CAR_Public/080509.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 9, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 92

                            Headlines

AMCOR LTD: Lawyers Told to Correct Cartel Suit Allegations
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Poised to Settle AUD396MM Shareholders' Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Tables for Lead Paint Standard Violation
AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Santa Outfits Due to Choking Hazard
BIG 5 SPORTING: Faces California Suit Over Invasion of Privacy

BRINKER INT'L: California Court Decertifies Class in Labor Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA CMBC: Church Floor Collapse Prompts Lawsuit
BROOKLINE BANK: Discovery Ensues in Collateral Sale Notices Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Settlement in Illinois Suit Yet to be Approved
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces CCA Students' Litigation in California   

CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Cannot Move Forward, Arbitrator Rules
CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Tentative Deal in SBI Students' Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Georgia Suit Over AIU Admissions Process
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Oregon Suit Over ACI Misrepresentations
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Lawsuit Over Legal Fees Charged Twice

ELI LILLY: Judge Says Zyprexa Securities Lawsuit is Time-Barred
FEDEX CORP: Drivers' Lawyers File Summary Judgment Motions
INSURANCE COS: R. Citron Settles Five Flood-Related Lawsuits
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Suit Claims Attorneys Stiffed in Katrina Cases
NORTHERN STATES: Sup. Ct. Grants Petition for "Hoffman" Review

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Charged Repair Fees
SOURCEFIRE: May 2008 Scheduling Conference Set in Maryland Suit
TJ MAXX: Security Breach Settlement Means Money for Shoppers
UNITED STATES: Forest Service Sued Over $5 Unconstitutional Fees
WAL-MART: 9th Circuit Favors Assistant Managers in Overtime Suit

WAXCESSORIES INC: Recalls Simmer Pots for Shock and Fire Risk
XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CBEYOND INC: Gardy & Notis Files Georgia Securities Fraud Suit
MERCK & CO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,814 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $695M Receivable at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Records $56M Defense, Resolution Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Involved in ACandS, Inc. Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves Total $3.67B at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR OKs Oak Street Beach Asbestos Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Still Faces 10,300 Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Has $327M Settlement Credit at 1Q08
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Miss. Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Eastman

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $4.1M Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR23M for Workers Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR2.764 Net Loss, LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39M Liabilities at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Actions Pending v. Maremont at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M Rockwell Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $16.79M Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Faces Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Facing 25,000 Claims in 6 States

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Cites $40.2M Payments in 1Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liability Stays at $19.34M at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Cites $680.1M Liability at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Reserves EUR1.172B for Claims in 2007

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $424.3M Long-Term Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Facing 105,900 Open Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Wins Defense Verdict in 2008 Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $8.2M Settlement at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $368.5M Insurance at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Estimates Units' Liability at $509.6M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Totals $516M at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces Potential 3rd-Party Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Faces TODCO Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Facing 1,500 Claims at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Facing 8,200 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal of "Century v. MSA" Suit Upheld
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Action v. Century in Discovery

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Int'l. Cites $10M March 30 Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Controls Has 756 Claims at March 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Incurs $1.28M March Settlement Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Pending v. Spence Engineering, Hoke
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine S.p.A. Faces 13 Civil Proceedings

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,183 Cases at April 15
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing 470 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 5,800 Lawsuits Pending v. Tyco at March 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Performance Abatement Fined $24,000 in Ore.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grupo Mexico Bares Dubious Asarco Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bowen's Estate Sues 73 Firms in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Widow Reaches GBP120,000 Deal w/ AEI
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coon Reaches 5 Settlements in Texas Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses, ALAE Total $351.02M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Reserves Strengthen by $25M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 37T at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing CNA Suit in Cook County



                           *********


AMCOR LTD: Lawyers Told to Correct Cartel Suit Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers running the class action against Amcor Ltd. and Visy
Industries have been ordered to publish corrective statements
relating to the case, and a Federal Court judge has ordered the
period during which businesses can opt out of the litigation to
be extended by a month, The Australian reports.

According to The Australian's Susannah Moran, the directive from
the court is likely to cost law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman
about AUD60,000.

The report relates that Visy brought the recent court action,
accusing Maurice Blackburn lawyer Ben Slade of spreading
misleading information relating to the potential amount of
damages in the class action, after he was quoted in two media
publications.

The Australian recounts that Maurice Blackburn is running the
case, which was filed over alleged price fixing in the cardboard
box market, on behalf of lead applicant Jarra Creek and other
businesses involved that choose to continue with the suit.

Specifically, the class action suit was filed in April 2006
against Amcor, Visy, Amcor Packaging (Australia) Ltd., and Fibre
Containers (Queensland) Pty Ltd., by the firm and seeks damages
for the victims of the cartel conduct that spanned four years
from 2000.

Mr. Slade did not deny making the comments attributed to him and
agreed one comment was inaccurate and said he would not repeat
comments that referred to the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission alleging an overcharging of between 8% and
23%.

"In considering this application, I am conscious of the
uncertainty which must surround any quantification of damages at
such an early stage in the proceeding, before the settlement of
pleadings, return of subpoenas, full discovery and filing of
evidence," Justice Brian Tamberlin said.  "However, it is
necessary to ensure that the appraisal by an applicant (or any
group member in a representative proceeding) of its position is
not artificially inflated as to the likely monetary rewards
which will flow from the litigation."

The judge said Mr. Slade's statements "are capable, on one
reading, of misleading group members".

The Class Action Reporter reported on Oct. 6, 2006, that Maurice
Blackburn estimated that businesses incurred damages of between
AUD2 million and AUD3 million as a result of anti-competitive
practices in the industry.  

A subsequent CAR report on March 14, 2008, stated that
retailers, manufacturers and transporters who used products by
Amcor and Visy while the two companies maintained a price-fixing
cartel will be given the choice to opt out of the $300-million
class action lawsuit.  According to the Australian Financial
Review, Maurice Blackburn received court approval to issue the
opt-out notices.

On November 2, 2007, a previous Inside Retailing report
recounted, the Federal Court accepted a plea deal between the
ACCC and Visy and fined the Visy Board of Directors and its
owner, Richard Pratt, $36 million.  Visy Board executives Harry
Debney and Rod Carroll were fined $1.5 million and $500,000
respectively.  The ACCC had earlier granted Amcor and its former
senior executives immunity from prosecution for blowing the
whistle on the cartel and cooperating with the ACCC's extensive
investigation.


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Poised to Settle AUD396MM Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian gaming machine maker Aristocrat Leisure Ltd said that
it has yet to settle a AUD396-million class action suit filed by
shareholders, Reuters reports.

Reuters cites The Australian Financial Review as having reported
earlier that Aristocrat was poised to settle the lawsuit
alleging that the company did not accurately update the market
on its earnings outlook.

Aristocrat said it did not expect any settlement to affect its
financial strength, Reuters notes.

                         Case Background

The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 1, 2007, that the
shareholder class action finished on Oct. 31 last year with the
company conceding if any compensation is owed, it could peak at
$1.10 a share, more than three times the figure it used when the
case opened on Oct. 4, 2007.

The CAR report recounted that the suit was filed in 2003 by
Maurice Blackburn Cashman Lawyers and litigation company IMF
Australia, alleging that the company's market forecasts
were false and misleading and that it failed to disclose all
material information in a timely manner.  The case was
transferred to the Federal Court in Sydney.

The lawsuit further alleged that the company misled shareholders
by not keeping them fully informed before announcing earnings
downgrades that wiped $1.5 billion (AUD2 billion) from the
company's value in 2003.  The lawsuit claims the non-disclosure
caused them losses.

The Statement of Claim has been amended to claim losses incurred
by shareholders who purchased shares between Feb. 18, 2002
(previously Sept. 20, 2002) and May 26, 2003.

The case is before Justice Margaret Stone.  Dorajay Pty Limited
is representing shareholders.  Aristocrat said only Dorajay and
four other shareholders had filed details of their claims.

Proceedings began on Oct. 4, 2007, which proceedings were
dominated by procedural issues.  Maurice Blackburn submitted a
supplementary two-page letter by forensic accountant Greg
Meredith.  Three expert reports by Mr. Meredith, who is partner
and head of forensic accounting at Ferrier Hodgson, were
tendered as evidence on behalf of Dorajay.  All four reports
were uncontested by Aristocrat.  
  
Later on, Brad Cornell, from the California Institute of
Technology, testified for Aristocrat.  The New York
econometrician Fred Dunbar testified for the shareholders.  

Mr. Cornell said that only part of a 57% fall in Aristocrat's
share price in February 2003 could be attributed to previously
undisclosed bad news.  Mr. Dunbar, on the other hand, argued
that almost all the share price fall could be attributed to the
effect on earnings of the new information, according to the
report.

Mr. Dunbar said the share price would have fallen by the same
57%, albeit in stages, if Aristocrat had announced lower --
correct -- profits in February and August 2002 and if it had
righted an inflated profit forecast in December 2002.  Mr.
Cornell countered that the delay contributed to the size of the
fall.

Aristocrat said the lawsuit could cost the company
AUD10 million to AUD20 million in damages -- not the
AUD190 million to AUD396 million previously reported by the
media.

Aristocrat changed its loss figure to take account of opinions
expressed during the case by expert witness, Mr. Cornell.  It
now suggests a range between 35c and $1.10 a share.

Both sides agree the Aristocrat share price was inflated above
its true value because Aristocrat overstated its profits from
South American contracts in February and August 2002, and should
have warned the market from December 2002 that the next result
would be below analysts' forecasts.

Justice Stone is expected to hand down her decision early next
year.  The ruling could set a precedent for other class actions
over failure to disclose material information.

Representing shareholders is:

          Stephen Gageler, S.C.
          Phone: + 612 9233 1209
          Fax: + 612 9232 7626
          e-mail: stephengageler@wentworthchambers.com.au


AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Tables for Lead Paint Standard Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc., of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
1,000 Basketball and Flower Tables.

The company said surface paint on the tables contains excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.  No
injuries have been reported.

The Basketball Table is about 16 inches tall with white legs and
a 19-inch diameter top.  The Flower Table is about 30 inches
tall with a green petal stand and a 15-inch diameter purple and
yellow top.

These recalled basketball and flower tables, imported by
Sencillamaente Art Corp., of Dorado, Puerto Rico and
manufactured in Peru, were sold through Avon Independent Sales
Representatives in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from
June 2007 through August 2007.  The Basketball Table sold for
about $32 and the Flower Table sold for about $37.

Pictures of the recalled basketball and flower tables are found
at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08562a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08562b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the tables away from children
immediately and contact Avon for a full refund.  Known
purchasers are being directly notified of this recall.

For additional information, contact Avon toll-free at 888-993-
9903 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.avon.com/


AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Santa Outfits Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products Inc., of New York, N.Y., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
17,000 Infant Santa Outfits.

The company said the pom poms on the 2006 and 2007 outfit and
the snaps on the 2007 outfit can detach, posing a choking hazard
to young children.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the 2006 and 2007 Santa Outfits with RN#
120273.  The 2006 Santa Outfit includes a red hat decorated with
a white pom pom and a red one-piece suit with white collar and
cuffs, and stitched black belt and boots.  The 2007 Santa Outfit
includes a red hat decorated with a white pom pom, a red and
white-striped bodysuit with a Santa Claus face on the chest, red
overall pants with suspenders, and a red bib with Santa Claus
face on top.  Two snaps fasten the bodysuit at the shoulder and
three snaps fasten the suit between the legs.  The outfits were
sold in sizes 3-18 months.  "RN# 120273" is printed on the care
label.

These recalled Santa outfits, imported by MacSwed Inc., of New
York, N.Y., were manufactured in China and were being sold
through Avon Independent Sales Representatives in Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands from August 2006 through November
2007 for about $15 for the 2006 outfit and about $20 for the
2007 outfit.

Pictures of the recalled Santa outfits are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08563a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08563b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the 2007 outfit away
from children and contact Avon for a refund.  Consumers with the
2006 outfit should immediately remove the pom-pom from the hat.

For additional information, contact Avon at 888-993-9903 between
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at: http://www.avon.com/


BIG 5 SPORTING: Faces California Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging
the company invades customers' privacy by demanding too much
personal information at point-of-sale credit-card purchases,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises from the defendant's violations of California
Civil Code section 1747.08, Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and invasion of privacy, by and through the
defendant's requesting and recording of the plaintiff's and the
class members' credit card numbers and zip codes during the
point of sale process at the defendant's retail establishments.

According to the complaint, California Civil Code Section
1747.08 generally states that when a merchant is engaged in a
retail transaction with a customer, the merchant may neither:

     (1) request personal identification information from a
         customer paying for goods with a credit card, and then
         record that personal identification information from a
         customer paying for goods with a credit card, and then
         record that personal identification information upon
         the credit card transaction form or otherwise; nor

     (2) require as condition to accepting the credit card as
         payment the cardholder to provide the customer's
         personal identification information which the retailer
         causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the
         credit card transaction form or otherwise.

Named plaintiff Michelle Gonzalez brings this lawsuit on behalf
of all persons in California from whom defendant requested and
recorded personal identification information in conjunction with
a credit card transaction.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether each class member engaged in a credit card
         transaction with the defendant;

     (b) whether the defendant requested the cardholder to
         provide personal identification information and
         recorded the personal identification of the cardholder,
         during credit card transactions with class members;

     (c) whether the defendant's conduct of requesting the
         cardholder to provide personal identification
         information during credit card transactions and
         recording the personal identification information of  
         the cardholder constitutes violations of California
         Civil Code Section 1747.08;

     (d) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief; and

     (e) whether the plaintiff and the class have sustained
         damages, and the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiff asks the court:

     -- for an award to the plaintiff and each class member of
        the civil penalty to which he or she is entitled under
        California Civil Code Section 1747.08(e);

     -- to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendant
        from utilizing an "Information Capture Policy" wherein      
        the defendant's cashiers both request and record
        personal identification information and credit card
        numbers from customers using credit cards at the point-
        of-sale in the defendant's retail establishments;

     -- to disgorge any ill-gotten profits from the defendant's
        use or sale of the plaintiff's and the class' personal
        information;

     -- for general damages according to proof;

     -- for special damages according to proof;

     -- for exemplary or punitive damages;

     -- to certify this action as a class action;

     -- for distribution of any amount recovered on behalf of
        the class of similarly situated consumers via fluid
        recovery or cy pres recovery where necessary to prevent
        defendant from retaining the benefits of its wrongful
        conduct;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees as authorized by statute
        including, but not limited to, the provisions of
        California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, and
        as authorized under the "common fund" doctrine, and as  
        authorized by the "substantial benefit" doctrine;

     -- for costs of the suit; and

     -- for prejudgment interest at the legal rate.

The suit is "Michelle Gonzalez et al. v. Big Sporting Goods
Corp., Case No. 37-2008-0008337-CU-BT-CTL, filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Harry W. Harrison, Esq.
          Cary A. Kinkead, Esq.
          Harrison Patterson & O'Connor LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-756-6990
          Fax: 619-756-6991


BRINKER INT'L: California Court Decertifies Class in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals decertified a class action filed
against restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc., in San
Diego County Superior Court.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the
suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect
to meal and rest breaks.  

The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees.  Judge Patricia
A.Y. Cowett certified it as a class action in July 2006.  

The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the
company who are alleging violations of California law mandating
workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19,
2006).

The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity
in December 2006 and is currently reviewing the certification of
the class.

In October 2007, the California Court of Appeal decertified the
class action on all claims, but has been asked to reconsider
that decision, according to the company's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 26, 2008.

Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com- is  
principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development,
and franchising of restaurant concepts.


BRITISH COLUMBIA CMBC: Church Floor Collapse Prompts Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia Conference of the Mennonite Brethren
Churches and Unite Productions are facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia less
than a month after a floor collapsed during a Christian rock
show at an Abbotsford church, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiffs Sarah and Jennifer Williams claim that the
church was not meant to host concerts, and may have been in
disrepair.

Sarah Williams suffered a traumatic brain injury, and Jennifer
Williams walked away with cuts, bruises and an injured left arm,
the complaint states.

About 40 people were injured in the collapse, according to media
reports.  Most were minor injuries.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action and
        appointing named plaintiffs as class representatives,
        and other appropriate orders under the provisions of the
        Class Proceedings Act RSBC 1996, c. 50 as amended;

     -- general damages;

     -- special damages;

     -- "in trust" damages;

     -- the damages to be an aggregate award on behalf of all
        members of the class under Part 4, Division 2 of the
        Class Proceedings Act, RSBC 1996, c. 50;

     -- interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, RSBC
        1996, c. 79, as amended; and

     -- other costs.

The suit is "Sarah Williams et al. v. The British Columbia
Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches, et al., Case No.
S-083195," filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.


BROOKLINE BANK: Discovery Ensues in Collateral Sale Notices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery related to the issue of class certification in a
purported class action suit against Brookline Bank, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Brookline Bancorp, Inc., over missing
information on its notice of sale of collateral for delinquent
loans is ongoing.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the company received a complaint that was
filed against it in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts by Carrie E. Mosca, Esq. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 31, 2007).

Ms. Mosca defaulted on a loan obligation on an automobile that
she co-owned.  She alleges that the form of notice of sale of
collateral that the bank sent to her after she and the co-owner
became delinquent on the loan obligation did not contain
information required to be provided to a consumer under the
Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
individuals to whom the bank sent the same form of notice in
connection with transactions documented as consumer transactions
during the four-year period prior to the filing of the action.
It seeks statutory damages, an order restraining the bank from
future use of the form of notice sent to Ms. Mosca, an order
barring the bank from recovering any deficiency from other
individuals to whom it sent the same form of notice and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties have engaged in discovery related to the issue of
class certification, according Brookline Bank's May 5, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Brookline Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.brooklinebank.com/ -- is
a state-chartered savings and loan holding company and the
parent of Brookline Bank.  


CAREER EDUCATION: Settlement in Illinois Suit Yet to be Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement in the consolidated class action, "In re:
Career Education Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-
08884," has yet to receive court approval.

The case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, represents the consolidation into
one suit of six purported class action complaints filed between
Dec. 9, 2003, and Feb. 5, 2004, by and on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's common stock, against the company;
John M. Larson, a former officer of CEC; and Patrick K. Pesch, a
current officer of the company.

The lawsuit alleged that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, the defendants made certain material
misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts
about the condition of the company's business and prospects
during the putative class period, causing the respective
plaintiffs to purchase shares of the company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claimed that Messrs. Larson and Pesch
were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

On March 29, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim and dismissed with
prejudice the plaintiffs' third amended consolidated complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of their
third amended consolidated complaint to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on April 24, 2007.

The parties have subsequently reached an agreement to settle the
plaintiffs' claims on appeal.  This settlement is subject to the
case being remanded by the Court of Appeals to the District
Court and the approval by the District Court after notice to
potential class members.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: Career Education Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow presiding.

Representing the company are:

         Karl Richard Barnickol, Esq.
         Mary Ellen Hennessy, Esq.
         Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq.
         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman
         525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600
         Chicago, Il 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces CCA Students' Litigation in California   
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. is facing two purported class action
suits in California that were filed by certain students of CEC's
California Culinary Academy, according to the company's May 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

                       Amador Litigation

On Sept. 27, 2007, a complaint, entitled, "Amador et al. v.
California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corp.," was
filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco on
behalf of 37 current and former students of the California
Culinary Academy.

The plaintiffs brought their complaint as a putative class
action and alleged four putative causes of action:

   1. fraud;
   2. constructive fraud;
   3. violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
   4. violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

They contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to
them, primarily oral, during the admissions process.  

The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from CCA and CCA's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

CCA filed a motion to compel arbitration of certain of the
claims by certain of the purported class representatives, but
the Court denied that request on Feb. 28, 2008.

                       Adams Litigation

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing the plaintiffs
in the Amador action filed another suit on behalf of Jennifer
Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative
class.

The Adams action also is styled as a class action, is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action, and attempts
to plead the same four causes of action as in the Amador action.

Although the Adams complaint is virtually identical to the
Amador complaint, it makes adjustments to the manner in which
the plaintiffs' counsel pleads plaintiffs' claim under the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act in an effort to avoid
certain defects that may lead to dismissal of the claim in the
Amador action.  The date by which CCA and CEC must respond to
the complaint has not yet been set.  

The defendants intend to move to coordinate this case with the
Amador action and also to file demurrers to the plaintiffs'
claims on various grounds when the response date is established.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is an  
educational services company.  The Company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the United
Kingdom and three online academic programs.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately 89,500
students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree,
master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-
egree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual
Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education,
Business Studies and Information Technology.  The segments of
the Company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health
Education, International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Benoit" Cannot Move Forward, Arbitrator Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Arbitration Association has issued a ruling in the
matter, "Benoit, et al., v. Career Education Corp., et al.,"
stating that the case could not go forward as a class action,
according to CEC's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit was originally filed in the Hillsborough County
Superior Court in Florida.  Aside from CEC, the suit also names
as defendants one of the company's subsidiaries, Ultrasound
Technical Services, Inc.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
have been enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program at
the Tampa campus of Ultrasound Technical in the last four years.  
The complaint alleges that the defendants breached enrollment
contracts with the plaintiffs and other class members and
violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by:

     -- failing to properly train students;

     -- failing to offer and require sufficient hours of course
        work, provide properly trained instructors, provide
        appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented
        degree, award the represented degree, and provide
        adequate career placement services; and

     -- misrepresenting that they would provide such services.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants "padded" the MBC
program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in
violation of the FDUTPA.  The plaintiffs seek actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

In response, on July 20, 2005, the company filed a Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration, which the court granted on
Oct. 11, 2005, pursuant to the arbitration provision contained
in each plaintiffs' enrollment agreement.

On Oct. 30, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to
compel the defendants to initiate arbitration, and ordered that
they initiate arbitration proceedings as to only the first named
plaintiff, Aimee Benoit, and that they will be responsible for
paying all fees associated with initiating the arbitration
proceedings.

In accordance with the Court's order, on Nov. 30, 2007, the
company filed with the American Arbitration Association a demand
for arbitration as to Ms. Benoit.

On Jan. 24, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a preliminary hearing
and established a briefing schedule on the issue of whether the
arbitration can proceed as a class-action.  

On Jan. 30, 2008, the arbitrator issued an interim ruling
stating that the action could not go forward as a class action,
and that briefing on the issue was thus not needed.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the arbitrator conducted a scheduling
conference, reiterated his ruling that the arbitration would not
proceed as a class action, and scheduled a final hearing in Ms.
Benoit's individual arbitration action for the first week of
April 2008.  

Ms. Benoit's final hearing has been continued and a new date has
not been set yet, according to CEC's latest update on the case.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is an  
educational services company.  The Company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the United
Kingdom and three online academic programs.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately 89,500
students.  The schools and universities offer doctoral degree,
master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-
egree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual
Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education,
Business Studies and Information Technology.  The segments of
the Company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health
Education, International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Reaches Tentative Deal in SBI Students' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. reached a tentative settlement in the
purported class action, "Laronda Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound
Technical Services, Inc. et al.," which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, according to the
company's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On March 15, 2006, 12 former students of the Landover, Maryland
campus of Sanford-Brown Institute, one of Career Education's
schools, filed a class-action complaint, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, against Career Education and
Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of the company's
subsidiaries.  The suit was filed in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County, Maryland.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants made fraudulent
misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act
by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things,
details regarding instructors' experience or preparedness,
availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates
for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their
certificates and be able to enter the work force.  

The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants failed to
maintain accurate attendance records, and that the defendants
negligently or deliberately dropped students without
justification.  

The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached the
enrollment contract with the plaintiffs by failing to provide
the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement
services.  The plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages,
and costs.  

The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, and filed a motion to dismiss
significant portions of the complaint.  The plaintiffs requested
to remand the action to state court.  

On Sept. 18, 2006, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  The Court also granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the common law and statutory fraud counts of the
complaint, with leave to amend.  On Oct. 17, 2006, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The case was later consolidated with a separate action brought
in the same court by another former student.

On March 12, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.

On March 7, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
a third amended complaint adding four additional former students
as plaintiffs based on similar allegations.

The parties are in the process of finalizing the terms of a
proposed settlement, which would only be effective upon approval
of the court.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com/-- is an  
educational services company.  The Company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the United
Kingdom and three online academic programs.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately 89,500
students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree,
master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-
egree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual
Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education,
Business Studies and Information Technology.  The segments of
the Company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health
Education, International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Georgia Suit Over AIU Admissions Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. and American InterContinental University,
Inc., are facing a purported class action suit in Georgia over
AIU's admissions process, according to CEC's May 5, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On March 19, 2008, a complaint, entitled, "Diallo v. American
Intercontinental University, Inc., and Career Education
Corporation," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Georgia of Fulton County, on behalf of Tajuansar Diallo.

The plaintiff filed the complaint individually and as a putative
class action and purports to allege causes of action for fraud;
constructive fraud; negligent misrepresentation; and violations
of the Georgia Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Plaintiff contends that AIU made a variety of oral and written
misrepresentations to her during the admissions process.

The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of
the admissions process, the students' employment prospects upon
graduation from AIU and AIU's ability to arrange beneficial
student loans.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is an  
educational services company.  The Company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the United
Kingdom and three online academic programs.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately 89,500
students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree,
master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-
egree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual
Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education,
Business Studies and Information Technology.  The segments of
the Company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health
Education, International and University.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Oregon Suit Over ACI Misrepresentations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. is facing a purported class action suit
in Oregon entitled, "Gozzi, et al. v. Western Culinary
Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation," according to
CEC's May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On March 5, 2008, Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed the
complaint in Portland, Oregon, in the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon in and for Multnomah County.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable
relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and
unjust enrichment.

They filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, adding two
claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract.

The plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute made a
variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to
WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon
graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at
WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as
compared to salaries they may earn after graduation.

Career Education Corp. -- http://www.careered.com-- is an  
educational services company.  The Company's schools and
universities prepare students for professional careers through
the operation of more than 75 on-ground campuses located
throughout the U.S., France, Canada, Italy and the United
Kingdom and three online academic programs.  During the year
ended December 31, 2007, the Company had approximately 89,500
students. The schools and universities offer doctoral degree,
master's degree, bachelor's degree, associate degree, and non-
egree certificate and diploma programs in Culinary Arts, Visual
Communication and Design Technologies, Health Education,
Business Studies and Information Technology.  The segments of
the Company include Academy, Colleges, Culinary Arts, Health
Education, International and University.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Lawsuit Over Legal Fees Charged Twice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa alleging the company of charging twice the legal
fee in a "payoff demand statement" when homebuyers refinance
their homes, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Michael D. Feldman brings this action on behalf
of all persons who were charged by, and paid a fee to
Countrywide for supplying a payoff demand statement that was in
excess of the amount established by contract or California law.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants breached any portion of its lending
         instruments with the plaintiff and members of the
         class;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
         acts and practices of business administration at the
         time of the reconveyance of its mortgages/deeds of
         trust;

     (c) whether defendants breached its obligation of good
         faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiffs and members
         of the plaintiff class;

     (d) whether defendants committed acts of unfair competition
         as defined by B&P Code Section 17200 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendants violated the Consumer Fraud laws of
         the State of California; and

     (f) whether the plaintiffs and members of the class are
         entitled to receive incidental monetary relief, or
         alternatively, damages as a result of the unlawful
         conduct by defendants alleged.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an award of attorneys' fees and costs, on all causes
        of action where provided for by contract or statute or
        otherwise provided by law, including but not limited to,
        California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest in a sum
        according to proof; and

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

The suit is "Michael D. Feldman et al. v. Countrywide Home
Loans, et al., Case No. C08 01127," filed with the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Harold M. Jaffe, Esq.
          3521 Grand Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94610
          Phone: 510-452-2610
          Fax: 510-452-9125

               - and -

          Brian W. Newcomb, Esq.
          770 Menlo Avenue, Suite 101
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-322-7780
          Fax: 650-322-7740


ELI LILLY: Judge Says Zyprexa Securities Lawsuit is Time-Barred
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York has thrown out a securities class
action case against Eli Lilly and Co. that challenged the drug
manufacturer's alleged misrepresentations about the anti-
psychotic drug Zyprexa, Mark Fass writes for the New York Law
Journal.  Judge Weinstein held that the plaintiffs failed to
file their suit within the two-year statute of limitations.

According to N.Y. Law Journal, the judge's decision turned on
the standard for determining when the plaintiffs "reasonably
should have known" that they sustained damages because of Eli
Lilly's purported fraud.

The report notes that attorneys for the plaintiff class have
argued that the statute began to run with the publication of
three investigative articles about the drug in The New York
Times in December 2006.  Judge Weinstein, however, ruled that
the clock began to tick years earlier, when documentation
supporting these potential claims first became available to
attorneys and institutional investors.

"Under ruling law, what is referred to as 'storm warnings' from
information available to the stock market, place every
hypothesized reasonably astute and well informed investor on
notice of the need for further inquiry, beginning the running of
the applicable two-year statute of limitations," Judge Weinstein
wrote in "In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 07-cv-
1310."

"The individual unsophisticated investor's lack of awareness is
ignored; the law tilts the substantive-procedural balance
against such a consumer.  It applies the much-debated caveat
emptor principle favoring greater and freer commerce by limiting
litigation, and requiring dismissal of this case," the ruling
stated.

The Class Action Reported reported on April 18, 2008, that Judge
Weinstein already indicated earlier that he probably won't give
class-action status to patients and insurers who paid for
Zyprexa for FDA-approved uses.  The CAR report, citing
FiercePharma, cited Judge Weinstein as saying earlier that he
does not expect the plaintiffs to be able to claim punitive
damages and that the case "ought to be settled."  He said he
thinks "that we're not dealing with very much money."

N.Y. Law Journal recounts that Zyprexa was approved by the Food
and Drug Administration for the treatment of schizophrenia in
1996.  The FDA extended its approval to certain bipolar-disorder
uses in 2000 and for additional bipolar uses in 2004.  The drug
became one of the company's top sellers, with more than
12 million users and billions of dollars in annual sales,
according to the decision.

The drug also became the center of a wave of litigation over Eli
Lilly's reported long-term efforts to downplay its health risks.
According to the internal company documents that served as the
basis for the Times articles, Eli Lilly and its officers
misrepresented or failed to disclose Zyprexa's link to diabetes,
obesity and heightened blood sugar.

Thousands of plaintiffs filed the suit, the vast majority of
which were removed to federal court and transferred to Judge  
Weinstein's jurisdiction.

The most substantial actions, in terms of damages or criminal
penalties, include the 30,000 individual-plaintiff personal
injury cases, a few hundred of which remain ongoing; the civil
and criminal cases filed by attorneys general of states that
allegedly overpaid for Zyprexa; a class action initiated by tens
of thousands of insurers and unions who also claim overpayment;
and the present securities class action.

According to N.Y. Law Journal, the plaintiffs filed the present
action on March 28, 2007, claiming that Eli Lilly and numerous
named employees either misrepresented or failed to disclose the
link between Zyprexa and its health risks, as well as the
company's illegal practice of marketing the drug for so-called
"off-label" uses.

Under federal securities laws, the plaintiffs must initiate
their claims within two years of when they reasonably should
have known of the existence of such claims.  The present claims
would therefore be barred if there was public information
sufficient to place the plaintiffs on notice before March 28,
2005.

The plaintiffs cited the December 2006 articles as the first
public notice of their claims.

Judge Weinstein disagreed that the statute began to run with the
Times series, citing the "storm warning" metaphor set forth by
the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Lentell v. Merrill
Lynch & Co., 396 F.3d 161.  Over the course of 30 pages in his
82-page decision, the judge outlined the extended "public
debate" over Zyprexa, including numerous publications in medical
literature, reports by investment analysts and presentations at
medical conferences that dated back to within a year of the
drug's release.

"To determine whether an investor was on notice to inquire, the
circumstances as a whole will be evaluated . . . Even a single
news article can provide sufficiently strong omens to place a
plaintiff on notice of the need for investigation," Judge
Weinstein wrote.  "Considering the vast number of alarms,
plaintiffs were placed on notice of investment dangers long
before March 2005.  Their late-filed federal securities claims
alleging securities fraud are time-barred."

Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton represented Eli Lilly.
Partner Robert L. Hickok, Esq., did not return a call by N.Y.
Law Journal seeking comment.

Grant & Eisenhofer; Radnor, Pa.-based Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz
& Kessler; and Portland, Maine-based Bernstein Shur represented
the plaintiffs.  N.Y. Law Journal says that calls to various
attorneys handling the case were not returned.

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


FEDEX CORP: Drivers' Lawyers File Summary Judgment Motions
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for approximately 25,000 FedEx Ground/Home Delivery
drivers filed motions, supported by a massive record containing
10,616 pages, for summary judgment in the pivotal class-action
challenge to the company's embattled independent contractor
model.

In a related development, the court directed that notice of the
litigation be sent to all class members without injecting any
corporate spin.

The motions, which follow two years of discovery and more than
300 depositions, including that of former FedEx Ground/Home
Delivery Founder and CEO Daniel Sullivan, assert that there is
incontrovertible evidence showing that the drivers are clearly
company employees, not independent contractors, according to
Lynn Rossman Faris, co-lead counsel from the California-based
firm of Leonard Carder.

In summarizing the filing, Ms. Farris said that FedEx cannot re-
litigate the employment status of its drivers after losing the
issue in the landmark California Estrada trial, and that the
company clearly treated its drivers like employees.  "FedEx
controls what the drivers drive, what they wear, how they
deliver packages, how they act with customers, how much work
they perform in a day and when and where they perform it,"
explains Ms. Faris.  "The factual record is extraordinary in
this case because FedEx's actions are so blatant."

The plaintiffs filed for summary judgment regarding employment
status in the nationwide ERISA class and in the certified-class-
action states of:

     -- Alabama,
     -- Arkansas,
     -- California,
     -- Kansas,
     -- Florida,
     -- Indiana,
     -- Kentucky,
     -- Maryland,
     -- Minnesota,
     -- New Hampshire,
     -- New Jersey,
     -- New York,
     -- Oregon,
     -- Pennsylvania,
     -- Rhode Island,
     -- South Carolina,
     -- Tennessee,
     -- Texas,
     -- West Virginia and
     -- Wisconsin.

The Class Notice Order was entered April 25, 2007, by U.S.
Magistrate Christopher A. Nuechterlein of the Northern District
of Indiana, South Bend Division.  He rejected the company's
arguments to change the Notice and reminded them that the notice
is "not meant to protect the rights of the defendants."

The Notice prohibits FedEx from "asking or telling you (the
drivers) to exclude yourself from this action, or even from
expressing an opinion as to whether it is or is not in your best
interest to remain a class member or exclude yourself from this
action," and further bars "retaliation" for participating in the
case.

"We can now ensure that every member of the class is notified of
this crucial litigation and that they can freely make up their
own minds about their participation," said Ms. Faris.

The lawsuits allege that by misclassifying the drivers, FedEx
deprived them collectively of hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost wages, benefits and expenses.

FedEx Corp. provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce
and business services through companies that compete
collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively,
under the respected FedEx brand.  The Company is based in
Memphis, Tenn.


INSURANCE COS: R. Citron Settles Five Flood-Related Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Key West attorney Robert Cintron, Esq., has settled five federal
lawsuits filed against different flood insurance companies --
one recent settlement allowing Key West City Commissioner
Clayton Lopez to begin moving back into his home after more than
two years of living in a temporary trailer.

Hurricane Wilma in 2005 left many Key West homes in shambles or
in desperate need of repair, including the six clients
represented by Mr. Cintron.  Those clients say they have not
gotten adequate insurance compensation.

Mr. Lopez said his insurance providers, after assessing his
home, bickered over which natural force caused damage -- wind or
flood -- and who was held liable.  As a result, he and his wife
spent the past two years in a trailer provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

Two companies at odds in his case were Citizens Property
Insurance Corp., which covers wind damage, and Fidelity National
Property and Casualty Insurance Co., which covers flooding.

Both have provided money for the restoration.  Citizens offered
$4,000 after a $5,000 deductible and Fidelity's estimate on
repairs it would cover was about $45,000.

Mr. Lopez said, however, that it would take more than $200,000
to fully repair his home.

That's when he sued.

Mr. Cintron explored the possibility of trying to get a class-
action lawsuit against FEMA and flood insurance providers
Sunshine State, Fidelity and USAA, but said he couldn't garner
enough plaintiffs to proceed on class-action status.

One lawsuit he filed against Sunshine State in still pending,
Mr. Cintron said.

Those insurance companies must adhere to policies set by the
National Flood Insurance Program, a component of FEMA created by
Congress in 1968.  Premiums paid to insurance carriers end up in
FEMA's bank accounts, he explained, adding that adjusters decide
the claim.

FEMA caps its allowable flood claim at $250,000, which can be
less than damages experienced by some Keys residents, FEMA
spokesman Butch Kinerney said.

"I'm almost convinced that it's not as much the insurance
company as it is the federal government regulations," Mr.
Cintron said.

"The flood insurance is just a cloak for FEMA," Mr. Lopez said.

While the settlement "wasn't really what we needed or had hoped
for, at this point it's been two and a half years and we need
something to move forward," Mr. Lopez said.

Due to FEMA deadlines for trailer move-out, Mr. Lopez and his
wife Pam had to purchase the FEMA trailer for $600.  After their
home is fully repaired, he said they plan to donate it to a
church and move back to their Amelia Street house.

Mr. Lopez said he filed his lawsuit after trying to resolve the
situation without litigation.

"Once we got into the lawsuit mode, it didn't take long at all
to resolve it under federal court guidelines," Mr. Cintron said.
"I still think the industry continues to be somewhat overwhelmed
by flood claims.  I don't think there was any evil motive on
behalf of the insurance company."


MORTGAGE LENDERS: Suit Claims Attorneys Stiffed in Katrina Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana accuses mortgage lenders of
illegally snatching payments from the Louisiana Road Home
program, intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

The defendants named in the complaint are:

     -- ABN Amro Mortgage Group,
     -- Accredited Home Lenders,
     -- Advance Mortgage Corp.,
     -- Aegis Mortgage Corp.,
     -- Altegra Credit Co.,
     -- AMC Mortgage Services,
     -- American Acceptance Mortgage,
     -- American General Finance,
     -- American Home Mortgage Corp.,
     -- American Home Mortgage Corp. of New York,
     -- American Home Mortgage Servicing,
     -- American Thrift & Finance Plan,
     -- American Thrift & Finance Plan LLC,
     -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co.,
     -- AmSouth Bank,
     -- Argent Mortgage Company,
     -- Associates Financial Services of America,
     -- Associates Financial Services Company,
     -- Citifinancial Mortgage Co. of New York,
     -- City Financial Services, Citywide Mortgage Co.,
     -- Colonial Mortgage & Loan Corp.,
     -- Corestar Financial Group,
     -- Countrywide Home Loans,
     -- Decision One Mortgage Co.,
     -- Dryades Savings Bank,
     -- Louisiana State Division of Administration Office of
        Community Development, and
     -- its Executive Director, Suzie Elkins.

The defendant-mortgage lenders and the Road Home Program each
claim ownership of home insurance loss payments, before
homeowner receive the payments.  The Road Home Program claims it
is entitled to homeowners' insurance checks, but acknowledges
responsibility for payment of attorneys' fees from the insurance
money, the 35-page complaint states.

The defendant mortgage and lending companies deny an obligation
to pay attorneys' fees for the homeowners.  They say the
homeowners should pay the fees themselves.

The mortgage lenders claim that if Road Home wants reimbursement
for its homeowner grants, the homeowners are solely responsible
for the grant repayments.  The plaintiffs claim that lenders are
refusing to endorse insurance settlement checks, claiming that
as the mortgagee and under the mortgage contract, they are an
additional loss payee, and, as a result, they allege that they
have ownership of the insurance settlement money.

This has a direct effect on homeowners, as without their
insurance money, they are unable to repair their homes.  Also,
since the insurance claim checks have short payout periods,
several million dollars in checks sitting in mortgage lending
offices, waiting to be endorsed, already have expired.

The plaintiffs, led by the Law Offices of Joseph Bruno, seek
declaratory relief in the disputes between various parties
concerning the ranking of their alleged interests in Hurricane
Katrina loss settlements.

The suit is "The Law Offices of Joseph M. Bruno et al. v. ABN
Amro Mortgage Group Inc., et al., Case No. 08-2762," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern of Louisiana.


NORTHERN STATES: Sup. Ct. Grants Petition for "Hoffman" Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted a petition by plaintiffs in
the purported consumer class action, "Hoffman vs. Northern
States Power Co.," which seeks discretionary review of the case
filed against Northern States Power Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Xcel Energy, Inc.

Filed on March 15, 2006, the complaint was brought on behalf of
NSP-Minnesota's residential customers in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota for alleged breach of a contractual
obligation to maintain and inspect the points of connection
between NSP-Minnesota's wires and customers' homes within the
meter box.

The plaintiffs assert that NSP-Minnesota's breach results in an
increased risk of fire and that it is in violation of tariffs on
file with the Minnesota Power Utilities Commission.  Thus, they
seek injunctive relief and damages in an amount equal to the
value of inspections plaintiffs claim NSP-Minnesota was required
to perform over the past six years.   

NSP-Minnesota filed a motion to dismiss the pleadings.  In
November 2006, the court issued an order denying NSP-Minnesota's
dismissal request.

On Nov. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by NSP-Minnesota, the
court certified the issues raised in NSP-Minnesota's original
motion as important and doubtful.  

The certification permits NSP-Minnesota to file an appeal, and
it has done so.  Briefs have been filed, and oral arguments were
heard Oct. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 22, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that
the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine and
remanded the case to the district court for dismissal.

The plaintiffs have petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for
discretionary review, and on April 15, 2008, the supreme court
granted the petition, according to the company's May 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com
-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the
U.S.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Lawsuit Over Charged Repair Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. (TASE:PTNR), a leading
Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed that it was
served on May 6, 2008, with a lawsuit requesting certification
as a class action, filed in the District Court of Jerusalem, by
plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the company.

The plaintiffs claim that Partner should not have charged them
for repairing their mobile handset.

The total amount to be claimed under the class action is
estimated by the plaintiffs at approximately ILS46 million.

Partner said it will contest this lawsuit vigorously.  At this
preliminary stage, Partner is considering the merits of the
claim and is unable to assess the extent of the validity of the
claim against it.

For more information contact:

          Emanuel Avner, Chief Financial Officer
          (emanuel.avner@orange.co.il)
          Oded Degany - Carrier, Investor and Int'l Relations
          (oded.degany@orange.co.il)
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Phone: +972-54-7814951
                 +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54-7815961
               +972-54 -7814161
          Website: http://www.orange.co.il/investor_site/


SOURCEFIRE: May 2008 Scheduling Conference Set in Maryland Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A May 2008 scheduling conference was set for a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against Sourcefire, Inc.

On May 8, 2007, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the
company and certain of its officers and directors, captioned,
"Howard Katz v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
01210-WMN."

Since then, two other putative class actions were filed in the   
U.S. District Court of Maryland against the company and certain
of its  officers and directors and other parties making similar
allegations, captioned:

       1. "Mark Reaves v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-
          cv-01351-JFM," and

       2. "Joan Raveill v. Sourcefire, Inc. et al, Case No.
          1:07-cv-01425-WMN."

In addition, a fourth putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its officers and directors
and other parties making similar allegations, captioned, "Barry
Pincus v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04720-RJH."

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and in an order entered
on June 29, 2007, by the U.S,. District Court of the Southern
District of New York, the Pincus case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The actions claim to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased our common stock pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 11, Section 12 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in
connection with allegedly material misleading statements and
omissions contained in the registration statement and
prospectus.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, a determination of
class action status, compensatory and rescission damages, a
rescission of the initial public offering, as well as fees and
costs on behalf of a putative class.

On July 13, 2007, Sandra Amrhein filed a motion to consolidate
the four cases, to appoint her lead plaintiff and to approve her
choice of lead and liaison counsel.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the Court granted a motion to consolidate the
four putative class action lawsuits into a single civil action.
In that same Order, the Court also appointed Ms. Amrheim as lead
plaintiff, the law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead
counsel, and Tydings & Rosenberg LLP as liaison counsel.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Ms. Amrheim filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint asserting legal claims that previously had been
asserted in one or more of the four original actions.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  On April 23, 2008, the
motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

A scheduling conference with the Court is expected to occur in
May 2008, according to the company's May 2, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Howard Katz, et al. v. Sourcefire, Inc., et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          e-mail: info@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD, 21202
          Phone: 410-752-9700
          Fax: 410-757-5460
          e-mail: webmaster@tydingslaw.com


TJ MAXX: Security Breach Settlement Means Money for Shoppers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on April 2, 2008, that
customers affected by a credit and debit-card security breach at
TJ Maxx or Marshalls are urged to look into a class-action
settlement announced earlier this year.  CAR recalled that a
hacker stole data from more than 47 million credit and debit
cards in 2007.

In a more detailed report regarding the settlement terms, Gene
Hartley of KY3 Springfield writes that TJ Maxx agreed there was
a security breach to confidential data and people may have been
exposed to identity theft.  Thus, the company agreed to a multi-
million dollar class action settlement.

The report informs those who made a return without a receipt and
received a notification letter from TJ Maxx saying personal
information may have been compromised that they are eligible for
three years of credit monitoring and identity theft insurance.
People who made a purchase with their credit or debit cards in
2003 or 2006 could be eligible for additional benefits including
$60 in vouchers or a cash benefit of up to $30.  Regular
shoppers 'could get some benefits on word alone.'

Shoppers do not need proof, but have to be willing to sign an
affidavit saying they incurred some type of out-of-pocket
expense as a result of the breach.

A payment for credit report is an example of an out-of-pocket
expense, the report notes.

If you made a return without a receipt or a purchase with your
debit or credit card at Marshalls or TJ Maxx, you could be part
of this class action settlement.

For more information, visit http://www.tjxsettlement.com/


UNITED STATES: Forest Service Sued Over $5 Unconstitutional Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Forest Service is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleging
it unconstitutionally charges hikers $5 to enter undeveloped
campgrounds and back-country trails at Mt. Lemmon, a popular
mountain escape outside Tucson, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say that the fee, originally implemented through
the 1996 fee demonstration program, was repealed by the
Recreation Enhancement Act passed as an appropriations rider in
2004.

They claim that the Coronado National Forest designation of a
"high impact recreation area" -- a mile-wide swath of land
running the entire length of the 28-mile road, the only paved
route leading from the desert valley to the alpine haven -- is
merely administrative, and was never authorized by Congress.

The winding, scenic road begins 15 miles from downtown Tucson
and climbs to Mt. Lemmon, a 9,000-foot-high pine forest and
winter ski area.  The highway provides access to hundreds of
thousands of acres of public lands, including wilderness areas.

The class action, on behalf anyone who has paid the Mt. Lemmon
fee, states that its current application -- which applies to the
entire route, with the exception of scenic overlooks and private
property -- violates the Recreation Enhancement Act, which
prohibits charging for parking alone or for use of undeveloped
areas.

The plaintiffs claim that the fee has a "chilling effect" on use
of forest lands, in violation of the First Amendment, and that
the assumption of guilt for vehicle owners violates Fifth
Amendment due-process rights.

The plaintiffs include environmental activists and Christine
Wallace, a hiker and camper who was prosecuted for refusing to
pay the fee.

The class action seeks to enjoin the Forest Service from
enforcing of its fee policy, and demands new signs along the Mt.
Lemmon highway specifying that a fee is required only for use of
developed picnic and camping areas.

The suit is "Gaye Adams et al. v. United States Forest Service
et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.


WAL-MART: 9th Circuit Favors Assistant Managers in Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an unpublished opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
says that the trial court -- U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California -- erred when it refused to allow
assistant managers at Wal-Mart to present their case as a class
action suit, Digg Newsvine reports.

"The district court must focus on the intent of the plaintiffs
in bringing suit.  We therefore hold that the district court
abused its discretion in denying class certification," 9th
Circuit ruling said.

"On remand the district court shall reconsider class
certification," the 9th Circuit says.

The Class Action Reported on Oct. 16, 2007, that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California stayed the
purported class action, captioned "Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.," pending a decision on plaintiff's appeal in the matter.

Generally, the suit -- involving more than 2,750 assistant
managers -- is alleging violations of California's meal break
and overtime laws.  It seeks certification of a class of
salaried managers who challenge their exempt status under state
and federal laws.  

The CAR recounted that in May 2006, the federal court denied a
motion for class certification.  In refusing to certify the
class action, Judge Dale S. Fischer found that the claims of the
assistant managers were too individualized and that injunctive
relief would fail to address the concerns of the majority of
potential class members since they are no longer with the
company.

The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On Aug. 11, 2006, the 9th
Circuit granted the plaintiffs permission to appeal the order
denying class certification.  In their appeal, the plaintiffs
argued that the District Court's decision denying class
certification was manifestly erroneous.

The District Court found that the stay of the suit was
appropriate because the class certification decision involves an
unsettled, fundamental issue of law.

The suit is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," on appeal from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Dale Fischer.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. (rdrexler@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
          Phone: 310-785-7966

               - and -

          Steven G. Pearl, Esq. (sgpearl@sgpearl.com)
          Pearl Law Offices
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
          Encino, CA 91436-2412
          Phone: 818-995-8300

Representing the defendants is:
          
          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Jones Day
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Phone: 312-782-3939


WAXCESSORIES INC: Recalls Simmer Pots for Shock and Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waxcessories, Inc., of Dracut, Massachusetts, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 830,000 Electric Simmer Pots.

The company said the simmer pots have wire connections that can
become loose, posing a risk of fire and electric shock to
consumers.

There have been 161 reports of discolored cords, loose wires,
and wires separating from the pot.  No injuries have been
reported.

The electric simmer pots were sold in a variety of styles and
were designed to melt scented wax in a ceramic cup.  The cup
sits on a ceramic base that contains a 40-watt bulb, socket and
electric cord.  The recall includes all designs of the electric
simmer pots and all item numbers.  The words "ELECTRIC SIMMER
POT" and the design name are printed on the bar code label,
which is located on the bottom of the base.  For a complete list
of individual item numbers and photos, visit the firm's recall
Web site: http://www.simmerpotrecall.com

Pictures of the recalled electric simmer pots are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08255a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08255b.jpg

These recalled electric simmer pots were manufactured in China
and were sold at gift and novelty shops nationwide from April
2002 through April 2008 for between $17 and $25.

Consumers are advised to stop using the simmer pots immediately
and contact Waxcessories for instructions on receiving a free
replacement product.

For further information, call 800- 899-5884 between 8:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the recall Web
site: http://www.simmerpotrecall.com/


XCEL ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," are appealing to the U.S.
Court of  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the dismissal of the
case, which names Xcel Energy, Inc., the parent of Minnesota-
based Northern States Power Co., as a defendant.

The Court of Appeals has taken the matter under advisement and
is expected to issue an opinion in due course, according to
Northern States' May 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

To recall, in April 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a
purported class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in
the Southern District of Mississippi.

The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that
defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of
the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina."

The plaintiffs allege, in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all the defendants on constitutional grounds.  

In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

              - and -

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CBEYOND INC: Gardy & Notis Files Georgia Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gardy & Notis, LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of a class of all purchasers of Cbeyond,
Inc.'s securities during a class period of November 1, 2007, to
February 21, 2008.

The lawsuit charges Cbeyond and its founder, chairman, president
and CEO, James Geiger, of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and certain rules
thereunder.

The case alleges that beginning on November 1, 2007, the
defendants made specific misstatements designed to hide the fact
that Cbeyond was recording a higher churn rate for its services,
which permitted certain of Cbeyond's officers and directors to
engage in insider sales of $39 million of Cbeyond stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Shortly thereafter, Cbeyond was forced to admit on February 21,
2007, that it elected to make certain operational changes that
caused its churn rate to climb even higher, contrary to its
prior representations.  Cbeyond's stock price dropped 20% on
this shocking news.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Cbeyond securities between November 1,
2007, and February 21, 2008, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.

For more information, contact:

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
          Dustin P. Mansoor, Esq. (dmansoor@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


MERCK & CO: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on May 5,
2008, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Merck &
Co., Inc. between July 24, 2006, and March 28, 2008, inclusive.

This action expands the class period in the previously filed
Merck action.  The complaint names Merck and Richard T. Clark as
defendants.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements about the results of
a study that showed that Vytorin, an expensive cholesterol drug,
offered no benefits over generic drugs selling for a fraction of
Vytorin's price, which had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of Merck's securities.

More specifically, the complaint alleges, inter alia, that
Defendants failed to release the results of a study of Vytorin
for nearly two years because they knew the results were
unfavorable, and only after articles questioned the unusually
long delay and U.S. Congressmen wrote to Merck questioning
whether the delay was legitimate.

Vytorin is a cholesterol-lowering medication that is a
combination of two other drugs, Zetia and Zocor, and is co-
marketed by Merck and Schering.  The clinical trial (called
ENHANCE) was conducted to test whether Vytorin was more
effective than much cheaper "statin" drugs in preventing
progression of atherosclerosis (plaque buildup) in the carotid
artery, a major risk factor for heart attacks and strokes.  The
study was designed to test the effectiveness of Vytorin against
simvastatin, the generic form of Zocor.

On Sunday, March 30, 2008, the full negative ENHANCE trial
results were finally disclosed to the market.  The results were
negative, and showed that Vytorin was not more effective than
much cheaper generic drugs in slowing the progression of
atherosclerosis.  The New England Journal of Medicine took the
unusual step of printing two editorials which recommended
doctors only turn to Zetia and Vytorin after they had exhausted
all other options.  Additionally, a panel of experts issued a
unanimous statement calling on cardiologists to rein in the use
of Zetia and Vytorin, and urged doctors to turn back to statins.
In reaction to the release of the full study results on
March 30, 2008, Merck's stock price fell from $44.51 on March
28, to a close on March 31 (the next trading day) of $37.95 on
extremely heavy volume, a one-day decline of approximately 15%.

The complaint alleges that the unusually long delay in the
release of the study results was undertaken to avoid releasing
bad results that would harm sales of Vytorin, which were touted
during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,814 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded 90,184 unresolved asbestos
claims filed against it at March 31, 2008, compared with 112,747
claims at March 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 29, 2008.

The Company recorded 90,322 unresolved asbestos-related claims
at Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 111,887 claims at Dec. 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008)

The Company is and has been involved in asbestos-related suits
filed primarily in state courts during the past three decades.
These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek
both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure,
or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

At March 31, 2008, the Company noted 2,716 claims filed and
2,854 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
Claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem
totaled 28,893 and individual claimants totaled 61,291.

At March 31, 2008, the Company noted 3,085 claims filed and
2,225 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
Claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem
totaled 38,901 and individual claimants totaled 73,846.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces chemicals like ethylene and
propylene, which are converted into plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $695M Receivable at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's non-current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were US$695 million at March 31, 2008,
compared with US$696 million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$123 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$141 million
at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$959 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$1.001 billion
at Dec. 31, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$1.1 billion. At Dec. 31, 2007,
about 31 percent of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 69 percent related to future claims.

The Corporation determined that no adjustment to the accrual was
required at March 31, 2008. The Company's asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims was US$1.1 billion at
March 31, 2008. About 30 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 70 percent related to future
claims.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces chemicals like ethylene and
propylene, which are converted into plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Records $56M Defense, Resolution Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation, for the three months ended March 31,
2008, recorded US$56 million as asbestos-related defense and
resolution costs, in which US$14 million were for defense and
US$42 million were for resolution.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
US$33 million as asbestos-related defense and resolution costs,
in which US$17 million were for defense and US$16 million were
for resolution.

At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to
US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product
liability coverage.

The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was
determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance
policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company
and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as
well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
and taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers.

The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are
designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of
the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve issues that
the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights
to insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds.

This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of those insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise.

Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the first
quarter of 2008, the Company had reached settlements with
several of the carriers involved in this litigation.

The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was US$465 million at March 31, 2008 and
US$467 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

At March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

At March 31, 2008, the Company recorded a total of US$270
million in receivables, in which US$22 million were for defense
costs and US$248 million were for resolution costs.

At March 31, 2007, the Company recorded a total of US$271
million in receivables, in which US$18 million were for defense
costs and US$253 million were for resolution costs.

Houston-based Union Carbide Corporation, a subsidiary of The Dow
Chemical Company, produces chemicals like ethylene and
propylene, which are converted into plastics resins:
polyethylene and polypropylene. The Company also produces
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Involved in ACandS, Inc. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc., continues to be
involved in three significant proceedings relating to ACandS,
Inc., formerly a national distributor and installer of products
containing asbestos.

The proceedings, which are pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (In re: ACandS, Inc.) and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Pennsylvania (ACandS, Inc. v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., No. 03-MC-222 and ACandS,
Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 00-CV-4633), involve
disputes as to whether and to what extent any of ACandS'
potential liabilities for current or future bodily injury
asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC.

On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-
related coverage claims relating to ACandS, including the three
proceedings.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute
US$449 million to a trust to be established under ACandS' plan
of reorganization. In exchange, the Company will be released
from any obligations it has to ACandS for asbestos-related
claims and will be protected from any such claims by injunctions
to be issued in the Company's favor by the federal court
overseeing ACandS' bankruptcy case.

Under the settlement agreement, ACandS and the Company have
agreed to stay the claims against each other in the three
proceedings. Once all of the contingencies of the settlement are
satisfied, these claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the bankruptcy court overseeing ACandS'
bankruptcy approved the settlement and no appeals from that
approval were taken. As a result, the Company has placed US$449
million into escrow.

Upon fulfillment of all remaining contingencies, including final
court approval of a plan of reorganization for ACandS and the
issuance of the injunctions, those funds will be released from
escrow to the trust created under ACandS' plan of
reorganization.

Objections to ACandS' plan of reorganization were due on
March 24, 2008. Several parties filed objections. A hearing to
consider the confirmation of ACandS' plan of reorganization is
scheduled for May 6, 2008.

The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of
the US$449 million from reinsurers.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies,
Inc.) in state court in West Virginia.

These cases were subsequently consolidated into a single
proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va. The
plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair
trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling
asbestos claims.

The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits were filed in
West Virginia, Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts (these
suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii
Actions).

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, are also pending in Texas state court against TPC and
SPC, and in Louisiana state court against TPC (the claims
asserted in these suits, together with the West Virginia suit,
are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims).

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-
sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar
future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a
payment of up to US$90 million by TPC.

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying its prior orders that
all of the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and
substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC are
barred. The order also applies to similar direct action claims
that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy
court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy
court's orders that required all future direct actions against
TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before
proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the 2nd Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of an order
issued by the bankruptcy court prohibiting the prosecution of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims, as
well as future similar direct action litigation, against TPC.  

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, requesting
reinstatement of the district court's judgment. The petition is
presently pending.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. operates
as a business insurer and provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.
The Company offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as
professional and management liability coverage for commercial
operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Reserves Total $3.67B at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves
were US$3.672 billion at and for the three months ended
March 31, 2008, compared with US$3.926 billion at and for the
three months ended March 31, 2007.

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first three months
of 2008 were US$62 million, compared with US$125 million in the
same period of 2007.

Net paid losses in the first quarter of 2008 decreased from the
same 2007 period primarily because installment payments on
settlements reached in prior years were completed during the
first quarter of 2007.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. operates
as a business insurer and provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the U.K.
The Company offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as
professional and management liability coverage for commercial
operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ATSDR OKs Oak Street Beach Asbestos Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5's public
health agency partner, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), has issued a formal consultation
letter to EPA that validates the technical approaches used in a
study to assess potential exposures to low levels of asbestos
found at Chicago's Oak Street Beach, according to an EPA press
release dated May 2, 2008.

Regional Superfund Director Richard Kahl said, "ATSDR's review
of the data collected by the Chicago Park District in 2005
provides an extra level of assurance that the Oak Street Beach
testing was appropriate and sufficient to reach a public health
conclusion. Going forward, EPA and its federal partners will
continue to be available to the park district for consultation
as requested."

The study was conducted in September 2005 by LFR Inc., an Elgin,
Ill.-based contractor retained by the Chicago Park District. The
study evaluated whether people could be exposed to asbestos
while engaging in typical beach activities, such as playing
catch, building sandcastles and sunbathing.

EPA provided limited technical consultation regarding the
"activity-based testing" protocols used by LFR.

The final report from this study, entitled "Report on Activity-
Based Air Sampling - Oak Street Beach, Chicago, Illinois," was
released in April 2006.

EPA recently requested that its public health agency partner,
the ATSDR (part of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) review this report.

The ATSDR consultation letter to EPA concludes:

* The air samples collected contained asbestos concentrations
  consistent with levels that would be expected in urban areas
  and that recreational activity at Oak Street Beach does not
  pose a public health hazard.

* The sampling methods and analytical protocols used in the
  study were consistent with methods recommended by both EPA and
  ATSDR for assessing asbestos exposure.

* Based on the data collected in 2005, ATSDR did not recommend
  additional sampling at Oak Street Beach. However, if
  additional sampling efforts are conducted, ATSDR is willing to
  review sampling protocols and results.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Still Faces 10,300 Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is named in about 10,300 cases (about
41,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos, in which those
cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to
the Company to date, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2008.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. Over a period
of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have
been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection,
there were about 12,400 claims pending against the Company in
state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability
based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically
requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the
separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts
supporting claims of direct liability arising from the Company's
asbestos products.

Several of the Company's insurance carriers have filed a legal
proceeding concerning the extent of any insurance coverage for
these claims.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against it
and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations (the
2003 Plan).

The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its
equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation,
contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a
total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present
value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after
the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June
2004.

In addition, the 2003 Plan provided that the Company would
assign certain insurance policy proceeds from its primary
insurance and a portion of its excess insurance.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a
memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company,
filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on
March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision.

On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised
the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on
an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that
resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the confirmation
of the 2003 Plan and that would therefore make it unnecessary
for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for
reconsideration.

On March 27, 2008, the parties further informed the Bankruptcy
Court on the progress toward the Amended PCC Plan and the
Bankruptcy Court ordered the parties to submit the Amended PCC
Plan to the Court on May 9, 2008 and for objectors to the
Amended PCC Plan to appear on May 22, 2008.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$675 million at March 31, 2008,
compared with an estimate of liability under the original 2003
Plan of US$1.002 billion at Dec. 31, 2007.

A reduction in the liability of US$327 million, representing the
difference in the estimated value of these asbestos liabilities
between Dec. 31, 2007, and March 31, 2008, was recorded as a
credit to earnings.

In the first quarter of 2007, the Company recorded asbestos
settlement expense under the terms of the 2003 Plan of US$110
million. This expense included US$101 million to reflect the
increase in the market value of the Company's common stock from
Dec. 31, 2006 to March 31, 2007, and US$9 million to adjust the
estimated fair value of the other components of the proposed
asbestos settlement at that time.

Of the US$1.002 billion liability at Dec. 31, 2007, US$833
million was included in other accrued liabilities as a current
liability, and US$169 million was recorded within the other
liabilities component in the Company's consolidated balance
sheets.

Corning Incorporated produces specialty glass and ceramics.
Products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer
monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile
emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware &
equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors
for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty
glass solutions for industries including semiconductor,
aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology. The Company is
based in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Has $327M Settlement Credit at 1Q08
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first quarter of 2008, Corning Incorporated recorded an
asbestos settlement credit of US$327 million, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, which might arise
from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the
parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they
had made substantial progress on an amended plan of
reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues
raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003
Plan.

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability
that the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished.

The proposed settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. and to contribute a fixed series of cash
payments, recorded at present value on March 31, 2008.

The Company will have the option to contribute shares rather
than cash, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not
number of shares. As a result, the estimated asbestos settlement
liability will no longer be impacted by movements in the value
of Corning common stock.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims
that may be or have been raised against the Company. The Company
has recorded an additional amount for those claims in its
estimated asbestos settlement liability.

The US$327 million was to adjust the asbestos settlement
liability from US$1 billion to US$675 million, including the
components of the Amended PCC Plan and the estimated liability
for non-PCC asbestos claims.

Corning Incorporated produces specialty glass and ceramics.
Products include glass substrates for LCD televisions, computer
monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and filters for mobile
emission control systems; optical fiber, cable, hardware &
equipment for telecommunications networks; optical biosensors
for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and specialty
glass solutions for industries including semiconductor,
aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology. The Company is
based in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Still Faces Miss. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to be a defendant in
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized
drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's case,
allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a contract
offshore oil and gas driller capable of descending to depths of
7,500 feet. The Company has 30 semisubmersibles, 13 jack-up rigs
(mobile drilling platforms), and one drillship. The Company
contracts with oil and gas companies, including Anadarko
Petroleum and PETROBRAS.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Eastman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company continues to face lawsuits in various
state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos at the Company's manufacturing sites,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2008.

More recently, certain plaintiffs have claimed exposure to an
asbestos-containing plastic, which the Company manufactured in
limited amounts between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s.

To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, and
over the past several years, has substantially reduced its
number of pending asbestos-related claims.

The Company has also obtained insurance coverage that applies to
a portion of certain of the Company's defense costs and payments
of settlements or judgments in connection with asbestos-related
lawsuits.

Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company, once part of
Eastman Kodak, has developed into a producer of chemicals,
fibers, and plastics. Among the Company's operating segments are
its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty polymers, and inks),
Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers), and Fibers (acetate
tow and textile fibers) units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $4.1M Liabilities at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
To address asbestos and environmental matters, Enbridge Energy
Partners, L.P. had US$4.1 million in current liabilities as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$3.4 million 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 had US$2.1 million in current liabilities as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-mile
U.S. portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum pipeline.
When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and operated by
Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500 miles
across North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR23M for Workers Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE, during 2007, has recorded EUR23 million for workers
compensation, including asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's 2007 annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gross loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves for the Asia-
Pacific region developed favorably during 2007 by about EUR175
million or 6.3 percent of reserves as at Dec. 31, 2006. The
largest Allianz Group property-casualty insurer in the region is
the Company's Australian operating entity, representing about 93
percent of the region's total reserves.

In Australia, the Company experienced favorable development of
EUR162 million during 2007. This result arose from partially
favorable developments from different lines of business,
including EUR23 million from workers compensation, mainly due to
legislative changes having a favorable impact on reserves, which
was offset in part by an increase in the workers compensation
run-off portfolio where an increase in the assumed number of
asbestos-related claims was made.

Also during 2007, the Company's reinsurance entity experienced
EUR127 million of favorable reserve development. The main
drivers for the favorable development were EUR105 million for
non-U.S. asbestos exposures based on the Company's on-going
reserve analysis for these types of claims.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and
services - including life, health, and property/casualty
coverage for individuals and businesses - through some 100
subsidiaries and affiliates operating all over the globe. The
Company also provides retail and institutional asset management
services through Allianz Global Investors and private equity
investment through Allianz Capital Partners.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz Has EUR2.764 Net Loss, LAE Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz SE's net loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims were a net of EUR2.764 billion
(a gross of EUR3.287 billion) as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to
the Company's 2007 annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for A&E claims were a
net of EUR2.990 billion (a gross of EUR3.636 billion) as of
Dec. 31, 2006.

In the U.S., A&E claims still represent a majority of the total
A&E claims reported to the Allianz Group, the insurance industry
is facing an increased prominence in exposures to A&E claims on
a global basis.

As a result, the Company has increased its analysis of these
non-U.S. A&E exposures during 2006 and 2007. The results of the
Company's ongoing non-U.S. A&E reserve analysis resulted in a
decrease of non-U.S. A&E reserves of EUR105 million in 2007.

Total reserves for loss and loss adjustment expenses amounted to
EUR63.706 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 and EUR65.464 million as
of Dec. 31, 2006.

Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE offers insurance products and
services - including life, health, and property/casualty
coverage for individuals and businesses - through some 100
subsidiaries and affiliates operating all over the globe. The
Company also provides retail and institutional asset management
services through Allianz Global Investors and private equity
investment through Allianz Capital Partners.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Named in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., or its subsidiaries, continue defend
against lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim
injury due to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2008.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP (NRG).

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor, but the Company has agreed to
continue to defend such claims to the extent they are covered by
insurance maintained by the Company, subject to reimbursement of
the costs of such defense from the purchaser.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s regulated utilities
distribute natural gas to more than 3 million customers in six
states and electricity to 1.9 million customers on the Texas
Gulf Coast. The Company also operates 69,000 miles of gas
pipeline, and it has gas gathering and storage operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $39M Liabilities at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. recorded US$39 million in long-term asbestos-
related liabilities as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$44
million as of Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2008.

The Company recorded US$14 million in current asbestos-related
liabilities as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$11 million as
of Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company recorded US$31 million in long-term asbestos-related
recoveries as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$32 million as
of Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company recorded US$7 million in current asbestos-related
recoveries as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$8 million as
of Sept. 30, 2007.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a supplier of integrated
systems, modules and components serving commercial truck,
trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 37T Actions Pending v. Maremont at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had about
37,000 pending asbestos-related claims at March 31, 2008 and
Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2008.

Maremont recorded asbestos-related reserves of US$43 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008)

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin acquired Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases
where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants have
established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named
defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves were US$41 million as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$43 million as of Sept. 30,
2007.

Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries were US$26 million as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$28 million as of Sept. 30,
2007.

Maremont determined that as of March 31, 2008 the most likely
and probable liability for pending and future claims over the
next four years is US$35 million.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a supplier of integrated
systems, modules and components serving commercial truck,
trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Cites $12M Rockwell Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related
to Rockwell Automation, Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of US$12 million at March 31, 2008, the same amount recorded at
Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
used in certain components of Rockwell products many years ago.
Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor
Automotive Inc. from Rockwell in 1997.

Currently, there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that
name the Company, together with many other companies, as
defendants.

The Company has been dismissed from the vast majority of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. is a supplier of integrated
systems, modules and components serving commercial truck,
trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Has $16.79M Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s reserves for net loss and loss
adjustment expenses for its asbestos exposures were
US$16,796,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared
with US$16,717,000 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's reserves for gross loss and LAE expenses for its
asbestos exposures were US$23,280,000 in the three months ended
March 31, 2008, compared with US$23,194,000 for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's exposure to asbestos liability stems from marine
liability insurance written on an occurrence basis during the
mid-1980s. In general, the Company's participation on those
risks is in the excess layers, which requires the underlying
coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in
the Company's layer.

In many instances, the Company is one of many insurers who
participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these
claims, and the Company is a minor participant in the overall
insurance coverage and settlement.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at March 31, 2008 are for:

-- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
   exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in
   the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
   paid over several years (two other large settled claims were
   fully paid in 2007);

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
   distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
   incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
   products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
   over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$10
million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$10.5 million at
Dec. 31, 2007.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance holding company focusing on specialty
products for niches within the overall property/casualty
insurance market. The Company's underwriting segments consist of
insurance company operations and operations at Lloyd's of
London. The Company's largest product line and most long-
standing area of specialization is ocean marine insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Faces Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, and
is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due
to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2008.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received. To date, the overwhelming majority of
these claims have been disposed of without payment and there
have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

It is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability
over the next 50 years for these claims is about US$13,800,000
(excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

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

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

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

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007 and the second of
which was received in the first quarter of 2008.

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

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

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation is a
developer, producer, and marketer of chemical specialty products
and a provider of chemical management services ("CMS") for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications around
the globe with significant sales to the steel and automotive
industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Facing 25,000 Claims in 6 States
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., industrial supplies
distributor Fairmont Supply Company, is named as a defendant in
about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi and New Jersey.

Because a small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or
plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008 and the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material.

Pittsburgh-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company,
with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in
northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and
produces about 65 million tons of coal annually. The Company
primarily mines high BTU coal. Customers include electric
utilities and steel mills; Allegheny Energy, Inc. is its largest
customer by far.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. TRW Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries continue
to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2008.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries.

Management said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers.
Most of these claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of various products allegedly containing asbestos.

Management said it believes that the asbestos was encapsulated.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in
the past.

These claims are disputed by the Company. Many of these cases
have been dismissed without any payment whatsoever. Moreover,
there is significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers
with respect to these claims.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and related
aftermarkets. The Company is primarily a "Tier 1" supplier (a
supplier which sells to OEMs). In 2007, about 86 percent of the
Company's end-customer sales were to major OEMs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Cites $40.2M Payments in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. states that asbestos-related cash payments
during the first quarter of 2008 were US$40.2 million, down
slightly from US$41 million during the first quarter of 2007,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2008.

The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
down six percent from year end 2007 to a balance of US$31.6
million at the end of the first quarter.

New claims filed during the first quarter of 2008 were about 32
percent lower than the prior year quarter.

The number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims was
about 14,000 as of March 31, 2008, unchanged from Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities
were US$210 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$149
million as of March 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$205.3 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$497.7
million as of March 31, 2007.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities
were US$210 million as of Dec. 31, 2007 and its long-term
asbestos-related liabilities were US$245.5 million as of Dec.
31, 2007.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., which is based in Perrysburg, Ohio,
manufactures recyclable glass containers. The Company has market
positions in Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and Latin
America. The Company employs more than 24,000 people with 83
manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2007, net sales
were US$7.6 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liability Stays at $19.34M at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,341,000 as of March 30, 2008, the same amount recorded at
Dec. 30, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2008.  

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$4,303,000 million as of March 30, 2008, unchanged since
Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$19,149,000 as of March 30, 2008, unchanged since
Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$4,303,000 as of March 30, 2008, unchanged since Dec. 30,
2007.

Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance,
specialty-material-based products for applications in diverse
markets including: portable communications, communications
infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer
products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. The
Company operates manufacturing facilities in the United States
(Arizona, Connecticut and Illinois), Europe (Ghent, Belgium) and
Asia (Suzhou, China). The Company is based in Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Cites $680.1M Liability at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation's current asbestos settlement liability
and related accrued interest amounted to US$680.1 million as of
March 31, 2008, compared with US$670.9 million as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2008.

The effect of assumed issuance of asbestos settlement shares was
US$18 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, the same as
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve food, industrial, medical, and consumer applications.
Operating in 51 countries, the Company's international reach
generated revenue of US$4.7 billion in 2007. Products include
Bubble Wrap cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers, Instapak foam-
in-place systems and Cryovac packaging technology.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Reserves EUR1.172B for Claims in 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXA's asbestos claims reserves were a gross of EUR1.172 billion
(net of EUR1.124 billion) for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with a gross of EUR1.176 billion (net of EUR1.123
billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 28, 2008.

AXA continues to receive claims from policies written in
prior years asserting damages from asbestos-related and
environmental-related exposures. These asbestos claims
relate primarily to bodily injuries suffered by those who came
in contact with asbestos.

Most of the Group's A&E claims are managed by AXA Liabilities
Managers, a specialized unit in charge of managing the Group's
non-life run-offs.

As a result of the sale of the Netherlands operations and
Compagnie Generale de Reassurance de Monte Carlo, AXA's reserves
for A&E claims decreased by EUR31 million on a net of
reinsurance basis (of which EUR27 million in respect of
environmental asbestos and EUR4 million in respect of
pollution).

In 2007, AXA paid claims and legal costs of EUR31 million
(including EUR28 million in respect of asbestos and EUR3million
in respect of environmental pollution).

This was significantly lower than last year (EUR126 million) as
last year was impacted by an exceptionally high level of
liabilities commuted.
    
In 2007, AXA incurred losses and loss expenses of EUR136 million
net of reinsurance (respectively EUR146 million in respect of  
asbestos and EUR-10 million in respect of environmental
pollution). This was primarily due to a higher-than-anticipated
number of losses reported in respect of asbestos-related
exposures in the United Kingdom.

As a result of those various changes and after allowing for
movements in exchange rates, AXA held total reserves for
A&E (net of reinsurance) of EUR1.192 billion at year-end 2007.

Paris, France-based AXA is an insurer and a financial management
powerhouse. In the U.S., AXA owns AXA Financial, which owns a
majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company
also has subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia
Pacific), and Belgium (AXA Belgium). The companies offer life
insurance; personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance; reinsurance; financial services; and real estate
investment services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AXA Units Face Actions in U.S., Netherlands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several AXA subsidiaries are still engaged in litigation in the
Netherlands and in the United States, in relation to asbestos
claims made by Philips N.V. (on behalf of one of its U.S.
subsidiaries) under its worldwide liability program, according
to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 28, 2008.

From 1998 through 2001, subsidiaries of AXA, along with
a syndicate of other insurers, participated in the Philips
worldwide liability program (Policy) providing certain
insurance covers for Philips and its subsidiaries on a worldwide
basis.

Thompson Hayward Agriculture & Nutrition LLC (THAN), an indirect
U.S. subsidiary of Philips, made a claim under the Policy in
respect of asbestos-related claims resulting from its
distribution of raw asbestos fiber from 1961 to 1980.

The insurers (including AXA Group subsidiaries) commenced a
proceeding in the Netherlands in accordance with the forum
selection clause in the Policy claiming that the Policy was void
due to Philips' non-disclosure of material information
concerning the existence and nature of THAN's business in
connection with the underwriting and subscription of the Policy.
This Dutch litigation is currently pending.

THAN initiated a competing lawsuit in the U.S. federal District
Court for the District of Kansas, claiming that its asbestos
exposure should be covered under the Policy.

The Kansas court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction
and THAN's appeal of this decision was dismissed by the 10th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 12, 2007.

Subsequent to this dismissal, Philips indicated to the insurers
that it may put THAN into bankruptcy in the U.S.

AXA's acquisition of Winterthur Group on Dec. 22, 2006,
increased the AXA Group's potential exposure in this matter
because Winterthur Group insurers held a significant
participation in the Philips program.

Paris, France-based AXA is an insurer and a financial management
powerhouse. In the U.S., AXA owns AXA Financial, which owns a
majority of investment manager AllianceBernstein. The Company
also has subsidiaries in the U.K. (AXA UK), Australia (AXA Asia
Pacific), and Belgium (AXA Belgium). The companies offer life
insurance; personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance; reinsurance; financial services; and real estate
investment services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $424.3M Long-Term Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability
was US$424.3 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$437.5 million for the quarter ended March 31,
2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was at US$437.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$479.1 million as
of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$91.7 million for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$86.9 million
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted
to US$307 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, compared
with US$311.5 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$61.5 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, compared
with US$70 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2007.

Payments of asbestos claims and expenses, net of insurance
receipts, were US$7.5 million in the first quarter of 2008,
compared with US$3 million a year ago, when net outflows
benefited from insurance collections that had been delayed from
previous years.

New asbestos claims filed against the Company's subsidiaries
continued to decline in the first quarter, falling to 1,400
compared with 1,900 in the first quarter of 2007.

Asbestos related expenses in the first quarter were US$12.1
million, compared with US$12.9 million in the first quarter of
2007.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Facing 105,900 Open Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at March 31, 2008, faced about 105,900
open asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, at Dec. 31, 2007, were
defendants in 105,700 open asbestos-related cases. (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2008)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a
large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The
damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases
plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any
punitive damage awards. Liability for compensatory damages has
historically been allocated among responsible defendants.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid about US$1.3 billion in settlements and judgments and
over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims
of plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about six
percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other
cancers, and more than 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs
alleging asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant
impairment of the respiratory system.

Of about 105,900 open cases at March 31, 2008, the Company is
aware of about 9,600 (9.1 percent) that involve claimants
alleging mesothelioma, lung cancer or some other cancer.

The number of new actions filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in 2007 (5,200) was lower than the number filed in
2006 (7,700) and 2005 (15,300).

The number filed against its subsidiaries in each of those three
years was much lower than the number filed in the peak filing
year, 2003, when 44,700 new claims were filed.

This trend continued in the first quarter of 2008, with 1,400
new filings as compared to 1,900 in the first quarter of 2007.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Wins Defense Verdict in 2008 Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, won a defense verdict in the sole asbestos
case tried to verdict in 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2008.

Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial. Garlock won a defense verdict in the one case tried to
verdict in 2008, and in 13 of 26 cases tried to verdict in the
years 2004 through 2008.  

In the successful jury trials, the juries determined that either
Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock was not
negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to Garlock's
products.

During the first quarter of 2008, Garlock began three trials
involving four plaintiffs. An Ohio jury returned a defense
verdict in favor of Garlock. In Pennsylvania, a lawsuit
involving two plaintiffs settled during trial before the jury
reached a verdict. A lawsuit in California also settled during
trial.

In 2007, Garlock began nine trials involving 12 plaintiffs. A
Massachusetts jury returned a defense verdict in favor of
Garlock. In a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$145,000 against Garlock. Garlock is appealing this verdict.

Four lawsuits in Pennsylvania settled during trial before the
juries had reached a verdict. Garlock also settled cases during
trial in Louisiana, Maryland and Washington.

In 2006, Garlock began 10 trials involving 11 plaintiffs.
Garlock received jury verdicts in its favor in Oakland, Calif.;
Easton, Pa.; and Louisville, Ky.

In Pennsylvania, three other lawsuits involving four plaintiffs
settled during trial before the juries reached verdict. Garlock
also settled cases in Massachusetts, California and Texas during
trial.

In a retrial of a Kentucky case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$900,000 against Garlock. The award was significantly less
than the US$1.75 million award against Garlock in the previous
trial, which Garlock successfully appealed. Garlock has also
appealed the new verdict.

In addition, Garlock obtained dismissals in two cases in
Philadelphia after the juries were selected but before the
trials began because there was insufficient evidence of exposure
to Garlock products.

Garlock has historically been successful in a majority of its
appeals. In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of
Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million
verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new
trial. The case subsequently settled.

On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
Garlock's appeal from a 2005 Baltimore verdict, and Garlock paid
that verdict, with post-judgment interest, in the fourth quarter
of 2006.

In a separate Baltimore case in the fourth quarter of 2006, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the second quarter
of 2007.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. At March 31,
2008, two Garlock appeals were pending from adverse verdicts
totaling US$1 million, down from US$1.4 million at Dec. 31,
2007, and US$6.8 million at Dec. 31, 2006.

At March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had US$1.1
million of cash collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as
restricted cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $8.2M Settlement at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's new asbestos-related
settlement commitments in the first quarter of 2008 were US$8.2
million, down from US$24 million in the first quarter of 2007.

Garlock is a subsidiary of EnPro Industries, Inc.

Garlock settles and disposes of actions on a regular basis.
Garlock's historical settlement strategy was to settle only
cases in advanced stages of litigation. In 1999 and 2000,
however, Garlock employed a more aggressive settlement strategy.

The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a permanent
reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims through the
settlement of a large number of claims, including some early-
stage claims and some claims not yet filed as lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.

In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments to match insurance
recoveries. As a result, Garlock reduced new settlement
commitments from US$180 million in 2000 to US$94 million in 2001
and $86 million in 2002. New settlement commitments totaled
US$84 million in 2006 and US$76 million in 2007.

About US$15 million of the 2006 amount and about US$5 million of
the 2007 amount were committed in settlements to pay verdicts
that had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Records $368.5M Insurance at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, at March 31, 2008, had available US$368.5
million of solvent insurance and trust coverage that the Company
believes will be available to cover future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments.

In addition, at March 31, 2008, Garlock classified US$56 million
of otherwise available insurance as insolvent.

Garlock collected about US$1 million from insolvent carriers in
2007, bringing total collections from insolvent carriers from
2002 through 2007 to about US$39.3 million.

Of the US$368.5 million of collectible insurance and trust
assets, the Company considers US$321.6 million (87 percent) to
be of high quality because (a) the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating
by S&P is investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best
rating is excellent (A-) or better, or (b) in the form of cash
or liquid investments held in insurance trusts resulting from
commutation agreements.

The Company considers US$46.9 million (13 percent) to be of
moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with
(a) other solvent U.S. carriers who are unrated or below
investment grade (US$41.1 million) or (b) with various London
market carriers (US$5.8 million).

Of the US$368.5 million, US$254.2 million is allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims as described later in this
section.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company reached an
agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers.
These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of a
dispute.

The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the
insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments
to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the agreement, Garlock
received US$22 million in 2007 and will receive US$20 million in
2008.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Estimates Units' Liability at $509.6M
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. estimates that the liability of its
subsidiaries for the indemnity cost of resolving asbestos claims
for the next 10 years will be US$509.6 million, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2008.

The estimated liability of US$509.6 million is before any tax
benefit and is not discounted to present value, and it does not
include fees and expenses, which are recorded as incurred.

In the first quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of US$12.1 million to reflect net cash outlays of US$5.6
million for fees and expenses incurred during the quarter and a
US$6.5 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate of
the liability for the first quarter of 2018 to maintain a 10
year estimate.

In the first quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a pre-tax
charge of US$12.9 million to reflect cash outlays of US$7
million for fees and expenses incurred during the quarter and a
US$5.9 million non-cash charge primarily to add an estimate for
the first quarter of 2017 to maintain a 10 year estimate.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro's Liability Totals $516M at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos liability as of March 31, 2008
was US$516 million (the Company's estimate of a US$509.6M
liability plus US$6.4 million of accrued legal and other fees
already incurred but not yet paid).

The total liability as of March 31, 2008, included US$91.7
million classified as a current liability and US$424.3 million
classified as a non-current liability.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company had remaining solvent
insurance and trust coverage of US$368.5 million which is
reflected on its balance sheet as a receivable (US$61.5 million
classified in current assets and US$307 classified in non-
current assets) and which it believes will be available for the
payment of asbestos-related claims.

Included in the receivable is US$254.2 million in insured claims
and expenses that the Company's subsidiaries have paid out in
excess of amounts recovered from insurance. The remaining
US$114.3 million will be available for pending and future
claims.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines
and other engineered products for use in critical applications
by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces Potential 3rd-Party Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. faces or may face claims alleging exposures of
third parties to toxic substances, such as asbestos or benzene.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2008.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. is an independent oil refiner
and marketer. The Company operates five refineries, which have a
combined processing capacity of 910,000 barrels of crude oil a
day, and it has 5,450 miles of oil and refined products
pipelines and 38 product terminals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Faces TODCO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related
lawsuit from TODCO, which the Company acquired in July 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2008.

The case is styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66
Company et al. Circuit Court, 2nd Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain of subsidiaries of TODCO's former
parent to whom TODCO may owe indemnity and other unaffiliated
defendant companies, including companies that allegedly
manufactured drilling related products containing asbestos that
are the subject of the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels
and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and
strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed
by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served
against specific defendants.

As of May 1, 2008, about 700 questionnaires were returned and
the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire
reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the
respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and
its former parent which could lead to claims against either
company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state in
their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.

To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their
amended complaints.

The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for such claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.

Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and gas exploration and
production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and international
locations through its Domestic Offshore, International Offshore,
Inland, Domestic Liftboats, International Liftboats and Other
segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Facing 1,500 Claims at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. faced about 1,500 pending
asbestos-related claims as of March 31, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2008.

The Company, as of Dec. 31, 2007, had about 1,900 asbestos-
related claims pending against it. (Class Action Reporter,
March 14, 2008)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed
at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through March 31, 2008, the Company has been named a defendant
in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700
plaintiffs, and of those claims, about 3,200 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

Through March 31, 2008, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any.

At March 31, 2008, the Company had accrued US$1.6 million for
liability and related expenses.

Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is a specialty engineering and construction company
that maintains liquefied natural gas storage tanks;
petrochemical and gas processing plants; steel pressure vessels
for high-temperature applications; and heat transfer equipment.
Major customers in each of these respective operating segments
include CNOOC, Valero, Chevron, and SABIC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Facing 8,200 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,200 asbestos-related claims for
the three months ended March 31, 2008, the same as for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2008.

During the third quarter of 2006, the Company completed a study
of its asbestos related contingent liabilities and related
insurance receivables. These studies were based on detailed data
for the previous 10 years on the incidence of claims, the
incidence of malignancy claims, indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
and estimated future claims.

In conjunction with the 2006 asbestos study, the Company also
conducted a detailed update of its previous insurance position
and estimated insurance recoveries.

The Company expects to recover close to 54 percent of its future
indemnity costs and certain defense and processing costs already
incurred for asbestos claims.

The aggregate self-insured contingent liability was US$70.7
million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$70.1 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as
well as claims for past payments was US$35.9 million at March
31, 2008, compared with US$37.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The asbestos liability included in the above amounts at March
31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 was US$53.9 and the insurance
receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past
payments was US$34.3 at March 31, 2008 and US$35.6 at Dec.
31, 2007.

West Paterson, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company and sells its products
to diverse major markets for aerospace, adhesives, automotive
and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, inks, mining
and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to face product
liability claims, including claims for asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2008.

The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,600 lawsuits,
primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these
lawsuits represent a total of about 16,500 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there
has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company is a global
leader in the development, manufacture, and supply of
sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety.
Sophisticated safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems, and advanced materials to
protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal of "Century v. MSA" Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, on
Feb. 26, 2008, upheld a trial court ruling dismissing a coverage
action filed by Century Indemnity Company against Mine Safety
Appliances Company.

Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey
seeking a declaration of Century's obligations with respect to
certain asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance
policies issued to the Company by Century.

The New Jersey Superior Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss this case on jurisdictional grounds.
Century appealed that order.

It is unknown whether Century will seek to appeal that decision.  

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company is a global
leader in the development, manufacture, and supply of
sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety.
Sophisticated safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems, and advanced materials to
protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Action v. Century in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company's asbestos insurance case against
Century Indemnity Company is still in discovery in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa.

The Company has sued Century, alleging that Century breached the
five insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the
Company.

The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or
dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of a New Jersey action
and the Pennsylvania action is proceeding.

The Company said it believes that Century's refusal to indemnify
it under the policies is wholly contrary to Pennsylvania law.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company is a global
leader in the development, manufacture, and supply of
sophisticated products that protect people's health and safety.
Sophisticated safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems, and advanced materials to
protect users against hazardous or life threatening situations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Int'l. Cites $10M March 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$10,038,000 as of March 30, 2008, compared with US$9,697,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1,
2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$7,062,000 as
of March 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. is a provider
of valves and fluid control products for the industrial,
aerospace, petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company is
organized into two segments: Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid
Controls Products and Energy Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Controls Has 756 Claims at March 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
as of March 30, 2008, was a named defendant in about 756 active,
unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California, Texas,
New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 27 other states
(excluding Mississippi).

Leslie, as of Dec. 31, 2007, was a named defendant in about 707  
active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California,
Texas, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 27 other states
(excluding Mississippi). (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008)

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

Of these 756 claims, about 374 involve claimants allegedly
suffering from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died
from) mesothelioma. In addition, Leslie was also a named
defendant in about 4,800 unresolved asbestos-related claims
filed in Mississippi.

During the three months ended March 30, 2008, Leslie resolved a
total of 89 asbestos cases for an aggregate indemnity amount of
US$1.3 million, of which 71 percent or US$900,000 was paid by
insurance.

During the three months ended March 30, 2008, Leslie recorded
138 cases filed.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. is a provider
of valves and fluid control products for the industrial,
aerospace, petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company is
organized into two segments: Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid
Controls Products and Energy Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Incurs $1.28M March Settlement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Controls, Inc.'s incurred asbestos settlement costs of
US$1,283,000 for the three months ended March 30, 2008, compared
with US$561,000 for the three months ended April 1, 2007.

Leslie is a subsidiary of CIRCOR International, Inc.

Adverse verdicts accrued were US$1,275,000 for the three months
ended April 1, 2007.

Defense costs incurred were US$2,426,000 for the three months
ended March 30, 2008, compared with US$1,745,000 for the three
months ended April 1, 2007.

Net pre-tax expense was US$1,076,000 for the three months ended
March 30, 2008, compared with US$1,038,000 for the three months
ended April 1, 2007.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, Leslie recorded an additional
liability of US$9 million for the estimated indemnity cost
associated with resolution of its current open claims. Leslie
expects that payment of the amounts accrued with respect to the
open claims will be made by Leslie and its insurers over the
next three years.

The recording of this liability resulted in a pretax charge of
US$2.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2007, net of insurance
recoveries.

Leslie's existing claim indemnity liability was US$13,366,000 as
of March 30, 2008, compared with US$13,731,000 as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Leslie's incurred defense cost liability was US$3,734,000 as of
March 30, 2008, compared with US$3,028,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Leslie's insurance receivable was US$12,145,000 as of March 30,
2008, compared with US$11,899,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

On Oct. 12, 2007, a jury verdict was rendered by a Los Angeles
state court that, if allowed to stand, would result in a
liability to Leslie of about US$2.5 million (29 percent, or
about US$700,000, would be paid by Leslie while insurance would
pay the balance).

Although Leslie accrued a liability in the third quarter of
fiscal 2007 for this verdict, both Leslie and the other
defendant against whom the judgment was rendered have appealed
this verdict.

To date, Leslie's insurers have paid the majority of the costs
associated with its defense and settlement of asbestos-related
actions. Under Leslie's current cost-sharing arrangements with
its insurers, Leslie's insurers pay 71 percent of defense and
settlement costs associated with asbestos-related claims and
Leslie is responsible for the remaining 29 percent of all such
defense and indemnity costs.

The amount of indemnity available under Leslie's primary layer
of insurance coverage is therefore reduced by 71 percent of any
amounts paid through settlement or verdict.

As of March 30, 2008, excluding the impact of the Oct. 12, 2007
adverse jury verdict, and without giving effect to the Company's
estimate for the indemnity cost of resolving pending claims, the
Company said it believes that the aggregate amount of indemnity
remaining on Leslie's primary layer of insurance was about
US$9.6 million.

If the Oct. 12, 2007 jury verdict were to stand, the Company's
primary layer of insurance could be reduced by an additional
US$1.8 million.

Similarly, if the Company's estimate of the indemnity cost of
resolving pending claims is accurate, such resolution ultimately
would further reduce the aggregate amount of primary layer
indemnity by about US$6.4 million.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. is a provider
of valves and fluid control products for the industrial,
aerospace, petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company is
organized into two segments: Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid
Controls Products and Energy Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims Pending v. Spence Engineering, Hoke
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that asbestos-related claims
have been filed against two of its other subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which the Company
acquired in 1984; and Hoke, Inc., the stock of which the Company
acquired in 1998.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. is a provider
of valves and fluid control products for the industrial,
aerospace, petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company is
organized into two segments: Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid
Controls Products and Energy Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine S.p.A. Faces 13 Civil Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dalmine S.p.A., a Tenaris, S.A. subsidiary is subject to 13
civil proceedings for work-related injuries arising from the use
of asbestos in its manufacturing processes during the period
from 1960 to 1980, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2008.

In addition, another 43 asbestos related out-of-court claims and
one civil party claim have been forwarded to Dalmine.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the total claims pending against Dalmine
were 57 (of which, three are covered by insurance). During 2007,
29 new claims were filed, two claims were adjudicated, two
claims were dismissed and no claim was settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR5.1
million (US$7.5 million). Dalmine estimates that its potential
liability in connection with the claims not yet settled is about
EUR19.8 million (US$29.1 million).

Based in Luxembourg, Tenaris, S.A. is a supplier of tubes and
related services for the world's energy industry and certain
other industrial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,183 Cases at April 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, as of April 15, 2008, had about 1,183
asbestos cases remaining of the 3,310 cases filed against
Central Hudson.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group, Inc.'s utility
subsidiary Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation provides
electricity to 367,000 customers in eight counties of New York
State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural gas and
electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory that
extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing 470 Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to face about 470 pending injury
cases, including asbestos, involving a total of about 7,000
plaintiffs and their spouses, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2008.

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

In addition, the claims of about 3,300 former plaintiffs have
been administratively dismissed from Ohio State Courts. The
Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened unless
the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-
related claims.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, the Company
has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters.

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding company.
The Company operates in the component products industry through
its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The
Company also owns a non-controlling interest in Kronos
Worldwide, Inc. CompX is a manufacturer of security products,
precision ball bearing slides and ergonomic computer support
systems used in the office furniture, transportation, tool
storage and other industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 5,800 Lawsuits Pending v. Tyco at March 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. states that, as of March 28, 2008, there
were about 5,800 asbestos liability cases pending against it and
its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2008.

As of Dec. 28, 2007, the Company recorded about 5,600 asbestos
liability cases pending against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries and certain
subsidiaries of Covidien are named as defendants in personal
injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials.

Under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Covidien has
assumed all liabilities for pending cases filed against
Covidien's subsidiaries.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property.

Most of the cases involve product liability claims, based on
allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial
products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of
industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets
or packing.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and, as a result, have
been dismissed by the courts.

The Company has experienced an increase in the number of
lawsuits that have proceeded to trial. Of the lawsuits that have
proceeded to trial in 2008, the Company has won or settled all
but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury
verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company intends to appeal this verdict and said it believes
that the jury verdict will be overturned.

Princeton, N.J.-based Tyco International Ltd., in mid-2007, was  
split into three publicly held companies: Covidien (formerly
Tyco Healthcare Group), Tyco Electronics, and Tyco
International, which retained the manufacturing conglomerate's
Fire and Security and its Engineered Products and Services
businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Performance Abatement Fined $24,000 in Ore.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Oregon has fined Melvindale, Mich.-based
Performance Abatement Services more than US$24,000 for violating
safety laws in a 2007 asbestos removal project at Candalaria
Mall in Salem, Ore., Associated Press reports.

An Oregon Department of Environmental Quality spokesman says the
penalties against Performance Abatement were the result of an
inspection in September 2007.

The Company has appealed.

The Oregon DEQ alleges in a civil lawsuit that the Company
committed willful violations, such as allowing the accumulation
of asbestos debris and failing to keep ceiling tiles and vinyl
flooring wet enough in the removal process.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grupo Mexico Bares Dubious Asarco Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Mexico SAB, Asarco LLC's corporate parent, says it has
uncovered questionable claims of asbestos injuries filed in
Asarco's bankruptcy case by people diagnosed by a doctor whose
work has been discredited, Dow Jones Newswires reports.

Grupo Mexico says the five claims, seeking a total of US$5
million from Asarco subsidiaries, should be wiped out because
they have "glaring facial deficiencies."

Grupo Mexico said the claims all rely on diagnoses by Dr. Ray
Harron, a West Virginia radiologist whose diagnoses came under
fire from a Texas federal judge in 2005 as part of a product-
liability case.

In that case, thousands of people were claiming injuries to
their respiratory systems from inhaling silica particles. U.S.
District Judge Janis Graham Jack said Dr. Harron was part of a
scheme involving lawyers and other doctors in which silicosis
diagnoses were "manufactured for money," according to court
documents.

The Buffalo, N.Y., law firm of Lipsitz & Ponterior LLC filed the
claims on behalf of five New York residents who say they were
injured by asbestos products from Asarco's subsidiaries.

Anne Joynt, a lawyer at the firm, declined to comment
specifically about Grupo Mexico's criticism, except to note that
the company was objecting to only five out of 900 claims the law
firm filed in Asarco's bankruptcy.

Asarco, a copper-mining company based in Tucson, Ariz., filed
for bankruptcy in 2005.

Sander Esserman, an attorney for the committee representing the
asbestos claimants, said the Asarco subsidiaries are facing
about 100,000 claims for asbestos-related injuries. The claims
total between US$1.3 billion and US$2.1 billion, he said.

Besides the ties to Dr. Harron, Grupo Mexico said the claims
lack evidence that the people were exposed to asbestos. The
names of those claiming injuries are redacted in court
documents.

Mr. Esserman said the committee would oppose the move by Grupo
Mexico to object to individual claims, which he described as "a
pretty unusual procedure" in an asbestos-injury case. He added
that Grupo Mexico's motivation was to delay the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bowen's Estate Sues 73 Firms in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Paul Bowen, an Ohio resident who died from
mesothelioma, on May 5, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 73 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Defendants include Bondex International, CBS Corporation,
ConocoPhillips, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, John Crane Inc., Owens-
Illinois Inc., Pharmacia Corporation, Shell Chemical Company,
and Yarway Corporation.

According to the complaint, Mr. Bowen was employed from 1951 to
2004 as a laborer, truck driver, kiln operator, miner and
mechanic at various locations. His wife was employed as a
machine operator, maintenance worker, finisher and striper at
various locations.

Mr. Bowen's estate claims that his wife would on many occasions
work with and around asbestos and asbestos-containing materials.

The complaint states that dust created by working with and
around asbestos and asbestos-containing products would permeate
the person and clothing of the decedent's wife.

Mr. Bowen's estate claims his wife would carry the asbestos dust
on her clothing home with him where it would again become
airborne.

Mr. Bowen's estate also alleges he was exposed to asbestos
during non-occupational work projects including home and
automotive repairs, maintenance and remodeling.

Mr. Bowen was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Oct. 8, 2007 and
died on Dec. 31.

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

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

The estate further 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. Bowen's estate claims
he was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a
disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured
him prior to his death.

Mr. Bowen's estate also claims that he has sought, but has been
unable to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and
information from the defendants leading him to believe the
defendants destroyed documents related to asbestos.

The estate alleges that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information it has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

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

Nicholas Angelides, of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represents Mr. Bowen's estate.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Welsh Widow Reaches GBP120,000 Deal w/ AEI
---------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed 92-year-old widow from Mold, Flintshire, Wales, has
secured GBP120,000 in compensation after her husband died from
mesothelioma, Abeceder reports.

The damages were secured by trade union Unite's lawyers,
Thompsons Solicitors, after an out of court settlement with
Associated Electrical Industries (AEI).

The unnamed 71-year-old worker was exposed to asbestos while
working for the Metropolitan Vickers Electrical Company in
Trafford Park, Manchester, now known as AEI.

He worked for the firm as an improver apprentice and than a
production assistant during 1952 and 1956 and again between 1958
and 1964.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coon Reaches 5 Settlements in Texas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brent Coon & Associates has reached five
settlements in an enormous asbestos suit, in which its
plaintiffs routinely occupy the bulk of Judge Donald Floyd's
172nd District Court monthly docket, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

A pool of potential jurors waited outside the courtroom on
May 5, 2008, but before they could enter the court, the
defendants in the suit blinked and the parties reached an
undisclosed settlement.

The lawsuit, Helen Adams et al vs. AC&S et al, was originally
filed in 2004 by the Brent Coon & Associates law firm on behalf
of more than 2,000 plaintiffs against around 400 corporations.

Coon's lawyers managed to negotiate five settlements for their
clients Steve Atkins, Clifton Hightower, Jackie Lytle, Elenora
Demore and Judith Mullens.

The suit alleges the plaintiffs, or their deceased family
members, were "exposed to large quantities of asbestos or
asbestos-related products from the defendants, resulting in a
variety of respiratory and other diseases."

According to the plaintiffs' original petition, defendants
including ACandS Inc., Foster Wheeler Ltd., H.B. Zachry Company,
Brown & Root Inc., Bechtel and Dresser as contractors or
distributors sold, installed, removed or distributed asbestos-
containing products, which "were unreasonably dangerous and
defective."

All the suit's plaintiffs allege the defendants were negligent
for failing to adequately warn of the dangers of asbestos
exposure and failure to test products before entering them into
the stream of commerce.

Defendant 3M Corporation is also specifically named for
providing mask products to plaintiffs that did not provide
adequate respiratory protection.

The plaintiffs were suing for past and future pain and
suffering, past and future mental anguish, lost wages, loss of
earning capacity, disfigurement, past and future physical
impairment, medical bills and funeral bills in the event of
death.

These cases are:

   Steve Atkins case No. E167-892-G

   Clifton Hightower case No. E167-892-BY

   Jackie Lytle case No. E167-892-DJ

   Elenora Demore case No. E167-892-FN

   Judith Mullens case No. E167-892GO


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Losses, ALAE Total $351.02M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos claims were US$351,016,000
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$341,031,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos claims
were US$434,194,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$429,596,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2007.

The Company strengthened its asbestos, environmental, and other
latent reserves by US$54,547,000 in 2007, compared with
US$33,897,000 in 2006.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., which is
100 percent owned by Fairfax Inc, which is ultimately owned by
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance
distributed through an independent producer force located across
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Reserves Strengthen by $25M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., during the three months ended
March 31, 2008, strengthened its asbestos reserves by US$25.5
million.

The reserve strengthening was attributable to the settlement of
the Kelly-Moore Paint Company case.

Kelly-Moore filed litigation against the Company in the San
Francisco Superior Court (California) in connection with certain
general liability and umbrella liability policies issued to it.

The litigation sought coverage for bodily injury claims arising
out of exposure to asbestos-containing products that Kelly-Moore
and a subsidiary sold between 1960 and 1978. It also sought
breach of contract and bad faith damages.

In May 2006, Kelly-Moore filed a second amended complaint
seeking to recover from the Company defense costs it allegedly
paid to defend asbestos claims.

Kelly-Moore also sought payment of sums for contribution and  
subrogation under three other excess insurers' assigned claims
based on defense payments allegedly made on Kelly-Moore's
behalf.

Kelly-Moore was seeking US$53 million for the defense costs,
plus interest, and an additional US$33 million for the
contribution/subrogation claims. Kelly-Moore also sought to
recover extra-contractual and punitive damages as part of its
bad faith claim.

At a recent settlement conference, the case was settled.

The Company obtained a full and final release of all claims and
recorded a US$25.5 million charge to incurred losses including
all legal and other expenses associated with the defense of the
case.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., which is
100 percent owned by Fairfax Inc, which is ultimately owned by
Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance
distributed through an independent producer force located across
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Suit v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2008.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.V., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc.'s wholly owned
subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Lane Ltd., Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc.,
R. J. Reynolds Global Products Inc., and Conwood Company LLC,
Conwood Sales Co. LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC, and Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. BorgWarner Drop to 37T at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of March 31, 2008, faced about 37,000
pending asbestos-related product liability claims, in which
about 27,000 are pending in three jurisdictions, where
significant tort reform activities are underway, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 42,000 pending
asbestos-related product liability claims, in which about about
32,000 are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant
tort reform activities are underway. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 22, 2008)

The Company (or parties the Company is obligated to indemnify)
continues to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-
related personal injury actions. These claims relate to a few
types of automotive friction products that were manufactured
many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos.

In the first quarter 2008, of about 5,100 claims resolved, 49
(one percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant
by or on behalf of the Company. In 2007, of about 4,400 claims
resolved, 194 (4.4 percent) resulted in any payment being made
to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

To date, the Company has paid US$31.7 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
US$11.5 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance
of US$20.2 million is expected to be fully recovered. At
Dec. 31, 2007, insurers owed US$20.6 million in association with
these claims.

At March 31, 2008, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$38.5 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$38.5 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$39.6 million.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies automotive
systems and components, primarily for powertrain applications.
These products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") of light-vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing CNA Suit in Cook County
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers continue to face a declaratory judgment
action, filed in January 2004, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related
companies (CNA).

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of
making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs
pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold
the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable
coverage.

Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.

As such, the Company continues to believe that its coverage is
sufficient to meet foreseeable liabilities.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies automotive
systems and components, primarily for powertrain applications.
These products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily to
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") of light-vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and light-trucks).





                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                         

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *