CAR_Public/080530.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 30, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 107

                            Headlines

ACI WORLDWIDE: Court to Rule on Appeal of $24.5M Suit Settlement
ALLSTATE CORP: La. Court Issues Ruling Affecting Case V. Company
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces La. Lawsuit Over General Contractor Costs
ALLSTATE: 5th Circuit Affirms No-Remand Decision in LAG's Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Allows Appeal in ERISA Lawsuit to Proceed

ALLSTATE: Court Yet to OK Summary Judgment Bid in Overhaul Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Allows Plaintiffs' Appeal to Proceed
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Altered Gems
AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Proceedings in Caremark-Related Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Court Sets May 29 Hearing for "Gunderson" Deal

AMERICAN INT'L: Class Certification Sought in N.Y. Litigation
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: ERISA Suit Settlement Heard Yesterday
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of S.C. Labor Complaint
AMERICAN INT'L: Still Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suits
AMERIGAS INC: Continues to Face W.Va. Lawsuit Over Propane Leak

ATRIUM MEDICAL: Recalls Possibly Contaminated HYDRAGLIDE
BIOVAIL CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Antidepressant "Wellbutrin"
BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit Over Denied Autism Treatment Coverage
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Unit Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in Md.
CONSTRUCTION COS: Sued in for Violating Prevailing Wage Laws

FREMONT INVESTMENT:Sued Over Credit and Fair Housing Laws Breach
GAMMON GOLD: Mexican Courts Dismiss $13-Mln Midas Funds' Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses California Securities Lawsuit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: July 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RAL Litigation
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Litigation Over BPA

PLAYTEX: Sued Over Alleged Dangerous Chemical in Baby Bottles
QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Mo. Court Order Related to Customer's Suit
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Litigation Over Payday Loans Stayed
STATE STREET: Faces Lawsuits Over Active Fixed-Income Strategies
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Approves $2.7M Suit Settlement

SWEETWATER VALLEY: Recalls Contaminated Aged Black Pepper Cheese
T-MOBILE: Supreme Court Lets  Lawsuits Move Forward
TOY INVESTMENTS: Recalls Horse Toys Failing Lead Paint Standards


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MGIC INVESTMENT: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in Mich.
NEXCEN BRANDS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Schatz Nobel Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 211 Cases at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits from Old Businesses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $167.6M Interest at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Noble at April
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Briggs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Drop to 365 at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Still Has Coverage Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Faces Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Has $744.4M March Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Still Pending v. Dana at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Cites $18M CCR Receivable at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Cases Still Ongoing v. Huntsman
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Still in Arbitration with Equitas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Cites $555.8M Losses, LAE at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Cites $901M A&E Loss at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Ongoing v. Parker Drilling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 55,000 Claims at March

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Faces 122 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $27.75M for Claims at March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 218 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Tenneco

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo A&E Reserves Total $154.1M at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.5M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 295 Injury Cases Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Third-Party Action Pending v. Liggett
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Mueller Water Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,529 Claims at May 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,689 Claims at May 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Still Ongoing v. Albany

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Still Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. VWR Funding, Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. Union Carbide, Others in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Payout Laws Planned for Aussie Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Awarded $9.7MM in Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Orders Work Stoppage at Libby Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules Against BICAL in Shortell Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 15 Spaniards May Sue Owens-Illinois in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants Seek Denial of Dismissal Plea
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJDEP Calls For Review of Late Claim Denial

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Could Borrow Money to Pay $700M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Denies Smith's Motions v. U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Ruling Renews Asbestos, Silica Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemical Plumber's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2nd-Hand Exposure Victims May Claim Payout

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending Against BMCA at March
ASBESTOS ALERT: Cawfield's Lawsuit v. Ampex Filed Last Feb. 15
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ross's Exposure Case v. Ampex Corp. Proceeding



                           *********


ACI WORLDWIDE: Court to Rule on Appeal of $24.5M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against a US$24.5-million settlement of a
securities fraud class action lawsuit against ACI Worldwide,
Inc., f/k/a Transaction Systems Architects, Inc.

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against the
company and certain individuals alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
as designated lead plaintiff.

                        Second Complaint

A second amended consolidated class action complaint previously
alleged that during the purported class period, ACI Worldwide
and the named defendants misrepresented the company's historical
financial condition, results of operations and the company's
future prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in the company's revenues.

That complaint also alleged that, prior to August 2002, the
purported truth regarding the company's financial condition had
not been disclosed to the market.

The company and the individual defendants initially filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In response, on Dec. 15, 2003,
the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, the
company's former president and chief executive officer, as a
defendant, but denied the dismissal motion with respect to the
other defendants.

On July 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification wherein, for the first time, lead plaintiff sought
to add Roger M. Wally as additional class representative.

On Aug. 20, 2004, the defendants filed their opposition to the
motion.  On March 22, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying
the class of persons that purchased the company's common stock
from Jan. 21, 1999, through Nov. 18, 2002.

On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a
dismissal of the lead plaintiff and certain other class members,
as well as a limitation on damages based upon plaintiffs'
inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large
portion of their claims.

On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative Roger M. Wally
filed a motion to withdraw as a class representative and class
member.

On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for
judgment, a motion to intervene as a class representative was
filed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Retirement System.
LDARS previously attempted to be named as lead plaintiff in the
case.

On July 5, 2006, the Magistrate denied LDARS' motion to
intervene, which denial LDARS appealed to the District Judge.
That appeal has not yet been decided ob.

On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the
pleadings as being moot based on the Court's granting lead
plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint, which it did
on May 31, 2006.

                         Third Complaint

The Third Complaint alleges the same misrepresentations as the
previous, while simultaneously alleging that the purported truth
about the company's financial condition was being disclosed
throughout that time, commencing in April 1999.  It seeks
unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.

On June 14, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Third Complaint pursuant to Rules
8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Lead
plaintiff opposed the motion.

                           Settlement

Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, on Nov. 7, 2006,
the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for
purposes of settling all of the claims in the Class Action
Litigation, with no admissions of wrongdoing by the company or
any individual defendant.

The settlement provides for an aggregate cash payment of
US$24.5 million of which, net of insurance, the company
contributed approximately US$8.5 million.

The Court approved the settlement on March 2, 2007, and it
ordered the case dismissed with prejudice against the company
and the individual defendants.

                      Settlement Objection

On March 27, 2007, James J. Hayes, a class member, filed a
notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit appealing the Court's order.  The company responded to
this appeal in accordance with the Court of Appeals' orders and
procedures.  The appeal has not yet been decided on.

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

The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. v. Transaction
Systems Architects, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-0553," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. (jbernstein@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Phone: 212-907-0869
         Fax: 212-883-7069

              - and -

         J. Allen Carney, Esq. (acarney@cauleybowman.com)
         Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, P.L.L.C.
         11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
         Little Rock, AR 72212
         Phone: 501-312-8500
         Fax: 501-312-8505
         Web site: http://www.cauleybowman.com/

Representing the defendants are:

         William G. Dittrick, Esq. (wdittrick@bairdholm.com)
         Baird Holm LLP
         1500 Woodmen Tower
         Omaha, NE 68102-2068
         Phone: 402-344-0500
         Fax: 402-344-0588

              - and -

         Joel Held, Esq. (joel.held@bakernet.com)
         Baker & McKenzie, LLP
         2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Phone: 214-978-3090
         Fax: 214-978-3099


ALLSTATE CORP: La. Court Issues Ruling Affecting Case V. Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that could
affect the outcome of a purported class action suit challenging
the adjustment and settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims by
Allstate Corp., according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Earlier, in a putative class action complaint in Louisiana, the
trial court ruled that Allstate's and other insurers' flood,
water and negligent construction exclusions do not apply to man-
made floods (i.e., floods caused by human negligence), and do
not apply to flooding in the New Orleans area to the extent it
was caused by human negligence in the design, construction and
maintenance of the levees.

Allstate and other insurers pursued an interlocutory appeal and
in June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the trial court's ruling.

The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings which have been consolidated along with other
putative class and individual actions brought against the
Company and other insurers, challenging the adjustment and
settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims.

The trial court has issued an order staying all insurance
coverage issues pending the decision of the Louisiana Supreme
Court in a case involving a similar challenge to the flood
exclusion of another carrier.

Also, the plaintiffs in the class action had filed a petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Fifth Circuit's
decision not to certify the matter to the Louisiana Supreme
Court (Class Action Reporter, April 8, 2008).

On Feb. 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition, and thus, declined to review the Fifth Circuit's
ruling.

Lastly, Allstate filed before the trial court a motion to
effectuate the mandate of the Fifth Circuit or for leave to file
a motion for partial summary judgment based on Allstate's water
damage exclusion.  That motion was denied.

Allstate then filed a new motion with the Fifth Circuit
requesting that it recall its mandate and reform to clarify that
its earlier ruling -- that Allstate's flood exclusions
unambiguously exclude coverage for flood losses sustained when
the levees failed -- applies with equal force to Allstate's
water damage exclusion.  The Fifth Circuit denied the motion to
recall the mandate.

The parties and the District Court are now awaiting a ruling
from the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case involving another
carrier.  Once that ruling is issued, the federal court will
have to decide what effect, if any, the ruling has on the
matters before it.

In general, the suit seeks a variety of remedies, including
actual and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and
declaratory relief.

On April 8, 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its ruling
in that case, and held that the flood exclusion is clear and
unambiguous, and therefore valid and enforceable regardless of
whether the source of the flooding was natural or man–made.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  It
conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Faces La. Lawsuit Over General Contractor Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on a motion that seeks to certify a class in a
lawsuit against The Allstate Corp.

In the suit, the plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to,
but did not receive, payment for general contractor overhead and
profit or that the overhead and profit they received was not
adequate to compensate them for the entire costs of a general
contractor.

The company's motion to strike the class allegations was denied
and the parties are proceeding with discovery.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is pending, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  It
conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


ALLSTATE: 5th Circuit Affirms No-Remand Decision in LAG's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied an appeal
in a purported class action filed by The Louisiana Attorney
General against Allstate Corp. and other insurers in connection
with a decision not to remand the matter to state court,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The suit was brought on behalf of Road Home fund recipients
alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all damages owed
under their policies.

The suit seeks a variety of remedies, including actual and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts and declaratory relief.

The insurers removed the matter to federal court.  The district
court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to
state court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
has upheld the denial of remand motion.  The matter will now
proceed in federal court.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  It
conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


ALLSTATE CORP: Court Allows Appeal in ERISA Lawsuit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has allowed a
summarily dismissed appeal by the plaintiffs in a putative
nationwide class action suit filed by former employee agents of
Allstate Corp. to proceed.

The suit is alleging various violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, including a worker classification
issue.  It is related to the company's agency program
reorganization announced in 1999.

The plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.

In general, the suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
and equitable relief.

The suit was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted Allstate's motion to dismiss the
case.

Following the plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law, and
thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court
along with the merits of the appeal, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


ALLSTATE: Court Yet to OK Summary Judgment Bid in Overhaul Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has yet to rule on Allstate Corp.'s motion for
summary judgment in a class action suit filed by former employee
agents who terminated their employment prior to the company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.

The plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 claims.  In general, the
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable
relief.

The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to
approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.
Fifteen individuals opted out.

The company's motions for judgment on the pleadings were
partially granted and the company's motion for summary judgment
remains pending, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business.  It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Allows Plaintiffs' Appeal to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has allowed a
summarily dismissed appeal by plaintiffs in several class action
complaints relating to an agency program reorganization
announced and implemented in 1999 by Allstate Insurance Company
-- which is owned by The Allstate Corp. -- to proceed.  This
according to Allstate Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The lawsuits were filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging retaliation under
federal civil rights laws (EEOC I Lawsuit), and a class action
suit filed in August 2001 by former employee agents alleging
retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations
(Romero I Lawsuit).

In March 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I
litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that,
among other things, certified classes of agents, including a
mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes
of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release
is voidable at the option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to Allstate Insurance "any and all benefits received by
the [agent] in exchange for signing the release."

The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record,
there is no basis for claims of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and on Jan. 16, 2007, the
judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted the Company's motions for
summary judgment.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of
appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued
an order in December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was
not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal
law and thus not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court
along with the merits of the appeal.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co.  Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Co., Allstate
Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively, including
Allstate Corp., Allstate).  Allstate is primarily engaged in the
personal property and casualty insurance business and the life
insurance, retirement and investment products business.  It
conducts its business primarily in the U.S.


AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Altered Gems
-----------------------------------------------------------
America's Collectibles Network, Inc. -- d/b/a Jewelry Television
-- is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging it cheats
the public by selling gemstones it falsely advertises as green
or red andesine-labradorite, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Marliese Weed claims Jewelry TV sells the rocks
as "a highly coveted, extremely rare, all natural expensive gem
that looks like Oregon sunstone," but it's just "low-cost yellow
or colorless labradorite that has been given a chemical
'facelift' to make it appear like the rare Oregon sunstone."

Ms. Weed says she paid more than $4,000 for a rock.  She also
sued Jewelry TV's corporate parent, America's Collectibles
Network, of Knoxville, Tenn.

Ms. Weed further claims the defendants have made more than
$5 million from selling the allegedly bogus stones.  The
complaint states, "Demand for these gemstones was artificially
inflated because of the unlawful misconduct by JTV and consumers
of the gemstones are victims of JTV, who are running what is
reminiscent of a 'boiler room' operation as it relates to these
gemstones."

The suit adds, "Defendants, a very large and sophisticated
company with in excess of $400 million in revenues last year,
knew or should have known that the gemstones it was selling were
shams and nothing more than the mass-produced results of
chemical facelifts in gemological beauty parlors. . . .
Defendant . . . obtained its sham product for pennies per carat
and sold it for extraordinary profits.  Because the sham
gemstones came from plentiful low-value yellow feldspar,
defendant was able to sell them for great profits while still
undercutting the per-carat price of real Oregon sunstone."

Feldspar is the most common rock on the surface of the Earth.
Irradiation is being increasingly used to alter the colors and
appearance of precious and semi-precious gemstones, and can
produce rocks that are difficult to distinguish from naturally
colored stones, according to people in the industry.

Ms. Weed brings this action pursuant to the provisions of
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, California Code
Section 1781, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf
of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
gemstones from defendant from Jan. 1, 2003 to the present.

Ms. Weed wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant falsely advertised the gemstones;

     (b) whether the gemstones were in fact artificially
         enhanced to show colors that they did not originally
         have;

     (c) whether the artificially enhanced gemstones have the
         same value as gemstones that authentically and
         originally have the color qualities;

     (d) whether defendant used false, misleading, and
         deceptive statements or representations in selling the
         gemstones;

     (e) whether defendant's actions with respect to the sale
         and marketing of the gemstones were unconscionable;

     (f) whether defendant represented on gemstones' advertising
         that gemstones had characteristics, ingredients, uses,
         or benefits that they did not have, in violation of
         California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(5);

     (g) whether defendant represented that gemstones were of a
         particular standard, quality, or grade that they were
         not, in violation of California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(7);

     (h) whether defendant advertised gemstones with the intent
         not to sell it as advertised in violation of California
         Civil Code Section 1770(a)(9);

     (i) whether defendant is subject to liability for violating
         the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California civil Code
         Section 1750 et seq.;

     (j) whether defendant has violated the False Advertising
         Law, California Business and Professions Code Section
         17200 et seq.;

     (k) whether defendant has violated the False Advertising
         Law, California Business and Professions Code Section
         17200 et seq.;

     (l) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of compensatory damages pursuant to California
         Civil Code Section 1780(a)(1);

     (m) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of statutory damages pursuant to California Civil
         Code Section 1780(a)(1);

     (n) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of restitution pursuant to California Civil Code
         Section 1780(a)(3);

     (o) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to an
         award of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil
         Code Section 1780(a)(4);

     (p) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched as a
         result of the unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct
         alleged, such that it would be inequitable for
         defendant to retain the benefits conferred upon it by
         plaintiff and the proposed class; and

     (q) whether the class is entitle to an award of
         restitution.

Ms. Weed asks the court for:

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

     -- an award of compensatory damages she sustained and
        sustained by others similarly situated as a result
        of defendant's unlawful acts and conduct;

     -- an award of restitution, disgorgement and other
        equitable relief as the court deems proper;

     -- an order pursuant to sections 17203, 17204 and 17535 of
        the Business and Professions Code, permanently enjoining
        defendant from engaging in the unlawful and deceptive
        acts and practices as alleged;

     -- a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant from
        engaging in the unlawful and deceptive practices
        complained of;

     -- an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
        suit, including expert witness fees;

     -- an award of pre- and post-jdugment interest on any
        amounts awarded; and

     -- any and all other relief the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Marliese Weed et al. v. America's Collectible
Network, Inc. d/b/a Jewelry Television, Case No. 08 CV 0925 WQH
CAB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
          1610 Arden Way, suite 290
          Sacramento, CA 95818
          Phone: 916-568-1100
          Fax: 916-568-7890


AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Proceedings in Caremark-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Alabama has granted a motion seeking a stay of
proceedings in a purported class action suit filed against
American International Group, Inc., and certain of its
subsidiaries over a 1999 settlement of class and derivative
litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc., according to AIG's May ,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, AIG and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in two putative class action complaints in a state
court in Alabama that arises out of the 1999 settlement.

The plaintiffs in the second-filed action have intervened in the
first-filed action, and the second-filed action has been
dismissed.

An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to
the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability.

In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge
approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of
available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and unlimited nature of
the excess policy.  They further allege that AIG, its
subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression
for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of
coverage.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs request compensatory damages
for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive
damages.

AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and
suppression and have asserted, inter alia, that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement.  They further assert that the
current claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that
the plaintiffs' assertions that the statute was tolled cannot
stand against the public disclosure of the excess coverage.

The plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs, in turn, have asserted
that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the
nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the
statute of limitations.

On Nov. 26, 2007, the trial court issued an order that dismissed
the intervenors' complaint against the lawyer-defendants and
entered a final judgment in favor of the lawyer-defendants.

The intervenors are appealing the dismissal of the lawyer-
defendants and on Jan. 2, 2008, requested a stay of all trial
court proceedings pending the appeal.

On March 4, 2008, the trial court granted the motion for a stay.
No further proceedings at the trial court level will occur until
the appeal of the dismissal of the lawyer-defendants is
resolved.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Court Sets May 29 Hearing for "Gunderson" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 14th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana set
a May 29, 2008 final hearing for the proposed $29-million
settlement of a purported class actions against a subsidiary of
American International Group, Inc.

Known as the "Gunderson" complaint, it accuses defendants of
failing to comply with certain provisions of the Louisiana Any
Willing Provider Act relating to discounts taken by defendants
on bills submitted by Louisiana medical providers and hospitals
that provided treatment or services to workers compensation
claimants.  It seeks monetary penalties and injunctive relief.

On July 20, 2006, the court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' partial motion for
summary judgment, holding that the AIG subsidiary was a group
purchaser and, therefore, potentially subject to liability under
the Act.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order certifying a class
of providers and hospitals.

In an unrelated action also arising under the Act, a Louisiana
appellate court ruled that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims at issue.

In response, the defendants in the Gunderson case filed an
exception for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the court denied this motion, holding that it
has jurisdiction over the putative class claims.  The AIG
subsidiary appealed the class certification and jurisdictional
rulings.

While the appeal was pending, the AIG subsidiary settled the
lawsuit.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiffs and the AIG subsidiary agreed
to resolve the lawsuit on a class-wide basis for approximately
$29 million.

The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and will
hold a final approval hearing on May 29, 2008, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com/
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INT'L: Class Certification Sought in N.Y. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud litigation
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against American International Group, Inc.,
are seeking the certification of a class in the matter.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action complaints were filed against AIG which were later
consolidated as, "In re American International Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action is a group
of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio
state employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all
purchasers of AIGs publicly traded securities between Oct. 28,
1999, and April 1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former
AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.,
Starr International Company, Inc., General Reinsurance Corp.,
and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG:

       -- concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct
          through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
          brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;

       -- concealed that it used income smoothing products and
          other techniques to inflate its earnings;

       -- concealed that it marketed and sold income smoothing
          insurance products to other companies; and

       -- misled investors about the scope of government
          investigations.

In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIGs former Chief
Executive Officer manipulated AIGs stock price.

The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

In April 2006, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint.

In December 2006, a third amended class action complaint was
filed, which assert basically the same claims as the previous
complaint.  Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a request for class
certification, according to AIG's May 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 American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jason Samuel Cowart, Esq. (jscowart@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-661-1100
         Fax: 212-661-8665

              - and -

         Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. (tdubbs@labaton.com)
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendants is:

         Lewis E. Farberman, Esq. (lfarberman@paulweiss.com)
         Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-373-3577
         Fax: 212-492-0577


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: ERISA Suit Settlement Heard Yesterday
-------------------------------------------------------------
A May 29, 2008 hearing was set to consider preliminary approval
of a settlement in a consolidated class action suit filed
against American International Group, Inc., over allegations of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act violations.

Between Nov. 30, 2004, and July 1, 2005, several ERISA-related
complaints were filed on behalf of purported class of
participants and beneficiaries of three pension plans sponsored
by AIG or its subsidiaries.

A consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 26, 2005, indicates a
class period of Sept. 30, 2000, to May 31, 2005, and names as
defendants AIG, the members of AIG's Retirement Board and the
Administrative Boards of the plans at issue, and four present or
former members of AIG's Board of Directors.

The factual allegations in the complaint are essentially
identical to those in the matter, "In Re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES."

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter for an amount within AIG's insurance coverage limits.

The court has scheduled a hearing yesterday, May 29, 2008, to
consider preliminary approval of the settlement according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is
a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is engaged in
a range of insurance and insurance-related activities in the
United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities include both
General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement Services
operations.  Other significant activities include Financial
Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable segments by
product or service line are General Insurance, Life Insurance &
Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset Management.
AIG provides its products and services in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of S.C. Labor Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of
an amended complaint in the matter, "Temporary Services
Incorporated v. American International Group Inc et al., Case
No. 3:2008cv00271."

The purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 25,
2008, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries.

The suit was brought on behalf of a class of employers that
obtained workers' compensation insurance from AIG companies and
allegedly paid inflated premiums as a result of AIG's alleged
underreporting of workers' compensation premiums.

An amended complaint in the South Carolina action was filed on
March 24, 2008, and AIG recently filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Temporary Services Incorporated v. American
International Group Inc et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00271," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark Dale Chappell, Esq.
          (mchappell@chappellsmitharden.com)
          Chappell and Smith
          PO Box 12330
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-929-3600
          Fax: 803-929-3604

          Richard A Harpootlian, Esq. (rah@harpootlianlaw.com)
          Richard A. Harpootlian PA
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Phone: 803-252-4848
          Fax: 803-252-4810

               - and -

          James Kevin Holmes, Esq.
          (kholmes@steinberglawfirm.com)
          Steinberg Law Firm
          PO Box 9
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Phone: 843-720-2800
          Fax: 843-722-1190

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert H. Brunson, Esq.
          (robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com)
          Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
          PO Box 1806
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Phone: 843-853-5200
          Fax: 843-722-8700


AMERICAN INT'L: Still Faces Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to face several
purported antitrust class action suits in connection with
insurance brokerage, according to the company's May 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Certain policyholders brought multiple federal antitrust and
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act class action
complaints in jurisdictions across the nation against insurers
and brokers, including AIG and a number of its subsidiaries,
alleging that the insurers and brokers engaged in a broad
conspiracy to allocate customers, steer business, and rig bids.

These actions, including 24 complaints filed in different
federal courts naming AIG or an AIG subsidiary as a defendant,
were consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-district
litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The consolidated actions have proceeded in that court in two
parallel actions, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation," (Commercial Complaint) and "In re Employee Benefit
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," (Employee Benefits
Complaint, and, together with the Commercial Complaint, the
multi-district litigation).

                      Commercial Complaint

The plaintiffs in the Commercial Complaint are a group of
corporations, individuals and public entities that contracted
with the broker defendants for the provision of insurance
brokerage services for a variety of insurance needs.

The broker defendants are alleged to have placed insurance
coverage on the plaintiffs' behalf with a number of insurance
companies named as defendants, including AIG subsidiaries.

The Commercial Complaint also named various brokers and other
insurers as defendants (two of which have since settled).

The Commercial Complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants engaged in a widespread conspiracy to allocate
customers through "bid-rigging" and "steering" practices.
Plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act, RICO, and the antitrust laws of 48 states and the
District of Columbia, and are liable under common law breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment theories.

The Plaintiffs seek treble damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees as a result of the alleged RICO and Sherman Antitrust Act
violations.

                  Employee Benefits Complaint

The plaintiffs in the Employee Benefits Complaint are a group of
individual employees and corporate and municipal employers
alleging claims on behalf of two separate nationwide purported
classes: an employee class and an employer class that acquired
insurance products from the defendants from Aug. 26, 1994, to
the date of any class certification.

The Employee Benefits Complaint names AIG, as well as various
other brokers and insurers, as defendants.  The activities
alleged in the Employee Benefits Complaint, with certain
exceptions, track the allegations made in the Commercial
Complaint.

                    Litigation Developments

The Court in connection with the Commercial Complaint granted
(without leave to amend) defendants' motions to dismiss the
federal antitrust and RICO claims on Aug. 31, 2007, and
Sept. 28, 2007, respectively.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims in the Commercial Complaint and therefore
dismissed it in its entirety.

On Jan. 14, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the ERISA claims in the Employee Benefits
Complaint and subsequently dismissed the remaining state law
claims without prejudice, thereby dismissing the Employee
Benefits Complaint in its entirety.

On Feb. 12, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with respect to the
dismissal of the Employee Benefits Complaint.

The Plaintiffs previously appealed the dismissal of the
Commercial Complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on Oct. 10, 2007.

On Feb. 19, 2008, appellants filed their appeal brief with the
Third Circuit with respect to the Commercial Complaint, and
appellees filed their brief on April 7, 2008.  Oral argument has
not yet been scheduled in that appeal.

                  Similar Cases & Developments

A number of complaints making allegations similar to those in
the multi-district litigation have been filed against AIG and
other defendants in state and federal courts around the country.

The defendants have thus far been successful in having the
federal actions transferred to the U.S. District of New Jersey
and consolidated into the multi-district litigation.

These additional consolidated actions are still pending in the
District Court, but are currently stayed pending a decision by
the court on whether they will proceed during the appeal of the
dismissal of the multi-district litigation.

The AIG defendants have also sought to have state court actions
making similar allegations stayed pending resolution of the
multi-district litigation proceeding.

These efforts have generally been successful, although
plaintiffs in one case pending in Texas state court have moved
to re-open discovery; a hearing on that motion was held on
April 9, 2008, at which the court deferred ruling on the motion
until defendants file their Special Exceptions.

Using amounts from the Excess Casualty Fund described above, AIG
has recently settled several of the various federal and state
actions alleging claims similar to those in the multi-district
litigation, including a state court action pending in Florida in
which discovery had been allowed to proceed.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.


AMERIGAS INC: Continues to Face W.Va. Lawsuit Over Propane Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas, Inc., is still facing a purported class action suit in
the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia, over a
fire that resulted from a propane leak.

In July 2001, the suit, "Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 98-C-298," was filed against the company.

The plaintiffs -- Samuel and Brenda Swiger, and their son,
sustained personal injuries and property damage as a result of a
fire that ignited when propane leaked from an underground line.
The suit sought to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for the plaintiffs and
on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom the defendants
had installed propane gas lines.  The defendants allegedly
failed to install underground propane lines at depths required
by applicable safety standards.

In 2003, the defendants settled the individual personal injury
and property damage claims of the Swigers.  Class counsel has
indicated that the class is seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12 million plus punitive damages, civil penalties,
and attorneys' fees.

In 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and the plaintiffs amended
their complaint to name additional parties pursuant to such
ruling.

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

AmeriGas Partners, L.P. -- http://www.amerigas.com/-- is a
retail propane distributor in the U.S.  As of Sept. 30, 2006,
the Company served approximately 1.3 million residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and motor fuel customers
from approximately 600 district locations in 46 states.


ATRIUM MEDICAL: Recalls Possibly Contaminated HYDRAGLIDE
--------------------------------------------------------
Atrium Medical Corporation is initiating a voluntary and
precautionary recall of selected lots of HYDRAGLIDE Brand
Heparin-Coated Thoracic Drainage Catheters.

Limited lots of Atrium heparin-coated Hydraglide Thoracic
Catheters were manufactured with heparin found to have been
contaminated with oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS).  The
patient risk associated with the presence of OSCS in heparin-
coated medical devices is not known at this time.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received reports of
serious injury and death in patients who have been administered
injectable heparin products containing high levels of OSCS.
While Atrium's HYDRAGLIDE Catheters do not contain high levels
of heparin, there still exists a potential exposure of OSCS to
the patient.

Customers with affected lots are advised to immediately
discontinue use of these devices and obtain replacement
catheters from Atrium.  Atrium will be working with our
customers to replace the affected product as soon as possible.
If a non-elective procedure requires use of this catheter, the
company recommends that one does not use the catheter with
either a cell saver autotransfusion system or direct
autotransfusion chest drainage collection system for
cardiopulmonary bypass surgery.

Atrium has not received reports of any OSCS-related adverse
events arising from any use of their Hydraglide Thoracic
Catheters.  This voluntary recall is being initiated as a
precaution to minimize any future potential risk.

The Customer Notification actions are being taken with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Physicians
and hospital personnel with product related questions should
call the company at 1-800-5-ATRIUM, Monday–Friday, 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. EST.


BIOVAIL CORP: Faces Pa. Suit Over Antidepressant "Wellbutrin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corp. and GlaxoSmithKline are facing a class-action
complaint filed before U.S. District Court for the Eastern
Distric of Pennsylvania accusing the drug companies of
overcharging for its antidepressant Wellbutrin by illegally
blocking competition from a generic version, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

This is an antitrust action seeking trebled damages arising out
of defendants' unlawful exclusion from the market of aB-rated
generic versions of Wellbutrin, a prescription antidepressant
medication.  As alleged, defendants engaged in sham litigation
and petitioning and entered into anticompetitive agreements to
improperly maintain their monopoly profits in the bupropion HCI
extended release market to the detriment of plaintiffs and the
class of direct purchasers of Wellbutrin.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons and
entities in the United States who purchased Wellbutrin directly
from one or more of the defendants at any time from Nov. 14,
2005, through the present and continuing until the effects of
defendants' anticompetitive conduct cease.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants willfully obtained and maintained
         monopoly power over Wellbutrin and its generic
         equivalents;

     (b) whether defendants improperly listed the '327 patent in
         the Orange Book;

     (c) whether defendants' multiple actions asserting
         infringement of the '341 and '327 patents and seeking
         additional FDA review were baseless;

     (d) whether defendants engaged in sham litigation to
         prevent competition;

     (e) whether defendants filed their citizen petition to
         prevent competition;

     (f) whether defendants unlawfully excluded competitors and
         potential competitors from the market for Wellbutrin
         and its AB-rated generic bioequivalents;

     (g) whether the patent litigation was objectively baseless;

     (h) whether defendants unlawfully delayed or prevented
         generic manufacturers from coming to market in the
         United states;

     (i) whether defendants maintained monopoly power by
         delaying generic entry;

     (j) whether the law requires definition of a relevant
         market when direct proof of monopoly power is
         available, and if so the definition of the relevant
         market;

     (k) whether the activities of defendants as alleged have
         substantially affected interstate commerce;

     (l) whether, and to what extent, defendants' conduct caused
         antitrust injury (i.e. overcharges) to plaintiffs and
         the members of the class; and

     (m) the quantum of aggregate overcharge damages to the
         class.

The plaintiffs request for relief as follows:

     -- judgment in its favor and against defendants, jointly
        and severally, for damages representing the
        overcharges paid by plaintiffs and the other members of
        the class, trebled;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

     -- costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Meijer, Inc., et al v. Biovail Corp. et al.," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Rodanast, PC
          801 Estelle Drive
          Lancaster, PA 17601
          Phone: 717-892-3000
          Fax: 717-892-1200


BLUE CROSS: Faces Lawsuit Over Denied Autism Treatment Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is facing a class-action
complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan alleging it unfairly denies coverage for
treatment of autism, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Autism is a complex developmental disability, which adversely
affects, inter alia, verbal and nonverbal communication and
social interactions, a child’s educational performance, and the
overall ability of a person who suffers from the condition to
function in society.

Named plaintiff Chris Johns brings this action as a class action
against Defendant pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons who are participants in or
beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan administered by or
provided by Defendant and who have been denied coverage for
ABA treatment to an insured person diagnosed with autism.

The plaintiff and the class request judgment in their favor
against the defendant in an amount to be determined, plus costs,
interest and attorney fees, exemplary damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and any other relief to which Plaintiff
and the class is entitled.

The suit is "Chris Johns et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, Case No. 2:08-cv-12272-SFC-MJH," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@manteselaw.com)
          Mark C. Rossman, Esq. (mrossman@manteselaw.com)
          David S. Hansma, Esq. (dhansma@manteselaw.com)
          Mantese and Rossman, PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Phone: 248-457-9200

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq. (john@johnjconway.com)
          John J. Conway, P.C.
          645 Griswold St, Ste 3600
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Phone: 313-961-6525


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Unit Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in Md.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group, Inc., is facing a
purported class action suit in Maryland over ash placement
operations that damaged surrounding properties, according to
Constellation Energy's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In November 2007, a class action complaint was filed in
Baltimore City Circuit Court alleging that the subsidiary's ash
placement operations at the third party site damaged surrounding
properties.  The complaint seeks injunctive and remedial relief
relating to the alleged contamination, unspecified compensatory
damages for any personal injuries and property damages
associated with the alleged contamination, and unspecified
punitive damages.

Baltimore, Maryland-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. --
http://www.constellation.com/-- is an energy company that
conducts its business through various subsidiaries, including a
merchant energy business and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
(BGE).  The Company's merchant energy business is a provider of
energy solutions for a variety of customers.  BGE is a regulated
electric transmission and distribution utility company and a
regulated gas distribution utility company with a service
territory that covers the City of Baltimore and all or part of
10 counties in central Maryland.  The Company's operating
segments are Merchant Energy, Regulated Electric and Regulated
Gas. Its remaining non-regulated businesses design, construct
and operate renewable energy, heating, cooling and cogeneration
facilities for commercial, industrial and governmental customers
throughout North America, as well as provide home improvements,
service electric and gas appliances, service heating, air
conditioning and plumbing to residential customers in Central
Maryland.


CONSTRUCTION COS: Sued in for Violating Prevailing Wage Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
A recently filed class-action lawsuit accuses contractors for
multiple New York City agencies of violating prevailing wage
laws.

In a sweeping class action lawsuit, several workers suing on
behalf of hundreds of New York City construction workers have
charged:

     -- Nicks Insulation Corp.

     -- AAH Construction Corp.

     -- Ariel Montoya, Inc.

     -- New York Insulation, Inc.

     -- New York Insulation, LLC

     -- New York Insulation & Environmental Services, Inc.

     -- Anthony Cardinale, the alleged principal owner of New
        York Insulation, and

     -- Laura Ilishaev, the alleged principal owner of Nicks
        Insulation,

with failure to pay workers the legally required prevailing wage
and benefit rates as well as overtime rates on dozens of New
York City construction projects.

The workers, who are represented by attorney Lloyd Ambinder, are
alleging that New York Insulation, Nicks Insulation and the
other defendant contractors engaged in a systematic pattern and
practice of grossly underpaying prevailing wages and
supplemental benefits.  These defendant employers should be
aware of their legal obligation to pay prevailing wages and
overtime compensation on publicly financed construction
projects.

However, it is further alleged that each company paid only a
fraction of the statutory wage to the workers, while failing to
remit appropriate withholding taxes to the IRS and the
Department of Taxation for unreported hours.  The workers intend
to prove that these contractors derived windfall profits at the
expense of both the workers and taxpayers who financed these
contracts.

"To use taxpayers' money to break the law and rob workers of
their legal rights is unconscionable," said Eli Kent, Director
of Organizing for the Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers
Local 78.  "For years we have tried to bring this matter to the
attention of the proper government officials.  But our concerns
have been ignored.  It is unfortunate that it will take a class
action lawsuit of this type to finally get the attention this
matter deserves," Mr. Kent said.

Among the New York City & State agencies that have contracted
with these defendant contractors are:

     * the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA);

     * the New York City Department of Housing Preservation &
       Development (NYCHPD);

     * the New York City Department of Design & Construction
       (DDC);

     * the New York State Office of General Services and the
       Dormitory Authority of the State of New York.

Throughout the five boroughs NY Insulation failed to pay its
workers the legally required prevailing wage and benefits.  The
list of jobsites consists of some of the City's largest
properties including:

     -- the Community Center Housing Project;
     -- Astoria, Houses;
     -- Queensbridge North Houses;
     -- Red Hook East & West Houses;
     -- Bayview Houses, Pink Houses at Loring Avenue;
     -- Lafayette Houses;
     -- Weeksville Garden Houses;
     -- South Beach Houses;
     -- Isaac Houses and
     -- Manhattan College.

The lawsuit, which was filed in New York County Supreme Court,
demands back wages and damages in the amount expected to exceed
$2,000,000.

"No worker should be subjected to the mistreatment, abuse and
unlawful activity that NY Insulation inflicted on its workers,"
said Edison Severino, Business Manager of Laborers Local 78.
"Hopefully this lawsuit will serve as a wake up call to New York
City agencies and all contractors that abusing workers will not
be tolerated," concluded Mr. Severino.


FREMONT INVESTMENT:Sued Over Credit and Fair Housing Laws Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont Investment & Loan and Fremont General Corp. are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging the companies violate
credit and fair housing laws by discriminating against
minorities, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought under the Equal Opportunity Act,
15 USC Section 1691, et seq. and the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC
Section 3601 et seq.

The complaint alleges defendants have established a specific,
identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of
which, referred to as the Discretionary Pricing Policy,
authorizes unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional points
and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate.

The plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of all minority
consumers who obtained a home mortgage loan from the defendants
in the United States between Jan. 1, 2001, and March 2007, when
the defendants ceased subprime residential loan originations and
who were subjected to the defendants' discretionary pricing
policy pursuant to which they paid discretionary points, fees or
interest mark-ups in connection with their loan.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) the nature, scope and operations of defendants'
         discretionary pricing policy;

     (b) whether defendants are creditors under the ECOA
         because, for example, in the ordinary course of its
         business they participate in the decision as to whether
         or not to extend credit to consumers;

     (c) whether the defendants' discretionary pricing policy is
         a facially neutral credit pricing system that has
         effected racial discrimination in violation of ECOA;

     (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities
         between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed
         on minority persons and the amount of the discretionary
         charges imposed on white persons that are unrelated to
         creditworthiness;

     (e) whether any legitimate business reason for the
         discretionary pricing policy can be achieved by a
         credit pricing system less discriminatory in its
         impact;

     (f) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive
         relief; and

     (g) the proper measure of disgorgement or damages.

The plaintiffs request that the court:

     -- certify this case as a class action and certify the
        named plaintiffs to be adequate class representatives
        and their counsel to be class counsel;

     -- enter a judgment, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c)
        and 42 USC Section 3613, declaring the acts and
        practices of defendants complained of to be in violation
        of ECOA and the FHA;

     -- grant a permanent or final injunction, pursuant to 15
        USC 1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c), enjoining
        the defendants, and the defendants' agents and
        employees, affiliates and subsidiaries, from continuing
        to discriminate against plaintiff and the members of the
        class because of their race through further use of the
        discretionary pricing policy or any other non-risk-
        related discretionary pricing policy employed by the
        defendants;

     -- order the defendants, pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c), to adopt and
        enforce a policy that requires appropriate training of
        the defendants' employees and its brokers and
        correspondent lenders to prevent discrimination;

     -- order the defendants, pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1691e(c) and 42 USC Section 3613(c), to monitor
        and audit the racial pattern of its financings to
        ensure the cessation of discriminatory effects in its
        home mortgage transactions;

     -- order disgorgement, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(c),
        of all disproportionate non-risk charges imposed on
        minorities by the defendants' discretionary pricing
        policy; and order the equitable distribution of such
        charges to all appropriate class members; together with
        other relief for unjust enrichment;

     -- order actual and punitive damages and/or restitution to
        the plaintiffs and the class pursuant to 42 USC Section
        3613(c);

     -- award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including
        the fees and costs of experts, together with reasonable
        attorneys' fees, pursuant to 15 USC Section 1691e(d)
        and 42 USC Section 3613(c); and

     -- grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further
        relief as the court finds necessary and proper.

The suit is "Roger T. Kimbrew et al. v. Fremont Investment &
Loan et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-03277-R-AN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq.
          Theodore J. Pintar, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423


GAMMON GOLD: Mexican Courts Dismiss $13-Mln Midas Funds' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican courts have dismissed a $13-million suit brought by
Midas Funds of New York, an early investor, against Gammon Gold
Inc. (TSX: GAM / AMEX: GRS), the Chronicle Herald reports.

The legal action was brought against Metales, an inactive Gammon
subsidiary, by Rafael Villagomez -- a former 50% owner of the El
Cubo mine, which Gammon acquired in 2004.

The suit alleges that the company misrepresented production
projections at its Ocampo mine in Mexico.

Gammon CEO Rene Marion said in a release that the court decision
confirms the company's strategy of strongly defending itself
against all actions as it expands its operations.

Gammon Gold Inc. is a Nova Scotia based mid-tier gold and silver
producer with properties in Mexico.  The Company's flagship
Ocampo Project in Chihuahua State achieved commercial production
in January 2007.  Gammon Gold also operates its El Cubo
operation in Guanajuato State and has the promising development
Guadalupe y Calvo property in Chihuahua State.  The Company
remains 100% unhedged.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses California Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit
filed against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

Initially, a purported class action complaint was filed on
Aug. 17, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the company and several of its
senior officers entitled, "Sheldon Pittleman v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al."

The action alleges against all defendants violations of Section
10(b) and 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
against the individual defendants violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendants caused the company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and
misleading statements, and intentional or reckless disregard of
basic accounting principles.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages for all damages
sustained as a result of the defendants actions, including
reasonable costs and expenses and other relief as the court may
deem proper.

On Oct. 3, 2007, a similar case was filed in the same Court
entitled, "Richard Abrams v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et
al."

This action asserts allegations similar to those in the
Pittleman action and also seeks similar recovery.

The two cases were then consolidated.  A consolidated complaint
captioned, "Sheldon Pittleman v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
et al.," was filed on Jan. 8, 2008.

A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants on March 10,
2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 26, 2008).

On May 19, 2008, the court granted the defendants' request and
dismissed the case with prejudice, so the matter cannot be
refiled.

Joseph R. Tomkinson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. stated, "The granting of the
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit is a huge win for the
Company.  Additionally the possible exchange offer to swap
preferred for common stock could have a very positive effect on
the liquidity of the Company.  If successful, not only will it
reduce our fixed dividend expense it will also strengthen the
Company's capital structure.  Ultimately a successful exchange
offering will help management in its attempt to rebuild
shareholder value."

The suit is "Sheldon Pittleman, et al. v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00970," filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, New York
         Phone: 212-983-9330
         Fax: 212-983-9331

         Gardy & Notis, LLP
         440 Sylvan Avenue
         Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
         Phone: 201-567-7377
         Fax: 201-567-7337
         e-mail: info@gardylaw.com

              - and -

         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA)
         1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067
         Phone: 310-201-915
         Fax: 310-201-916
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com


PACIFIC CAPITAL: July 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RAL Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
A July 30, 2008 class certification hearing is scheduled for a
purported class action suit against Pacific Capital Bancorp in
connection with refund anticipation loans (RAL).

Initially, a purported class action complaint was filed by
Canieva Hood and the Congress of California Seniors against:

     * Santa Barbara Bank & Trust,
     * Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and
     * Jackson-Hewitt, Inc.

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan application and agreement with the
company from whose tax refund the company deducted a debt owed
by the applicant to another RAL lender.

The suit was filed on March 18, 2003, before the Superior Court
in San Francisco, California, as "Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc."

The company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.  This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The venue for this suit was changed to Santa Barbara.  The
company filed an answer to the complaint and a cross-complaint
for indemnification against the other RAL lenders.

On May 4, 2005, a superior court judge in Santa Barbara granted
a motion filed by the company and the other RAL lenders, which
resulted in the entry of an order dismissing the suit.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal.  A hearing before the Court of
Appeal was held on June 14, 2006, and the matter was taken under
submission.

On Sept. 29, 2006, the Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision,
issued an opinion which held that the claims in the complaint
that the company had violated certain California consumer
protection laws were not preempted by Federal law and
regulations.

The company and the cross-defendants filed a petition for writ
of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to reverse the
Court of Appeal's opinion.  The petition was denied.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the superior court.
The company filed a demurrer to the cause of action in the
amended complaint based on the California Legal Remedies Act.
The superior court granted the demurrer without leave to amend.

The plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate seeking to reverse
the superior court's decision was denied by the Court of Appeal.
The plaintiff filed an appeal to the California Supreme Court
which was denied.

The plaintiff's other causes of action remain pending.  A class
certification hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2008, according
to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a
bank holding company and has five subsidiaries; Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., and four wholly owned unconsolidated subsidiaries,
used as business trusts in connection with issuance of trust-
preferred securities.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Litigation Over BPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp is seeking the dismissal of one of two
purported class action suits in California filed by tax
preparation franchisees of Jackson Hewitt, Inc., in connection
with certain Bank Product Agreements, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suits, both filed on Jan. 14, 2008, are:

      1. "Big Sky Ventures I, LCC, et al v. Pacific Capital
         Bancorp, et al.," was filed with the U.S. District
         Court for the Central District of California.

      2. "Joseph D. Irlanda v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et
         al.," was filed with the Superior Court of California,
         County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs in both actions entered into annual Bank Product
Agreements with the company which gave them the right, but not
the obligation, to provide to their customers certain company
financial products such as refund anticipation loans.

The plaintiffs in both actions allege that prior to the
Agreement with the company applicable to the 2006 tax year, they
could charge their customers fees in connection with the
company's financial products which they provided.

They allege that in the 2006 tax year Agreement, their fees were
limited to $40 per product and that in the Agreements for the
2007 and 2008 tax years, they were prohibited from charging
their customers any fee for providing them with such products.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that in their franchise
agreements with Jackson Hewitt, Inc., they are required to
provide the company's financial products to their customers.

In each action, the plaintiffs make the following claims for
relief:

       -- a judicial declaration that the agreements applicable
          to the 2007 and 2008 tax years are unconscionable,
          void and unenforceable for economic duress, lack of
          consent, undue influence, and lack of consideration.

       -- injunctive relief prohibiting the company from
          enforcing the terms of the 2008 Bank Product
          Agreement.

       -- restitution from the company for the uncompensated
          services provided by the plaintiffs during the 2006,
          2007 and 2008 tax years.

       -- rescission of the 2008 Bank Product Agreement.

       -- damages from the company pursuant to California's
          Unfair Competition Law under Business and Professions
          Code Sections 172000, et seq.

In Big Sky Ventures, the company has filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint.  A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2008.  No
matters have been scheduled in the Irlanda case.

Pacific Capital Bancorp -- http://www.pcbancorp.com/-- is a
bank holding company and has five subsidiaries; Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., and four wholly owned unconsolidated subsidiaries,
used as business trusts in connection with issuance of trust-
preferred securities.


PLAYTEX: Sued Over Alleged Dangerous Chemical in Baby Bottles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Playtex Products Inc. of Westport is facing a lawsuit filed in
U.S. District Court in New Haven, accusing it of making plastic
baby bottles with a dangerous chemical bisphenol A, which is
linked to serious health problems, The Canadian Press reports.

Bisphenol-A or BPA was developed in the 1930s as a synthetic
estrogen, but it is used mostly today in polycarbonate plastic
as it can make plastic shatterproof.  Studies have shown that
BPA can activate estrogen receptors that lead to the same
effects as the body's own estrogens.  Exposure to BPA has been
linked to lowered sperm count and infertile sperm in men,
developmental toxicity, carcinogenic effects, and possible
neurotoxicity.

Infants are especially vulnerable and are believed to be at a
greater risk from the effects of BPA, which acts as a powerful
hormone that can interfere with an infant's normal brain and
sexual development.

The lawsuit, filed by Ashley Campbell, seeks nationwide class
action status to represent what it says are thousands of people
who bought plastic bottles containing the chemical from Playtex
or other companies.

The suit contends that hundreds of studies and papers have
repeatedly shown that BPA can be toxic even at extremely low
doses.

BPA leaches from the plastic into liquid or food and is
accelerated when the bottles are heated, the lawsuit says.  A
survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control in 2003 and
2004 found detectable levels of BPA in 93 per cent of 2,517
urine samples from people six and older, according to the
lawsuit.

Jacqueline Burwitz, a spokeswoman for Playtex, told Canadian
Press that the company does not comment on pending lawsuits. She
cited a general statement by the company about BPA that says
U.S. and worldwide regulatory bodies continue to deem the
ingredient safe.


QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Mo. Court Order Related to Customer's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., appealed a portion of the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri's order striking the class action
waiver provision in the arbitration agreement the company
reached with its customers, according to QC's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The arbitration agreement stems from a purported class action
suit filed against the company over unsecured loans.  The suit
was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, by one of the company's Missouri
customers, and alleges violations of the Missouri statute
pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not
enforceable on a variety of theories.

The company has not filed an answer, but moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  The plaintiff secured the right to
have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision.

The Court heard oral arguments on the company's motion in June
2007.  On Dec. 31, 2007, the court entered an order striking the
class action waiver provision in the company's customer
arbitration agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and
dismissed the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In February 2008, the company appealed the portion of the
court's order striking the class action waiver provision in the
arbitration agreement with its customer.

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

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Litigation Over Payday Loans Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative consumer fraud class action suit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC
Holdings, Inc., has been stayed, according to the company's May
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
were named defendants in a putative class action suit filed in
the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by
James B. Torrence Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline.  The plaintiffs were
customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the
company provided certain services in connection with the bank's
origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the
closing of the company's North Carolina branches in fourth
quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the
"actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services
to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

They have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically
stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the
right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.
This case is in preliminary stages.

                       Similar Litigation

There are three similar purported class action complaints filed
in North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC
Holdings.

In December 2005, the judge in those three cases:

       -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
          class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in
          accordance with the terms of the arbitration
          provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts

       -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
          loan contracts are valid, and

       -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company, have appealed that ruling.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company in North
Carolina is the same judge who issued these three orders in
December 2005.

The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions
by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case.

There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the
outcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina cases
concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in
the consumer contracts.

Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to
enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of
that appeal.

In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the
appeal in the three companion cases, although it is unknown when
the court will issue its ruling.

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

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


STATE STREET: Faces Lawsuits Over Active Fixed-Income Strategies
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corp. is facing several purported class action
lawsuits that were filed by customers who invested in certain of
State Street Global Advisors' active fixed-income strategies,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

The claims asserted in the purported class action complaints
relate to investment losses in one or more of SSGA's strategies
that included sub-prime mortgage-backed investments.

State Street Corp. -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  The Company, through its
subsidiaries, including its banking subsidiary, State Street
Bank and Trust Co., State Street Corp. provides a range of
products and services for institutional investors globally.  The
lines of business of the Company are Investment Servicing and
Investment Management.  The business provide services to support
institutional investors, including custody, daily pricing and
administration, brokerage and other trading services, deposit
and short-term investment facilities, loan and lease financing,
investment manager and hedge fund manager operations
outsourcing, performance, risk and compliance analytics,
investment research and investment management, including passive
and active U.S. and non-U.S. equity and fixed income strategies.


SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES: Calif. Court Approves $2.7M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County gave final approval to
the proposed $2,700,000 settlement of a purported class action
suit against Superior Industries International, Inc.

In 2006, the company was served with a notice of the class
action complaint alleging that certain employees at the
company's Van Nuys, California facility were denied rest and
meal periods as required under the California Labor Code.

After conducting initial discovery, the parties participated in
mediation that concluded on Aug. 22, 2007.  The mediator
proposed that the parties settle the lawsuit for a total
settlement payment not exceeding $2,700,000.  This settlement
amount is all-inclusive and includes the company's settlement
payment to the lead plaintiff and the settlement class, together
with costs and attorneys' fees for plaintiff's counsel.

In addition, the mediator proposed that the settlement payment
to the class would be on a "claims made" basis, with a minimum
of 40 percent of the net settlement being distributed to the
settlement class.

Provided the minimum settlement claims are paid to the
settlement class, the company will not be liable for any claim
that is not valid or timely filed.

Subject to certain conditions, both parties agreed to the
mediator's proposal and executed a Settlement Term Sheet on
Aug. 22, 2007.  The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted
the proposed settlement preliminary approval Dec. 19, 2007.

On March 17, 2008, the court approved the proposed settlement on
a final basis, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 30, 2008.

Van Nuys, California-based Superior Industries International,
Inc. -- http://www.superiorindustries.com-- incorporated in
1969, is engaged in the design and manufacture of aluminum road
wheels for sale to original equipment manufacturers.  The
Company is a supplier of cast and forged aluminum wheels to the
automobile and light truck manufacturers, with wheel
manufacturing operations in the U.S., Mexico and Hungary.


SWEETWATER VALLEY: Recalls Contaminated Aged Black Pepper Cheese
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc. of Philadelphia, TN is recalling
Tennessee Aged Black Pepper Cheese because it has the potential
to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Tennessee Aged Black Pepper Cheese, Lot Number 616-361 was
distributed in 5, 7, and 10 ounce bars through our retail store
in Philadelphia, TN and a Winery in Portland, TN.

Less than 100 pounds was distributed.

This product was distributed between December 27, 2007, and
May 12, 2008.

No illnesses have been reported.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
Tennessee Department of Agriculture which revealed that the
finished product contained the bacteria.  The company has ceased
the distribution of this lot as the company continues their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased lot number 616-361 of this product
are urged bring it to the store for replacement or refund or
ship it back to the store for replacement or refund.  Contact
the company's consumer affairs department at 1-877-862-4332 for
further information.


T-MOBILE: Supreme Court Lets  Lawsuits Move Forward
---------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court lets class action suits against T-Mobile USA,
Inc. move forward, Teresa von Fuchs of WirelessWeek reports.

Ms. von Fuchs recounts that last fall, a federal appeals court
ruled in one of T-Mobile's cases that courts could refuse to
honor class action bans that are part of contracts.  The issue
in several different cases is whether federal law pre-empts
state laws regarding regulating class action suits.

The report contends that part of the contract T-Mobile consumers
sign for wireless service is a portion that prohibits them from
waging a class action suit against the carrier.  Instead,
T-Mobile's contract has a clause saying that any complaints must
be resolved through arbitration.

This is true in many contracts customers sign for all kinds of
services.  But some states have laws that limit a company's
ability to ban class action suits, and T-Mobile is facing
several class action suits in states that say banning such suits
is unfair to customers.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, T-Mobile argued that federal
law, which usually requires arbitration clauses be enforced,
overrules state laws that limit the ability of companies to ban
class actions.

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the earlier
ruling, allowing the suits to continue.

The court made no comment on the case, the report states.


TOY INVESTMENTS: Recalls Horse Toys Failing Lead Paint Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toy Investments Inc., d/b/a Toysmith, of Auburn, Wash., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 300 Floppy Friends Horse Toys.

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

The recalled horse toy has a push up base.  When the base is
pushed up, the toy horse is floppy.  When released, the toy
horse stands up straight.  The horse is brown and white and the
base is green with orange, red flowers and dark blue flowers.

These recalled horse toys were manufactured in China and were
sold at hobby stores, gas stations, gift shops and toy stores
nationwide from February 2008 through April 2008 for about $4.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away
from children and return it to the store where purchased for a
full refund.

A picture of the recalled horse toys is found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08285.jpg

For additional information, contact Toy Investments Inc. at 800-
356-0474 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.toysmith.com/


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

MGIC INVESTMENT: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates disclosed that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of MGIC
Investment Corporation publicly traded securities during the
period February 6, 2007, through February 12, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant issued false and materially
misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to
disclose:

     1) that the C-BASS acquisition of Fieldstone adversely
        affected C-BASS liquidity;

     2) that the Company's $516 million investment in C-BASS was
        materially impaired;

     3) that the Company's loss reserves were inadequate in
        light of the worsening housing market and increases in
        defaults and foreclosures;

     4) that the Company's Wall Street bulk transaction business
        was experiencing substantial losses and no reserves were
        established to absorb these losses; and

     5) that, because of the increases in losses and drain on
        liquidity, the Company was not adequately capitalized.

On July 30, 2007, after the market closed, MGIC issued a press
release announcing that the value of its investment in C-BASS
was materially impaired.  In response to this announcement, on
July 31, 2007, the price of MGIC's common stock declined from
$45.44 per share to $38.66.

Then on February 13, 2008, MGIC disclosed that it lost $1.47
billion, or $18.17 a share, in the fourth quarter of 2007.  The
Company blamed the loss, in part, on a $1.2 billion "premium
deficiency reserve" relating to Wall Street bulk transactions.

On February 13, 2008, MGIC's stock price closed at $12.61 a
share, which represented a nearly $60 a share decline from the
Class Period high.

For more information, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: 651-633-5685


NEXCEN BRANDS: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NexCen Brands,
Inc. common stock during the period between May 10, 2007, and
May 19, 2008.

The complaint charges NexCen and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  NexCen operates as a brand management and franchising
company in the United States and internationally.

The Company owns, licenses, franchises, and markets a portfolio
of brands, including Bill Blass, Waverly, The Athlete's Foot,
Shoebox New York, Great American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble
Slab Creamery, Pretzel Time, and Pretzelmaker.

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

     (i) that the Company was able to finance a portion of the
         Great American Cookies acquisition by agreeing to an
         accelerated-redemption feature, which would force the
         Company to pay back half of its borrowing by a certain
         date;

    (ii) that the Company was unable to comply with this
         accelerated-redemption feature, which would reduce the
         amount of cash available to the Company;

   (iii) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its
         earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         continue as a going concern was in serious doubt.

Then, on May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it "expects to
amend the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2007."  The Company also stated that its
prior financial guidance for 2008 "is no longer applicable."
Moreover, the Company revealed that it "is actively exploring
all strategic alternatives to enhance its liquidity, including
potential capital market transactions, the possible sale of one
or more of its businesses, and discussions with the company's
lender."

Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.95 per
share, or 77%, to close at $0.58 per share, on heavy trading
volume.

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

For more information, contact:

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


NEXCEN BRANDS: Schatz Nobel Commences N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of NexCen Brands, Inc. between
May 10, 2007, and May 19, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that NexCen, a company that owns,
licenses, franchises, and markets a portfolio of brands,
including Bill Blass, Waverly, The Athlete's Foot, Shoebox New
York, Great American Cookies, MaggieMoo's, Marble Slab Creamery,
Pretzel Time, and Pretzelmaker, and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially
false statements that failed to disclose:

     (i) NexCen was able to finance a portion of the Great
         American Cookies acquisition by agreeing to an
         accelerated-redemption feature, which would force the
         Company to pay back half of its borrowing by a certain
         date;

    (ii) NexCen was unable to comply with this accelerated-
         redemption feature, which would reduce the amount of
         cash available to the Company;

   (iii) NexCen had no reasonable basis for its earnings
         guidance for fiscal 2008; and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         continue as a going concern was in serious doubt.

Then, on May 19, 2008, NexCen announced that it "expects to
amend the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2007."  The Company also stated that its
prior financial guidance for 2008 "is no longer applicable."
Moreover, NexCen revealed that it "is actively exploring all
strategic alternatives to enhance its liquidity, including
potential capital market transactions, the possible sale of one
or more of its businesses, and discussions with the company's
lender."  On this news, shares of NexCen's stock fell $1.95 per
share, or 77%, to close at $0.58 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Schatz Nobel Izard P.C.
          20 Church Street, Suite 1700
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 800-797-5499
          Web site: http://www.snilaw.com
          e-mail: firm@snilaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Faces 211 Cases at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC reported 211 asbestos-related cases at
March 31, 2008 for which it was potentially liable and that had
not been settled and dismissed.

The Company had recorded a US$54 million liability at March 31,
2008, related to this matter.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded about 207 asbestos-
related cases for which it was potentially liable and that had
not been settled and dismissed. (Class Action Reporter, March 7,
2008)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company LLC on
Feb. 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of
its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in an Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in
the agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company
apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims
based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth
Edison locations or Company locations. The obligations under
this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms
(subject to the right of either party to terminate); under the
automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February
2009.

Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by
Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability for an
asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale
electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent power
producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,470 MW from
its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois. The Company also
oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site
generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Faces Lawsuits from Old Businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products.

With respect to these claims, the Company is either
contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related
claims or believes that it has no liability for such claims. The
Company tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of
the previously acquired businesses.

The Company has also filed late claims in the Federal-Mogul
Corporation bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney's fees
for defense of these claims.

The Company and Federal-Mogul entered into a settlement
agreement under which the Company is entitled to receive amounts
from a settlement trust established under Federal-Mogul's
reorganization plan and funded by insurance proceeds.

The Company is entitled to receive 15 percent of the first US$20
million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of insurance
proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in exchange for
withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to the
reorganization plan and execution of certain releases. Federal-
Mogul and the settlement trust have control over the collection
process.

The settlement was subject to final approval of Federal-Mogul's
Reorganization Plan, which was confirmed and approved by the
Bankruptcy Court in December 2007.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2008, the Company received
funds aggregating US$4.5 million from the settlement trust, of
which US$2.9 million and US$3.9 million (cash receipts less
current period legal fees) is included in income from
discontinued operations in the three- and nine-month periods
ended March 30, 2008. The amount represents primarily the
recovery of previously incurred legal fees for the defense of
these asbestos-related lawsuits.

As the Federal-Mogul settlement trust receives additional funds
based on any settlements with other insurers, Magnetek will be
entitled to receive a percentage of those funds based on the
terms.

Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action
relating to insurance coverage for those previously acquired
businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is
available under the policies.

Federal-Mogul, the Company and other defendants filed responsive
pleadings and motions to dismiss the case, and the court
recently granted the motions to dismiss the declaratory judgment
action. Some of these insurers have appealed the dismissal.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. is a provider of
digital power control systems that are used to control motion
and power primarily in material handling, elevator,
telecommunications and energy delivery applications. Products
consist of programmable motion control and power conditioning
systems used in the following applications: overhead cranes and
hoists; elevators; wireless telecom; coal mining equipment; and
fuel cells and wind turbines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has $167.6M Interest at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation accrued an asbestos-related interest of
US$167.6 million at March 31, 2008, compared with
US$158.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded a charge of US$850.1 million in the fourth
quarter of 2002, of which US$512.5 million is to be utilized for
a cash payment that the Company is required to make upon the
effectiveness of a plan of reorganization in the bankruptcy of
W.R. Grace & Co.

While Grace has said publicly that it is optimistic that it will
reach its goal of confirming a plan of reorganization by the end
of 2008 or early in 2009, the Company does not know whether or
when a final plan of reorganization will become effective or
whether the final plan will be consistent with the terms of the
Settlement agreement.

The Company currently expects to fund this payment by using a
combination of accumulated cash and future cash flows from
operations and funds available under its US$500 million senior
unsecured multi-currency credit facility or its accounts
receivable securitization program, or a combination of these
alternatives.

The cash payment of US$512.5 million accrues interest at a 5.5
percent annual rate, which is compounded annually, from Dec. 21,
2002 to the date of payment. The Company has recorded this
accrued interest in asbestos settlement liability and related
accrued interest in its condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation is a
manufacturer of packaging and performance-based materials and
equipment systems that serve food, industrial, medical and
consumer applications. The Company conducts its business through
two direct wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed
Air Corporation (US).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Still Has Indemnification Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation continues to face numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to
damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the
exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction
and maintenance activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.

Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Carolinas in the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled
about US$$1.069 billion as of March 31, 2008 and US$1.082
billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, and are classified in Other within
Deferred Credits and Other Liabilities and Other within Current
Liabilities.

These reserves are based upon the minimum amount in the
Company's best estimate of the range of loss for current and
future asbestos claims through 2027.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million.

Through March 31, 2008, the Company has made about US$473
million in payments that apply to this retention. The insurance
policy limit for potential insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.107
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Probable insurance recoveries of about US$1.040 billion related
to this policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets
in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as
of both March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also
been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation has 3.9 million
electric customers and about 500,000 gas customers in the U.S.
South and Midwest. The Company's U.S. Franchised Electric and
Gas unit operates primarily through its Duke Energy Carolinas,
Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky
regional businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Pending v. Essex Int'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc. states that, since about 1990, its affiliate
Essex International Inc. and certain subsidiaries are still
defendants in a number of asbestos-related product liability
lawsuits.

These suits were brought by electricians, other skilled
tradesmen and others claiming injury, in a substantial majority
of cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire
products produced many years ago.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should
become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against
those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the
respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in
these actions will be able to assert claims against the insurers
under applicable insurance coverage and related arrangements.

Atlanta-based Superior Essex Inc. is a manufacturer and supplier
of wire and cable products for the communications, energy,
automotive, industrial, and commercial/residential end-markets.
The Company operates manufacturing facilities in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Portugal,
Italy, Mexico and China.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Lawsuits Still Pending v. Noble at April
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at April 30, 2008, continues to be a
defendant in about 38 asbestos-related lawsuits, two of which
are scheduled for trial in 2008.

From time to time, the Company is party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including claims under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs
contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore
drilling units located worldwide, including the United States
Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East, India, Mexico, the North Sea,
Brazil, and West Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Briggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is still subject to various
unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product
liability actions that arise in the normal course of its
business, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

These actions typically relate to other product liability,
patent and trademark matters, and disputes with customers,
suppliers, distributors and dealers, competitors and employees.

Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corporation is a
manufacturer of air-cooled gas engines (ranging from 3-to-31
horsepower) for use in lawn mowers and garden tillers. Through
its chief subsidiary, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group,
the Company also manufactures portable generators, pressure
washers, switches, welders, and other related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Park-Ohio Drop to 365 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at March 31, 2008, was a co-defendant
in about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced about 385 cases asserting
claims on behalf of about 8,500 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action
Reporter, April 18, 2008)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to
identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is an industrial
Total Supply Management and diversified manufacturing business,
operating in three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum
Products and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Still Has Coverage Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of United America Indemnity, Ltd.'s insurance companies has
been named in a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other
unrelated insurance companies that involves such issues with
regard to about 5,000 asbestos-related bodily injury claims and
others that continue to be filed.

George Town, Cayman Islands-based United America Indemnity, Ltd.
provides specialty and surplus property/casualty insurance,
including insurance for social service agencies and vacant
properties. The Company, one of the larger excess and surplus
lines insurers in the U.S., operates through agents and program
managers throughout the nation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Faces Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
litigation claims, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims
against numerous industrial companies.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and the Company said it believes it has
valid defenses to such claims.

Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified
growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes energy
systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products
and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency
(RF) products and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Has $744.4M March Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's liability for asbestos-related
matters totaled US$744.4 million at March 31, 2008, compared
with US$754.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$256.6 million at March 31, 2008, compared
with US$249.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

Most of those claims have been filed against Ingersoll Rand
Company (IR-New Jersey) and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain of IR-New Jersey's
products, primarily pumps and compressors.

Although IR-New Jersey was neither a producer nor a manufacturer
of asbestos, some of its formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components, such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company increased its
recorded liability for asbestos claims by US$538 million, from
US$217 million to US$755 million.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded an US$89
million increase in its assets for probable asbestos-related
insurance recoveries to US$250 million.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a non-
cash charge to earnings of discontinued operations of US$449
million (US$277 million after tax), which is the difference
between the amount by which the Company increased its total
estimated liability for pending and projected future asbestos-
related claims and the amount that the Company expects to
recover from insurers with respect to that increased liability.

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved (by settlement or by
dismissal) about 208,000 claims. The total amount of all
settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries)
and by its insurance carriers is about US$308 million, for an
average payment per resolved claim of US$1,480. The average
payment per claim resolved during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007
was US$7,491.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 5,398 new
claims filed, 5,005 claims settled, 1,479 claims dismissed, and
100,623 open claims.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company noted 6,457 new
claims filed, 6,558 claims settled, 1,158 claims dismissed, and
101,709 open claims.

Over 90 percent of the open claims against the Company are non-
malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on inactive or
deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have little or
no settlement value against the Company, particularly in light
of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of such
claims.

Malignancy claims accounted for: about 73 percent of the
Company's total asbestos-related settlement payments during the
three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2004; about 87 percent during
the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2007; and about 93 percent
in 2007.

Non-malignancy claims accounted for: about 27 percent of the
Company's total asbestos-related settlement payments during the
three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2004; about 13 percent during
the three-year period ended Dec. 31, 2007; and about seven
percent in 2007.

For the three-months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
a net benefit of US$7.5 million associated with the settlement
and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries,
compared with a total cost of US$12 million during the three
months ended March 31, 2007.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited is an
innovation and solutions provider. The Company's business
segments consist of Climate Control Technologies, Industrial
Technologies and Security Technologies. The Company designs,
manufactures, sells, and services industrial and commercial
products that include brand names like Club Car, Hussmann,
Ingersoll Rand, Schlage, and Thermo King.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Still Pending v. Dana at March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 41,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at March 31, 2008,
which is generally unchanged from the number of claims pending
at Dec. 31, 2007, including about 6,000 claims that were settled
but awaiting final documentation and payment.

The Company had accrued US$144 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending and future asbestos personal injury liability
claims at March 31, 2008. The Company's policy before the
adoption of fresh start accounting had been to accrue the
undiscounted low end of the range of projected obligations,
which had resulted in an accrual of US$136 million at Dec. 31,
2007.

Prior to 2006, the Company reached agreements with some of its
insurers to commute policies covering asbestos personal injury
claims. The Company applies proceeds from insurance commutations
first to reduce any recorded recoverable amount. Commutation
proceeds of US$2 million were credited to other income in the
two months ended March 31, 2008.

At March 31, 2008, the Company had recorded US$73 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending
and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared with US$69 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2007.

In addition, the Company had a net amount receivable from its
insurers and others of US$18 million at March 31, 2008, compared
to US$17 at Dec. 31, 2007.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company designs
and manufactures products for every major vehicle producer in
the world. The Company employs about 35,000 people in 26
countries and operate 113 major facilities throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Cites $18M CCR Receivable at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at March 31, 2008, had a receivable of
US$18 million that it expects to recover from available
insurance and surety bonds relating to Center for Claims
Resolution asbestos-related claims.

After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former
CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, the Company's insurers and the claimants over a period
of several years in an effort to resolve these issues.

Through March 31, 2008, the Company had paid US$47 million to
claimants and collected US$29 million from its insurance
carriers with respect to these claims.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation is a supplier of
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company designs
and manufactures products for every major vehicle producer in
the world. The Company employs about 35,000 people in 26
countries and operate 113 major facilities throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Cases Still Ongoing v. Huntsman
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to be a "premises defendant" in
asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-employees of
exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making
claims against which defendants, where or how the alleged
injuries occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants.

In its nearly 14-year experience with tendering these cases, the
Company has not made any payment with respect to any tendered
asbestos cases.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
five cases tendered during period, 24 cases resolved during
period, and 1,173 unresolved cases at the end of period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
13 cases tendered during period, 71 cases resolved during
period, and 1,309 unresolved cases at the end of period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of March 31, 2008, the Company had an accrued
liability of US$16.4 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of US$16.4 million relating to the
Company's indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
Cases include all cases for which service has been received by
the Company, other than a number of cases that were erroneously
filed against the Company due to a clerical error. The cases
filed in error have been dismissed.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
one claim filed during period, one case resolved during period,
and 39 cases unresolved at the end of period.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
51 claims filed during period, two claims resolved during
period, and 91 claims unresolved at the end of period.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of nil during the
three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$100,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2007.

Salt Lake City, Utah-based Huntsman Corporation is a
manufacturer of differentiated chemical products. The Company
also manufactures inorganic chemical products. Products comprise
chemicals and formulations, which the Company markets globally
to a diversified group of consumer and industrial customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Still in Arbitration with Equitas
--------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, INC. continues to be engaged in an arbitration
proceeding with Equitas, a Lloyd's of London company established
to settle claims for underwriting years 1992 and prior, to
collect about US$6.2 million of recoverables ceded to them
covering various asbestos claims.

Equitas has contested coverage and has not paid such amounts to
the Company, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC., through subsidiaries New York
Marine And General Insurance and Gotham Insurance, provides
ocean marine, inland marine, and other liability lines. Mutual
Marine Office, Pacific Mutual Marine Office, and Mutual Marine
Office of the Midwest manage and handle all underwriting for New
York Marine and Gotham Insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Cites $555.8M Losses, LAE at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, INC.'s unpaid asbestos & environmental losses and loss
adjustment expenses amounted to US$555.8 million at March 31,
2008, compared with US$556.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance
amounted to US$315.4 million at March 31, 2008, compare with
US$306.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Unpaid losses with respect to asbestos/environmental risks are
difficult for management to estimate and require considerable
judgment due to the uncertainty regarding the significant issues
surrounding those claims.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC., through subsidiaries New York
Marine And General Insurance and Gotham Insurance, provides
ocean marine, inland marine, and other liability lines. Mutual
Marine Office, Pacific Mutual Marine Office, and Mutual Marine
Office of the Midwest manage and handle all underwriting for New
York Marine and Gotham Insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Cites $901M A&E Loss at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., for the three months ended March 31,
2008, recorded a gross of US$901 million (net of US$843.2
million) as incurred losses and outstanding loss reserves with
respect to asbestos & environmental reserves.

For the three months ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded
a gross of US$632.2 million (net of US$517.9 million) as
incurred losses and outstanding loss reserves with respect to
A&E reserves.

The Company's net total reserves for A&E losses were US$827.4
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$650.1
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action
Reporter, March 28, 2008)

At March 31, 2008, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$154 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$137.8 million representing additional
case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance
claims, US$171.4 million representing case reserves established
by the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt.
McKinley Insurance Company, and US$437.8 million representing
incurred but not reported reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2008, the Company
had gross asbestos loss reserves of US$845.3 million, or 93.8
percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$575.4 million was
for assumed business and US$269.9 million was for direct
business.

The increase in end of period A&E reserves at March 31, 2008
compared to March 31, 2007 was primarily the result of the
Company's reserve study in the fourth quarter of 2007, where the
Company increased its gross reinsurance asbestos reserves by
US$250 million and increased its gross direct asbestos reserves
by US$75 million.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 3.5
years for direct business and 13.9 years for reinsurance
business at March 31, 2008.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. is the holding
company for Everest Reinsurance Company (Everest Re), an
underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and insurance.
Everest Re markets to U.S. and international insurance companies
directly and through independent brokers. The Company offers
specialized underwriting in several areas, including property &
casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical
malpractice, directors and officers liability, and professional
errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Ongoing v. Manitowoc Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to face lawsuits involving
asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of numerous
defendants.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc.
makes ice-making, beverage-dispensing, and refrigerating
products, as well as cranes and other material handling
equipment. The Company's ice-making and beverage-dispensing
machines serve the restaurant, hospitality, and convenience
store markets. The Company sells its boom cranes, tower cranes,
telescopic cranes, and related equipment to companies in the
construction and mining industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Ongoing v. Parker Drilling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed by several hundred
persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named
defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none
of the plaintiff complaints naming Parker are included in the
first 60 (Group I).

The initial discovery of Group I reaped dismissals with
prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two withdraws
from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group I.
Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21, 2008.

Out of the 60 Plaintiffs selected, the Companyg was named in one
suit.

No amounts were accrued at March 31, 2008.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Company provides contract drilling
and drilling-related services. The Company owns 28 land rigs and
18 U.S.-based barge drilling and workover rigs. The Company
drills worldwide and has worked in 54 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Optical Has 55,000 Claims at March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation states that, as of March 31, 2008, there were
about 55,000 claimants in pending cases, including asbestos-
related, asserting claims against American Optical Corporation
in connection with respiratory products.

The Company has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from AO in an April
1990 asset transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators
under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.

In connection with its acquisition of the business, the
subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion
of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with
amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO
respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the
Company subsidiary.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis and, more recently,
coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use
of AO respirators that are alleged to have been negligently
designed or labeled.

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period, which is through 2052, and, at
March 31, 2008, is about US$17 million (or US$26 million on an
undiscounted basis).

Cash payments related to this liability were US$1 million for
both the quarter and six months ended March 31, 2008.

Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables,
and coatings. The Company has about 25 percent of the world
market for carbon black.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Faces 122 Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a co-defendant in about 122 asbestos-
related lawsuits as of March 31, 2008, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973
have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide
a defense under those policies.

The Company faced about 122 asbestos lawsuits as of both
Dec. 31, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
April 4, 2008)

Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corporation engages in the
designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing of body-
worn devices. The Company serves the hearing instrument,
electronics, telecommunications, computer and medical equipment
industries. The Company also has facilities in California,
Maine, Singapore, and Germany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $27.75M for Claims at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's long-term reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$27.75 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with
US$29 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report, on Form 10-QSB, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$6.5 million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$7 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.
Through its wholly-owned subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, the Company provides these services to industrial,
commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 218 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faced 218 pending asbestos-related cases as of
March 31, 2008, compared with 222 pending cases as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure. To date, all of its asbestos-related
injury claims have been paid and defended by its insurance
carriers.

The number of asbestos-related cases which have been initiated
naming the Company (primarily its subsidiary, Metalclad
Insulation Corporation) as a defendant decreased from 265 in
2004 and to 199 in 2005, but increased in 2006 to 232.

The number decreased to 163 in 2007 and was 40 for the three
months ended March 31, 2008.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
37 defense judgments and dismissals, seven plaintiff judgments
and settled cases, and 44 total resolved cases. Total indemnity
payments were US$4,721,550; the average indemnity paid on
plaintiff judgments and settled cases was US$647,507; and the
average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was US$107,301.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 292
defense judgments and dismissals, 53 plaintiff judgments and
settled cases, and 345 total resolved cases. Total indemnity
payments were US$7,974,500; the average indemnity paid on
plaintiff judgments and settled cases was US$150,462; and the
average indemnity paid on all resolved cases was US$23,114.

The indemnity paid on the 44 cases resolved in the first quarter
ended March 31, 2008 averaged US$107,308, as a result of one
case in which the plaintiff received a jury award of
US$1,659,000 and three other cases settling for about US$1
million each.

The Company estimates that the average indemnity paid on all
claims resolved in 2008 will increase to over US$30,000.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.
Through its wholly-owned subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, the Company provides these services to industrial,
commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Faces ACE Insurance Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, and a number of its liability insurers continue to
face an asbestos-related declaratory relief lawsuit filed by ACE
Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance Company
of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company.

ACE, Central National, and Industrial are all related-entities.

The case was filed on Feb. 23, 2005 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding various coverage
issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether
historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought
against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of
liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

Whether any particular asbestos lawsuit is properly classified
as being subject to an aggregate limit of liability depends upon
whether or not the suit falls within the "products" or
"completed operations" hazards found in most of the liability
policies issued to Metalclad.

Resolution of these classification issues will determine if, as
ACE and Central National allege, their policies are nearing
exhaustion of their aggregate limits and whether or not other
Metalclad insurers who previously asserted they no longer owed
any coverage obligations to Metalclad because of the claimed
exhaustion of their aggregate limits, in fact, owe Metalclad
additional coverage obligations.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in
connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate
under a settlement agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the Court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in
the settlement agreement.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast.
Through its wholly-owned subsidiary Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, the Company provides these services to industrial,
commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Tenneco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission
control products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is
any basis for a claim against the Company.

The Company said it believes it is unlikely that mechanics were
exposed to asbestos by its former muffler products and that, in
any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-
related disease based on their work with these products.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a
variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

As major asbestos manufacturers continue to go out of business
or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an increased
number of these claims.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. is a manufacturer of
automotive emission control and ride control products and
systems. We serve both original equipment vehicle designers and
manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, globally through brands, including Monroe, Rancho,
Clevite Elastomers and Fric Rot ride control products and
Walker, Fonos, and Gillet emission control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo A&E Reserves Total $154.1M at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross reserves for
asbestos- and environmental-related matters were US$154.1
million for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$155.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

The Company's net reserves for A&E matters were US$138.5 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$145.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007.

Included in the Run-off Lines segment are liabilities associated
with other liability policies written in the 1970s and into the
1980s, and include asbestos and environmental liabilities as
well as medical malpractice liabilities.

The Company regularly monitors the activity of claims within the
Run-off Lines, particularly those claims related to asbestos and
environmental liabilities.

Additionally, the Company performs an extensive actuarial
analysis of the asbestos and environmental reserves on at least
an annual basis, usually completed in the third quarter of each
year.

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.
provides specialty property/casualty insurance and reinsurance
products in the United States and Europe. The Company operates
seven subsidiaries which focus on three well-defined markets:
excess and surplus, industry-specific insurance, and
international catastrophe reinsurance through its Peleus Re
subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited continues to be subject to litigation and
arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of business,
including litigation generally related to the scope of coverage
with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited provides claims
administration, adjustment and settlement, and collection
services for firms that acquire and manage domestic and
international reinsurance companies that are in the run-off.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.5M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of March 31, 2008, accrued a
total of US$2.5 million for estimated future costs of asbestos
removal of abatement, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 12, 2008.

Of the US$2.5 million, US$2.3 million was for the City National
Plaza in Los Angeles and US$200,000 was for Brookhollow Central
I, II, and III in Houston.

With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at the
Company's City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties, these
materials have been removed or abated from certain tenant and
common areas of the building structures.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has accrued a total of US$2.8
million (US$2.6 million related to City National Plaza and
US$200,000 related to Brookhollow) for estimated future costs of
asbestos removal. (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2008)

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. acquires,
develops, and manages office, as well as mixed-use and
residential properties nationwide. The Company's portfolio
includes 25 properties spanning 13 million rentable sq. ft. in
California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Inc. Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. continues to be involved in asbestos-related
proceedings, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

At the time of its spinoff from Pharmacia Corporation at
Sept. 1, 1997, the Company assumed the defense of specified
legal proceedings and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for
obligations arising in connection with those proceedings.

In accordance with the Plan of Reorganization, Monsanto Company
has assumed the defense of these legal proceedings related to
property damage, personal injury, product liability, premises
liability or other damages relating to exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos and other chemical
manufacturing before the Solutia Spinoff.

The Company retained a US$50 million payment obligation with
respect to the Anniston litigation settlement reached in 2003,
of which US$20 million was paid during the Chapter 11 Cases and
the remainder of which is payable in equal installments over the
next six years.

In addition, the Company did not discharge the remaining
payments to be made to the educational trust fund as ordered by
the Anniston Partial Consent Decree in August 2003.

The accrued liability for these litigation matters as of
March 31, 2008, is US$30 million.

St. Louis-based Solutia Inc. is a global manufacturer and
marketer of a variety of high-performance chemical-based
materials. Solutia makes performance films for laminated safety
glass and after-market applications; chemicals for the rubber
industry; specialty products such as heat transfer fluids and
aviation hydraulic fluids; and nylon products including high-
performance polymers and fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 295 Injury Cases Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. has been named as a co-defendant in
about 295 personal injury liability cases alleging damages due
to exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

These cases involve about 571 plaintiffs.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question. At the time a liability associated with a case
becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company
accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.

For all other cases, an estimate of the costs associated with
the matters cannot be made due to the inherent uncertainties in
the litigation process.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has been named as a co-
defendant in 299 personal injury liability cases alleging
damages due to exposure to asbestos and other substances,
involving about 575 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter,
March 28, 2008)

South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. is a
designer, manufacturer and marketer of high productivity mining
equipment for surface and underground mining. The Company
operates in two business segments: surface mining and
underground mining. Major markets for the surface mining
industry are copper, coal, oil sands and iron ore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: One Third-Party Action Pending v. Liggett
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says that, as of March 31, 2008, one Third-
Party Payor Action was pending against its subsidiary Liggett
Group LLC, in which other cigarette manufacturers are also
named.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, two Third-Party Payor Actions were still
pending against Liggett. (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2008)

The Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been commenced by
insurance companies, union health and welfare trust funds,
asbestos manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for:
funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to
issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking
cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of
cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Although no specific amounts are provided, it is understood that
requested damages against cigarette manufacturers in these cases
might be in the billions of dollars.

Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate
courts have ruled that Third-Party Payors did not have standing
to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, relying
primarily on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs'
appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of
appeals.

Miami-based Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes for
other companies. The Company also manufactures the QUEST brand,
a line of genetically engineered low-nicotine and nicotine-free
cigarette products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Mueller Water Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
be named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

Atlanta-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of
water infrastructure and flow control products, which are used
in industrial applications, including fire protection systems,
gas distribution systems, water and wastewater treatment
facilities, and water distribution networks. The Company
operates three divisions: Mueller, U.S. Pipe, and Anvil
International.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Faces 18,529 Claims at May 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. faced 18,529 asbestos-related claims
as of May 2, 2008; 18,789 claims as of Feb. 1, 2008; and 18,791
claims as of Oct. 19, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 12, 2008.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally
had a useful life of three to 12 months. These suits allege a
variety of lung and other diseases based on alleged exposure to
products previously manufactured by the Company.

These suits typically involve claims against from 20 to more
than 200 defendants, and the complaints usually fail to identify
the plaintiffs' work history or the nature of the plaintiffs'
alleged exposure to the Company's products.

Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work
histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill
exposure in less than 10 percent of total claims reported, and a
portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper
mill to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-
containing products.

As of May 2, 2008, about 12,440 of the claims pending against
the Company are pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 11,871
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel,
either through removal or original jurisdiction.

On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued an administrative order that
required each MDL plaintiff to provide detailed information
regarding the alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses.

The first set of plaintiffs were required to submit their
filings with the Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for
additional sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until Dec. 1,
2007, by which time all MDL plaintiffs were to have filed
compliant reports.

The process, however, remains incomplete, as a number of
extensions have been requested and granted, and reports continue
to be filed. The order states that the Court may dismiss the
claims of any plaintiff who fails to comply, but no such action
has yet been taken.

As of May 2, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 21,878 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,748,000. Of this amount,
US$6,713,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper
stock through each phase of production). The Company produces
about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid
Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well
as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Faces 8,689 Claims at May 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., faced about 8,689 asbestos-related claims as of May 2,
2008; compared with 8,741 claims as of Feb. 1, 2008 and Oct. 19,
2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary
of the Company, is a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which the Company is named as a defendant. In 1999, the
Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation.

In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a
South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired
by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold dryer fabrics
containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed
that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing fabrics
prior to the 1978 transaction.

Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its
own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of those fabrics
contained asbestos.

Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon
and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon
harmless from any actions or claims on account of products
manufactured by Abney and its related corporations prior to the
date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent
to the date of the sale.

It appears that Abney has since been dissolved. A representative
of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these actions and
demand has been made that it assumes the defense of these
actions.

As of May 2, 2008, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 8,883 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been
borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper
stock through each phase of production). The Company produces
about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid
Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well
as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mount Vernon Cases Still Ongoing v. Albany
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to be named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills in asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2008.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of those products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabric belts that move paper
stock through each phase of production). The Company produces
about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder. The Company also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid
Roll Doors), like aircraft hangar doors and dock doors, as well
as synthetic insulation, and industrial fabric filters.


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

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

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

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

Houston-based Kraton Polymers LLC manufactures styrenic block
copolymers, or SBCs, at its manufacturing facilities in six
countries: Belpre, Ohio, U.S.; Wesseling, Germany; Berre,
France; Pernis, The Netherlands; Paulinia, Brazil; and the
Company's joint venture in Kashima, Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. VWR Funding, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, VWR Funding, Inc. is named as a defendant in
cases as a result of its distribution of laboratory supplies,
including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its
predecessors or acquired companies.

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

West Chester, Pa.-based VWR Funding, Inc. distributes laboratory
supplies, including chemicals, glassware, equipment,
instruments, protective clothing, production supplies and other
assorted laboratory products. The Company also provides
services, including technical services, on-site storeroom
services, warehousing and furniture design, supply and
installation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filed v. Union Carbide, Others in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Y. Love, on behalf of her husband, the late Milton J.
Love, on May 20, 2008 filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against
Union Carbide Corporation and other entities in the 122nd
District Court, Galveston County, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

Mrs. Love sues the companies for allegedly implementing measures
and practices they knew would prove detrimental to the health
and well-being of Mr. Love, who maintained a lengthy career
working with asbestos prior to contracting renal cancer.

A.W. Chesterton Company, General Electric Company, Ingersoll-
Rand Company, Georgia Pacific LLC, and Viacom, Inc. are also
named as defendants.

Mrs. Love alleges the fatal disease materialized as a result of
Mr. Love being subjected to asbestos and other related products
"mined, produced, distributed, installed, and/or sold by
Defendants."

The original complaint contains nine counts of alleged
wrongdoing. The original petition argues that the Defendants
exhibited malice, negligence, conspiracy, and "felonious
conduct," which ultimately lead to Mr. Love's illness and
demise.

In addition, the Defendants are fielding charges of violating
state and federal regulations pertaining to asbestos.

One count solely condemns Union Carbide for "fraud, malice,
willful acts and/or omissions, or gross neglect."

The suit claims the injuries, damages, and resulting death of
Mr. Love were caused by acts and/or omissions of Union Carbide
including but not limited to:

   -- Failing to warn the Decedent of the dangers and harm to
      which he was exposed while handling these products;

   -- Failing to following industry standards and industry or
      governmental regulations;

   -- Failing to provide adequate training, supervision, safety
      equipment, policies, or procedures regarding asbestos;

   -- Failing to monitor or survey the air breathed by
      employees, medically monitor employees, and take adequate
      precautions to provide a safe work environment; and

   -- Failing to use products that did not contain harmful and
      carcinogenic asbestos.

Among the damages Mrs. Love suffered are medical, funeral, and
burial expenses as well as mental anguish and loss of care,
companionship, and financial support as was provided by Mr.
Love.

With the help of attorney Hilary G. Reagin, Mrs. Love seeks
reimbursement for said damages and the physical impairment,
pain, suffering, and disfigurement inflicted upon the decedent
prior to his passing.

Judge John Ellisor is presiding over Case No. 08CV0522.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Payout Laws Planned for Aussie Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under new laws in Victoria, Australia, more compensation will be
made available for asbestos sufferers, ABC News reports.

The new legislation has been labeled "Bernie Banton's Law,"
after the late anti-asbestos campaigner.

Under current laws, workers with asbestos-related diseases can
claim compensation once. That means if someone gets compensation
for asbestosis, and they later develop mesothelioma, they cannot
get further compensation.

The new legislation will allow them to receive provisional
compensation early in their illness.

The Premier John Brumby says the new legislation will get rid of
the dilemma facing asbestos sufferers.

Martin Kingham from the Asbestos Diseases Society of Victoria
has welcomed the move. He says up until now, asbestos victims
have been forced to play Russian roulette in deciding when to
make their claim.

Mr. Kingham said, "They've had to gamble on whether to make a
claim now and to cut off any compensation for more serious fatal
illness or to, basically, sit it out and wait and see what
happens to them and potentially not getting compensated for
their original asbestosis."

The Government expects about 50 people to benefit from the
change each year. It is expected to cost WorkCover between AUD35
million and AUD85 million over the next 40 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Awarded $9.7MM in Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury awarded US$9.7 million to 66-year-old Chief Y.R. Brewer,
a resident of Lyons, Ga., who said he developed malignant
mesothelioma decades after he was exposed to asbestos while
serving as a Navy machinist's mate aboard the USS Preble in Long
Beach, Calif., The Mercury News reports.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned the verdict in Mr.
Brewer's favor on May 16, 2008.

Mr. Brewer was diagnosed in 2007. He blamed the disease on
exposure to asbestos-packed gaskets while serving aboard the USS
Preble from 1961 to 1965.

Mr. Brewer's wife, Gale Brewer, said, "He was exposed to
something he didn't know was dangerous. If he had, he would have
protected himself."

While jurors awarded the Brewers US$9.7 million, the couple will
see much less. The suit had named a dozen parts manufacturers
but 11 settled before trial.

Jurors found the remaining defendant, gasket maker Crane Co. of
Stamford, Conn., to be two percent liable in the case, meaning
it is responsible for only a fraction of the award.

Jurors found the Navy 50 percent liable for Mr. Brewer's cancer,
although it was not named as a defendant in the suit and was
immune from any award.

Terry Budd, an attorney for Crane Co., said he found it
"significant" that the jury found Crane to be only minimally
responsible. The company still may appeal, he said.

In recent years, California juries have made several large
awards in asbestos-related mesothelioma cases.

In October 2007, a former Navy boiler tender was granted US$35.1
million. In March 2008, a San Francisco jury awarded US$20
million to a couple that was exposed to asbestos in construction
materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Orders Work Stoppage at Libby Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a stop work
order against contractors cleaning up asbestos pollution in
Libby, Mont., Montana's News Station.com reports.

On May 22, 2008, the EPA made the announcement at a community
meeting in Libby, saying Air Soil Water Associates, Inc. failed
to use proper respiratory protection and used river water in
their portable pumps.

EPA Libby Team Leader, Paul Peronard said, "These were all very,
you know, we thought very serious health and safety problems so,
oversight crews as soon as they discovered them, we put a call
stop to the game until we get this sorted."

Meanwhile, project managers explained samples are still being
taken at areas like the Stimson Mill site and the Burlington-
Northern Santa Fe yards. However, there was not much new
information about sampling at the W. R. Grace & Co. site and
residents are worried the Company will be doing that sampling.

Libby resident Tony Berget said, "A little bit about the dry
yards and mowing, I'm happy to hear ambient air samples are
still showing little, to no, or no detect, but you know the
mowing of the grass in a really dry area, some of those things,
were a little."

The clean-up funding will be similar to 2007's, but Grace's
possible settlement payment of US$250 million could change that.

So far, the EPA has supervised the cleanup of about 1,000
residential and business properties for asbestos and
vermiculite. This year they have 150 home and business clean ups
scheduled, six of which are in Troy. Two creeks will be cleaned
up as well.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules Against BICAL in Shortell Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Justice Mackay ruled against BICAL Construction Ltd. after
being satisfied that decedent Joseph Shortell was exposed to
quantities of asbestos, Thames Laboratories reports.

The case is particularly significant because Mr. Shortell was a
one-time smoker and did not have signs of asbestosis. In his
judgment, Justice Mackay ruled that, at the estimated level of
exposure, the chances of Mr. Shortell developing lung cancer had
more than doubled.

Justice Mackay states, "That the defendant should bear the
lion's share of responsibility in a case such as this is a
proposition which does not give me pause.

Throughout this period it was under a duty first at common law
and latterly under statutory instrument to take steps for the
care of the deceased which it did not take. This primary
liability should not...be emasculated by a high finding of
contributory negligence."

Justice Mackay did recognize that Mr. Shortell's history of
smoking may have had a contributory effect to the cancer that
killed him and allowed a 15 percent reduction in the total
damages to be paid.

Full details of the judgment can be found at:

http://www.12kbw.co.uk/docs/Shortell%20v%20Bical%20Construction.pdf


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 15 Spaniards May Sue Owens-Illinois in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey State Appeals Court, on May 27, 2008, ruled that 15
Spanish citizens can sue Owens-Illinois, Inc. in New Jersey
Superior Court on claims they suffered health problems from
exposure to asbestos while working aboard U.S. Navy and Coast
Guard ships docked at United States-Spanish military
installations in Rota and Cadiz, Spain, The Star-Ledger reports.

A three-judge panel overturned a decision by Superior Court
Judge Charles Little, who held the damage suit should be heard
in a Spanish court, a location sought by attorneys for Owens-
Illinois.

The tradesmen, who worked on U.S. warships between 1950 and
1998, claim they came into direct or indirect contact with
asbestos dust and fibers from high-temperature piping insulation
Owens-Illinois produced in Sayreville, Middlesex County, and
Berlin, Camden County, and consequently suffer from asbestos-
related illnesses, including asbestosis.

The appeals judges found Judge Little failed to consider where
the 14 tradesmen and one survivor of a worker wanted their
lawsuit heard.

The judges also held U.S. warships are considered U.S. territory
wherever they are located, and the tradesmen's alleged health
problems occurred there and not on Spanish soil.

Owens-Illinois attorneys argued U.S. ships are subject to
Spanish law when docked there and the lawsuit could best be re
solved in that nation's courts.

Writing for the court, Judge Anthony Parrillo said Owens-
Illinois failed to show Spain was an adequate alternative forum
to adjudicate the dispute.

John Garde, the Newark, N.J.-based counsel for Owens-Illinois,
said he was puzzled by the ruling. He said, "I find it difficult
to understand how an appellate division court can countenance
keeping the cases in New Jersey when there is absolutely no
relation to New Jersey. There is barely any relationship to the
United States of America. They've made their decision."

Although the appeals court remanded the lawsuit to Superior
Court for trial, Mr. Garde said it is unclear just where it
would be heard.

Mr. Garde said while the case would usually go back to Superior
Court in Camden where it originated. However, Judge Little, who
is now retired, has been recalled to hear cases in Burlington
County.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ZAI Claimants Seek Denial of Dismissal Plea
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Zonolite Attic Insulation Claimants ask the Court
to deny the U.S. ZAI Claimants' request to dismiss individual
ZAI Claims to the extent that the dismissal request does not
address the rights of the Canadian ZAI Claimants.

Daniel K. Hogan, at The Hogan Firm, in Wilmington, Del., says
the Canadian ZAI Claimants need to be included in the ZAI
proceedings in the United States. However, he contends that the
Canadian ZAI Claimants have distinct and separate claims against
the Canadian Federal Government and it would be dangerous and
prejudicial to lump Canadian Claimants with U.S. Claimants.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants also ask the Court to deny the
Debtors' request to establish a bar date for filing ZAI Claims.
Mr. Hogan argues that the request for the establishment of a bar
date for Canadian ZAI Claimants is premature. He says that
unless there is a determination of the nature and scope of a
claim, the proposed notice program cannot satisfy the adequacy
requirements of Canadian procedural law.

In addition, Mr. Hogan contends that the Debtors' proposed
Canadian proof of claim form, bar date notice, and notice
program contain inconsistencies and errors that will create
confusion at best and, at worst, are likely to prejudice
Canadian ZAI Claimants. He points out that the deficiencies
include:

  (a) Personal delivery locations are only available in the
      U.S., which decreases the time Canadian Claimants have to
      file their claims because they must allow for sufficient
      mailing time. Postmark prior to the bar date is not
      considered.

  (b) The Canadian Claimants have varied languages including
      English, French and various aboriginal languages. The
      Debtors did not state whether they will provide non-
      English speaking representatives in their toll free number
      to accommodate the Canadian non-English speaking
      claimants. The Debtors also provide that the ZAI proofs of
      claims must be written in English.

  (c) The Debtors did not consider the period during which ZAI
      was sold, when and where most of the homes were built, and
      the possible delay of ZAI contamination when constructing
      the demographics.

On behalf of the Debtors, Laura Davis Jones, at Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., notes that the expedited
request of the Canadian ZAI Claimants to lift the automatic stay
repeats verbatim arguments in the U.S. ZAI Claimants' lift stay
request.

Ms. Jones tells the Court that the Canadian Claimants' "me too"
motion should be denied because:

   -- Lifting the automatic stay would impose substantial
      hardships on the Debtors' bankruptcy case at a critical
      time;

   -- In contrast, the Canadian Claimants have not alleged, much
      less demonstrated, any hardship in having their claims
      resolved in these Chapter 11 case; and

   -- The Canadian Claimants cannot demonstrate a likelihood of
      success on the merits because, among other things, there
      was no ZAI litigation in Canada prior to the Debtors'
      Chapter 11 filing.

Ms. Jones contends that in considering the U.S. ZAI Claimants'
lift stay motion, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court rejected the
arguments the Canadian Claimants now repeat. She adds that the
Canadian ZAI Claimants have not demonstrated any reason why
their request should not be similarly denied.

In a Court-approved stipulation, the Debtors and the U.S. ZAI
Claimants agree to name the Honorable Judge Kevin Gross of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware as settlement
judge for the ZAI Claims.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 158; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJDEP Calls For Review of Late Claim Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
wants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rdrd Circuit to review
whether, in denying the NJDEP's request to file a late claim
against W. R. Grace & Co. for environmental damages, Judge
Buckwalter erred in:

   A. Finding that the NJDEP's action was not subject to its
      exemption from the automatic stay for actions under the
      police power or the State;

   B. Finding that because the U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency later remediated the New Jersey site, there was no
      danger to the public health and the environment from the
      Debtors' signing false certifications as to the asbestos-
      ridden condition of the site; the NJDEP's motion to file a
      late proof of claim considering the totality of the
      circumstances, which included the fact that Grace had
      sworn to false information about the contamination at the
      site that the NJDEP had no way of knowing about before the
      bar date; and

   C. Ignoring the decisions in In re State of New Jersey,
      Department of Environmental Protection and Energy v.
      Madison Industries, Inc., 161 B.R. 363 (D.N.J. 1993) in
      which Chief Judge Garrett Brown of the U.S. District for
      the District of New Jersey wrote that rather than the
      penalty aspect of the an enforcement action constituting
      an action to collect a "money judgment" and thus not
      exempt from the automatic stay, found that the "DEP's
      statutory penalties merely gave 'teeth' to New Jersey's
      environmental laws."

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 158; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Could Borrow Money to Pay $700M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation may borrow money to help pay its
settlement payment to W.R. Grace & Co., the Bloomberg News said,
quoting David Kelsey, Sealed Air's chief financial officer.

As widely reported, Grace settled its asbestos liabilities in
early April 2008. Part of the settlement will be funded by more
than US$700 million cash payments from Sealed Air.

Bloomberg related that Mr. Kelsey gave assurance that Sealed Air
could meet its obligation under the settlement with more than
US$400 million cash on hand and short-term borrowing. "We have
ample liquidity to fund that cash portion," Bloomberg quoted Mr.
Kelsey.

In 2002, Sealed Air, which became a target to numerous asbestos-
related claims when it acquired Grace's Cryovac packaging
business, settled with Grace's asbestos committees. The asbestos
committees filed a complaint against Sealed Air seeking to
recover transfers Grace made to the company in connection with
the Cryovac acquisition. In exchange for payments, Grace
released all of its claims against Sealed Air.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 158; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kans. Court Denies Smith's Motions v. U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Kansas, denied the motions filed by
Byron Smith, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against the
United States of America.

The case is styled Byron Smith, Plaintiff, v. United States of
America, et al., Defendants.

District Judge J. Thomas Marten entered judgment of Case No. 06-
3061-JTM on April 10, 2008.

Mr. Smith, a pro se federal prisoner, initially brought a
complaint against various officials, primarily alleging that:

   (1) Defendants negligently permitted him to work in an area
       where there was a known presence of asbestos, but failed
       or refused to post warning signs to notify persons of the
       presence of asbestos;

   (2) Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights and were
       deliberately indifferent to his safety by exposing him to
       a large dosage of asbestos when he was on work detail;
       and

   (3) Defendants negligently or with deliberate indifference
       destroyed or lost his medical records.

The District Court later granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss. After judgment was entered, Mr. Smith filed his notice
of appeal to the 10th Circuit, before filing the motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the District Court.

Subsequent to the denial of his motion to reconsider, Mr. Smith
filed the motion to alter or amend judgment.

The District Court ruled that Mr. Smith's motions to alter or
amend judgment and his motion to supplement his traverse are
denied.

Byron Smith, Bruceton Mills, W.Va., pro se.

Andrea L. Taylor, Office of U.S. Attorney, Kansas City, Kans.,
represented the United States of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Ruling Renews Asbestos, Silica Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th District Appellate Court, on May 28, 2008, gave new life
into thousands of pending asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits
by invalidating retroactivity in a Florida state law designed to
limit the number of people eligible to sue, Daily Business
Review reports.

The ruling in the case, which contradicts two other rulings by a
Florida appeals court, applies to more than the asbestos
liability litigation that had been filed before the 2005 medical
criteria law was implemented.

The ruling also shields claimants who had not filed lawsuits but
had reason to believe at the time the law was passed that their
exposure to asbestos and silica had harmed them.

The medical criteria law bars plaintiffs exposed to asbestos
from recovering any damages until they can demonstrate permanent
impairment or the presence of cancer.

However, plaintiffs argued that before the medical criteria law
was enacted, Florida law had recognized the right of asbestos
claimants to sue for damages even if they were not permanently
impaired or diagnosed with cancer.

The 4th District Appellate Court agreed, pointing to several
earlier decisions.

In one case, a state appellate court ruled that the state's 1987
law limiting punitive damages could not be applied to a claimant
whose cause of action was established before the law was
implemented but who did not file suit until after the law went
into effect.

The appellate court also pointed to several state supreme court
rulings that the appellate court interpreted as rejecting the
notion that asbestos plaintiffs must show a manifestation of
illness to recover damages.

Attorneys said the ruling likely will require the Florida
Supreme Court to resolve the issue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemical Plumber's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest has linked the death of a 77-year-old chemical
plumber, David Kleppen, to exposure to asbestos, Grimsby
Telegraph reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Kleppen, of Cleethorpes, England,
heard that he had spent 30 years working as a chemical plumber,
which brought him into contact with asbestos.

In a statement given before his death, Mr. Kleppen revealed he
had been exposed to asbestos while installing machinery for
Humber Bank firms Titans and Courtaulds. He said the machinery
had been connected to pipes lagged in asbestos, and that he had
often worked in close proximity to those lagging the pipes.

Mr. Kleppen explained that he had never been warned of the
dangers related to working with asbestos, or given any kind of
protective clothing.

Carrying out the post mortem examination, pathologist Dr.
William Peters confirmed that Mr. Kleppen had been suffering
from mesothelioma.

Mr. Kleppen's wife, Patricia Kleppen, told the inquest her
husband had died in St. Andrew's Hospice nine months after his
diagnosis. He first became ill in March 2007.

Recording a verdict of death due to industrial related disease,
Coroner Paul Kelly said he was afraid cases of death due to
mesothelioma were becoming more common.

The Kleppens are now planning to take legal action in relation
to his death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2nd-Hand Exposure Victims May Claim Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Women who developed mesothelioma from washing their husbands'
asbestos work clothes are to be entitled to compensation under a
new mesothelioma compensation Bill in Northern Island, BBC News
reports.

Social Development Minister Margaret Ritchie has introduced the
Bill in Stormont, Northern Island. It passed its second stage on
May 27, 2008.

Ms. Richie said the bill was breaking new ground by extending
payments to all sufferers. She said, "I will give early access
to a lump sum payable within weeks of diagnosis. This means
sufferers will get compensation while they can still benefit
from it during the final months of their lives."

Hundreds of former workers in shipyards and other heavy
industries have died from asbestos related diseases. Under the
new Bill it will not be necessary to prove an occupational or
causal link to access compensation.

This means that wives who contracted mesothelioma from washing
their husbands' work clothes or the children who played with
these overalls are to benefit, as will people who lived near
factories that used asbestos.

Between 40 and 50 people die annually from mesothelioma in
Northern Ireland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,900 Claims Pending Against BMCA at March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America, as of March 30, 2008,
faced about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily injury claims
relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 14, 2008.

The Company contractually assumed and agreed to pay the first
US$204.4 million of liabilities for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber
("Asbestos Claims") of its indirect parent, G-I Holdings.

As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed
liabilities for Asbestos Claims. G-I Holdings has agreed to
indemnify the Company against any other existing or future
claims related to asbestos-related liabilities if asserted
against the Company.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due
to Asbestos Claims.

Claimants in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy, including judgment
creditors, might seek to satisfy their claims by asking the
Bankruptcy Court to require the sale of G-I Holdings' assets,
including its holdings of BMCA Holdings Corporation's common
stock and its indirect holdings of the Company's common stock.

In addition, those creditors may attempt to assert Asbestos
Claims against the Company. (About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were
filed against the Company before Feb. 2, 2001.)

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company.

By oral opinion on June 22, 2001, and written order entered
Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the temporary
restraints into a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the
bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against the
Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (the "BMCA Action").

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (the "creditors' committee"), subsequently
filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration
that the Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims
against G-I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I
Holdings.

On May 13, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court, and
this matter will therefore be heard by the District Court.

On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a
complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
against G-I Holdings and the Company. The complaint requests
substantive consolidation of the Company with G-I Holdings or an
order directing G-I Holdings to cause the Company to file for
bankruptcy protection.

The plaintiffs also filed for interim relief absent the granting
of their requested relief. On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy
Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim relief.

In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by the
legal representative of future demand holders, filed a motion
for appointment of a trustee in the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In
December 2002, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion.

The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S.
District Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The
creditors' committee appealed the denial to the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004.

The creditors' committee filed a petition with the 3rd Circuit
Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors'
committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 26, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary
proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a
fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in
connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I
Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its
roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed
certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a
specified amount of asbestos liabilities (the "1994
transaction").

On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain
aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004
decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the
holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and BMCA cross-
appealed.

The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006 affirming
in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's July 7, 2004
order. The District Court vacated that aspect of the Bankruptcy
Court's order authorizing the creditors' committee to pursue
avoidance claims against the Company and the holders of the
Company's bank and bond debt as of 2000.

This issue has been remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further
proceedings consistent with the District Court's opinion.

In March 2007, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings
pending the completion of their negotiations. The judges
presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding and the
related litigations, including the BMCA Action and the
fraudulent conveyance action, each entered stipulated orders
dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007,
respectively, implementing the stay.

By notices dated Feb. 1, 2008, the creditors' committee and
legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-
related demands elected to terminate the stay of proceedings in
the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and related litigation.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America is a
manufacturer of residential roofing products.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Cawfield's Lawsuit v. Ampex Filed Last Feb. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampex Corporation, since Feb. 15, 2008, has been a defendant in
an asbestos-related lawsuit styled William Cawfield v. A.W.
Chesterton, Inc., et al.

Mr. Cawfield filed suit against the Company alleging negligence
and wanton misconduct with respect to the plaintiff's father's
exposure to asbestos and asbestos-contaminated products.

Mr. Cawfield additionally alleges that the Company was involved
in negligent and willful spoliation of evidence, is subject to
strict liability, and breached its duties to provide a safe
workplace.

Each count seeks US$50,000 in damages.

Company Profile:

          Ampex Corporation
          1228 Douglas Ave.
          Redwood City, CA 94063-3199
          United States
          Phone: 650-367-2011
          Web site: http://www.ampex.com/

Ampex Corporation is an innovator and licensor of visual
information technology. The Company has developed substantial
proprietary technology relating to the electronic storage,
processing and retrieval of data, particularly images. The
Company holds patents and patent applications covering digital
image-processing, data compression and recording technologies.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ross's Exposure Case v. Ampex Corp. Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampex Corporation is a defendant in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Robert Ross, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
15, 2008.

The Company has been joined with multiple other defendants by
Mr. Ross, based on alleged exposure to asbestos while working as
a contractor at the Company during the 1960s.

Counsel has been engaged, an answer to the complaint has been
filed, and the case has been tendered to the Company's insurance
carriers who are reviewing coverage.

It is not yet possible to determine the outcome of this action.

Company Profile:

          Ampex Corporation
          1228 Douglas Ave.
          Redwood City, CA 94063-3199
          United States
          Phone: 650-367-2011
          Web site: http://www.ampex.com/

Ampex Corporation is an innovator and licensor of visual
information technology. The Company has developed substantial
proprietary technology relating to the electronic storage,
processing and retrieval of data, particularly images. The
Company holds patents and patent applications covering digital
image-processing, data compression and recording technologies.







                            *********

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  * * *