CAR_Public/080523.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 102
  
                            Headlines

APPLIANCE RETAILERS: Face Raps Over Dryer Vents in Three States
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Lawsuit Over May 17 Train Derailment
CANDELA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification in FACTA Lawsuit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Wage Law Violations Suit Still Pending

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Face Calif. Wage/Hour Lawsuit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Wants YieldPlus Fund Lawsuits Consolidated
CVR ENERGY: Dismissal of Kansas Oil Spill Lawsuit Not Appealed
EINSTEIN NOAH: Amended Complaint Filed in Store Managers' Suit
EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Non-Exempt Employees' Litigation in Calif.

EMERSON RADIO: Faces Delaware Suit Over Grande Holdings Buy-Out
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses "Ulferts" Litigation
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Market-Timing Suit Dismissal Order
FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit
GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Zilson" Complaint

GEMSTAR-TV: Del. Suit Over Macrovision Corp. Deal Still Pending
INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits
INTERMIX MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Awaits Ruling
ISRAELI BANKS: Face Lawsuit for Profiting From Withheld Taxes
JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit

JARDEN CORP: Calif. Court Approves K2 Inc. Lawsuit Settlement
LIVE NATION: Calif. Court Approves Stipulation in Antitrust Suit
LONDON LIFE: Ex-Workers File $11-Million Suit Over Pension Money
MASSBANK CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Eastern Bank Merger Deal
MCKESSON CORP: Calif. Demands "Hundreds Of Millions” in Lawsuit

MENU FOODS: Settles Pet Owners' Hawaii suit Over Pet Food Recall
MERCURY INSURANCE: Calif. Court Approves CLRA Suit Settlement
MERCURY INSURANCE: Awaits Final Approval of "Goodman" Settlement
MONROE COUNTY: School Officials Face Racial Discrimination Raps
NEVADA: Speech-Impaired Patients Sue Over Medicaid Money Denial

RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Okays $18MM Securities Suit Settlement
ROCKWELL INT'L: Judge Upholds $350MM Verdict in Rocky Flats Case
SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit Over Defective Garage Door Openers
SILVER STATE HELICOPTERS: Ex-students Sue Two More Lenders
STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit

STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
STARBUCKS CORP: Texas Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Lawsuit
SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in "Vukson" Lawsuit
WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
MGIC INVESTMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Michigan


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Newsome Action in Favor of U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Remands Sether Action v. GE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Facing Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Has $1.28B Reserves at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. CenterPoint

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $19.9M Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Products Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Still Has 114 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Five Units Face Lawsuits in 30 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $628M Liability at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,275 Claims Pending v. Harsco at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Has 79,000 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2T New Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Houston Wire
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $96.11M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,836 Claims Pending v. Ampco at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $27.69M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $21.17M Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Cites $12.27M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,344 Claims at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Inc. Has 10,607 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Records $622.7M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Faces 104,642 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc Pursuing Coverage for N.J. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Still Pending v. Owens-Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117T Claims Pending v. Ashland at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves for Liability Still at $325T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Defendants in Marley Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Gomez

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Pending v. Nevamar Co. at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Applica Lawsuits Still Pending v. Salton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Ongoing v. Katy Industries in Ala.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,426 Sterling Fluid Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 388 Actions Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Facing Stehmans' Case in Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 40 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richards Widow Names 30 Firms in W.Va. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues $18,500 Penalty to Ariz. Company

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Seek JPY6.6Bil from Japanese Gov't.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs $3.9M Verdict v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Has 6,191 Mesothelioma Claims Filed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grumley Settles w/ Garlock Sealing for $12M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chason Case v. Marathon Filed in Tex. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $3.2M Verdict v. Parsons, Jacobs

Foster Wheeler Tops List of Companies with Open Asbestos Claims



                           *********


APPLIANCE RETAILERS: Face Raps Over Dryer Vents in Three States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance retailers are facing lawsuits seeking class-action
status in the states of Illinois, North Carolina and Indiana
alleging that the companies improperly installed dryer vents,
Reuters reports.

Named in the suits are:

         -- Sears Holdings Corp.
         -- Lowe's Cos. Inc. and
         -- hhgregg Inc.

The lawsuit against Sears, filed in U.S. District Court in
Illinois, states that clothes dryers were involved in more than
15,000 U.S. structure fires, 15 deaths and $99 million worth of
property damage annually between 2002 and 2004.

The suits against Lowe's and hhgregg were filed before the
federal court in North Carolina and Indiana, respectively, where
the companies are based, the report notes.

According to the lawsuits, "The leading cause of clothes dryer
fires is due to improper installation of vents and excessive
build-up of lint within the dryer."

The lawsuits state that the retailers' installers attached metal
foil or plastic vents to dryers sold to consumers instead of
heavy metal ones recommended by manufacturers, creating
conditions that could cause fires or death.

The suits seek unspecified monetary damages and corrective
action for consumers whose vents were installed improperly.
Appliance retailers typically charge a fee for installation.

"These retailers are selling their installation services and
then they are (installing) in a way that they know can
ultimately be a fire hazard,” said Paul Geller, Esq., who
represents plaintiffs in the lawsuits.

To contact Mr. Geller:

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Lawsuit Over May 17 Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad is facing a class-action
complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana over the May 17 morning train derailment
that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, forcing the
evacuation of 3,000 people, CourtHouse News Service reports.

A BNSF train derailed in Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, State of
Louisiana, on May 17, 2008, caused emissions of toxic chemicals
including but not limited to hydrochloric acid.  This resulted
to injuries to plaintiffs and numerous other individuals over a
large area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana.

The wreck sent a toxic cloud over the city, putting five people
in the hospital, according to press reports.  

Most of the roughly 3,000 residents who were evacuated after the
2:00 a.m. derailment were able to return home the following
night, but residents within 1,000 feet of the 10,000-gallon
spill -- mostly businesses -- are still prohibited from
returning, state troopers told The Associated Press.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all residents and
domiciliaries of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana who
were present, had businesses or owned property in Lafayette on
May 17, 2008, and who sustained injuries and damages as a result
of the derailment of the BNSF train and the subsequent release
of toxic chemicals.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
        provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23,
        and appointing complainants and their counsel to
        represent the class;

     -- a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the
        proposed class against BNSF in an amount to compensate
        each class member for all damages to which they are
        entitled to by law, but after due proceedings that
        including a trial by jury;

     -- legal interest on all damages awarded from the date
        of judicial demand until paid; and

     -- the cost of this litigation.

The suit is "Daniel Danenberg et al. v. Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad Company, Case No. 6:08-cv-00676,” filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com)
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. (mmoreland@becnellaw.com)
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          (schristina@becnellaw.com)
          Becnel Law Firm LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Phone: 985-536-1186
          Fax: 985-536-6445


CANDELA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class
action suit that was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's May 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008.

On April 2, 2008, Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees'
Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action complaint
against the company, Candela President and CEO Gerard E. Puorro,
and its former chief financial officer, F. Paul Broyer.

The suit was brought on behalf of investors who purchased the
company's publicly traded securities between Feb. 1, 2006, and
Aug. 21, 2006.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of
relief.

The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension
Fund, et al. v. Candela Corporation, et al., Case No. 08-CV-
10551," filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173
          e-mail: info@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          52 State Street
          Boston, MA, 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134
          e-mail: info@shulaw.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Denies Certification in FACTA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion by the plaintiffs seeking class-action status
for a consolidated class action suit filed against CEC
Entertainment, Inc., that alleges violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, according to CEC's May 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008.

On Jan. 23, 2007, a purported class action complaint against
CEC, entitled, "Blanco v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., Cause
No. CV-07-0559," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  

The Blanco Litigation was filed by an alleged customer of one of
the company's Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants purporting to
represent all individuals in the U.S. who, on or after Dec. 4,
2006, were knowingly and intentionally provided at the point of
sale or transaction with an electronically printed receipt by
the company that was in violation of U.S.C. Section 1681c(g) of
FACTA.

The Blanco Litigation is not seeking actual damages, but is only
seeking statutory damages for each willful violation under
FACTA.

On Jan. 10, 2008, the Court denied class certification without
prejudice and stayed the case pending the appellate outcome of
the "Soualian v. Int'l Coffee & Tea LLC" case which is presently
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

The trial court in "Soualian" is currently evaluating a
preliminary settlement of the matter.  If the settlement is
approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, the stay in the Blanco Litigation will likely be
lifted.  

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is   
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The Company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Calif. Wage Law Violations Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc., continues to face a purported class
action suit that was filed before the Central District Superior
Court of California in Los Angeles County in connection with
alleged violations of the state wage and hour laws, according to
the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008.

The purported class action complaint was filed against the
company on Nov. 19, 2007, and is entitled, "Ana Chavez v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc., et. al., Cause No. BC380996."  The company
received service of process on Dec. 21, 2007.  

The Chavez Litigation was filed by a former store employee
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the company in California from Nov. 19,
2003, to the present.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws
involving unpaid vacation wages, meal periods, wages due upon
termination, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition and
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the company removed the Chavez Litigation to
Federal Court.  The Federal Court remanded the Chavez Litigation
back to State Court on March 21, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
recent SEC regulatory disclosure.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com-- is   
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The Company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Face Calif. Wage/Hour Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. continues to face a purported class
action lawsuit that was filed before the Central District
Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County in connection
with alleged violations of the state wage and hour laws,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2008.

The purported class action lawsuit against CEC, entitled,
"Cynthia Perez et. al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., et. al.,
Cause No. BC3853527," was filed on Jan. 9, 2008.  The company
was served with the complaint on Jan. 30, 2008.

The Perez Litigation was filed by former store employees
purporting to represent other similarly situated current and
former employees of the company in Los Angeles County from
Jan. 8, 2004, to the present.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest periods, itemized
wage statements, waiting time penalties, retaliation, unfair
competition, and constructive trust and seeks an unspecified
amount in damages.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the company removed the Perez Litigation to
federal court.  The federal court remanded the Perez Litigation
back to State Court on April 30, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
recent SEC regulatory disclosure.

CEC Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.chuckecheese.com/-- is   
engaged in the family restaurant/entertainment center business.
The Company operated, as of Dec. 31, 2006, 484 Chuck E. Cheese's
restaurants.  In addition, as of Dec. 31, 2006, franchisees of
the Company operated 45 Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants.  Chuck E.
Cheese's restaurants offer a variety of pizzas, a salad bar,
sandwiches, appetizers and desserts, and feature musical and
comic entertainment by robotic and animated characters, family
oriented games, rides and arcade-style activities.  The Company
and its franchisees operate in a total of 48 states and five
foreign countries/territories.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Wants YieldPlus Fund Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corp. is seeking for the consolidation of
several purported securities class action lawsuits related to
the Schwab YieldPlus Fund.

In March 2008, two purported class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of investors in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund alleging that
the mutual fund's registration statements and prospectuses were
false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws.

Six additional purported class action complaints asserting
largely identical claims were filed in April 2008.

Aside from the company, the other defendants named in the eight
lawsuits are:

   -- Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.,

   -- Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc.,

   -- Randall W. Merk,

   -- Charles R. Schwab, and

   -- other current and former management affiliated trustees
      and officers of the fund or Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.

In addition, several of the lawsuits name the fund itself,
Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares),
and the current and former independent trustees of the fund.

The claimants seek unspecified compensatory and rescission
damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, and costs
and attorneys fees.

Five of the lawsuits have been filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, two with the U.S.
District Court for Massachusetts, and one with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The five California cases have been assigned to the same judge,
and the company will seek consolidation of all eight cases into
a single action, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The Charles Schwab Corp. -- http://www.schwab.com/-- is a  
financial holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company engages in securities brokerage, banking and related
financial services. CSC provides financial services to
individuals and institutional clients through three segments:
Schwab Investor Services, Schwab Institutional, and Schwab
Corporate and Retirement Services.  The Schwab Investor Services
segment includes the Company's retail brokerage and banking
operations.  The Schwab Institutional segment provides
custodial, trading and support services to independent
investment advisors.  The Schwab Corporate and Retirement
Services segment provides retirement plan services for employers
and employees, as well as support services for plan
administrators.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had seven
million active brokerage accounts, 1.2 million corporate
retirement plan participants and 262,000 banking accounts.  


CVR ENERGY: Dismissal of Kansas Oil Spill Lawsuit Not Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal was made with regards to the dismissal of a federal
class action lawsuit over an oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas,
that named CVR Energy Inc. as a defendant.

To recount, crude oil was discharged from the company's refinery
on July 1, 2007, due to the short amount of time available to
shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for a flood
that occurred on June 30, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10,
2008).

More than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the refinery
-- far more than the 42,000 gallons that was initially reported
by the press.  Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at
the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a
very large area.

As a result of the crude oil discharge, a putative class action
complaint was filed in federal court seeking unspecified damages
under applicable law for all residents, domiciliaries and
property owners of Coffeyville, Kansas, who were affected by the
oil release.

The federal action was commenced by the law firms Parker
Waichman Alonso LLP; Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC; Neblett,
Beard & Arsenault; and Becnel Law Firm LLC before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, on behalf of numerous
individuals and business owners who have sustained losses as a
result of the refinery oil spill.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the crude oil discharge
resulted from our negligent operation of the refinery and that
class members suffered unspecified damages, including damages to
their personal and real property, diminished property value,
lost full use and enjoyment of their property, lost or
diminished business income and comprehensive remediation costs.

The federal suit sought recovery under the federal Oil Pollution
Act, Kansas statutory law imposing a duty of compensation on a
party that releases any material detrimental to the soil or
waters of Kansas, and the Kansas common law of negligence,
trespass and nuisance.

This suit was dismissed on Nov. 6, 2007, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and no appeal was made, according to the
company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.  

The suit is "Dunham v. Coffeyville Resources, LLC et al., Case
No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten, with
referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick.

For more information, contact plaintiffs' lawyer:

         Andrew W. Hutton, Esq. (andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com)
         Hutton & Hutton
         8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200
         P. O. Box 638
         Wichita, KS 67201-638
         Phone: 316-688-1166
         Fax: 316-686-1077


EINSTEIN NOAH: Amended Complaint Filed in Store Managers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended consolidated complaint was filed in a purported class
action lawsuit against Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc.,
over the company's alleged failure to pay overtime wages to
"salaried restaurant employees" of its stores in the state,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 1, 2008.

Initially, two purported class action suits were filed.  The
first was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
State of California, County of San Diego, on Sept. 18, 2007, by
a former store manager, Eric Mathistad.

Mr. Mathistad alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime
wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees, and
that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and
rest breaks.

The plaintiff alleges that these actions were in violation of
the California Labor Code Sections 1194, et seq., 500, et seq.,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and applicable wage order(s) issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, restitution and an unspecified amount of
damages for unpaid overtime and for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Company filed a demurrer on Oct. 18, 2007, claiming that,
inter alia:

       -- the plaintiff fails to state a claim against the
          Company;

       -- the plaintiff does not state a claim for a joint
          venture, partnership, common enterprise, or aiding and
          abetting;

       -- the plaintiff's definition of the class is deficient
          and

       -- the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment
          regarding Labor Code violations should be dismissed.

On No. 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store manager,
filed a similar case against the company.  

In April 2008, the Mathistad and Meija cases were consolidated
into one case, and on May 6, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint.   

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an   
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.  


EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces Non-Exempt Employees' Litigation in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., is facing a purported
class action lawsuit in California claiming failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime and failure to provide
rest periods and meal breaks, among other charges, according to
the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 1, 2008.

On Feb. 8, 2008, non-exempt employees Gloria Webber and Hakan
Mikado brought a putative class action suit against the company
in the Superior Court of California for the State of California,
County of San Diego.

The parties have agreed to stay formal discovery and a formal
response to the complaint pending exchange of information.  

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an   
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.  


EMERSON RADIO: Faces Delaware Suit Over Grande Holdings Buy-Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Radio Corp. and its directors are facing a derivative-
action complaint filed before the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware for self-dealing and breaches of duty in selling 58%
of the company to Grande Holdings Ltd., CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of
Emerson Radio, seeking to recover for damages caused to the
company by its directors and senior officers who breached their
fiduciary obligations to the company arising out of the self-
dealing transactions they caused Emerson to enter.

These transactions were with subsidiaries and affiliates of
Emerson's controlling shareholder, Grande Holdings, which
obtained control over Emerson through a series of open market
transactions and private acquisitions resulting in the
accumulation of over 57.6% of Emerson's outstanding common
stock.

In pursuing these related party transactions, the directors
violated Delaware law by directly breaching and/or aiding and
abetting the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties of loyalty and fair dealing.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- declare this action to be a proper derivative action and
        certify plaintiff as representative plaintiff and
        plaintiff's counsel as derivative counsel;

     -- order defendants to pay Emerson monetary damages,
        together with interest thereon;

     -- award plaintiff the costs of this action, including
        reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
        experts' fees; and

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

The suit is "Warren Pinchuk et al. v. Christopher Ho et al.,”
filed before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Briand D. Long, Esq.
          Rigrodsky & Long PA
          919 Norht Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-295-5310
          Fax: 302-654-7530


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: N.J. Court Dismisses "Ulferts" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
with prejudice the purported class action suit, "Ulferts v.
Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01309 WJM-
MF," according to Franklin resources' May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, the company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named in a lawsuit, entitled "Ulferts v. Franklin Resources,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7847 SI," which was filed on Dec. 22,
2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The suit is alleging violations of federal securities laws
relating to disclosure of marketing support payments and payment
of allegedly excessive commissions.  It was styled as a class
action and sought, among other relief, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 16, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entered a stipulated order transferring
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The transferred case in now captioned, "Ulferts v.
Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01309 WJM-
MF."

On Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In April 2008, the court granted the defendants'
request dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com,--   
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.  


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Awaits Market-Timing Suit Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on motions seeking to dismiss a consolidated market
timing/late trading class action suit filed against Franklin
Resources, Inc., and certain of the Franklin Templeton mutual
funds, current and former officers, employees, and directors.

The defendants have been named in multiple lawsuits in different
federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and
Florida.  Generally, the cases alleged violations of various
federal securities and state laws.  

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by the
company's subsidiaries, allegedly resulting in market timing
activity.  

The lawsuits are styled as class actions, or derivative actions
on behalf of either the named funds or the company.

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, monetary
damages, restitution, removal of fund trustees, directors,
advisers, administrators, and distributors, rescission of
management contracts and 12b-1 plans, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The majority of these lawsuits duplicate, in whole or in part,
the allegations asserted in an administrative complaint and in
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's findings regarding
market timing in the SEC Order.  

To date, more than 400 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.  

Because the cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."  

The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different
districts to the MDL for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

As of Dec. 20, 2006, these market timing lawsuits are pending
against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, and in some
instances, name certain officers, directors and Funds.  The
suits that have been transferred to the MDL include:

      -- "Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.   
         03-770 GPM," filed on Nov. 19, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois;  

      -- "Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 03-859 MJR," filed on Dec. 16, 2003, in the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
         and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004;   

      -- "Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case  
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ," filed on Feb. 6, 2004, in  
         the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;   

      -- "Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04  
         0583 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in the U.S. District  
         Court for the Northern District of California;

      -- "Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,  
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in  
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
         California;   

      -- "Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP," filed on Feb. 11, 2004, in
         the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

      -- "Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.  
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the  
         U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada;   

      -- "Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case  
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ," filed on Feb. 12, 2004, in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District  
         of California;  

      -- "McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH," filed on Feb. 13, 2004, in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,  
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC," filed on Feb. 17, 2004, in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District of  
         California;   

      -- "Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et  
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330," filed on Feb. 18, 2004, in  
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of  
         New York;  

      -- "D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund,
         et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC," filed on March 3, 2004,
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C  
         04 0901 JL," filed on March 5, 2004, in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      -- "Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL," filed on March 5, 2004 in the U.S.  
         District Court for the Northern District of
         California;  

      -- "Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0984 EMC," filed on March 10, 2004, in the  
         U.S. District Court for the Northern District  
         of California; and

      -- "Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489," filed
         on March 30, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints
on Sept. 29, 2004.  On Feb. 25, 2005, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss.

The company's and its subsidiaries' motions are currently
pending with the court.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.   
1:04-md-15862-AMD," pending before the U.S. District Court for
the   District of Maryland, Judge Andre M. Davis, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          H. Adam Prussin, Esq. (haprussin@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross, LLP
          100 Park Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 1-212-661-1100
          Fax: 1-212-661-8665

Representing the company is:

          Meredith Nelson Landy, Esq. (mlandy@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Rd.
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 1-650-473-2671
          Fax: 1-650-473-2601


FRANKLIN TEMPLETON: Certification Sought in Market-Timing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in one market-timing lawsuit filed in Canada
against Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., a unit of Franklin
Resources, Inc., served the company with a motion for class
certification.

Franklin Templeton is a subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc.,
and the investment manager of Franklin Templeton's Canadian
mutual funds.  It faces four hree market-timing class action
suits filed in Canada.

The suits are:

       1. "Huneault v. AGF Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-
          000256-046," filed on Oct. 25, 2004, in the Superior
          Court for the Province of Quebec, District of
          Montreal;

       2. "Heinrichs, et al. v. CI Mutual Funds, Inc., et al.,
          Case No. 04-CV-29700," filed on Dec. 17, 2004, in the
          Ontario Superior Court of Justice;

       3. "Richardson v. Franklin Templeton Investments Corp.,
          Case No. 05-CV-303069," filed on Dec. 23, 2005, in the
          Ontario Superior Court of Justice; and

       4. "Fischer, et al. v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et
          al. Case No. 06-CV-307599CP," filed on March 9, 2006,
          in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The suits are seeking, among other relief, monetary damages, an
order barring any increase in management fees for a period of
two years following judgment, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 25, 2007, the plaintiffs in the Fischer lawsuit served
Franklin Templeton Investments with a motion for class
certification.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Franklin Resources, Inc. -- http://www.franklintempleton.com/--   
is an investment management company.  Through its wholly owned
direct and indirect subsidiaries, Franklin Resources provides
investment management and fund administration services to open-
end and closed-end investment companies, institutional accounts,
high-net-worth families, individuals and separate accounts in
the U.S. and internationally.  


GEMSTAR-TV: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss "Zilson" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit captioned,
"Karen Zilson, et al. v. Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.,
et al.," requested the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles to dismiss their complaint without
prejudice as to all defendants.

The purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
Dec. 7, 2007, against Gemstar-TV, News Corp., and members of
Gemstar- V's board of directors.  

The complaint alleged that the company is being sold to
Macrovision Corp. through an unfair process and for less than
its fair value.  The complaint contains a cause of action for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, and sought a declaration that the sale is
unlawful, an injunction to prevent the sale from going forward,
rescission to the extent that the terms of the sale have been
implemented, an order that the Directors exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of
Gemstar-TV's shareholders, and an award of attorneys' fees,
experts fees, costs, and other disbursements.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a request for the Court to
dismiss their complaint without prejudice as to all defendants,  
according to Macrovision Solutions Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media,  
entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses,
markets and distributes products and services targeted at the
video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide.


GEMSTAR-TV: Del. Suit Over Macrovision Corp. Deal Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit in connection with Macrovision
Corp.'s proposed acquisition of Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc., remains pending with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, according to Macrovision Solutions Corp.'s May 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The purported shareholder class action suit, styled "Martin
Henkel v. Battista, et al.," was filed on Dec. 17, 2007, against
Gemstar-TV, and the members of its board of directors.  

The complaint alleges that Macrovision's proposed acquisition of
Gemstar-TV is unfair to Gemstar-TV's shareholders and that the
defendants agreed to accept consideration for Gemstar-TV's
shares that is substantially less than their value.  The
complaint contains a cause of action for breach of fiduciary
duty against Gemstar-TV and members of its board of directors.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding News Corp. as a defendant and asserting a cause of action
against News Corp. for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty.  The amended complaint also contains allegations that
certain of Gemstar-TV's disclosures in connection with the
proposed transaction are inadequate.  

The amended complaint seeks an injunction to prevent the
proposed sale, rescission or rescissory damages in the event
that the sale is consummated, rescission of the voting agreement
in which News Corp. agreed to vote its shares in favor of the
proposed transaction, an accounting of damages allegedly
suffered by Gemstar-TV's shareholders, and an award of attorneys
and experts fees.

Gemstar-TV reported no further development in the matter in its
SEC regulatory disclosure.

Los Angeles, California-based Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. -- http://www.gemstartvguide.com/-- is a media,   
entertainment and technology company that develops, licenses,
markets and distributes products and services targeted at the
video guidance and entertainment needs of consumers worldwide.  


INTERMIX MEDIA: Court to Hear Arguments in Appeal of Nixed Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal has yet to hear arguments on the
motions filed in relation to the the dismissal of purported
class action suits against Intermix Media, Inc., which is an
acquisition of News Corp.

These purported class action lawsuits were filed on Aug. 26 and
Aug. 30, 2005, before the California Superior Court, County of
Los Angeles:

      -- "Ron Sheppard v. Richard Rosenblatt, et al.," and

      -- "John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et al."

Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then-incumbent
members of the Intermix Media Board, including Intermix' former
chief executive officer, Richard Rosenblatt, and certain
entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
major Intermix stockholder.

The complaints alleged that, in pursuing the transaction wherein
Intermix Media was to be acquired by Fox Interactive, and
approving the related merger agreement, the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix stockholders by,
among other things, engaging in self-dealing and failing to
obtain the highest price reasonably available for Intermix and
its stockholders.

The complaints further alleged that the merger agreement
resulted from a flawed process and that the defendants tailored
the terms of the merger to advance their own interests.  The Fox
Interactive Media Transaction was consummated on Sept. 30, 2005.

The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, known as "Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation."

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action are seeking various
forms of declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and
costs.

The defendants have filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all
claims in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation, which were
heard by the court on July 6, 2006.

On Oct. 6, 2006, the court sustained the demurrers without leave
to amend.  On Dec. 13, 2006, the court dismissed the complaints
and entered judgment for the defendants.

The plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
filed notices of appeal, and subsequently filed respective
opening briefs on appeal in October 2007.  The Defendants filed
opposing appellate briefs on April 16, 2008.  

The Court of Appeal has not yet heard argument in the matter,
according to News Corp.'s May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified  
entertainment company with operations in eight industry
segments, including Filmed Entertainment; Television; Cable
Network Programming; Direct Broadcast Satellite Television;
Magazines and Inserts; Newspapers; Book Publishing, and Other.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Awaits Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of the Second
Amended Complaint in a purported securities class action suit
filed against several former officers and directors of Intermix
Media, Inc., which is an acquisition of News Corp., according to
News Corp.'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, captioned "Jim Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al.," was
filed on June 14, 2006.  It asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 14a of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, as well as
control person liability under Section 20a.

The plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants
disseminated false and misleading definitive proxy statements on
two occasions:

     1. on Dec. 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder
        vote on Jan. 29, 2004 on the election of directors and
        ratification of financing transactions with certain
        entities of VantagePoint Venture Partners, a former
        large stockholder of Intermix; and

     2. on Aug. 25, 2005 in connection with the shareholder vote
        on the formation of Fox Interactive Media (FIM), a
        division of News Corp.

The complaint names as defendants certain VantagePoint-related
entities and members of the Intermix board of directors who were
incumbent on the dates of the respective proxy statements.  

Intermix is not named as a defendant, but has certain indemnity
obligations to the former officer and director-defendants in
connection with the suit's claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiff amended his complaint to add
certain investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain
indemnity obligations to the investment banks as well.  The
complaint was again amended in September 2006 and the defendants
filed motions to dismiss all the claims asserted.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred from Judge John F.
Walter to Judge George H. King, who is the judge assigned to the
derivative action captioned, "LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al."  The
suit was transferred on the grounds that it raises substantially
related questions of law and fact as "LeBoyer," and would entail
substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.

Judge King took the Feb. 26, 2007 hearing date for the dismissal
motions off the calendar.  On May 22, 2007, he ordered a
combined status conference with the LeBoyer action to occur on
June 11, 2007, at which he ordered the Brown case to be
consolidated with the LeBoyer action.  

The judge also directed the plaintiffs' counsel to file a
consolidated amended complaint setting forth the causes of
action in the LeBoyer and Brown matters and further ordered the
parties to file a joint brief regarding the dismissal of the
first amended complaint.

In July 2007, the plaintiffs filed the consolidated first
amended complaint.  The parties' joint brief on the defendants'
motion to dismiss was filed on Oct. 11, 2007, and was taken
under submission without a hearing.

Subsequently, by order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims
(concerning VantagePoint transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims
(concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as a claim against the
VantagePoint entities alleging unjust enrichment.  

The court, however, found it unnecessary to dismiss the
remaining claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction,
because the dismissal disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended
Complaint.  The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss this
amended complaint, which request the court has not yet ruled on.

The suit is "Jim Brown v. Brett C Brewer et al., Case No. 2:06
cv-03731-JFW-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge John F. Walter, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christy W. Goodman, Esq. (cgoodman@gsrllp.com)
          Goodman Sheridan and Roff
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-241-4860

Representing the defendants are:

          Elizabeth A. Moriarty, Esq. (eamoriarty@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan and Hartson
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-785-4600
          Web site: http://www.hhlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Knaster, Esq. (sknaster@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
          Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759
          Web site: http://www.orrick.com


ISRAELI BANKS: Face Lawsuit for Profiting From Withheld Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
A request has been filed with the Tel Aviv District Court for a
$25.72-million class-action lawsuit against:

     -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA),
     -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and
     -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT),

claiming that the banks are making illegal profits by holding
onto customers' withheld taxes for more than a month on average,
Yitzhak Danon of the Globes reports.

According to the report, the banks withhold taxes on customers'
transactions in securities, the sale of unlinked deposits and
mutual funds, as well as interest payments and dividends.

The Income Tax Regulations stipulate that banks transfer
withheld taxes of each month to the assessor on the 15th of the
following month, the report says.

The claimants contend that the banks keep the withheld taxes
until the payment date of the 15th of the following month.
During this period, they claim that the banks illegally benefit
from millions of shekels that belong to their customers and are
held in trust for them.


JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan
to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., according to the company's
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through
Jan. 12, 2006.  The company announced the signing of the
agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005.

On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who
filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company,
Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.  

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.  

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the
defendants' dismissal motion.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's denial of their request.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their
dismissal request.  

On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.  In March 2008, the Court issued an opinion
certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through
January 11, 2006.

The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant,
presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com)
          Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C
          460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-3221
          Fax: 212-508-3695

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com)
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-685-0969
          Fax: 212-685-2306

               - and -

          Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
          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 defendants is:

          Stephen William Greiner
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111
          e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


JARDEN CORP: Calif. Court Approves K2 Inc. Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court approved on a final basis the
proposed settlement in the matter, "City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System v. K2 Inc., et al.," which also names Jarden
Corp., as a defendant.

The case was filed on May 4, 2007, by a shareholder of K2 on
behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders against K2
and the members of its Board of Directors.  

It seeks to enjoin the merger transaction between K2 and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Jarden Corp. on the purported grounds
that the members of the Board of Directors of K2 allegedly
breached fiduciary duties to the K2 shareholders in connection
with the negotiation and structure of the merger as well as the
disclosures made by K2 to shareholders in its proxy.

On July 30, 2007, K2 announced that it and the City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System agreed to a settlement in principle
of the pending litigation pursuant to which K2 made certain
disclosures regarding the transaction in its proxy materials
sent to shareholders and reports filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and amended the merger agreement to
reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million the termination fee
that would have been payable by K2 to the Company under certain
circumstances in the event that the merger agreement had been
terminated.

The agreement includes full releases of all the defendants as
well as the Company.

The settlement was approved preliminarily by the California
Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008.

The deal was granted final approval by the California Superior
Court on April 9, 2008, according to the company's May 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

Jarden Corp. -- http://www.jarden.com/-- is a provider of   
consumer products.  Jarden's three primary business segments:
Outdoor Solutions, Consumer Solutions and Branded Consumables,
manufacture or source, market and distribute a number of brands,
including Outdoor Solutions, Abu Garcia, Adio, Berkley,
Campingaz, Coleman, Fenwick, Gulp!, JT, K2, Marker, Marmot,
Mitchell, Penn, Planet Earth, Rawlings, Shakespeare, Sevylor,
Stearns, Stren, Trilene, Ugly Stik and Volkl; Consumer
Solutions, Bionaire, Crock-Pot, FoodSaver, Health o meter,
Holmes, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Patton, Rival, Seal-a-Meal, Sunbeam
and VillaWare, and Branded Consumables, Ball, Bee, Bicycle,
Crawford, Diamond, Dicon, First Alert, Forster, Hoyle, Java-Log,
Kerr, Lehigh, Leslie-Locke, Loew-Cornell and Pine Mountain.


LIVE NATION: Calif. Court Approves Stipulation in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered an order approving a stipulated continuance and stay of
all proceedings in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit filed
against Live Nation, Inc.

The consolidated suit alleges that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the company caused
artificially high-ticket prices.

Originally, the company is a defendant in 22 putative class
action suits filed by different named plaintiffs in various  
district courts throughout the country.

The claims made in these actions are substantially similar to
claims made in the "Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comm., et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-04503-JES," except that the geographic markets
alleged are statewide or more local in nature, and the members
of the putative classes are limited to individuals who purchased
tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic markets alleged.  

The company filed its answers in all actions, and it has denied
liability.  

On Dec. 5, 2005, the company filed a motion before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the lawsuits and
any similar ones commenced in the future to a single federal
district court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  
On April 17, 2006, the Panel granted the company's motion and
ordered the consolidation and transfer of the suits to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On June 4, 2007, the Court conducted a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On June 25, 2007,
the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case
pending a ruling on the plaintiffs' class certification request.

On Oct. 22, 2007, the Court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor,
granting class certification and certifying a class in the
Chicago, New England, New York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern
California regional markets.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the class certification order in the U.S. District Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

At a status conference conducted on Nov. 5, 2007, the District
Court extended its stay of all proceedings pending further
developments in the company's appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Ninth Circuit denied the company's
petition for permission to appeal.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the company filed a motion before the District
Court for reconsideration of its class certification order.

The District Court entered an order approving a stipulated
continuance and stay of all proceedings pending further
developments in the company's motion for reconsideration,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
         1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Phone: 206-623-7292

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul Chalmers, Esq.
         Paul Chalmers Law Offices
         Two Lafayette Centre, 1133
         21st Street NW #405
         New York, NY 920036
         Phone: 202-772-1834

              - and -

         Sara B. Ciarelli, Esq.
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
         12 East, 49th Street, 30th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-999-5859


LONDON LIFE: Ex-Workers File $11-Million Suit Over Pension Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former London Life workers are launching a class action lawsuit
against the company, claiming they are owed $11 million in
pension money, Norman de Bono writes for the London Free Press.

The report recounts that in 2000, about 500 workers of the
company that were fired in 1996 won a ruling that gave them more
money through a partial windup of their pension plan.  London
Life appealed the order, but a higher court ruled in favor of
the workers.

London Free Press explains that when employees are fired or
leave voluntarily after a termination notice, they receive money
paid into the pension plan, plus interest.  This is called a
commuted value pension, often rolled into an RRSP.

A partial plan wind-up is an enhancement of the commuted value
to give the former workers full value for their pension at the
time they were let go.  London Life did not wind up the pension
for those terminated, the report notes.

London Life declined to pay the surplus to affected members of
the plan, taking the position it owned the surplus.

In 2001 the Ontario Financial Services Commission heard the
workers were to get $26.7 million, but that includes totals paid
when they were initially let go by London Life, the report says.

On February 16, 2007, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell in Toronto filed a
class action suit against London Life on behalf of a group of
former London Life employees.

A year later, the Honorable Justice Joan Lax heard the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.  On
May 6, 2008, Justice Lax granted this request.

According to the report, it is the latest battle in what has
become a 12-year long war between the insurer and the workers,
fired in 1996, over money not paid into their pension plans.

"It is very frustrating to wait this long for justice, but we
will,” said Alex Murphy, a former vice-president who has lead
the battle.  "They are trying to wait us out, but we are too
stubborn.  We are not going anywhere.”

According to Mr. De Bono, London Life declined to be
interviewed, but issued a statement from Libbie Jennings,
associate manager of the company's communication services, who
said "We believe this action is without merit, and we will
vigorously defend it.”


MASSBANK CORP: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Eastern Bank Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
MASSBANK Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit filed
with the Massachusetts Superior Court in relation to a merger
agreement with Eastern Bank Corp. and its units, according to
MASSBANK's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

On March 10, 2008, the company, MASSBANK, Eastern Bank Corp.,
Eastern Bank, and Minuteman Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Eastern (Merger Sub), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the Merger Sub will merge
with and into the company, with the company as the surviving
corporation.  As a result of the merger, the company will become
a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastern.

On March 13, 2008, Pennsylvania Avenue Funds, an alleged company
stockholder, filed a purported class action suit allegedly on
behalf of all company stockholders in the Massachusetts Superior
Court against the company, the company's board of directors,
Eastern, Eastern Bank and the Merger Sub.

The case is captioned, "Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Brandi, et
al., Civ. Act. No. 08-1057."  The complaint generally alleges
that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties by approving the Merger Agreement because, plaintiff
alleges, the merger consideration is inadequate, the Merger
Agreement's termination fee and no shop provisions discourage
bids from other sources, the transaction unfairly benefits the
Company's Board of Directors to the disadvantage of the
Company's stockholders, Mr. Brandi, the Company's chief
executive officer and chairman of the board, during negotiations
with Eastern, was also discussing a future position at Eastern,
and approval of the Merger by the Company's Board of Directors
was a response by the Company's Board of Directors to a proxy
contest that might have resulted in three members of the
Company's Board of Directors being replaced.

The complaint also alleges that the company and Eastern aided
and abetted the company's Board of Directors' breach of
fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff seeks an order:

       -- declaring that the lawsuit is a proper class action;
    
       -- enjoining the completion of the Merger unless and
          until the company implements a procedure to obtain the
          highest price for the company;

       -- declaring the termination fee provisions in the Merger
          Agreement to be unfair, unreasonable and improper deal
          protection devices and enjoining the payment of any
          termination fee to Eastern or its affiliates;

       -- declaring that the company's Board of Directors has
          breached its fiduciary duties to the purported class
          and that Eastern aided and abetted such breaches;

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

       -- granting such other further relief as the Court deems
          appropriate.

On April 18, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit in its entirety.  On May 6, 2008, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, individually and as a purported class action
on behalf of all company stockholders.  

The amended complaint generally makes the same allegations as
those contained in the initial complaint in support of its claim
of a breach of fiduciary duties by the company's Board, but, in
addition, alleges that the company's Board breached its
fiduciary duties by failing, in the preliminary proxy statement
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24,
2008, to disclose adequate information to the stockholders
necessary for them to make a fully informed decision about the
Merger.

Generally, the amended complaint alleges that the Proxy
Statement fails to adequately describe in sufficient detail the
process used by the defendants in deciding to enter into, and
agreeing to the terms of, the Merger; provide sufficient detail
of the analysis used by the company's financial advisor or the
criteria for selecting the financial advisor; disclose the fact
that a third party investor was seeking to gain control of the
company and any impact of his efforts on the Board's efforts to
sell the company; and disclose any future employment by
Mr. Brandi at Eastern.

Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint also alleges
that the company and Eastern aided and abetted the Board's
breach of fiduciary duties.

The amended complaint seeks the same relief sought in the
initial complaint.  

MASSBANK Corp. -- http://www.massbank.com/-- is a general  
business corporation that was organized for the purpose of
becoming the holding company for MASSBANK.  MASSBANK Corp. has
no material assets other than its investment in the Bank.  The
Company's business, therefore, is managing its investment in the
stock of the Bank.  The Company does not own or lease any real
estate (other than through its subsidiary Knabssam LLC ) or
personal property.  The Bank is engaged in the business of
attracting deposits from the general public through its fifteen
full service banking offices in Reading, Chelmsford, Dracut,
Everett, Lowell, Medford, Melrose, Stoneham, Tewksbury, Westford
and Wilmington, and originating residential and commercial real
estate mortgages, construction loans, commercial loans, and a
range of consumer loans. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
the Bank operated its business through a network of 5 branch
offices.


MCKESSON CORP: Calif. Demands "Hundreds Of Millions” in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging the company cheated the State of California and health
plans in the state of "hundreds of millions of dollars” by
illegally marking up the cost of its prescription drugs since
2001, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action is brought by the San Francisco Health Plan, on
behalf of itself, the State of California and a class of
governmental entities, agencies and political subdivisions in
the State against McKesson for wrongfully  increasing the so-
called WAC to AWP markup factor for hundreds of brand-name
prescription pharmaceuticals through a scheme beginning in late
2001, thereby causing SFHP and members of the class, whose
payments for pharmaceuticals are directly tied to AWP, to make
hundreds of million of dollars of excess payments for those
pharmaceuticals.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether AWPs published are used as a contractual
         benchmark for payments by third-party payors for drugs;

     (b) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination,
         and conspiracy to fix or raise the WAC-to-AWP markup
         and the ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the
         plaintiffs and other class members as the basis for
         reimbursement for the drugs that are the subject of the
         complaint;

     (c) whether the defendants caused the prices of the subject
         drugs to be sold to class members at artificially high
         and noncompetitive levels;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in a course of conduct that
         improperly inflated the WAC-to-AWP markup and the
         ultimate AWPs or cash price used by the plaintiffs and
         other class members as the basis for reimbursement;

     (e) whether McKesson engaged in a pattern of deceptive
         and fraudulent activity intended to defraud the
         plaintiffs and other class members;

     (f) whether McKesson formed an enterprise for the purpose
         of carrying out the 5% Scheme;

     (g) whether McKesson used the U.S. mails and interstate
         wire facilities to carry out the 5% Scheme;

     (h) whether the plaintiffs and other class members were
         injured by McKesson's conduct, and if so, the
         appropriate measure of damages for class members; and

     (i) whether the defendants' conduct violated the RICO and
         Cartwright statutes.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order granting approval of this case as a proper
        class action and naming the plaintiffs as proper
        class representative;

     -- actual and treble damages and costs to the plaintiffs
        and the class pursuant to the federal RICO Act, 18 USC
        Section 1964(c); and the Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. &
        Prof. Code Section 16750(a); actual and treble damages
        and costs to SHFP and to the State of California
        pursuant to the California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov.
        Code Section 12651(a);

     -- civil penalties of $10,000 for each false claim
        submitted as a result of the Scheme, as well as civil
        penalties of $2,500 to the people for each violation of
        the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
        Section 17200 et seq.;

     -- attorney's fees pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); Cal.
        Bus. & Prof. Code Section 16750(a); Cal. Gov. Code
        Section 12651(a); and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section
        1021.5;

     -- interest as provided by law; and

     -- such other legal or equitable relief as the court may
        deem appropriate.

The suit is "San Francisco Health Plan et al v. McKesson Corp.,”
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edward Notargiamco, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          One Main Street, 4th Floor
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Phone: 617-482-3700
          Fax: 617-482-3003


MENU FOODS: Settles Pet Owners' Hawaii suit Over Pet Food Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menu Foods, Inc., an Ontario-based supplier of private-label wet
pet food, has settled a $240,000 class action in Hawaii for
selling contaminated pet food, KGMB9 News reports.

On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in
response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S.  The
nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams,
Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers
Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Petsmart.

Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the
nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with
similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated
products.

In May 2007, Hawaii resident Kelly Engle filed a class action on
behalf of 2,000 pet owners against pet food manufacturers that
supplied the contaminated pet food (Class Action Reporter,
May 15, 2007).  Ms. Engle's lawyers said they went after Menu
Foods for failing to test its products and selling food that was
not safe to eat.

According to Hawaii Reporter, under the recent settlement, a
$240,000 fund is set up for payment of class claims, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs associated with administration of the
fund.

The money will be used to reimburse customers for recalled pet
food and help pay for veterinary examinations, KGMB9 says.

Those who purchased Menu Foods recalled products can be
reimbursed for the cost of the pet food they purchased and for
the cost of a veterinary examination to ensure their pet's
health upon providing proof of purchase of products and
veterinary services.

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in Canada and
the U.S., Hawaii Reporter notes.

More information about the Hawaii settlement is available at
http://www.menufoodshiconsumersettlement.com


MERCURY INSURANCE: Calif. Court Approves CLRA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court approved a tentative settlement
reached in a purported class action suit alleging that Mercury
Insurance Co.'s calculation of persistency discounts to
determine premiums is an unfair business practice, according to
Mercury General Corp.'s May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit, "Sam Donabedian, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et
al.," was originally filed on April 20, 2001, in the Los Angeles
Superior Court.  The suit asserts, among other things, a claim
that the company's calculation of persistency discounts to
determine premiums is an unfair business practice, a violation
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and a breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The company originally prevailed on a demurrer to the complaint
and the case was dismissed.  However, the California Court of
Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, deciding that the
California Insurance Commissioner does not have the exclusive
right to review the calculation of insurance rates/premiums.

The parties reached a settlement in late 2007, which was later
approved by the Court.

Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com-- and    
its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile
insurance principally in California.


MERCURY INSURANCE: Awaits Final Approval of "Goodman" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court is set to give final approval to
the proposed settlement in the matter, "Marissa Goodman, et al.
v. Mercury Insurance Co." somewhere in the third quarter of
2008.

The suit was filed on June 16, 2002.  It is a class action suit
questioning Mercury Insurance Corp.'s use of certain automated
database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical
payments.

The plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification
to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the
present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim
reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach
the policy limits for medical payments.  

The Court certified the class on Jan. 11, 2007.  The company
appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal
stayed the case pending their review.  

The company and the plaintiff have subsequently agreed to settle
the claims for an amount that the company says is immaterial to
its operations and financial position.

The settlement was approved on an interim basis by the Court on
April 24, 2008, subject to class members' ability to object.  
Final approval of the settlement is expected to occur in the
third quarter of 2008, according to the Mercury General Corp.'s
May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and    
its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile
insurance principally in California.


MONROE COUNTY: School Officials Face Racial Discrimination Raps
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama filed
a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama charging Monroe County school
officials with racial discrimination, MyFox Gulf Coast reports.

The complaint is filed on behalf of nine parents of Monroeville
Junior High School students.

The named defendants are:

     -- the members of the Monroe County Board of Education;

     -- the superintendent of the Monroe County School District;
        and

     -- the principal of MJHS.

The class action lawsuit is brought pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the
Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The lawsuit challenges policies and practices in Monroe County
School District that systemically deny African American children
in MJHS the right to equal educational opportunity, and the free
speech rights of students and parents to object to such
treatment.

The lawsuit accuses Monroe County school officials of:

     -- subjecting African American students at Monroeville
        Junior High School to racial epithets and slurs,

     -- practicing racially-motivated discipline, and

     -- having racially segregated classrooms.

The suit says that these practices deny African American
students their constitutional right to equal educational
opportunities.

In a news release, Catherine Kim, staff attorney with the ACLU
Racial Justice Project, said, "Students at Monroeville Junior
High are systematically singled out by teachers and
administrators for punishment and forced to endure hostile and
discriminatory treatment simply because of their race.”  She
added, "Such behavior is a vestige of a tragic past and is
simply unacceptable in any contemporary American school
setting.”

"All students have a constitutional right to an educational
environment free from racial discrimination,” said Allison Neal,
staff attorney with the ACLU of Alabama.  "The kind of racially
charged environment that exists at MJHS and the discriminatory
policies and practices of school officials rob African American
students of that right. Not only is that immoral, it is
illegal.”

The complaint further alleges that school officials retaliate
against parents who object to the racially discriminatory
treatment of their children.  Children whose parents complain
are singled out for more punishment, and parents who express
their concerns about the use of discipline on their child are
banned from the school grounds and threatened with arrest.

The plaintiffs request that the Court:

     -- assume jurisdiction over this matter;

     -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

     -- declare that the defendants' actions and inactions,
        including the defendants' perpetuation of the racially
        hostile educational environment at Monroeville Junior
        High School, the defendants' racially discriminatory
        disciplinary practices and procedures, the defendants'
        policies for assigning students into classes on the
        basis of race, and the defendants' policy and practice
        of retaliating against students and parents who assert
        their rights and denying free speech rights to speak out
        about these issues, violate rights guaranteed by the
        Fourteenth and First Amendments to the United States
        Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42
        U.S.C. Section 2000d;

     -- with respect to the claims raised by the sub-class
        consisting of all African American students who are
        currently or in the future will be enrolled in MJHS and
        their parents or guardians, enjoin any further
        violations of the plaintiffs' constitutional and
        statutory rights, including ordering Defendants to
        investigate and address all acts of racial harassment;
        implement transparent and objective policies to ensure
        equal access to extracurricular activities, eliminate
        racially discriminatory discipline, and ensure that
        class assignments are not made in a racially
        discriminatory manner; cease and desist from retaliating
        against and violating the rights of students and parents
        who complain about racial discrimination; expunge the
        disciplinary records of students who have been
        disciplined on the basis of race; and provide
        compensatory educational services for students who have
        been denied access to education due to the defendants'
        unlawful conduct, and any other appropriate relief;

     -- with respect to the claims raised by the sub-class of
        students consisting of African American students who
        attended MJHS in the past three years and who continue
        to attend Monroe County public schools and their
        parents or guardians, order the defendants to expunge
        the disciplinary records of students who have been
        disciplined on the basis of race and provide
        compensatory educational services for students who have
        been denied access to education due to the defendants'
        unlawful conduct;

     -- award the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and
        costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, including the fees and
        costs of experts, incurred in prosecuting this action;
        and

     -- grant any other relief the Court deems necessary and
        proper.

The suit is "Nicky Williams et al. v. Monroe County Board of
Education et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00561-CG-B,” filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Catherine Y. Kim, Esq. (ckim@aclu.org)
          ACLU Foundation
          125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: 212-549-2682
          Fax: 212-549-2680

               - and -

          Allison Neal, Esq. (anaclual@bellsouth.net)
          ACLU of Alabama
          207 Montgomery Street, Suite 910
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: 334-265-2754 ext. 203
          Fax: 334-269-5666


NEVADA: Speech-Impaired Patients Sue Over Medicaid Money Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Speech-impaired patients filed a class-action complaint with the  
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada challenging the
state's denial of Medicaid money to cover speech-generating
devices that doctors prescribe for them, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs file this action to challenge the Nevada Medicaid
guidance that excludes SGD coverage.

The individual named plaintiffs are Nevada Medicaid recipients,
ranging in age from 7 to 24.  Each was evaluated by a speech-
language pathologist who recommended an SGD as the most
appropriate form of treatment for their speech impairment.  Each
plaintiff's physician prescribed an SGD for his or her use.

Thereafter, each individual plaintiff requested an SGD from
Nevada Medicaid, but these requests were denied.

According to the complaint, the Medicaid program was created to
enable states to provide medical assistance to individuals whose
income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of
necessary medical services.  The goal or purpose of the medical
assistance provided by Medicaid is to enable eligible
individuals to attain or retain their capability for
independence or self care.

The plaintiffs bring this case as a class action to challenge
Nevada Medicaid's policy-based, categorical exclusion of SGDs.
The proposed plaintiff class consists of all present and all
future Nevada Medicaid recipients who will be determined by an
SLP and by a physician to require an SGD, and whose request for
Medicaid approval of an SGD has been or will be denied based on
the Medicaid guidance stating SGDs are not covered.

The plaintiffs request that the Court:

     -- accept jurisdiction of this action;

     -- certify the proposed plaintiff class;

     -- declare that Nevada Medicaid Services Manual, Section
        1303.10(d)(3) violates the Medicaid Act EPSDT,
        reasonable promptness, and reasonable standards
        provisions;

     -- declare that Nevada Medicaid has a mandatory and non-
        discretionary duty to cover and provide SGDs for all
        Medicaid recipients;

     -- declare that Nevada Medicaid Services Manual, Section
        1303.10(d)(3) has no objective factual basis, and is
        arbitrary and capricious;

     -- preliminarily enjoin defendants to provide the SGDs
        recommended and prescribed for each named plaintiff's
        use;

     -- permanently enjoin defendants to withdraw Nevada
        Medicaid Services Manual, Section 1303.10(d)(3);

     -- permanently enjoin defendants to adopt reasonable
        standards for SGD coverage; and

     -- enjoin defendants to pay to plaintiffs their reasonable
        attorneys fees and costs.

The suit is "Andres CErvantes et al. v. Charles Duarte et al.,
Case 3:08-cv-00259-BES-RAM,” filed before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert Kilby, Esq. (robert.kilby@sbcglobal.net)
          1755 East Plumb Lane, Suite 107
          Reno, NV 89502
          Phone: 775-337-6670
          Fax: 775-337-6652


RAMBUS INC: Calif. Court Okays $18MM Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has given final approval to a
$18.3-million settlement that allows memory-chip maker Rambus
Inc. to end a consolidated class action suit alleging its
executives of illegally backdating stock options, Shannon Henson
writes for Securities Law 360.
    
On July 17, 2006, the first of six class action lawsuits was
filed in the Northern District of California against Rambus and
certain of its current and former executives and board members.

On Sept. 26, 2006, these class action suits were consolidated
under the caption, "In re Rambus, Inc. Securities Litigation, C-
06-4346-JF (N.D. Cal.).”  Ronald L. Schwarcz was then appointed
lead plaintiff.  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2007,
adding PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendant.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of various federal
securities laws and seeks damages in an unspecified amount as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  

However, the parties have agreed in principle to resolve the
dispute, subject to court approval (Class Action Reporter,
March 31, 2008).  Per agreement of the parties, briefing on the
motions to dismiss was suspended, and the motions were taken off
calendar.  

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well
as review by the California court, provides for a payment by
Rambus of $18 million and would lead to a dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all the defendants in the class
action litigation.

Recently, Judge Fogel signed off on the deal, saying it was
fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.  He noted that the
settlement is a greater recovery than many other class actions
involving securities backdating.  Judge Fogel also awarded the
lead plaintiffs' firms, Stull Stull & Brody and Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman, $4.5 million -- 25% of the settlement fund
-- and $282,788 to reimburse expenses.

The judge said that the settlement is significantly higher than
many other backdating settlements, that the percentage reflects
the market rate in similar complex litigation and that the case
would have been difficult and risky to litigate.

The suit is "In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:06-cv-04346-JF,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard
          Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Douglas John Clark, Esq. (dclark@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650 565-5100

          Jeffrey S. Facter, Esq. (jfacter@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          525 Market Street
          Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-616-1100
          Fax: 415-616-1199

               - and -

          Anthony I. Fenwick, Esq. (anthony.fenwick@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2015
          Fax: 650-752-2111


ROCKWELL INT'L: Judge Upholds $350MM Verdict in Rocky Flats Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado upheld a jury verdict of $350 million against Rockwell  
International Corp., saying that Rockwell was liable for  
trespassing and nuisance in a protracted legal action involving  
the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, John C. Ensslin of the
Rocky Mountain News reports.

Lawyers for the defendants had sought to overturn the jury's
verdict, arguing that it was inconsistent and exceeded a cap on
punitive damages.

However, Judge Kane rejected those arguments, finding that the
verdict was consistent with the instructions that had been given
to the jury.  He also found that the damages were "not
excessive.”

Judge Kane affirmed the February 2006 verdict in a 73-page
ruling and tacked on 8% interest compounded annually dating back
to the time the suit was filed in January 1990.

"Defendants' misconduct was not the result of a single
incident,” Judge Kane wrote, "but rather a series of incidents
and also routine practices over decades of operating Rocky
Flats, some of which were attended by circumstances of
dishonesty, subterfuge and deceit.”

He also rejected a defense argument that the neighbors were not
entitled to interest on the judgment because the verdict had
included a Consumer Price Index adjustment.

The judge outlined a plan in which a court-appointed claims
administrator would oversee distribution of the judgment.  Yet,
he stayed his order until the defense has time to file an
appeal.

"We're very pleased to have a ruling from Judge Kane on these
issues and look forward to an end to this long, long process,”
said Steven Kelly, a lawyer for the property owners.

                         Case Background

On Jan. 30, 1990, a class action was filed in the U.S. District  
Court for the District of Colorado against Rockwell and Dow
Chemical Co., another former operator of the plant.  

The action alleges the improper production, handling and  
disposal of radioactive and other hazardous substances,  
constituting, among other things, violations of various  
environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and  
misrepresentation and concealment of the facts relating thereto.  

On Oct. 8, 1993, the court certified separate medical monitoring  
and property value classes.   

The trial of the $500 million class action, filed 15 years ago,  
began in Oct. 2005.  Residents who owned property near the site,  
claimed that Dow Chemical, which operated the site from the  
1950s through 1975, and Rockwell, which took over in 1975 and  
operated the plant until it was shut down in 1989, improperly  
stored or otherwise mishandled plutonium-laced waste, resulting  
in contamination of soil and groundwater.  According to the  
suit, both firms operated the plant under a DOE contract, (Class  
Action Reporter, Feb. 23, 2006).   

Those residents, who are the named plaintiffs in the suit,  
claimed that large fires at the plant and windstorms and other  
natural events helped to spread the waste outside the plant's  
boundaries.  That contamination, plus what the property owners  
said was a stigma attached to houses near the plant, resulted in  
plummeting property values.  They also contend that Dow,  
Rockwell and the DOE have covered up how harmful the plant  
really was.

On Feb. 14, 2006, a federal jury empaneled to try certain of  
the class action plaintiffs' property damage claims found the  
contractor defendants liable for trespass and nuisance, and  
awarded $176 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in  
punitive damages against the two defendants collectively (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2006).

The jury also found RIC to be 10% responsible for the trespass  
and 70% responsible for the nuisance.  No appealable judgment  
was entered on the jury verdict, in part because the court has  
yet to decide how the damages are to be allocated between the  
defendants and among the plaintiff class members.  

Much of the case centers on an FBI raid at the site in the  
summer of 1989.  Rockwell, which ran Rocky Flats at the time,  
pleaded guilty in 1992 to 10 federal environmental crimes and  
paid a fine of $18.5 million.

Built in the 1950s during the Cold War era, the plant has been  
shut down.  Its 6,500-acre site underwent environmental  
cleansing and is slated to become a wildlife refuge.

The suit is "Cook, et al. v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., Case No.  
1:90-cv-00181-JLK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Suit Over Defective Garage Door Openers
------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck & Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed
before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging it sells defective Craftsman garage door openers,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Melanie Rait alleges violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, NJ Stat, Section 56:8-1 et seq., as
well as allegations of common law fraud, breach of implied
warranty of fitness, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all those who
purchased Sears Craftsman brand garage door openers from Sears
stores in New Jersey and nationwide and who have been charged
fees for the service and repair and replacement of the inferior
and defective Sears Craftsman brand garage door openers and
parts.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter an order:

     -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure and for an order certifying this case as a  
        class action;

     -- awarding plaintiffs damages, both compensatory and
        punitive;

     -- awarding plaintiffs treble damages and attorneys' fees
        under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable counsel fees, costs and
        expenses in amounts to be determined by the court;

     -- awarding interest and costs of suit; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as if just and
        proper.

The suit is "Melanie Rait et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., et
al.,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Representing the plaintiff is:

           Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
           Nagel Rice, LLP
           103 Eisenhower Parkway
           Roseland, New Jersey 07068
           Phone: 973-618-0400


SILVER STATE HELICOPTERS: Ex-students Sue Two More Lenders
----------------------------------------------------------
Two additional lenders -- Student Loan Xpress and American
Education Services -- have been sued by students of the defunct  
helicopter flight training school Silver State Helicopters,
demanding that the institutions stop pursuing repayment of their
student loans, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda Superior Court, says because the
lenders "knew or should have known” that Silver State was
failing, they should not have issued the loans.

The suit seeks a court order forbidding the lenders from
pursuing students, most of whom borrowed as much as $75,000, for
the unpaid balance on their loans.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians
who took out the loans from the three institutions.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on March 12, 2008,
Student Loan Xpress in San Diego, California, said it will not
write off the loans it extended to Silver State students.

SLX advised the students to file proofs of claim against the
Debtor for "unearned” tuition, Sign On relates.  SLX added that
it is willing to entertain students who want to discuss
"repayment plans.”

However, in a statement, Student Loan Xpress' parent-firm, CIT
Group Inc., said it already halted efforts to collect "until
further notice.”

Kevin Rooney, a lawyer for the students, said that's no
guarantee the firm won't resume collection efforts later.

According to the report, American Education, which has been the
loan-servicing agent for Student Loan XPress, had no comment.

         Closure of Silver State Helicopters Operations

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 6, 2008,
the company closed all operations on Feb. 3, 2008.  This action
followed a rapid, unprecedented downturn in the U.S. credit
markets, which severely curtailed the availability of student
loans for the company's flight academy students and resulted in
a sharp and sudden downturn in new student enrollment.

"The decision to shut down operations was made only after the
company explored its other available alternatives,” said
Elizabeth Trosper, company spokesperson.  "Information for
former employees and students will be disseminated as it becomes
available.”

             Students Move to Get Their Money Back

The Class Action Reporter reported on Feb. 7, 2008, that
thousands of Silver State students nationwide worry that they
will never get their money back.

Silver State students were required to pay their $70,000 tuition
up front for helicopter training that would certify them as
flight instructors and commercial pilots.  Most of these
students took out loans to pay for the school.

                 Alleged Fraud Behind Student Loans

Michael Berger, Esq., counsel to the Debtor's students told Sign
On that he plans to investigate the possibility of fraud
involved the bankruptcy case.  According to Mr. Berger, some
student loans were granted prior, on and after the bankruptcy
date of Silver State.

The government and the state attorneys are also investigating
Silver State's operations, Sign On reveals, citing Mr. Berger.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set yet for an overtime lawsuit against
Starbucks Coffee Co. which was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The suit, "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case
No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," which was filed on June 3, 2004, is part
of a national debate over whether many managers are improperly
classified as exempt from overtime laws.  

It was filed on behalf of 900 Starbucks store managers who
claimed they are glorified "baristas" and should be eligible for
overtime.  The plaintiffs argue that their daily duties are
virtually the same as the hourly workers they supervise.

The plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated U.S. current and former store managers of the Company.
They seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The plaintiffs also filed on June 3, 2004, a motion for
conditional collective action treatment and court-supervised
notice to additional putative class members under the opt-in
procedures in Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On Jan. 3, 2005, the district court entered an order authorizing
nationwide notice of the lawsuit to all current and former store
managers employed by the company during the three years before
the suit was filed.  The company's initial motion for summary
judgment was denied without prejudice.  The company plans to
file another motion for summary judgment with the court.  There
is currently no trial date.

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 30, 2008.

The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al.,
Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A.
Marra, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq. (ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com)
          Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: 561-477-7800
          Fax: 561-477-7722

Representing the defendant are:

          Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
          (susan.eisenberg@akerman.com)
          Akerman Senterfitt
          Suntrust International Ctr., 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr.
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Phone: 305-374-5600
          Fax: 305-374-5095

               - and -

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq. (cconway@akingump.com)
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-6435
          Fax: 310-552-6746


STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for an employment-related lawsuit against
Starbucks Corp. that is on appeal with the California Court of
Appeals.

On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung,
and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County
Superior Court in California.  The plaintiffs allege that the
company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by
asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application
convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years
old.  They also seek attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of
all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks
Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim
damages in excess of $200.

On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the company's motion for
summary judgment.  Starbucks has appealed the denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the appeal.  No trial date has been set.

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 30, 2008.

Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and   
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items,
coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium
teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-
operated retail stores.


STARBUCKS CORP: Texas Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
approved a proposed settlement in the matter, "Falcon v.
Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-00792," which alleges
that Starbucks violated requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the company filed the
lawsuit, entitled "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corporation and
Does 1 through 100."  

Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the company
misclassified its retail assistant store managers as exempt from
the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each assistant
manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation for any
week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during the
three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for as
long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include
allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers
were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified
as non-exempt employees in September 2002.

In both claims, the plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a
putative class of all current and former assistant store
managers employed by the company in the U.S. from March 11,
2002, until the present.

The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class,
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all
putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section
16(b) of the FLSA.  

On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order authorizing notice
to the class of the existence of the lawsuit and their
opportunity to join as plaintiffs.

In February 2008, the company and the plaintiffs agreed upon
terms of a settlement which was approved by the court on
March 4, 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 30, 2008.

The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-
00792," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. (bdebes@debeslaw.com)
         The Debes Law Firm
         17 South Briar Hollow Lane, Ste. 302
         Houston, TX 77027
         Phone: 713-623-0900
         Fax: 713-623-0951

Representing the defendant is:

         Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq. (fmcalpine@akingump.com)
         Akin Gump et al.
         1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-220-8129
         Fax: 713-236-0822


SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motions in "Vukson" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
yet to rule on motions filed in "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et
al., Case No.  2:2007cv04353," which names Systemax Inc. and two
subsidiaries -- TigerDirect and OnRebate -- as defendants.

On October 18, 2007, Kevin Vukson filed a class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court against TigerDirect, Inc.,
OnRebate.com Inc. and Systemax Inc. on behalf of himself and all
OnRebate customers whose rebates were denied or delayed.

OnRebate.com Inc. is a rebate processing company owned by
Systemax.

Mr. Vukson's complaint alleges that since 2004 Systemax,
TigerDirect, and OnRebate have conducted a deceptive and
unlawful enterprise by failing to pay rebates that should have
been paid and delaying unnecessarily the payment of other
rebates that were paid.

Mr. Vukson alleges claims arising under Florida's Unfair,
Deceptive Trade Practice Act, the federal RICO statute, along
with claims for breach of contract, conspiracy to commit fraud
and unjust enrichment.

Systemax, TigerDirect and OnRebate have moved to dismiss the
complaint and to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.  The Court has not yet
ruled on these motions and has not yet certified a class,
according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No
2:2007cv04353," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Judge Arthur D. Spatt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Theodore Michael Eder, Esq. (teder@smsm.com)
          Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney
          805 Third Avenue
          19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-3661
          Fax: 212-912-3667

Representing the defendants is:

          William Francis Hamilton, Esq.
          (william.hamilton@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight LLP
          Suite 4100
          100 N. Tampa Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-227-6480
          Fax: 813-229-0134


WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks the dismissal of a
consolidated class action suit over the pricing of digital music
downloads, which named WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of
Warner Music Group Corp., as one of the defendants.

More than 30 putative class actions concerning the pricing of
digital music downloads have been filed.  On Aug. 15, 2006, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these
actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.  It seeks
unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  The Court
heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008, and reserved
its decision, according to the company's May 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com/--  is a music  
content company that classifies its business interests into two
areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing.  The Recorded Music
business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and
licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact
disc's, cassettes, long playings and digital versatile discs)
and digital (such as downloads and ringtones) formats.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARBITRON INC: Brower Piven Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Arbitron, Inc. between July 19, 2007, and
November 26, 2007, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

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

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


DOWNEY FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Downey Financial Corp. between October 16, 2006,
and March 14, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


MGIC INVESTMENT: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of MGIC Investment Corporation
between February 6, 2007, through February 12, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 15,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J.  Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410-986-0036
          e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Newsome Action in Favor of U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, at
Lexington, dismissed a lawsuit involving asbestos exposure filed
by Marshall Newsome, in favor of the United States of America.

The case is styled Marshall Newsome, Plaintiff, v. United States
of America, Defendant.

Senior Judge Karl S. Forester entered judgment of Civil Action
No. 07-CV-250-KSF on April 9, 2008.

On Aug. 9, 2007, Mr. Newsome, an individual who was then in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and confined in the
Federal Medical Center, filed a pro se complaint, claiming the
jurisdiction of the District Court under the Federal Tort Claims
Act, and he paid the District Court filing fee for a civil
action.

The BOP stated that Mr. Newsome was released from confinement on
Nov. 26, 2007. A few days later, on Nov. 29, 2007, he filed a
notice of his change of address revealing that he now resides in
Atlanta, Ga.

Mr. Newsome alleged that the problems complained-of began
shortly after his arrival at the Federal Medical Center, in
Lexington, Ky., in or around February 2000. He stated that he
was initially housed in the institution's Health Care Unit,
where, he complained, he was exposed to asbestos, pigeon
postosis, mycotoxicosis.

Mr. Newsome stated that all of the BOP staff knew of the lethal
bacteria and asbestos in the HCU.

Mr. Newsome accused the BOP of negligence in exposing him to
these hazards. In 2003, he was moved from the HCU to another
unit which, unlike his HCU placement, did not have the asbestos,
was air conditioned, and had a "healthier atmosphere."

However, despite his medical history and spots on his lungs
showing on x-rays, in 2006, Mr. Newsome alleged he was placed
back in the HCU, which is asbestos infested, has inadequate
ventilation and does not have air conditioning.

Mr. Newsome claimed that this change in units was in retaliation
for his not cooperating in a government plan for paying his
court-ordered restitution while in prison, and he suggested that
he remained in the same conditions at the time he signed and
filed the complaint herein.

After screening Mr. Newsome's Complaint, the Court directed that
summons issue for the United States. The U.S. has responded to
the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
for Summary Judgment.

The U.S. Government argued that the negligence claims should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the
United States has not waived its sovereign immunity with regard
to claims based upon the performance or nonperformance of
discretionary functions.

The U.S. cited the discretionary function exception in the FTCA
and cases from the District Court and other District Courts,
which have applied the discretionary function exception to bar
prisoner negligence claims regarding histoplasmosis and exposure
to asbestos.

The United States also maintains again that the action is barred
by the FTCA's 2-year statute of limitations.

As to the medical care issues, the U.S. contended that Mr.
Newsome has failed to state either a negligence or a
constitutional tort claim.

Finally, the U.S. claimed to be entitled to summary judgment in
its favor.

The District Court granted the U.S.'s Motion to Dismiss and the
U.S.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted.

Marshall Newsome, Atlanta, pro se.

Marianna Jackson Clay, U.S. Attorney's Office, EDKY, Lexington,
Ky., represented the United States of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Remands Sether Action v. GE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Illinois, remanded an asbestos-
related cased styled Warren W. Sether, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AGCO Corporation, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Murphy entered judgment of Civil No. 07-809-GPM
on March 28, 2008.

On Oct. 4, 2007, Warren W. Sether and Marie L. Sether filed this
action in Illinois state court against General Electric Company.

The case was filed in connection with mesothelioma that Mr.
Sether allegedly contracted due to exposure to asbestos-
containing products while serving in the United States Navy from
1942 until 1962 and later while an employee of the Electric Boat
Company at shipyards in Connecticut from 1962 until 1985.

GE has removed the case from state court to this Court,
contending that the Sethers' claims against it are based on GE's
alleged failure to warn of the dangers relating to asbestos used
as insulation in marine steam turbines manufactured by GE
pursuant to contracts with the USN so that GE is entitled to
invoke federal jurisdiction.

The Sethers in turn have moved for remand of this case to state
court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The District Court granted the Sethers' motion for remand of the
case to state court.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal subject
matter jurisdiction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Facing Injury Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face a number of
cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from
exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seek damages from the Company alone, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2008.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, which is based in Marysville,
Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of lawn
and garden care products. Customers include home improvement
centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware
chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers,
food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses, and
specialty crop growers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Has $1.28B Reserves at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.28 billion (US$737 million net) at March 31, 2008, compared
with US$1.30 billion (US$752 million) at Dec. 31, 2007.

About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 were for incurred
but not reported estimated losses.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation's business
is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company. The
Company is engaged in the personal property and casualty
insurance business and the life insurance, retirement and
investment products business. The Company has four business
segments: Allstate Protection, Allstate Financial, Discontinued
Lines and Coverages, and Corporate and Other.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. CenterPoint
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
continue to be defendants in lawsuits filed by certain
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during
work at such formerly owned facilities.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $19.9M Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss
adjustment expense reserves for all direct business written by
its property and casualty companies related to asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability, included in the
reserve for losses and LAE, were US$19.9 million at March 31,
2008 and US$19.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's ending net and LAE reserves for all direct
business written by its property and casualty companies related
to A&E matters were US$8.4 million, net of reinsurance at
March 31, 2008, compared with US$11.1 million, net of
reinsurance at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed
reinsurance pool business with asbestos, environmental damage
and toxic tort liability of US$57.1 million at March 31, 2008,
and US$56.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to
be subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.

The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years. The
Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10
years.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. is
an all-around property/casualty insurance holding company.
Through its Hanover Insurance Company, the Company provides
personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance and
professional liability coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tecumseh Products Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company is the subject of, or a party to, a
number of other pending or threatened legal actions involving a
variety of matters, including class actions and asbestos-related
claims, incidental to its business.

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

Tecumseh Products Company makes compressors and pumps. Its
compressors are used in refrigerators and freezers, air
conditioners, dehumidifiers, and vending machines. The Company
also makes centrifugal pumps for use in the agricultural,
marine, and transportation industries. The Company is based in
Tecumseh, Mich.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Still Has 114 Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indiana Power & Light
Company, as of March 31, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2007 faced about 114
pending lawsuits, alleging personal injury or wrongful death
stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing
products formerly located in IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.

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

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a subsidiary of
The AES Corporation. The Company owns all of the outstanding
common stock of its subsidiaries. These include its regulated
electric utility subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company,
and its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources,
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Five Units Face Lawsuits in 30 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

These claims have been filed in Alabama, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, all
of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs
of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant
amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products built to its customers'
specifications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Has $628M Liability at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's liability for asbestos-related
matters was US$628 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with
US$637 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 8, 2008.

The Company has been subject to asbestos-related claims in
recent years.

While it has resolved many of the asbestos-related cases over
the years and continue to do so for strategic litigation reasons
such as avoiding defense costs and possible exposure to
excessive verdicts, the Company said it believes that only a
small proportion of the claimants has or will develop any
asbestos-related impairment.

Only a small percentage of the claims pending against the
Company allege causation of a disease associated with asbestos
exposure.

The reserve balance between March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007
increased as a result of a $349 million increase in the reserve
for probable pending and future asbestos claims, which was
partially offset by a reduction in the reserve for existing
claims of US$251 million resulting from fewer claims and lower
expenses than previously estimated.

Detroit-based General Motors Corporation is engaged in the
worldwide production and marketing of cars and trucks. The
Company develops, manufacture and market vehicles worldwide
through its four automotive segments which consist of GM North
America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia
Pacific.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been
found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in
any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a
diversified, multinational manufacturing and service company
that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components
and systems and provides highly engineered products and services
to the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing,
oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power
generation, security, and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,275 Claims Pending v. Harsco at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of March 31, 2008, faced 26,275 pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, 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 faced 26,383 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
March 28, 2008)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor
of asbestos fibers. Any component within a Company product which
may have contained asbestos would have been purchased from a
supplier.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the 26,275 cases, 25,750 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims,
totaling 525, are filed in various counties in a number of state
courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New
York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,724
cases.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 330 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation provides industrial
services and engineered products. The Company's operations fall
into two reportable segments: Access Services and Mill Services,
plus an "all other" category labeled Minerals & Rail Services
and Products. The Company has locations in 50 countries,
including the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork & Seal Has 79,000 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., for the period ended March 31, 2008, faced about 79,000
outstanding asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.

About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold
its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the
Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, Crown Cork
received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about
1,000 claims for a total of US$1 million.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$197 million, including US$69 million for unasserted claims
and US$5 million for committed settlements that will be paid
over time.

Historically (1977-2007), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to date
and the increased difficulty of establishing identification of
the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury by
persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for
settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food
and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking
equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total
gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's
assets.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its
motion for summary judgment in two asbestos-related cases
pending against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex.,
(in Re Asbestos Litigation No. 90-23333, District Court, Harris
County, Tex.), which were appealed.

On May 4, 2006, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals upheld the
favorable ruling in one of the two cases (Barbara Robinson v.
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, 14th Court
of Appeals, Tex.)

The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to
the Texas Supreme Court where oral argument was held on Feb. 7,
2008. The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeal.

In addition, a favorable ruling for summary judgment in an
asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court
of Travis County, Tex., (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as
Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown
Cork & Seal Company, Inc. District Court Travis County, 98th
Judicial District Cause No. GN-203572) has been appealed.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food
and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking
equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing Lawsuits in Pa. Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation
limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired
company's asset value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.

On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the
June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion
by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending
asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and
remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
(Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002).

The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished
the plaintiffs' pre-existing and accrued causes of action. The
Company said it believes that the ruling by the court was
limited only to cases which were pending at the time the
legislation was enacted.

In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute
providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related
claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations
for asbestos-related claims had not yet commenced at the time
the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001.

On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted
Crown Cork's global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all
pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17,
2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001).

Additional cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005
by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

These decisions remain subject to potential appeal by the
plaintiffs and, in some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania have been filed by the plaintiffs in connection
with these decisions and oral argument was held before the
Superior Court.

The Superior Court has not ruled on these appeals.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging, in which its primary sources of income are metal food
and beverage cans and related packaging. Products include
aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns, and closures, as well as
specialty packaging like decorative novelty containers and
industrial paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking
equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 2T New Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received about 2,000 new asbestos-related claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with 1,600 claims
during the three months ended March 31, 2007.

As reported in the Company's 2007 Annual Report, Metropolitan
Life received about 7,200 asbestos-related claims in 2007.

Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek
both actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with
respect to certain research, publication and other activities of
one or more of Metropolitan Life's employees during the period
from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that the
Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed to
disclose those health risks.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos.

During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums
for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide
for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion, which is in excess
of a US$400 million self-insured retention.

New York-based MetLife, Inc. is a provider of insurance and
other financial services with operations throughout the United
States and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company offers life insurance, annuities,
automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other
financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance,
reinsurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. Houston Wire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face a number of
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and
South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable, which may
have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable.

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

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

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

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been
covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of
these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance
companies.

Houston Wire & Cable Company, through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Company, Advantage Wire & Cable
and Cable Management Services Inc., distributes specialty
electrical wire and cable to the U.S. electrical distribution
market through 11 locations in 10 states throughout the United
States. The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $96.11M Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$96,114,414 as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$99,722,526
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2008.

Current asbestos liability was US$20 million at March 31, 2008
and Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$81,884,914 as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$84,547,965
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$10 million at
March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units,
manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls
unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is
headquartered in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,836 Claims Pending v. Ampco at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the three months ended
March 31, 2008, faced about 8,836 open asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

The Company recorded 8,335 open asbestos-related claims for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 9,442 claims for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2008)

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, about 217 claims were
settled or dismissed and the gross settlement and defense costs
were US$4,220,000.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries
("Asbestos Liability") and of an inactive subsidiary and another
former division of the Company.

Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are
defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in
cases filed in various state and federal courts.

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury.
The trial resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff has
appealed that verdict.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Corporation have
an arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible
for historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

In the fourth quarter of 2007, one Paying Insurer responsible
for two years of primary coverage informed the Company that its
policies had exhausted. Another Paying Insurer responsible for
about two and a half years of primary coverage informed the
Company that two of its policies would likely exhaust in the
first quarter of 2008, and they did exhaust on March 31, 2008.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgment that Howden
Buffalo, Inc., is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability, for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company.

The Company recorded reserves at Dec. 31, 2006 for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 of
US$140,015,000, of which about 60 percent was attributable to
settlement and defense costs for unasserted claims projected to
be filed through 2013. The reserve at March 31, 2008 was
US$116,114,000.

The Corporation recorded a receivable as at Dec. 31, 2006 of
US$114,548,000 (US$91,885,000 as of March 31, 2008) for
insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the
Company's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established,
including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the
Coverage Arrangement, and the probable payments and
reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense
costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims.

The US$25,467,000 difference between insurance recoveries and
projected costs which was recorded in 2006 is not due to
exhaustion of the total product liability insurance for Asbestos
Liability.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, operating in two business units,
manufactures metal products. Its forged and cast steel rolls
unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling. The Company is
headquartered in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Company continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in Mississippi Courts, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

In August 2004, certain Company predecessors, along with
numerous other defendants, were named in four lawsuits filed in
the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi.

These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging
that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and
seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness,
negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of
the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, about 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer.

Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the
Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were
dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the
Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing
products so the Company was thereby dismissed.

Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought
his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is
currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi
lawsuits.

In addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named
in a small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations
in these cases vary, but generally include claims that the
Company provided some unspecified product or service which
contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed
to asbestos at one of the Company's facilities or customer job
sites.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Company.

To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of such cases without any payment in settlements or judgments,
although some remain pending at the present time.

Houston-based BJ Services Company is engaged in providing
pressure pumping, well completion, production enhancement and
pipeline services to the petroleum industry worldwide. Services
are provided through four business segments: U.S./Mexico
Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping, International
Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2008, has not incurred
and does not expect to incur material amounts related to
asbestos-related claims not subject to certain arrangements
("Remaining Claims"), according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2008.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in
interest, "Pneumo Abex").

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. ("Original
Indemnitor") sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988
sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-
containing friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many
as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various
personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure
to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter. In
connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary ("Friction Buyer") of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. ("MCGI"), the Company
and two subsidiaries of the Company entered into a transfer
agreement ("Transfer Agreement").

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division ("Aerospace") and certain contingent liabilities and
the related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded
only when it receives amounts under related indemnification and
insurance agreements. Such administrative and funding
obligations would be terminated as to these categories of
asbestos-related claims in the case of a bankruptcy of Pneumo
Abex or the Company or of certain other events affecting the
availability of coverage for such claims from third-party
indemnitors and insurers.

In the event of certain kinds of disputes with Pneumo Abex's
indemnitors regarding their indemnities, the Transfer Agreement
permits Pneumo Abex to require MCGI to fund 50 percent of the
costs of resolving the disputes.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for
asbestos-related claims are managed and paid by others.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Harland Clarke business
manufactures checks and related products, forms, treasury
supplies and related delivery and fraud-prevention services.
Harland Financial Solutions provides lending and mortgage
origination and servicing applications, business intelligence
solutions, and customer management software for community banks
and credit unions. The Company's Mafco Worldwide is one of the
world's largest makers of licorice extract, used for flavoring
candy and tobacco products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $27.69M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$27,688,000 million at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims
asserted against it related to the use of asbestos in its
products decades ago.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the Future Claimants' Representative, the
Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the Bondholders' Committee and
the Company jointly filed a plan of reorganization (the Joint
Plan).

The Bankruptcy Court approved the disclosure statement for the
Joint Plan in February 2008, and the Joint Plan is being
solicited in accordance with court-approved voting procedures.  

Various objections have been filed to the Joint Plan, and a
hearing has been scheduled for May 12, 2008 to hear oral
argument on summary judgment motions relating to certain of
those objections.  A confirmation hearing on the Joint Plan is
scheduled for June 26, 2008.

During the first three months of 2008, the Company paid US$3.6
million in fees and expenses related to the implementation of
its planned reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code and a Coverage Action litigation with certain insurance
companies.

Based on the Joint Plan, the Company has made provision in its
financial statements for the minimum estimated cost to effect
its plan to settle asbestos liabilities through confirmation of
a plan that complies with section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Company recorded charges aggregating about US$51.3 million
in years prior to 2007.

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

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

There were no asbestos related property damage claims asserted
against the Company at the time of its bankruptcy filing. The
Bankruptcy Court approved an order establishing a bar date of
May 3, 2004 for the filing of asbestos property damage claims.

The claims agent appointed in the Company's bankruptcy
proceeding advised the Company that, as of the bar date, it
received 35 timely filed asbestos property damage claims
asserting liquidated damages in the amount of about US$800,000
plus additional unspecified amounts.

The Company objected to certain claims on various grounds, and
the Bankruptcy Court ultimately allowed 19 claims valued at
US$133,000.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation specializes in
making flooring products for residential and commercial use,
including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring),
do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company
markets its products through distributors in more than 50 North
American locations, as well as directly to large market
retailers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $21.17M Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related reserves were
US$21,169,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with US$24,744,000 at
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

Current receivables were US$1,322,000 at March 31, 2008,
compared with US$10,490,000 at Dec. 31, 2007. Net asbestos
liability was US$19,847,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$14,254,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

Restricted cash for insurance proceeds were US$6,519,000 at
March 31, 2008, compared with US$6,463,000 at Dec. 31, 2008.

There is insurance coverage litigation currently pending in the
New Jersey State Court between the Company and its excess
insurance carriers, and the guaranty funds and associations for
the State of New Jersey.

The litigation was initiated in September 2001, by one of the
Company's excess insurers (Coverage Action). In April 2003, the
New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in another case involving the
same non-cumulation provisions as in the Congoleum primary
policies (Spaulding Case) that the non-cumulation provisions are
invalid under New Jersey law and that the primary policies
provide coverage for the full amount of their annual limits for
all successive policies.

The Company has reached a settlement agreement (Liberty
Settlement) with the insurance carrier whose policies contained
the non-cumulation provisions, under which the insurance carrier
will pay the Company US$15.4 million in full satisfaction of the
applicable policy limits, of which US$14.5 million has been paid
to date.

As of Dec. 31, 2002, the Company had already entered into
settlement agreements with asbestos claimants exceeding the
amount of this previously disputed primary coverage.

The excess insurance carriers have objected to the global
settlement of the asbestos claims currently pending against the
Company as contemplated by the Claimant Agreement on the grounds
that the negotiations leading to the settlement and the Claimant
Agreement violate provisions in their insurance policies,
including but not limited to the carriers' right to associate in
the defense of the asbestos cases, the duty of the Company to
cooperate with the carriers and the right of the carriers to
consent to any settlement.

In November 2003, the State Court denied a motion for summary
judgment by the excess insurance carriers that the Claimant
Agreement was not fair, reasonable or in good faith, ruling that
material facts concerning these issues were in dispute.

In April 2004, the State Court denied motions for summary
judgment by the excess carriers that the Claimant Agreement was
not binding on them because the Company had breached the consent
and cooperation clauses of their insurance policies by entering
into the Claimant Agreement without their consent.

In August 2004, the State Court entered a case management order
that divided the Coverage Action trial into three phases. In
February 2005, the State Court ruled on a series of summary
judgment motions filed by various insurers.

The State Court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by
certain insurers, holding that there were disputed issues of
fact regarding whether the Claimant Agreement and other
settlement agreements between the Company and the claimants had
released the Company and the insurers from any liability for the
asbestos bodily injury claims of the claimants who signed the
Claimant Agreement and the other settlement agreements.

The State Court also denied another motion for summary judgment
filed by various insurers who argued that they did not have to
cover the liability arising from the Claimant Agreement because
they had not consented to it. The State Court granted summary
judgment regarding the Company's bad faith claims against excess
insurers (other than first-layer excess insurers).

In March 2005, the Company filed a motion in the Bankruptcy
Court asking the Bankruptcy Court to vacate its prior order
lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy to permit the Coverage
Action to proceed. The Company requested that the Coverage
Action proceedings be stayed until the Company has completed its
plan confirmation process in the Bankruptcy Court. A hearing on
the Company's motion was held in April 2005 and the motion was
denied.

The first phase of the Coverage Action trial began in August
2005. Three months into the trial, in October 2005, a federal
appeals court ruled that GHR, which had been acting as the
Company's insurance co-counsel in the Coverage Action, had other
representations which were in conflict with its representation
of the Company. As a result of this ruling, the Company retained
the firm of Covington & Burling to represent it as co-counsel
with Dughi & Hewit in the insurance coverage litigation and
insurance settlement matters previously handled by GHR.

In May 2007, the State Court issued a decision ruling that the
Company's insurers have no coverage obligations under New Jersey
law for the Claimant Agreement.

The Company filed an objection (Omnibus Objection) in the
Bankruptcy Court in June  2007 requesting that all asbestos-
related personal injury claims settled and/or liquidated
(Settled Claims) under either a pre-petition settlement
agreement or the Claimant Agreement be disallowed and expunged.

The Bankruptcy Court heard arguments on the Omnibus Objection in
July 2007 and ruled that the Omnibus Objection should be heard
in the context of an adversary proceeding (a formal lawsuit) in
order to insure that the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over
all the affected claimants and that their due process rights are
otherwise protected. The Company amended the Omnibus Avoidance
Action to seek the same relief requested in the Omnibus
Objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation specializes in
making flooring products for residential and commercial use,
including resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring),
do-it-yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring. The Company
markets its products through distributors in more than 50 North
American locations, as well as directly to large market
retailers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Cites $12.27M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$12,270,000 at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$12,600,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 12, 2008.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos liabilities was
US$11,140,000 at March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,344 Claims at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with manufacturers and
distributors of asbestos containing products in about 1,344
pending claims involving about 1,899 individuals as of March 31,
2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a co-defendant with many
other manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing
products in about 1,360 pending claims involving about 1,946
individuals. (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2008)

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 181
new claims, five settlements, and 192 dismissals. For the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 523 new claims, 20
settlements, and 475 dismissals.

The Company has primary and multiple excess layers of insurance
coverage for asbestos claims. The total indemnity costs incurred
to settle claims during the three months ended March 31, 2008
were US$100,000 (US$2.2 million during the year ended Dec. 31,
2007), all of which were paid by the Company's insurance
carriers under a February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with
the Company's applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as
were the related defense costs.

The amount of indemnity coverage limits remaining at March 31,
2008 under the Company's primary layer insurance coverage
relating to policies underwritten from 1961 to 1985 ("Primary
Layer") was about US$135,000 to US$1.3 million, depending on the
interpretation of the terms of the coverage-in-place agreement.  

The Company is negotiating with the three insurance carriers
currently providing coverage under the Primary Layer (the
"Carrier Group") to determine the amount of coverage remaining
under that coverage-in-place agreement.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the estimated range of liability for
settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to
be filed through 2013 was US$12.6 million to US$41.4 million. At
March 31, 2008, the Company has recorded US$12.7 million for the
estimated minimum liability.

The Company said it believes that the corresponding amount of
insurance probable of recovery is US$11.1 million at March 31,
2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, which has been included in other assets.  

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Inc. Has 10,607 Pending Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Ltd.'s subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., as of March 28,
2008, faced about 10,607 pending asbestos liability cases,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

Mallinckrodt, as of Dec. 28, 2007, had about 10,442 asbestos
liability cases pending against it. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 15, 2008)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based on
allegations of past distribution of products incorporating
asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to
asbestos while on Mallinckrodt's property.

Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in
addition to Mallinckrodt. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos.

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

The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims. When appropriate, the
Company settles claims. However, amounts paid to settle and
defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Covidien Ltd. Covidien Ltd. Supplies
health care providers from generic pharmaceuticals and
disposable medical products to diagnostic imaging contrast
agents and surgical devices. The Company has operations in
nearly 60 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Records $622.7M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was US$622.7
million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$628.2 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9,
2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos receivable was US$336.2 million
as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$336.9 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy-
efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products;
service and parts support; advanced building controls and
solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Faces 104,642 Pending Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc. faces 104,642 open asbestos-related claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$104,333
claims during the year ended 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2008.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injury claims arising primarily from its historical sales of
boilers and railroad brake shoes.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through March 31, 2008, the Company has resolved 62,226 claims
by settlement or dismissal. The Company and its insurance
carriers have paid settlements of about US$114.5 million, which
represents an average payment per resolved claim of US$1,839.

The average payment per claim resolved during the three months
ended March 31, 2008 was US$9,891 (US$8,586 during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007).

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 838 new claims filed, 176 claims settled, and 353
claims dismissed. During the year ended 2007, the Company
recorded 3,057 new claims filed, 754 claims settled, and 2,074
claims dismissed.

The Company's total accrual for asbestos-related liabilities was
US$635.7 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$641.2
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The decrease of US$5.5 million during the first three months of
2008 was due primarily to claims payments made by the Company
during the quarter.

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy-
efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products;
service and parts support; advanced building controls and
solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc Pursuing Coverage for N.J. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Inc., f/k/a American Standard Companies Inc., is still in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims, in which the case was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.

The insurance carriers named in this suit are challenging the
Company's right to recovery. The Company filed the action in
April 1999 against various primary and lower layer excess
insurance carriers, seeking coverage for environmental claims
(NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted the Company's motion to add
16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

The Company engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

During the mediation, the parties agreed to extensions of
discovery deadlines and stays of discovery except for discovery
necessary to facilitate the mediation process.

The continued stay of discovery was confirmed by agreement at
the most recent status conference with the court and mediator,
which took place on Nov. 26, 2007.

With the addition of the parties and policies, the NJ Litigation
would resolve the coverage issues with respect to about 94
percent of the recorded receivable. The remaining six percent of
the recorded receivable relates to policies for which the
Company has not sought resolution of coverage because such
policies were issued by parties whose coverage obligations are
triggered at higher excess layers that are not expected to be
reached in the near future.

The total asbestos receivable was US$342.2 million at March 31,
2008, compared with US$342.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Piscataway, N.J.-based Trane Inc. offers customers energy-
efficient HVAC systems; dehumidifying and air cleaning products;
service and parts support; advanced building controls and
solutions.


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

No other details were disclosed in the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2008.  

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 14T Claims Still Pending v. Owens-Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, is a named defendant
in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 14,000
plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced 14,000 pending asbestos-
related claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter, March
28, 2008)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits filed in numerous state
and federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including
death) as a result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers.  
From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

Of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 89 percent of
plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or
in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to
invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.

About nine percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of
US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less
than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less
than US$123 million.

The Company said that as of March 31, 2008 there are about 1,100
claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted
some time in the future against the Company. These claims are
not included in the pending "lawsuits and claims" totals.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical
monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage
claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
March 31, 2008, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
361,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,000. Certain of these dispositions have
included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.

Deferred amounts payable totaled about US$31.8 million at
March 31, 2008 (US$34 million at December 31, 2007) and are
included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.22 billion through 2007, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, is the successor to a business established in
1903. The Company is a manufacturer of glass containers, with
markets in Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and South
America. On July 31, 2007, the Company completed the sale of its
plastics packaging business for about US$1.825 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117T Claims Pending v. Ashland at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. recorded 117,000 open asbestos claims filed against
it for the six months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
145,000 for the six months ended March 31, 2007, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

The Company recorded 120,000 open asbestos claims for the three
months ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with 151,000 claims for the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2006. For the year ended Sept. 30,
2007, the Company recorded 134,000 asbestos claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008)

For the six months ended March 31, 2008, the Company noted 1,865
new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled and 18,000 claims
dismissed. For the six months ended March 31, 2007, the Company
noted 2,586 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 19,000
claims dismissed.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a
former subsidiary. Riley's industrial boilers contained some
asbestos-containing components provided by other companies.

Since Oct. 1, 2004, the Company has been dismissed as a
defendant in 88 percent of the resolved claims.

A progression of activity in the asbestos reserve is presented
in the following table.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$589 million at
March 31, 2008, compared with US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007
and US$619 million at March 31, 2007.

The Company has estimated that it is reasonably possible that
total future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an
inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as about
US$1 billion.

At March 31, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$473 million, of which US$73 million relates to
costs previously paid.

Receivables from insurers amounted to US$488 million at
Sept. 30, 2007 and US$479 million at March 31, 2007.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves for Liability Still at $325T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc.'s reserve still amounts to US$325,000
concerning a potential asbestos issue at the Gradall facility,
in New Philadelphia, Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 9, 2008.

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may
have to be abated in the future.

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc.'s Alamo Industrial and Tiger
hydraulically powered tractor-mounted mowers are primarily sold
to government entities. The Company's Rhino and M&W subsidiaries
sell rotary cutters and other equipment to farmers and ranchers
for pasture maintenance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Court Favors Defendants in Marley Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division, denied
the Motion for Remand filed by David A. Marley and his wife, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against Elliott Turbomachinery
Co., Inc. and Viad Corporation.

The case is styled David A. Marley, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc., et al. Defendants.

District Judge Adalberto Jordan entered judgment of Case No. 07-
23042-CIV-JORDAN on March 13, 2008.

This action is a dispute about the defendants' ability, under
their contract with the Navy, to warn Mr. Marley that
unprotected asbestos exposure could cause mesothelioma and other
ailments.

The defendants were retained by the Navy in the 1940s to
manufacture numerous ship parts and devices for the U.S.S. Lake
Champlain. The manufactured products contained asbestos but did
not have any type of warning about the dangers of unprotected
asbestos exposure.

Mr. Marley was a Navy sailor assigned to the Lake Champlain from
1959-1983. During his assignment, he was allegedly exposed to
the asbestos contained in the defendants' products. As a result
of this exposure, he allegedly developed mesothelioma. This suit
was brought by Mr. Marley and his wife.

Elliot and Viad removed this action, invoking federal officer
jurisdiction. In support of removal, Elliot filed the affidavits
of retired Admiral Ben J. Lehman and retired Admiral Roger B.
Horne. Viad joined Elliot's removal filings.

The District Court said that while Admiral Lehman's and Admiral
Horne's affidavits fall far short from establishing that the
defendants were not able to warn Mr. Marley about the danger of
unprotected asbestos exposure, they are sufficient to "advance"
a colorable government contractor defense and establish a nexus
between this action and the defendants' official duties. Removal
was appropriate.

Accordingly, the Marleys' motion to remand was denied.

Case A. Dam, David Aaron Jagolinzer, Ferraro Law Firm, Miami,
Fla., represented Plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Gomez
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th District, Fulton County,
reversed the Fulton County Court of Common Pleas' ruling, which
granted summary judgment to Sauder Woodworking Company, in an
asbestos-related action filed by Rogelio R. Gomez.

The case is styled Rogelio R. Gomez, Appellant v. Sauder
Woodworking Co., et al., Appellee.

Judges Peter M. Handwork, Mark L. Pietrykowski, and Thomas J.
Osowik entered judgment of Case No. F-07-028 on May 16, 2008.

This case arose when Mr. Gomez filed a workers' compensation
claim against two former employers, Sauder and ConAgra Grocery
Product Company, LaChoy Division, and the Bureau of Workers'
Compensation.

Mr. Gomez alleged that he was entitled to workers' compensation
benefits because he was exposed to asbestos during his
employment by both Sauder and ConAgra, which caused him to
develop asbestos-related injuries. His claim was denied at all
administrative levels.

On Feb. 24, 2005, Mr. Gomez appealed the denial of his claims by
filing a complaint in the common pleas court against both of his
former employers, and the Bureau.

On Nov. 7, 2007, attorneys for Mr. Gomez, ConAgra, and the
Bureau filed a joint stipulation dismissing Mr. Gomez's claims
against ConAgra.

On Aug. 13, 2007, Sauder filed a motion for summary judgment and
a memorandum in support, in which it asserted that Mr. Gomez's
injuries were not caused by asbestos exposure that occurred
while he was working for Sauder.

On Sept. 26, 2007, Mr. Gomez filed a memorandum in opposition to
summary judgment in which he asserted that, contrary to Sauder's
position, there was evidence to support that he was exposed to
asbestos while working at Sauder.

Mr. Gomez stated that he was a smoker until 1974, and he served
in Vietnam from 1967 to 1969.

On Oct. 2, 2007, Sauder filed a reply. Mr. Gomez filed a motion
for leave to file a sur-reply. However, the motion was never
granted by the trial court, and was therefore presumed to have
been denied.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the trial court filed a judgment entry in which
it found that Mr. Gomez failed to present any evidence that he
was exposed to asbestos while working for Sauder.

Ultimately, the trial court concluded that, although Mr. Gomez
undoubtedly suffered from an asbestos-related disease, Mr. Gomez
was "unable to support any of his allegations of exposure to
asbestos while working at Sauder."

Accordingly, the trial court granted summary judgment to Sauder
and dismissed Mr. Gomez's claim for workers' compensation
benefits. A timely notice of appeal was filed on Nov. 2, 2007.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the Fulton County
Court of Common Pleas, and the case was remanded back to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with this
decision and judgment entry.

Marc G. Williams-Young and William R. Menacher represented
Rogelio R. Gomez for appellant.

Christopher C. Russell represented Sauder Woodworking Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Pending v. Nevamar Co. at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries International, Inc. states that its
subsidiary, Nevamar Company LLC, as of March 31, 2008, continues
to face 299 workers' compensation claims alleging injury due to
asbestos exposure and unidentified chemicals of which about 195
claimants are current Nevamar employees.

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

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

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

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

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

About eight 8 of the 299 claimants were hired by Nevamar after
July 1, 2002.

The Company said it believes these claims are occupational
disease claims and those claims are non-compensable under
current South Carolina law until a claimant can demonstrate a
wage-loss disability.

The Company said it believes that the 195 claimants who are
current employees cannot demonstrate a wage-loss disability and
therefore these claims should be dismissed.

Shelton, Conn.-based Panolam Industries International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and distributes decorative overlay
products, primarily thermally fused melamine panels and high-
pressure laminate sheets, throughout Canada and the United
States. The Company markets its products through independent
distributors and directly to kitchen and bathroom cabinet,
furniture, store fixtures and original equipment manufacturers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Applica Lawsuits Still Pending v. Salton
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. continues to be a defendant in three asbestos
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs have alleged injury as the
result of exposure to asbestos in hair dryers distributed by
affiliate Applica Incorporated over 20 years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers sold by it prior to 1979, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2008.

There are numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of
whom actually manufactured asbestos containing products. At this
time, the Company said it does not believe it has coverage under
its insurance policies for the asbestos lawsuits.

Miramar, Fla.-based Salton, Inc. markets and distributes small
kitchen and home appliances, pet products and pest products. The
Company has a portfolio of brand names, including Black &
Decker, George Foreman, Russell Hobbs, Toastmaster, LitterMaid,
and Farberware.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Ongoing v. Katy Industries in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. continues to face 10 lawsuits filed in
state court in Alabama by a total of about 324 individual
plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2008.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 10
cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos
in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant
in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma,
asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant which were manufactured by each defendant. In eight of the
cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

The liability of the Company cannot be determined at this time.

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the
Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the
U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,426 Sterling Fluid Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered over 2,426 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts and California to the Company
for defense and indemnification.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling
purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the
Company. Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in
connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed
to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of
their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many
manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently
because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different
products in the course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of
an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have
manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in
these matters.

The Company said that Sterling had tendered over 2,367 asbestos-
related cases to it for defense and indemnification. (Class
Action Reporter, April 11, 2008)

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the
Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the
U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 388 Actions Pending v. LaBour Pump in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an inactive subsidiary
of Katy Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in over
388 asbestos-related cases in New Jersey, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2008.

These cases have also been tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems
(USA). The Company has elected to defend these cases, many of
which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

LaBour Pump faced over 383 asbestos-related cases in New
Jersey. (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2008)

Arlington, Va.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex. The Contico business includes the
Continental, Contico, and Container names. CCP operates in the
U.S. in Missouri, California, and Georgia, as well as in Canada.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Facing Stehmans' Case in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. continues to be a defendant in an
asbestos case entitled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v.
Asbestos Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.
individually and as successor in interest to Strong
International, Strong Electric Corporation and Century Projector
Corporation, et al.

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

The plaintiffs have made no monetary demand upon the Company,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

It is possible that an adverse resolution of this case could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position.

Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries
Strong Westrex, Inc., Strong Technical Services, Inc., and
Strong Digital Systems, Inc., design, develop, manufacture,
service and distribute theater and lighting systems. The
Company's products are distributed to movie exhibition
companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and
special venues. The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and its subsidiary Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company (BGE) face about 536 asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

The Company and BGE faced about 538 asbestos-related claims.
(Class Action Reporter, March 7, 2008)

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.

In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority
have been resolved for amounts that were not material.

The remaining claims are pending in state courts in Maryland and
Pennsylvania.

Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy
company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries
including a merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 40 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. records 40 asbestos-related actions scheduled for
trial in 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2008.

The Company had 38 asbestos-related actions scheduled for trial
in 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008)

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions that are incidental to its operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 134 of
which the Company was aware at April 28, 2008, in which it is
one of many defendants.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of
those products more than 20 years ago.

Through April 28, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 225 similar cases
without any going to trial, and with only 20 of these involving
any payment to the claimant.

The Company has insurance that it said it believes should cover
a significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne
by the Company in these types of cases.

St. Louis-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and
active components for mission-critical applications in markets
ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast
studios, and aerospace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Richards Widow Names 30 Firms in W.Va. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Widow Eleanor Richards, on April 18, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 30 companies in Kanawha County Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Richard claims that these 30 companies are responsible for
her husband's illness and subsequent death. The suit was filed
on behalf of her late husband, Charles Richards.

According to the suit, Mr. Richards was employed as a molder at
the J.C. Hart foundry in Clarksburg, W.Va., where he was
allegedly exposed to the asbestos products. As a result of the
asbestos exposure, Mr. Richards developed lung cancer, the suit
says.

The suit says the companies failed to provide Mr. Richards with
a safe environment because their products contained asbestos. It
says, "At all times relevant ... it was feasible for the
defendants to have adequately warned Charles Richards, tested
their asbestos containing products, designed safer asbestos
containing products or substitute asbestos free products."

Mrs. Richards claims her husband suffered from lung cancer and
subsequent death because of the companies' negligence. She also
claims she suffered sorrow, mental anguish and loss of her
husband's companionship, as well as medical and funeral
expenses. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Attorney Victoria L. Antion is representing Mrs. Richards.
Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-756 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues $18,500 Penalty to Ariz. Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined Portable
Practical Education Preparation, Inc. US$18,500 for alleged
violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act,
according to an EPA press release dated May 15, 2008.

The company holds charters for 12 Arizona charter schools.
Arizona Charter schools are public, state-funded schools
constituted within the state of Arizona.

In May 2006, the EPA inspected the Celestino Fernandez Learning
Center and found that the school was unable to present an
asbestos management plan. The EPA found PPEP had not conducted
inspections nor had asbestos management plans for some of its
schools.

The Alice S. Paul school, which had an asbestos management plan,
was not re-inspected within the three year time frame required
by federal law.

"Organizations responsible for charter schools need to
understand their facilities must meet all of the federal
asbestos in schools requirements, as failure to do so can result
in penalties," said Katherine Taylor, associate director for the
Communities and Ecosystems Division in the EPA's Pacific
Southwest region.

Ms. Taylor added, "Asbestos can potentially endanger the health
of students, teachers, and maintenance workers at schools, so we
are pleased the PPEP charter schools have now conducted
inspections and its asbestos management plans are in place."

In August 2006, accredited inspectors conducted asbestos
inspections at "Lito" Pena Learning Center, Manuel Bojorquez
Learning Center, Raul H. Castro Learning Center, Cesar Chavez
Learning Center, Jose Yepez Learning Center, Celestino Fernandez
Learning Center, John David Arnold Learning Center, Victor
Soltero Learning Center, Eugene Lopez Learning Center, and
Robles Junction Learning Center.

The Raul H. Castro Learning Center and the Celestino Fernandez
Learning Center were each found to have about 600 square feet of
asbestos containing building materials, while about 500 square
feet of asbestos containing building materials was found at the
Manuel Bojorquez Learning Center.

No asbestos was found at the other schools. Management plans for
each of these schools were prepared in August 2006.

PPEP also holds the charter for the Arizona Virtual Academy,
where an asbestos inspection was conducted on Aug. 7, 2007 and
Aug. 9, 2007. No asbestos was found.

Management plans for the two locations of the Arizona Virtual
Academy offices were prepared in September 2007.

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection
using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing
building material is present, and develop a management plan to
address asbestos materials found in school buildings.

Schools that do not contain asbestos-containing material must
still develop a management plan that identifies a designated
person, and includes an architect's statement or building
inspection, and the annual notification to parents, teachers,
and employees regarding the availability of the plan.

The EPA's rules also require the school to appoint a designated
person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure
the school complies with federal regulations. Finally, schools
must conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly
train maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in
the management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the
management plan in its administrative office and at the school,
which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers
and the general public.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Seek JPY6.6Bil from Japanese Gov't.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Construction workers and next of kin of deceased workers, on
May 9, 2008, filed a lawsuit in Tokyo, Japan, seeking damages of
about JPY6.6 billion (about US$444 million) from the Japanese
Government and manufacturers related to illnesses stemming from
exposure to asbestos, Afriquenligne reports.

Plaintiffs, numbering to 178, including construction workers and
family members filed the suit in Tokyo District Court against 46
building manufacturers and the Government of Japan.

According to the Mainichi Daily News, the class action suit is
the first that has been filed in Japan related to health damages
caused by asbestos exposure at construction sites. The
plaintiffs hail from the Japanese prefectures of Tokyo, Saitama
and Chiba.

The plaintiffs state that after inhaling asbestos in the
workplace, 172 people have developed lung cancer or
mesothelioma, and that almost half of those afflicted are now
dead.

Plaintiffs argue that the government and health ministry did not
act quickly enough after international organizations issued
warnings in 1972 that asbestos could be a carcinogen.

Plaintiffs also blame the Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry for sanctioning the use of asbestos under Japanese
Industrial Standards, and with the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport for approving the use of materials
comprised of asbestos and other substances under Japan's
Building Standards Law.

Kazuo Miyajima, 78, who heads the groups of plaintiffs, said,
"We will do our utmost until we win the suit."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs released a statement saying, "We seek
complete relief for the victims by clarifying the liability of
the state and the manufacturers."

About 40 construction workers from Kanagawa Prefecture plan to
file a similar lawsuit in June 2008 in Yokohama District Court.

After a 2005 revelation that residents who lived near a factory
in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture developed diseases related to
asbestos, the government implemented a law in 2006 which
provides monetary assistance to asbestos victims and relatives
of deceased family members.

The plaintiffs argue that the amount of financial assistance
given to families and victims of asbestos-related diseases is
not sufficient.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs $3.9M Verdict v. Crane Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd, P.C., in its press release dated May 16, 2008,
announced that the California Court of Appeals, on March 11,
2008, affirmed a US$3.9 million wrongful death verdict against
Crane Co.

Attorneys John Langdoc and Renee Melancon from Dallas' Baron &
Budd represented the wife and adult children of Joseph Henson
Norris, who died in August 2006 from mesothelioma.

The lawsuit itself was unique in that Mr. Norris contracted the
disease through "bystander exposure" and Crane Co. was not a
manufacturer of asbestos products, but a user of asbestos
components.

"John, Renee and our entire trial team have not stopped working
to prove, first to the jury, then to the Court of Appeals, how
the defendants could have prevented this terrible tragedy," says
Russell W. Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd. "The
Court ruled unanimously that a company cannot use a dangerous
component, then disclaim responsibility for the harm it inflicts
on innocent people."

Mr. Norris was exposed to asbestos while working as a gunner's
mate in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1957. Crane, a manufacturer
of industrial products, previously manufactured valves with
asbestos gaskets and asbestos packing materials that were used
aboard Mr. Norris' ship, the U.S.S. Bremerton.

Crane Co. also sold its own line of asbestos-containing gasket
materials from 1920 until 1972.

Nearly 50 years passed before Mr. Norris began exhibiting
symptoms of mesothelioma. He was diagnosed in April 2005, and
lived 16 months after learning he had the disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Has 6,191 Mesothelioma Claims Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC filed a report to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
disclosing that 6,191 mesothelioma claims have been filed
against its estate and other Debtors:

  -- 3,385 claims against one or more Debtors,

  -- 2,511 claims against ASARCO and potentially other debtors,

  -- 191 claims solely against ASARCO, and

  -- 104 claims against ASARCO are asserting liability-based
     claims and products liability-based claims.

Asarco Incorporated filed under seal its objections to 26
asbestos-related claims against ASARCO LLC and the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors, each asserting US$1 million or more.  

Under Court orders, the claims objections were filed under seal
to protect the identities of the asbestos claimants, their
social security numbers, and their medical information.  

From the Court filings, Asarco Inc. disclosed that the claimants
are all males, aged between 45 and 90, and alleged that they
have been exposed to asbestos-containing products produced by
the Asbestos Debtors due to the nature of their jobs.

The exposure ranges for the period from the late 1930s to the
early 1980s. Some claimants are deceased. Most claimants live or
formerly lived in New York. Other claimants live in California,
Oregon, North Carolina, and Arizona. Most of the claimants are
represented by the law firm Lipsitz & Ponterio LLC.

Charles A. Beckham, Jr., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP,
in Houston, Tex., relates that Asarco Inc.'s review of a sample
of asbestos-related claims has uncovered glaring facial
deficiencies throughout the Debtors' asbestos claim universe,
rebutting any presumption of validity.

The Debtors have previously asserted that the asbestos claims
should be presumed valid at their face value unless objections
to those claims are filed and sustained.

Asarco Inc. asserts that the Claims should be expunged, or in
the alternative, reduced, for one or more of these reasons:

  (a) The Claim lacks any evidence that the claimants has any
      asbestos-related physical impairment, that the claimant
      was exposed to any asbestos, or that the claimant was
      exposed to any asbestos as a result of the operations of
      the Asbestos Debtors;

  (b) The Claim lacks any supporting evidence and fails to
      specify any injury that the claimants have suffered;

  (c) The Claims are barred by the state's statute of
      limitations;

  (d) The Claim relies on a report by Ray A. Harron, M.D., of
      Bridgeport, W.Va., a known "banned doctor;" and

  (e) The Claim was not filed by the Sept. 30, 2006 Bar Date.

Mr. Beckham says that Dr. Harron's medical reports have been
completely discredited and ruled inadmissible in "other
proceedings" and Dr. Harron has reportedly surrendered his
medical license. Dr. Harron, one of the diagnosing doctors in In
re Silica Prods. Liability Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D.
Tex. 2005), is at the center of an ongoing fraudulent silicosis
diagnoses investigation initiated by the U.S. House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Beckham adds that the Johns-Manville Corporation Asbestos
Trust banned all reports submitted by Dr. Harron due to the
pending fraudulent silicosis diagnoses investigation.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 72; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grumley Settles w/ Garlock Sealing for $12M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced that James Grumley
and his family have settled with former asbestos manufacturer
Palmyra, N.Y.-based Garlock Sealing Technologies for a
confidential amount following a jury verdict of US$12 million in
damages, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated May 16,
2008.

Mr. Grumley contracted mesothelioma after working for decades as
a boiler mechanic at a Johnsonburg paper mill.

Baron & Budd attorney John Langdoc said, "Jim Grumley's cancer
was entirely preventable. Asbestos was just too profitable for
Garlock. The worst thing about it is that instead of promptly
eliminating asbestos from their gaskets and packing once they
knew what asbestos could do, Garlock chose to spend decades
devising ways to cover up the cancers its asbestos products
cause."

Mr. Langdoc and colleagues Ryan Leggiero and Melissa Fair tried
the case on behalf of the family.

The irreversible harm done by years of exposure to the paper
mill's boilers, which were covered in asbestos cement, and to
asbestos gaskets and asbestos rope packing that were used on
turbines and steam pipes became apparent in 2006 when Mr.
Grumley was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Prior to contracting mesothelioma, the 84-year-old Mr. Grumley
played sports with his grandchildren and shared his love of
athletics, music and dancing with his wife of 55 years, Pat
Grumley, and their children Cindy, Bob and Jim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chason Case v. Marathon Filed in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Leigh Chason filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against
Marathon Petroleum Company and other businesses in Galveston
County District Court, Tex., on May 8, 2008, The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

BASF Corporation and Todd Shipyards Corporation were also named
defendants.

The plaintiff's original petition states, "Ms. Chason was
exposed to asbestos through household contact from her father,
Loy Garner, who was employed by Marathon from 1969 through at
least 1979.

"In addition, Ms. Chason was exposed through her father who also
worked at Smith Douglass in Texas City from 1961 to 1969; and
additionally he did some short-term contracting work in the
1970s for BASF in Freeport, Todd Shipyard in Galveston, and
Monsanto in Texas City."

The suit contends Ms. Chason "was exposed to large quantities of
asbestos from the products and/or machinery manufactured, sold,
designed, supplied, distributed, mined, milled relabeled,
resold, processed, applied, or installed by the above-named
Defendants."

Ms. Chason's father "was required to handle asbestos containing
products and/or machinery containing asbestos" thus was
subjected to other asbestos products and/or machinery present in
the workplace attributed to the accused. It is also asserted
that he came into contact with others who may have worked
directly with the asbestos containing products or machinery.

The suit argues the defendants were aware of the potential
health risk the asbestos and its related products presented, but
failed to give any type of warning.

Alongside negligence, conspiracy and "the Defendants' acts or
omissions were a producing cause of the Plaintiff's injuries and
damages."

Ian P. Cloud represents Ms. Chason. They placed a request for a
jury the same day the suit was filed.

Case No. 08V0486 has been assigned to Judge David Garner, 10th
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $3.2M Verdict v. Parsons, Jacobs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen months after winning a US$3.2 million verdict against
contractors Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. and
Jacobs Constructors, Inc. on behalf of Ray Rando, Baron & Budd,
P.C. announced the verdict has been affirmed by the Louisiana
1st Circuit Court of Appeal, according to a Baron & Budd press
release dated May 19, 2008.

Mr. Rando, a former welder and pipefitter, contracted
mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure while he worked
for the defendants.

Mr. Rando was represented at trial by attorneys Cameron Waddell
and Jody Alderman of Baton Rouge's LeBlanc & Waddell. Baron &
Budd's Renee Melancon was appellate counsel for Mr. Rando.

Managing shareholder of Baron & Budd Russell W. Budd said, "Ray
Rando's employers tried repeatedly to evade responsibility for
his injuries, but these committed attorneys convinced the  trial
court, and then the Court of Appeal, that these companies were
responsible to their employees for exposing them to dangerous
levels of asbestos."

In addition to confirming that Louisiana's 1952 Workers'
Compensation Act does not cover mesothelioma and so does not bar
suits by mesothelioma victims against their employers, the Court
of Appeal ruled that Mr. Rando's case was not barred by
Louisiana's 10-year preemptive period to bring claims for
injuries arising from deficiencies in the construction of
improvements to real property.

The court ruled that, because Mr. Rando's employer, a contractor
who did major "turn-key" construction jobs at a chemical plant-
had control over the construction at the time of Mr. Rando's
asbestos exposure, Mr. Rando's claims against his employer fell
within the statute's exception and were not untimely.

Ms. Melancon said, "Mr. Rando's employers did not protect him
from the clouds of asbestos in which he worked, even though
basic prevention methods have been known since the 1930s. This
man has had to accept that the disease that will kill him was
preventable, but his employers did nothing to protect him."

Mr. Rando worked as a pipefitter from 1965 until 1985. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006 and continues to fight his
disease from his home in Ponchatoula, La.


Foster Wheeler Tops List of Companies with Open Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Maryland, May 9, 2008 -- Foster Wheeler Ltd. remains
to be the company with the most number of open asbestos claims,
according to a study by the Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter.

Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter today reveals the Top Ten
Companies with the most number of open asbestos-related claims.

Managing editor Stephanie Tolentino says that 131,340 open cases
for the year ended Dec. 28, 2007, Foster Wheeler is number 1,
but Ashland Inc. is not very far behind with 120,000 open
asbestos claims, while Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co follows with
117,400 open cases.  The remaining includes Pfizer, Ingersoll
Rand, and Union Carbide Corp.

Tolentino explains that the list is a compilation derived from
stories about asbestos-related litigation as it appeared in the
Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter in the first quarter of
2008.

The full list is available for download at:

http://www.litigationdatadepot.com/Lloyds_Asbestos_Litigation_Re
porter_-_Mos.pdf

The Lloyds Asbestos Litigation Reporter is a new publication
from the Beard Group.  visit
http://www.litigationdatadepot.com/lloydsAsbestosLitigation.php
for details.




                            *********

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, Leah R.
Felisilda, Stephanie Tolentino-Umacob, 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  * * *