CAR_Public/080516.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 97

                            Headlines

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court's Certification of "Simmons"
BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowder Due to Undeclared Shrimp
CARROLS CORP: Court Still to Rule on Motions in Ex-Workers' Suit
FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Reverses Ruling in Antitrust Lawsuit
FOSTER WHEELER: Court Approves TCE Pollution Suit Settlement

FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
GOOGLE INC: Faces California Suit Over Labor Laws Violations
GREEN COUNTY BOE: Faces Voters' Suit With Fixed Election Claim
HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Espresso Beans Over Undeclared Milk
HOLLINGER INC: Settles Suit with Davidson Kempner Management LLC

HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Illinois Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
HOT SPRINGS: Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Over Sewer Rates
IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal
INDIAN TRUST: June Ruling Will Include Dollar Figure, Judge Says
KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Ca. Labor Lawsuit

KEYBANK USA: Enabled College Loan Ponzi Scheme, Suit Claims
MALT-O-MEAL: Recalls Wheat Cereals Due to Possible Health Risk
MOTOROLA INC: D.C. Court Stays Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards
MOTOROLA INC: Reaches $20MM Agreement in Iridium Securities Suit
MOTOROLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Securities Fraud Suit

MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Adelphia Securities
NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints
NORTH COAST ENERGY: Settles Landowners' Royalties Litigation
NORTHERN LEASING: Appeals Court Allows Fraud Suit to Proceed
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit

PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed
RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi-Scheme
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Morgan Keegan Select Funds
SCOR S.E.: Settles Converium Shareholders' Lawsuit in U.S.
SODEXHO INC: Accused of Stealing Union Dues in Mississippi Suit

SOUTHERN CO: Appeals Denial of Dismissal Bid in Mirant IPO Suit
SPANISH BROADCASTING: Lawsuit Accuses 'La Mega FM' of Fraud
STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in California Over "Make Whole Rule"
TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE: Enters Into Stipulation Staying Maulano Suit
TITLE COS: Accused of Bilking Consumers in Series of Suits

USANA HEALTH: Denies Liability in California Ex-Associates' Suit
USANA HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Settlement Hearing in Delaware Suit is July 31

* Ohio Employer Class Action Summit to be Held on June 4


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Pilkington
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $152.4M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,599 Abex Claims at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $32M Costs from N.Y. Explosion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Company Records 8,790 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $113M Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $2M for Abatement at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Has Pending Asbestos Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,870 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed from Mississippi Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Case v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Board Ruling in Kirk Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Defendants in Conrail Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,725 Actions Pending v. TriMas at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Records 34,717 Cases at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Reaches Settlement in Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,810 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.1M for N.Y. Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 346 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $14.2M Net Gain at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $35M Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Still Face Cases in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,006 Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 450 Actions Pending v. McKesson Corporation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 838 W.Va. Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 60 Claims Pending Against Dalmine at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites $22.4M March Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Records 3,480 Cases at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 71 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameren at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 185 Claims Pending Against Rogers at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey has $326.2M Losses, LAE at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.598B at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Boss Holdings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Cites $22.7M Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Rise to 460 at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face Asarco Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Cases Still Pending v. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 460 Damage Claims Remain v. Grace at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $917M of Coverage at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $276.4M Libby Liability at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Expend $3M for Libby Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeal to Grace Case Dismissal Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AbitibiBowater Faces 800 Open Bowater Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Case v. 68 Firms Filed in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Canadian Cases in R.I.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shawvers Sue 31 Corporations in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 50 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers May Sue Scottish Gov't. on Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Edwards Kin Sues 35 Firms in Texas Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Account for Half of Ill. Law Division
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chick to Serve 15-Month Pa. Prison Sentence
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Preston Grandfather to Get 5-Figure Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Crewe Works Employee Death



                           *********


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court's Certification of "Simmons"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is appealing a decision by the District
Court in Caddo County, Oklahoma, that certified a class in the
matter, "Ivan J. Simmons, Madaline M. Thompson and Gaylon Lee
Mitchusson v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation," according to
Anadrako's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

In the suit, which was filed in February 2004, the plaintiffs
claim that Anadarko failed to correctly pay royalties on gas,
arguing that costs associated with compression, gathering,
dehydration, and processing should not have been deducted or
factored into the royalty calculation.  They are seeking an
award of monetary and punitive damages.

In January 2008, the district judge issued an order certifying
the case as a class action.  

The defined class generally includes all royalty interest owners
in Oklahoma wells where Anadarko is or was the operator, working
interest owner or lessee and relates only to payment of
hydrocarbons produced from those wells since 1985.

The company has admitted no liability for this matter and has
filed an interlocutory appeal of this class certification order
with the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the
District Court's certification order.  Currently, no hearing
date has been scheduled with regard to the Company's appeal.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is an  
oil  and gas exploration and production company with 2.43
billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of
Dec. 31, 2007.  The Company's major areas of operation are
located onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of
Mexico, and Algeria.  Anadarko also has production in China and
a development project in Brazil.  It markets natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids and owns and operates gas gathering and
processing systems.  In addition, Anadarko has hard minerals
properties that contribute operating income through non-operated
joint ventures and royalty arrangements in several coal, trona
(natural soda ash) and industrial mineral mines located on lands
within and adjacent to its Land Grant holdings.  The Land Grant
is an eight million acre strip running through portions of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the Company owns most of its
fee mineral rights.


BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowder Due to Undeclared Shrimp
----------------------------------------------------------
Blount Fine Foods of Fall River, MA is recalling Blount All
Natural New England Clam Chowder, Net Wt. 20 oz with Lot:
0424086D, Sell by date: 6/23/2008, because it may contain
undeclared shrimp.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to shrimp run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.  Our firm has recovered 1,385 of
1,416 units produced, 31 units are in distribution.

Blount New England Clam Chowder was distributed through the
following supermarket chains:

     -- Shaw's Supermarkets (in Massachusetts and Connecticut),

     -- Omni Foods (in Weston, MA), Donelan Market (in Acton and
        Littleton, MA),

     -- The Cirelli Marketplace store (Middleboro, MA), and

     -- The Blount Factory Store (Warren, RI).

The product is identified as a 20oz plastic cup with a film seal
and plastic lid.  The dark blue product label reads: Blount
Signature Soups All Natural New England Clam Chowder, Keep
Refrigerated.  The lot code and sell by date are printed in
black ink on the bottom of the cup.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing shrimp was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of shrimp.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by an isolated, temporary
breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased Blount All Natural New England Clam
Chowder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

Consumers who have health-related concerns should contact their
physician.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-274-2526.  Additional information is available at
http://www.blountfinefoods.com


CARROLS CORP: Court Still to Rule on Motions in Ex-Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has
yet to rule on certain motions filed in connection with a
purported class action suit against Carrols Corp.

On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees of the company
commenced a lawsuit, "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case
No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP."

The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain
minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
related state laws by requiring employees to work without
recording their time and by retaliating against those who
complained.

The plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief.  They
also seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting
of current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked, or
are working, for Carrols.

As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties
agreed to withdraw the plaintiff's requests for certification
and national discovery, as well as the defendant's motion to
disqualify counsel and related motions, in order to allow both
sides limited additional discovery.

Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed their certification
and national discovery requests, which Carrols oppose.

Carrols also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs from
representing the class and to strike the purported evidence
presented in support of their certification motion.

The parties are still awaiting the court's decisions on these
matters.
The company reported no further development with regard to the
case in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 30, 2008.

The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No.
6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York, Judge David G. Larimer,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
         (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com)
         Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
         693 East Avenue
         Rochester, NY 14607
         Phone: 585-272-0540
         Fax: 585-272-0574

Representing the defendants is:
        
         Helen N. Baker, Esq. (hbaker@freebornpeters.com)
         Freeborn & Peters
         311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Phone: 312-360-6256
         Fax: 312-360-6995


FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Reverses Ruling in Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the
certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in the
purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian
Export Antitrust Litigation Cases," which names Ford Motor Co.
as one of the defendants.  This according to Ford's May 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all
purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001,
were filed in various state and federal courts against numerous
defendants, including Ford, General Motors Corp.,
DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co.,
Nissan Motor Co., BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers
Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association
(Class Action Reporter, March 7, 208).

The federal and state complaints allege, among other things,
that the manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations,
conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles
produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada
at lower prices than vehicles sold in the U.S.

The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust
law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws.

The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine.

On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will
certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states
between Jan. 1, 2001, and April 30, 2003, for damages under
various state law theories.  

The company appealed the class certification order, and in March
2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed
the order certifying a class of all purchasers of new vehicles
in 20 states between Jan. 1, 2001, and April 30, 2003, for
damages under various state law theories.  The court also
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com/-- is a producer of cars   
and trucks.  The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in
other businesses, including financing vehicles.  Ford operates
in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services.  The
Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America,
Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and
Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments.  The Financial
Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit
Company (Ford Credit), which is engaged in vehicle-related
financing, leasing, and insurance.


FOSTER WHEELER: Court Approves TCE Pollution Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania  
gave final approval to a $1.6-million settlement by Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp. of a lawsuit over trichloroethylene ground
contamination.

In March 2006, a complaint was filed by Sarah Martin and Jeffrey
Martin against Foster Wheeler Energy before the Court of Common
Pleas, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.  The case was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.  

The complaint was filed on behalf of the Martins and more than
25 others similarly situated whose wells were contaminated with
a hazardous substance TCE that was released at the company's
site.  It seeks to recover costs of environmental remediation
and continued environmental monitoring of alleged class members
property, diminution in property value, costs associated with
obtaining healthy water, the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund, statutory, treble and punitive damages
and interest and the costs of the suit.

In April 2007, the court preliminarily approved a class action
settlement that had been jointly filed by the plaintiffs and the
company.   

Under the terms of the preliminary settlement deal, the company
would pay the class and its counsel a total of approximately
$1,600,000 in exchange for a release by class members of all
claims with respect to the matters that are the subject of the
litigation.  The release would not extend to the claims of those
who opt-out of the settlement.

The class, which is agreed upon only for the purposes of the
settlement, consists of three categories of persons who own or
live on property in, or within approximately 150 feet of, the
area in which TCE is inferred to exist in the groundwater.

One of the three categories of the class would include those
persons who live in residences at which TCE was detected in
private wells in 2004.

The preliminary settlement was subject to the class members'
opt-in/opt-out process and the holding of a fairness hearing
before the court.

A number of the class members opted-out of the preliminary
settlement, and a number of them objected that the preliminary
settlement was not fair.

After the December 2007 fairness hearing, the court entered an
order approving the settlement on a final basis, according to
Foster Wheeler's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 28, 2008.

The suit is "Martin et al. v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00878-ARC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge A. Richard Caputo,
presiding.

Representing the defendants are:

          Kerry A. Dziubek, Esq. (kerry.dziubek@aporter.com)
          Arnold & Porter
          399 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-715-1022

               - and -

          Marianne J. Gilmartin, Esq. (mjg@stevenslee.com)
          Stevens & Lee, PC
          425 Spruce St., Suite 300
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Phone: 570-343-1827

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Thomas W. Grammer, Esq. (tgrammer@feldmanshepherd.com)
          Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock
          1845 Walnut St.
          25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-567-8300

               - and -

          John Krisa, Esq.
          Krisa, McDonough, Cosgrove & Krisa, P.C.
          Route 6, Scranton Carbondale Highway
          Blakely, PA 18447
          Phone: 717-383-3205


FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foxhollow Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of ev3, Inc., is
facing three purported shareholder class action suits filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2008.

The three shareholder class action complaints were filed
separately in July 2006, August 2006 and February 2007, against
the company and two of its officers.  

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of
the company's common stock from May 13, 2005, to Jan. 26, 2006.  

The complaint generally alleges that false or misleading
statements were made concerning the company's management and
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

A motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend on
Sept. 5, 2007, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
Oct. 19, 2007.

The first identified complaint is "Margaret Kovarik, et al. v.
FoxHollow Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-04595,"
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brower Piven
         The World Trade Center-Baltimore
         401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
         Baltimore, MD
         Phone: 410-986-0036

         Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy
         San Francisco Airport Office Center
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650-697-6000
         Fax: 650-697-0577
         e-mail: info@cpsmlaw.com

         Federman & Sherwood
         120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102
         Phone: 405-235-1560
         e-mail: wfederman@aol.com

         Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
         330 Main Street
         Hartford, CT 06106
         Phone: 800-797-5499
         Fax: 860-493-6290
         e-mail: sn06106@AOL.com

              - and -

         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         3 Bala Plaza E
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces California Suit Over Labor Laws Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
alleging Labor Code violations, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that Google, through two labor
contractors, forces hundreds of "site reliability engineers" to
work overtime for no pay as they "design, debug, and manage its
search engine."

The co-defendant labor contractors are Workforce Logic and Duran
Human Capital Partners.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons who are or have been employed by defendants as contract
SRE Sourcers with Google within the State of California at any
time between June 20, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2007.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants, or any of them, had a policy or
         practice of suffering or permitting of-the-clock
         overtime work;

     (b) whether such policy and practice is unlawful;

     (c) whether defendants, or any of them, failed to pay
         contract SRE Sourcers for overtime hours worked; and

     (d) whether defendants, or any of them, violated Business
         and Professions Code Section 17200 not paying contract
         SRE Sourcers wages for all overtime hours worked.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

     -- determine that this action may proceed as a class action
        under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and
        Rule 23(b)(1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- determine that the defendants have violated the overtime
        provisions of the Labor Code Wage Orders as to the
        plaintiff and the California class;

     -- determine that the defendants have violated the overtime
        provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act as to         
        the the plaintiff and the collective class;

     -- determine that the defendants have violated California
        Labor Code Section 226 for willful failure to provide
        the required wage statements to the plaintiff and the
        California class;

     -- determine that the defendants have violated the FLSA by
        failing to maintain accurate time records of all the
        hours worked by the plaintiff and the collective class;

     -- to determine that the defendants' violations are
        willful;

     -- award them liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA;

     -- award them interest and penalties, including civil
        penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
        Act, California Labor Code Sections 2699, et seq;

     -- to order and enjoin the defendants to pay
        restitution due to their unlawful activities, pursuant
        to California Business and Professions Code Sections
        17200, et seq.;

     -- enjoin the defendants to cease and desist from unlawful
        activities in violation of California Business and
        Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and

     -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
        Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, Labor Code
        Section 1194, Labor Code Section 218.5, 29 USC Section
        216 and other applicable law.

The suit is "Maryam Broome et al. v. Google, Inc. et al, Case
No. 108CV112386," filed before the Superior court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          John Hyland, Esq.
          Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 725
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-421-1800
          Fax: 415-421-1700


GREEN COUNTY BOE: Faces Voters' Suit With Fixed Election Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Green County Board of Elections is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky alleging that it unconstitutionally threw a
county election to the Republican candidate by disqualifying all
542 absentee ballots after allegedly finding two unspecified
"irregularities," neither of which could be determined to have
affected a voter, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is an action for nominal damages and injunctive relief
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution seeking to redress
the deprivation by the Defendants of the constitutionally
secured right of the Plaintiffs and the class of 542
disenfranchised absentee voters to vote in the November 7, 2006,
General Election for a candidate for the office of Green County
Court Clerk.

The plaintiffs claim that Democratic candidate Carolyn Scott won
the Nov. 7, 2006 election for Green County clerk, with 2,536
votes -- 364 of them absentee ballots. Republican Billy Joe Lowe
got 2,385 votes -- 178 of them absentee.

The plaintiffs further claim these 542 voters were
disenfranchised when the Elections Board threw the race to the
Republican, turning a 151-vote defeat into an unconstitutional,
35-vote win.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- judgment declaring that the plaintiffs and all 542
        absentee voters who cast ballots in the General Election
        for the office of Green County Court Clerk have the
        right under the United States Constitution and the
        Fourteenth Amendment thereto, to have their votes
        counted;

     -- judgment awarding nominal damages of $1.00;

     -- temporary injunction enjoining the Board of Elections
        of Green County, Kentucky, from complying with the
        Judgment of the Special Judge of the Green Circuit Court
        and certifying a winner in the General Election for the
        office of Green County Court Clerk until the merits of
        this action are adjudicated;

     -- judgment declaring and ordering that the 542 absentee
        ballots cast in the General Election for the office of
        Green County Court Clerk be counted and that the Board
        of Elections of Green County, Kentucky certify the
        winner of the General Election for the office of the
        Green County Court Clerk only after counting such
        absentee votes;

     -- declaration, alternatively, enjoining the Board of
        Elections to take all necessary steps to hold a new
        General Election for the office of Green County Court
        Clerk at the earliest possible date consistent with the
        requirements of Kentucky law;

     -- trial by jury;

     -- an award of a reasonable fee for the Plaintiffs'
        attorneys pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;

     -- any and all other relief to which they may appear to be
        entitled.

The suit is "Washington Vaughn et al v. Board of Elections of
Green County et al, Case No. 1:08-CV-72-R," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the western District of Kentucky.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hon. Joseph H. Mattingly III
          Mattingly, Nally-Martin & Fowler, PLLC
          Attorneys at Law
          104 W. Main Street - P.O. Box 678
          Lebanon, Kentucky 40033
          Phone: 270-692-1718

              - and -

          Hon. Erin Brady Pike
          Attorney at Law
          121 South Seventh Street, Suite 100
          Louisville, Kentucky 40202
          Phone: 502-584-5955


HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Espresso Beans Over Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry and David, of Medford, Oregon, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 66,500 8 oz. bags of Harry and David Chocolate
Covered Select Blend Espresso Beans because they may contain
milk not declared on the ingredient statement.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The product was made by Sanders Candy Factory, Inc., Baldwin
Park, CA.  It was distributed throughout the United States under
the Harry and David brand only in Harry and David stores.

Harry and David is recalling 8 oz. bags of Chocolate Covered
Select Blend Espresso Beans with "Best if used by" dates after
8/28/05, sold prior to April 5th, 2008.  The "Best if used by"
date is located in the lower right hand corner of the nutrition
label on the back of the bag.  Bags subject to this recall do
NOT have a "Contains milk, soy" statement on the nutrition
label.  These products are packaged in 8 oz. clear plastic bags,
tied at the top with a tan ribbon.

There have been no illnesses or injuries reported to date.
Anyone concerned about an illness/injury should contact a
physician immediately.

This problem, which was discovered on April 3, 2008, occurred
because the ingredient statement of the bulk product delivered
to Harry and David by the manufacturer did not list milk as an
ingredient.

Consumers with product may return it to any Harry and David
retail store for a full refund.  Consumers with questions about
the recalled product may phone the Harry and David Customer
Service division at 800-233-1101, 24 hours a day.


HOLLINGER INC: Settles Suit with Davidson Kempner Management LLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollinger Inc. has entered into a term sheet with Davidson
Kempner Management LLC and certain of its affiliates and Sun-
Times Media Group, Inc.  

DK is the holder of approximately 42% of the outstanding
principal amount of Hollinger's secured notes issued pursuant to
indentures dated March 10, 2003 and September 30, 2004.  
Hollinger holds an approximate 70% voting interest and 19.7%
equity interest in Sun-Times.  In order to become effective, the
Settlement must be approved by an order issued by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

Hollinger and its subsidiaries, Sugra Ltd. and 4322525 Canada
Inc. are currently subject to proceedings in Canada under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and in the United States
under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  An agreement
between Hollinger and Sun-Times was filed by the Applicants with
the Ontario Court on April 10, 2008, in connection with the CCAA
proceeding.  The Settlement replaces the Sun-Times Agreement.

The Settlement provides that DK will withdraw its motion seeking
the bankruptcies of the Applicants, and that DK will support
Court Approval of the Settlement and the other relief sought by
the Applicants in their Notice of Motion dated April 10, 2008.

As soon as possible after Court Approval, the 14,990,000 Class B
Common Stock of Sun-Times owned directly or indirectly by
Hollinger will be converted into Class A Common Stock of Sun-
Times on a one-for-one basis and an additional 1,499,000 Class A
Common Stock of Sun-Times will be issued to Hollinger.  The
Settlement provides that the Exchanged Shares and the Additional
Shares, which provide security for the Notes, will be voted by
the indenture trustees of the Notes for the benefit of and at
the direction of the Noteholders (with certain restrictions).

The indenture trustees will be entitled to exercise all other
rights attached to the Exchanged Shares and the Additional
Shares and may realize upon the Exchanged Shares and the
Additional Shares in any commercially reasonable manner.

Upon the later of (i) Court Approval and (ii) immediately after
the next annual meeting of Sun-Times' shareholders scheduled for
June 17, 2008, the six directors appointed by Hollinger to the
board of directors of Sun-Times (G. Wesley Voorheis, William
Aziz, Edward Hannah, Peter Dey, Brent Baird and Albrecht
Bellstedt) will submit their resignations from that board.

Sun-Times and Hollinger will cooperate to maximize the
recoverable portion of the class action insurance settlement
proceeds payable to them and such proceeds shall be allocated so
that Sun-Times receives 85% of such proceeds, and Hollinger
receives 15% of such proceeds.

Hollinger and Sun-Times agree to divide their respective
recoveries from the insolvency proceeding of The Ravelston
Corporation Limited and certain affiliates equally as between
them.

A standard CCAA claims process shall be implemented immediately
for all claims against the Applicants, as outlined in the
Settlement.

Sun-Times' claims will continue to be dealt with as previously
outlined in the Sun-Times Agreement.  Upon Court Approval,
Hollinger will pay to Sun-Times the reasonable fees and costs
incurred by Sun-Times in connection with the CCAA proceedings
from August 1, 2007 to the date of Court Approval, subject to a
cap of US$2,000,000 in the aggregate.

Subject to certain reserves, all cash of the Applicants shall be
distributed to the creditors who have proved claims in
accordance with the claims process.  Distributions will be
determined on a non-consolidated basis giving effect to inter-
company claims but including only 50% of a claim by 432 against
Hollinger in the aggregate amount of approximately $342,500,000
and subject to these payments:

     (a) first, to pay a transaction fee to DK of $1,500,000 in
         consideration of the Settlement;

     (b) second, to pay the reasonable legal costs of the
         indenture trustees of the Notes up to and including
         Court Approval; and

     (c) third, to pay the reasonable legal costs of DK up to
         and including Court Approval;

provided that the total amount paid pursuant to items (a)
through (c) shall not exceed $4,500,000.

The Settlement provides that John D. Ground, a retired justice
of the Ontario Court of Justice (Commercial List), shall be
appointed as an officer of the Court to perform the role of
litigation trustee (the Litigation Trustee) of all claims and
causes of action in favor of the Applicants on such terms as may
be agreed between the Applicants and justice Ground and subject
to approval by the Court.  An advisory committee shall be
established to provide advice and direction to the Litigation
Trustee comprised of the Litigation Trustee, one representative
of DK and one representative of the Applicants.

Upon Court Approval, G. Wesley Voorheis will resign as an
officer and director of the Applicants and their subsidiaries.
The appointment of William Aziz, or an entity controlled by him,
as the Chief Restructuring Officer of the Applicants and an
officer of the Court shall be sought as part of the Court
Approval.

For more information, contact:

          G. Wesley Voorheis - Chief Executive Officer
          William E. Aziz - Chief Financial Officer
          Hollinger Inc.
          Phone: 416-363-8721 ext. 237 or ext. 262
          e-mail: wvoorheis@hollingerinc.com or
                  baziz@hollingerinc.com


HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Illinois Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., continues to face a class action lawsuit in
Illinois alleging that the spin-off of the company from Abbott
Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation
of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned,
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an
additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of
fiduciary duty under ERISA.  The company has moved to dismiss
the new claim.

By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action
status to the lawsuit.  The new claim in the amended complaint
is not subject to the class certification ruling.

As to the sole claim against the company in the original
complaint, the court certified a class defined as:

     "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the
     Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott
     was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30,
     2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of
     Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who
     were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit
     Plans on the date of their terminations."

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v.
Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199,"
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman presiding.
    
Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Paul William Mollica, Esq.
         Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica
         208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-263-0272

Representing the company is:

         James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com)
         Winston & Strawn LLP
         35 West Wacker Drive
         41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-5230


HOT SPRINGS: Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Over Sewer Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit challenging the city of Hot Springs' decision to
charge higher sewer rates to residents outside its city limits
has been revived by the state Court of Appeals, the Associated
Press reports.

According to the AP, the appeals court reversed last week  
Garland County Circuit Judge John Homer Wright's decision in
favor of the city. The appeals court judges have ordered new
hearings in the class-action suit.

The report recalls that residents living outside the Hot Springs
city limits sued the city in 2004 after the city enacted a rate
schedule that was significantly higher for them than for those
inside city limits.  The 2004 ordinance also imposed a higher
debt-service charge for residents outside the city limits.

The appeals court said Judge Wright was wrong to issue summary
judgment because there were unanswered questions about the
city's contract with the residents that should have been heard
at trial, the AP notes.


IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action suit filed
against Ikanos Communications, Inc., certain of its directors
and officers and two investment banks, are appealing the
dismissal of their case, according to the company's May 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008.

In November 2006, three putative class action suits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company, its directors, an executive officer and a
former executive officer.  

These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company
in connection with its initial public offering in September
2005, the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter
concerning its business and prospects.  The lawsuits seek
unspecified damages.  

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed on April 24, 2007.  The amended complaint alleges the same
claims.

On June 25, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed this motion, and a
hearing on it was heard on Jan. 16, 2008.

On March 10, 2008, the court ordered the case dismissed with
prejudice.  

On March 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
reconsideration of the court's dismissal order and permission
for them to file a second amended complaint.  The defendants
have opposed this motion to reconsider.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

The suit is "Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendant is:

         James N. Kramer, Esq. (jkramer@orrick.com)
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-773-5700
         Fax: 415-773-5759


INDIAN TRUST: June Ruling Will Include Dollar Figure, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, who is presiding over the nearly 12-year-
old Indian Trust case, told lawyers that he intends to place a
dollar figure on the government's mismanagement of the
individual Indian trust, according to Glacier Reporter.

"I assure you that one way or another, the result of this case
will be a dollar figure," Judge Robertson said during a pretrial
hearing.  The judge also said that the government did not want
him to reach such a conclusion, but that he had long believed
the public needed to know how much money is at stake in the
long-running class-action lawsuit.

Glacier Reporter recounts that Judge Robertson previously stated
that he wants the case to be concluded after a trial that begins
June 9, 2008.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2008,
Judge Robertson issued a strict timeline to the "Cobell v.
Kempthorne" case's lawyers at a March 5 hearing, saying it
is "time to bring this to a conclusion."

                       Case Background

The lawsuit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a
member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana.  It was originally
assigned to Judge Royce Lamberth, but the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit ordered the case reassigned in 2006.

The class action suit is based on the government's admitted
mismanagement of a land trust, which the Congress called a
"Broken Trust," that was established in 1887.  The Broken Trust
was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing
of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West.  As the
papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was
mismanaged by the government almost from its inception.  Despite
repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is
still years away from its long-promised accounting of the
accounts, (Class Action Reporter Jan. 8, 2008).

The government had proposed in March 2007 to pay $7 billion
partly to settle the lawsuit.  However, the proposal was
rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimated that the government's
liability could exceed $100 billion.  The Interior Department
estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in
the past five years.

             Interior Can't Account for Owed Money

In late January 2008, a Legal Times report wrote, Judge
Robertson issued a 165-page opinion concluding that the Interior
Department is incapable of performing an accurate accounting of
the land trust fund.  

According to another report by the Associated Press, Judge
Robertson said that the department's accounting for billions of
dollars owed to America Indian landholders has been
"unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately impossible.

                    April Hearing Results

During a March 5 status hearing, which the judge set to move the
case forward, he set out a schedule for the next few months
that will allow both sides to argue how the trial should
proceed.

Judge Robertson scheduled a hearing on April 21, aimed to set
the "content and shape" for the final proceedings to start on
June 9.  

During the April hearing, the judge said, "My stewardship of
this case will be something with a dollar sign," Glacier
Reporter notes.

"This is about dollars in the IIM (Individual Indian Money
Trust)," Judge Robertson said.  "Dollars in and dollars out."

At issue in the upcoming June trial will be a claim by the
Indian plaintiffs for $58 billion.  That is how much the
plaintiffs say the government profited by its mismanagement and
use of the Indians' Individual Indian Trust money, according to
Glacier Reporter.  Under trust law, the plaintiffs say that the
trust beneficiaries are entitled to whatever benefit the
government obtained from the use of their trust funds.

Glacier Reporter says that government lawyers told the judge
they will resist any effort to give a large sum to the Indians.  
They contend that little money is missing from the trust
accounts.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under Judge James Robertson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Mark Kester Brown, Esq. (mkesterbrown@attglobal.net)
           607 14th Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20005-2000  
           Phone: 775-542-4938
           Fax: 202-318-2372

           Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. (dennismgingold@aol.com)
           607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor
           Washington, DC 20005
           Phone: 202-824-1448
           Fax: 202-318-2372

           Richard A. Guest, Esq. (richardg@narf.org)
           Keith M. Harper, Esq. (harper@narf.org)
           Native American Rights Fund
           1712 N Street, NW
           Washington, DC 20036-2976
           Phone: 202-785-4166
           Fax: 202-822-0068

                - and -

           Elliott H. Levitas, Esq.
           (elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com)
           Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP
           607 14th Street, NW Suite 900
           Washington, DC 20005  
           Phone: 202-508-5800
           Fax: 202-508-5858

Representing the defendants are:

           Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq.
           (robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov)
           Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq.
           (sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov)
           U.S. Department of Justice
           1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008
           Washington, D.C. 20005
           Phone: 202-616-0328


KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Ca. Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Services, Inc., is appealing a ruling that granted class-
action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's
employees working in the State of California.

The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of
personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under
state law and alleged technical violations of a state law
pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs.

On April 30, 2007, the trial court certified two sub-classes
that correspond to the claims in the case.

The company is currently preparing motions for summary judgment
on both certified claims.

The company reported no new development in the matter in its
May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30,
2008.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a  
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KEYBANK USA: Enabled College Loan Ponzi Scheme, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keybank USA is facing a class-action complaint filed with the
Superior Court of the State of California over alleged Ponzi
scheme, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This class action is filed on behalf of California students who
enrolled in Silver State Helicopters vocational school (SSH),
accusing KeyBank USA, of Ohio, of predatory lending and enabling
fraud.

According to the complaint, California students trying to learn
job skills were ripped off by an Ohio bank that teamed up with
sham vocational schools to leave students with piles of debt and
no education.

KeyBank Education Resources and Great Lakes Educational Loan
Services defraud students at sham vocational schools by offering
high-priced loans, and when the schools' Ponzi schemes collapse,
the students are left with piles of debt and no education, the
complaint states.

The complaint claims that tuition and lending scams at
unlicensed and unregulated trade schools have proliferated in
recent years, and have only recently been subjected to
congressional investigation.

"Their growth has been fueled by unscrupulous lenders that have
willingly and irresponsibly 'partnered' with these sham
operations to provide expensive private loans to the high-risk
students these schools tend to attract," the complaint states.

"In this particular case, KeyBank partners with SSH as the
latter's 'preferred' lender and followed its usual script from
which it has reaped millions of dollars over the years.  Like
KeyBank's previous failed vocation school 'partners', SSH was
unregulated and unaccredited and, when its Ponzi scheme
collapsed, SSH filed bankruptcy filed bankruptcy, leaving its
students with nothing but KayBank's threats to enforce the
loans."

The plaintiffs claim the defendants based themselves in Ohio to
facilitate their scam.

"Because the laws of Ohio exempt Ohio-domiciled banks from that
state's consumer protection laws, the Bank, in complicity with
the sham schools, has preyed on unsuspecting California resident
students with legally repugnant adhesive loan documents
containing Ohio choice of law, forum selection, and anti-class
action arbitration clauses and, using these perceived
impenetrable 'shields', has engaged in a long-time pattern of
intentionally flaunting both federal and California consumer
protection laws," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in "commerce" in making the
         loans to the proposed class;

     (b) whether defendants and SSH were affiliated with each
         other or had business arrangement in connection with
         SSH's solicitation of prospective students and offering
         of tuition financing from defendants;

     (c) whether defendants and SSH intentionally violated FTC
         regulations by knowingly and intentionally omitting the
         required Holder Rule Notice from the Notes and
         insisting SSH omit the language from the Service
         Contract Agreement thereby enabling defendants to argue
         in litigation with California residents that the Holder
         Rule is inapplicable to it as a matter of law because
         the Notices is in neither the Service Contract
         Agreement nor the Note;

     (d) whether California or Ohio Choice of Law rules apply;

     (e) whether defendants' fraudulent and deceptive acts in
         violation of 16 CFR 433.2 (i.e. by failing to include
         the required language in the Note) constitute a
         predicate unlawful, unfair or deceptive act or practice
         under the UCL; and

     (f) whether the defendants and SSH aided and abetted each
         other in carrying out their conduct alleged.

The plaintiffs asks the court for:

     -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently
        enjoining defendants and each of them from reporting to
        any credit agency any default by plaintiffs and the
        proposed class under the Notes;

     -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently
        enjoining defendants and each of them from enforcing the
        Notes against plaintiffs and the proposed class or
        taking any action in furtherance of enforcement efforts;

     -- other orders or judgments as the court may
        consider necessary to prevent the use or employment by
        defendants of any practice which constitutes unfair
        competition under the UCL;

     -- attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1021.5;

     -- statutory costs of suit; and

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

The suit is "Matthew C. Kilgore et al v. Keybank USA, NA., Case
No: RoI09386980," filed with the Superior Court of the State of
California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Andrew A. August, Esq.
          Kevin F. Rooney, Esq.
          Pinnacle Law Group, LLP
          425 California Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-394-5700
          Fax: 415-394-5003


MALT-O-MEAL: Recalls Wheat Cereals Due to Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malt-O-Meal is voluntarily recalling its unsweetened Puffed Rice
and unsweetened Puffed Wheat Cereals produced with "Best If Used
By" codes between April 8, 2008 (coded as APR0808) and March 18,
2009 (coded as MAR1809) because they may have the potential to
be contaminated with Salmonella.

The recalled product was distributed nationally, marketed under
the Malt-O-Meal brand and as some private label brands including
Acme, America's Choice, Food Club, Giant, Hannaford, Jewel,
Laura Lynn, Pathmark, Shaw's, ShopRite, Tops and Weis Quality.  
A comprehensive listing of impacted products can be found at
http://www.malt-o-meal.com/recallinfo

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
situation.  All other Malt-O-Meal products are unaffected by
this action and are safe for continued sale and consumption.  
The products affected by this recall represent less than one-
half of one percent of the company's annual production of ready-
to-eat cereal.

"Our first and highest priority is the safety of the consumers
who use our products," said Malt-O-Meal President and CEO Chris
Neugent.  "It's important that we spread the word about this
situation quickly and broadly in order to remove even the
slightest possibility that someone will consume something
harmful.  We apologize for this situation and promise to do
everything to complete the recall as quickly as possible."

The recall was initiated after the company's internal routine
food safety testing detected the presence of Salmonella in a
product produced on March 24, 2008.  The company immediately
commenced an investigation to determine the root cause of this
one positive finding as well as the extent of any possible
exposure.  Initial results from this follow-up investigation
indicate that additional product may have been exposed to this
contaminant.  Thus, out of an abundance of caution to protect
consumers, the company has chosen to voluntarily remove all
unsweetened Puffed Rice and unsweetened Puffed Wheat products
with "Best If Used By" codes between April 8, 2008 (coded as
"APR0808") and March 18, 2009 (coded as "MAR1809").

Investigation into the source of the Salmonella has determined a
root cause of this situation and corrective measures have been
taken to ensure that there is no reoccurrence of this issue.

Persons infected with Salmonella may experience a variety of
symptoms and illnesses.  According to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, persons infected with Salmonella may experience
fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in more
severe illnesses, some potentially life threatening.

Consumers who have purchased any products covered by this recall
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-
877-665-9331.  Information regarding this recall, including
images of the Malt-O-Meal product packaging, also will be posted
to the company's website at http://www.malt-o-
meal.com/recallinfo


MOTOROLA INC: D.C. Court Stays Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Superior Court issued a stay order in
the matter, "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," which accuses
Motorola, Inc., and several other companies of failing to inform
customers that cellular phones have harmful health effects.

The suit was filed on Sept. 9, 2002, and contains class claims
alleging deceptive and misleading actions by defendants in
falsely stating that cellular phones are safe and by failing to
disclose studies that allegedly show cellular phones can cause
harm.

The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, actual damages,
treble or statutory damages, punitive damages and a constructive
trust.

On Dec. 9, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
matter.

On March 5, 2008, the court stayed "Dahlgren" pending the
outcome in another matter captioned, "Murray v. Motorola, Inc.,
et al.," according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2008.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- is engaged in  
providing technologies, products and services for mobile phones.
The Company's portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless
accessories, digital entertainment devices, wireless access
systems, voice and data communications systems, and enterprise
mobility products.  The segments of the Company include Mobile
Devices Segment, Home and Networks Mobility Segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions Segment.  


MOTOROLA INC: Reaches $20MM Agreement in Iridium Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Inc. reached a tentative $20­million settlement in the
matter, "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et
al.," which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

Initially, the company was named as one of several defendants in
the securities class actions arising out of alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Iridium satellite
communications business (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2008).

The suits were later consolidated under the caption, "Freeland
v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al."  It was
originally filed on April 22, 1999.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
arising from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions
regarding difficulties in the satellite communications business
of Iridium World Communications, Ltd., Iridium, LLC, and Iridium
Operating, LLC.  The alleged class consists of purchasers of all
Iridium securities during the period from Sept. 9, 1998, to
March 29, 1999.

On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola
in exchange for Motorola's agreement to pay $20 million,
according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.

The suit is "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et al.,
Case No. 1:99-cv-01002" filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr., Esq. (dgt@ftllaw.com)
          Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
          1050 30th Street
          NW Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000
          Fax: 202-337-8090
  
               - and -

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892

Representing the defendants are:

          Jeffrey L. Willian, Esq. (jwillian@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          200 East Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-861-2000
          Fax: 312-861-2200

               - and -
       
          James F. Moyle, Esq. (james.moyle@cliffordchance.com)
          Clifford Chance U.S. LLP
          31 West, 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-878-8508
          Fax: 212-878-8375


MOTOROLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers
and directors are seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action suit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of Motorola
securities between July 19, 2006, and Jan. 5, 2007.

The suit, "Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed on
Aug. 9, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as,
in the case of the individual defendants, the control person
provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the
allegation that the defendants knowingly made incorrect
statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for the
third and fourth quarter of 2006.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief
relating to the purported artificial inflation in the price of
Motorola shares during the class period.

An amended complaint was filed on Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola
moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008, according to
the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

The suit is "Eric Silverman, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-04507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge James B. Moran, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Miller Law LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL, 60603
          Phone: 312-676-2665
          e-mail: info@MillerLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA, 19087
          Phone:  610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Adelphia Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., continues to face several lawsuits that are
consolidated under the matter, "In re Adelphia Communications
Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," which is currently
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to Motorola's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2008.

                       Argent Litigation

On July 23, 2004, Motorola was named as a defendant in a
purported class action, "Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage
Fund L.P., et al. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al."

The complaint was filed against Scientific Atlanta and Motorola
in the U.S. District Court for the the Southern District of New
York.  

It generally alleges a claim arising under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder relating to Adelphia securities.

The suit seeks compensatory damages and other relief.  

Motorola filed a motion to dismiss the matter on Oct. 12, 2004,
which is awaiting decision.

                       Stocke Litigation

On Dec. 22, 2003, Motorola was named as a defendant in the
matter, "Stocke v. John J. Rigas, et al."  The case was
originally filed in Pennsylvania and was subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York as related to "In re Adelphia Communications Corp.
Securities and Derivative Litigation," which consists of at
least fourteen individual cases and one purported class action,
"Argent," that were filed in or have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Motorola and several other individual and corporate defendants
are named in the amended complaint.  As to Motorola, the
complaint makes generally the same allegations as "Argent."

The complaint seeks return of the consideration paid by
plaintiff for Adelphia securities, punitive damages and other
relief.

In March 2008, the "Stocke" plaintiff agreed to become a member
of the purported class in "Argent" and the Stocke action was
dismissed by the court as a stand-alone action.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- is engaged in  
providing technologies, products and services for mobile phones.
The Company's portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless
accessories, digital entertainment devices, wireless access
systems, voice and data communications systems, and enterprise
mobility products. The segments of the Company include Mobile
Devices Segment, Home and Networks Mobility Segment and
Enterprise Mobility Solutions Segment.  


NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., as well as
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  This
according to NL Industries' May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2008.

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and
school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions.  

These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of
state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  

A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  

Valhi, Inc. -- http://www.valhi.net/-- is a holding company and  
operates through its wholly owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide,
Inc., CompX International, Inc., and Waste Control Specialists,
LLC.  The Company operates in three segments: chemicals,
component products and waste management.  Its chemicals segment
is operated through its majority ownership of Kronos.  It
operates in the component products industry through its majority
ownership of CompX.  It operates its waste management segment
through WCS, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, which owns
and operates a West Texas facility for the processing,
treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous, toxic and certain
types of low-level radioactive waste.  


NORTH COAST ENERGY: Settles Landowners' Royalties Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc.,
settled a putative class action suit over the payment of
royalties in West Virginia, according to EXCO's May 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit, "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy,
Inc., Civil Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed before the Circuit
Court of Roane County, West Virginia on Oct. 11, 2006.  Certain
landowners and lessors in West Virginia brought it for
themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated landowners
and lessors in West Virginia.  

Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast Energy has not
been paying royalties to the plaintiffs in the manner required
under the applicable leases, has provided misleading
documentation to the plaintiffs regarding the royalties due, and
has breached various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary
duties to the plaintiffs with regard to the payment of
royalties.  

In the case, "The Estate of Garrison Tawney v. Columbia Natural
Resources, LLC," announced in June 2006, the West Virginia
Supreme Court held that language such as "at the wellhead" and
similar language contained in leases when used in describing how
to calculate royalties due lessors was ambiguous and, therefore,
should be construed strictly against the lessee.  

Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that
is intended allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production
costs such as the costs of marketing the product and
transporting it to the point of sale, no post-production costs
may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due from the
lessee.  

The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed
against the company are similar to the claims alleged in the
Tawney case.  

The plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory
and punitive damages, interest and costs and other remedies.   

Effective March 18, 2008, the company entered into an agreement
to settle all claims arising in the matter for $40,000.  In
connection with this settlement, all claims alleged by the
plaintiffs are scheduled to be dismissed with prejudice.  

The settlement is awaiting final approval by the court before a
dismissal can be entered.

EXCO Resources, Inc. -- http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a  
public oil and natural gas  acquisition, exploitation,
development, and production company with principal operations in
Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia.


NORTHERN LEASING: Appeals Court Allows Fraud Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
A New York appeals court refused to dismiss fraud claims against
officers of equipment-leasing company Northern Leasing Systems,
the Associated Press reports.

According to the report, those company officials are accused of
hiding overcharges in contracts with small businesses.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs says overcharges by Northern Leasing
for insurance waivers on office equipment could total
$180 million over the past decade.

The AP notes that plaintiffs in the appeal are from New York,
Missouri, Texas and Washington.

Northern Leasing attorney Abraham Skoff, Esq., had said that the
leasing company did not instruct independent sales outlets to
hide the fine print of contracts or refuse to hand out copies.

The case now goes back to trial court in Manhattan, which will
first decide whether to certify it as a class-action suit, the
AP says.

New York-based Northern Leasing leases credit card processing
and other office equipment.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NutriSystem, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors
filed a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class
action suit filed against them that alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to NutriSystem's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suits were first filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2007.  They purport
to bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2007, and
Oct. 3 or Oct. 4, 2007.

The complaints allege that the defendants issued various
materially false and misleading statements relating to the
company's projected performance that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of its securities.

These suits were consolidated in December 2007 under the
caption, "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-04215-MK."

On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on March 7, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint raises the same claims but
alleges a class period of Feb. 14, 2007, through Feb. 19, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit
on May 6, 2008.  The plaintiffs' opposition is due July 7, 2008,
and defendants' reply is due on Aug. 6, 2008.

The suit is "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-04215-MK," filed in the the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Marvin Katz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC
          100 Penn Square East
          John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100

               - and -

          Leon W. Silverman, Esq. (leon@steinandsilverman.com)
          Stein & Silverman PC
          230 S. Broad St. 18th Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-985-0255
          Fax: 215-985-0342

Representing the defendants is:

          Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq.
          (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com)
          Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Phone: 215-963-5740
          Fax: 215-963-5001


PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed against Public
Service Electric & Gas Co. in relation to a transition bond that
the company charges its customers appealed the dismissal of
their case to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior
Court, according to PSE&G's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were
served with a copy of a purported class-action complaint
challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of
New Jersey's Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against
continued collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the
transition bond charge of PSE&G Transition Funding, as well as
recovery of TBC amounts previously collected.

Notice of the filing of the complaint was also provided to New
Jersey's Attorney General.  Under New Jersey law, the
Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional.

On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of
related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously
collected and also filed a petition with BPU, requesting review
and adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same charges.  

PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the
amended Complaint (or in the alternative for summary judgment)
on July 30, 2007, and PSE&G filed on Sept. 30, 2007, a motion
with the BPU to dismiss the petition.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was granted by the court.  

On Nov. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.  
Briefing of the appeal has been completed.

PSE&G reported no further development in the matter.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/--  
is an operating public utility company engaged principally in
the transmission and distribution of electric energy and gas in
New Jersey.


RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi-Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial Services is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Common Pleas Court in Butler County, Ohio
alleging it aided and abetted a seven-year Ponzi scheme in which
Jerry Rose took millions of dollars from 200 investors, many of
them retirees, for which Rose was sentenced to 20 years in
prison, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises from the unlawful sale of unregistered
securities to plaintiffs and members of the class.

The plaintiffs claim Mr. Rose was not a registered investment
adviser but claimed to be running a "private mutual fund,
illegally pooling the money from these investors and investing
it with Defendants."

They claim Raymond James was "fully aware of Rose's unlawful
actions, and provided Rose with substantial assistance,
encouragement, and the instrumentalities to facilitate the
unlawful sales. . . . (S)ubstantially all of the funds invested
by Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been lost.
Plaintiffs, and other members of the Class, include elderly
retirees who were dependent upon the money squandered by Rose
and Defendants for their everyday living expenses."

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the transactions between class members, Mr.
         Rose and Raymond James constitute securities under Ohio
         law;

     (b) whether the security was registered in accordance with
         Ohio law;

     (c) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
         funds invested by Mr. Rose were the funds of individual
         members of the class;

     (d) whether Mr. Rose and defendants engaged in the sale of
         unregistered securities to members of the class;

     (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that Mr.
         Rose was not licensed to sell securities in the State
         of Ohio;

     (f) whether defendants aided and abetted Mr. Rose in his
         scheme to sell unregistered securities;

     (g) whether defendants sold or entered into a contract for
         the sale, and participated or aided Mr. Rose or the
         Rose Entities in the sale or contract for sale, of
         securities in violation of R.C. Chapter 1707, et seq.;

     (h) whether defendants provided substantial assistance
         and encouragement to Mr. Rose in his transactions
         with members of the class, and in investing and trading
         through accounts owned, controlled, or held in the name
         of Mr. Rose or the Rose Entities which contained the
         funds of members of the class; and

     (j) whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for
         all losses sustained by plaintiffs and members of the
         class.

The plaintiffs ask the court:

     -- to certify this suit as a class action under Rule 23 of
        the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- for compensatory damages, including market adjusted
        losses, for the plaintiffs and members of the class in
        an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- for interest, costs and attorneys fees;

     -- for declaratory and injunctive relief; and

     -- for such other relief the court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Jesse S. Venable et al. v. Raymond James &
Associates, Inc.," filed in the Common Pleas Court in Butler
County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Nicole M. Lundrigan, Esq.
          Strauss & Troy
          The Federal Reserve Building
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120
          Fax: 513-629-9426


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Morgan Keegan Select Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corp. and certain of its affiliates were named
in class action suits filed in federal courts on behalf of
investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan
Select Funds and shareholders of Regions, according to Regions
Financial's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

Filed in late 2007 and early 2008, the complaints contain
various allegations, including that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds.

No class has been certified and at this stage of the lawsuits,
Regions cannot determine the probability of a material adverse
result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if
any.

Regions Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that
operates throughout the South, Midwest and Texas.  The Company
provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking
services, as well as other financial services in the fields of
investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds,
securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing.  
Regions' business segments are General Banking/Treasury;
Investment Banking, Brokerage and Trust, and Insurance.  The
Company conducts its banking operations through Regions Bank, a
state-chartered commercial bank.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, Regions
operated approximately 2,000 banking offices in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.  


SCOR S.E.: Settles Converium Shareholders' Lawsuit in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------
SCOR S.E. disclosed that it had settled a U.S. class action suit
brought by shareholders of Converium Holding Ltd., the Swiss
reinsurer that SCOR acquired last year, Sarah Veysey writes for
Business Insurance.

SCOR said that it entered into the settlement with buyers of
Converium securities in the United States during the first
quarter of 2008.  The Converium security holders alleged that
Converium misrepresented and omitted material information in
various public disclosures.  The claims originally had been made
in a class action lawsuit filed in 2004.

Business Insurance recounts that the plaintiffs in that suit
sought to represent a class of all buyers of Converium shares
between December 2001 and September 2004.  The U.S. court,
however, limited the class to U.S.-resident buyers of Converium
shares between January 2002 and September 2004.  The plaintiffs
had asked the court to reconsider that decision.

While the court was considering that request, SCOR reached an
agreement to settle claims of the certified class before the
U.S. court, as well as the claims of non-U.S. purchasers of
Converium securities that were proceeding in the Netherlands.
The aggregate settlement amount was EUR74 million
(US$114.5 million), SCOR said.

SCOR said it planned to launch arbitrations with directors and
officers insurers "in order to maximize the recoveries."

Business Insurance notes the company as saying that it had
"booked conservative recoveries," and noted that the settlement
is expected to have no impact on its 2008 earnings.

SCOR S.E. -- formerly known as Scor Regroupe -- is engaged in
the provision of insurance and reinsurance.  The Group provides
cover for the risk associated with sectors such as credit,
surety, and politics.  Its activities include the coverage of
large industrial risks and derivative risks.  It also provides
alternative reinsurance including securitisation.  The Group
operates mainly in Europe, North America and Asia.  In 2007, the
Group acquired Converium, ReMark and Compagnie Parisienne de
Parking.


SODEXHO INC: Accused of Stealing Union Dues in Mississippi Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sodexho Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, state of Missouri alleging it
deducted union dues from employees and pocketed the money,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The class consists of all Sodexho employees since 2003 who paid
union dues and were not paid the prevailing wage.

Named plaintiffs David and Edward Muehlheausler contend that
since 2003, Sodexho has deducted $93 a month -- 2% of their
earnings -- for union dues.  But they say Sodexho never gave the
money to a union, is not a union-approved contractor, threatened
to fire David Muehlheausler if he did not make the forced, and
phony, payments of "union dues," and, they say, Sodexho does not
pay employees the prevailing wage.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether "union dues" deducted from paychecks of the
         class members were being paid to an international
         union;

     (b) whether the defendant represented to class members that
         "union dues" deducted from class members' paychecks
         were paid to an international union when they were not
         actually being paid to any international union;

     (c) whether the defendant violated Missouri law by
         misrepresenting to plaintiff and class members that the
         "union dues" deducted from their paychecks were going
         to an international union when they were not going to
         any international union; and

     (d) whether the defendant violated Missouri law requiring
         private contractors to pay the prevailing hourly rate
         of wages for "construction" work.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order maintaining the suit as a class action pursuant
        to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.08 and that the
        classes be certified;

     -- an order determining that all purported union dues that
        were collected by defendant from 2003 to the present
        from the weekly paychecks of plaintiffs and class
        members were collected in violation of Missouri law;

     -- an order directing the defendant to disgorge all
        purported union dues collected from plaintiff and class
        from 2003 to the present;

     -- an order finding that the defendant willfully and
        intentionally violated Missouri Revised Statute, Section
        290.230.1;

     -- an order certifying plaintiffs as class representative
        and appointing their counsel as counsel for the class;

     -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class compensatory
        damages, to include any monies illegally or improperly
        deducted from the weekly  paychecks of plaintiff and
        class and further awarding to the workers any damages
        caused by such deductions;

     -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class their
        consequential and incidental damages;

     -- an order awarding total plaintiffs and members of the
        class damages in excess of $25,000;

     -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class pre-judgment
        and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

     -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class punitive
        damages as provided by law;

     -- an order imposing a constructive trust and equitable
        lien against all money paid by the plaintiffs and class
        to wrongfully taken or withheld by defendant;

     -- an order awarding plaintiffs and class attorney's fees
        and costs as provided by law;

     -- an order for declaratory relief declaring that the
        deduction of purported international union dues from
        the weekly paychecks of plaintiffs and class was due to
        the negligent misrepresentations and omissions by
        defendant and resulted in the unjust enrichment of
        defendant;

     -- an order for a preliminary injunction requiring all
        future deduction of "union dues from the weekly
        paychecks of plaintiffs and class be deposited in a
        court-created escrow account (instead of being paid to
        defendant) pending final resolution of the disputes and
        controversies alleged;

     -- an order that the defendant abide by the terms of the
        spoilation letter; and

     -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class such other
        and further relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "David Muehlheausler et al v. Sodexho, Inc.," filed
before the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Erich Vieth, Esq.
          John Campbell, Esq.
          Simon * Passante, PC
          701 Market Street, Ste. 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: 314-241-2929
          Fax: 314-241-2029


SOUTHERN CO: Appeals Denial of Dismissal Bid in Mirant IPO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Co. is appealing a ruling that denied its motion to
dismiss certain claims in a securities fraud class action
involving Mirant Corp.'s initial public offering, according to
Southern Co's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In November 2002, Southern Co., certain of its former and
current senior officers, and 12 underwriters of Mirant's IPO
were added as defendants in a class action that several Mirant
shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant
officers in May 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008).

Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were
consolidated into the litigation before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.

The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged
improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the
California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions
in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in
subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related
issues previously disclosed by Mirant.

The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  The remaining claims do
not allege any improper trading and marketing activity,
accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the
part of Southern Co. but seek to impose liability on Southern
Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control
person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date.

Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class
action complaint in September 2003.  The plaintiffs have also
filed a motion for class certification.

During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation
was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery.  Since
Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay
has been lifted.  

On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of
its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based
upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing
activities involving the California energy market.

Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  

On March 6, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration, reinstated the California energy market claims,
and granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
compel certain class certification discovery.

On March 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to
dismiss the California energy claims on grounds originally set
forth in their 2003 motions to dismiss, but which were not
addressed by the court.

On July 27, 2007, certain defendants, including Southern Co.,
filed motions for reconsideration of the court's denial of a
motion seeking dismissal of certain federal securities laws
claims based upon, among other things, certain alleged errors
included in financial statements issued by Mirant.

The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com)
          Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC
          1050 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-724-9990
          Fax: 404-724-9986

               - and -

          Nichole Tara Browning, Esq. (nba@classlaw.com)
          Chitwood & Harley
          1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          2300 Promenade II
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. (jcorley@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7000

               - and -

          Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., Esq. (ggarrett@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day-Atlanta
          1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
          Phone: 404-521-3939


SPANISH BROADCASTING: Lawsuit Accuses 'La Mega FM' of Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Spanish Broadcasting System and All Star Vacation Marketing
Group is facing a class-action complaint in federal court
alleging it defrauded listeners of 97.9 "La Mega FM" in a bogus
radio contest that misrepresented its prizes as all-expense-paid
vacations, then demanded the winners pay a $399 "fee" and other
costs, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs claim that the deceptive "contest . . . is merely
a ruse to lure unsuspecting consumers to be charged exorbitant
'administrative fees' and other costs," including "a fee in the
amount of $399" and air fare.

Spanish Broadcasting System is the largest publicly traded
Hispanic-controlled media and entertainment company in the
United States.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz, P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605-5221
          Phone: 914-517-5000
          Fax: 914-517-5055
          Web site: http://www.mdpcelaw.com/


STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in California Over "Make Whole Rule"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit (Case #CV08-03184), was filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is
enriching itself with payments rightfully belonging to its
insureds in violation of California law, particularly the "Make
Whole Rule."

When State Farm policyholder Stuart Chandler of Fresno, Calif.,
was rear-ended, his personal automobile insurance policy
entitled him to a rental car while his car was being fixed.
Under Chandler's auto policy, State Farm paid 80 percent of the
$317.45.  Mr. Chandler was charged for his rental car, leaving
him to pay 20 percent, or $63.49, in out-of-pocket expenses.

State Farm then went to the other party's insurance company to
collect the money it had paid out to Mr. Chandler.  That
insurance company reimbursed State Farm $70 for the rental car.
The complaint alleges that pursuant to California's "Make Whole
Rule," State Farm should have refunded Mr. Chandler from that
amount the $63.49 for out-of-pocket expenses he incurred before
it could retain any of those funds for itself.  Instead, the
complaint alleges, State Farm kept the full amount for itself,
ignoring the fact that Mr. Chandler has not been fully
compensated for his loss as required by law.

"California common law provides that when a policyholder suffers
a loss from a car accident, the policyholder must be reimbursed
for ALL of his losses before State Farm has a right to
reimbursement for any money it paid out under its policy," says
Long Beach, California plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of
The Garcia Law Firm.

This rule is known as the "Make Whole Rule," and is a common law
exception to an insurance company's subrogation right.  The
"Make Whole Rule" basically states that before any of the
recovery is allocated to the insurer, the insured who suffered
the loss must be fully compensated for all the elements of
damages, not just those for which the insurer has indemnified
the policy holder.

According to State Farm's website, the company insures more cars
any other insurer in the United States and handled 12.3 million
total claims in 2007.

"Mr. Chandler's case is just $63 and change," says Mr. Garcia.
"Imagine $63 times the tens of thousands of claims State Farm
handles in California alone.  We believe that State Farm is
enriching itself with money that rightfully belongs to its
policyholders."

For more information, contact:

          Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
          The Garcia Law Firm
          One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
          Long Beach, CA 90831
          Phone: 800-281-8515
          Web site: http://www.lawgarcia.com/


TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE: Enters Into Stipulation Staying Maulano Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A disclosure on Take 2 Interactive's corporate site has revealed
that the company has entered into a stipulation "staying the
action" that shareholder Michael Maulano had filed against it
with the Supreme Court of New York State on April 11, 2008,
Total Video Games reports.

According to Total Video Games, now that both parties have
agreed to enter into the stipulation, the dispute can now be
resolved out of court.  However, according to the disclosure,
Mr. Maulano does have the option to lift the stay within 30
days' notice.

The report recounts that Mr. Maulano originally filed a class
action complaint against Take 2 on the grounds that the company
had refused to explore EA's offer to acquire all Take 2 shares
at a price of $26 per share.  According to Mr. Maulano, Take 2
breached its fiduciary duties in its attempts to stave off EA's
takeover bid.

This breach was made on a number of counts by Take 2, Mr.
Maulano contended, such as enacting bylaws that entrenched the
current board of directors and issuing a proxy statement with
misleading or incomplete information.


TITLE COS: Accused of Bilking Consumers in Series of Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
A group of consumers filed a series of class-action lawsuits
against the nation's largest title and escrow companies,
claiming they engaged in a series of schemes and deceptions
designed to bilk customers out of millions of dollars in
excessive fees, among other allegations.

The companies named in the suit are:

     -- Fidelity National Title Company,
     -- First American Title Insurance Company ,
     -- Old Republic Title and Escrow, and
     -- Chicago Title Company.

All four lawsuits allege the title and escrow companies violated
sections of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as well as
consumer protection and various state laws.

In each lawsuit the companies are accused of charging consumers
duplicate reconveyance fees while the actual reconveyance is
done by the consumer's prior lender and charged to consumers in
their loan pay-offs.  In some cases, the title companies try to
justify these charges as "tracking" fees to ensure the
reconveyance is complete -- but these "tracking" fees are
generally three times higher than the rates available for
"reconveyance tracking" services.

The complaints allege that Fidelity charged as much as $140 for
reconveying each prior loan, and over the past five years has
engaged in this process across hundreds of thousands of
transactions, 'reaping ill-gotten gains in excess of tens of
millions of dollars.'  The same allegations hold true for Old
Republic and Chicago Title who charged $100 and $135 per prior
loan for reconveyance services.

Reconveyance is the process of extinguishing a lender's lien or
title to a property when the secured loan is paid off.  When a
consumer sells a home or refinances, title to the property must
be reconveyed from the prior lender.

First American Title Insurance Company, a subsidiary of First
American Corporation, based in Santa Ana, California, is accused
of engaging in four separate schemes to reap profits from
unsuspecting customers.  The lawsuit against First American
alleges an affiliate reconveyance scheme, captive reconveyance
scheme, retained interest scheme and a wire fee scheme.

The lawsuit claims the company failed to disclose that it steers
escrow customers to a sister company to "track" the
reconveyance, and charges those customers nearly three times the
rates that same affiliate charges independent escrow companies
for the same service.

In one plaintiff's transaction First American charged a
reconveyance/tracking fee of $113 that was paid to Northwest
Post Closing Center, a business entity that does not exist
according to the Washington and California Secretary of State
databases.

"We believe these companies have been quietly and industriously
bilking customers, hiding their scheme amid the torrent of
paperwork that accompanies most real estate transactions," said
Hagens Berman managing partner and lead attorney Steve Berman.
"Escrow agents are supposed to look after the interests of their
customers.  Instead, they have acted like a fox in the hen
house, increasing fees any way that they can."

The complaints also allege that both First American and Fidelity
pooled customer's escrow funds in accounts and were rewarded by
the banks that held the accounts.  The companies received no-
cost or discounted banking services, and were provided with
large lines of credit tied to the escrow accounts with which
they could make investments.  The companies profited from the
interest, earnings and banking services, all without disclosing
it to customers.

Under the fiduciary duties of escrow providers and state law,
without proper disclosures these monies belong to the escrow
customers, not the title and escrow companies.  The lawsuit goes
on to claim the retained interest scheme did not result in any
direct or indirect reduction of fees, nor did it provide any
cost savings or other benefit to customers -- the motivations
were strictly profit driven.

In addition, the First American lawsuit claims the company
charges customers a wire fee for sending payments to and from
banks.  The company fails to disclose to customers that the
banks waive or substantially discount these fees as a benefit of
the retained interest scheme.  Any wire fees actually paid are
minimal in comparison to what is charged to the customer.

"The effect of these practices is widespread," said Mr. Berman.
"If all the title companies are involved in these or similar
practices, then likely over half of all residential real estate
closings in the past five years will show some form of
illegitimate fees being charged or collected by the title
companies' escrow agents."

The lawsuits against the four companies were filed separately
today in United States District Court in Seattle and San
Francisco.  The suits were filed by three different parties,
though all are residents of Washington state.

All four defendants face charges of breach of contract relating
to the escrow instructions and HUD-1, violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary and agency duties, and violations of state consumer
protection statutes.  All plaintiffs are seeking treble damages
on behalf of the respective classes.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: +1-206-623-7292
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/

               - and -

          Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com)
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          Phone: +1-206-443-9357


USANA HEALTH: Denies Liability in California Ex-Associates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
USANA Health Sciences, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action suit filed by two former company "Associates" in June
2007 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, North County Branch.

The lawsuit, "Johnson v. USANA," accuses the company and several
of its officers and directors of fraud and deception.  It was
brought on behalf of all individuals or entities who at anytime
between Jan. 1, 1995, through the present, inclusive, were USANA
Associates (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2007).

Among other things, the suit alleges that USANA:

     -- exaggerated the business opportunity,
   
     -- failed to disclose that 87% of active distributors were
        losing money,

     -- misrepresented the credentials of its advisory board,
        and

     -- basically operated a pyramid scheme requiring a
        constant churn in its sales force.  

The plaintiffs seek damages for distributors left with thousands
of dollars of losses each after paying for business "kits" and
products they say they couldn't sell.

Specifically, the suit states four causes of actions:

      -- Penal Code Section 327 (Endless Chain)

      -- Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (Unfair
         Business Practices)

      -- Fraud and Deceit (Concealment)

      -- Business and Professions Code Section 17500 (False
         Advertising

The named plaintiffs in the suit are Jeannette Johnson and
Christopher Crane.

Aside from USANA, they are suing these individuals:

      -- Denis E. Waitley,
      -- Christine Wood,
      -- Ladd McNamara,
      -- Deborah Waitley-McNamara,
      -- Myron W. Wentz,
      -- David A. Wentz, and
      -- Gilbert A. Fuller.

The plaintiffs allege that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company, its business relationships, and prospects.  They
specifically claim that the defendants failed to disclose and
fraudulently concealed:

      -- that the Company's multi-level marketing model
         operated as a pyramid scheme;

      -- that the Company's business model was unsustainable
         because it required the constant recruitment of new
         Associates due to a high level of attrition within the
         Company's sales force;

      -- that the majority of the Company's Associates did not
         actually sell to consumers, but rather to other
         Company Associates;

      -- that over 74 percent of the Company's Associates were
         failing within the first year of joining the Company;
   
      -- that over 87 percent of the Company's Associates were
         losing money instead of receiving compensation for
         their sales efforts;

      -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
         financial controls;

      -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its future business prospects and
         projections were lacking in a reasonable basis when
         made;

      -- that the Company's representation of a 75% reduction
         in "middleman" costs because of its direct marketing
         system was false or misleading, as each tier of
         distribution received approximately 8% in commissions,
         resulting in prices which were 50% - 400% above
         standard retail prices; for example, a 28 day supply
         of premium vitamins sells at GNC for $17 and USANA's
         premium multivitamin "Essentials" sells for $40;

      -- that Associates would be less, not more, profitable if
         they opened up more than one "business center" because
         the only true benefit inured in the Company's favor
         because of the increased costs the Associates paid for
         additional business centers;

      -- that the qualifications of members of the Company's
         Advisory Board were misrepresented and such members
         were biased and had conflicts of interest which
         precluded them from providing independent advice; and

      -- that the founder of the Company had renounced his U.S.
         Citizenship and moved substantial assets to the
         Caribbean tax havens of St. Kitts and Nevis, the Isle
         of Mann, and Liechtenstein.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the company filed its answer to the complaint
containing a general denial of the allegations and setting forth
its affirmative defenses.

The company reported no further development in the matter.

For more details, contact:

         Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack
         16870 W. Bernardo Dr. Suite 400
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Phone: 858-485-6535
         Fax: 858-485-0608
         e-mail: info@amslawoffice.com


USANA HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
USANA Health Sciences, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah.

During and subsequent to the first quarter, three class action
suits were filed against the company, USANA Chief Executive
Officer Myron W. Wentz, USANA President David A. Wentz, and
USANA Chief Financial Officer Gilbert A. Fuller (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 28, 2007).

These suits are:

     1. "Ashok Kapur, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc. et.
         al.,"

     2. "Guerin Senter, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al.,"

     3. "Edward Shaw, et al., v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
         et. al."

The suits were brought on behalf of those who purchased the
company's common stock on the open market during the period of
July 18, 2006 through March 14, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege in each case that they were persons who
purchased shares of our common stock on the open market during
the period of July 18, 2006, through March 14, 2007, and each
complaint seeks certification as a class action on behalf of
other purchasers of our stock during that time period.

They claim, among other things, that the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly
failing to make certain statements that the plaintiffs allege
should have been made, including statements regarding the multi-
level marketing industry and anti-pyramid laws, sustainability
of the company's marketing plan, Associate sales to end-user
customers, and Associate turnover, income, and profitability.

The plaintiffs assert that because of such alleged omissions,
the company's statements about its future business prospects
were lacking in a reasonable basis and that the company's
reported results and financial statements were misstated.  

The complaints seek damages, pre-judgment interest, costs,
attorney's fees and other further relief deemed appropriate by
the court.

On Oct. 17, 2007, the three cases were consolidated into one
action.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29,
2008.

The suit is "Ashok Kapur, et al. v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-00177," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, Judge Dale A. Kimball,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Dreier LLP
         499 Park Avenue
         New York, NY, 10022
         Phone: 212-328-6100   
         Fax: 212-328-6101
         e-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Settlement Hearing in Delaware Suit is July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a
Settlement Hearing at 4:30 p.m. on July 31, 2008, for the
$21.5-million settlement in the consolidated securities fraud
class action filed against VERITAS Software Corp., which was
acquired by Symantec Corp.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck,
et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al.," was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that it
expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates.  It generally
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the
court entered an order consolidating these actions and
appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005,
expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6,
2004.

The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as
a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in the company's
press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
filings regarding the company's financial results, which
allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were
unsigned or lacked essential terms.

The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in July 2005; the motion was
denied in May 2006.

In November 2007, a tentative agreement was proposed to resolve
the matter, subject to several conditions (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 7, 2008).

The deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on
June 30, 2008.  Deadline to file claims is on August 28, 2008.

The suit is "Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
00831-SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

         Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq. (efinnegan@crosslaw.com)
         Cross & Simon, LLC
         913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: 302-777-4200
                302-777-4224

              - and -

         Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. (pwalsh@potteranderson.com)
         Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
         1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, P.O. Box 951
         Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
         Phone: 302-984-6037
         Fax: 302-658-1192


* Ohio Employer Class Action Summit to be Held on June 4
--------------------------------------------------------
Porter Wright is pleased to present the Ohio Employer Class
Action Summit on June 4, 2008.

This first-of-its-kind event focuses on strategies Ohio
companies can use to protect themselves from class actions.

Co-sponsored by the Manufacturers' Education Council, this full-
day event is designed for legal counsel and other executives
concerned about the rising tide of class action lawsuits.

Attorneys from Porter Wright's Class Action Practice Group will
share their insights and experience with program attendees and
discuss recent developments in a number of areas of class action
litigation, including employment, consumer, product liability,
securities and subprime class actions as well as developments
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

"Class action litigation has the potential to increase
exponentially the risks associated with routine business
decisions," said Caroline Gentry, Chair of Porter Wright's Class
Action Practice Group.  "This seminar provides Ohio employers
with the information they need to manage those risks
effectively."

Guest speakers include:

     -- The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, U.S. District Court
        Judge, Southern District of Ohio

     -- Nadine Ballard, Esq., Section Chief, Consumer Protection
        Section, The Ohio Attorney General's Office

     -- Sarah Rudolph Cole, Professor of Law and Director,
        Program on Dispute Resolution, The Moritz College of
        Law, The Ohio State University

     -- Stanley M. Chesley, Esq., Waite, Schnieder, Bayless &
        Chesley Co., L.P.A.

     -- John S. Marshall, Esq., Marshall and Morrow LLC

     -- David P. Meyer, Esq., David P. Meyer & Associates, Co.,
        L.P.A.

     -- Colleen Marshall, Esq., of both Porter Wright Morris &
        Arthur LLP and WCMH Channel 4

This program has been approved for 6.0 hours of general CLE
credit by the Ohio Supreme Court.  For more information about
this program, visit http://www.employerlawreport.com/or call  
Erin Hawk at 614-227-1983.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Pilkington
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the ruling of the Court of
Appeals for Franklin County, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
involving Pilkington North America, Inc., the Industrial
Commission of Ohio, and Donald F. Stein.

The case is styled The State ex rel. Pilkington North America,
Inc., Appellee, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellant, et
al.

Judges Moyer, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell,
Lanzinger, and Cupp entered judgment of Case No. 2007-0747 on
April 3, 2008.

Mr. Stein had an allowed occupational-disease claim. The Supreme
Court must determine which employer is amenable for the workers'
compensation claim.

Mr. Stein worked at Libbey Owens Ford from 1947 through 1988 and
was exposed to asbestos during much of that time.

From 1947 until 1970, when it became self-insured, Libbey Owens
was an employer insured under the state fund. Pilkington is now
the successor to Libby Owens' self-insured claims.

In 2003, Mr. Stein was diagnosed with mesothelioma. In 2005, his
occupational-disease claim was allowed against the self-insured
risk under the "last-injurious-exposure principle." Because
Pilkington was the successor to Libby Owens' self-insured
claims, Pilkington was named the amenable employer.

Pilkington petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of
mandamus, alleging that the Industrial Commission of Ohio had
abused its discretion in assigning workers' compensation
liability to it as a self-insured entity rather than to the
state-fund Libby Owens risk.

The Court of Appeals agreed. It ordered the commission to issue
an amended order that "appropriately determines allocation of
risk liability."

The commission now appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the last-injurious-exposure
principle does not involve deducting the average latency period
from the year of diagnosis and assigning liability to the
employer that corresponds to that year.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Marshall & Melhorn, L.L.C., Michael S. Scalzo, and John A.
Borell Jr., represented The State ex rel. Pilkington North
America, Inc.

Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant
Attorney General, represented Industrial Commission of Ohio.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $152.4M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestosis and
environmental claim reserves amounted to US$152.4 million at
March 31, 2008, compared with US$158.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$182.6 million at
March 31, 2008, compared with US$190.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos reserves were a net of US$121.9 million
(a gross of US$149.4 million) at the end of Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with a net of US$117.3 million (a gross of US$151.8
million) at the end of Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
March 7, 2008)

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corporation is an
insurance holding company operating in three primary areas: Old
Republic General Insurance offers general commercial liability
and property/casualty insurance (mostly commercial trucks,
workers' compensation, and general liability); the Company's
Mortgage Guaranty unit offers mortgage guaranty insurance; and
its Title Insurance Groups specialize in title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Pride International, Inc.'s subsidiaries, since 2004,
continue to face several complaints that have been filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred
individuals that allege that they were employed by some of the
named defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Houston-based Pride International, Inc. is a provider of
offshore contract drilling services. The Company provides these
services to oil and natural gas exploration and production
companies through the operation and management of 57 offshore
rigs. The Company also has three ultra-deepwater drillships
under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,599 Abex Claims at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at March 31, recorded 29,599 pending
asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to  
Pneumo Abex Corporation.

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex product line obtained from
Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through
subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was
sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement).

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any
potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware has confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company
and Federal-Mogul have reached a settlement agreement, subject
to approval by the Bankruptcy Court, resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex product line (Abex Claims), the
Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant
insurance for those claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2008, a total of 144,097
Abex Claims were filed, of which 114,498 claims have been
resolved.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, 563 claims were
filed and 414 claims were resolved.

Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved
Abex Claims was US$2,168 before insurance. A total of US$133.7
million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998
through March 31, 2008.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims.

However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage
(about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of
coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.
Tool offerings include Crescent wrenches and pliers, Apex impact
sockets, Plumb hammers, and Weller soldering and welding
supplies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s utilities continue to face asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York State and federal courts,
wherein plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.

The Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The suits that have been resolved have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars. However,
the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10
million.

At March 31, 2008, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$40 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$41 million. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008)

At March 31, 2008, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability
for asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation were US$40 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation were US$41 million. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008)

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two regulated
utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Con Edison of New
York provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County. O&R, along with its regulated utility
subsidiaries, provides electric service in southeastern New York
and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern
Pennsylvania and gas service in southeastern New York and
adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $32M Costs from N.Y. Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, with respect to
the Manhattan steam main explosion incident, incurred estimated
operating costs of US$32 million for property damage, cleanup
and other response costs.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company incurred US$23 million as
estimated operating costs for property damage, clean up and
other response costs over the Manhattan Steam Main rupture
incident. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008)

In July 2007, a Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been
reported that one person died and others were injured as a
result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company recorded US$19 million in
actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$13
million in capital, retirement and other costs.

Over 40 plaintiffs have sued the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and
believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of
the Company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in
connection with the incident.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc. has two regulated
utility subsidiaries: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. Con Edison of New
York provides electric service and gas service in New York City
and Westchester County. O&R, along with its regulated utility
subsidiaries, provides electric service in southeastern New York
and adjacent areas of northern New Jersey and eastern
Pennsylvania and gas service in southeastern New York and
adjacent areas of eastern Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Company Records 8,790 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is a named defendant in respirator mask or asbestos
lawsuits, filed in various courts, that purport to represent
about 8,790 individual claimants at March 31, 2008, from about
8,750 individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31,
2007.

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's
mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company
and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace
exposures to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts
found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally
in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as
well as products manufactured by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.

Many of the resolved lawsuits and claims involved unimpaired
claimants who were recruited by plaintiffs' lawyers through mass
chest x-ray screenings. The Company experienced a significant
decline in the number of claims filed in 2007 from prior years
by apparently unimpaired claimants.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Display and Graphics, Consumer and Office, Safety,
Security and Protection Services, and Electro and
Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $113M Liabilities at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company estimated US$113 million as liabilities for
respirator mask or asbestos at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$121 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company estimated US$318 million for respirator mask or
asbestos insurance receivables at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$332 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. — both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask or asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of the US$318
million insurance recovery receivable.

The action was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and names, in
addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. At
the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers.

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers'
appeal of that decision in March 2008 and the parties are
awaiting the ruling of the Court.

As a result of settlements reached with a number of direct
insurers of 3M and one reinsurer, the Company was paid US$14
million in the first quarter and the Company expects to receive
another US$57 million in payments over the next four quarters in
connection with the respirator mask or asbestos receivable.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of various
products and services. The Company manages its operations in six
operating business segments: Industrial and Transportation,
Health Care, Display and Graphics, Consumer and Office, Safety,
Security and Protection Services, and Electro and
Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $2M for Abatement at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.'s accrual for asbestos
abatement, on the Company's redevelopment of the Sheraton Bal
Harbour Beach Resort, was US$2 million during the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The Company's accrual for asbestos abatement, on the Company's
redevelopment of Bal Harbour, was US$1 million during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2008)

The Company demolished the hotel in late 2007 and plans to
rebuild a St. Regis hotel along with branded residences and
fractional units.

Bal Harbour was closed for business on July 1, 2007, and the
majority of employees were terminated.

White Plains, N.Y.-based Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
Inc.'s principal business is hotels and leisure, which is
comprised of a worldwide hospitality network of about 900 full-
service hotels, vacation ownership resorts and residential
developments primarily serving two markets: luxury and upscale.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Has Pending Asbestos Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. faces unresolved legal actions, including
asbestos-related, that arise in the normal course of business.

The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 2, 2008.

Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. is a manufacturer of
earthmoving machinery and a supplier of agricultural equipment.
The Company makes construction, mining, and logging machinery;
diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and
electrical power-generation systems. The Company sells its
equipment via a network of 3,600 locations in 180 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,870 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation faced about 72,870 asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2008, compared with about 72,120 as of Dec. 31, 2007,
and about 72,510 as of March 31, 2007.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by
various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor,
generally prior to the early 1970s.

Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos.

In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Of the claims pending as of March 31, 2008, about 40,950 were
pending in state courts, 28,310 in federal courts and,
additionally, about 3,610 were third party claims pending in
state courts.

During the first quarter of 2008, the Company received about
1,600 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about
850 claims.

The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
about US$17.5 million for 2007, compared with US$5.7 million for
2006.

New York-based CBS Corporation is comprised of the following
segments: Television (CBS Television, comprised of the CBS
Television Network, television stations, and its television
production and syndication operations; Showtime Networks; and
CBS College Sports Network), Radio (CBS Radio), Outdoor (CBS
Outdoor) and Publishing (Simon & Schuster).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed from Mississippi Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc., as of May 2, 2008, has been dismissed from a
majority of asbestos cases in Mississippi, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois
and one asbestos case in California.

As of May 2, 2008,  the Company has been dismissed from five of
the cases in Illinois and the one case in California.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims.
The Company has not made any provision in its financial
statements for the asbestos litigation.

Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. designs and manufactures
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate some 80 percent of the Company's sales. General
industrial components account for the remaining 20 percent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Case v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related insurance action filed by Cooper Industries,
LLC against PepsiAmericas, Inc., and other parties is ongoing in
Cook County Circuit Court, Minn., according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2008.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against
the Company, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and the Trustee of the Trust
(Trustee), captioned Cooper Industries, LLC v. PepsiAmericas,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.).

The claims involve the Trust and an insurance policy. Cooper
asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that
previously was in the Trust and was used to purchase the
insurance policy.

Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for
underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper.
Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, the corporate successor to the Company's prior
subsidiary, has been dismissed from the suit.

During the second quarter of 2006, the Trustee's motion to
dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three
counts against it based on the use of Trust funds were dismissed
with prejudice, as were all counts against the Trustee, on the
grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue these counts
because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was also
granted during the second quarter of 2006 and all remaining
counts against it were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee.

Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court on Sept. 7, 2007
issued an opinion affirming the trial court's opinion. Cooper
subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois Supreme
Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings. The
Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the
Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the
Company joined in that brief.

On Nov. 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Cooper's
petition for leave to appeal the appellate court's Sept. 7, 2007
ruling.

Cooper did not file a petition for certiorari seeking
discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court by the Feb. 27,
2008 deadline for such filing.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas, Inc. is a Pepsi bottler. The
Company also distributes Lipton Iced Teas, Schweppes (tonic
water, ginger ale from Dr Pepper Snapple Group), Starbucks
Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company operates in 19 U.S.
states (mostly in the Midwest) and holds about 19 percent of the
U.S. market for Pepsi products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Board Ruling in Kirk Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, New York,
upheld the ruling of a Jan. 11, 2007 asbestos-related
compensation ruling of the Workers' Compensation Board, which
ruled in favor of Charles Kirk.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Kirk,
Respondent, v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company et al.,
Appellants. Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Stein, Cardona, Spain, Carpinello, and Kavanagh entered
judgment of Case No. 2008503626 on April 11, 2008.

Mr. Kirk was exposed to asbestos while employed by Central
Hudson. He was a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed in
1993 against asbestos manufacturers. That claim was settled,
with the consent of the employer's workers' compensation
carrier, for US$44,868.76.

The recovery was based on Mr. Kirk's diagnosis of bilateral
pleural asbestosis. He filed a workers' compensation claim in
1995 for asbestos-related pleural disease.

In 2001, Mr. Kirk filed a separate claim for colorectal cancer
resulting from exposure to asbestos during the course of
employment. He was classified as permanently partially disabled
on each claim.

The carrier sought to offset its payments under both claims by
the amount of the class action settlement, under Workers'
Compensation Law s 29(4).

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge held that the settlement funds
could be offset only against the pleural disease claim, not
against the colorectal cancer claim.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, ruling that Central
Hudson's workers' compensation carrier was not entitled to
offset its future compensation payments to claimant under
Workers' Compensation Law s 29(4).

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

Cherry, Edson & Kelly, Tarrytown (Ralph E. Magnetti of counsel),
represented Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company and other
appellants.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall
of counsel), represented Workers' Compensation Board.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Defendants in Conrail Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, granted
defendants' motions to dismiss two asbestos-related cases filed
by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail).

The first case is styled Consolidated Rail Corporation,
Plaintiff, v. Gerard A. Ritter and Susan R. Norek ex rel. Gerard
H. Ritter, deceased, Defendants.

The other case is styled Consolidated Rail Corporation,
Plaintiff, v. John M. Gribbin, Defendant.

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

Conrail hauled these cases before the District Court seeking
declaratory relief under the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of
1973 (Rail Act). Conrail requested that the Court enter an order
declaring that the Rail Act proscribes successor liability for
personal injury claims stemming from conduct prior to Conrail's
formation.

The defendants are former employees of Erie Lackawanna--a
railroad company whose assets were transferred to Conrail under
the Rail Act. These defendants alleged that Erie Lackawanna
negligently exposed them to asbestos and have filed suits
against Conrail, which are currently pending in Pennsylvania
state court, to recover under the Federal Employers' Liability
Act (FELA), for the adverse effects of this exposure.

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

Because the Rail Act's successor liability provisions related to
land use, the Court concludes that the Act does not address the
type of successor liability at issue here — preconveyance
personal injury claims.

Therefore, the District Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss.

Charles Henry Carpenter, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C.,
Laurence Z. Shiekman, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia,
represented Consolidated Rail Corporation.

Christopher H. Mitchell, Denis C. Mitchell, Stein, Mitchell &
Mezines, Washington, D.C, represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,725 Actions Pending v. TriMas at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2008, was party to about
1,725 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 9,394
claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated
and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was party to about 1,681
pending cases involving about 9,544 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing materials. (Class
Action Reporter, April 11, 2008)

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 173
claims filed, 299 claims dismissed, and 24 claims settled. The
average settlement amount per claim was US$3,979 and total
defense costs were US$1,052,000.

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

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

The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought.
Of the 9,394 claims pending at March 31, 2008, 166 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum), 141 of the 166 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and 25 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 145 of the 166
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000 and 21 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, 141 of the 166 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million and 25 sought
US$5 million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have
reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past
the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.2 million.

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

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to it for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted.

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corporation manufactures
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company is engaged in five business segments with diverse
products and market channels: Packaging Systems, Energy
Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products and
Recreational Accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Records 34,717 Cases at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of March 28, 2008, was a defendant
in about 34,717 asbestos-related cases, in which about 1,269
were non-maritime cases and 33,448 were maritime cases.

These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.

As of March 28, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 the Company had accrued,
on a gross basis, about US$5.2 million and had recovered about
US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, markets and distributes copper, aluminum
and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company analyzes
its worldwide operations based on three geographical reportable
segments: 1) North America, 2) Europe and North Africa and 3)
Rest of World (ROW).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Reaches Settlement in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group has reached a confidential
settlement with a Plaintiff and his heirs, in an asbestos case
which was pending in the Superior Court County of Los Angeles,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008.

The settlement must be approved by the Court. A hearing was
scheduled for May 5, 2008. The settlement will be paid for by
the Company's contractors and its insurance policy carriers.

The Company and a number of co-defendants were served on Oct.
26, 2006, with a complaint (Case No. BC360406) for personal
injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos.

The Plaintiff claimed to have worked for three of the Company's
contractors on pipeline projects during the period 1958-1999,
including Palos Verdes Water Company, a water utility the
Company acquired in 1970.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Company and other defendants were
responsible for his asbestos-related injuries.

San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a
holding company that provides water utility and other related
services in California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,810 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United States faced
130,810 asbestos claims for the three months ended March 28,
2008, compared with 135,260 claims for the three months ended
March 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2008.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States faced 131,340
open asbestos claims for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, compared  
with 135,890 open claims for the year ended Dec. 29, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2008)

For the three months ended March 28, 2008, the Company recorded
1,020 new claims and 1,550 claims resolved. For the three months
ended March 30, 2007, the Company recorded 1,640 new claims and
2,270 claims resolved.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries during
the 1970s and earlier.

The Company's total asbestos-related assets were US$327,300,000
as of March 28, 2008, compared with US$326,200,000 as of
Dec. 28, 2007.

The Company's total asbestos-related liabilities were
US$385,400,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with US$403,300 as
of Dec. 28, 2007.

The amount paid on asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$20 million for the quarter ended March 28,
2008, and US$23.6 million for the quarter ended March 30, 2007.

The Company funded US$4.9 million of the payments made during
the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2008, while all remaining
amounts were paid from insurance proceeds. Through March 28,
2008, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were about
US$635,400,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were
about US$258,400,000.

As of March 28, 2008, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$152,200,000 relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$233,200,000 relating to future unasserted claims
through the first quarter of fiscal year 2023.

Historically, defense costs have represented about 29 percent of
total defense and indemnity costs. The overall historic average
combined indemnity and defense cost per resolved claim through
March 28, 2008 has been about US$2,600.

With its U.S. operations in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
offers engineering, procurement, construction, manufacturing,
project development and management, research and plant operation
services. The Company serves the upstream oil and gas, LNG and
gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals, chemicals, power,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries. The
Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.1M for N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of March 28, 2008, estimated the value
of its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$23,100,000.

As of Dec. 28, 2007, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$27,600,000. (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2008)

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the subsidiaries' various insurers and the
Company's subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain Company subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by its
subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense
costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of
out-of-pocket costs previously incurred.

In fiscal year 2007, the subsidiaries reached an agreement to
settle their disputed asbestos-related insurance coverage with
four additional insurers. As a result of these settlements, the
Company increased its asbestos-related insurance asset and
recorded a gain of US$13,500,000 in fiscal year 2007.

In the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, the subsidiaries
reached an agreement to settle their disputed asbestos-related
insurance coverage with an additional insurer. As a result of
this settlement, the Company increased its asbestos-related
insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$15,900,000 in the
fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2008.

In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in coverage
litigation with the subsidiaries' insurers, and as a result, the
Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a gain of
US$19,500,000.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals. On Oct. 11, 2007, the New York Court
of Appeals upheld the appellate court decision in the Company's
favor.

Based on the fiscal year-end 2007 liability estimate, an
increase of 25 percent in the average per claim indemnity
settlement amount would increase the liability by US$70,400,000
and the impact on expense would be dependent upon available
insurance recoveries.

With its U.S. operations in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
offers engineering, procurement, construction, manufacturing,
project development and management, research and plant operation
services. The Company serves the upstream oil and gas, LNG and
gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals, chemicals, power,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries. The
Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 346 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United Kingdom face
346 open asbestos claims as of March 28, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom faced 342 open
asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 28, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2008)

To date, 873 claims have been brought against the U.K.
Subsidiaries.

As of March 28, 2008, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$49 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$8.9 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the first
quarter of fiscal year 2023 of US$40.1 million.

Of the total, US$3 million was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$46 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
condensed consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$3 million was
recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$46
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$66.6 million.

With its U.S. operations in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
offers engineering, procurement, construction, manufacturing,
project development and management, research and plant operation
services. The Company serves the upstream oil and gas, LNG and
gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals, chemicals, power,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries. The
Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $14.2M Net Gain at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. says its net income in the first quarter of
2008 was aided by a net asbestos-related gain of US$14,188,000,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008.

The Company reported net income for the first quarter of 2008 of
US$138.1 million, or US$0.95 per diluted share, compared with
US$114.8 million, or US$0.80 per diluted share, in the first
quarter of 2007.

Excluding the US$14,188,000 gain, net income in the first
quarter of 2008 was a record US$123.9 million, or US$0.85 per
diluted share.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable
was US$307,053,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with
US$324,588,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$359,429,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with
US$376,803,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007.

With its U.S. operations in Clinton, N.J., Foster Wheeler Ltd.
offers engineering, procurement, construction, manufacturing,
project development and management, research and plant operation
services. The Company serves the upstream oil and gas, LNG and
gas-to-liquids, refining, petrochemicals, chemicals, power,
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and healthcare industries. The
Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $35M Claims Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning had reserved of about US$35 million as of
March 31, 2008 to pay remaining claims in the Bankruptcy of
which about US$33 million relate to non-tax claims (Non-Tax
Bankruptcy Reserve), according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2008.

Until Oct. 31, 2006, the date on which the Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy, the Debtors operated their businesses as debtors-in-
possession in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter
11 cases of the Debtors (Chapter 11 Cases) were jointly
administered under Case No. 00-3837 (JKF).

The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code to address the growing demands on cash flow resulting from
the multi-billion dollars of asbestos personal injury claims
that had been asserted against OCD and Fibreboard Corporation.

Following a Confirmation Hearing on Sept. 18, 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an Order on Sept. 26, 2006
(Confirmation Order), confirming the Debtors' Sixth Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization for Owens Corning and Its
Affiliated Debtors and Debtors-In-Possession (as Modified)
(Plan), and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Regarding Confirmation of the Sixth Amended Joint Plan of
Reorganization for Owens Corning and Its Affiliated Debtors and
Debtors-In-Possession (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law).

On Sept. 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware entered an order affirming the Confirmation Order and
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Under the
Confirmation Order, the Plan became effective in accordance with
its terms on Oct. 31, 2006 (Effective Date).

Under the terms of the Plan and related Confirmation Order,
asbestos personal injury claims against each of OCD and
Fibreboard will be administered and distributions on account of
such claims will be made, exclusively from the 524(g) Trust that
has been established and funded under the Plan.

In addition, all asbestos property damage claims against OCD or
Fibreboard either (i) have been resolved, (ii) will be resolved
under the Plan, along with certain other unsecured claims for an
aggregate amount within the Company's Non-Tax Bankruptcy
Reserve, or (iii) are barred under the Plan and Confirmation
Order.

Accordingly, other than the limited number and value of property
damage claims being resolved, the Company has no further
asbestos liabilities.

Under the the terms of the Plan, the Company is obligated to
make certain additional payments to certain creditors, including
certain payments to holders of administrative expense priority
claims and professional advisors in the Chapter 11 Cases.

Under the Plan, the Company has established a Disputed
Distribution Reserve, funded in the amount of about US$33
million as of March 31, 2008, which is reflected as restricted
cash in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, for the potential
payment of certain non-tax claims against the Debtors that were
disputed as of the Effective Date.

Toledo, Ohio-based Owens Corning is a producer of glass fiber
reinforcements and other materials for composites systems and
residential and commercial building materials. The Company
operates within two general product categories: composites
systems, which includes its Composite Solutions reportable
segment and building materials, which includes its Insulating
Systems, Roofing and Asphalt and Other Building Materials and
Services reportable segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Still Face Cases in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face
complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi involving about 750 plaintiffs that allege
personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and
1986.

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

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used those 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 generally
seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information to
determine the number of plaintiffs who claim to have been
exposed to asbestos aboard its rigs, whether they were
employees, their period of employment, the period of their
alleged exposure to asbestos, or their medical condition, and
the Company has not entered into any settlements with any
plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
exposure in these lawsuits. It historically has maintained
insurance which it said it believes will be available to address
any liability arising from these claims.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. is a provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31, 2008, the
Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated
138 mobile offshore drilling units. As of March 31, 2008, the
fleet consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-
Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and
drillships), 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification
Jackups, 56 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,006 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed subsidiary of Transocean Inc., as of March 31, 2008,
was a defendant in about 1,006 lawsuits, of which 102 were filed
during 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008.  

This subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the its
involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of
major industrial complexes. The operating assets of the
subsidiary were sold and its operations discontinued in 1989,
and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than the
insurance policies involved in its litigation, fundings from
settlements with the primary insurers and funds received from
the cancellation of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are about 3,259 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was
filed against this subsidiary in 1990.

Through March 31, 2008, the amounts expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement
costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect
to the primary insurance have been satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits and the Company cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can it
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or
to resolve the pending cases.

However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in
insurance limits.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. is a provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31, 2008, the
Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated
138 mobile offshore drilling units. As of March 31, 2008, the
fleet consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters (Ultra-
Deepwater, Deepwater and Harsh Environment semisubmersibles and
drillships), 29 Midwater Floaters, 10 High-Specification
Jackups, 56 Standard Jackups and four Other Rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 450 Actions Pending v. McKesson Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation, through its former McKesson Chemical
Company division, is named in about 450 cases involving the
alleged distribution of asbestos, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 7, 2008.

These cases typically involve either single or multiple
plaintiffs claiming personal injuries and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the
1987 sale of McKesson Chemical Company to what is now called
Univar USA Inc., the Company has tendered each of these actions
to Univar.

Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of its
obligations under the indemnification agreement. Univar
continues to defend the Company in some of these cases, but
since February 2005 has been rejecting tenders and accordingly,
the Company is incurring defense costs in connection with the
more recently served actions.

The Company said it believes that Univar remains obligated under
the terms of the indemnification agreement.

The Company has filed an arbitration demand against Univar under
the indemnification agreement seeking a determination that the
liability for these cases is Univar's responsibility.

Arbitrators have been identified and agreed upon, but no date is
yet set for the arbitration.

In addition to its indemnification rights against Univar, the
Company said it believes that portions of these claims are
covered by insurance and is pursuing that coverage.

San Francisco-based McKesson Corporation provides supply,
information and care management products and services designed
to reduce costs and improve quality across the healthcare
industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be a defendant in asbestos
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants.

In the Company's experience to date, the substantial majority of
the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company
bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits (Products).

However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or
silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury
underlying the lawsuits.

Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products
were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos lawsuits. The Company said it believes some of the
potential liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by
indemnity agreements with other parties.

The Company's uninsured settlement payments for past asbestos
lawsuits have not been material.

Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures
and markets compressor and vacuum products and fluid transfer
products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene.

These employees worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma.

Based in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is
engaged in the exploration, development, production, gathering,
processing and marketing of natural gas, crude oil, condensate
and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the
hard minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and
royalty arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 838 W.Va. Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, faces 838 claims
alleging exposure to asbestos in West Virginia, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2008.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company also faces three claims in
Pennsylvania.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had a total of 826 claims in
West Virginia alleging exposure to asbestos. The Company also
faced two claims in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois. (Class
Action Reporter, March 7, 2008)

The Distribution Companies have been named as defendants in
pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been brought
mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve
allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of
asbestos-containing products by the Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's
historical operations were insured by various foreign and
domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers,
and Allegheny believes that it has sufficient insurance to
respond fully to the asbestos suits.

However, certain insurers have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and
environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.)

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
   Company, Civil Action No (Suffolk Superior Court, Mass.).

The parties in these actions are seeking a declaration of
coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and
environmental claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc., with its directly
and indirectly owned subsidiaries, is an integrated energy
business that owns and operates electric generation facilities
and delivers electric services to customers in Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company's two business
segments are the Delivery and Services segment and the
Generation and Marketing segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 60 Claims Pending Against Dalmine at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris, S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of March 31,
2008, faces a total of 60 asbestos-related claims, of which
three are covered by insurance, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2008.

Dalmine, as of Dec. 31, 2007, faced 57 asbestos-related claims,
of which three were covered by insurance. (Class Action
Reporter, March 14, 2008)

Dalmine is currently 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.

In addition, another 46 asbestos related out-of-court claims and
one civil party claim have been forwarded to Dalmine.

During the first quarter of 2008, four new claims were filed,
one claim was adjudicated, no claims were dismissed and no claim
was settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR5.9
million. Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in
connection with the claims not yet settled is about EUR20.7  
million (US$32.7 million).

Accruals for Dalmine's potential liability are based on the
average of the amounts paid by Dalmine for asbestos-related
claims plus an additional amount related to some reimbursements
requested by the social security authority.

The maximum potential liability is not determinable as in some
cases the requests for damages do not specify amounts, and
instead is to be determined by the court.

Luxembourg-based Tenaris, S.A., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and distributes seamless steel pipe products.
Siderca, the Company's Argentine producer, makes casings,
tubing, and line pipe used in the oil and gas industry.
Subsidiary Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. also manufactures
casings, tubing, line pipe, and other mechanical and structural
seamless pipe. Italian subsidiary Dalmine makes seamless steel
pipe used by the automotive and machinery industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites $22.4M March Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was
US$22,463,000 as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$22,651,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2008.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of replacement parts
for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Records 3,480 Cases at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. said that, at March 31, 2008,
about 3,480 asbestos-related cases were outstanding for which it
was responsible for any related liabilities.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced 3,430 asbestos-related
cases, for which it was held responsible for any liabilities.
(Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When the Company originally acquired
this brake business, it assumed future liabilities relating to
any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.

The Company agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims
filed on or after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2008, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6.3 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the
insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2007. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs, ranging from
US$23.8 million to US$55.2 million for the period through 2050.

The change from the prior year study was a US$1.7 million
increase for the low end of the range and a US$1.3 million
increase for the high end of the range.

The Company concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments was more likely than any other and,
therefore, recorded the low end of the range as the liability
associated with future settlement payments through 2050 in the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

Accordingly, an incremental US$2.8 million provision in the
Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos
accrual in September 2007 increasing the reserve to about
US$23.8 million.

According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed
as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from US$18.7 million to US$32.6 million
during the same period.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc. is
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of replacement parts
for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 71 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameren at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of March 31, 2008,
faced 71 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 75 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against it and its subsidiaries. (Class Action
Reporter, March 28, 2008)

As of March 31, 2008, the Company noted 357 cases filed, 126
cases settled, and 160 cases dismissed.

The Company and its utilities (Union Electric Company, Central
Illinois Public Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating
Company, Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power
Company) have been named in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs
claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most
have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 189 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that
were pending as of March 31, 2008, the average number of parties
was 65.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco,
and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company.

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary
prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of the
transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants,
CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and
AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-
related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, which, if awarded at
trial, typically would be shared among various defendants.

From Jan. 1, 2008, through March 31, 2008, eight additional
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP, mostly in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Three
lawsuits were settled and nine lawsuits were dismissed.

As of March 31, 2008, 10 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms. Ninety
percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in
base electric rates are recovered by IP from a trust fund
established by IP and financed with contributions of US$10
million each by the Company and Dynegy.

At March 31, 2008, the trust fund balance was US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.

St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation is a holding company, which
distributes electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas
to almost one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through
its utility subsidiaries. The Company has a generating capacity
of more than 16,200 MW (primarily coal-fired). Other non-utility
operations include energy marketing and trading and management
and consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 185 Claims Pending Against Rogers at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced about 185 pending asbestos-related
claims as of March 30, 2008, compared with 175 pending claims at
Dec. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

The Company has been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in asbestos-relate claims, primarily
in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi.

In virtually all of these claims filed against the Company, the
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, or, if an amount is
specified, it merely represents jurisdictional amounts or
amounts to be proven at trial. The claims frequently seek the
same amount of damages, irrespective of the disease or injury.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to
industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these
products in 1987.

The rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits
against the Company increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004
because of increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to
identify those companies that sold asbestos containing products,
but which did not directly mine, mill or market asbestos.

The number of asbestos-related suits filed against the Company
declined in 2005 and in 2006, but increased slightly in 2007. As
of the first quarter, the number of suits filed in 2008 is
similar to the number filed in 2007 at that time.

In the three month period ended March 30, 2008, the Company was
able to have about 13 claims dismissed and did not have to
settle any claims. For the full year 2007, about 59 claims were
dismissed and 12 were settled.

Most of the costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about
US$2 million in 2007.

The estimated liability for the five-year period through 2012 is
US$23.6 million and its corresponding insurance recovery is
US$23.5 million.

Rogers Corporation's specialty materials are used in various
electronic and consumer products. Products include printed
circuit board laminates and polyester-based industrial
laminates, which are used in digital cellular communications,
hand-held devices, and direct broadcast TV. The Company's foams
include urethane and silicone foams used for making vehicle
gaskets and seals, communication devices, computers, and
footwear insoles. The Company is headquartered in Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey has $326.2M Losses, LAE at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s gross asbestos-related reserves for
unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$326,243,000
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$299,297,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expense totaled US$339.3 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$308.7 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008)

The Company's net asbestos-related reserves for unpaid losses
and LAE were US$212,081,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2008, compared with US$185,357,000 for the three months ended
March 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE was
US$222.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with
US$189 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, March 28, 2008)

The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental
pollution and other latent injury damage claims.

Exposure arises from reinsurance contracts written by Clearwater
Insurance Company under which the Company has assumed
liabilities, on an indemnity or assumption basis, from ceding
companies, primarily in connection with general liability
insurance policies issued by such ceding companies.

The Company's reserves for asbestos and environmental related
liabilities are from business written prior to 1986.

Net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred for asbestos
claims increased US$4 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2008, due to loss emergence greater than expectations
in the period.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of March 31, 2008 is nine years. The
Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related
liabilities is nine years and for environmental-related
liabilities is 13 years.

The asbestos and environmental-related liability survival ratio
represents the asbestos and environmental reserves, net of
reinsurance, on March 31, 2008, divided by the average paid
asbestos and environmental claims for the last three years of
US$27.2 million which are net of reinsurance.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an
underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty
products. The Company offers both treaty and facultative
reinsurance to property and casualty insurers and reinsurers. It
also writes insurance in the United States and through the
Lloyd's marketplace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.598B at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserves for
losses and loss expenses were US$3.598 billion for the three
months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$4.313 billion for
the three months ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's gross asbestos-related reserve for losses and loss
expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007 was US$3.864 billion,
compared with US$4.523 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
(Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008)

The Company's net asbestos reserves for losses and loss expenses
were US$1.3 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$1.744 billion for the three months ended
March 31, 2008.

The gross IBNR included in the reserve for losses and loss
expenses, relating to asbestos claims, were US$2.409 billion for
the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$3.249
billion for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

The net IBNR included in the reserve for losses and loss
expenses, relating to asbestos claims, were US$1.052 billion for
the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$1.436
billion for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 198
claims opened, 30 claims settled, 344 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,387 claims at end of period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company noted 200
claims opened, 32 claims settled, 246 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,800 claims at end of period.

The Company's survival ratios for asbestos claims were based
upon a three-year average payment. These ratios were a gross of
6.1 years (4.5 years net) at March 31, 2008 and a gross of 10.4
years (9.9 years net) at March 31, 2007.

New York-based American International Group, Inc. provides
property/casualty, life, and specialty insurance to commercial,
institutional, and individual customers. Internationally, the
Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement
services, asset management, and financial services in more than
130 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy Still Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to be named as a defendant in
pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple defendants.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,120 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Boss Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits alleging
past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves sold by one of its
predecessors-in-interest.

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

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Cites $22.7M Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's asbestos- and environmental-
related reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
includes US$22.7 million of gross reserves and US$22.6 million
of net reserves at March 31, 2008.

AIHL is a subsidiary of Alleghany Corporation.

AIHL's A&E reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes US$22.9
million of gross reserves and US$22.7 million of net reserves at
Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves are for various liability coverages related to
A&E impairment claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by a
subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica Corporation and Platte River
Insurance Company (collectively "CATA") between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

New York-based Alleghany Corporation has interests ranging from
property/casualty insurance to real estate. The Company's
operating subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica, which
provides property/casualty, fidelity, and surety insurance; and
Darwin Professional Underwriters (55-percent owned), which
writes specialty property/casualty insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Rise to 460 at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, at March 31, 2008, faced about 460
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 6, 2008.

Asbestos-related lawsuits against the Company dropped to 350 as
of Dec. 31, 2007, from 400 as of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, March 14, 2008)

The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name
many other corporate defendants.

All of the claims against the Company resolved to date have been
concluded before trial, either through dismissal or through
settlement with payments to the plaintiff that are not material
to the Company. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been
significant.

At March 31, 2008, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$21 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$19 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, March 14,
2008)

Glen Allen, Va.-based MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global
packaging company that provides packaging solutions to many of
the world's brands in the food and beverage, media and
entertainment, personal care, home and garden, cosmetics, and
healthcare industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face Asarco Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo
Mexico, have from time to time been named parties in various
litigation, including asbestos-related, involving Asarco LLC.

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco.  
That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2,
2003.

In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from
Asarco. In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre
and other parties, not including the Company, were named in a
lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's purchase
of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent
conveyance.

The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result
of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.
However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to
Federal Court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution
in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession.

On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in
the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's purchase of the
Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.   

In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities.

In July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage.  As a result of various factors, including the above-
mentioned work stoppage, in August 2005 Asarco filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

Asarco's bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy
cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco's bankruptcy could result in
additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its
subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its
subsidiaries.

With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Ariz., Southern Copper
Corporation's business is primarily the production and sale of
copper. In the process of producing copper, metallurgical by-
products are recovered, like molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and
gold, which the Company also produces and sells.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Cases Still Pending v. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be a defendant in property damage
and personal injury lawsuits relating to previously-sold
asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

As of the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was
a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving
claims for property damage (one of which has since been
dismissed), and the remainder involving 129,191 claims for
personal injury.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors.

The Personal Injury and Property Damage Committees, representing
the interests of property damage and personal injury claimants,
respectively, and the legal representative of future asbestos
claimants (FCR), representing the interests of future personal
injury claimants, have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company's obligations with respect to present and future
claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 460 Damage Claims Remain v. Grace at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., as of March 31, 2008, recorded about 460
outstanding asbestos-related property damage claims, following
the reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements
covering about 275 property damage claims for an aggregate
allowed amount of US$82 million.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits seek to have
the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed before the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of
any damages or settlement amounts; judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the Company in nine cases; judgments after
trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases
(one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1 million; 207
property damage cases were settled for a total of US$696.8
million; and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the one on
appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic
Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI).

About 4,035 additional property damage claims were filed before
the March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court. About 200 claims did not contain sufficient information
to permit an evaluation.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed
as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to
persons and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and
equitable relief, including the removal, replacement and
disposal of all such insulation.

The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars
per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been stayed.

The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute the Company's
position on the safety of ZAI. On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy
Court held a hearing on motions filed by the parties to address
a number of important legal and factual issues regarding the ZAI
claims.

On Dec. 14, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order holding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos
and can release asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no
unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI. The ZAI claimants sought an
interlocutory appeal of the opinion and order with the District
Court in Delaware but that request was denied.

The ZAI claimants have indicated they still intend to appeal
such opinion and order when it becomes a final order. The
Debtors have asked the Bankruptcy Court to establish a bar date
for ZAI claims and approve a related notice program that would
require persons with a ZAI claim to submit individual proofs of
claim.

At the same time, the ZAI Claimants have asked the Bankruptcy
Court for various forms of relief: (1) to take such actions as
would finalize the December 14 order and permit an appeal to be
taken; (2) to allow the ZAI claims to return to the state court
tort system; (3) to appoint an expert to estimate the number of
homes containing ZAI; and (4) to certify a class claim on behalf
of Washington state residents.

These motions are scheduled to be argued at a hearing on June 2,
2008.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to face asbestos personal injury
claims that allege adverse health effects from exposure to
asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by the
Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products
were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 claims were disposed of (through settlements and
judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 claims for personal injury were
pending against Grace.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional personal injury claims would have been received
between the Filing Date and March 31, 2008 had those claims not
been stayed by the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered separate case management orders
for estimating liability for pending and future personal injury
claims and adjudicating pending property damage claims,
excluding ZAI claims.

A trial for estimating liability for personal injury claims
began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a
result of the Personal Injury Settlement.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $917M of Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. states that, as of March 31, 2008, there
remains about US$917 million of asbestos-related excess coverage
from 54 presently solvent insurers, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1984 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims.

Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities
has not been commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$487 million.

With respect to asbestos-related personal injury claims, the
settlement agreements generally require that the claims be
spread over the claimant's exposure period and that each insurer
pay a pro rata portion of each claim based on the amount of
coverage provided during each year of the total exposure period.

Presently, the Company has no settlement agreements in place
with insurers with respect to about US$430 million of excess
coverage. Those policies are at layers of coverage that have not
yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the
Debtors Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related
liability of US$1.7 billion.

The Company has about US$253 million of excess coverage with
insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies.

The escrow account balance at March 31, 2008 was about US$95.7
million, including interest earned on the account.

Funds will be distributed from this account directly to
claimants at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms
of a confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by
the Bankruptcy Court. The settlement agreement provides that
unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31,
2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time
prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be
returned to the insurer.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $276.4M Libby Liability at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$276.4 million,
excluding interest, at March 31, 2008, compared with US$270.8
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The estimated obligation as of each date includes US$250 million
for the settlement of Libby remediation costs and does not
include the cost to remediate the Company-owned mine site at
Libby.

As a result of a 2003 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company is
required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5 million
(plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001, and for
all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-related
remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining
and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

The Company and the U.S. Department of Justice have agreed to
settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cost recovery
claims with respect to Libby for a payment by the Company of
US$250 million (including the US$54.5 million), such payment to
be made within 30 days of the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the
settlement agreement.

The settlement would cover all past and future remediation costs
in the Libby area, except for those relating to the Company-
owned mine. In return, the EPA would agree to take no action
against the Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund
Site.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval of the
Bankruptcy Court and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for
June 2, 2008.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Expend $3M for Libby Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and seven former senior
level employees, over a lawsuit on the Company's former
vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont.,
was US$3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$2.5 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007.

These amounts are included in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the accompanying Consolidated
Statements of Operations.

Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$94.6 million
through March 31, 2008.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and the
employees (United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al).

The indictment accuses the defendants of (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice.

The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it
until 1990; vermiculite processing activities continued until
1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from
1976 to 2002.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could
be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax
profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged
loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for
restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after-
tax profits were US$140 million. The Company has categorically
denied any criminal wrongdoing.

In July 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana dismissed a portion of the conspiracy count of a
superseding indictment alleging conspiracy to knowingly endanger
residents of the Libby area and others in violation of the Clean
Air Act.

In August 2006, the District Court granted a motion by the
defendants to exclude as evidence sample results that included
minerals that do not constitute asbestos under the Clean Air
Act.

The Government appealed these and other rulings to the 9th  
Circuit Court of Appeals. In September 2007, the 9th Circuit
overturned the July 2006 and August 2006 District Court rulings.

In December 2007, the Company's petition for rehearing
concerning these rulings was denied. The Company appealed the
9th Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court on April 14, 2008. A
trial date has not yet been scheduled.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's
request to advance legal and defense costs to the employees
involved in this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if
it is later determined that the employees did not meet the
standards for indemnification set forth under the appropriate
state corporate law.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeal to Grace Case Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New Jersey's appeal over the dismissal of an
asbestos-related action filed against W. R. Grace & Co. and two
former employees is pending.

On June 1, 2005, the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
filed a lawsuit against the Company and the two former employees
in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County
(N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W.R. Grace & Co. et
al.).

The suit sought civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J.

The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice have
also conducted criminal investigations related to the Company's
former operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not
aware of any recent activity related to such investigations.

The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and
ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the
Company produced spray-on fire protection products and other
vermiculite-based products at this plant.

The current property owners are conducting remediation
activities as directed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim
against the Company seeking about US$4.2 million with respect to
the Hamilton plant site, which is contemplated as part of the
multi-site settlement agreement.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New
Jersey's motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the
amount of US$31 million.

This ruling, which the State of New Jersey has appealed, does
not affect the claims against the former employees, for which
the Company would have an indemnification obligation.

On April 1, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order directing New Jersey to dismiss its lawsuit against Grace
with prejudice.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses on a worldwide basis through two operating segments:
"Grace Davison," which includes specialty catalysts and
materials used in energy, refining, consumer, industrial,
packaging and life sciences applications; and "Grace
Construction Products," which includes specialty chemicals and
materials used in commercial, infrastructure and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AbitibiBowater Faces 800 Open Bowater Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbitibiBowater Inc. faces 800 asbestos-related claims from its
predecessor, Bowater Incorporated, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 12, 2008.

The Company faced 770 asbestos-related claims from Bowater.
(Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Case v. 68 Firms Filed in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Regal, a Washington resident suffering from mesothelioma,
on May 7, 2008, filed an asbestos suit in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., claiming his disease was wrongfully caused, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Regal claims he was employed as a machinist in the U.S. Army
from 1962 to 2003 in Illinois and various other locations and as
a maintenance man at various locations in Illinois, Washington
and Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Regal names 68 defendant corporations that include Bondex
International, CBS Corporation, Chrysler LLC, Federal-Mogul
Asbestos Personal Trust, Ford Motor Company, General Electric
Company, General Motors Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.,
International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., MetLife Inc.,
Owens-Illinois Inc., Philips Electronics North America
Corporation, and Riley Stoker.

"The plaintiff's exposure and inhalation, ingestion or
absorption of the asbestos fibers was completely foreseeable and
could or should have been anticipated by the defendants," the
complaint states.

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

According to Mr. Regal, he first became aware that he suffered
from mesothelioma on Feb. 8, 2008. He alleges that the
defendants included asbestos in their products even when
adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide any or
adequate instructions concerning the safe methods of working
with and around asbestos.

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

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

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

Mr. Regal 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.

Mr. Regal is seeking at least US$300,000 in damages for
negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent
spoliation of evidence among other allegations.

Mr. Regal is represented by Christopher Guinn, Perry Browder,
John Barnerd and Christopher Levy of SimmonsCooper in East
Alton, Ill.

Case No. 08 L 396 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Canadian Cases in R.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island State Supreme Court orders the dismissal of 39
asbestos cases that Canadian residents had filed in Rhode
Island, The Providence Journal reports.

With the ruling, the Supreme Court said Rhode Island is joining
46 other states and the federal government in recognizing a
doctrine that allows courts to decline to handle cases if — in
the interest of "convenience, efficiency and justice" — they
conclude the cases should proceed elsewhere.

The court said the lawsuits were filed against corporations that
conduct business in Rhode Island. However, none of the
defendants are incorporated or has its principal place of
business here, and all of the plaintiffs are Canadian residents
whose employment, exposure and treatment occurred in Canada.

Supreme Court Justice Paul A. Suttell wrote, "Our courts in
Rhode Island must stand open to provide remedies to those who
have been injured and to treat all litigants fairly. Our courts,
however, need not resolve disputes of all persons who choose to
file suit in Rhode Island. In the 39 cases under review, we are
unable to discern any nexus with the state of Rhode Island."

In May 2005, Superior Court Judge Alice B. Gibney refused to
dismiss the cases, saying Rhode Island was one of the few states
in which neither the legislature nor the state's highest court
had recognized the doctrine of forum non conveniens generally.

Judge Gibney said Superior Court had proper jurisdiction over
the cases and she indicated she could handle the 39 cases since
the court was not "mired in asbestos litigation."

The cases involved defendants such as General Electric Co. and
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc.

The appeal prompted legal briefs from groups such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers. The ruling decision elicited praise from the
American Tort Reform Association, which called it "a victory for
Ocean State taxpayers and citizens called to jury duty."

Many of the plaintiffs worked in Canadian factories and power
plants where material containing asbestos was being installed or
repaired, and the defendants are from many different places in
the world.

The Supreme Court said, "It cannot be disputed that Canada has a
legal system capable of affording the possibility of remedies to
the plaintiffs in the underlying cases."

And only Canadian courts have the legal power to compel the
testimony of Canadian witnesses not under the control of any
party, the court said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shawvers Sue 31 Corporations in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Putnam County, Va., couple, George Shawver and Betty Shawver,
on April 11, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against
Union Carbide Corporation and 30 companies in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Shawver claims he suffered from asbestos exposure while
working for Union Carbide.

According to the suit, Mr. Shawver worked as a laborer and
operator at Union Carbide from 1946 to 1987. He claims he was
unaware of the dangers from exposure to asbestos, and now
suffers from mesothelioma.

Mr. Shawver claims the defendants failed to inform him of the
dangers of asbestos. He claims they also failed to protect the
employees from the dusts.

Mrs. Shawver claims she will be required to render nursing
services beyond that expected of a spouse.

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

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-708 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 50 Firms in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Bailes, of Nicholas County, W.Va., on April 15, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court, on
behalf of her husband George Bailes, The West Virginia Record
reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Bailes lived in Nicholas County, but
worked in Kanawha County, where he was exposed to asbestos. Due
to his exposure, he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma,
which ultimately resulted in his death.

The suit states the companies knew about the dangers of asbestos
but failed to warn their employees or take the proper safety
precautions to prevent workers from being exposed to the
asbestos.

The suit specifically names Union Carbide Corporation and T.H.
Agriculture and Nutrition as defendants.

In the nine-count suit, Mrs. Bailes seeks compensatory and
exemplary damages. Attorney James M. Barber represents Mrs.
Bailes.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-736 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers May Sue Scottish Gov't. on Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance companies may sue the Scottish government if it passes
legislation allowing asbestos workers who have not fallen
seriously ill as a result of contact with the substance to sue
for damages, The Sunday Times reports.

In 2007, the House of Lords ruled that people with "pleural
plaques" -- a thickening of lung tissue caused by exposure to
asbestos fibers -- should no longer be able to claim
compensation.

The House of Lords ruled that because the plaques are not in
themselves harmful and cause no physical symptoms, only anxiety,
they do not merit damage payments.

Medical experts agree that although they are a "marker or litmus
test" of asbestos exposure, plaques do not mutate into lethal
forms of asbestosis, such as mesothelioma, which still merit
damages.

Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, promised to introduce
legislation at Holyrood reversing the ruling and setting
Scotland apart from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacAskill was supported by MSPs of all parties as well as
Clydeside Action on Asbestos (CAA), the campaign group, and
Thompsons Solicitors, which handles 90 percent of asbestos
claims north of the border.

However, insurance companies have warned the bill would
fundamentally change the law on damages in Scotland, allowing
people to sue employers for "exposure only" to potentially
harmful material, regardless of whether they suffered actual
harm.

In a submission to a government consultation on the proposed
legislation, AXA Insurance said it was "wholly wrong and should
not be progressed," with a basis that was "flawed in many
respects."

The proposal estimated the 630 outstanding claims would generate
about GBP4.5 million damages, 90 percent of them handled by
Thompsons Solicitors.

Zurich, one of the two lead insurers in 2007's judgment in the
Lords, said it was concerned about opening the floodgates to
exposure-only claims, warning, "Zurich has already taken legal
advice on challenging any proposed legislation."

CBI Scotland, the employers' organization, said the bill would
undermine a "stable and principled legal framework that business
and citizens can rely upon” in Scotland. However, the Faculty of
Advocates, the legal body, said the bill was “both justified and
reasonable."

A government spokesman said, "The justice secretary has made
clear his commitment to ensure that those who suffer the effects
of asbestos as a result of our industrial past are able to claim
for damages. The bill will bring some relief to people living
with this condition."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Edwards Kin Sues 35 Firms in Texas Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The family of pipefitter Earnest L. Edwards, on May 7, 2008, has
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 35 defendant
corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

On Mr. Edwards' behalf, Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins
filed the suit against the A.O. Smith Corp. and 34 other
companies. Betty Palmer is representing Mr. Edwards' estate.

According to the plaintiff's petition, the A.O. Smith Corp. and
the other defendants knowingly and maliciously manufactured and
distributed asbestos-containing products throughout Jefferson
County.

Mr. Edwards worked as a pipefitter and general laborer for
various employers, "which caused him to suffer from…industrial
dust diseases caused by breathing the asbestos-containing
products," the suit said.

The suit alleges the defendants in the lawsuit were negligent
for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced products
before flooding the market with dangerous goods and for failing
to warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include aerospace
giant Lockheed Martin Corp. and iron supplier Zurn Industries
Inc.

In addition, the petition faults Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corporation) and American Optical Corp.
for producing defective masks that failed to provide respiratory
protection.

Although Mr. Edwards has already sued and received a claim, the
suit says, "Plaintiff now seeks damages against defendants not
released in the previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v.
Rapid-American Corp."

Mr. Edwards' family sues for exemplary damages, plus physical
pain and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the
past and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity,
disfigurement in the past and future, physical impairment in the
past and future, and past and future medical expenses.

Case No. B181-718 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Account for Half of Ill. Law Division
----------------------------------------------------------------
So far in 2008, new asbestos lawsuits account for half of the
cases filed in the Law (L) Division of the Third Judicial
Circuit in Madison County, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

L Division cases are ones that seek damages in excess of
US$50,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

As of May 2, 2008, 381 L Division cases have been filed and 197,
or 51.7 percent of the total are asbestos claims.

The SimmonsCooper law firm, based in East Alton, Ill., files the
majority of Madison County asbestos cases. Attorney Randy Gori
of Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland Short & Gori in
Edwardsville is the second most productive filer of asbestos
cases. The O'Brien Law Firm, Brent Coon Law Firm and Mike
Bilbrey also occasionally file asbestos cases here.

In 2007, there were 455 asbestos suits filed in Madison County,
which is 130 cases more than in 2006, a year in which 325 cases
were filed-- that was the lowest number of asbestos filings
since 1998, when 176 cases were filed. In 2005, there were 389
asbestos cases.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, the county's
presiding asbestos judge, said he has no idea why asbestos cases
are increasing this year. And, he is not concerned with the
upsurge just yet.

Judge Stack, who also is Madison County's chief civil judge,
said he would be concerned if the asbestos numbers continually
trend higher as they did in 2002 when there were 809 cases and
in 2003 when the all-time high of 953 was reached.

Judge Stack said, "No judge wants his docket to increase. As
long as the (asbestos) cases are appropriate and belong here,
the increase does not bother me."

Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis also did not express alarm
at the apparent increase in asbestos filings. She commended
Judge Stack for his handling of the county's huge asbestos
docket which he took over in 2004, vowing to kick out cases that
didn't belong in Madison County.

Mr. Stack speculated that the increase may be due to secondary
exposure claims.

At least 44 or 22.2 percent of all asbestos cases filed in 2008
have alleged their exposure came from asbestos from a spouse or
parent's clothing. Lately, a large number of asbestos cases are
being filed from plaintiffs who live outside of Illinois.

Out of the 197 cases filed so far this year, roughly 86 percent
of the plaintiffs live in other states. The Illinois residents
that do file in Madison County are not always locals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chick to Serve 15-Month Pa. Prison Sentence
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Chick, the former carpenter from Cayuga County, N.Y., who
pleaded guilty to illegally removing asbestos from a county
building two years ago, will begin his 15-month prison sentence
at a federal minimum-security camp attached to Canaan
Penitentiary, a maximum security prison in Waymart, Pa.,
syracuse.com reports.

The facility is about 20 miles east of Scranton, and 134 miles
north of Philadelphia.

Mr. Chick's lawyer, Paul Carey, said, "We're happy that it has
worked out this way. He'll be closer to his family and friends.
It's a good facility for him -- if there's any such thing as a
good facility."

The 66-year-old Mr. Chick was to begin serving his sentence last
April 2008 at a federal prison in Virginia, but he got a one-
month reprieve after Mr. Carey asked for a postponement in the
reporting date.

The delay was to allow prison authorities to find a spot for Mr.
Chick at a facility closer to Central New York. Canaan is about
150 miles from Auburn, N.Y. -- about three-hour drive. Virginia
is twice as far in distance and driving time.

Mr. Chick pleaded guilty in January 2007 to conspiracy to
violate the federal Clean Air Act. He admitted illegally
removing asbestos-laden boiler parts from the county Board of
Elections building in Auburn in February 2006. The boiler parts
were buried in the city landfill.

Mr. Chick said that he was only acting on orders from his
superiors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Preston Grandfather to Get 5-Figure Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McMullan, a grandfather from Lea, Preston, England, who
has been told his health can deteriorate due to asbestos
exposure, has won an undisclosed five-figure sum in compensation
from his former employer, Courtalds.

The 75-year-old Mr. McMullan developed asbestosis caused by
exposure to asbestos dust while working as a fitter's mate for
Courtalds at Red Scar industrial estate.

During the 1960s to 1980s, Mr. McMullan worked in the boiler-
house and turbine room alongside laggers who removed and
replaced asbestos insulation.

Mr. McMullan was diagnosed with asbestosis in 2005 after he
complained of shortness of breath to his doctor.

The damages secured for Mr. McMullan allow him to claim for
further compensation if his condition worsens in the future or
he develops another asbestos related condition.

John Flanagan from Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group,
who assisted Mr. McMullan added, "I am delighted the case has
settled in favour of Mr McMullan. It demonstrates how important
it is for patients to seek help from experienced and reputable
solicitors when claiming compensation."

Client representative Jennifer McDermott from Thompsons
Solicitors, who dealt with the claim on behalf of Mr. McMullan
said: "We are pleased we have been able to reach a successful
conclusion for Mr McMullan."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Crewe Works Employee Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Crewe's Municipal Building at Crewe, Cheshire,
England, heard that the death of Denis Bateman was linked to
asbestos, The Chronicle reports.

Mr. Bateman, a former Crewe Works employee, passed away at
Leighton Hospital on Aug. 14, 2007 following chronic respiratory
failure.

The inquest, held on May 9, 2008, heard how the former railway
fitter developed the condition following exposure to asbestos
from the 1940s in Crewe Works.

The 81-year-old Mr. Bateman spent all his life working there and
at that time it was impossible to escape the asbestos.

In a statement made to his solicitor before his death, Mr.
Bateman said he was always in contact with asbestos as it was
used in the Works, especially for insulating purposes.

The inquest heard that Mr. Bateman had worked in various
departments until he retired at the age of 61. A post mortem
examination revealed he had suffered respiratory failure likely
to be linked to asbestosis.

Cheshire coroner Nicholas Rheinberg said throughout his working
life, Mr. Bateman had inhaled copious amounts of asbestos
fibres. He recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.





                            *********

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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. 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  * * *