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and
natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added
chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing 3rd-Party Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. continues to be involved in multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties,
and integrated into a very limited number of the Company's
industrial products.

No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured
or sold by the Company and that a number of cases have been
voluntarily dismissed, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 23, 2008.

Based in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and
marketer of products incorporating liquid flow measurement and
control technologies, developed both internally and in
conjunction with other technology companies. The Company's
product lines fall into two general categories, utility and
industrial flow measurement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Suits in Miss. & Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated continues to face asbestos-
related lawsuits in Mississippi and California courts, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008.

In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (2nd
Judicial District) and Jasper County (1st Judicial District),
Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 66 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 63 claims or lawsuits are pending
in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

Currently, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits
against the Company have been set for trial.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
assumed the defense and indemnity of two parties that formerly
held an interest in a predecessor company named in a lawsuit
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California.

The assumption of their defense and indemnity arises under the
terms and conditions of an Assumption Agreement given by Penrod
Drilling Corporation, the predecessor of one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages allegedly arising from
exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos while
employed by Penrod and several other named defendants between
1960 and the early 1990s. (Plaintiff alleges employment with
Penrod in 1980 and 1981.)

Inasmuch as the discovery process is in an early stage, it is
difficult to assess the exposure or predict the outcome of this
lawsuit.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an
international offshore contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15,
2008, the Company's offshore rig fleet included 44 jackup rigs,
one ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig and one barge rig.
Additionally, the Company has four ultra-deepwater semi-
submersible rigs under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $50M Claims Reserve at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved about US$50 million in total for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims, at March 31, 2008, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In the second quarter of 2005, Generation performed analyses to
determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses could be
calculated associated with asbestos-related personal injury
actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by other Company
subsidiaries, Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy
Company.

Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge
for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos-
related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through
2030. This amount did not include estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

As of March 31, 2008, about US$14 million of the US$50 million
relates to 172 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$36 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2030 based on actuarial assumptions and analysis.

Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, a utility services holding
company, operates through its principal subsidiaries: Exelon
Generation Company, LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; and PECO
Energy Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Pending v. Goodrich, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are defendants
in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of
exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in
personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing
products sold by those subsidiaries before the Company's
ownership.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro,
Coltec or its subsidiaries. Also, it is possible that a claim
might be asserted against the Company that Coltec's dividend of
its aerospace business to the Company prior to the spin-off was
made at a time when Coltec was insolvent or caused Coltec to
become insolvent.

Such a claim could seek recovery from the Company on behalf of
Coltec of the fair market value of the dividend.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that
was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and
products to the global defense and space markets. Products and
services are principally sold to customers in North America,
Europe and Asia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Has $261M Liability at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liability
amounted to US$261 million for the three months ended March 31,
2008, compared with US$300 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$11 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$13 million for the three months ended March 31,
2007.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure
to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases,
the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not
specify an amount of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has  
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at
March 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's principal
operating company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, links 23
states in the western two-thirds of the country and serves the
fastest-growing U.S. population centers. Union Pacific Railroad
Company's business mix includes agricultural products,
automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial products, and
intermodal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Morton Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc.,
continues to face pending lawsuits related to employee exposure
to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La.,
with more suits expected, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 25, 2008.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers' compensation laws.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have
closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs
associated with future Friction Division claims, including
defense costs, will be well below the Company's insurance
limits.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at Company facilities.

The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases
that it currently believes are probable and estimable.

Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Company operates as a global
specialty materials company. The Company reported sales of
US$8.9 billion in 2007 on a portfolio of global businesses
including electronic materials, specialty materials and salt.
The Company caters to markets including: building and
construction, electronics, packaging and paper, industrial and
other, transportation, household and personal care, water and
food. The Company has about 96 manufacturing and 35 research
facilities in 27 countries with about 15,710 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of the Company's
products many years ago.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the
Company's Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and
motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by
the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company also is responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against Rockwell
International Corporation's divested measurement and flow
control business.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from most of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above
self-insured retentions, for claims arising from its former
Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

The Company initiated litigation in the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court on Feb. 12, 2004 to enforce the insurance policies against
Nationwide Indemnity Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-
Bradley.

On April 1, 2008, the Company entered into separate agreements
with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility
for ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos
claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.

Nationwide will receive and administer the Kemper buyout funds
and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay the
substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for
Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds are
depleted.

Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial
automation company. The Company's control systems unit makes
industrial automation products like motor starters and
contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable
speed drives. To complement its automation product offerings,
the Company also offers factory management software
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 103T Claims Still Pending v. ITT at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation is facing about 103,000 open asbestos-related
claims, essentially unchanged from Dec. 31, 2007, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2008.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other industrial
companies in product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to
asbestos.

These claims stem primarily from products sold before 1985 that
contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket,
which allegedly contained asbestos. The asbestos was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may
have contained asbestos.

During the first quarter of 2008, the Company resolved about
1,400 claims. Nearly all of these claims were dismissed, with
settlement on a small percentage of claims. The average amount
of settlement per claim has been nominal and substantially all
defense and settlement costs have been covered by insurance.

The Company's estimated accrued costs, net of expected insurance
recoveries, for the resolution of all of these pending claims
were US$25.7 million as of March 31, 2008 and US$24.8 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company is involved in two actions, Cannon Electric, Inc. et
al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Company et al. Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, Calif., Case No. BC 290354, and Pacific
Employers Insurance Company et al., v. ITT Industries, Inc., et
al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.

The parties in both cases seek an appropriate allocation of
responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers.

The California action is filed in the same venue where the
Company's environmental insurance recovery litigation had been
pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor
of the California suit.

The Company and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully
resolved the matter and the Company is working with other
parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers.

In addition, Utica National and Goulds have negotiated a
coverage-in-place agreement to allocate the Goulds' asbestos
liabilities between insurance policies issued by Utica and those
issued by others.

The terms of the settlement provide Goulds with substantial
coverage from Utica for asbestos liabilities. Goulds will
continue to seek coverage from its other insurers for these
liabilities.

White Plains, N.Y. ITT Corporation is a global multi-industry
company engaged directly and through its subsidiaries in the
design and manufacture of engineered products and the provision
of related services. Its three principal business segments are
Fluid Technology, Defense Electronics & Services, and Motion &
Flow Control.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company, at March 31, 2008, has not recorded any
liability associated with asbestos-related indemnifications,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had
previously been named as defendants in a large number of
asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of the Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

Houston-based Halliburton Company offers services and products
to customers through its two business segments for the
exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. The
Company serves major, national, and independent oil and gas
companies throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Rise to 118T at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company rose to 118,000 during the three months ended March 31,
2008, from 117,400 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2008.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 1,100 new claims filed and 500 claims settled or
dismissed. Asbestos-related payments were US$4 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 2,400
new claims filed and 9,000 claims settled or dismissed.
Asbestos-related payments were US$22 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by
the Company or present in certain of its facilities. Typically,
these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in
state and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 49,600 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering
into a settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, totaled about US$302 million through March 31, 2008 and
US$297 million through Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$127
million at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$72 million at March 31,
2008 and US$76 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$55 million at March 31, 2008 and
US$51 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

At March 31, 2008, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities could exceed its recorded
reserve by US$20 to US$30 million, about 50 percent of which
would be recoverable by its accessible policy limits.

As of March 31, 2008 and as of Dec. 31, 2007, (i) the Company
had recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of US$71
million, and (ii) the Company expects that about 50 percent of
asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable up to its
accessible policy limits through the period covered by the
estimated liability.

The Company said it believes that at March 31, 2008, it had at
least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies.

A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$71 million insurance receivable recorded at
March 31, 2008. The Company also had about US$15 million in
aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for
premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs
available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-
in-place agreements at March 31, 2008.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
operates as a tire manufacturer. The Company has 64
manufacturing facilities in 25 countries, including the United
States. The Company operates its business through four operating
segments: North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa
Tire; Latin American Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Electric Cites $200M Charge in 1Q08
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company, in the first quarter of 2008, recorded
a US$200 million charge for an asbestos-related legal ruling,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2008.

Fairfield, Conn.-based General Electric Company produces
aircraft engines, locomotives and other transportation
equipment, kitchen and laundry appliances, lighting, electric
distribution and control equipment, generators and turbines, and
medical imaging equipment. The Company also offers commercial
finance, consumer finance, and equipment financing and leasing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Facing Pending Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in pending
asbestos-related lawsuits (which include, in many cases,
multiple claimants), according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28,
2008.

These suits seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by the Company in the past.

The aggregate number of asbestos-related claims against the
Company has declined in recent years.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation's products include
pumps, valves, seals, automation and aftermarket services in
support of global infrastructure industries including oil and
gas, chemical, power generation and water management, as well as
general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Liability Totals $221M at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$221 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with
US$227 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$28 million as of March 31, 2008, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$17.4 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$24.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated is a manufacturer
and marketer of specialty chemicals and related services for
business, consumer and industrial applications. The Company
operates on a global scale, with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and Latin America. Product sales occur in over 135
countries with significant revenue streams generated on five
continents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Hercules Drop to 25,320 at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unresolved asbestos-related claims against Hercules
Incorporated, as of March 31, 2008, dropped to 25,320, of which
about 905 were premises claims and the rest were product claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had about 25,562 unresolved
asbestos-related claims, of which about 925 were premises claims
and the rest were products claims. (Class Action Reporter,
March 14, 2008)

There were also about 1,825 unpaid claims which have been
settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.  

Between Jan. 1, 2008 and March 31, 2008, the Company received
about 472 new claims. During that same period, the Company spent
US$7.2 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters, including
US$6 million directly related to settlement payments and US$1.2
million for defense costs.

As of March 31, 2008, all of the cash recovered and all of the
monies placed into trust from the settlements with certain of
the Company's insurance carriers have been used by the Company
with respect to its asbestos-related liabilities or for other
corporate purposes, except for about US$17 million remaining in
trust as of the end of the first quarter of 2008.

As previously described in the 2007 Form 10-K, the Company
anticipates that the monies remaining in trust will be exhausted
during 2008, after which time the Company will be required to
fund defense costs and settlement payments for its asbestos-
related liabilities using cash from operations or other sources
until such time as the partial reimbursement obligations under
the Future Coverage Agreement are triggered.

The Agreements' obligations are not expected to be triggered
unless and until defense costs and settlement payments for
qualifying asbestos products claims paid by the Company
subsequent to the Oct. 13, 2004 effective date of that agreement
aggregate to about US$330 million to US$370 million.

As of March 31, 2008, defense costs and settlement payments for
qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$111 million have
been credited towards that range.

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated is a manufacturer
and marketer of specialty chemicals and related services for
business, consumer and industrial applications. The Company
operates on a global scale, with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and Latin America. Product sales occur in over 135
countries with significant revenue streams generated on five
continents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Records $3M Net Costs at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's net asbestos-related costs were US$3
million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$2.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2008.

During 2008, the Company anticipates the total cash requirements
for asbestos-related litigation matters to be about US$38
million. Of the total, about US$28 million is projected for
settlements and US$10 million is projected for defense costs.  

Wilmington, Del.-based Hercules Incorporated is a manufacturer
and marketer of specialty chemicals and related services for
business, consumer and industrial applications. The Company
operates on a global scale, with operations in North America,
Europe, Asia and Latin America. Product sales occur in over 135
countries with significant revenue streams generated on five
continents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 28,320 Claims Pending v. Lincoln at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at March 31, 2008, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 28,320 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 42
claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2008.

The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages,
in most cases for unspecified sums. Since Jan. 1, 1995, the
Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have
been resolved as follows: 27,029 of those claims were dismissed,
10 were tried to defense verdicts, four were tried to plaintiff
verdicts, one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 540 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about
28,362 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 2,697 claims from
those previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29,
2008)

Cleveland-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a designer
and manufacturer of arc welding and cutting products,
manufacturing a full line of arc welding equipment, consumable
welding products and other welding and cutting products. The
Company has manufacturing facilities located in the United
States, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany,
Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, People's Republic of
China, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, United Kingdom, Venezuela
and Vietnam.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd Cites $77M Obligations at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's asbestos obligations amounted to US$77 million as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$101 million as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24, 2008.

Included in cash flow from operations was a planned payment to
asbestos trusts of US$25 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Keeton
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, issued split rulings
in an asbestos-related case styled George W. Keeton, Claimant-
Appellee, v. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

Judges Prost, Friedman, and Moore entered judgment of Case No.
2005-7038 on March 5, 2008.

This was an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims.

Mr. Keeton and Mr. Peake each responded to the court's Dec. 5,
2007 order and request that the court summarily affirm the
judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in
Keeton v. Principi, 01-1444 (July 20, 2004).

The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied entitlement to service
connection for an asbestos-related lung disorder. The Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Board's decision and
remanded the case to the Board, and the Secretary appealed.

This case was stayed pending the court's disposition in Roan v.
Principi, which was stayed pending the court's disposition in
Sanders v.  Nicholson, and its companion case Simmons v.
Nicholson.

The court agreed that summary affirmance of the judgment
vacating and remanding to the Board is appropriate in light of
the Appeals Court's decisions in Simmons and Sanders.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court ordered that (1) the stay of
proceedings is lifted and (2) the judgment of the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims was summarily affirmed. The case is
remanded.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chervenick Files Suit v. 131 Firms in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney David P. Chervenick, on March 28, 2008, filed 12
separate asbestos lawsuits against 131 companies, seeking
punitive damages for the plaintiffs and their families, The West
Virginia Record reports.

The suits were filed individually in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va. Each plaintiff claims they were exposed to asbestos and
have suffered in some way, or are executors of estates of men
who died in part because of their asbestos-related disease.

Willard and Anna Best live in Marietta, Ohio. Mr. Best worked as
a machine operator for Kaiser Aluminum Corporation in
Ravenswood, W.Va. He claims he has asbestosis and lung cancer.

Phyllis J. Canterbury is the executor of the estate of Larry G.
Canterbury, deceased. He worked as a steelworker for USWA Local
40. He also worked for Union Carbide Corporation and FMC
Corporation, where he was exposed to asbestos. The suit says his
father, who worked at Union Carbide, also exposed him to
asbestos in his childhood. Mr. Canterbury had asbestosis and
lung cancer.

Linda Hickel filed the suit on behalf of Gary N. Dennewitz, who
is deceased. He worked as a machinist for Union Local IAM 1027.
Mr. Dennewitz had asbestosis and lung cancer.

Oscar and Genevieve Farley live in Prince, W.Va. Mr. Farley
worked as a pipefitter for Union Local 5960. He has asbestosis
and lung cancer.

Harrison and Sherry Fisher, of Burgettstown, Pa., filed the
suit, claiming Mr. Fisher was exposed to asbestos while working
as a bander at Weirton Steel Corporation. He has asbestosis and
lung cancer.

George and Viola Gvoyich, of Weirton, W.Va., claim Mr. Gvoyich
has asbestosis and lung cancer. He worked as a steelworker at
Weirton Steel.

Coraletta Henry filed the suit on behalf of Earl. E. Henry, Jr.,
of New Haven, W.Va. Mr. Henry worked for many years at the
Philip Sporn Power Plant and through the state. He had
asbestosis and lung cancer.

Cecil A. and Elma Lang, of Mineral Wells, claim Mr. Lang
contracted asbestosis and lung cancer after working as a laborer
for Union Local 639.

Roy J. and Patricia J. Meadows of LeSage, claim Mr. Meadows has
asbestosis and lung cancer. He worked as a crane operator for
Union Local USWA 40.

Julius and Helen Sabatino live in Shadyside, Ohio. Mr. Sabatino
worked as a bricklayer for Union Local 9. He has asbestosis and
lung cancer.

Karl P. and Ruth Stanley of Reader, W.Va., filed the suit on
behalf of Mr. Stanley. Stanley worked as a welder for Union
Local USWA 5724. He now has asbestosis and lung cancer.

Martha J. Taylor, administratrix for Leon Taylor, deceased,
filed the suit on behalf of Mr. Taylor. He worked as a welder
for Union Local USWA 1652. He had asbestosis and lung cancer.

In the 19-count suits, the plaintiffs seek punitive damages for
their injuries.

Kanawha Circuit Court cases 08-C-613 through 08-C-624 will be
assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hynus Files Action v. 80 Companies in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Hynus, of Huntington, W.Va., on March 31, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 80 companies in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Huntington Alloys Corporation, formerly known as INCO, is listed
as a defendant.

Mr. Hynus worked as an electrician at Huntington Alloys from
1952 to 1987. He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on
Feb. 4, 2008.

According to the suit, Mr. Hynus was exposed to asbestos fibers,
which he inhaled while working at Huntington Alloys. Because of
the exposure, he contracted mesothelioma.

Joann Hynus, also a plaintiff in the suit, claims she has
suffered the loss of general services, companionship and
society.

Mr. Hynus claims he has suffered and sustained severe illness
and injury to his person, which has forced him to obtain medical
treatment and incur medical expenses.

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

Attorney Victoria L. Antion represents the Hynuses. The case
will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Plumber's Death to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the coroner's court at Haywards Heath Town Hall
heard that the death of plumber Ron Rose, 73 years old, was
linked to asbestos exposure, Crawley Observer reports.

Mr. Rose was from Langley Green, Crawley, England.

The inquest heard that Mr. Rose died of mesothelioma brought on
by exposure to asbestos and had to stop caring for his sick wife
because he was too ill.

Mr. Rose worked for G W Hitchcock Ltd where he was employed as a
plumber from 1948 to 1971. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2007 after going to his doctor complaining of back pain.

The court heard that during a second stint at G W Hitchcock ,Mr.
Rose took on more general construction duties and was exposed to
the deadly dust along with other workers.

Coroner's officer Joss Atkins said, "He became exposed to
asbestos during one particular project working at a petrol
station. Workers were sawing sheets of material, thought to
contain asbestos, in a closed area.

"The atmosphere was thick with the dust particles and he and his
colleagues were never given protective clothing or washing
facilities."

Mr. Rose retired in 1999, after working as a delivery driver for
an electrical contractor, to become the full-time carer of his
wife, Doreen, who suffers with dementia.

Coroner Penelope Schofield said, "I am satisfied that the
correct verdict is one of industrial disease and I record that
today."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Union Sues Health Agency Over Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials from the Maryland chapter of the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees say they have filed a
complaint with the Department of Human Resources on behalf of
employees at the city's child welfare services office, 1510
Guilford Ave., citing reports of active asbestos found in the
building, The Baltimore Sun reports.

Joe Lawrence, a spokesman for the Maryland chapter of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
said contractors worked on the building and found what they
believed to be asbestos on pipes.

However, Brian Wilbon, deputy secretary for operations for the
Department of Human Resources, said no contractors worked on the
building this weekend, and that the building was inspected twice
in the past year and no asbestos was found.

Inspection results were presented to workers at two meetings
this year, Mr. Wilbon said. He added, "If I felt members of our
staff were in danger, I would remove them."

About 350 state Department of Social Services employees work in
the building, which the state leases from a company.

Last summer, union officials filed a similar complaint with the
Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Administration asking
the agency to address a rodent problem and water leaks.

Mr. Lawrence said, "That building has a history of problems, and
we're not seeing the urgency from the administration that we
need to see."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malaysian Trade Union Moves to Ban Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Malaysian Trade Union Congress has launched a campaign to
urge the Malaysian Government to impose a ban on the use of
asbestos in the construction and manufacturing sectors by 2010,
CSR Asia reports.

Its secretary-general G. Rajasekaran stated, "Malaysia has only
came up with regulations on the safe use of asbestos but that is
not enough. There is no such thing as safe asbestos."

On accidents in the work place, Mr. Rajasekaran said statistics
up to last year showed that 700 to 800 workers die every year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Jury Awards Over $24M to Guilders
--------------------------------------------------------------
The jury spoke loud and clear when it awarded US$24,170,000 to
Stephen Guilder and his family on Friday evening in a Miami-Dade
courtroom, according to a press release by The Ferraro Law Firm
dated April 28, 2008.

Dr. Guilder, a 50 year old Weston area ortolaryngologist, was
diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma on Sept. 26, 2007. He and
his wife Sheila have been married for more than 20 years. They
have three children, Ariel (18), Alex (16), and Ross (14).

David A. Jagolinzer of The Ferraro Law Firm in Miami tried the
case against Honeywell International, Inc., formerly Bendix, and
argued that Dr. Guilder's exposure to Honeywell's asbestos
brakes in the 1970s and early 1980s caused his terminal cancer.

Mr. Jagolinzer said, "I am very pleased that the jury held
Honeywell accountable for the devastating harms it caused Dr.
Guilder and his family."

The trial took two weeks and resulted in the largest
compensatory jury verdict in Florida for a victim of asbestos
exposure against a single defendant.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Presents Witnesses in Estimation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. presented its ninth expert witness, Dr.
Elizabeth Anderson, on March 26, 2008, the seventh day of the
asbestos estimation trial, to address whether exposures to Grace
products have caused the asbestos-related diseases that
claimants have alleged.

Dr. Anderson related to the Court that she characterized how
often a Grace product might be in a building that a person would
contact or how often events might occur, or how many buildings
actually have the asbestos products. She said she made a "very
conservative screening analysis" as she believes that if she set
all the parameters very high, there would be a low probability
that anybody would be exposed to anything any higher than the
values she has set.

Dr. Anderson related that for the exposure frequency in earlier
work, she found that the building maintenance worker actually is
in contact with asbestos-containing materials (ACM) 16% of the
time for vermiculite attic insulation and 1% of the time for
zonolite attic insulation. She also found that the trawled-on
and sprayed-on products for the vermiculite and zonolite attic
insulation products, even if all trawled-on/sprayed-on products
were Grace products, would be in only 20% of the buildings.

The Official Committee of the Asbestos Personal Injury Committee
and the Future Claims Representative objected to the relevance
of risk-based population estimations to the question of
individual causation in each individual case as to which no
plaintiff has been required to put on their causation proof
through the PI Questionnaires.

Before presenting Grace's tenth witness, Dr. B. Thomas Florence,
on the eighth day of trial on March 31, 2008, Grace, the PI
Committee, the FCR, and the Court exchanged opinions regarding
Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the use of Grace's
settlement history to determine the company's asbestos
liabilities, and whether the determination of Grace's liability
is important in the estimation trial.

The PI Committee's counsel, Elihu Inselbuch, at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered, in New York, reminded the Court that the
estimation trial is not a contest where the parties are trying
to establish liability for any claim at all nor for claims in
the aggregate. The trial, he said, is an estimation in the aid
of plan confirmation to determine what amount of funds needs to
be set aside to fund a trust, which, by definition, has
liabilities that can't be specifically determined.

Mr. Inselbuch said the purpose of Rule 408 is to reflect the
policy that the American system would like people to resolve
their controversies and encourage them to have settlement
negotiations. He said that even if there were any validity to
the argument about Rule 408, experts who have historically done
those processes rely on the evidence or the materials that they
rely on irrespective of whether the materials can come into
evidence.

John Ansbro at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in
Washington, D.C., counsel to the FCR, maintained that consistent
with all of the prior precedent in contested asbestos
bankruptcies and asbestos estimations, the tort system is the
basis on which the estimation proceeds. He said the FCR's
expert, Dr. Jennifer Biggs, will use Grace's settlement history
in estimating the company's asbestos liabilities.

Grace's counsel, David Bernick at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in
Chicago, Ill., argued that the estimation trial is an
"estimation of liability." He said facts show that the
settlements are not admissions of liability and could not be
used for that purpose.  

Mr. Bernick contended that the whole purpose of Rule 408 is to
protect litigation on the merits so that if either side to the
controversy wanted to actually litigate damages on the merits
and either party were a party to the prior determinations based
on settlement, then Rule 408 would not allow to displace
litigation on the merits with litigation using the settlement
value.

Dr. Florence, president of Analysis Research Planning
Corporation, related that estimation involve looking at a set of
historical experiences, historical data, and organizing that
data in a way that could be analyzed, and then applying to that
data a set of assumptions or criteria, and based on those
assumptions, extend that data to the estimation itself.  

In Grace's case, Dr. Florence said he looked into claims history
data supplied by Grace and the PI Questionnaires. He added that  
Grace supplied with information about the claims bar date, the
filing of the proofs of claim, who filed the information, and
when they were filed. He related that he began the process of
analysis and estimation with about 112,000 claims pending at
Petition Date. Then, he listed those claims that were non-
settled proofs of claim and matched the pending claims with the
proofs of claims to determine which of the pending claimants  
actually filed a proof of claim form. He said of the 112,000,
there were roughly 84,000 that had a proof of claim. He noted
that a handful of law firms populate the almost 14,000 proofs of
claim that did not match. He said Kelley and Ferraro had 51% of
the total number of mismatched proofs of claims.

Dr. Florence related that he assumed that the only valid
mesothelioma claims that he gave value to were from workers who
personally mixed Grace asbestos-containing products and workers
who personally installed Grace asbestos-containing products.  He
opined that the criteria and the values he used in estimating
Grace's asbestos liabilities within the bankruptcy context will
be no different from the criteria and the values he would use if
the asbestos claims were litigated in the tort system.

On the ninth day of trial, April 1, 2008, the PI Committee and
the FCR presented Dr. Arnold Brody, a professor in the
Department of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences at the North
Carolina State University, to explain the disease processes
related to asbestos.

Dr. Brody related that asbestos acts as a carcinogen in two
major ways -- as a binding agent for DNA and as a generator of
oxygen radicals. He said he agree that chrysotile can cause
mesothelioma.

On the tenth day of trial, April 7, 2008, no witnesses were
presented. Instead, Mr. Bernick informed the Court of the
settlement of Grace's asbestos liabilities.

To recall, the settlement provides for the establishment of a
trust under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which trust
will be funded with (i) US$250 million cash, (ii) warrants to
inquire 10,000,000 shares of Grace common stock at an exercised
price of $17 per share, (iii) proceeds under Grace's asbestos
insurance coverage, and (iv) cash and stock under the settlement
agreements with Sealed Air Corporation and Fresenius Medical
Care Holdings, Inc.

The settlement further provides that beginning in year 2019,
Grace will make deferred payments of US$110 million per year for
five years, and beginning 2024, US$100 million per year for 10
years. The deferred payments will be backed by 50.1 percent of
Grace's common stock.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 157; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Gov't. Seeks to Include ZAI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. says Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,
represented by the Attorney General of Canada, asks the
Bankruptcy Court to include, in any ZAI-related order, the
property damage claims asserted by claimants residing in Canada.

The Crown asserts that whether Zonolite Attic Insulation, the
Debtors' tremolite-contaminated product, is contained in a
building in the United States or in Canada is irrelevant to the
determination of whether the product causes "harm." The decision
in the ZAI Science Trial should be applicable to all ZAI claims,
including those claims originating in Canada, Francis A. Monaco,
Jr., at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, in Wilmington,
Del., argues.

Mr. Monaco relates that, currently, there are 10 ZAI-related
class actions filed against ZAI manufacturers, including the
Debtors and the Crown. The Canadian class actions assert that
the Crown is severally liable for the ZAI damage because it
permitted the distribution and sale of ZAI.

Mr. Monaco says that in the event the Crown and the ZAI
manufacturers are held jointly and severally liable to the
Canadian ZAI Claimants, the Crown seeks contribution and
indemnification from the liable manufacturers, including the
Debtors. In addition, the Crown asserts direct claims against
the Debtors in respect of costs incurred to seal attics and
otherwise remediate ZAI installed in Crown-owned properties in
homes build on military bases and reserves for Canadian natives.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants, in a separate filing, ask the
Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay and return
litigation of their claims to the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice (Commercial List), which is overseeing the
reorganization proceedings of the Debtors' Canadian affiliate.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants assert that allowing the Canadian
Court to litigate their claims would "get out of the way" of the
U.S. Debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings.

The Canadian Claimants assert that they were not represented at
the ZAI Science Trial, which led to Judge Fitzgerald's opinion
finding that scientific evidence did not demonstrate that the
presence of ZAI in the home creates an unreasonable risk of
harm.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants assert that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware should consult the Canadian Court
in the interest of cooperation and coordination.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants also point out that the Debtors'
proposed Canadian notice program contain inconsistencies and
errors that will create confusion at best and, at worst, are
likely to prejudice the Canadian ZAI Claimants.

The Canadian Claimants relate that they tried numerous ways to
interest the Debtors in settlement within their Chapter 11
cases, including mediation and creative resolution vehicles, but
they have been unsuccessful in convincing the Debtors that ZAI
liability is real. The Canadian Claimants believe that only if
the ZAI litigation is allowed to mature in the Canadian Court
system will its realistic value be determined.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 157; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace to Continue Montana Medical Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. announced that it plans to retain the Medical
Program it established in 2000 to assist local residents with
medical needs resulting from their exposure to asbestos from the
former Grace mine located near the town of Libby, Mont.

"In talking to people in Montana last night, there seemed to be
confusion about our medical program," said William M. Corcoran,
Vice President. "When we saw some of the comments in the press
today, we were surprised. We have made it clear for many years
that we intend to sustain the health care program when we emerge
from Chapter 11 just as we did when we went into bankruptcy."

The Libby Medical Program has been in effect since 2000. More
than 800 people are currently enrolled in it and receive health
care and prescription drug coverage. Since 2000, Grace has spent
more than US$14 million on the program.

In addition, Grace is making an additional annual contribution
of US$250,000 to St. John's Lutheran Hospital in Libby, Mont.  
Since 2000, Grace has donated more than US$2 million to St.
John's to support its work on this important issue.

"St. John's is an outstanding health care institution with top
notch health care staff," said Mr. Corcoran. "We are pleased
that our donations have been used to help purchase state-of-the-
art  health care equipment and technology for the people of
Libby, Mont."

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 157; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Examiner Says Overbilling Could Reach $10MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning says Hugh M. Ray, the Court-appointed Examiner to
the Chapter 11 case of L. Tersigni Consulting, CPA, P.C., in its
first report with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Connecticut, Bridgeport Division, estimated that overbillings
done by the accounting firm's owner, Loreto Tersigni, could be
between US$5.5 million to US$10.3 million.

Mr. Tersigni died in May 2007.

The Tersigni Examiner, after investigation on the accounting
firm's existing documents, found that Mr. Tersigni's overbilling
practices began as early as 2002 and ended around March 2007,
and ranges from 12.3 percent to 23 percent of the firm's bills.

The Examiner said that based on the facts available and
presumptions allowed by law, Mr. Tersigni committed torts
including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty for which he may be
held personally liable. He added that claims may also be filed
against Mr. Tersigni's wife, Nancy Tersigni, and the Tersigni
estate as a transferee of fraudulently transferred funds.  

Investigation showed that about US$9.3 million was deposited
into accounts jointly held by the Tersigni couple, which became
Ms. Tersigni's property after her husband's death.

The Examiner informed the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court that 17
claims have already been filed against Tersigni's bankruptcy
estate, several of which seeks disgorgement, recovery of
overpayment, or damages for improper billing, while others
directly allege fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The accounting firm was engaged, for virtually all of its work,
by Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Stutzman, Bromberg,
Esserman & Plifka, P.A., two law firms representing asbestos
creditors committee in high-profile asbestos bankruptcy cases,
including W.R. Grace & Co., Federal-Mogul Corp., and Owens
Corning.

(Owens Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 170; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACTU to Raise Awareness of Work Carcinogens
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Council of Trade Unions is calling for the
awareness of occupational carcinogens, which include asbestos,
Safe to Work reports.

ACTU claims that 1.5 million Australians may be exposed to
occupational carcinogens.

ACTU says workers in the construction, transport and defense
industries have a higher level of risk because they can come
into contact with cancer-causing substances like asbestos.
Statistics provided by the council showed 12 percent of all male
workers are exposed to such material.

The trade unions used the International Workers' Memorial Day to
call for a national Asbestos Inquiry. They say 2008 will be the
year for raising awareness of the risk posed by cancers caused
or contributed to by work.

According to ACTU, Australia has the highest rate of recorded
mesothelioma in the world. Considering exposure to asbestos is
the only cause of the disease, it holds deep concerns on the
amount of asbestos floating around in workplaces.

ACTU says the inquiry should look at elimination of the material
from workplaces and homes, as well as compensation, treatment
and cure for those affected by exposure.

ACTU has also called for an improvement in asbestos regulation
and tougher enforcement of asbestos-related laws.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Reading, Berkshire, England, heard that the death
of 83-year-old Daniel Lynn was linked to asbestos, Reading
Evening Post reports.

Mr. Lynn, who worked on the railways for most of his adult life,
died of pneumonia caused by inhaling asbestos dust.

The inquest heard that Mr. Lynn was exposed to asbestos found on
blankets used to shield rail lines before they were laid.

A statement of Mr. Lynn's medical history said he first
developed breathing difficulties in 2001. His health
deteriorated over six years. He died in Royal Berkshire Hospital
in April 2007.

Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford recorded a verdict that Mr. Lynn
died from bronchopneumonia caused by asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Mechanic Sues 66 Firms in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward March, a Florida resident suffering from mesothelioma, on
April 22, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 66
defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. March claims he was employed as a boiler mechanic from 1948
to 1987 in various locations throughout the United States. 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,
Elliott Turbomachinery, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust,
Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company, General Motors
Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Honeywell
International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited,
International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., MetLife Inc.,
Owens-Illinois Inc., and Royal Philips Electronics N.V.

Mr. March 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. March, he first became aware that he suffered
from mesothelioma on March 18, 2008.

Mr. March 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. March 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. March 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.

The complaint states that Mr. March also suffers "great physical
pain and mental anguish, and also will be hindered and prevented
from pursuing his normal course of employment, thereby losing
large sums of money."

Mr. March seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Brian Cooke and Drew Sealey of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
Ill., represent Mr. March.

Case No. 08 L 340 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Completes Study at Clear Creek, Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has completed a
detailed study of the extent of the asbestos exposure risk to
people participating in recreational activities at the Clear
Creek Management Area in Central California, according to an EPA
press release dated April 30, 2008.

The risk assessment found an increased long-term cancer risk
from engaging in many of the typical recreational activities at
the CCMA.

EPA Toxicologist Daniel Strakla, PhD, said, "The EPA's sampling
results demonstrate that in areas where asbestos is present in
the soil, activities that create dust also create asbestos
exposure. Higher dust-generating activities produce higher
exposures and, therefore, higher risks.

"The asbestos levels measured in the breathing zone at CCMA are
in the range seen in industrial environments and are at levels
of concern. Reducing or eliminating dust-generating activities
in CCMA will reduce exposure and reduce the risk of developing
asbestos-related disease."

Most of the area is managed by the federal Bureau of Land
Management. The area is visited by hikers, campers, hunters,
botanists, rock collectors, off-highway vehicle riders and
others. CCMA receives about 35,000 visitors per year including
many families with children. Both BLM and the EPA have advised
users of the asbestos health hazard existing at the area since
the early 1990s.

The CCMA contains the largest deposit of asbestos in the United
States, and popular CCMA activities, such as off-road vehicle
riding, disturb the soil and put asbestos into the air where it
can be inhaled. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen.

The EPA studies found that motorcycle riding, ATV riding and SUV
driving created the highest asbestos exposures. The EPA data
also showed that children are generally exposed to higher
asbestos concentrations than adults participating in the same
activities.

Based on the asbestos exposure levels, the EPA estimated
lifetime excess cancer risks. Many CCMA activities were found to
have risks above the range that EPA considers to be acceptable.

In 2004 and 2005, EPA Region 9 collected air samples while EPA
employees and contractors participated in typical recreational
activities common to the CCMA. The samples were collected from
the breathing zone of individuals riding motorcycles and all-
terrain vehicles, driving and riding in SUVs, hiking, camping,
sleeping in a tent, fence building, and washing and vacuuming
vehicles after use at the CCMA.

The CCMA spans more than 75,000 acres across San Benito and
Fresno Counties and includes the Atlas Asbestos Mine Superfund
Site. It includes a 31,000 acre outcrop of naturally occurring
asbestos.

Information on asbestos health advice is available in the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry publication "Asbestos
and Health: Frequently Asked Questions,"
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/noa/Asbestos-and%20Health.pdf,1-888-
42-ATSDR (1-888-422-8737).

For more information please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/toxic/noa/clearcreek/


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East Liverpool to Discuss $30T Fine w/ EPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of East Liverpool, Ohio will ask the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency to meet with them to discuss a
proposed US$30,000 penalty for violations of asbestos emission
control standards, Morning Journal reports.

On April 25, 2008, Mayor Jim Swoger received a letter from OEPA
Director Chris Korleski, advising him of the findings and orders
related to a May 2006 incident during which asbestos-bearing
insulation was removed from pipes at the car barn at the order
of then-street Superintendent Earl Taylor.

Mr. Taylor then buried the asbestos on city-owned property on
Cadmus Street. None of these actions complied with asbestos
inspection, notification and other requirements, according to
the OEPA, which ultimately was notified by the city about what
had occurred.

Several months later, the city hired a company to remediate both
the car barn and Cadmus Street property at a cost of about
US$15,000, according to Mayor Swoger, who also said Mr. Taylor
was fined US$2,000 by the OEPA earlier.

On April 22, 2008, Law Director Charles Payne said the OEPA has
given the city 14 days in which to arrange a meeting or
negotiate a settlement, and he said he expects to ask for a
meeting.

Mr. Korleski advised in his letter if the city does not respond
in that time frame, he will consider alternative enforcement
mechanisms, including referring the matter to the attorney
general for legal action.

On April 28, 2008, Mayor Swoger said he does not understand the
OEPA's action since Mr. Taylor was fined and the city "did
everything they told us to do," especially since it was the city
that brought the incident to the agency's attention.

The findings include a provision for 20 percent of the penalty
to be used toward funding an OEPA program for retrofitting
school buses with equipment that will reduce diesel particulate
emissions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Contingency Remains at $1.7B in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s records asbestos-related contingencies of
US$1.7 billion as of March 31, 2008, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2008.

Asbestos-related insurance was at US$500 million as of March 31,
2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries
and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary
W. R. Grace & Co.–Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Filing") in order to resolve the Company's asbestos-related
liabilities.

On April 7, 2008, the Company announced an agreement in
principle that provides for a settlement of all present and
future asbestos-related personal injury claims.

The agreement, reached with the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants, the Future Claimants Representatives
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, requires
the establishment of a trust under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code to which all present and future asbestos-related
claims would be channeled.

This agreement contemplates the filing of a plan of
reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court,
and would be subject to obtaining exit financing and Bankruptcy
Court and District Court approvals.

Most of the Company's noncore liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process. The agreement to resolve the Company's asbestos-
related liabilities and the settlement of other unresolved
claims in the Chapter 11 case will result in allowable claims
that differ from amounts recorded as part of liabilities subject
to compromise as of March 31, 2008.

The Company expects to incorporate the terms of the agreement in
principle into a joint plan of reorganization and related
documentation. The Company will adjust its accounting for
liabilities subject to compromise once the measurements of such
liabilities under the plan can be determined with more
certainty.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing-entity interest income, were US$18.4 million in the first
quarter compared with US$17.8 million in the prior year quarter,
reflecting the continued high level of activity in the
bankruptcy proceeding.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the
manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction. With annual sales of more than US$3.1
billion, the Company has about 6,500 employees and operations in
over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Cases Remain at 325 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2008, was a
defendant in about 325 active asbestos-related cases involving
about 2,950 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 29, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced about 325 active asbestos
cases involving about 3,000 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter,
March 7, 2008)

Many of these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from
50 to more than 100). Almost 2,650 or about 90 percent, of the
2,950 claims are pending in jurisdictions which permit filings
with massive numbers of plaintiffs.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the Company paid about
US$3 million in settlements. These settlements and other
dispositions resolved about 160 claims.

New case filings in the first quarter of 2008 added about 110
claims.

During 2007, the Company paid about US$9 million in settlements.
These settlements and other dispositions resolved about 1,230
claims. New case filings in 2007 added about 530 claims.

Most claims filed in 2007 and 2008 involved individual or small
groups of claimants as many jurisdictions no longer permit the
filing of mass complaints.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 125 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma. The potential
for damages against defendants may be greater in cases in which
the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces and
sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in
North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America
also include iron ore mining and processing to supply steel
producing units; real estate management and development;
transportation services; and engineering and consulting
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Olin Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation is a manufacturer
concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and
Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine and caustic
soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, sodium
chlorate, bleach products and potassium hydroxide. Winchester
produces and distributes sporting ammunition, reloading
components, small caliber military ammunition and components,
and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Gets $3.1M Trust Payment in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., in March 2008, received an asbestos-related
payment of about US$3.1 million from an insurance settlement
trust established under Federal-Mogul Corporation's
reorganization plan, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2008.

As previously reported, the Company has been named in asbestos-
related lawsuits associated with businesses previously acquired
by the Company but which are no longer owned. During the
Company's ownership, none of these businesses produced or sold
products containing asbestos and as a result, the Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.

The Company also filed claims in the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy
proceedings to recover costs associated with the defense of
these claims.

In May 2007, the Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a
settlement agreement under which the Company is entitled to
receive amounts from the trust, which plan was approved by the
bankruptcy court on Dec. 27, 2007.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company is to
receive 15 percent of the first US$20 million and 10 percent of
the next US$25 million of deposits to the trust, up to a maximum
of US$5.5 million.

Of the US$3.1 million, US$2.9 million is included in income from
discontinued operations in the third quarter of fiscal 2008. The
amount represents primarily the recovery of previously incurred
legal fees for the defense of these asbestos-related lawsuits.
Cumulative proceeds received by the Company to date under the
agreement are US$4.5 million.

In the event the Federal-Mogul settlement trust receives
additional funds in the future, the Company will be entitled to
receive a percentage of those funds based on the terms described
above, up to a maximum remaining amount of US$1 million.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. manufactures digital
power and motion control systems used in material handling,
people moving, and energy delivery. The Company operates
manufacturing plants in Pittsburgh, Canonsburg, Pa., and
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada as well as Menomonee Falls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Cites $539M Reserve at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was
US$539 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$569 million
at March 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was at
US$546 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$577 million at
Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2008)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$443 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$449
million as of March 31, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was at
US$448 million at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$440 million at
Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2008)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc., a diversified, global
chemical company, provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline, and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,827 Claims Pending v. Burlington at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation recorded 1,827 asbestos
claims filed against it at March 31, 2008, compared with 1,941
claims at March 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 29, 2008.

The Company had 1,781 unresolved asbestos claims filed against
it at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 1,975 claims at Dec. 31,
2006. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2008)

In the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
163 claims filed and 117 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved.

In the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
139 claims filed and 173 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos. The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to
work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines
that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters were US$266 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$301 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2007.

Of the March 31, 2008 obligation, US$220 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$46 million was related to asserted
claims.

At March 31, 2008, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities.

Through its subsidiaries, Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation is engaged primarily in the
freight rail transportation business. Its primary operating
subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, operates one of the largest
North American rail networks with about 32,000 route miles in 28
states and two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Cites $1.275B Reserves at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's reserves for asbestos claim and
claim adjustment were a net of US$1.275 billion as of March 31,
2008, compared with a net of US$1.322 billion as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

The Company's reserves for asbestos claim and claim adjustment
were a gross of US$2.269 billion as of March 31, 2008, compared
with US$2.352 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded US$2 million of unfavorable asbestos-
related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the three months ended March 31, 2008. There was
no asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense
reserve development recorded for the three months ended
March 31, 2007.

The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$49 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2008 (US$64 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007).

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal to A.P. Green's Ruling Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation states that several insurers' appeal
on the confirmation of A.P. Green's plan of reorganization is
pending, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow — Liptak
Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003.

The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan.

Several insurers have appealed that ruling.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Engaged in Keasbey Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to be engaged in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with
a defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey
Company.

The case is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County).

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey.

However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not
cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment
standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a
small portion of such claims have met medical impairment
criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining
claims, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits, an allegation the Company contests in the lawsuit.

In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.

On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the trial held
that all of the Company's primary policy products aggregates
were exhausted and that past products liability claims could not
be recharacterized as operations claims. The Court also found
that while operations claims would not be subject to products
aggregates, those claims could be made against the policies in
effect when the claimants were exposed to asbestos from Keasbey
operations.

These holdings limit the Company's exposure to those instances
where Keasbey used asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987.
Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the
early 1970s.

The Company noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to
challenge certain aspects of the Court's ruling. Other insurer
parties to the litigation also filed separate notices of appeal
to the Court's ruling.

The appeal was fully briefed and was argued on Dec. 6, 2007.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to engage in insurance
coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims
against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

These disputes are part of coverage litigation (stayed in view
of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re: Burns &
Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects. At the time of its
bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns & Roe asserted that it
faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos as a result of construction projects in
which Burns & Roe was involved.

The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.

On Dec. 5, 2005, Burns & Roe filed its Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with
Burns & Roe, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
appointed by the Bankruptcy Court and the Future Claims
Representative (the "Addendum"), which provides that claims
allegedly covered by CNA policies will be adjudicated in the
tort system, with any coverage disputes related to those claims
to be decided in coverage litigation.

On Sept. 14, 2007, Burns & Roe moved the bankruptcy court for
approval of the Addendum under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. After
several extensions, the hearing on that motion is currently set
for May 7, 2008.

If approved, Burns & Roe has agreed to include the Addendum in
the proposed plan, which will be the subject of a later
confirmation hearing.

With respect to both confirmation of the Plan and coverage
issues, numerous factual and legal issues remain to be resolved
that are critical to the final result, the outcome of which
cannot be predicted with any reliability.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Actions Ongoing v. CNA Fin'l.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related insurance suits have been initiated against CNA
Financial Corporation, its subsidiaries, and numerous other
insurers in Texas, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2008.

About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (E.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Texas)).

During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed and while
certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals. A different Texas court, however,
denied similar motions seeking dismissal.

After that court denied a related challenge to jurisdiction, the
insurers transferred the case to a state multi-district
litigation court in Harris County charged with handling asbestos
cases.

In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in
Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district
litigation court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds.

In November 2007, based on a letter from the appellate court,
the insurers gave the multi-district litigation court an
opportunity to reconsider the original court's action, but the
court declined to do so on the grounds that the plaintiffs' case
had become inactive due to the failure to file qualifying
medical reports and that the court was barred from taking any
action while the case was on its inactive docket.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the appellate court denied the insurers'
mandamus petition.

The appellate court thus did not disturb the multi-district
litigation court's determination that the case remained on its
inactive docket and that no further action can be taken unless
qualifying reports are filed or the filing of those reports is
waived.

With respect to the cases that are still pending in Texas,
numerous factual and legal issues remain to be resolved that are
critical to the final result, the outcome of which cannot be
predicted with any reliability.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation states that an asbestos-related action
filed in Montana against the Company, Maryland Casualty, and the
State of Montana is stayed because of W.R. Grace & Co.'s pending
bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. 1st Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W.R. Grace & Co. (W.R.
Grace)) and their spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty
and the State of Montana.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect W. R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W. R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Mont.

The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of W. R.
Grace's pending bankruptcy.

On April 7, 2008, W. R. Grace announced a settlement in
principle with the asbestos personal injury claimants committee
subject to confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the
bankruptcy court.

It is unknown when the confirmation hearing might take place.

The settlement in principle with the asbestos claimants has no
present impact on the stay currently imposed on the Montana
direct action and with respect to those claims, numerous factual
and legal issues remain to be resolved that are critical to the
final result, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any
reliability.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation's insurance products
primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages.
Services include risk management, information services, warranty
and claims administration. The Company's core business,
commercial property and casualty insurance operations, is
reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty
Lines.





                            *********

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  * * *