CAR_Public/080613.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 117
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN FIDELITY: Cheated Policyholders, Kansas Suit Alleges
CLARK COUNTY: Judge Rejects Argument in Child Welfare Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT: Court Says State Failed to Help Retarded Residents
DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Sued for Losing Confidential Client Data
DEAN FOODS: MDL Panel Consolidates Antitrust Suits in Tennessee

DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y.
DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants Arbitration in "Skirchak" Dismissed
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Antitrust Suit Over NFL Video Game
EUROPEAN MINERALS: Siskinds LLP Commences $55-Million Lawsuit

FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Six Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suits
GANZ INC: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Tying Arrangements
HEELYS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
LEHMAN BROTHERS: June 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
MACK CRAWFORD: Metro Conflict Defender's Closure Challenged

MEDQUIST: South Broward Lawsuit Settled; Dismissed by N.J. Court
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Auto Policyholders' Suit in W.Va. Certified
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
NVE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Minn. Securities Suit
ONTARIO LOTTERY: Couple Files CDN$3.5BB Problem Gambling Lawsuit

PB LITIGATION: Suit Settlement Provides for Plumbing Replacement
PEPSICO INC: No Berries in Crunch Berries, Calif. Suit Claims
PMI GROUP: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
QUANTA CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits
ROYAL BANK: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Fixed

SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suits
SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Still to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in IPO Suit

WACHOVIA BANK: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Lawsuit in New York
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Multi-District Litigation in Washington
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wants California Suit Over Home Loans Nixed
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Court Mulls $336MM Antitrust Settlement


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FRANKLIN BANK: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Lawsuit in Texas
HEALTHWAYS INC: Howard Smith Files Tennessee Securities Suit
INDYMAC BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Holzer & Fistel Files Illinois Securities Suit
NEXCEN BRANDS: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y.

TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Mills Action v. Lexington Jail
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Westchester Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Ingwersen in Imo Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weiss Suit Filed v. 48 Firms in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO, Groups Form Committee to Ban Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40% Don't Know Exposure Source- Japan Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Sprayer's Death to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt to Begin Talks on Rights of Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4th District Court Urged to Review Decision
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Delays Demolition of Days Inn

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Favors Defendants in Reiter Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Defendants in Jacobs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors U.S. Steel in Gomcsak Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Bid for Hospital Suit v. Grace Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Responds to Bar Date Objection

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. Opposes Court Review of Grace Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Locals Want Apology From Electric Co
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA & EPA Urged to Improve Info Dispersal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railton Owners Predict Increase in Diseases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lower Hutt, N.Z. Railway Station to Reopen

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brent Coon Reaches 14 Settlements in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2,000 Pupils Evacuated from Belfast Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heater Exposure Linked to Clerk's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labour Councilors Slam Wear Valley Probe
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Pattullo Bridge in Canada

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montreal School Board to Eliminate Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Map Shows Portions of Australia w/ Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Widow in Coman Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Affirms Board Ruling in Carl Wilson Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC Still to Pay $300T for French Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air After Parkersburg Tornado
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Expands Relief Law for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Kennedy Space Center
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oak St Beach Visitors Urged to Have Checkup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potential Owners Asked to Inspect Homes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Exposed at Demolition Site in Colo.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bernie Banton's Widow Starts Research Group
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Claimants Await Trust Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Parliament Criticizes Insurance Industry

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Expects Cleanup to Cost $45MM
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HHS & EPA to Launch $8M Libby Health Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deem Sues A.W. Chesterton, et al. in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 12 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Men Charged for Disposal Breaches in U.K.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Done at Clay County, Fla. School



                           *********


AMERICAN FIDELITY: Cheated Policyholders, Kansas Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Fidelity Assurance is facing a class-action complaint
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
alleging it cheats policyholders by promising, but refusing, to
pay actual charges of cancer treatments, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs bring this civil action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all
policyholders, estates, covered persons or beneficiaries who:

     (i) were insured insured under a limited benefit specified
         disease cancer expense policy owned, sold, issued,
         underwritten and administered by AFA and denominated
         either form nos. C-3, C-4, C-489, C-5, C-6, C-7 or C-8;

    (ii) made a claim for policy benefits payable in the amount
         of the "actual charges" of covered healthcare goods,
         services and treatments which AFA ultimately
         adjusted and approved;

   (iii) received payment from AFA on said claim in an amount
         less than the "actual charges" of the covered
         healthcare goods, services and treatments.

The plaintiffs say they bought cancer expense policies from
American Fidelity.  At all times, the plaintiffs say, they
interpreted the term actual charges to mean "actual charges.

However, in 1994, a few years after the plaintiffs purchased the
policy, AFA secretly, fraudulently and unlawfully changed its
interpretation of 'actual charges' to mean 70% of the amount of
a provider's bill or invoice for covered treatment and secretly
began paying 'actual charges' benefits in accordance with that
new interpretation without its insureds' knowledge or consent,
the complaint states.

The plaintiffs further claim that American Fidelity "knowingly,
intentionally, fraudulently and in bad faith underpaid the
decedent's and plaintiff's claims for benefits under the
policy."

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether:

     (a) AFA can legally coordinate, discount or otherwise
         reduce policy benefits payable in the amount of actual
         charges by coordinating and otherwise taking advantage
         of other insurance coverage that they and the
         members of the proposed class independently bargained
         for and received by and through other insurance
         providers and plans; and

     (b) AFA is in breach of its contracted obligations to
         them and the members of the proposed class and
         its duty to treat them with the utmost good faith and
         fair dealing.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- compensatory damages against the defendants in an amount
        in excess of $75,000.00, including but not limited to,
        unpaid benefits and contractual interest on benefits
        owed;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- prejudgment and post judgment interest;

     -- costs, including but not limited to court costs, expert
        fees, attorney's fees and expenses; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems
        appropriate under the circumstances presented.

The suit is "Verle M. Vallier, et al. v. American Fidelity
Assurance Co., Case No. 08-CV-2267 JAR/GLR," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew T. Geiger, Esq. (mgeiger@ggbtrial.com)
          Walter M. Brown, Esq. (wbrown@ggbtrial.com)
          Gaddy Geiger & Brown PC
          2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 675
          Kansas City, Missouri 64108
          Phone: 816-221-8989
          Fax: 816-221-8988


CLARK COUNTY: Judge Rejects Argument in Child Welfare Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court ruled that a lawsuit facing Clark County's child
welfare system will not become a class action, Las Vegas Now
reports.

According to the report, a judge rejected the argument that all
children in the county's care were at risk.  The judge, although
acknowledging that the children named in the lawsuit may have
suffered as wards of the county, he did not accept the argument
those 10 cases were representative of all of the children in
foster care which is 4,000 or so.

Las Vegas Now recounts that attorneys for The National Center
For Youth Law, a California-based child advocacy system, had
argued that all foster kids in Clark County are at risk of abuse
or neglect because of system-wide failures.  They noted two
former managers with the State Department of Child and Family
Services offered evidence to support that position.

The judge, however, insisted that there was not enough
statistical information to support a class action, the report
notes.

"You lose a battle but we haven't lost the war, and these kids,
the 4,000 kids in foster care, deserve our commitment to them.
We made a commitment to them, and we're going to follow through
until they get the relief they're entitled to," Bill Grimm of
the NCYL told Las Vegas Now.

The report says that the judge did order Clark County to turn
over the records related to more than 1,000 abuse allegations
against licensed caregivers -- foster parents among them.  The
county, however, argued that doing so would violate state
privacy laws.

The NCYL said it believes those records will provide additional
evidence of abuse.  The group said that if that is the case, it
may again ask the court to proceed with a class action, but if
not, it will move forward on behalf of the children already
included in the lawsuit.

Las Vegas Now says Clark County declined to comment because of
the on-going litigation.


CONNECTICUT: Court Says State Failed to Help Retarded Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Bree Burns has determined
that Connecticut has not done enough to help the mentally
retarded residents at Southbury Training School relocate into
the community, according to Newsday.

The report notes that Judge Burns, in a decision filed last
week, said that the state has failed to adequately evaluate
residents for placement and later move them into the community
if they were able to live outside the facility.  A hearing will
be scheduled to determine how to remedy the situation, Newsday
adds.

The report says that Judge Burns' 113-page decision stems from a
class action lawsuit that went to trial in 1999.  Newsday cites
Lynn Warner, executive director of The Arc of Connecticut, as
calling the decision "a momentous occasion and a clear
validation of the rights of people with intellectual
disabilities."

Newsday points out that currently, 499 people live at Southbury,
with an average age of 60.  Admissions were halted by court
order in 1986 after lawsuits involving the Justice Department
over care and conditions for the residents.  The General
Assembly passed a law that year which also barred the school
from taking new residents, as it moved toward the use of smaller
group homes.

Judge Burns also ruled that allegations of poor conditions,
services and programs are moot because a separate federal
lawsuit settled those matters.  The judge found in 2006 that the
state had met all 94 requirements of a consent decree requiring
improvements at Southbury.

Newsday relates that in a written statement, the Department of
Developmental Services, formerly the Department of Mental
Retardation, acknowledged the court found that "certain aspects
of decision-making regarding recommendations for 'community
placement' for (Southbury) residents did not fully comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act."  DDS said the court also
recognized that the state is not required to move Southbury
residents to community settings if the transfer is opposed by
the residents or their legal guardians, which has been the case
in some situations.

"DSS, as always, remains committed to the quality supports and
services established at STS and continues to honor the choices
of residents, families and guardians about where they wish to
reside," the report notes the statement as saying.


DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Sued for Losing Confidential Client Data
----------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class-action lawsuit was filed in Regina alleging
Daimler Chrysler Financial Services and several affiliated
companies are responsible for losing confidential client data,
Canwest News Service reports.

According to Canwest, the suit was filed on June 10, 2008, at
Court of Queen's Bench.  It was brought on behalf of four named
individuals from Saskatoon, Montreal, Winnipeg and Edmonton, as
well as "all individuals in Saskatchewan, Canada and elsewhere
whose personal information was transferred to the defendants and
has been lost by the defendants."

The suit further alleges that a "data tape" containing
confidential client information was "lost in transit" between
January and May 2008, but that customers were not notified for
several weeks, Canwest relates.

Specifically, the named defendants are Daimler Chrysler
Financial Services Canada Inc., Chrysler Canada Inc., Daimler
Chrysler Services Canada Inc., Daimler Canada Finance Inc.,
Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC, Chrysler LLC,
Cerberus Capital Management LP, United Parcel Service Canada
Ltd. and United Parcel Service of America.

The report notes that the Merchant Law Group claim alleges
negligence for the manner in which the information was
transferred or stored.  According to the claim, Daimler
customers received a letter notifying them that their
confidential information could be at risk due to the loss of a
data tape being delivered by UPS to an unnamed third party.

Canwest explains that "confidential information" is defined to
include names, addresses, dates of birth, and financial
information.

The suit contends that the plaintiffs have suffered "severe and
significant emotional distress and trauma, and economic loss or
damage," adding they worry about identity theft.


DEAN FOODS: MDL Panel Consolidates Antitrust Suits in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
consolidation of all pending cases that allege that Dean Foods
Co. and others in the milk industry worked together to limit the
price the Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk
and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk
processing facilities.  The antitrust suits were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

The company was named, among several defendants, in two
purported class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5,
2007.  The complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee.

A third purported class action complaint was filed on Aug. 9,
2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The third complaint was amended on March 28, 2008.  
The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry,
lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the
sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and that
the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated retail prices
for direct milk purchasers.

Four additional similar purported class-action complaints were
filed in August, October and November 2007, and in February 2008
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.  The allegations in these complaints are similar to
those in the first and second complaints.

Motions to dismiss each of these lawsuits are currently pending
before the Court.  

On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of
all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, 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.

Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and  
beverage company.  The Company has two segments: the Dairy Group
and WhiteWave Foods Company.  The Dairy Group manufactures and
sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand
names and under private labels.  Its WhiteWave Foods Co.
develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of
nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such
as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy
products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES
creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel’s Organic dairy
products.


DUANE READE: Still Faces "Damassia" Labor Litigation in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc., continues to face the purported class action
lawsuit "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc.," which is pending with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that from the period beginning November
1998, the company incorrectly gave some employees the title,
"assistant manager," in an attempt to avoid paying these
employees overtime, in contravention of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Law.

The suit seeks an award equal to twice an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages.

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

The suit is "Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-
08819-GEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Gerard E. Lynch, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tarik Fouad Ajami, Esq. (tfa@outtengolden.com)
         Adam T. Klein, Esq. (atk@outtengolden.com)
         Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. (jms@outtengolden.com)
         Outten & Golden, LLP
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005

Representing the defendants are:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Lisa A. Schreter, Esq. (lschreter@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         Phone: 212-583-2684
                404-233-0330
         Fax: 212-832-2719
              404-233-2361


DUANE READE: Continues to Face "Chowdhury" Labor Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade, Inc., is still facing a purported class action
lawsuit entitled, "Enamul Chowdhury v. Duane Reade Inc. and
Duane Reade Holdings, Inc.," which is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed on March 24, 2006.  The company was served
with the purported class action complaint on April 2006.

The suit alleges that beginning March 2000, the company
incorrectly classified certain employees in an attempt to avoid
paying them overtime, thereby violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York law.  

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

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

The suit is "Chowdhury v. Duane Reade, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:06-cv-02295-MGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. (slesser@lockslawny.com)
         Locks Law Firm, PLLC
         110 East 55th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-838-3333
         Fax: 212-838-3735

Representing the defendants is:

         Gerald Thomas Hathaway, Esq. (ghathaway@littler.com)
         Frances Mollie Nicastro, Esq. (fnicastro@littler.com)
         Littler Mendelson, P.C.
         885 Third Avenue 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-583-2684
                212-583-2688
         Fax: 212-832-2719


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Wants Arbitration in "Skirchak" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator in a dispute between Dynamics Research Corp. and
the plaintiffs in the matter, "Skirchak et al. v. Dynamics
Research Corporation, Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," has yet to
rule on a motion by the company seeking the dismissal of the
arbitration proceeding, 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 filed against the company on June 28, 2005, before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  It
was characterized as a class action employee suit, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain
provisions of Massachusetts General Laws.

On April 10, 2006, the Court entered an order granting in part
the company's motion to dismiss the civil action and to compel
compliance with its mandatory dispute resolution program,
directing that the parties arbitrate the aforementioned claims,
and striking the class action waiver which was part of the
dispute resolution program.

Following the Court's decision, the plaintiffs commenced an
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association,
asserting the same claims as they asserted in the District
Court.

An arbitrator has been selected, but no substantive action has
occurred in the arbitration.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the company filed an appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the portion of the
District Court's decision that the class action waiver is not
enforceable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 19, 2007, concurred with the
District Court's opinion that the matter should proceed in
arbitration and remanded the matter to the District Court.  

The parties have informed the District Court that they will
proceed in arbitration as a class action.  

In the arbitration, the company has filed a motion to dismiss
the proceeding and a request for summary disposition, asserting
that the company is entitled to use the "window of correction"
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act's regulations and that
the arbitration should be dismissed without further action in
the arbitration.   

The motion is pending before the arbitrator, 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, "Skirchak et al. v. Dynamics Research Corporation,
Case No. 1:05-cv-11362-MEL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Morris E. Lasker,
presiding.
    
Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elayne N. Alanis, Esq. (ealanislaw@verizon.net)
          3rd Floor, 10 Tremont St.
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-263-1203
          Fax: 617-723-4729

Representing the defendants is:

          Carrie J. Campion, Esq. (ccampion@nixonpeabody.com)
          Jeffrey B. Gilbreth, Esq. (jgilbreth@nixonpeabody.com)
          David S. Rosenthal, Esq. (drosenthal@nixonpeabody.com)
          Nixon Peabody, LLP
          100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-1045
                 617-345-1000
                 617-345-6183
          Fax: 866-812-2847


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Antitrust Suit Over NFL Video Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging it has driven competing makers of video football games
out of business by illegal, exclusive arrangements with the
National Football League, the NFL Players Union, the Arena
Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs sued only Electronic Arts, which makes the Madden
NFL, NCAA Football and Arena Football games.  They did not sue
the athletics leagues.

The plaintiffs claim that the illegal, exclusive agreements
allowed Electronic Arts to hike the price for its flagship
"Madden NFL" game from $29.95 to $49.99.

The complaint states Electronic Arts has driven its competition
out of the market for interactive football software, including
most significantly Take Two Interactive Software Inc., the maker
of the interactive football software title NFL 2K5 and has
prevented additional competitors from entering the market.  As a
direct result of this anticompetitive conduct, the price of
interactive football software has soared: Prior to signing
exclusive agreements referred to above, Electronic Arts charged
$29.95 for its flagship product Madden NFL.  Immediately after
the exclusive agreements entered into effect -- and the
effective withdrawal of its only competitor from the market --
Electronic Arts increased its price for that software nearly
70%, to $49.99.

The plaintiffs sue pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States
who purchased or licensed from Electronic Arts a copy of
interactive football software with a release date of August 2005
or later.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether interactive football software constitutes a
         relevant market;

     (b) whether the defendant has a monopoly on the market of
         interactive football software;

     (c) whether the defendant gained this monopoly unlawfully;

     (d) whether the defendant's actions in entering the
         exclusive agreements alleged violated California law;

     (e) whether consumers and class members have been damaged
         by the defendant's conduct;

     (f) whether punitive damages are appropriate;

     (g) whether the defendant should disgorge unlawful profits;
         and

     (h) the amount of any damages.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to the California Code of Civil Procedure Rules of
        Court, and appointment of plaintiffs as class
        representatives and their counsel of record as class
        counsel;

     -- restitution or damages to class members for the purchase
        of the software;

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited in the complaint;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary
        relief;

     -- equitable relief in the form of restitution or
        disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received
        by defendant as a result of the anticompetitive conduct
        alleged in the complaint;

     -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- a declaration that the relevant agreements are null and
        void; and

     -- all other relief to which plaintiffs and members of the
        class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Geoffrey Pecover, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
Case No. C08-02820," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shane E. Scarlett, Esq. (shanas@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. (stuart@smplegal.com)
          The Paynter Law Firm PLLC
          1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-626-4486
          Fax: 866-734-0622

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594


EUROPEAN MINERALS: Siskinds LLP Commences $55-Million Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siskinds LLP has filed a $55-million class
action lawsuit against European Minerals Corporation.  Also
named as defendants are certain of EPM's senior officers.

The class action complaint arises out of EPM's March 31, 2008
press release disclosing, among other things, that EPM was
reviewing its accounting for derivative financial instruments,
and that the review would result in the restatement of previous
quarters' financial statements.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares
of EPM in the period between May 16, 2007, to March 31, 2008.

Michael Robb, Esq., a lawyer in the class actions department of
Siskinds LLP, said, "Investors are entitled to expect that the
financial statements of public companies are prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
fairly and accurately reflect the financial condition and
performance of the companies in which they invest their savings.
That expectation is critical to the proper functioning of our
capital markets, and when that expectation is frustrated,
meaningful action must be taken to protect the rights of
investors."

The EPM class action is believed to be the seventh class action
filed under Ontario's new investor protection legislation --
Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

For more information, contact:

          Nicole Young
          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, Ontario N6A3V8
          Canada
          Phone: 800-461-6166 (Ext. 2380)


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Faces Six Massachusetts Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corp. is facing six purported securities
fraud class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, 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.

In April 2008, six purported class action complaints were filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers,
and certain of its directors.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements.

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They seek, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--  
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S.  It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs.  The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market.  The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.


GANZ INC: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Antitrust Tying Arrangements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ganz Inc. and Ganz USA LLC are facing a class action complaint
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California accusing them of abusing their market power in
"Webkinz" toys, which come with codes that let kids play online
games featuring their toy, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Nuts For Candy, a sole proprietorship in
Burlingame, says it ordered the $1,000+ in non-Webkinz products
so it could buy the Webkinz, or Webkinzes.

A Webkinz is a stuffed animal that costs $10 to $15 and "comes
with a code that allows the user to unlock a Web site that
offers online games and other activities."

Nuts for Candy claims Ganz refuses to sell the toys to retailers
unless they buy at least $1,000 of other Ganz products that have
nothing to do with the Webinkz toys that the kids and the
retailers want.

"Webkinz is a toy and an online game at the same time," the
federal complaint states.

The complaint states, "The main attraction of the Webkinz Web
site is the games.  Once on the Webkinz site, the user takes
care of a virtual pet by earning points from playing games.  The
user cashes in their points to buy food, houses, and other items
for their virtual pet."

The plaintiff says Ganz illegally forces retailers who want to
sell Webkinz to buy at least $1,000 of stuff from its "core
line," which "consists of Ganz products unrelated to Webkinz,
including lip gloss, magnets, and stuffed and rubber animals."

The plaintiff demands treble damages, an injunction and costs.

Nuts for Candy brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons and entities in the United States who established an
account with Ganz during the period from July 1, 2006 through
the present and ordered Webkinz from defendant on the condition
that they also order products from Ganz's "core line" of
products.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) the definition of the relevant product market for
         Webkinz;

     (b) whether Ganz implemented an unlawful and illegal tying
         arrangement that conditioned retailers' ability to
         purchase Webkinz on their purchase of a specified,
         minimum dollar amount tied Ganz products in the United
         States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         were injured by reason of Ganz's unlawful conduct; and

     (d) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiff and other class members.

The plaintiff asks that:

     -- the court declare and decree that defendants' acts,
        conduct and practices are unlawful under Section 1 of
        the Sherman Act (15 USC Section 1) and Section 3 of the
        Clayton Act (15 USC Section 14);

     -- the court permanently enjoin defendants, as well as its
        officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys who
        shall receive actual notice of the court's injunction,   
        from continued engagement in those acts, forms of
        conduct and practices found to be illegal, as provided
        by Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 26; see
        also 15 USC Section 4);

     -- the court award plaintiff and members of the class
        threefold their actual antitrust damages sustained as a
        result of defendants' antitrust violations, as provided
        by Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 USC Section 15);

     -- the court award plaintiff and members of the clas pre-
        judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;
        and

     -- the court award plaintiff and members of the class such
        other and further relief at law or in equity as the
        court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Nuts for Candy et al v. Ganz, Inc. et al, Case No
CV 08 2873," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. (jcotchett@cpmlegal.com)
          Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com)
          Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. (nfineman@cpmlegal.com)
          Matthew K. Edling, Esq. (medling@cpmlegal.com)
          Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Phone: 650-697-6000
          Fax: 650-697-0577


HEELYS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heelys, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class
action lawsuit now pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, 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 company, its former chief executive officer, its chief
financial officer, and its directors, who signed the company's
registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with its Dec. 7, 2006 initial public
offering -- along with Capital Southwest Corp., Capital
Southwest Venture Corp., and the underwriters for the IPO -- are
defendants in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 27, 2007, by
plaintiff Brian Rines, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock pursuant to or
traceable to the IPO registration statement.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Four similar lawsuits were also filed in September and October
2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, by plaintiffs Vulcan Lee, John Avila, Gerald Markey, and
Robert Eiron on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making
substantially similar allegations under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeking substantially
similar damages.

These lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge have been
consolidated into a single action.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on March 11, 2008.

The defendants' responses to the amended consolidated complaint
are due to be filed on May 12, 2008.  Lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel have been appointed.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus used in
connection with the IPO contained misstatements of material fact
or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made not misleading relating to among other
allegations, safety concerns and injuries associated with the
company's products and their alleged impact on demand,
visibility into the company's sales channel and competition from
knockoffs, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and requests substantially similar
damages and relief as previously requested.

Heelys, Inc. -- http://www.heelys.com/-- is a designer,  
marketer and distributor of sports products under the HEELYS
brand, which is targeted to the youth market.  The Company's
primary product, HEELYS-wheeled footwear, incorporates stealth,
removable wheel in the heel.  HEELYS-wheeled footwear allows the
user to transition from walking or running to skating by
shifting weight to the heel.  Users can transform HEELYS-wheeled
footwear into street footwear by removing the wheel.  The
Company offers HEELYS-wheeled footwear in a variety of styles
and colors.  HEELYS-wheeled footwear is protected by numerous
trademarks in the United States and certain other countries.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: June 30 is Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 30, 2008
deadline for interested parties to move to be a lead plaintiff
in the securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc. (NYSE: LEH) between September 13, 2006, and July 30, 2007,
inclusive, including shares acquired through the Company's
defined benefit pension plans.  The shareholder lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Lehman Brothers' financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Lehman
Brothers stock.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


MACK CRAWFORD: Metro Conflict Defender's Closure Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Five Fulton County defendants and four state-salaried attorneys
filed suit in Fulton County Superior Court, seeking a halt to
the planned closure of the Metro Conflict Defender Office, Bill
Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

The lawsuit was filed against Mack Crawford -- director of the
Georgia Public Defender Standards Council -- and the council's
board of directors, after Mr. Crawford announced his plans to
close the office at the end of the month, potentially leaving
about 1,850 defendants without legal representation.

The suit seeks class-action status for all indigent defendants
who are now clients of the conflict office and all potential
future clients of the office.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stephen B. Bright, Esq.
          Southern Center for Human Rights
          83 Poplar Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30303

          Ed Garland, Esq.
          Don Samuel, Esq.
          Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
          3151 Maple Drive, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30305-2503
          Phone: 404-262-2225
          Fax: 404-365-5041
          Web site: http://www.gsllaw-personal-injury.com/
                    http://www.gsllaw.com/

               - and -

          Ralph I. Knowles, Jr., Esq.
          Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309


MEDQUIST: South Broward Lawsuit Settled; Dismissed by N.J. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2008, the U.S. District Court District for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the South Broward customer
class action lawsuit filed against MedQuist Inc. (Pink Sheets:
MEDQ.PK) without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right, upon motion
and good cause shown within 60 days, to reopen the case if the
approved settlement between the parties is not consummated.

The company is in the process of informing the court that the
settlement has, in fact, been consummated through payment of the
settlement amount and filing of a stipulation of dismissal with
prejudice.

As previously announced the South Broward action was filed
against the company and certain present and former officers and
the complaint alleged that the company overcharged certain non-
federal governmental hospitals and medical centers for
transcription services.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the company has
paid $7,537,001.83 to resolve all claims by the individual named
plaintiffs and certain other putative class members represented
by plaintiffs' counsel but not named in the action.

The settling parties have released the company and all
individual defendants from any and all claims and dismissed the
action in its entirety with prejudice.  Neither the company, nor
any of the individual defendants, has admitted or will admit to
liability or any wrongdoing in connection with the settlement.

This dismissal of the South Broward lawsuit follows the other
recently disclosed tentative settlement reached on or about
April 21, 2008, regarding all individual and class claims
related to the consolidated medical transcriptionists' putative
class action lawsuit in exchange for payment by MedQuist of
$1.5 million plus certain injunctive relief.

The consummation of these two settlements will result in the
final resolution of all class action litigation matters related
to:

     (i) the allegations raised by a company employee in
         November 2003 that the company had engaged in improper
         billing practices,

    (ii) the company's public disclosure of those allegations
         and

   (iii) the company's July 2004 public disclosure of certain
         findings from the independent review (the Billing
         Review) of the allegations that was undertaken by the
         company's board of directors.

The previously disclosed, Securities and Exchange Commission and
Department of Justice investigations remain ongoing and the
company continues to fully cooperate with both investigations.

MedQuist, Inc., provides medical transcription and health
information management services.  The Company is based in Mount
Laurel, N.J. and is a majority-owned subsidiary of Koninklijke
Philips Electronics N.V.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Auto Policyholders' Suit in W.Va. Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, has certified
a class action lawsuit against Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, and set a trial date of October 6, 2008.

The class includes those West Virginia Nationwide auto
policyholders or passengers who were injured or suffered
property damage in an accident that occurred between April 11,
1993 and the present.

Class members must have:

     -- been denied UM or UIM coverage,

     -- been provided less UM or UIM coverage than otherwise
        required, or

     -- failed to submit a UM or UIM claim after being told that
        they did not have UM or UIM coverage by Nationwide,
        based on Nationwide's 1993 or 1999 mass mailings.

The lawsuit claims that Nationwide breached its contracts of
insurance with Class Members by failing to provide uninsured
motorist and underinsured motorist coverage to entitled Class
Members.

The Class also claims that Nationwide's conduct violated the
West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act and violated
Nationwide's duty of good faith and fair dealing to its
insureds.

Nationwide denies that it did anything wrong.

The Court has not yet decided whether the class or Nationwide is
right.

There are no financial benefits available to class members at
this time.

The lawsuit is "Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. George G.
O'Dell, Jr. and Stacy McKown O'Dell, and Chad David Kenny and
Bobbie Dawn Kenny v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Civil
Action No. 00-C-37," filed in the Circuit Court of Roane County,
West Virginia.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Scott S. Segal, Esq. (scott.segal@segal-law.com)
          West Virginia Personal Injury Attorney
          The Segal Law Firm
          810 Kanawha Blvd. E.
          Charleston, WV 25301-2807
          Phone: 304-344-9100
          Web site: http://www.segal-law.com/


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers continue
to face a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
according to the company's May 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, several suits were filed:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"  

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.;" and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four
separately filed lawsuits into one action.  By order dated
Nov. 17, 2006, the court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel
for the proposed class.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting two federal securities
claims on behalf of lead plaintiff and all other shareholders of
the company who purchased publicly traded shares of company
between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006.  

The consolidated complaint asserts two claims:

      -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and

      -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is
         asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded
         upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted
         against the individual defendants.

Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class
period, the company and the individual defendants made false and
misleading statements to the investing public concerning PREOS.

The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading
statements were made during the class period concerning the
efficacy of PREOS as a treatment for post-menopausal
osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers of
hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and
the prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
NPS's New Drug Application for injectable PREOS.

The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and
insider trading of stock during the class period.  The
consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief,
and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the court denied on July 3, 2007.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order setting a
trial date for the action on April 20, 2009.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed its motion to certify
the class of shareholders that it seeks to represent in the
action.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to this
motion, and it is currently pending before the court.

The suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Judge Paul G. Cassell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805
         New York City, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-279-5050

              - and -

         Scott A. Call, Esq. (scall@aklawfirm.com)
         Anderson & Karrenberg
         50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Phone: 801-534-1700


NVE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Minn. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re: NVE Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," are appealing the
dismissal of their case by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit was against
NVE Corp. and certain of the company's current and former
executive officers and directors.

On Feb. 10, 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors by an individual shareholder seeking to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
May 22, 2003, and Feb. 11, 2005.

On Mar. 6 and 7, 2006, two additional lawsuits were filed in the
same court by two additional NVE shareholders, with the same
proposed class period, purporting to represent the same class.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single case
and a consolidated complaint was filed.  The consolidated
complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing material
misrepresentations concerning NVE's projected revenues and
product technology, which artificially inflated the market price
of the company's common stock.  

On July 3, 2007, the U.S. District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss these consolidated lawsuits, with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs filed an appeal from the Court's order and the
appeal is still pending, according to the company's May 19, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re: NVE Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:06-cv-00574-MJD-JJG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, Judge Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Gregg M. Corwin, Esq. (gcorwin@gcorwin.com)
          Gregg M. Corwin & Associates Law Office, PC
          1660 S Hwy 100, Ste. 508
          St. Louis Park, MN 55416-1534
          Phone: 952-544-7774
          Fax: 952-544-7151

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 N., Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405-235-1560
          Fax: 405-239-2112

Representing the defendants is:

          Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
          50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-340-2600
          Fax: 612-340-2868


ONTARIO LOTTERY: Couple Files CDN$3.5BB Problem Gambling Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Markham couple has launched a CDN$3.5-billion class-action
lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. on behalf
of gamblers who say they asked to be forbidden from casinos but
were still allowed inside, Joe Fantauzzi writes for Georgina
Advocate.

The statement of claim, filed by Peter Dennis and his wife,
Zubin Noble, says that Mr. Dennis and each of the class members
were "compulsive gamblers" and that problem gambling "disrupts,
compromises and ultimately destroys the lives of individual
problem gamblers by causing a range of harms for them and their
family members including emotional, social, financial, legal,
employment, educational and health-related harms."

The statement of claim further reads that Ontario Lottery failed
to take reasonable steps to implement its voluntary self-
exclusion policy by relying on memory-based enforcement and
failing to "implement reasonable measures other than memory-
based enforcement to deny self-excluded customers entry to its
gambling venues including, but not limited to, 'carding' using
photo-identification and other approaches and technologies
available to the OLGC," some of which were being used to
identify and monitor under age people and cheaters.


PB LITIGATION: Suit Settlement Provides for Plumbing Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of a class action settlement, if a polybutylene
pipe system has leaked, is leaking now or leaks in the future,
homeowners may qualify for a free plumbing replacement if they
file their claims by May 1, 2009.

PB plumbing was installed in an estimated six million homes
between January 1, 1978, and July 31, 1995, the dates for
installations covered by the settlement.  More than 330,000
homeowners have had their plumbing systems replaced under the
free program so far, but tens of thousands more may be eligible
for the free plumbing replacement.

Established in 1995, the $1.1 billion PB pipe Settlement Fund
has spent over $976 million in homeowner relief.  There is no
cost for homeowners.  The Consumer Plumbing Recovery Center,
established by the Court to administer the Fund, has received
more than 2.1 million inquiries.

PB pipe, often referred to as plastic pipe, is somewhat flexible
and usually gray, as opposed to PVC or CPVC products that are
rigid and usually white or off-white.  The pipes are joined by
plastic or metal fittings held in place by aluminum or copper
bands, about the diameter of a quarter.  PB pipe might be
located in an attic, crawl space or water heater closet, but is
often installed beneath insulation materials.  It is not used
for drains, waste or vent piping, yard sprinkler systems,
irrigation systems, fire sprinkler systems, sewer lines, faucets
or fixtures.

Homeowners with PB pipe can call the CPRC at 1-800-392-7591 or
visit http://www.pbpipe.com/for information about filing a  
claim and to access claim forms.

"Consumers have found the plumbing replacement process quite
simple and easy," says Tim Taylor, general manager of the CPRC.
"We are eager to inform them about the relief they are eligible
to receive and to help them through the plumbing replacement
process."

Because all claims must be filed by May 1, 2009, "homeowners
with leaking PB pipe should call the CPRC or access the website
as soon as possible," Mr. Taylor says.

Homeowners who purchased their homes after September 12, 2005
have the right to exclude themselves from the Court-supervised
replacement program and pursue their own claims.  The home
purchase date is earlier in certain counties in Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas that were affected by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

There, homeowners can exclude themselves if their home was
purchased after August 12, 2002.  Exclusion request forms must
be filed before September 1, 2008, and are available at
http://www.pbpipe.com/


PEPSICO INC: No Berries in Crunch Berries, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiCo Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
alleging it deceptively pushes its "Captain Crunch with Crunch
Berries" cereal, which contains no berries and only a wee bit of
strawberry concentrate, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Janine Sugawara brings this action pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1781, California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 382, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
on behalf of all California consumers who purchased the product
during the class period, defined as the four years preceding the
filing of this action.

Ms. Sugawara wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the advertising, marketing,
         promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set
         forth in the complaint were deceptive, unlawful or
         unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's
         Unfair Competition Law, California Bus. & Prof.
         Code Section 17200 et seq.;

     (b) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the advertising, marketing,
         promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set
         forth in the complaint were deceptive, unlawful or
         unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's
         False Advertising Law, California bus. & Prof.
         Code Section 17500 et seq.;

     (c) whether defendant's practices and representations made
         in connection with the advertising, marketing,
         promotion, labeling and sales of the Product as set
         forth in the complaint were false or misleading in any
         respect;

     (d) whether defendant breached any implied or express
         warranties in connection with the practices and
         representations made in the advertising, marketing,
         promotion, labeling and sales of the product as set
         forth in the complaint, at the expense of and to the
         detriment of plaintiff and class members;

     (e) whether defendant violated Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(5) et seq. by the practices and
         representations made in connection with the
         advertising, marketing, promotion, labeling and sales
         of the product as set forth in the complaint; and

     (f) whether defendant's conduct as set forth in the
         complaint injured California consumers and if so, the
         extent of the injury.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying that the action may be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- an award of equitable relief as follows:
  
        (i) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive labeling and advertising described in
            the complaint;

       (ii) requiring defendant to make full restitution of all
            monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the
            conduct described in the complaint;

      (iii) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains
            flowing from the conduct described in the complaint;

       (iv) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the product;

     -- actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an
        amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as
        may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a
        First Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections
        not take place within the 30-day notice period;

     -- an award of attorney's fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure
        Section 1021.5;

     -- actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

     -- an award of costs and any other relief the court might
        deem appropriate; and

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

The suit is "Janine Sugawara, et al. v. PepsiCo, Inc.," filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Howard Rubinstein, Esq.
          914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20
          Aspen, CO 81611
          Phone: 832-715-2788

               - and -

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com)
          Hewell Law Firm, APC
          1901 First Avenue, Second Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-6854
          Fax: 619-235-9122


PMI GROUP: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
The PMI Group, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits that were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, 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.

In March 2008, the company and certain of its executive officers
were named in a securities class-action complaint filed before
ith the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, under the caption, "Lori Weinrib v. The PMI Group,
Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr."

In March 2008, the company and the same executive officers were
named in a second securities fraud class-action complaint also
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, under the caption, "Kimberly D. Holt v. The PMI
Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P.
Lofe, Jr."

These complaints allege that the company and the other
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making false and
misleading statements regarding our business and financial
results for the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and March 3, 2008,
the date we announced preliminary results for the fourth quarter
of 2007 for certain of our business segments.

The purported class action lawsuits seek, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The PMI Group, Inc. -- http://www.pmigroup.com-- is a provider  
of financial products for residential mortgages, public finance
obligations and asset-backed securities.  The Company operates
through four segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance Operations,
International Operations, Financial Guaranty, and Corporate and
Other.  The Company's U.S. subsidiary, PMI Mortgage Insurance
Co. is a residential mortgage insurer.  PMI offers a variety of
mortgage insurance and structured finance products.  Through its
Australian subsidiaries (PMI Australia) it provides mortgage
insurance in Australia and New Zealand.  PMI Australia provides
credit enhancement products to lending institutions, as well as
credit enhancement for residential mortgage-backed
securitizations.  Its European subsidiaries (PMI Europe) offer
mortgage insurance and mortgage credit enhancement products,
including primary mortgage insurance, structured portfolio
products and reinsurance products, primarily tailored to the
European mortgage markets.


QUANTA CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd., is seeking the dismissal of
securities fraud lawsuits filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, 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.

                   Zirkin & Coronel Complaints

On Feb. 5, 2007, Harold Zirkin filed a complaint against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, "Zirkin v. Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case
No. 07 CV 851."

On Feb. 26, 2007, Jorge Coronel filed a complaint against the
company in the same Court, and under the caption, "Coronel v.
Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. et al., Case No. 07 CV 1405."

Both complaints alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws as a result of false or misleading statements in
disclosures to the investing public.   Both of these cases are
now pending before Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr.  

On May 7, 2007, Judge Patterson appointed Zirkin-Cutler
Investments, Inc., as lead plaintiff for a putative class of
investors who purchased the company's preferred shares, and
appointed Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension
Trust as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who
purchased our common shares.

Judge Patterson directed Mr. Zirkin and Washington State
Plumbing to file amended pleadings that would supersede the
complaints previously filed by Mr. Zirkin and Mr. Coronel.

                        Zirkin Complaint

On July 16, 2007, Ms. Zirkin filed an amended complaint.  The
amended Zirkin Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased the company's preferred shares
between Dec. 14, 2005, and March 2, 2006.

The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company made false
statements concerning reserves for hurricane-related losses in a
registration statement and prospectus that were circulated to
investors in connection with a securities offering the company
completed in December 2005.

The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the company is liable under
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition to the company, Zirkin named as defendants two firms
that served as underwriters for the offering -- Friedman,
Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc. and BB&T Capital Markets -- as well
as six individuals who served as officers or directors at the
time of the offering -- James Ritchie, Jonathan Dodd, Robert
Lippincott III, Michael Murphy, Nigel Morris, and W. Russell
Ramsey.

                      Washington Complaint

Washington State Plumbing filed a separate amended complaint on
July 16, 2007.  Washington State Plumbing's complaint purports
to be brought on behalf of a class of investors who purchased
the company' common shares between Oct. 4, 2005, and April 3,
2006.

The Washington Complaint alleges that during that period, the
company made false and misleading statements, and omitted to
state material information, in various disclosures.

The disclosures and alleged omissions at issue in the case
relate to reserves for hurricane-related losses, reserves
related to an oil pipeline leak, and the quality of our internal
controls over financial reporting.

The Washington Complaint alleges claims against the company
under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933,
based on statements made in connection with the above-referenced
securities offering and under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on
statements made at various times and contexts.

The Company, FBR, BBT, and the six individuals named as
individual defendants in the Zirkin Complaint (Messrs. Ritchie,
Dodd, Lippincott, Murphy, Morris, and Ramsey) are all named as
defendants in the Washington Complaint as well.

In addition, the Washington Complaint also names as a defendant
Tobey Russ (former chairman of the company's board of directors
and former chief executive officer).

                       Case Developments

In September 2007, the company filed motions challenging the
legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in both cases, and
asked the Court to dismiss both cases.

The briefing on these motions was completed in January 2008 and
a hearing was held in April 2008.  

The company reported no further development in both matters in
its regulatory filing.

Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/  
-- has been formed to provide specialty lines insurance,
reinsurance, risk assessment and risk technical services on a
global basis through its affiliated companies.  


ROYAL BANK: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Fixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a July 11, 2008
deadline for interested parties to move for lead plaintiff
appointment in the securities class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of purchasers of auction rate securities from Royal Bank
of Canada, RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., and RBC Capital Markets
Corporation between May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008,
inclusive, and continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.

The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations or
failing to disclose material adverse facts to the market
concerning the risks and liquidity of auction rate securities,
which caused those securities to be overvalued and artificially
inflated.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


SHOCKLEY FINANCIAL: Faces Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shockley Financial Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Nelnet, Inc., is facing three substantially identical purported
antitrust class action lawsuits over municipal derivatives,
according to Nelnet's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008.

In each of the lawsuits, certain financial institutions are
named as defendants.  The complaints allege that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy not to compete and to fix prices and rig
bids for municipal derivatives (including guaranteed investment
contracts) sold to issuers of municipal bonds.

All the complaints assert claims for violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and fraudulent concealment and one complaint
also asserts claims for unfair competition and violation of the
California Cartwright Act.

Nelnet, Inc. -- http://www.nelnet.net/-- is an education  
planning and financing company focused on providing products and
services to students, families and schools nationwide.  The
Company offers a range of pre-college, in-college and post-
college products and services to students, families, schools and
financial institutions.  These products and services help
students and families plan and pay for their education, and
students plan their careers.  Nelnet has five operating
segments: Asset Generation and Management, Student Loan and
Guaranty Servicing, Tuition Payment Processing and Campus
Commerce, Enrollment Services and List Management, and Software
and Technical Services.


SOUTHERN STAR: Kansas Court Mulls Intervention Bid in "Price I"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by the
plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit, "Will Price,
et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 99 C 30, or
Price Litigation I."

The putative class action suit was filed on May 28, 1999,
wherein the named plaintiffs have sued over 50 defendants,
including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, the fourth amended class
action petition alleges that the defendants have under-measured
the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.

On Aug. 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.  Despite a denial by
the court on April 10, 2003, of their original motion for class
certification, the plaintiffs continue to seek the certification
of a class.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second
time was fully briefed and the court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

The company 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.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


SOUTHERN STAR: Court Yet to Allow Intervenor in "Price II" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Stevens County, Kansas, has yet to rule on
a motion to intervene filed by a third party who is claiming
entitlement to a portion of any recovery obtained by Plaintiffs
in the purported class action, "Will Price, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas Co., et al., Case No. 03 C 23, or Price Litigation
II."

The putative class action suit was filed on May 12, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs from Price Litigation I have sued the same
defendants, including Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

Asserting substantially identical legal and equitable theories,
as in Price Litigation I, this petition alleges that the
defendants have undermeasured the British thermal units, or BTU,
content of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead
for punitive damages.  

On Nov. 10, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed on behalf
of Central.

The plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
the plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price
Litigation I, was fully briefed and the court heard oral
argument on this motion on April 1, 2005.

In January 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by a third party who is claiming entitlement to
a portion of any recovery obtained by the plaintiffs.  

It is unknown when the court will rule on the pending motions.

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.

Owensboro, Kentucky-based Southern Star Central Corp. --
http://www.southernstarcentralcorp.com/-- operates as a holding  
company for its regulated pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is its
only operating subsidiary.  Southern Star also owns the
development rights for Western Frontier, which could be
developed in the future.  The company owns and operate an
approximately 6,000 mile interstate natural gas pipeline and
associated storage facilities in the Midwest, serving customers
in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, and Texas.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Court Still to Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet
to rule on a motion that seeks the consolidation of several
purported consumer fraud class action lawsuits against Vonage
Holdings Corp.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class
action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and
Washington.  The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies
with respect to the company's business practices, marketing
disclosures, email marketing and quality issues for both phone
and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection
statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some
of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately
disclose terms of service, including how the money-back
guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that
the company failed to honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely
represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively
describe the nature and quality of our service.  Other
plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective.

Theses various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide
and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and
California, are generally alleging that the company:

       -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel
          their company service;

       -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to
          cancellation;

       -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
          back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
          out the company's services;

       -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its
          services and disseminated false advertising about the
          quality, nature and terms of the company's services;

       -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

       -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
          Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and the Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007,
transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned, "In re Vonage Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07-
CV-3906 (USDC, D.N.J.)."

On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked
the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and
requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint.  The
court has not yet ruled on the motion.

The company 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.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider  
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.  


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. is seeking the dismissal of an amended
complaint in a consolidated class action lawsuit over the
company's initial public offering pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, 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.

In June and July 2006, Vonage, several of the company's officers
and directors, and the firms who served as underwriters in the
company's IPO, were named as defendants in several similar
purported class action lawsuits.

The cases were filed in these courts:

   -- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,

   -- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

   -- Supreme Court of the State of New York (subsequently
      removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
      District of New York), and

   -- Superior Court of New Jersey (subsequently removed to the
      U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).

The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with the company's IPO.  

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
omitted and misstated certain facts concerning the IPO's
Customer Directed Share Program.  Some complaints also allege
that the IPO prospectus contained misrepresentations or
omissions concerning certain of the company's products and the
prior experience of some of its management.

On Jan. 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all complaints to the District of New Jersey.

Following briefing, on Sept. 7, 2007, the Court appointed
Zyssman Group as the lead plaintiff, and the law firm of
Zwerling, Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, as lead counsel.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which generally alleges that:

       -- defendants made misstatements regarding subscriber
          line growth and average monthly churn rate;

       -- defendants failed to disclose problems with facsimile
          transmissions and a pending fax litigation case;
  
       -- defendants failed to disclose all patent infringement
          claims and issues; and

       -- the Directed Share Program suffered from various
          infirmities.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the defendants filed its motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On March 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the dismissal motion and the defendants filed
their reply brief on April 2, 2008.

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

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider  
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.  


WACHOVIA BANK: Spector Roseman Files ERISA Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., has filed a
class action complaint against Wachovia Corporation (NYSE:WB)
and various officers and administrators, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in the handling of
investments in the Wachovia Savings Plan.

The complaint was filed on June 9, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Plan administrators and fiduciaries
breached their duties to Plan participants and beneficiaries by
continuing to invest in and hold Wachovia stock despite the fact
that they knew or should have known that Wachovia was not
properly reporting its financial condition and was not
disclosing significant problems which had the effect of
inflating the value of Company stock.

Among the matters allegedly not disclosed were:

     (1) Wachovia continued to issue non-conforming real estate
         mortgages to borrowers without considering their credit
         scores or verifying their assets or employment status;

     (2) Wachovia understated and delayed recognition of its
         loan losses and took other actions that violated
         federal securities laws;

     (3) Wachovia failed to adjust its methodology for loss
         provisions in a manner that took into account known
         changes in the credit landscape;

     (4) Wachovia misled investors as to its auction rate
         securities and failed to disclose that these
         instruments were actually long-term instruments that
         were not liquid;

     (5) Wachovia was, due to its investment in hedge funds
         managed by Citigroup, heavily exposed in bank-owned
         life insurance policies, an investment which later
         caused it to report a $315 million write-down for the
         first quarter of 2008; and

     (6) Wachovia failed to maintain sufficient management
         controls to timely address problems in a manner that
         has affected the Company's reputation and perceived
         integrity.

Notwithstanding the above, the complaint alleges that Plan
fiduciaries maintained a large investment of Plan assets in
Company stock at a time when they should have known that it was
an unsuitable as a savings and retirement investment.  Wachovia
employees who had most of their Plan assets in Company stock
have incurred a substantial loss in their retirement investment.

A breach of fiduciary duties occurs when fiduciaries fail to
manage the assets of the Plan in the sole interest of the plan
participants by investing the assets in Company stock when it
was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement
savings.

The proposed class includes all persons who were participants in
or beneficiaries of the Wachovia National Corporation Savings
Plan and whose accounts in the Plan were invested in Wachovia
Stock at any time during the period January 1, 2006 through the
present.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Multi-District Litigation in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a multi-district litigation
that was consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, 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.

                     Securities Litigation

On Nov. 5, 2007, two securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the company and certain of its officers:

       1. "Koesterer v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07-
          CIV-9801 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007);" and

       2. "Abrams v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. 07-IV-
          9806 (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007)."

A third case was filed in Seattle, Washington, on Nov. 7, 2007,
under the caption, "Nelson v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al.,
No. C07-1809 (W.D. Wa.)."

The Koesterer case seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between
July 19, 2006, and Oct. 31, 2007.

The Abrams case seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between Oct. 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.

The Nelson matter seeks relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between April 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, the conspiracy with
eAppraiseIT as alleged by the Attorney General as well as
various aspects of the company's performance and accounting in
light of that alleged conspiracy and of changing conditions in
the home lending and credit markets.

A fourth lawsuit, entitled, "Garber v. Washington Mutual, Inc.,
et al., No. (S.D. N.Y. Filed Dec. 20, 2007)," makes nearly
identical allegations on behalf of persons who purchased the
securities of Washington Mutual from April 18, 2006, through
Dec. 10, 2007.  

The Nelson matter has been dismissed.  The Koesterer, Abrams,
and Garber cases remain pending.

                     Derivative Litigation

On Nov. 13, 2007, two shareholder derivative actions were filed
nominally on behalf of the company against certain of its
officers and directors.

The suits are:

       1. "Sneva v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1826 (W.D. Wa.
          Filed Nov. 13, 2007);" and

       2. "Harrison v. Killinger, et al., No. C07-1827 (W.D. Wa.
          Filed Nov. 13, 2007)."

A third shareholder derivative action was filed in Washington
State Superior Court on Nov. 16, 2007, under the caption,
"Catholic Medical Mission v. Killinger et al., No. 07-2-36548-
6SEA (Wa. Super. Ct. Filed Nov. 16, 2007)."

Since then, six additional shareholder derivative actions have
been filed in federal court, namely:  

       1. "Slater v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0005 (W.D. Wa.,
          filed Jan. 3, 2008);"

       2. "Procida v. Killinger et al., No. 08-Civ-0565
          (S.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 18, 2008), (Procida I);"

       3. "Ryan v. Killinger et al., C08-0095 (W.D. Wa., filed
          Jan. 18, 2008)."

       4. "Procida v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0389 (W.D. Wa.,
          filed March 6, 2008), (Procida II):"

       5. "Henry v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0566 (W.D. Wa.,
          filed April 10, 2008);" and

       6. "Scheller v. Killinger et al., No. C08-0647 (W.D. Wa.,
          filed April 25, 2008)."

Three additional shareholder derivative actions were also filed
in state court:

       i. "Breene v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41042-2SEA (Wa.
          Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007);"

      ii. "Gibb v. Killinger, et al., No. 07-2-41044-9SEA (Wa.
          Super. Ct. Filed Dec. 28, 2007);" and

     iii. "Brody v. First American Corp. et al., No. 08-2-13425-
          3 SEA. Sneva.

The allegations in the suits mirror those in the Securities
Actions, but seek relief based on claims that the defendants,
among other things:

       -- breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its
          shareholders by materially misleading the investing
          public and failing to disclose material adverse
          information about the Company;

       -- participated in a conspiracy to defraud the Company
          and its shareholders;

       -- abused their ability to control the Company;

       -- caused an illegal waste of Company assets;

       -- have been unjustly enriched; and

       -- improperly profited from the sale of Company stock
          based on misappropriated, inside information.

                        ERISA Litigation

Beginning on Nov. 20, 2007, nine ERISA class action lawsuits
were filed against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and, in some cases, the Washington Mutual Human
Resources Committee, and the Plan Administration and Plan
Investment Committees of the WaMu Savings Plan.

The suits are:

       1. "Bushansky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-1874 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 20, 2007);"

       2. "Bussey v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          1879 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 21, 2007);"

       3. "Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-1906 (W.D. Wa., filed Nov. 29, 2007);"

       4. "Mitchell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          1938 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 5, 2007);"

       5. "Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-1997
          (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 13, 2007);"

       6. "Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No.
          C07-2025 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 18, 2007);

       7. "McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          2055 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 21, 2007);"

       8. "Marra v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
          2076 (W.D. Wa., filed Dec. 27, 2007);"

       9. "Sloan v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C08-471
          (W.D. Wa., filed Mar. 24, 2008)."

The plaintiffs in the ERISA Actions assert that the defendants
were fiduciaries of the WaMu Savings Plan and breached their
duties to Plan participants by, among other things:

       -- failing to manage the Plan for the exclusive benefit
          of its participants or to use the care, skill,
          diligence, and prudence necessary to manage the Plan;

       -- continuing to offer company stock as an investment
          option in the plan despite that they knew or should
          have known that the stock no longer was a suitable and
          appropriate investment for the Plan;

       -- failing to conduct an appropriate investigation of the
          merits of continued investment in company stock; and

       -- failing to provide complete and accurate information
          regarding the Plan to the Plan's participants.

                   Multi-District Litigation

On Nov. 28, 2007, the company moved before the JPML for an order
that those of the Securities, Derivative and ERISA Actions then
filed in federal court be transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The JPML granted the
company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and JPML Rules 7.2 and 7.5,
the company previously had filed with the JPML a Notice of Tag-
Along Action with respect to each of the Securities, Derivative
and ERISA Actions filed in federal courts after Nov. 28, 2007,
and before Feb. 21, 2008 (the Garber Securities Action, the
Procida I and Ryan Derivative Actions, and the Alexander,
Mitchell, Ware, Rosenblatt, McDonald, and Marra ERISA Actions),
and all of the federally filed cases have now been transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On April 18, 2008, the Court issued an order setting an initial
status conference in the Securities, ERISA, and federally filed
Derivative Actions.  That conference was scheduled for June 9,
2008.  

The April 18 Order vacated all prior deadlines and granted the
defendants "an extension of time for responding by motion or
answer to the complaints until a date to be set after the
conference."

On May 7, 2008, the Court consolidated all of the Securities
Actions into a single case, "In re Washington Mutual, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. C08-387 MJP," appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and set a schedule for
the filing of a consolidated, amended complaint and an
anticipated motion to dismiss.

On the same date, the Court consolidated all of the ERISA
Actions into a single case, "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP."  The Court has not yet appointed
lead counsel for this action.

The Court has not yet taken action on competing motions to
consolidate and appoint lead counsel in the federally filed
Derivative Actions.

Agreed orders have been entered in the state court-filed
Derivative Actions except Brody pursuant to which the defendants
are not required to respond to the complaints until the federal
court resolves the motion to dismiss the Securities Suits.  The
parties in Brody are discussing a possible stipulation.

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer  
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The Company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non-
bank subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the
Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of
2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services
Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business;
the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and
commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and
the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.

    
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wants California Suit Over Home Loans Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit over home loans now pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Feb. 8, 2008, a class action suit was filed against the
company and other defendants on behalf of a putative class of
persons in the U.S. who obtained home loans from the company and
"received an appraisal performed by" appraisal management
companies eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc.

The suit, "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
C08-00868-HRL," was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.   

The suit asserts that an alleged conspiracy to inflate
appraisals by the company, eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service,
Inc., violated RESPA, Section 17200 of California's Business and
Professions Code, and California's Consumer's Legal Remedies
Act.

The plaintiffs also bring various common law claims.  They seek,
among other things, the recovery of actual and treble damages,
restitution, an injunction, and costs and attorneys' fees.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, but has
filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation a
Notice of Tag-Along Action with respect to the Spears lawsuit
(Class Action reporter, April 1, 2008).

The plaintiffs in the Spears lawsuit will have 15 days to object
to the transfer once the JPML issues a conditional Transfer
Order.

Motions to dismiss the amended complaint were filed on May 2,
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.

The suit is "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
C08-00868-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Howard R. Lloyd,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com)
          Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C.
          The 26th Floor
          Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-642-2300
          Fax: 412-642-2309

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert J. Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-407-7500
          Fax: 310-407-7502

               - and -

          Martin L. Fineman, Esq. (martinfineman@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
          Phone: 415-276-6500
          Fax: 415-276-6599


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: N.Y. Court Mulls $336MM Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to approve a $336-million settlement reached by
Washington Mutual, Inc., and several other defendants in the
matter, "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1409 (S.D.N.Y.)."

In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class
actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa associations,
and several member banks alleging, among other things, that they
had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price
of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made
in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders.  

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for
pretrial purposes, under the caption, "In re Currency Conversion
Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)."

In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for $336
million.  The Company's share of the settlement, which has been
paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing reserves.

The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008.

The Court has not yet issued its ruling, according to the
company's May 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com-- has been created  
to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to
allow class members to file their claims on-line.  This Web site
contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning
the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008).

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer  
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The Company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb (WMBfsb), as well as numerous non-
bank subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the
Retail Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of
2,257 stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York,
Washington, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona,
Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services
Group, which operates a nationwide credit card lending business;
the Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and
commercial real estate lending business in selected markets, and
the Home Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FRANKLIN BANK: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Lawsuit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP disclosed that a proposed class-action lawsuit
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Franklin Bank Corp. between April 26, 2007, and
May 1, 2008, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Franklin Bank and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
results.

Specifically, the plaintiff contends that, during the Class
Period, the defendants concealed that:

     (i) Franklin Bank's assets contained tens of millions of
         dollars worth of impaired and risky securities;

    (ii) defendants failed to properly account for Franklin
         Bank's mortgage-related assets;

   (iii) defendants had not properly accounted for single family
         loans serviced by third parties that became delinquent;
         and

    (iv) Franklin Bank's call reports filed with the FDIC
         beginning with the September 2007 quarter, at the
         latest, and its Form 10-Q for the September 2007
         quarter were in error due to the Company's failure to
         properly account for losses on mortgage loans and
         residential real estate owned properties.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764       
          Fax: 303-395-0393
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com/


HEALTHWAYS INC: Howard Smith Files Tennessee Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith has filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Healthways, Inc. (Nasdaq:
HWAY) between October 17, 2007, and February 26, 2008.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Healthways' financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Healthways stock.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


INDYMAC BANCORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of IndyMac
Bancorp, Inc. common stock during the period between August 16,
2007, and May 12, 2008.

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

IndyMac is the holding company for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., a
hybrid thrift or mortgage bank.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants downplayed and concealed IndyMac's growing exposure
to non-performing assets, particularly loans in its pay-option
adjustable-rate mortgage (Option ARM) and homebuilder
construction portfolios, and made numerous positive
representations regarding the Company's capital position to
alleviate investors' fears concerning the Company's capital
erosion.  As a result of defendants' false statements, IndyMac
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a Class Period high of $24.55 per share in
October 2007.

Then on May 12, 2008, IndyMac announced its first quarter 2008
financial results, including a net loss of $184.2 million, or
($2.27) per share, compared with net earnings of $52.4 million,
or $0.70 per share, in the first quarter of 2007.  On this news,
IndyMac's stock dropped to close at $2.32 per share -- a two-day
decline of $1.11 per share, or 32%, and a decline of 91% from
$24.55 per share on October 2, 2007.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (a) the Company was not adequately reserving for its losses
         on mortgage-related assets in violation of generally
         accepted accounting principles;

     (b) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
         related to its homebuilder and Option ARM portfolios
         losses and defaults concerning its book of business
         than it had previously disclosed;

     (c) the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
         withstand the significant deterioration in the credit
         and real estate markets and could jeopardize the
         Company's status as well capitalized;

     (d) IndyMac had not adequately reserved for Option ARMs;
         and

     (e) given the Company's exposure to the increased
         volatility in the credit and real estate markets, the
         Company had no reasonable basis to make projections
         about its earnings.

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

For more information, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Holzer & Fistel Files Illinois Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.  

The complaint alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of
1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in
its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission
filings.

Specifically, the complaint alleges Lehman made
misrepresentations relating to its investments in collateralized
debt obligations and subprime mortgage backed derivatives and
the risks associated with those investments.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338


NEXCEN BRANDS: Charles Johnson Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Johnson & Associates disclosed that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NexCen
Brands Inc. publicly traded securities during the period May 10,
2007, through May 19, 2008.

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

     1) 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;

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

     3) that the Company had no reasonable basis for its
        earnings guidance for fiscal 2008; and 4) as a result of
        the foregoing, the Company's ability to continue as a
        going concern was in serious doubt.

On May 19, 2008, the Company announced that it expected to amend
its Form 10-K annual report for the year ended December 31, 2007
and that its prior financial guidance for 2008 was no longer
applicable.  Upon 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:

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


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Roy Jacobs Files Wis. Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of TomoTherapy, Inc.,
from October 10, 2007, through April 17, 2008.

On October 10, 2007 the Company's secondary share offering of
8.5 million shares (the Offering) became effective at $22.25 per
share.  None of the proceeds of the Offering were received by
the Company.  Rather, the Company's Chairman, its Chief
Executive Officer, its President and its Chief Financial Officer
sold a very significant number of shares and together received
tens of millions of dollars in proceeds.

The complaint charges TOMO and the officers referenced above
with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  It is alleged,
inter alia that defendants concealed in the Offering and
thereafter that a larger percentage of TOMO's revenue backlog
was from for-profit entities which had ordered multi-unit Hi-Art
X-ray medical treatment systems and could be anticipated to take
delivery of the units sequentially throughout 2008 and 2009.
Thus, contrary to defendants' representations that order backlog
would generally be recognized as revenue within 12 months of
order placement, this was not the case with respect to the
multi-unit orders, which represented an increasingly large
percentage of total backlog.

On April 17, 2008, defendants issued a press release announcing
that TOMO would suffer a net loss for the first quarter of 2008,
and that defendants had revised materially downward their
revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2008.  Defendants
finally admitted that a greater percentage of TOMO's backlogged
orders were for multi-unit Hi-Art systems ordered by for profit
entities who would be expected to take delivery of the units
sequentially.  Thus, these units would remain in backlog longer
than single-unit orders and delivery would be pushed further
back in 2008 and even into 2009.  The representation that
backlog could ordinarily be converted into recognized revenue
within 12 months from order placement was finally revealed as
false, incomplete, and misleading.

Interested parties may move the court no later than July 29,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. (rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com)
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Mills Action v. Lexington Jail
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division,
granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Jail Administrator,
Lexington County Detention Center, and James Metts, Sheriff of
Lexington County, in an action involving asbestos filed by Tyler
Mills.

The case was styled Derrick Tyler Mills, Plaintiff, v. Jail
Administrator, Lexington County Detention Center, suit brought
in individual capacity, and James Metts, Sheriff, Lexington
County, Defendants.

Henry F. Floyd entered judgment of Civil Action No. 6:07-1695-
HFF-WMC on April 25, 2008.

Mr. Mills said that Defendants violated his constitutional
rights in relation to the 1983 complaint when jail officials
show a reckless disregard to protect him from the risk of a
potentially serious medical need by failing to renovate or
locate its jail facility for a more health-free "asbestos"
facility.

Mr. Mills stated that he has been "engulfed with the idea as
having the effects of asbestos disease" and further stated that
he has been experiencing irregular bowel movements. He sought
compensatory and punitive damages, including damages for "mental
anguish."

Mr. Mills filed a previous complaint with the District Court on
Nov. 9, 2004. He named the LCDC, Sgt. NFN Jones, Sgt. NFN
Granger, Sgt. NFN Hargrove, and Officer S. Russell as
defendants.

In that case, Mr. Mills alleged that he had medical problems
associated with construction at the LCDC, claiming that these
problems stemmed from exposure to asbestos.

On Feb. 10, 2005, the Honorable Henry F. Floyd, U.S. District
Judge, ordered that the LCDC be dismissed from the case. On
March 28, 2006, Judge Floyd adopted the District Court's
recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor of the
remaining defendants.

The District Court noted that the evidence showed there was no
known asbestos at the LCDC, and there was no evidence the Mr.
Mills had any medical condition related to exposure to asbestos
that required any form of treatment.

Accordingly, the Court found that Mr. Mills' 14th Amendment
claims regarding conditions of confinement and deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs failed.

It was recommended that the defendants' motion be granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Westchester Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, denied the
Westchester Fire Insurance Company and North River Insurance
Company's motion for summary judgment, in an asbestos-related
insurance action filed against Treesdale, Inc. and its
subsidiary Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company.

The case is styled Westchester Fire Insurance Company; North
River Insurance Company, Plaintiffs v. Treesdale, Inc.;
Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company, Defendants. Treesdale,
Inc.; Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company, Counter-Claimants v.
Westchester Fire Insurance Company; North River Insurance
Company, Counter-Defendants.

District Judge David Stewart Cercone entered judgment of Case
No. 2:05cv1523 on May 2, 2008.

Westchester and North River filed this action on Nov. 1, 2005.
The amount in controversy exceeded the sum of US$75,000,
exclusive of interest and costs.

Count I sought reformation of the policies to include asbestos
exclusions. Count II sought a declaratory judgment that the
policies do not cover Underlying Claims, based either on the
omitted asbestos exclusion or on the pollution exclusion. Count
III sought reimbursement or a claim of unjust enrichment based
on Westchester's defense of Treesdale and/or Pittsburgh Metals
from certain Underlying Claims.

On Feb. 21, 2006, Treesdale and Pittsburgh Metals filed an
answer and counterclaims.

On July 17, 2007, Westchester and North River filed a motion for
summary judgment. After the motion was briefed, Treesdale and
Pittsburgh Metals filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on Dec. 3,
2007 and the case was administratively closed on Dec. 7, 2007.

On Feb. 14, 2008, Westchester and North River filed a motion to
reopen the case, which was granted by order of Court on Feb. 19,
2008.

Before the District Court for disposition was the motion for
summary judgment, brought by Westchester and North River. The
motion for summary judgment was denied.

Christopher R. Carroll, Carroll, McNulty & Kull, Basking Ridge,
N.J., Pittsburgh, represented Westchester Fire Insurance Company
and North River Insurance Company.

Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty & Kull, Basking Ridge,
N.J., Kevin P. Lucas, Manion, McDonough & Lucas, Pittsburgh,
represented Westchester Fire Insurance Company and North River
Insurance Company.

Beth Ann Slagle, Frederick J. Francis, Richard T. Victoria,
Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Mark D. Shepard, Babst, Calland,
Clements & Zomnir, Pittsburgh, represented Treesdale, Inc. and
Pittsburgh Metals Purifying Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Ingwersen in Imo Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary
judgment to Imo Industries Inc, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Robert Ingwersen.  

The case is styled Robert Ingwersen, Appellant, v. Imo
Industries Inc, individually and as successor-in-interest to and
f/k/a Delaval Turbine, Inc., Respondent, and IMO Delaval, Inc.,
and Warren Pumps, a Delaware corporation; Elliott Company d/b/a
Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation;
General Electric Company, a New York corporation; Viacom, Inc.,
Successor by Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Viad Corporation,
f/k/a The Dial Corporation, individually and as a successor-in-
interest to Griscom-Russell Company, a Delaware corporation; and
Warren Pumps, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.

Judges Agid and Becker entered judgment of Case No. 59379-0-I on
May 5, 2008.

Mr. Ingwersen worked as a sheet metal worker at Lockheed
Shipyard in 1962, 1963, 1966 to 1967, and again in 1984. He was
diagnosed with asbestos related pleural disease and lung cancer.
In 2005, he sued several companies in the shipbuilding industry
seeking damages for his exposure to asbestos and his resulting
lung cancer. Imo was one of those companies.

Imo is the successor-in-interest to Delaval Turbine, Inc., a
company that manufactured turbine engines and other ship parts.

In the 1960s, Delaval turbine engines were insulated with
asbestos-containing materials. The asbestos-containing
insulation was required to protect sailors and shipyard workers
from the heat of the engines and to extend the range of the
ship.

Although Delaval did not make asbestos, it sometimes provided
the asbestos-containing insulation with the new engine. From
1963 to 1968, Delaval engines were installed on amphibious
transport dock ships (LPDs) and insulated with asbestos at
Lockheed.

Imo argued that Mr. Ingwersen failed to present sufficient
evidence that he was exposed to asbestos related to the
insulation of equipment manufactured by Delaval.

In his deposition, as well as his application to return to
Lockheed in 1984, Mr. Ingwersen claimed to have worked on the
first LSD (Landing Ship Dock) while at the shipyard in the
1960s.

In 1981, the U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed the contract to build a
new class of LSDs. In his opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, Mr. Ingwersen's counsel argued that he was likely
mistaken about having worked on an LSD and, given the
similarities between LSDs and LPDs, a reasonable  person could
conclude that Ingwersen had actually worked on the first LPD
built at Lockheed during the 1960s, and thus likely was exposed
to asbestos used to insulate that ship's Delaval turbine engine.

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded the case.

Janet L. Rice, Attorney at Law, Seattle, represented Robert
Ingwersen.

James Edward Horne, Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Pete,
Seattle, Michael Edward Ricketts, Kingman, Peabody, Fitzharris,
& Ringer P, Seattle, represented Imo Industries Inc,
individually and as successor-in-interest to and f/k/a Delaval
Turbine, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weiss Suit Filed v. 48 Firms in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorrayne Weiss, a resident of Minnesota, on June 3, 2008, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 48 defendant corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Defendants include A.H. Bennett Company, Bondex International
Inc, CBS Corporation, Chrysler LLC, Conwed Corp, Ford Motor
Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation,
Hallstar Company, Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand
Company Limited, International Paper Company, John Crane Inc.,
MW Custom Papers Llc, MetLife, Inc., Owens-Illinois, Inc.,
Philips Electronics North America Corporation, and Trane Inc.

Ms. Weiss claims she was employed as a laborer from 1941 to 1943
at various locations and was self-employed from 1945 to 1971
remodeling, repairing, and maintaining rental properties located
in Minneapolis.

As a basis for filing her case in Madison County, which is 575
miles from Minneapolis, Ms. Weiss states that defendants' John
Crane and Sprinkmann Sons Corp. are Illinois corporations which
are "doing business" in Madison County.

Ms. Weiss claims that during the course of her employment and
during home and automotive repairs she was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products she was working with and around.

The complaint states, "The plaintiff's exposure and inhalation,
ingestion or absorption of the asbestos fibers was completely
foreseeable and could or should have been anticipated by the
defendants."

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

According to Ms. Weiss, she first became aware that she suffered
from mesothelioma on Sept. 9, 2007.

Ms. Weiss alleges that the defendants included asbestos in their
products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos.

Ms. Weiss also claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Weiss claims she was
exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed a disease
caused only by asbestos which has disabled and disfigured her,
the complaint states. She seeks damages to help pay for the cost
of her treatment.

Ms. Weiss seeks at least US$400,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Nicholas Angelides of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represents Ms. Weiss.

Case No. 08 L 480 has been assigned to Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO, Groups Form Committee to Ban Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public health advocates, led by the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization and The John McNamara Foundation, on June 5, 2008,
announced the formation of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in
America (CBAA), Centre Daily Times reports.

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported mesothelioma
deaths increased from 2004 to 2005 in "Health, United States,
2007." Since first tracked in 1980, mesothelioma deaths have
increased every year.

Linda Reinstein, Chairperson of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in
America, said, "As recommended by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1976 the only way to
prevent asbestos-related diseases is to ban its use, the CBAA
supports language in a Committee Print before the House Energy &
Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & Hazardous Materials.

"We are calling on the U.S. Congress and the President to do the
right thing and ban asbestos in America and fund critical
medical programs. Doctors and scientists agree: asbestos is a
carcinogen and that there is no safe level of exposure.
Preventing asbestos exposure is the only way to eliminate
asbestos caused diseases. Recent ADAO product testing confirmed
asbestos is still found in consumer products including toys."

TC McNamara, Founder of The John McNamara Foundation, said,
"Asbestos and the manufacturers of asbestos are responsible for
creating the largest man made health crisis in this country.
Asbestos went from being a miracle product to a serial killer
which makes this legislation long overdue, but now is the time
to ban asbestos in America."

The Committee to Ban Asbestos in America (CBAA), formed by
public health advocates including the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization (ADAO) and The John McNamara Foundation is
dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure and eliminating
asbestos-caused diseases.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004, seeks to give
asbestos victims and concerned citizens a united voice to help
ensure that their rights are fairly represented and protected.

The John McNamara Foundation, founded by the McNamara family,
works to ban asbestos and offers support and assistance to
mesothelioma patients and their families.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40% Don't Know Exposure Source- Japan Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent survey of Japan's Environment Ministry showed that 40
percent of people suffering from asbestos-related diseases do
not know how they were exposed to asbestos, The Asahi Shimbun
reports.

This suggests the possibility that people do not have to live or
work close to asbestos-related facilities to have inhaled
asbestos particles.

In its first nationwide survey on the causes of asbestos-related
illnesses, the Ministry questioned 2,389 people recognized as
asbestos victims in fiscal 2006, and 2,049 people responded.
Victims who receive worker's accident compensation were not
covered.

Some 1,126 people, or 55 percent, said it was possible they were
exposed to asbestos at their workplaces, while 63, or three
percent, said they could have inhaled the substance from the
clothes of family members who worked at places that used the
material.

Two percent, or 40 people, said they may have entered offices
and other buildings that used asbestos as a coating material.

The remaining 820 people, or 40 percent, said they had no idea
how they came into contact with asbestos. The figure includes
responses from bereaved family members of people who have died
from asbestos-related diseases.

The survey also showed most of the victims worked at
manufacturing, construction, wholesale or retail jobs.

However, there were 61 teachers and former teachers who were
unlikely to have inhaled a substantial amount of the substance
at their workplaces.

The places where the respondents resided for the longest periods
of their lives were scattered over more than 500 municipalities
in all 47 prefectures.

Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture, has the largest concentration of
victims, at 183, followed by Osaka's 113, Yokohama's 55 and
Kobe's 44.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Sprayer's Death to Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest linked the death of former asbestos sprayer, 83-year-
old Gordon Bartley, to exposure to asbestos, The Citizen
reports.

The inquest was told that Mr. Bartley once told his family that
the insulation material never killed anybody.

Mr. Bartley's daughter, Olwyn Craven, told the inquest her
father started work for a Horwich, England-based firm of
asbestos sprayers in 1961. His first job was at the telephone
exchange, in Jubilee Street, Blackburn, and he remained with the
firm until 1963.

Mrs. Craven said, "We used to read about claims for asbestos-
related disease and say he should put one in. He said asbestos
never killed anyone and not to be so daft."

The inquest heard that Mr. Bartley, of Northwood Nursing Home,
Preston New Road, Blackburn, died of bronchopneumonia due to
asbestos-related lung cancer.

Coroner Michael Singleton recorded a verdict that death was due
to the industrial disease of asbestosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Govt to Begin Talks on Rights of Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.K. Government consultation into a House of Lords ruling on
asbestos-related condition, pleural plaques, will begin in June
2008, Post Online reports.

Member of Parliament, Bridget Prentice, the undersecretary of
state for justice, said the government is committed to finding
redress for people with pleural plaques and expects to announce
its decision by November 2008 in time for the Queen's speech.

During an adjournment debate in parliament on June 4, 2008, Ms.
Prentice said the consultation will review the effect of a House
of Lords ruling which brought to an end the right to
compensation for pleural plaques which has existed for more than
20 years. The consultation will consider options including
restoring the right to compensation for pleural plaques.

During the debate, Ms. Prentice said, "The consultation period
will begin very soon, and I hope that as a result my honorable
Friends will see serious action from the government, who are
committed to helping people with pleural plaques and asbestos-
related diseases."

Barnsley West and Penistone MP, Mick Clapham urged for the Law
Lords' decision to be reversed. He said, "I understand that a
consultation exercise will be launched in the next couple of
weeks, but I strongly suggest to the Minister, even at this
eleventh hour, that she ... emphasize to her colleagues the need
to reverse the Law Lords' decision. That is the best and
cleanest way forward."

Meanwhile, Blaydon MP David Anderson called for the consultation
to be quick so those with pleural plaques would know finally
where they stand.

The House of Lords ruling was made following a court battle
brought by the insurance industry. It is estimated the decision
will save the industry GBP1.4 billion.

Frederick Hewitt, 73, of Fellside, South Shields worked as an
apprentice shipwright in the shipbuilding industry between 1950
and 1967 where he was exposed to asbestos.

Mr. Hewitt discovered he had developed pleural plaques in
January 2004 following a chest x-ray arranged by his GP. Since
then he has suffered anxiety and is concerned about what may
develop in the future as his neighbor who also worked in the
shipyards died as a result of asbestos disease.

Mr. Hewitt said he is pleased the government has decided to hold
a consultation. He said, "When I heard the Law Lords' decision I
thought it as a disgrace. I believe it is only right for the
government to step in to find a way for pleural plaques
sufferers to claim compensation."

Thompsons Solicitors in Newcastle acted for pleural plaques
sufferers in the House of Lords test case. Ian McFall, Head of
asbestos policy at Thompsons said, "The House of Lords decision
left thousands of working people disillusioned because they know
their lungs have been marked by the asbestos they were wrongly
exposed to and they have to live with the risk that some day
they may develop a fatal illness.

The consultation comes as the trade union Unite and Thompsons
Solicitors are involved in another test case in the High Court
to safeguard compensation for mesothelioma sufferers and their
families.

The nine-week court battle, being dubbed the 'trigger issue,'
began on June 3, 2008. The court decision is not expected until
the autumn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4th District Court Urged to Review Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center urges the Florida
4th District Court to carefully review The Florida Asbestos and
Silica Compensation Act to better serve individuals who may have
been unknowingly exposed to asbestos and may one day lose their
life to mesothelioma, TransWorldNews reports.

These individuals will leave behind families who may be unable
to cover medical costs, funeral expenses and even day-to-day
expenses for those living without a primary provider.

A Florida Court ruled that The Florida Asbestos and Silica
Compensation Act cannot be applied to asbestos-related cases
that were brought before the court prior to 2005, when the act
was put into effect.

The act was put into place in an effort to "muddy the waters"
for Florida citizens who wished to pursue litigation related to
asbestos exposure, many of whom were suffering from asbestosis
at the time they filed suit.

A Florida 4th District Court judge ruled that the procedures for
handling asbestos-related cases prior to the Asbestos and Silica
Compensation Act were not thorough.

Plaintiffs who brought a case before the court in years
preceding the new procedures were not required to demonstrate
proof of malignancy (cancer), but were only asked to provide
"proof" that they were suffering from complications as a result
of asbestos exposure.

Since the act was passed, all plaintiffs must provide
verification, specifically medical records notarized by a
physician – in an effort to validate their claims for the court.

The court's decision came after review of a 1988 case which
stated that there is a specific dormant period between exposure
and onset of asbestosis. The case also established the latency
period between exposure and development of mesothelioma to be 20
to 40 years, and, during this latent period, it is therefore
impossible to demonstrate "proof of malignancy."

Further complicating the situation is the reality that many of
those diagnosed with asbestosis will one day develop
mesothelioma.

The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Act has created a
grave disadvantage for many citizens due to the rigorous suit
requirements.

Upon exposure to asbestos, it can take up to 40 years before an
individual will demonstrate any biological effects related to
pleural mesothelioma. Upon receiving a diagnosis of
mesothelioma, an individual will generally survive for an
additional one to two years before the disease takes their life,
leaving very little time to file suit and obtain any reparation
for the victim and their surviving family.

The Florida act works to further complicate the process for
individuals who are hoping to receive the damages that they and
their family deserve.

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center has been regarded
as the web's leading informational resource for information
regarding mesothelioma and various mesothelioma treatment
options.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Delays Demolition of Days Inn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The demolition of the Days Inn on Wayne Memorial Drive,
Goldsboro, N.C., has been delayed because of asbestos problems,
Goldsboro News-Argus reports.

The demolition was supposed to take place early in June 2008.

Chief Building Inspector Ed Cianfarra said that does not mean
the motel will be there for long.

The owner, Mark H. Daley III, told Mr. Cianfarra he had a letter
stating that all of the asbestos had already been removed from
the building.

Mr. Cianfarra said when he read the letter, it did not quite
state what Mr. Daley thought it did. Mr. Cianfarra said, "Many
years ago, prior to establishing the current asbestos abatement
program, there was some asbestos removed, but not all of it."

The letter, written several years back, was from a hygienist who
said the asbestos abatement requirements were filled, Mr.
Cianfarra added. Since then, state mandates on asbestos
abatement have changed. Now, the state does not just go by what
a hygienist says.

Mr. Cianfarra said, "They have to take samples. Everything had
to be tested again." The test results brought bad news. He
added, "The building is full of it."

An asbestos abatement contract has been secured by Mr. Daley,
Mr. Cianfarra said, and after removal and certification from the
state, the building will come down.

The Days Inn was destroyed by a windstorm in August 2007, and
shortly after, Mr. Cianfarra declared the structure a "total
loss." The City Council officially condemned the building in
February 2008.

A "land for sale" sign appears on a fence surrounding the
property on Wayne Memorial Drive, and the asking price is US$1.1
million for nearly 3.3 acres.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Favors Defendants in Reiter Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the ruling of
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which favored appellees in
an asbestos-related lawsuit styled, Catherine L. Reiter, et al.,
v. ACandS, Inc., et al.

Judges Patrick L. Woodward, James P. Salmon, and Raymond G.
Thieme, Jr. entered judgment of Case No. 670, Sept.Term 2006 on
May 6, 2008.

Appellants, individually and as the Personal Representatives of
three deceased former employees of Bethlehem Steel Corporation's
Sparrows Point, Md. facility, appealed from a decision of the
Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of appellees
Eaton Corporation, successor in interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc.,
Pneumo Abex LLC, and Square D Company.

The complaints alleged that William H. Johnson, William A.
Reiter, and Harold R. Williams suffered from lung cancer as a
result of occupational exposure to appellee's asbestos-
containing crane brakes.

Appellants are: Charlotte J. Johnson, Personal Representative of
the Estate of William H. Johnson; Catherine L. Reiter, Personal
Representative of the Estate of William A. Reiter; and Arlene
Williams, Personal Representative of the Estate of Harold R.
Williams.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Defendants in Jacobs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, ruled in favor of lawyer
William K. Tapscott, Jr. and his then employer Baron & Budd,
P.C., in a lawsuit over asbestos awards filed by Karin Jacobs,
Patria Jacobs, and Joeann Frost.

The case is styled Karin Jacobs, Patria Jacobs, and Joeann
Frost, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. William K. Tapscott, Jr. and
Baron & Budd, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

Circuit Judges Davis and Southwick and District Judge Clark
entered judgment of Case No. 07-10558 on May 8, 2008.

This was an an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Appellants in this case challenged the dismissal of their suit
pretrial in an order granting a motion for summary judgment
(dismissing some of the claims) and a later judgment as a matter
of law (dismissing the remaining claims).

The plaintiffs-appellants are the heirs of Carl Jacobs, who died
of mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure.

Before the June 1999 trial setting of the asbestos litigation,
the appellees negotiated settlements with the asbestos
defendants for a total of US$2.4 to US$2.5 million. After the
settlement was agreed to, one of the defendants withdrew its
offer. Other defendants filed bankruptcy proceedings. As a
result, counsel collected US$2.1 million of the settlement sum.

Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with counsels' service. Plaintiffs
sued their attorneys on theories of negligence,
misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of contract, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The district court granted the defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment as to all claims except two breach of fiduciary duty
claims.

Based on the Appeals Court's review of the record and applicable
law, it agreed with the district court that summary judgment was
appropriate on plaintiffs' claims of negligence,
misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of contract, and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The Appeals Court agreed with the district court that: (1)
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they were damaged from
counsels' alleged negligence and misrepresentation; (2)
plaintiffs failed to state a claim predicated on gross
negligence; and (3) plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was an
impermissibly fractured malpractice claim.

In addition, plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims were
either impermissibly fractured malpractice claims or were barred
because they were not raised in plaintiffs' original complaint.

The Appeals Court agreed that the court correctly granted
summary judgment on the claims covered by that order.

The two remaining prongs of plaintiffs' fiduciary duty claim
were heard by a jury. The jury rejected the first claim and
rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs on the second claim,
awarding them US$129,000.

Thereafter on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, the
district court dismissed the second claim, rendering judgment
for defendants notwithstanding the jury's verdict.

Jeffrey S. Lynch, Dallas, represented Karin Jacobs, Patria
Jacobs, and Joeann Frost.

Robert Martin Greenberg, Robert Eugene Motsenbocker, Kerens,
Tex., represented William K. Tapscott, Jr. and Baron & Budd,
P.C.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors U.S. Steel in Gomcsak Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th District, Lorain County,
upheld the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas, County of
Lorain, Ohio, which ruled in favor of U.S. Steel Corporation, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Phyllis Gomcsak on behalf
of her late husband, Norman Gomcsak.

The case is styled Norman Gomcsak, et al., Appellants v. U.S.
Steel Corporation, Appellee.

Judges Moore, Whitmore, and Dickinson entered judgment of Case
No. 07CA009208 on May 12, 2008.

This case involved the death Mr. Gomcsak, who worked as an
electrician/motor inspector at the U.S. Steel Mill in Lorain,
Ohio, from 1942 to 1984. His work put him in close contact with
asbestos products.

In February 2000, Mr. Gomcsak sought medical attention after a
sudden onset of symptoms occurred. He died on March 10, 2000.
The death certificate listed seven different causes of death.
However, the parties stipulated "[t]hat the cause of
[Decedent's] death was lung cancer[.]"

Following Mr. Gomcsak's death, Mrs. Gomcsak filed a workers'
compensation claim, alleging that her husband had died of
asbestos-related cancer. The Ohio Bureau of Workers'
Compensation granted Mrs. Gomcsak occupation disease death
benefits.

U.S. Steel appealed from the Bureau's decision.

The case went to trial on May 31, 2007. The following
stipulation was read to the jury: "That during [Decedent's]
career at U.S. Steel he worked around asbestos and asbestos
containing products[.]"

The issue remaining for the jury was whether Mr. Gomcsak's lung
cancer was caused by the exposure to asbestos while he worked at
U.S. Steel.

Among other witnesses, Mrs. Gomcsak presented testimony from
four expert witnesses: Dr. Joseph Sopko, Dr. Paul Venizelos, Dr.
James McMahon, and Dr. James Martin.

U.S. Steel presented the testimony of one expert witness, Dr.
John Murphy. Prior to the trial, U.S. Steel filed a motion in
limine as to the scope of Dr. Martin's testimony. The trial
court granted U.S. Steel's motion and limited Dr. Martin's
testimony to the report he created in 1992.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury unanimously found in
favor of U.S. Steel. Gomcsak timely appealed this decision.

Robert P. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, represented Phyllis Gomcsak.

Robert C. McClelland, Attorney at Law, represented U.S. Steel
Corporation.

Timothy McGrail, Assistant Ohio Attorney General, represented
the Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Class Bid for Hospital Suit v. Grace Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald denied without prejudice
the request for class certification of Anderson Memorial
Hospital, on behalf of a class of individuals or property owners
whose properties have been damaged or allegedly damaged by
asbestos-containing products manufactured by W. R. Grace & Co.

According to Judge Fitzgerald, certification of the class would
needlessly prolong the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases, which were
filed nearly seven years ago and which has been hard fought
every step of the way by all constituent bodies.

Judge Fitzgerald pointed out that Anderson Memorial failed to
meet the class certification requirements of Rule 23(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"With respect to Rule 23(a), we address only numerosity as we
find that to be dispositive," Judge Fitzgerald explained. She
said that numerosity requires a finding that a class
representative be appointed only if joinder of all members of
the class would be impracticable.

"Impracticability does not mean impossibility but only the
difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of the
class," Judge Fitzgerald clarified. "In this case, the property
damage claim creditor universe is known because the notice of
the bar date was so extensive there are not enough claims left  
toconstitute a numerous base in the first place."

Of about 3,000 claims originally filed by Speights, & Runyan,
Anderson Memorial's counsel, only 158 remained when the matters
were briefed in August 2007, more than 80 of the claims were not
part of the putative class, and only one was a South Carolina
claim, Judge Fitzgerald noted.

"If we follow the lead of the South Carolina court which limited
class certification to South Carolina buildings, there would be
only one claimant," Judge Fitzgerald said. "This court cannot
conclude that one claim satisfies the numerosity requirement."

Judge Fitzgerald added that even at 158 claims, the number is
manageable in a bankruptcy context.

If the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met, Anderson Memorial
must meet one of the Rule 23(b) standards before a class can be
certified, Judge Fitzgerald held. Under Rule 23(b), a claimant
must show either that:

(a) Prosecution of separate actions by or against individual
    class members would create a risk of inconsistent
    adjudications, which would establish incompatible standards
    of conduct for the opposing party or which would be
    dispositive of the interests of non-parties or would impair
    or impede the non-parties' ability to protect their
    interests;

(b) The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act in
    a way "generally applicable to the class" so that final
    relief with respect to the class as a whole is appropriate;
    or

(c) The court finds that questions of law or fact common to the
    class members predominate over questions affecting only
    individual members and that a class action is a superior
    method for the "fair and efficient adjudication of the
    controversy."

Judge Fitzgerald said that regarding the first and second
factors, there has been no showing of a risk of inconsistent
adjudications or that adjudications with respect to individual
class members would be dispositive of the interests of other
claimants nor have the Debtors engaged in conduct in their
bankruptcy cases that would make class relief appropriate.

In addition, Judge Fitzgerald noted that there have been
objections to claims, which have been vigorously contested and
the Anderson claimants' rights have not been affected by the
absence of a class action mechanism.

Thus, Judge Fitzgerald said the only relevant criterion is the
third factor. She, however, ruled that a class action is not a
superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy with respect to the claims sought to be included in
Anderson Memorial's request.

Anderson Memorial asserts that common issues exist like whether:
  -- asbestos-containing surfacing materials are hazardous;
  -- asbestos fibers are released under forseeable uses;
  -- the Debtors tested for fiber release potential; and
  -- duties to building owners were owed or breached.

Judge Fitzgerald explained that a class action format is not
conducive to resolution of issues like whether a Grace product
is in place in any claimant's building or whether a specific  
state's statute of limitations has run because the questions
cannot be resolved without reference to each claim or to smaller
sets of claims. Furthermore, Judge Fitzgerald noted that a class
action is not a superior method of resolving the claims
objections in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases because claims
objections have been and continue to be addressed on a claimant-
by-claimant basis or in smaller groups of claims with related
issues or facts, and few remain to be decided. She added that
the ultimate issue cannot be decided without reference to the
bar date.

"As to unfiled claims, the class action process sought by
Anderson Memorial would operate to negate the bar date," Judge
Fitzgerald said. She further explained that the request for
class certification proposes an opt-out election, which would
defeat the purpose of certifying a class in the context of the
Debtors' bankruptcy cases.

A claimant who did not file a timely claim but who would be a
member of the class if certified could opt out of the class and
then assert an independent late claim, thereby effecting another
end run around the bar date, Judge Fitzgerald said.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Responds to Bar Date Objection
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to deny The
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants'
request for an evidentiary hearing with respect to the proposed
bar date notice program.

On behalf of the Debtors, Laura Davis Jones, at Pachulski Stang
Ziegler & Jones LLP, in Wilmington, Del., says that the PD
Committee's request is nothing more than a "flimsy delay tactic"
aimed at derailing the Debtors' Chapter 11 plan process.

"Now that the Debtors have reached a consensus with the majority
of their creditors, deliberate progress toward a prompt
confirmation hearing is the paramount concern for most of the
constituencies and should be the priority for the cases as a
whole," Ms. Jones contends.

In addition, Ms. Jones presents that:

  -- The proposed bar date and notice program has in substance,
     been in existence and subject to analysis for literally
     seven years;

  -- The Debtors' most recent requests for approval of a ZAI bar
     date and notice program was made more than nine weeks ago.
     In that time, the PD Committee never filed a counter
     affidavit to the Debtors' expert respecting matters
     particular to the Debtors' program, nor did they request
     discovery; and

  -- The hearing on the matter was set more than five weeks ago    
     and no timely effort was made by the PD Committee in those
     five weeks to engage the Debtors in a discussion on
     discovery or cross examination of the Debtors' expert.

The Debtors also filed with the Court amended ZAI Bar Date
exhibits to include:

  -- Black lined versions of the proof of claim form and
     instructions for completing the form to clarify that ZAI
     Claims are located in the United States and Canada. The
     instructions were also modified to make clear that the
     claim forms may be completed in English, French, or
     Inuktitut;

  -- Blacklined versions of the notices of the bar date to
     account for the omitted reference to Canada. The Bar Date
     Notice for known claimants and the publication notices have
     also been revised to make clear that homeowners who either
     have a claim or who may in the future have a ZAI claim must
     file a proof of claim by the bar date to preserve their
     legal rights against the Debtors; and

  -- A supplemental notice of the Canadian notice program to
     address objections raised by the Canadian ZAI Claimants
     that aboriginal persons in Canada needed notice more
     specifically tailored to them.

Judge Gross, the settlement judge for the ZAI Claims, told the
Court that all parties-in-interest attended and actively
participated in the mediation held on May 12, 2008. He, however,
said that the May 12 mediation did not result in a settlement of
any of the pending ZAI Claims issues even after he made
additional efforts post-mediation to encourage the parties to
settle.

Judge Gross indicated that he is willing and able, at anytime,
to resume mediation efforts and will continue to communicate
with the parties.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. Opposes Court Review of Grace Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government opposed W.R. Grace & Co.'s request for the
U.S. Supreme Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals in the
9th Circuit's ruling on the reinstatement of conspiracy charges
relating to Grace's vermiculite mining operations in Libby,
Mont., The Billings Gazette reported.

"There . . . is a strong . . . need to prevent any additional,
unnecessary delay of the trial," the Gazette quoted papers filed   
with the Supreme Court by the Government. "Some witnesses and
many victims . . . are dying from mesothelioma, asbestosis, and
other asbestos-related diseases . . . As time passes, more
witnesses will be unavailable to testify, and fewer victims will
be able to attend the trial."

If the Supreme Court decides to review the Appellate Court's
reinstatement ruling, the earliest time it could do so would be
in October 2008, the newspaper noted.  

As previously reported, the Government obtained an indictment in
2005 charging Grace and seven of its former executives with
criminal conduct arising from the company's Libby operations.
The indictment accuses Grace and its officials of conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings, violations of the federal Clean Air Act, and
obstruction of justice.

Grace related that the Government asserted in the indictment
that Grace could be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice
the after-tax profit earned from its Libby operations or twice
the alleged loss suffered by Libby victims, plus additional
amounts for restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that
Grace's after-tax profits were US$140 million.  

From 1963 to 1992, Grace mined vermiculite ore in Libby. Libby
residents subsequently complained of serious health problems in
connection with Grace's vermiculite operations.

In its form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in March 2007, Grace said it expects that legal fees
for its defense in the indictment and that of its current and
former employees could range from US$3 million to US$4 million
per quarter.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 159; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Locals Want Apology From Electric Co
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Latrobe Valley, in Victoria, Australia, demand an
apology for 146,000 workers and their families exposed to
asbestos by the former State Electricity Commission, The Age
reports.

Vicky Hamilton, head of the Gippsland asbestos-related disease
support group, GARDS, said, "The Pope apologized for the
pedophile priests, Kevin Rudd apologized to the stolen
generations, now it is John Brumby's turn."

The use of asbestos was banned in Victoria in 2003. However, it
was too late for 146,000 employees and contractors who worked in
SEC plants from 1921 to the 1980s.

Since 1976, the State Government insurance authority has paid
AUD52.6 million to former SEC employees. Another AUD369 million
is expected to be paid out by the Victorian Managed Insurance
Authority to former employees before the asbestos epidemic ends.

"The SEC knew about the asbestos. The Government knew about the
asbestos. They did nothing to protect their workers and their
families.

Carpenters and builders clad the SEC workers' homes in asbestos
sheeting, their wives shook dust from their overalls, and
children hugged dusty "snowmen" after work.

The enduring tragedy of mass asbestos exposure among the people
of Morwell, Yallourn, Moe, Newborough, Traralgon and surrounds
is that families are stricken through generations. Grandfathers,
fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters and grandchildren live
and die with the fiber's lethal legacy.

Now 1,000 former power industry workers are taking part in a
study funded by the National Health and Medical Research
Council.

The Latrobe Valley Power Industry Cohort study, conducted by the
University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute,
hopes to identify markers in the blood of asbestos-exposed
individuals to indicate their risk of developing diseases such
as asbestosis, mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer.

It is predicted that 22,000 Australians will die of mesothelioma
before death rates peak around 2020. Asbestos-related lung
cancers are expected to claim another 44,000 lives.

The Latrobe Valley community is skeptical about the Government's
conflicting roles as the employer responsible for their asbestos
contamination and the protector of public health.

Reconciliation between the Government and the community has been
hindered by the SEC's initial denials of asbestos hazards, lack
of consultation, the suppression of information and bitterly
fought compensation claims, according to University of Melbourne
research fellow Associate Professor Tony LaMontagne.

Professor LaMontagne said, "Without some mutually acceptable way
of acknowledging past wrongs, ways forward will be hampered."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA & EPA Urged to Improve Info Dispersal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office
recommended that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) develop time frames to more quickly deliver information,
including asbestos-related, to the public, Occupational Hazards
reports.

The GAO analysis revealed that it took OSHA and EPA's Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) more than
five and three years, respectively, to release guidances,
brochures and other communication products addressing the
potential hazards of exposure to asbestos in automotive brakes.

OSHA officials twice decided to not release drafts before the
final posting because they needed more data to understand how
pervasive asbestos is in brake products and to avoid causing
unnecessary alarm, GAO said.

And while it took OSHA longer to release its final product, the
OPPTS process incorporated more steps to obtain input from
external parties.

The report read, "It is important that communication products be
issued in a timely manner. Timeliness is but one of a range of
performance indicators that agencies may use to measure whether
they are achieving their goals, as managers balance competing
priorities. But timeliness seems especially relevant once an
agency has determined that there is a need to communicate
information about how people can protect themselves from health
and safety hazards to which they might be exposed."

GAO developed the report after "some parties" raised concerns
that workers and general public were not aware that asbestos was
still present in both old and replacement automotive parts.

A series of events, news articles and research studies refocused
attention on the issue of asbestos hazards in automotive brakes
and prompted both agencies to disseminate information to the
public.

In addition to recommending that OSHA and OPPTS develop time
frames or benchmarks to ensure they deliver the products in a
timely fashion, GAO also recommended that both agencies ensure
that their key general processes for preparing communication
products are documented and made available on their respective
Web sites.

To read the full report, visit:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08265.pdf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railton Owners Predict Increase in Diseases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of the Railton Cement Factory in Tasmania, Australia,
say that the number of people suffering asbestos-related
diseases will rise, ABC News reports.

The factory made asbestos building products from 1947 until
1986.

Cement Australia spokesman, Stephen Brass, said, "The asbestos-
related diseases have a very long period of dormancy, if you
like, and we're probably only just starting to move into the
peak of that."

Seventy-two-year-old Ray Williams worked at the factory and now
has asbestosis.

Former factory worker Ray Williams, who has asbestosis, said,
"If they come forward now and they get their payout - if they're
entitled to one - that gives them a chance to enjoy the payout
while they're still able to."

Cement Australia has so far made compensation payments to 36
people.

The number of new mesothelioma cases in Tasmania has risen
dramatically in the past decade.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lower Hutt, N.Z. Railway Station to Reopen
---------------------------------------------------------------
A commuter rail station in Lower Hutt, New Zealand, will reopen
before the end of July 2008 after a temporary closure after
traces of asbestos were found, Radio New Zealand reports.

Testing at Epuni station has found asbestos in some parts of the
station. However, all air tests have proven to be negative.

Tranz Metro says a new shelter will be built after cleanup work
is completed. Passengers will be able to catch trains as normal.

Tranz Metro says Epuni is one of its oldest stations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brent Coon Reaches 14 Settlements in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brent Coon & Associates Law Office has reached 14
settlements in asbestos-related cases filed in Texas courts, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

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

The remaining four settlements came from a much older lawsuit,
Anderson Betty vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., first filed in
1998.

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

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

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

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

The settlement amounts were not disclosed.

These cases are:

E-167892-Q Ernest Harry Best vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-AH Joseph Campbell vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-AL William Chandler vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-BA Robert Douglas vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-BQ Deilma Guthrie vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-BR James Harden, Sr. vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-BU Mattie D. Hayes vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-EI Robert E. Myers vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-FF Richard P. Bohanon vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-167892-FS John Fox vs. A. C. & S., Inc., et al
E-159526-AE Danny W. Parks, et ux vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas
E-159526-AV Margery Sargent, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas
E-159526-BC W. E. Barkley, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas
E-159526-BF Ruth Ferlito, et al vs. Owens Corning Fiberglas


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2,000 Pupils Evacuated from Belfast Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 2,000 pupils, on June 9, 2008, were evacuated from two
Belfast, Northern Ireland schools when a fire broke out in the
former Bass Ireland Ltd brewery, RTE News reports.

Fears of asbestos particles in heavy smoke billowing from the
old plant prompted the Police Service of Northern Ireland and
Fire & Rescue Service to recommend a shutdown of the schools
nearby on the Glen Road.

More than 1,100 pupils at St. Mary Christian Brothers Grammar
School were sent home, followed by 600 from the La Salle school.

The Glen Road was closed to traffic for hours and residents
living in the area were urged to keep their doors and windows
shut tight.

Over 70 firefighters from all over Belfast were involved in
dealing with the fire in the three-story building on the Glen
Road.

Ten fire vehicles from Belfast plus a specialist aerial
appliance together with Operational Support Unit and Command
Support Unit from Lisburn attended.

SDLP West Belfast Assembly Member Alex Attwood expressed his
concern about the fire. He said that the age of the Bass Ireland
building and the possible asbestos risk means that the emergency
services must take all precautions to protect workers, residents
and schoolchildren.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heater Exposure Linked to Clerk's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Walthamstow Coroner's Court heard that the
death of retired clerical worker, Joan Squires, was linked to
asbestos, Your local Guardian reports.

The 92-year-old Mrs. Squires, of Ilford, London, England, died
from mesothelioma on April 8, 2008. She had never worked in
factories and had not knowingly come into contact with asbestos.

However, five years ago, Mrs. Squires' son John, an electrical
engineer, also died from mesothelioma at the age of 59.

Mrs. Squires' other son Howard told the court that his mother
and brother may have inhaled asbestos fibers while dismantling
and fixing a storage heater in their Wensleydale Avenue home in
the 1970s.

On March 18, 2008, Mrs. Squires was admitted to Whipps Cross
Hospital with breathing difficulties. Following a scan, doctors
noticed a gray shading on her lung and she was later diagnosed
with the incurable cancer.

Mrs. Squires was then transferred to the Margaret Centre hospice
where she died.

As well as the storage heater theory, Mr. Squires said asbestos
may have got on John's clothes at work and his mother could have
breathed in the fibers as she cleaned them.

Although asbestos bodies were not actually found in Mrs.
Squires' lungs, Dr. Stearns was "satisfied" that Mrs. Squires
had died as a result of exposure to asbestos.

However, as the coroner was unsure where exactly Mrs. Squires
contracted the disease, Dr. Stearns recorded a narrative
verdict, which is simply a record of the circumstances
surrounding the death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labour Councilors Slam Wear Valley Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Labour councilors, an inquiry into asbestos found
at Woodhouse Close Leisure Centre, in Wear Valley, County
Durham, England, has been "disgracefully" used as a "cheap,
political football," The Wear Valley Mercury reports.

A 39-page document investigating the management of the toxic
materials found at Woodhouse Close was published, but councilors
were more concerned with the way it may have been used to score
political points in the run-up to the elections.

The asbestos was discovered in the plant room in 2001, but it
was five years later staff at the center were informed of its
existence after two workmen blew the whistle. The council was
fined GBP18,000 for the incident and the inquiry was set-up to
investigate how it happened.

At a full council meeting on June 5, 2008, councilors accepted
the report which blamed the incident on "endemic failures in the
authority as a whole," but made no comment on the report itself
instead criticizing each other for the way in which it was
handled.

Councilor Neil Stonehouse, Labour group leader and former leader
of the council said, "This report is very important at returning
public confidence in this authority. It does not make pretty
reading and it is quite clear there were serious operational
failings, but the public can rest assured that the current
system is sound and can be confident that we have taken
appropriate steps to ensure this never happens again."

Councilor Stonehouse slammed the Liberal Democrat councilors for
publicizing "fallacious and deceitful lies" that the report had
been deliberately delayed by Labor, saying, "It is not
acceptable behavior and is entirely regrettable.

"It is disgraceful that this report has been used as a political
football to suit political ends."

In April 2008, six Liberal Democrat and Independent councilors
demanded a public meeting to "consider the implications arising
out of the unwarranted, unreasonable and unacceptable delays" in
the publication of inquiry results.

The meeting was canceled by council officers before the election
over fears it could be used for political gain, and the request
has now been withdrawn.

A vote of no confidence in the former leader Neil Stonehouse and
his deputy Charlie Kay which had been made after Lib Dem
councilors complained they had not been informed the council was
being taken to court was also withdrawn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Pattullo Bridge in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asphalt bridge deck of the Pattullo Bridge, in British
Columbia, Canada, was found to be laced with asbestos,
surreyleader.com reports.

The asbestos was mixed in with the asphalt and laid down on top
of the original concrete deck during the 1980s.

It is complicating TransLink's latest efforts to repave the
bridge and better assess its structural safety.

Now classified as a contaminated material, the asphalt cannot
just be ground up as it would in most other road projects lest
it become a hazardous airborne dust.

Instead it must be kept wet and be removed in sealed containers
as part of specialized handling and disposal requirements that
have kicked in.

TransLink tried to find a company to do the work in the fall of
2007 but received no serious bids. It is now trying again with a
revised request for proposals.

The asphalt top coat is preventing TransLink engineers from
getting a good look at the concrete bridge deck to assess its
integrity.

Susan Hollingshead, TransLink's manager of bridges and roads,
said, "We can't really get a good sense of the condition of the
concrete if we can't look at it and test it."

TransLink had hoped to ban trucks from using the bridge's center
lanes once a way could be found to improve how southbound trucks
merge from McBride Avenue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montreal School Board to Eliminate Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission Scolaire de Montreal (CSDM), Montreal's French
School Board, plans major renovations in the summer of 2008 to
eliminate asbestos from two dozen buildings, cbc.ca reports.

The board would not specify which schools have been targeted,
but indicated the mineral is present in some corridor walls and
stairwells.

Currently there is no immediate danger to students, said CSDM
spokesman Alain Perron, in a French interview with CBC News. He
said, "There are no asbestos [fibers] in suspension in the air."

Four of the two dozen schools with higher than average levels of
asbestos will be renovated this summer, Mr. Perron said. Work on
the remaining schools will begin sometime in the near future,
with the goal of being completed by 2011, at a cost of about
CDN$5 million, he added.

Construction work should not affect class schedules, but some
students could be moved if necessary, said CSDM spokesman
Patrice Lavoie.

The Quebec Ministry of Health has conducted tests on the schools
and concluded there was no immediate health danger.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Map Shows Portions of Australia w/ Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An article published in Environmental Geology, an international
journal of earth sciences, indicates parts of eastern Australia
underlain by rocks with the right geological conditions to host
asbestos, Wikinews reports.

According to the author, Macquarie University researcher Marc
Hendrickx, there is good news and bad news. He said, "The good
news is that potential asbestos bearing rocks account for only
0.2 percent of the land area of eastern Australia and most of
the outcrops are in remote areas."

The main occurrence of potential asbestos bearing rocks in
eastern Australia is in serpentinite that occurs in narrow
outcrop belts in all the eastern states.

Other potential hosts include altered ultramafic rocks in
central New South Wales, and metamorphic rocks in northern
Tasmania, western NSW and western Queensland.

Mr. Hendrickx indicates "The bad news is that some of the areas
have been unwittingly disturbed, mainly by using asbestos
bearing rocks as a source of material for road construction.

"In two cases, in QLD and NSW this has resulted in affected
roads undergoing remediation costing millions of dollars.
Another example in Orange in central NSW involved 60,000 cubic
meters of rock being crushed for aggregate during the
development of a new business park before the asbestos content
was realized. Air quality monitoring undertaken in similar
situations elsewhere indicates exposure to low levels of
respirable asbestos fibers is possible from disturbance of
asbestos in rocks and soils in such circumstances."

Mr. Hendrickx suggests the specialized geological maps published
as part of the study will help planning authorities and land
owners avoid future "accidental" or unplanned disturbance of
asbestos bearing rocks.

Mr Hendrickx's research, in the Graduate School of the
Environment at Macquarie University in Australia, hopes to
ascertain the geology of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in eastern
and South Australia and aims to discover if it has caused cases
of the cancer mesothelioma in Australia.

The article "Naturally occurring asbestos in eastern Australia:
a review of geological occurrence, disturbance and mesothelioma
risk" can be accessed online from Environmental Geology, a
Springer publication.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Widow in Coman Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, 7th District, Mahoning County,
upheld the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division
of Mahoning County, Ohio, which favored widow Gloria Coman, in a
lawsuit involving asbestos filed by her daughter Victoria Lee
Coman.

The case is styled In The Matter of the Estate of David L.
Coman, Deceased, Gloria Coman, Appellee, v. Victoria Lee Coman,
Appellant.

Judges Donofrio, Vukovich, and DeGenaro entered judgment of Case
No. 07-MA-181 on May 7, 2008.

David Coman died on Oct. 20, 2002, from lung cancer, allegedly
brought on as the result of his exposure to asbestos. He was
survived by his wife, Gloria Coman, and two children, Victoria
Coman and David Coman, Jr.

David Coman's last will and testament, which devised all of his
property to his wife, was admitted to probate on Sept. 13, 2006.
Gloria Coman was appointed executrix of the estate.

On May 31, 2007, an application to approve partial settlement
and distribution of wrongful death and survival claims was filed
and a hearing for the application was set for July 10, 2007.
Victoria Coman filed a request for a continuance.

A South Carolina resident at the time, Victoria Coman claimed
that she was scheduled to be in court in two separate cases on
July 10, 2007 and July 12, 2007 in the "Carolina's." The probate
court denied the requested continuance.

On July 6, 2007, Victoria Coman filed a second request to which
she attached proof of the conflicting dates. The probate court
conducted a hearing on the application on July 10, 2007. In an
entry filed the following day, the court approved the partial
settlement.

However, the court also granted Victoria Coman's second request
for continuance as to the distribution of the net proceeds of
the partial settlement and set that matter for hearing on
Sept. 4, 2007. Victoria Coman requested a continuance of the
Sept. 4, 2007 hearing. The probate court denied her request.

The distribution hearing proceeded on Sept. 4, 2007, before a
magistrate. Gloria Coman and her sister, Shirley Murphy
testified.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the magistrate issued a decision recommending
that all of the net proceeds from the wrongful death claim be
distributed to Gloria Coman as the surviving spouse. David
Coman, Jr. waived any interest in the proceeds and consented to
them being distributed to his mother.

On Sept. 13, 2007, Victoria Coman filed a "MOTION TO
RECONSIDER/OBJECT AND CHARGE BOTH WITNESSES WITH PERJURY." In
the motion, she claimed that she returned to Ohio, found a job,
and rented an apartment to care for her father during his
illness.

Victoria Coman maintained that her mother and Shirley Murphy had
committed perjury when they testified that she had a poor
relationship with her father, visited him only once or twice
before he died, and that they argued.

Victoria Coman requested a "substantial" portion of the proceeds
and asked the court that Gloria Coman and Shirley Murphy be
charged with perjury.

On Sept. 17, 2007, the probate court denied Victoria Coman's
motion. This appeal followed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the probate court.

Victoria Lee Coman, Shallotte, N.C., pro se.

Mark Belinky, Youngstown, Ohio, represented Gloria Coman.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, issued
split rulings in litigation involving asbestos, more
specifically attorneys' fees, filed by The Weyerhaeuser Company
against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company.

The Weyerhaeuser Company, Plaintiff, v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company, Defendant, and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. General Insurance Company of America;
Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
and Old Republic Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendants.

District Judge Marsha J. Pecham entered judgment of Case No.
C06-1189MJP on May 12, 2008.

This case arose from 27 claims asserted against Weyerhaeuser
alleging liability for bodily injury. The claims related to
asbestos exposures that spanned a number of years.

Fireman's Fund issued insurance policies to Weyerhaeuser from
1954 to 1978. The policies all provided the same bodily injury
coverage -- Fireman's Fund agreed to pay on behalf of
Weyerhaeuser all sums Weyerhaeuser became obligated to pay for
bodily injury damages, sustained by any person and arising out
of Weyerhaeuser's business operations.

In the 1980s, Weyerhaeuser and Fireman's Fund entered into an
informal arrangement where Weyerhaeuser assumed control of
defense and indemnity payments on all asbestos bodily injury
claims.

This case was initiated on Aug. 18, 2006, when Weyerhaeuser
complained that Fireman's Fund refused to reimburse Weyerhaeuser
over US$1 million in attorneys' fees and costs for past and
current asbestos claims.

Weyerhaeuser alleged that Fireman's Fund refused to pay unless
and until Weyerhaeuser agreed to a defense cost sharing
agreement. Weyerhaeuser also alleged that Fireman's Fund refused
to pay the full indemnity amounts.

On Jan. 26, 2007, Weyerhaeuser moved for summary judgment on all
of its claims. The Court denied the motion and directed the
parties to meet and exchange the appropriate documents to
complete the file on each claim so that Fireman's Fund could
begin reimbursing Weyerhaeuser.

At oral argument, the parties indicated that they had already
scheduled a meeting for July 10, 2007, at which they planned to
resolve some of the remaining issues on their claims.

The Court directed the parties to use that meeting to go through
each of the remaining claims and to identify remaining legal
issues.

On May 24, 2007, the parties produced a stipulated plan for
their July 10, 2007 meeting and for preparations for the
meeting.

Weyerhaeuser moved for Olympic Steamship attorneys' fees.
Acknowledging that it did not prevail on every issue in this
case, Weyerhaeuser sought a portion of its fees.

Under Olympic Steamship, Weyerhaeuser is entitled to some of its
fees in bringing this action because it was required to litigate
certain legal issues to obtain the benefit of its insurance
contract with Fireman's Fund.

Weyerhaeuser moved for summary judgment on the issue of
attorneys' fees and Fireman's Fund filed cross-motions.

Weyerhaeuser and Fireman's Fund filed responses.

The Court granted in part and denied in part each of the
motions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Affirms Board Ruling in Carl Wilson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Department, New York,
upheld the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Board, which
ruled against Southern Tier Custom Fabricators, in an asbestos-
related action filed by Carl Wilson.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Carl Wilson,
Respondent, v. Southern Tier Custom Fabricators et al.,
Appellants, and Cornell University, Respondent. Workers'
Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Cardona, Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kavanagh entered
judgment of the case on May 15, 2008.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Workers' Compensation
Board, filed May 12, 2006, which ruled that Mr. Wilson sustained
a work-related occupational disease and awarded workers'
compensation benefits.

Mr. Wilson was employed as a sheet metal worker for nearly 40
years. In May 2002, he was diagnosed as suffering from
asbestosis. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits
in April 2003, and the matter proceeded to a hearing.

Ultimately, the issue distilled to identifying the employer in
whose employment Mr. Wilson suffered his last injurious exposure
to asbestos.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found that the last exposure
occurred while Mr. Wilson was in the employ of Southern Tier.
Upon review, a panel of the Workers' Compensation Board
affirmed, prompting this appeal by Southern Tier and its
carrier.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Board ruling.

Coughlin & Gerhart, L.L.P., Binghamton (Scott G. Miller of
counsel), represented Southern Tier Custom Fabricators et al.

Levene, Gouldin & Thompson, L.L.P., Binghamton (Cynthia Ann
Manchester of counsel), represented Cornell University.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEAC Still to Pay $300T for French Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies' principal French subsidiary, Compagnie
Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC), in 2007, has been
adjudged to indemnify a French governmental agency for about
US$300,000 for asbestos claims.

No payment has yet been made to the agency, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 9, 2008.

From 1957 to 1982, CEAC operated a plant using crocidolite
asbestos fibers in the formation of battery cases, which, once
formed, encapsulated the fibers. About 1,500 employees worked in
the plant over the period.

Since 1982, the agency, which is responsible for worker illness
claims, received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-related
illnesses. For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and
has indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for
about US$400,000 in calendar 2004.

In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the
agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the
dependents of four of those claimants.

The Company has not been required to indemnify or make any
payments subsequent to calendar year 2004.

Alpharetta, Ga.-based Exide Technologies is a manufacturer of
lead acid batteries, with fiscal 2008 net sales of about US$3.7
billion. The Company manufactures and supplies lead acid
batteries for transportation and industrial applications
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA to Check Air After Parkersburg Tornado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
will monitor air samples for asbestos and particulate matter in
the continuing cleanup from a massive EF-5 tornado that killed
seven people and injured at least 67 others in Parkersburg,
Iowa, on May 25, 2008, according to an EPA press release dated
June 9, 2008.

EPA on-scene coordinators will oversee the air monitoring, which
will be conducted using fixed monitoring equipment situated at
key points in the city of Parkersburg.

The monitoring has been scheduled for June 10, 2008, and will
continue for as long as necessary.

On June 11, 2008, EPA Region 7 is scheduled to deploy its Mobile
Command Post to Parkersburg. The vehicle is outfitted with
equipment necessary to receive and transmit data obtained during
the sampling.

Air monitoring during the cleanup will be conducted to assess
air quality in order to protect the health of Parkersburg
residents and any non-residents who may be assisting with the
demolition and rebuilding efforts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Gov't Expands Relief Law for Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's bicameral legislature, the National Diet of Japan, on
June 11, 2008, enacted a bill to enable the provision of
benefits to the surviving families after the deaths of people
with asbestos-linked illnesses, Kyodo News reports.

The bill to revise the current relief law for asbestos victims
became law with its passage through a House of Councillors
plenary session.

The law is to be enforced by the end of 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Kennedy Space Center
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's probe into
the space shuttle's damaged launch pad at Kennedy Space Center,
near Cape Canaveral, Fla., discovered asbestos amid the debris
and damaged walls, Orlando Sentinel reports.

According to people close to the investigation, hazmat teams
were still cleaning up the site on June 4, 2008 and June 5, 2008
to allow a detailed inspection of pad 39-A at Kennedy Space
Center to figure out why bricks and blocks from the flame trench
were blasted away during shuttle Discovery's liftoff on May 31,
2008.

In the case of the launch pad's flame trench, asbestos was used
in rope and chord layered underneath the bricks. The trench is
supposed to channel rocket flames away from the rocket.

However, the exhaust from Discovery's engines blasted a 100 foot
long section of bricks off the trench wall, sending them flying
like missiles up to 2000 feet away. Some asbestos chord was lown
out with the masonry and left exposed on the damaged trench
wall.

The launch pad was built at the time of the Apollo program and
updated for the shuttle program in the 1980s. The shuttle sits
on a mobile launch platform above the trench.

While the cleanup crews worked to secure the flame trench and
area around the pad, teams of engineers were using ground-
penetrating radar, x-rays and thermal imaging scans to see if
the launch pad itself was suffering from fatigue, corrosion or
some significant structural defect, said Allard Beutel, NASA's
KSC spokesman.

NASA remains confident it will have the pad repaired in time for
the next shuttle launch in October 2008 on a mission to service
the Hubble Space Telescope.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oak St Beach Visitors Urged to Have Checkup
----------------------------------------------------------------
LegalView.com reports that the Oak Street Beach, one of 33
beaches in the Chicago Park District frequented by visitors
during the summer season, was the recent site of amphibole
asbestos contamination.

Individuals who may have been exposed to the asbestos fibers
should seek medical attention immediately and, additionally,
contact an experienced asbestos and mesothelioma law firm.

According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and
Safety (CCOHS), amphibole asbestos is considered the most
harmful concentration of asbestos to humans because of the high
levels of iron and its high resistance to heat and acids.

Because of these qualities of resistance, amphibole asbestos was
widely popular in industrial furnaces and heating system
production.

LegalView.com is a public service brought by Legal WebTV
Network, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation created by a group
of law firms: Anapol Schwartz; Brent Coon and Associates; Burg
Simpson; Cohen, Placitella and Roth; James F. Humphreys and
Associates; Lopez McHugh; and Thornton and Naumes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potential Owners Asked to Inspect Homes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center urges all home
inspectors to properly examine all residences for asbestos-
containing materials and subsequently inform potential
homeowners, TransWorldNews reports.

There are things to consider when purchasing a new home,
including the hiring of a certified home inspector to survey the
structure prior to finalizing a purchase.

Potential home buyers rely on their home inspector to inform
them of any structural issues or damage that may need to be
repaired. However, what most home inspectors are failing to
mention is that there may be asbestos-containing materials
within a residence.

In the United States, about 35 million residences contain
structural materials that are laden with dormant asbestos.

For many home inspectors, a thorough search for asbestos within
a residence is not considered to be a priority, and is not
necessarily part of their inspection.

This presents a serious concern for potential homebuyers, as
they may not know that the residence which they just purchased
contains potentially harmful asbestos.

This would be of even greater concern if the new homeowners
moved in and attempted a variety of home renovations, including
the installation of insulation or removal of asbestos floor
tiles, which may put the homeowner at risk of asbestos
inhalation.

Before 1980, most homes were built using asbestos-containing
materials, including insulation, drywall compound, floor and
ceiling tiles, roofing materials, stucco, and certain adhesives.

There has been a longstanding debate regarding the positive and
negative implications of asbestos disclosure by home inspectors.

There do exist issues of liability if a home inspector were to
inspect a residence and not search for asbestos. This is
particularly true if a homeowner were to become exposed to
asbestos within their residence and were to eventually develop
mesothelioma or other asbestos-related health complications.

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center is one of the
web's informational resource for information on mesothelioma,
related mesothelioma treatment options, and other important
related information.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crews Exposed at Demolition Site in Colo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law enforcement, fire and ambulance crews, who responded to the
call of injured worker at a demolition at the Aspen Middle
School in Aspen, Colo., were exposed to asbestos, The Aspen
Times reports.

Twenty-nine-year-old Juan Ruiz, of Denver, Colo., was killed
when a free-standing cinder-block wall fell on him. He was part
of a Denver crew doing demolition and removing vermiculite,
according to school officials.

When the call went out at 9:20 a.m. on April 30, 2008, three
Pitkin County sheriff's deputies, two Aspen Police officers,
three Aspen Ambulance crew members and two firefighters
responded.

Rescuers trying to reach Mr. Ruiz rushed into a plastic-draped
construction zone where crews from ESA of Denver were removing
the material.

Pitkin County Sheriff's Investigator Ron Ryan said rescuers were
first concerned that another wall might fall at the demolition
site, then responders noticed that construction workers wore
disposable protective suits and breathing masks.

However, Mr. Ryan said rescuers knew the site posed little risk
of serious asbestos exposure in the short term, and rescuers
went to work trying to help the injured man.

Deputy Adam Crider, who ran in and out of the contaminated site
to retrieve supplies, said he was coughing after the incident,
but believed it was the effect of concrete dust in the air.

Aspen officer Joe Holman said, "The guys in paper suits and
aspirators surprised us. But once you're in it, you're in it."
He saw a doctor the day after the exposure and filled out a
workman's comp form, as did other responders, but Mr. Holman
said he was not worried.

Lee Cassin, the city's environmental health director, said that
the vermiculite at the school site probably was less harmful
than straight asbestos, like the kind of material commonly
wrapped around water pipes in older buildings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bernie Banton's Widow Starts Research Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Banton, the widow of asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton, on
June 11, 2008, launched the Asbestos Research Group in Brisbane,
Australia, Sunshine Coast Daily reports.

Mrs. Banton launched the group at The Wesley Research Institute
in Auchenflower, Brisbane, Queensland, in memory of her late
husband.

Mr. Banton was a high profile campaigner for sufferers of
asbestos-related illnesses contracted after working for building
materials company James Hardie Industries N.V. He was involved
with the production of various asbestos products and died on
Nov. 27, 2007 from mesothelioma.

The Asbestos Research Group will facilitate research and raise
awareness of asbestosis and asbestos-related diseases. It also
aims at improving treatment and enhancing the quality of life of
those affected.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Claimants Await Trust Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Jimmy Rodgers, on behalf of his clients with asbestos-
related diseases, is still waiting to collect from the Owens
Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, 12 months
after submitting claims, The Blade reports.

Mr. Rodgers, of Chattanooga, Tenn., said, "You can't place blame
on the trust, because they have had to contend with so many
claims."

Since starting in October 2006, the trust has paid US$390
million on 70,000 claims submitted by people - primarily
construction workers, ship-builders, and others - who developed
lung diseases from working around asbestos-containing insulation
and other products once made by Owens Corning and its Fibreboard
subsidiary.

As part of the Company's six-year bankruptcy case, the trust
assumed responsibility for compensating victims. OC kicked in a
multi billion-dollar pot of cash and stock to shed the
liability. The trust has received an additional 256,000 claims
and faces new demands for compensation daily.

The statistics are found in the trust's first detailed financial
report, filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del.

Trustees wrote, "The ultimate number of asbestos . . . claims to
be filed and the liability for all such claims are not
determinable at this time. The net assets available for the
payment of claims at Dec. 31, 2007, may or may not be sufficient
to meet all future obligations of the trust."

The trust contains US$4.5 billion, about a third of which is
Owens Corning stock. It is the Company's largest shareholder,
with 28.2 million shares or nearly a fourth of all Company
stock.

The trust collected US$43 million from settlements with Owens
Corning's insurance firms.

Asbestos claimants and their lawyers are interested in how the
trust's assets are performing because of major problems with a
similar trust at Johns-Manville Corp. that forced trustees there
to vastly trim payouts.

Most payments have gone to people who settled with the Company
years ago but whose settlements were tied up by the firm's
bankruptcy filing in October 2000.

Just US$16 million has gone toward 2,500 newer claims, about
nine percent of which involved people with cancer.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Parliament Criticizes Insurance Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Members of Parliament criticized the insurance
industry's treatment of asbestos victims, Legal & Medical
reports.

MP Michael Clapham described the insurance industry as acting
like "jackals" in their concentrated attack on paying
compensation to victims of industrial illnesses.

Mr. Clapham accused the insurance industry of gross "hypocrisy"
saying that on the one hand their representatives make
statements that they want to ensure that payments to
mesothelioma victims easy and straightforward, then in the next
breath they launch expensive legal cases to deny victims
compensation.

MP Jim Sherdan described asbestos victims as "being treated
worse than cattle."

The MPs were speaking in a Westminster Hall debate about the
fight to restore compensation to victims of pleural plaques.

Robin Rudd, a medical expert on pleural plaques, and Consultant
Physician, has stated that pleural plaques are a pathological
change in the membrane which surrounds the lung, victims of
pleural plaques are liable to pleural thickening causing
breathlessness, lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Dr. Rudd also found that pleural plaque sufferers suffer severe
mental anxiety following diagnosis, as they fear that they will
die from mesothelioma, which is incurable.

During the debate it also emerged that an accountancy firm has
estimated that the Law Lords decision on pleural plaques will
save the insurance industry GBP1.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J.C. Penney Expects Cleanup to Cost $45MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of May 3, 2008, estimated to
incur US$45 million for environmental liabilities, which was
recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 10, 2008.

As of May 3, 2008, the Company estimated its total potential
environmental liabilities to range from US$40 million to US$51
million.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore
locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans
to renovate or dispose of Company facilities.

The Company estimated to incur US$43 million, as of Feb. 2,
2008, for potential environmental liabilities. As of Feb. 2,
2008, the Company estimated its total potential environmental
liabilities to range from US$38 million to US$49 million. (Class
Action Reporter, April 25, 2008)

Plano, Tex.-based J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was created in 2002
as a holding company for department store operator J. C. Penney
Corporation, its wholly owned subsidiary. J. C. Penney
Corporation is one of the largest department store, catalog, and
e-commerce retailers in the U.S. The retailer runs more than
1,000 JCPenney department stores throughout the U.S. and Puerto
Rico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HHS & EPA to Launch $8M Libby Health Study
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on June 11, 2008,
announced the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative, a series
of projects totaling US$8 million designed to understand the
health effects of exposure to lower levels of Libby, Mont.,
asbestos (i.e., Libby amphibole), according to an HHS press
release dated June 11, 2008.

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said, "My interest in Libby dates to
the first of my visits with the people of that community with
Senator Max Baucus, who deserves credit for his tireless and
passionate work on behalf of that community. Too little is
currently known about exposure to lower levels of Libby
asbestos. We hope this effort will expand our knowledge of
potential and real health issues that could be facing this group
of individuals."

The five-year initiative, to be funded by HHS Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA, will focus
on determining whether exposure to lower levels of Libby
asbestos is associated with increased risk of lung disease,
cancer, chronic illnesses, auto-immune diseases or other adverse
health outcomes.

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said, "Since 1999, EPA has
been working closely with the community of Libby to clean up
contamination and reduce risks to human health. In collaboration
with HHS, EPA will continue to help protect the health and well-
being of the Libby residents."

The initiative will seek input and advice from Libby residents
and organizations and is expected to include:

-- Studies that compare the health status and conditions of
    people who were exposed to Libby asbestos in childhood to
    the health status and conditions of people who did not have
    such exposure.

-- Expanded evaluation of Libby residents who were exposed to
    the asbestos, including those who had lower levels of
    environmental exposure to the Libby asbestos.

-- An assessment of whether the adverse health effects of
    exposure to Libby asbestos extend beyond lung disease.

-- Strengthening existing public health tracking systems (e.g.,
    the State Cancer Registry) and patient health record
    databases in order to better link exposure information to
    health conditions and outcomes.

-- Continuation of a study by ATSDR and the National Institute
    for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that compares
    film and digital chest x-rays in an effort to determine
    which is best for assessing the status or conditions of
    lungs.

More information on the Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative
can be found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/and  
http://www.epa.gov/


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deem Sues A.W. Chesterton, et al. in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Deem, on behalf of the late Ronald Duane Deem, on
May 23, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A.W.
Chesterton Company and 38 other companies with the Orange County
District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Deem blames the companies for conspiring to conceal the
hazards of asbestos to human health and purposely inflicting Mr.
Deem with an asbestos-related disease. Mrs. Deem seeks
compensation for Mr. Deem's alleged exposure to asbestos.

According to the plaintiffs' original petition, companies like
Viacom Inc., General Electric Company, and Zurn Industries knew
that the asbestos products they manufactured would hit the
market without inspection for defects.

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical
and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for
decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the
information.

The suit indicates Mr. Deem was most likely exposed to asbestos
while working at shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper
mills, chemical plants, the military and other facilities in the
U.S. However, the suit does not give specifics on the location
or time of his employment.

Mrs. Deem sues for physical pain and suffering in the past and
future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages, loss
of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future,
physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future
medical expenses, including home care costs.

Mrs. Deem also seeks punitive and exemplary damages.

Brent Coon & Associates attorney Lou Thompson Black represents
the plaintiff.

Case No. A-080205-c has been assigned to Judge Patrick Clark,
128th Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fla. Local Sues 12 Companies in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Michael Gonzales, a resident of Florida who died
from mesothelioma, on May 30, 2008, sued 12 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., claiming his
disease was wrongfully caused, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The complaint names Atlas Asbestos Company, Bell Asbestos Mines,
Bondex International, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, as
successor to Felt Products Manufacturing, Federal-Mogul Asbestos
Personal Trust, as successor to the former Vellumoid Division of
Federal-Mogul, Foseco plc, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, John
Crane Inc., Pneumo Abex, RPM International Inc., RPM Inc. and
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition.

According to the complaint, Mr. Gonzales was employed from 1951
to 1987 as a chipper, grinder and welder at various locations.

Mr. Gonzales' estate claims that during the course of his
employment and during home and automotive repairs, he was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers emanating from certain products he was working with and
around.

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

According to Mr. Gonzales' estate, he first became aware that he
suffered from mesothelioma on Oct. 3, 2007, and subsequently
died on Nov. 24, 2007.

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

The estate also claims that the defendants failed to require and
advise employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or
prevent carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, the estate claims Mr.
Gonzales was exposed to fibers containing asbestos and developed
a disease caused only by asbestos which disabled and disfigured
him.

The estate claims that prior to his death, Mr. Gonzales suffered
great physical pain and mental anguish, and also was hindered
and prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment,
thereby losing large sums of money.

The estate seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence
and willful and wanton conduct.

Gonzales' estate is represented by John Barnerd, Robert
Phillips, Nicholas Angelides and Perry Browder of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton.

Case No. 08 L 471 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Men Charged for Disposal Breaches in U.K.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Kelleher and Patrick Anderson, two men who made GBP1.2
million for dumping more than 14,000 tons of waste, including
asbestos, across London and Essex have been jailed, BBC News
reports.

The 39-year-old Mr. Kelleher, of Dagenham, East London, was
sentenced to 14 months. The 51-year-old Mr. Anderson, of
Ireland, was sentenced to 22 months. Both men were charged for
conspiracy to unlawfully deposit controlled waste.

The Inner London Crown Court heard that both men carried out
their illegal operations using false names. Both pleaded guilty
to the conspiracy charge.

The pair dumped 750 lorry loads of waste from January 2003 to
June 2004 at 15 sites on both public and privately-owned lands.
Much of the GBP340,000 clean-up costs were picked up by the
taxpayer.

It was the first time that the Environment Agency, which led the
investigation, had used a European Arrest Warrant to bring back
a defendant from abroad to face charges.

It was used to bring Mr. Anderson back to face justice in the
United Kingdom after he left for Ireland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Done at Clay County, Fla. School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clay County, Fla., school officials took steps to remove
asbestos and other hazards from the Keystone Elementary School,
News4Jax.com reports.

On June 10, 2008, workers wearing environmental protective suits
and ventilators were removing potentially hazardous walls from
Keystone Elementary School. The school said the walls contain
non-friable asbestos.

Ross Tholand of Clay County Schools said, "We're removing some
transite-paneled walls and replacing those with concrete-block
walls and new doors."

Transite is an asbestos material.

Mr. Tholand said years ago, all friable, or harmful asbestos
material, was removed from schools and structures around Clay
County. He also said there were annual inspections of the non-
friable materials that remained in place.

Mr. Tholand said there were no such issues with the asbestos
being removed, telling Channel 4 that the school had a plan in
place to remove the walls years ago and finally got the
necessary funding.

When asked why new schools, like Oak Leaf and Fleming Island,
were built before a potentially harmful situation at an existing
school was taken care of, Mr. Tholand said the new-construction
funds are separate from maintenance funds.

Parents with students at Keystone Elementary School said they
are happy to know there would be no health concerns in the fall.

All of the potentially harmful materials are expected to be off
the campus by June 11, 2008. The entire project is expected to
be complete within 30 days.







                            *********

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  * * *