CAR_Public/080620.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 20, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 122
  
                            Headlines

BABY BOTTLEMAKERS: Face Lawsuit in Ohio Over "Toxic" Bottles
BILL HEARD: Chevy Dealer Faces False Advertising Suit in Nevada
CABOT CORP: Wants "Sheridan" Beryllium Hazards Lawsuit Dismissed
CABOT CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Anthony" Beryllium Suit
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: Late-Payment Fees Suit Checks Sent Out Soon

HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass.
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Illinois "Jaffe" Litigation Completed
JPMORGAN: 2nd Circuit to Rule on Appeal of ERISA Suit Dismissal
JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in N.Y. Litigation

JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendants Wants New York ERISA Suit Dismissed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
JPMORGAN CHASE: Certain Suits Over Bear Sterns Deal Dismissed
KROGER CO: Settles Ky. Discrimination Lawsuit for $16 Million
LIFELOCK: Texas Suit Filed Over Deceptive Marketing Practices

MERCK & CO: Vytorin-Related ERISA Claims Pursued Separately
MORGAN KEEGAN: Sued for Defrauding Annuity Investors
NATIONAL WESTERN: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of Annuities
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Union Launches PwC Overtime Lawsuit Site
SHUR-BRITE: Workers Sue Carwash for Not Paying Extra Hours

STEIN MART: Suit Deal to Provide $10-$30 Discount on Purchases
SUSQUEHANA INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Alleging 'Theft By Deception'
T-MOBILE USA: Faces Wash. Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TECMO LTD: Two Workers File Lawsuit Over Labor Laws Violations
TORCHMARK: 11th Circuit Favors Affirmative Defenses in Ala. Suit

TORCHMARK: Objection Raised on Approved Policyholder Suit Deal
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Settles N.Y. Suit Over MemberHealth Merger
WACHOVIA BANK: Continues to Face RICO Violations Lawsuit in Pa.
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Pa. Suit Over Conspiracy to Defraud Elderly
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts

WACHOVIA CORP: Sued in New York Over Auction Rate Securities

* The Legal 500 Names Bernstein Liebhard "Best of the Best"


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AERONAUTIC DEFENCE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FRANKLIN BANK: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Brower Piven Files New York Securities Suit
INDYMAC CORP: Brower Piven Launches Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit

FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Brower Piven Files Suit in Massachusetts


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Rando in Suit v. Jacobs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors ITT in Scotts Co. Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeal Court Favors Lee Armstrong
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Flips Ruling to Favor Perman
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Still Involved in Liability Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 503 Claims at March 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court Rules v. Congoleum's Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Seeks to Dismiss Plan Injunction
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Urged Not to Grant Relief to AWI
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeals Court Rules v. Owens-Illinois

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Spence Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in Tarzia Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in Leonard Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors American Standard et al
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $278T Liability, Defense Costs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Exclusivity Extended to July 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Files More Objections to 13 Claims  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Parliament Visitors Face Exposure Risk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe to Begin on Risk to Isebrook Patients
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Remote Aussie Communities

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Imposes $110T Penalty on N.Y. Hospital
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG Expects $10MM-$15MM A&E Reserves at 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East Liverpool to Oppose EPA's $30T Penalty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Field Fisher Helps Recover GPB130T Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Rules v. Plaintiffs in Scott Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Court Denies Montegut's Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $343.9M Liability at March 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Colfax Drop to 37,632 at March 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $372.7MM Reserves at March 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Urchfont Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brick Worker Seeks Colleagues' Help in Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vandals Exposed to Hazard at Nevada School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe's Asbestos Mines Face Staff Exodus
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Risk Found at 1,408 Homes in Fife, Scotland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind'l Disease Verdict Given to Engineer

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GARDS Applauds Law Changes for Sufferers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMB Urges U.K. Firms to Contribute to Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Lauds Grant for Libby Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taconite Lung Health Checks to Start in '09



                           *********

BABY BOTTLEMAKERS: Face Lawsuit in Ohio Over "Toxic" Bottles
------------------------------------------------------------
Four Ohio parents have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court against makers of baby bottles, claiming the bottles were
made from a harmful chemical that sparked congressional hearings
and prompted the world's largest retailer to phase out the
products, USA Today reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, names five
companies:

     1. Vandalia, Ohio-based Evenflo Co.,
     2. Illinois-based Avent America Inc.,
     3. Missouri-based Handicraft Co.,
     4. Connecticut-based Playtex Products Inc., and
     5. Swiss company Gerber Novartis.

The complaint alleges the companies knew that a chemical known
as bisphenol A was associated with health problems but did not
disclose the risk.  It cites scientific studies that conclude
BPA, as the chemical is also known, seeps from bottles and
sippy-cups into liquid.

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

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

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing
chemical makers, says BPA is a well-known chemical and the
fretting is unreasonable.

"If you look at the government assessments, they have been
strong, uniform and clear, that at the levels to which consumers
are exposed, BPA base materials do not pose a risk to
consumers," said American Chemistry Council plastics director
Stephen Russell.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

According to the report, messages for Nestle, Evenflo and Avent
were not immediately returned.


BILL HEARD: Chevy Dealer Faces False Advertising Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
before the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, accusing it
of false advertising on the radio, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The Chevy dealer allegedly offered to sell cars with no credit
check, with a deceitful disclaimer that buyers needed 40% down
and lender approval -- but lender approval is not possible
without a credit check.

Named plaintiff Allen Kelley brings this action on behalf of all
individual consumers (natural persons) who reside within the
County of Clark, State of Nevada, to whom the radio
advertisement was directed to.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- a judicial declaration that defendant engaged in a
        "deceptive trade practice in violation of the NDTPA and
        were also in violation of the other referenced NRS and
        NAC sections;

     -- a judicial declaration that defendant engaged in
        consumer fraud pursuant to NRS 41.600(c);

     -- a judicial declaration that the "certified sell off
        event" advertisements were false, misleading, deceptive
        or otherwise misleading to the consuming public, or had
        a tendency to mislead;

     -- a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from
        ever disseminating the same "no credit check event"
        advertisement to the consuming public in any media or
        form in the future;

     -- a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from
        further dissemination of any other advertisement to the
        consuming public in any media or form which states,
        intimates, infers, suggests, or otherwise indicates that
        the consumer can finance their vehicle purchase without
        a credit check, other similar statements made with
        regard financing the purchase of a vehicle;

     -- a permanent injunction mandating or requiring the
        defendant to comply with the most recent and applicable
        NRS and NAC rules and regulations relating to vehicle
        dealer advertising, including strict compliance with NAC
        482.110(2);

     -- a permanent injunction mandating or requiring that
        for one year from the date any permanent injunction is
        entered against the defendant, that defendant shall set
        up an advertisement compliance committee, which is
        specially formed to review any all advertisements
        defendant intends to disseminate to the consuming public
        to ensure all such advertisements comply with all the
        applicable requirements of NAC 482.100 to 482.250;

     -- costs of suit incurred;

     -- reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to NRS 41.600;
        and

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

The suit is "Allen Kelley, et al. v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp.,
case No. A565316," filed in the District Court in Clark County,
Nevada.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          George O. West III, Esq. (gowesq@cox.net)
          Law Offices of George O. West III
          Consumer Attorneys Against Auto Fraud
          6787 West Tropicana Ave., Suite 263
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Phone: 702-248-1076
          Fax: 702-953-2286


CABOT CORP: Wants "Sheridan" Beryllium Hazards Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class  
action lawsuit captioned, "Sheridan, et al. v. NGK North
America, Inc., et al.," which is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The class action complaint was originally filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on
behalf of persons that resided within a one-mile radius of
Cabot's former facility in Reading, Pennsylvania, for a period
of at least six months between 1950 and 2000.  In 1986, the
company sold the Reading manufacturing facility to NGK Metals,
Inc.

The complaint alleges that these residents were exposed to
emissions of beryllium from the Reading plant and are,
therefore, entitled to receive medical monitoring.  

Discovery in connection with class certification began in
October 2007.  Cabot and the other defendants have filed motions
to dismiss the class plaintiffs' claims, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter period March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Sheridan, et al. v. NGK North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05510-JKG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge James
Knoll Gardner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Ruben Honik, Esq. (rhonik@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177

Representing the defendants is:
   
         Thomas c. Delorenzo, Esq. (tcdelorenzo@mdwcg.com)
         Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
         1845 Walnut Street, 19th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-575-2741
         Fax: 215-575-0856


CABOT CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in "Anthony" Beryllium Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment against the
plaintiffs' claims in a class action lawsuit over health hazards
posed by beryllium-containing products manufactured by the
company, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
period March 31, 2008.

In September 2006, Cabot was one of several named defendants in
"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al.," a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain present
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge Inc. facility in
Sellersville, Pennsylvania.  

U.S. Gauge is a company alleged to have purchased beryllium-
containing products from Cabot.  The class action suit alleges
that the present and former employees were exposed to beryllium
dust and fumes during the machining of beryllium-containing
products purchased from Cabot and that they are therefore
entitled to receive medical monitoring.   

Also named as defendants in the case are:

     -- Ametek, Inc. (third-party defendant);
     -- Admiral Metals Inc.;  
     -- Tube Methods, Inc.; and
     -- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp.  

Cabot has asserted claims against the other defendants and
another party.  The company and the other defendants have filed
a motion for summary judgment against the class plaintiffs'
claims in the case.

The suit is "Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04419-JKG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge James Knoll
Gardner, presiding.

Representing plaintiff Gary Anthony are:

         Ruben Honik, Esq. (rhonik@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik, PC
         121 South Broad Street, 9th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177

              - and -

         Stephan Matanovic, Esq. (smatanovic@golombhonik.com)
         Golomb & Honik PC
         121 S. Broad Street, 9th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19107
         Phone: 215-985-9177

Representing the company is:  

         Neil S. Witkes, Esq.
         Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox, LLP
         401 City Avenue, Suite 500
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-660-5700
         Fax: 484-430-5711


HOUSEHOLD FINANCE: Late-Payment Fees Suit Checks Sent Out Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Checks for approximately $100 each will be sent out soon to  
26,000 store credit card holders as reimbursement of late-
payment fees charged between May 1996 and December 1999, Mike
King of The Gazette reports.

The suit was launched against Household Finance Corp. by local
consumer group Option Consommateurs in 1999, alleging that the
$10 late payments charged by Household Finance's subsidiary,
Merchant Retail Services Ltd., constituted unexpected surcharges
that were excessive and harsh.

In April 2003, Quebec Superior Court Justice Maurice Laramee
found that penalties were in violation of the province's
Consumer Protection Act because they were not disclosed in
advance and made the real credit rate higher than advertised,
according to the report.  

The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.  In 2006, the
company challenged that ruling.

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling by a
Superior Court ordering Household Finance to reimburse 25,000
store credit card holders CAD2.5 million for late-payment fees
charged between May 1996 and December 1999.

The settlement could reach nearly $5 million with interest and
other court costs, lawyer for the plaintiff, Jean-Pierre Fafard
of Montreal, had said.  The award is the largest exemplary
damages ever in Quebec.  It will translate to approximately $100
per plaintiff, Mr. Fafard said (Class Action Reporter, April 26,
2007).

In Mr. King's latest report, Collectiva Class Action Services
Inc. expects to have the reimbursements sent out by August,
according to Option Consommateurs that launched the civil
lawsuit over the once popular "buy now, pay later" promotions at
such stores as Brault & Martineau, Future Shop and Corbeil
Appliances.

Any eligible cardholders who have moved since signing their
credit contract have six months to notify Collectiva in order to
receive their reimbursements.

To contact Collectiva Class Action Services Inc.:

          Collectiva Class Action Services Inc.
          285 Place d'Youville, Suite 9
          Montreal, Quebec
          H2Y 2A4
          Phone: 514-287-1000
          Toll-free: 800-287-8587
          Fax: 514-287-1617
          e-mail: info@collectiva.ca
          Web site: http://www.collectiva.ca/


HSBC FINANCE: Faces Discrimination Lawsuits in Calif. & Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corp. and one or more of its subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in three discrimination class action
lawsuits filed either before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California or the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

Since July 2007, the company and its subsidiaries have been
facing these purported class action complaints:

       -- "Zamudio v. HSBC North America Holdings and HSBC
          Finance Corporation d/b/a Beneficial, (N.D. Ill.
          07CV5413);"

       -- "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
          People ("NAACP") v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et
          al. including HSBC Finance Corporation (C.D. Ca., No.
          SACV07-0794AG(ANx));"

       -- "Toruno v. HSBC Finance Corporation and Decision One
          Mortgage Company, LLC (C.D. Ca., No. CV07-
          05998JSL(RCx);" and

       -- "Suyapa Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC,
          HSBC Finance Corporation, et al. (D. Mass., C.A. 07-
          11669)."

Each suit alleges that the defendants racially discriminated
against their customers by using loan pricing policies and
procedures that have resulted in a disparate impact against
minority customers.  

The suits also allege violations of various federal statutes,
including the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.

HSBC Finance Corp. 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 period March 31, 2008.

HSBC Finance Corp. -- http://www.hsbcusa.com/-- is an indirect  
subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings Inc., a bank holding
company, and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings plc.  The Company provides middle-market consumers in
the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland
with several types of loan products.  HSBC Finance Corp. is the
principal fund raising vehicle for the operations of its
subsidiaries.


HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit captioned, "In
re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1720," involving HSBC Finance Corp. and two of
its affiliates as defendants.

Since June 2005, the company, HSBC North America Holdings Inc.,
and HSBC Holdings plc, as well as other banks and the Visa and
Master Card associations, were named as defendants in four class
action complaints filed in Connecticut and the Eastern District
of New York.

The suits are:

     1. "Photos Etc. Corp., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
        (D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE))";

     2. "National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v.
        Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520
        (JG))";

     3. "Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et
        al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG))"; and

     4. "American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.
        (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG))."

Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations - in
which no HSBC entity is named -- were filed across the country
against Visa, MasterCard and other banks.  

The actions principally allege that the imposition of a no-
surcharge rule by the associations or the establishment of the
interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the
merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supra-
competitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust laws.

At the plaintiffs' request, on Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating the
suits and transferred all of the cases to the Eastern District
of New York.  The consolidated case is known as "In re Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y."  The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on April 24, 2006, and discovery has begun.

HSBC Finance Corp. 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 period March 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-CLP," filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, Judge John H. Gleeson presiding.

Representing the company is:

         David Sapir Lesser, Esq. (david.lesser@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler of Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP
         399 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-230-8800
         Fax: 212-230-8811


HSBC FINANCE: Discovery in Illinois "Jaffe" Litigation Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against HSBC Finance Corp. and other defendants has
concluded, according to HSBC Finance Corp.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period March 31, 2008.

In August 2002, the company restated previously reported
consolidated financial statements.  The restatement related to
certain MasterCard and Visa co-branding and affinity credit card
relationships and a third-party marketing agreement, which were
entered into between 1992 and 1999.  All were part of the
company's Credit Card Services segment.

In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP,
the company treated payments made in connection with these
agreements as prepaid assets and amortized them in accordance
with the underlying economics of the agreements.

Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its
view, the payments should have either been charged against
earnings at the time they were made or amortized over a shorter
period of time.

The restatement resulted in a $155.8-million after-tax,
retroactive reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998.  As
a result of the restatement, and other corporate events,
including, e.g., the 2002 settlement with 50 states and the
District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices,
HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and
former auditors have been involved in various legal proceedings,
some of which purport to be class actions.

A number of the actions allege violations of federal securities
laws were filed between August and October 2002, and seek to
recover damages in respect of allegedly false and misleading
statements about the company's common stock.

The legal actions have been consolidated into a single purported
class action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al.,
No. 02-C-5893 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)."  A consolidated
and amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2003.

On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
10 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   

The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs will not seek to
certify a class with respect to the claims brought under Section
11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in this action
or otherwise.

The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the company's securities between Oct. 23,
1997, and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the company's sales and
lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement, the
restatement and the HSBC merger.

The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., did not specify the amount of damages
sought.

In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  On March 19, 2004, the court granted
in part, and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.  The court also
dismissed certain claims alleging strict liability for alleged
misrepresentation of material facts based on statute of
limitations grounds.

The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants
essentially allege the defendants knowingly made a false
statement of a material fact in conjunction with the purchase or
sale of securities, that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on
the statement, the false statement caused the plaintiffs
damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the Court also dismissed all alleged Section  
10 claims that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the
class period by 22 months.  Discovery has concluded.

The suit is "Jaffe v. Household Int'l Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-05893," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Judge Ronald A. Guzman presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Gary L. Specks, Esq. (gspecks@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Phone: 312-558-1584

              - and -

         Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. (spenceb@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants is:
    
         Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. (neimer@eimerstahl.com)
         Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP
         224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-660-7600


JPMORGAN: 2nd Circuit to Rule on Appeal of ERISA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal in connection with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of a purported class
action suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. that alleges violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The putative class action was filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase
employees who participated in the firm's 401(k) plan.  It
alleges claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and
certain officers.

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and dismissed some of their claims.

In September 2005, the firm moved for summary judgment, seeking
dismissal of the ERISA lawsuit in its entirety.  In September
2006, the court granted summary judgment in part, and ordered
the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the remaining claims
should not be dismissed.

On Dec. 27, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice.  

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, which is now fully
briefed and pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the plaintiffs sought a remand of their
appeal, based on new controlling authority by the United States
Supreme Court.  The defendants opposed this motion, arguing that
the District Court's decision could be affirmed based on other
arguments that had been presented to that court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' request for remand on April 9, 2008, but allowed
them the opportunity to submit a reply brief, 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.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its U.S. investment banking firm.  The bank and non-bank
subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as
through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Stays Proceedings in N.Y. Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed the purported class action suit captioned, "In re
JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732,"
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 putative consolidated class action complaint names the
JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor
plans of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies) and the
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as
defendants.  

Current and former participants in the Plans filed the suit,
alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.  The plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged
violations of ERISA arising from the conversion to and use of a
cash balance formula under the Plans to calculate the
participants' pension benefits.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that:

      -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula
         under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against
         age discrimination (age discrimination claim);

      -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated
         ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of
         pension benefits and created an impermissible
         forfeiture of accrued benefits; and

      -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan
         participants the conversion to a cash balance formula
         and in general the nature of the Plan.

In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age
discrimination and notice claims, but granted its dismissal
request as it pertains to the backloading and forfeiture claims.

On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class in this action.  The
class includes current participants in the JPMorgan Chase   
Retirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice of
plan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, and
age discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989.
The class excludes former participants who have elected to
receive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits.

The Court reserved the right to revisit class certification
pending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order.

Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002,
and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery is
ongoing.

On March 17, 2008, the District Court stayed the original cash
balance plan litigation for up to one year pending a decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in "Hirt v. The
Equitable Ret. Plan of Employees, Manager & Agents, No. 06-cv-
4757," a case in which the company is not involved but which
raises similar issues, including the question of whether the
conversion to, and use of, a cash balance formula violates
ERISA's proscription against age discrimination.  The Hirt
appeal was argued on April 22, 2008.

The suit is "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case
No. 06-732," filed before the District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-224-7562
          Fax: 206-623-3384

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net)
          144 East 44th Street, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-4000
          Fax: 212 808-9808

Representing the defendants is:

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502


JPMORGAN CHASE: Defendants Wants New York ERISA Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and JPMorgan Chase Director of
Human Resources are seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which generally alleges violations of the
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

On Aug. 17, 2007, a class-action complaint, entitled "Bilello v.
JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, JPMorgan Chase Director of Human
Resources," was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit is asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of
participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and certain
predecessor retirement plans (The Cash Plan for Retirement of
Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliates, The Retirement Plan of
Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliated Companies, and The
Retirement and Family Benefits Plan of the Chase Manhattan Bank,
N.A.; collectively the JPMC Plan), including notice claims that
were excluded from the class in "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash
Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732."

On Nov. 16, 2007, the firm filed a motion to dismiss the case.  
In lieu of responding to this motion, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint reasserting the claims raised in the initial
complaint and adding seven additional claims.

Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that:

       -- the JPMC Plan is impermissibly backloaded on other
          grounds;

       -- defendants violated ERISA by failing to comply with a
          provision of the Internal Revenue Service Code;

       -- the calculation of the accrued benefit of certain
          participants results in an impermissible forfeiture;
          and
       
       -- defendants failed to provide requested plan-related
          documents, in violation of ERISA.

In accordance with the scheduling order, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion is now
fully briefed.

The suit is "Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-07379-RJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J.
Sullivan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com)
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          Fax: 212-751-2540

               - and -

          Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net)
          144 East 44th Street, Suite 600
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-4000
          Fax: 212-808-9808

Representing the defendants is:

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-455-2000
          Fax: 212-455-2502


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is facing several purported class action
lawsuits in connection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed
investment contracts and other derivatives to municipal issuers,
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.

Beginning in March 2008, the company, along with numerous other
commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies and
brokers, were named as defendants in several putative class
actions filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, the Southern District of New York, and the Northern
District of California for alleged antitrust violations.

The plaintiffs in one of the pending actions asked the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and coordinate
these cases in the District of Columbia.

The company and the majority of its co-defendants have joined in
the request for coordination but have argued that the
coordination should take place in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its U.S. investment banking firm.  The bank and non-bank
subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as
through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Certain Suits Over Bear Sterns Deal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain purported class action lawsuits over a proposed merger
agreement entered into between JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the Bear
Stearns Cos., Inc., have been dismissed, according to JPMorgan's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Beginning March 17, 2008, various stockholders of the company
filed several purported class action lawsuits against it, its
board of directors, and certain of its present and former
executive officers.

Among other things, these actions allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to
the Bear Stearns stockholders by agreeing to the proposed
merger.

Five of these actions have been filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York and consolidated under the caption, "In re
Bear Stearns Litigation."

Two actions have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
where the plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate their
cases in Delaware.  JPMorgan Chase is named as a defendant in
certain of these cases.

In each of these actions, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the
proposed merger and enjoin JPMorgan Chase from voting the 95
million shares acquired pursuant to a Share Exchange Agreement,
other injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.  

On April 9, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court granted the
company's and Bear Stearns' motion to stay the Delaware action
in favor of the New York action, at least until the preliminary
injunction motion is resolved.

The plaintiffs in the Delaware action intervened in the New York
action and on May 7, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court signed a
stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties
dismissing the Delaware action.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a  
financial holding company.  JPMorgan Chase's principal bank
subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a
national banking association with branches in 17 states, and
Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is
the Company's credit card issuing bank.  JPMorgan Chase's
principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,
its U.S. investment banking firm.  The bank and non-bank
subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as
through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative
offices and subsidiary foreign banks.


KROGER CO: Settles Ky. Discrimination Lawsuit for $16 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. and lawyers representing hundreds of African-
American employees have agreed to settle an employment
discrimination lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, John Eckberg of the Cincinnati
Enquirer reports.

Filed in 2001, the suit alleged that Kroger systematically
discriminated against African American salaried and hourly
workers. I t contended that Kroger routinely impeded the
advancement of African American employees and paid them less
than similar white employees from 1997 to when it was filed.  
The suit also claimed that the company also harassed employees.

Recently a consent decree was submitted to Judge Thomas Russell
to settle the lawsuit.  It calls upon Kroger to:

     -- create an hourly start rate monitor within each Kroger
        management area to review pay rates of applicants and
        overrule, if necessary, store manager decisions that
        allow experience credits.

     -- establish minimum criteria for the management trainee,
        co-manager, store manager and zone manager.

     -- provide information, salary rates and other data
        pertaining to managers and workers to the plaintiff law
        firm on an annual basis.

     -- pay all expenses and fees incurred by a former judge,
        called a special master, who is authorized to resolve
        disputes associated with the consent decree.

In reaching the settlement, Kroger admitted no wrong-doing.

"We take our commitment to inclusion and our policies against
discrimination very seriously," CEO David Dillon said in a
letter to employees this week detailing the agreement.  "The
plaintiffs who initiated this lawsuit seven years ago obviously
felt strongly that the company was not treating them fairly."

If Judge Russell does not approve the consent decree by October
2008, the accord is void and litigation will commence, according
to the proposed agreement.

A spokesperson for the law firm of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld &
Toll said a judge is expected to finalize the accord within
weeks.

To contact Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C:

          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
          West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699


LIFELOCK: Texas Suit Filed Over Deceptive Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marks & Klein, LLP, has commenced its sixth class action lawsuit
against LifeLock, Inc., a provider of identity theft protection
services, and its chief executive officer, Richard "Todd" Davis.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this week in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
(Docket No. 2:08-cv-00242), on behalf of Tommy Ly of Harrison
County, as well as all other LifeLock subscribers in Texas.

This latest action follows similar suits against LifeLock filed
by Marks & Klein in Florida, California, West Virginia, Maryland
and New Jersey.

They allege LifeLock's multi-million-dollar advertising campaign
misled consumers by dramatically overstating the level of
identity protection the company provides, and by falsely
suggesting its customers could receive up to $1 million in
reimbursements should LifeLock fail to protect them from
identity theft. Moreover, the suits allege, the CEO himself has
had his own identity stolen at least 20 times while supposedly
under the protection of LifeLock.

In recent months, Marks & Klein has received multiple calls from
LifeLock customers for whom the company's primary service -- the
placement and constant renewal of fraud alerts on its
subscribers' credit profiles -- has offered no protection from
identity theft, noted David Paris, a Marks & Klein attorney and
lead counsel in the class actions.

An example is 25-year-old Nathaniel Faulhaber of Parsonsburg,
Md., who began paying $10 a month for LifeLock's services in May
2007 but later learned an identity thief had obtained a total of
five credit cards in his name -- all while Faulhaber was under
the purported protection of LifeLock.

"Not only did the primary service not work, but he also found
LifeLock's guarantee to rectify any defect in that service to be
useless," Mr. Paris said.  "LifeLock and the third-party
entities it employs have provided so little meaningful
assistance to Faulhaber that, ironically, he now finds himself
in the same situation he would have been in had he never paid
LifeLock a dime."

According to the Complaints, potential LifeLock subscribers are
enticed by the 'safety net' of what appears to be a $1 million
insurance policy against any losses sustained as a result of
identity theft.  To add to this impression of safety, the
company's national media marketing campaign showcases CEO Davis
broadcasting his own social security number as testimony to his
confidence in LifeLock's services.

But the Tempe, Ariz.-based operation appears to have been
founded in deception, Paris charged.  As noted in the
Complaints, for example, Davis and initial LifeLock co-founder
Robert Maynard have repeatedly claimed that Maynard hatched the
idea for LifeLock while serving seven days in jail for a crime
committed by a thief who had stolen Maynard's identity.

"Numerous in-depth investigations have revealed that the story
Maynard was spinning, along with CEO Davis, was false," Mr.
Paris said.  "Maynard had actually been arrested for reneging on
a $16,000 marker at the Mirage Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas."

Deron Dacus of Tyler-based Ramey & Flock serves as local counsel
for the Texas action, which seeks to recover the money
subscribers have paid to LifeLock and to prohibit the company
from continuing to promote its services through its deceptive
marketing campaign.

Marks & Klein plans to file similar actions on behalf of
consumers in other states. LifeLock presently has approximately
1 million subscribers across the United States.

For more information, contact:

          David Paris, Esq.
          Marks & Klein
          63 Riverside Ave.
          Redbank, NJ 07701
          Phone: 732-747-7100


MERCK & CO: Vytorin-Related ERISA Claims Pursued Separately
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Co-Lead Counsel for the ERISA plaintiffs
in the "In re Merck & Co. Inc. Securities, Derivative, & ERISA
Litigation, MDL No. 1658," pending with the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, disclosed that the Court
recently ruled that proposed supplemental claims related to
Vytorin against Merck & Co. Inc. for potential violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 should be
pursued separately from those being pursued in this action.

Separate lawsuits are on file that lodge claims based upon
Merck's conduct in relation to Vytorin and allege that Merck
breached its ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties in relation to the
investments in the:

     -- Merck Common Stock Fund within the Merck & Co., Inc.

     -- Employee Savings & Security Plan,

     -- the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Stock Purchase & Savings
        Plan, or

     -- the Merck Puerto Rico Employee Savings & Security Plan.

Merck may have failed to disclose known material information
about the efficacy of Vytorin to the Plans' participants at the
time that it was publicly touting Vytorin as a superior
cholesterol treatment.  When the results of Merck's clinical
trial of Vytorin were made public earlier this year, the Plans
and the Plans' participants and beneficiaries suffered massive
losses as Merck's stock price and the value of the Merck Common
Stock Fund in the Plans decreased substantially.

Merck may have breached its fiduciary duties to prudently and
loyally invest and maintain the assets of the Plans, as well as
its fiduciary duty to provide adequate information to the
participants of those Plans, by its actions and omissions
(including but not limited to its conduct in relation to
Vytorin) that materially affected the Plans' holdings of Merck
stock.

For more information, contact:

          Mark Gangl
          Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: 800-776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com/


MORGAN KEEGAN: Sued for Defrauding Annuity Investors
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed in Madison County
Circuit Court against Morgan Keegan & Company, MetLife, and
Regions Financial Corporation alleging that these defendants
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act, Steve Gonzalez writes for St. Clair Record.

St. Clair Record relates that Regions Bank and Morgan Keegan are
wholly owned subsidiaries of Regions Financial.

According to lead plaintiff Georgia Layloff, the defendants
induced customers to invest in a variable annuity contract based
on the guarantee that investors had a 10-day "free-look" period
to cancel with full refund.

"Contrary to the representations made by the Defendants,
customers who decide to cancel the contract during the 'free-
look' period do not have all of their money returned," the
complaint, filed on June 10, 2008, states.

Ms. Layloff claims that employees of defendants "fraudulently
represented" that she could invest in a MetLife variable annuity
with the condition she had a 10-day free-look to cancel and have
all of her principal returned.  She was a customer at Regions
Bank at 2400 Pontoon Road, in Granite City, the report notes.

However, Ms. Layloff claims that before the 10-day period was up
on Aug. 24, 2007, she canceled her annuity but only a portion of
her original investment was given back even after the agent for
Morgan Keegan guaranteed her total investment principal would be
returned.  She initially committed $30,000 to the annuity on
Aug. 16, 2007.

Ms. Layloff claims that on Sept. 7, 2007, she received a
statement from MetLife which confirmed the cancellation of the
variable annuity contract and three days later, an amount less
than the full value of her invested principal was deposited into
her account at Regions.

Ms. Layloff says that she then received a letter on Sept. 12,
2007, from Morgan Keegan advising her that the agent had
misrepresented that she would receive the full investment should
she cancel the contract during the free-look.  According to her,
the letter also stated that Illinois is on a list of select
states in which the cancellation of a variable annuity contract
only provides for return of the investment principal at current
market value.

"As of the date of filing this complaint, none of the Defendants
have provided Plaintiff with the money which was deducted from
her original investment principal," the complaint states.

Ms. Layloff claims the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act by:

     -- knowingly, intentionally and recklessly deceiving
        customers by representing that upon canceling the
        investment agreement within the guaranteed free-look
        period, the invested principal would be returned at the
        full value held at the time the investment was entered
        into;

     -- intending customers to rely on the representations that
        upon canceling the investment agreement within the
        guaranteed free-look period, the invested principal
        would be returned at the full value held at the time the
        investment was entered into; and

     -- intentionally and recklessly omitting, concealing,
        suppressing and deceiving customers by failing to inform
        them that upon canceling the investment agreement within
        the "free-look" period, the invested principal would
        actually be returned at a decreased value.

Ms. Layloff contends that she relied on the defendants'
"fraudulent and deceptive representations" when entering into
the investment agreement.  She says they engaged in a civil
conspiracy by agreeing to engage in deceptive acts and practices
by concealing material facts related to the return of invested
principal.

"Defendants acted in concert, aided and abetted each other, and
conspired to engage in the common course of misconduct for the
purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and
the class," the complaint states.

According to Ms. Layloff, had she known of the alleged
conspiracy, she and the class would not have invested principal.

"The withholding of any amount of Plaintiff's original
investment principal upon cancellation of the contract during
the ten day free-look period directly contradicts the
representations made by agents of (the Defendants)," the
complaint states.

Ms. Layloff claims she and the class were caused to suffer
actual damages from expending consideration and value for the
loss of money following the devaluation of the returned
investment principal.  

The complaint states that the exact number of class members is
currently unknown, but is generally ascertainable by appropriate
discovery and is believed that the class included "tens of
thousands of members."  It also states that class action is an
appropriate method for the "fair and efficient adjudication" of
the case because the controversy affects a large number of
people where joinder is impracticable.

All persons within Illinois who have entered into a contract
with Morgan Keegan, Regions Bank and MetLife in conjunction with
the representation that a period of time existed in which said
persons could cancel their contract and receive a full refund of
the investment principal, but who received a deducted amount of
the investment principal following the termination of the
contract within the specified time frame are eligible to join
the class, St. Clair Record notes.

Ms. Layloff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action, that the acts of the defendants be adjudged unfair and
an award for damages, attorney's fees, costs of the suit and
pre-judgment interest in an amount the Court deems reasonable.

Ms. Layloff is represented by Lloyd M. Cueto, Esq., of the Law
Office of Lloyd M. Cueto and Christopher Cueto, Esq. of the Law
Office of Christopher Cueto.

According to the report, Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis
has yet to assign the case.


NATIONAL WESTERN: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of Annuities
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Insurance Co. continues to face several
purported class action lawsuits in California which allege abuse
of the elderly and other state code violations over the sale of
certain deferred fixed annuities to seniors, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter period March 31, 2008.

The company is a defendant in three such class action suits.  
The court certified a class consisting of certain California
policyholders aged 65 and above alleging violations under
Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 7, 2007).  

The court has additionally certified a subclass of 36
policyholders alleging fraud against their agent, and
vicariously, against NWL.  

The first suit is targeting National Western for selling a
deferred annuity to an Oceanside senior that was allegedly an
"unsuitable" investment, since its payouts began well past the
buyer's life expectancy (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2005).

The second class action complaint is in discovery with no class
certification motion pending.  

The third case was certified as a class by the trial court, but
ultimately reversed by the Texas Supreme Court.  The plaintiff
then filed a new motion for class certification which was again
denied by the trial court.  The plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal, which has not been perfected.

Austin, Texas-based National Western Life Insurance Co. --
https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- is a stock life
insurance company doing business in 49 states, the District of
Columbia and four U.S. territories or possessions.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Union Launches PwC Overtime Lawsuit Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labor union UNITE HERE has launched a Web site
http://www.OverworkedAtPwC.info/-- which monitors the first  
class-certified wage and hour lawsuit filed against a Big Four
firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the U.S.

This independent Web site critical of the company is a resource
for PwC associates and others in the accounting industry who
seek up-to-date information on developments in this potentially
groundbreaking lawsuit.

PwC is the first Big Four firm to become the target of a class
certified wage and hour case in the United States.  The case
could have widespread implications for PwC, the nation's largest
accounting firm which operates in 34 states, and for other major
accounting firms nationwide.

While PwC has denied that it is breaking federal wage and hour
laws, the firm recently announced a redress plan of its overtime
policies in Canada on the heels of a similar class action
lawsuit against Big Four firm KPMG.

On March 25, 2008, Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of California's
Eastern District Court granted class certification to "Campbell
v. PricewaterhouseCoopers."

The plaintiffs, a group of former PwC associates filed the
lawsuit against the Big Four accounting firm for allegedly
misclassifying certain employees as exempt from receiving
overtime pay.

The suit, filed on October 27, 2006, covers all associates in
PwC's Attest division who worked at PwC offices in California
between October 27, 2002 to the present.

Court documents submitted by the plaintiffs describe the
atmosphere for unlicensed accountants at PwC as a kind of "white
collar sweatshop" where associates are expected to work 50-70
hour weeks, and work through weekends and holidays without
receiving overtime pay.

UNITE HERE is a labor union representing 465,000 workers in the
hotel, casino, food service, laundry, apparel and textile
industries.


SHUR-BRITE: Workers Sue Carwash for Not Paying Extra Hours
----------------------------------------------------------
Three workers have filed a federal suit against Shur-Brite Hi-
Speed Car Wash and its owners, alleging they were not paid for
hours they were clocked out but required to remain on the
premises of the carwash, Carwash Online says, citing an earlier
report by The Tennessean.

The Tennessean had reported that the 30-year-old carwash is an
"institution" in the city and its clientele includes famous
country music singers, producers and songwriters.

The plaintiffs claim that the carwash company's managers clock
them in and out frequently but forbid them to leave during off
hours, the report said.  Shur-Brite's owner, William Smith, told
The Tennessean that the managers clock workers in and out
according to how busy the carwash is, but denied that workers
are not free to leave anytime they are off the clock.

According to The Tennessean article, the suit was brought
pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires
most employers to pay non-management employees at least the
federal minimum wage and overtime pay and requires them to pay
workers for time in which they are engaged in work, preparing
for essential functions of work or waiting for work but not free
to leave.


STEIN MART: Suit Deal to Provide $10-$30 Discount on Purchases
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit settlement will mean savings for all
customers of Stein Mart, Click2Houston.com reports.

The suit, filed by Jessica Clark against Stein Mart, claimed
that the store printed more than five digits of customers'
credit and debit card numbers, as well a the expiration dates on
receipts back in 2006.  

Click2Houston.com notes that Stein Mart neither admits nor
denies the allegation, but the company agreed to settle the suit
to avoid more attorneys' fees.  According to the report, the
store mailed notices to thousands of customers to be on the
lookout for settlement coupons in local newspapers.

The deal will get customers $10 off a $50 purchase, $20 off a
$100 purchase and $30 off of a $150 purchase.  The deal also
means it does not matter if a customer actually got one of the
receipts that revealed a credit card number.  Everyone can use
the coupons.

The coupons are expected to be printed in the paper sometime
between Oct. 25, 2008, and Nov. 23, 2008, Click2Houston.com
says.

The report explains that a customer does not need to do anything
upon getting this notice, unless he wants to take some other
legal action against Stein Mart.  If that is the case, he needs
to "opt out" of the class.  Visit
http://www.steinmartsettlement.com/for instructions on how to  
do that.


SUSQUEHANA INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Alleging 'Theft By Deception'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna International Group is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging it committed "theft by
deception" in buying the Philadelphia Stock Exchange for far
below its true value, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Lewis Levin, a former PHLX seatholder, claims the 505 seats on
the PHLX sold, if they were sold at all, for more than $300,000
apiece in 1998 and 1999.  The PHLX demutualized in January 2004.

Mr. Levin claims that in April 2005, PHLX directors rejected an
offer of $50 million for the exchange, which would have valued
each seat at less than $100,000.  He also claims that in August
2005, PHLX directors sold 98.4% of the exchange to six firms for
only $33.75 million.  Simultaneously with this announcement, the
board of the PHLX "announced that the PHLX would make a self
tender to retire Class A PHLX stock at $90,000 per 100 shares."

According to the complaint, "At its core, this case is about
theft by deception."

Mr. Levin further asserts that the PHLX board and the defendants
concealed the true value of the PHLX, which he estimates at $250
million to $350 million.  He asserts that "the viability of the
PHLX was misrepresented as being questionable at best, and, at
worse, in danger of imminent failure," and that "the future of
the PHLX could be salvaged through equity capital investments if
only the PHLX had a 'currency' to use, i.e., stock, to
facilitate those investments and that would be made available
with demutualization."

Mr. Levin brings this action on behlaf of all persons, whether
or not that person is an individual or legal entity, who either
sold a PHLX seat or, alternatively, received Class A PHLX stock
as a result of the demutualization of the PHLX and sold any of
the Class A PHLX stock to SIG, or any person acting for, or on
behalf of SIG or who, at the time of said sale, possessed
material, non-public information from SIG as to the value of
either a PHLX seat or PHLX stock and did not disclose that
information to the seller of said stock.

The plaintiff wants the court to find:

     (a) what information was published by defendants to PHLX
         shareholders throughout the relevant period;

     (b) what information was published by persons other than
         defendants to the PHLX shareholders throughout the
         relevant period;

     (c) what information was available as public information to
         the PHLX shareholders throughout the relevant period;

     (d) what information should have been published by
         defendants to the PHLX shareholders at the times
         relevant;

     (e) what material, non-public information was possessed by
         a defendant when that defendant purchased either a PHLX
         seat or Class A PHLX stock from a member of the
         plaintiff class;

     (f) any questions of reliance upon any representation made
         by defendants to PHLX seat owners or to PHLX
         shareholders; and

     (g) damages suffered by PHLX seat owners and shareholders
         in connection with the relevant sales.

The plaintiff demands that judgment be entered in his favor and
against SIG jointly and severally, for violating Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder for its actions,
as set forth in the complaint, in connection with the
demutualization of the PHLX.  He asks for a judgment in an
amount that fully compensate plaintiffs for their losses, plus
costs of court and, in addition thereto, the court award
whatever other, and further, relief the court deems just and
necessary under the circumstances.

The suit is "Lewis M. Levin, et al. v. Susquehanna International
Group, LLP, et al., Case No. 08cv2805," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Steven B. Mirow, Esq.
          249 South 12th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-923-1301


T-MOBILE USA: Faces Wash. Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile USA is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington claiming
that the carrier charges consumers for unsolicited text messages
but does not provide a way to block content or disable the
service, Jeffrey Silva of RCRNews reports.

The lawsuit asserts that T-Mobile USA Inc. forces subscribers to
use text message-enabled handsets and then charges them for
unsolicited content.  These are business practices that the
plaintiffs said are not adequately disclosed to customers.

The complaint also asserts that T-Mobile refuses to allow its
customers to disable the text message service or block incoming
text traffic in order to avoid charges.  However, T-Mobile USA
does now offer a text-blocking feature.

The suit is "McNeill, et al. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case Number:
2:2008cv00863," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge Richard A. Jones, presiding.


TECMO LTD: Two Workers File Lawsuit Over Labor Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Tecmo employees have filed a class-action suit on behalf of
all 300 members of the company for unpaid wages, Brad
Hilderbrand of Game Reviews reports.

The two litigants claim that four years ago, the entire Tecmo
workforce was put on a "flexible hours" work schedule, and that
as a result no one was paid for overtime.  The unpaid time
amounts to over 100 hours per month, and the suit is demanding
compensation to the tune of $77,000.

Hiroaki Ozawa, one of the plaintiffs and a Tecmo developer,
claims that Tecmo has created false documents and covered up
questionable accounting.  Now, the company is being investigated
for violations of labor laws.

Tecmo, Ltd., formerly known as Tehkan Ltd., is a Japanese video
game corporation that is best known for the Ninja Gaiden, Dead
or Alive, Deception, Monster Rancher, Rygar, Tecmo Super Bowl,
Tecmo World Wrestling, Fatal Frame and Gallop Racer video game
series.


TORCHMARK: 11th Circuit Favors Affirmative Defenses in Ala. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama refusing to dismiss Torchmark Corp.'s
affirmative defenses in the matter, "In re Vesta Insurance
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
98-AR-1407-S," according to Torchmark's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period March 31, 2008.

On March 15, 1999, the company was named as a defendant in a
consolidated derivative securities class action lawsuit before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  

An amended consolidated complaint in the matter alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by the defendants -- Torchmark, Vesta, certain present
and former Vesta officers and directors, and KPMG LLP (Vesta's
former independent public accountants) -- and of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act by certain former Vesta officers and
directors and Torchmark acting as "controlling persons" of Vesta
in connection with certain accounting irregularities in Vesta's
reported financial results and filed financial statements.  

Unspecified damages and equitable relief are sought on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of Vesta equity securities
between June 2, 1995, and June 29, 1998.  The class was
certified in this litigation on Oct. 25, 1999.

In September 2001, Torchmark filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was denied by the court on Jan. 10, 2002.  

On April 9, 2003, the court issued an order denying the class
plaintiffs' motion to strike certain of Torchmark's affirmative
defenses, holding that Torchmark cannot be held jointly and
severally liable with Vesta under the securities law without an
affirmative jury determination that Torchmark knowingly
committed a violation of the securities laws.  

Vesta, its officers and directors, its insurance carriers and
KPMG settled their portions of the litigation with the class
plaintiffs in 2001; Torchmark did not.  Subsequently, in May
2003, Torchmark instituted separate litigation against KPMG,
which matter was resolved in March 2006.   

In April 2006, the class plaintiffs in the Vesta Insurance Group
Securities Litigation filed a motion before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama renewing their claims
against Torchmark based on an allegation of control person
liability.  

This matter was set for trial in the court on Oct. 2, 2006, and
has been stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal to
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit filed
by the class plaintiffs.   

The interlocutory appeal, which was filed Aug. 23, 2006, sought
a ruling whether and to what extent proportionate liability
provisions may apply if the allegations of controlling person
liability against Torchmark are ultimately proven.  Arguments on
the interlocutory appeal were heard by the Eleventh Circuit on
July 31, 2007.

On April 30, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in the
interlocutory appeal affirming the District Court's denial of
class plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Torchmark's affirmative
defenses under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded that substantive controlling
person liability under the federal securities law remains the
same and survives the proportionate liability scheme established
by PSLRA.  The Court found that damages allocated against a
controlling person found liable for a securities law violation
are based upon the proportionate liability provisions in the
PSLRA.

The suit is "In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 98-AR-1407-S," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Karon
O. Bowdre, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq. (artl@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 1-619-231-1058
                 800-449-4900
          Fax: 1-619-231-7423.

Representing the defendants is:

          Joseph D. Jackson, Jr., Esq. (jjackson@bddmc.com)
          Baxley Dillard Dauphin & Mcknight
          2008 Third Avenue, South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 271-1100


TORCHMARK: Objection Raised on Approved Policyholder Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
An objection was filed in the Barbour County Circuit Court in
connection with the implementation of a settlement in a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Torchmark Corp.
and Liberty National Life Insurance Co. over cancer policies,
according to Torchmark's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period
March 31, 2008.

The company and Liberty National were parties to the purported
class action suit, captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002 009-B," filed before the
Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, on behalf of all
persons who currently or in the past were insured under Liberty
cancer policies, which were no longer being marketed, regardless
of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed.   

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering the Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.  

The plaintiffs then filed a purported class action suit,
captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. CV-03-0137," against Liberty and Torchmark in
the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, on Dec. 30, 2003.  

On April 16, 2004, the parties filed a written stipulation of
agreement of compromise and settlement in the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court, seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.   

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.   

The Barbour Court, after hearing from the objectors to the
potential settlement, ordered the appointment of an independent
actuary to report back on certain issues.  The report of the
independent actuary was subsequently furnished to the special
master and the court on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Barbour Court entered an order and final
judgment consolidating Roberts with "Robertson v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," for purposes of the
Roberts stipulation of settlement, and certified the Roberts
class as a new subclass of the class previously certified by
that court in Robertson.   

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.  Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark
were permanently enjoined from:  

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,  
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases  
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in  
         accordance with the Stipulation;  

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure  
         described in the Stipulation; and  

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special  
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who  
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass  
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance  
         and are not covered by Medicare.  

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, released the
defendants, enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further
prosecution of released claims and retained continuing
jurisdiction of all matters relating to the Roberts settlement.   

In an order issued Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors'
motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on
class settlement and certification.   

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the Roberts plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to
the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.   

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in "Roberts" to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since Roberts was filed as an
independent class action collaterally attacking Robertson rather
than being filed in Robertson under the Barbour County Court's
reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.   

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
Robertson for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend the
Robertson final judgment.

Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.  

A hearing was held on Liberty's petition on March 13, 2007.  On
March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order
denying Liberty's petition for clarification and modification of
"Robertson," holding that Liberty's policies did not state that
they will pay "actual charges" accepted by providers.

On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to
intervene and establishing a subclass in "Robertson" comprised
of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the
past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit
claims under the policies in question.

Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to
certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court's order on
Liberty's petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17,
2007.  An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on
Aug. 9, 2007.  

On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders,
based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate
mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus,
reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the
cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the
parties' settlement agreement.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement agreement was held
by the Barbour County Circuit Court on Jan. 15, 2008.  
Subsequent to this hearing, an order approving the settlement
agreement was approved by the Barbour County Circuit Court but
was thereafter vacated by that Court due to technical errors in
the printing of the original order.  

A corrected order finally approving the settlement was entered
on May 6, 2008.  Prior to the entry of the corrected order,
notice of appeal was filed by one objector.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com-- is an  
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Settles N.Y. Suit Over MemberHealth Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal American Financial Corp. settled a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court for New York State,
Westchester County, in connection with a merger agreement
between the company and MemberHealth, Inc.

On July 25, 2007, a purported class action complaint was filed
by Elizabeth A. Conolly, Thomas McCormack, Shelly Z. Zhang,
Green Meadows Partners, James Stellato and Rocco Sorrentino
against:

     * Universal American Financial Corp.,
     * Richard A. Barasch,
     * Lee Equity Partners LLC,
     * Perry Capital LLC,
     * Union Square Partners Management LLC,
     * Welsh, Carson,
     * Anderson & Stowe,
     * Barry Averill,
     * Bradley E. Cooper,
     * Mark M. Harmeling,
     * Bertram Harnett,
     * Linda H. Lamel,
     * Eric W. Leathers,
     * Patrick J. McLaughlin,
     * Robert A. Spass, and
     * Robert F. Wright.

The suit alleges that the defendants, who are directors of the
company, breached fiduciary duties owed to the company's
shareholders in connection with the company entering into its
previously announced merger agreement to acquire MemberHealth
Inc. and concurrent agreements with certain equity investors for
such equity investors to acquire securities in the company, and
the defendants who are equity investors purportedly aided and
abetted that breach.

Also, the defendants who are directors of the company allegedly
breached their duty of candor to the company's shareholders by
failing to disclose material information concerning those
transactions.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the transactions and damages in an amount to
be determined.

The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation of
settlement dated as of May 1, 2008, pursuant to which they have
agreed to settle the lawsuit.

Universal American Financial Corp. -- http://www.uafc.com/- is  
a specialty health and life insurance holding company, with an
emphasis on providing an array of health insurance and managed
care products and services.


WACHOVIA BANK: Continues to Face RICO Violations Lawsuit in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank, N.A., a principal subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.,
continues to face a purported class action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that it had conspired with a payment processor --
Payment Processing Center -- in a scheme that facilitated
fraudulent telemarketing directed primarily at the elderly
involving tens of millions of dollars.

The suit in general alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit describes the use of "demand drafts" by deceptive
telemarketers based on banking information they obtained over
the phone from victims (Class Action Reporter April 16, 2007).

The complaint alleges that PPC prepared the demand drafts and
deposited them in a series of accounts opened at Wachovia.  It
also alleges that Wachovia, aware that demand drafts were
commonly used by deceptive telemarketers, continued to open and
to maintain the accounts, even though:

     (1) the accounts had a return rate of approximately 60% of
         the total sums of the drafts deposited, and

     (2) even after a second Philadelphia bank had warned
         Wachovia that it was being flooded by unauthorized bank
         drafts originated by PPC and had solicited Wachovia's
         assistance "in trying to shut down the scam."

The complaint states that, "Wachovia responded that
'overzealous' telemarketers were responsible for the problems
with the PPC bank drafts, but nonetheless continued to accept
such drafts from PPC."

It further alleges that other banks complained to Wachovia of
PPC's activities, and that Wachovia had a special agreement with
PPC which granted Wachovia expanded refund and charge back
rights.

The suit claims Wachovia knew that the banking services it
provided were an essential element in PPC's scheme.

The suit also alleges that between April 1, 2005, and
February 21, 2006, Wachovia conspired with PPC to facilitate
PPC's purported violation of RICO.

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 period March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01455-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay Surrick, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Judah I. Labovitz, Esq. (jlabovitz@langergrogan.com)
          Langer & Grogan P.C.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-320-5660
                 215-320-5702
          Fax: 215-320-5703


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Pa. Suit Over Conspiracy to Defraud Elderly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank, N.A., a principal subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.,
continues to face a class-action complaint pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that
accuses it of conspiring with telemarketers to defraud old
people of millions of dollars, according to the company's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter period March 31, 2008.

Named plaintiff Catherine D. Harrison brings the action pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c) to recover threefold damages
incurred by the plaintiff and the class as a consequence of the
defendant's violation of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and 1962(d)
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).

The complaint alleges that Wachovia set up accounts for
fraudulent "payment processors" working with the telemarketers,
even after Wachovia had been warned by other banks of the
extensive fraud being committed against the elderly.

The payment processors named in the complaint are:

     -- Payment Processing Center,
     -- Netchex,
     -- Your Money Access, and
     -- Guardian Marketing Services Corp.

The complaint asserts that the bank knew its accounts were being
used to target old people for fraud, and that "Wachovia
continued to participate in the scheme after being told by other
banks of the fraud committed by telemarketers and their
accomplices, the payment processors."

Ms. Harrison brings the action on behalf of all individuals in
the United States as to whom remotely created demand drafts on
their bank accounts were prepared and deposited by Netchex, YMA
and Guardian Marketing into one or more accounts in any of their
names at Wachovia during the four year period preceding the
filing of the complaint, and finally charged to the class
members' bank accounts pursuant to information provided to
Netchex, YMA or Guardian by a telemarketer, or who otherwise
incurred any bank charges as a consequence of the demand drafts.

Ms. Harrison demands judgment for threefold damages suffered as
a result of Wachovia's alleged unlawful conduct as well as
injunctive relief, together with the costs of the action and a
reasonable attorney's fee.

The suit is "Catherine D. Harrison, et al. v. Wachovia Bank,
N.A.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Howard Langer, Esq. (hlanger@langergrogan.com)
          Judah I. Labovitz, Esq. (jlabovitz@langergrogan.com)
          John Grogan, Esq. (jgrogan@langergrogan.com)
          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. (iackelsberg@langergrogan.com)
          Edward Diver, Esq. (ediver@langergrogan.com)
          Langer Grogan Diver, PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-320-5660


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Suits Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank N.A., a principal subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.,
and other financial institutions face four substantially
identical purported class action lawsuits filed in various U.S.
District Courts.

The complaints allege that Wachovia Bank its co-defendant
financial institutions engaged in an anti-competitive conspiracy
regarding 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 one complaint also asserts a claim for unjust
enrichment.

The defendants have filed motions to consolidate these actions
into one proceeding, according to Wachovia's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter period March 31, 2008.

Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial  
holding company and a bank holding company.  It provides
commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full-
service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other
financial services, including mortgage banking, investment
banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based
lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities
brokerage services, through other subsidiaries.  The Company's
retail securities brokerage business is conducted through
Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states.


WACHOVIA CORP: Sued in New York Over Auction Rate Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. and Wachovia Securities, LLC, have been named in
a civil lawsuit captioned, "Judy M. Waldman Trustee v. Wachovia
Corporation and Wachovia Securities LLC."

The suit was filed on March 19, 2008, before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  It seeks class
action status for customers who purchased and continue to hold
auction rate securities based upon alleged misrepresentations
made with respect to the quality, risk and characteristics of
auction rate securities, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter period March 31, 2008.

Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial  
holding company and a bank holding company.  It provides
commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full-
service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Washington, D.C. It also provides various other
financial services, including mortgage banking, investment
banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based
lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities
brokerage services, through other subsidiaries.  The Company's
retail securities brokerage business is conducted through
Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states.


* The Legal 500 Names Bernstein Liebhard "Best of the Best"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Legal 500, a guide to the best commercial law firms in the
United States, has recognized Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, for the second straight year as one of the top six
plaintiffs' securities class action firms in the country.

According to its editor, The Legal 500 is an independent "guide
to 'the best of the best' -- the pre-eminent firms in the
world's strongest and most competitive legal market."

Quoting firm clients, The Legal 500 states that "(c)lients are
'impressed by the responsiveness of the firm', as well as by its
'willingness to answer all our questions, and accommodate all
our needs.'"

One client noted that the firm always provided drafts of
documents with sufficient time for pre-filing review, "'even
when pleadings were required on short notice.'"

According to The Legal 500: "Name partner Stanley Bernstein is a
popular attorney among clients, who appreciate his 'candor,
intelligence and responsiveness at all times'.  William Titelman
is praised by clients for his 'acumen', 'legal skills and people
skills', while clients single out associate Ann Lipton as 'the
primary author of an excellent brief.'"

Partner Mel E. Lifshitz stated: "This honor, coming for the
second straight year from an independent evaluator of legal
ability based in the UK, demonstrates the firm's international
reputation for significant and ongoing achievements on behalf of
investors."

For more information, contact:

          Mel Lifshitz, Esq. (lifshitz@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AERONAUTIC DEFENCE: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all U.S. and non-U.S.
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of European
Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. on the Frankfurt, Madrid and
Paris stock exchanges between January 17, 2005, and March 11,
2008, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
falsely assured the investing public that it would overcome the
technical problems in the production of the Company's Airbus
A380 commercial jets and it would be able to meet its year-end
delivery deadlines.

Interested parties may move the court no later than  August 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


FRANKLIN BANK: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common
or preferred stock of Franklin Bank Corp.

The class period in this action has been expanded to include
April 26, 2007, through May 1, 2008, inclusive.

Franklin Bank and certain of the Company's officers are charged
with making a series of materially false and misleading
statements related to the Company's business and operations in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 5,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Brower Piven Files New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Gildan Activewear Inc. between
August 2, 2007, and April 29, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, and certain of its officers and directors, issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's financial performance and prospects.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 1,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


INDYMAC CORP: Brower Piven Launches Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., between August 16, 2007, and
May 12, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges IndyMac and certain of its officers and
directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 11,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Lehman common
stock between September 13, 2006, through June 6, 2008,
inclusive.

Lehman Brothers is an international investment banking firm.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted the Company's
strong liquidity position, superior risk management policies and
stable overall financial prospects despite a difficult
environment in the financial services industry.  As a result of
Defendants' statements, the stock traded as high as $86.18 per
share during the Class Period.

The complaint extends a prior Class Period to include the
Company's most recent earnings disclosure of June 9, 2008.  On
this date, prior to the opening of trading on the New York Stock
Exchange, the Company stunned the market by reporting a
$2.8 billion second quarter loss -- nearly ten times the loss
analysts had anticipated and the Company's first reported loss
since going public in 1994.  Lehman Brothers also announced
plans to raise $6 billion in additional capital to help it
survive its financial crisis.  This news shocked investors as
management had issued repeated assurances that the Company was
financially strong and its liquidity position solid, even going
so far as denying speculation that Lehman Brothers would suffer
losses such as this.  The stock closed at $29.48 that day, a
decline of $2.81, on heavy volume of close to 170 million
shares.

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

For more information, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-394-3399
          Fax: 561-394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/


FIDELITY ULTRA-SHORT: Brower Piven Files Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the Fidelity Ultra-Short Bond Fund who purchased the Fund
between June 6, 2005, and June 5, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint charges Fidelity Management & Research Company and
certain related entities, among others, with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Company is the investment advisor to the entire group of
mutual funds under the Fidelity name.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Rando in Suit v. Jacobs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1st Circuit, upheld the ruling
of the 19th Judicial District Court, in and for the Parish of
East Baton Rouge, La., which ruled in favor of Ray F. Rando, in
an asbestos-related case filed against various defendants
including Jacobs Constructors, Inc. and Parsons Infrastructure &
Technology Group, Inc.

The case is styled Ray F. Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., et
al.

Judges Carter, Pettigrew and Welch entered judgment of Case No.
No. 2007 CA 2093 on May 2, 2008.

For more than 20 years, beginning in 1965, Mr. Rando worked as a
pipefitter and welder at numerous commercial and industrial
sites. On Sept. 23, 2005, he was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma.

On Nov. 22, 2005, Mr. Rando filed this lawsuit seeking damages
as a result of his exposure to asbestos against a host of
defendants, including his former employers, various premises
owners where Mr. Rando was allegedly exposed to asbestos, as
well as numerous companies that designed, manufactured, sold,
and installed asbestos-containing products.

Two of the defendants, Parsons and Jacobs, contractors for whom
Mr. Rando worked in the 1970s, filed motions for summary
judgment in which they asserted that Mr. Rando's tort suit was
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Louisiana Workers'
Compensation Act.

Jacobs additionally urged that Mr. Rando's claim against it was
perempted under La. R.S. 9:2772 because it was filed more than
10 years after completion of construction of the immovable on
which Mr. Rando worked while in its employ.

The trial court denied the motions for summary judgment, and
Parsons sought supervisory review of the denial of its motion
for summary judgment. The Appeals Court declined to exercise
supervisory jurisdiction, observing that Parsons could address
the issue on appeal after trial on the merits.

Before trial, Mr. Rando released numerous defendants from the
litigation.

Following a bench trial, the trial court determined that Parsons
and Jacobs were liable to Mr. Rando for damages due to his
exposure to asbestos while in their employ.

Judgment was then entered against Parsons for one-eighth of the
total amount of the award, or US$400,250.00, and against Jacobs
for the same amount.

This appeal followed, in which Parsons and Jacobs asserted
numerous challenges to the trial court's liability and quantum
determinations.

In this appeal, Parsons and Jacobs challenged a judgment
awarding damages in favor of Mr. Rando.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

Cameron R. Waddell, Jody E. Anderman, Baton Rouge, La., and
Renee M. Melancon, Lisa W. Shirley, Dallas, Tex., represented
Ray F. Rando.

Dan Edward West, Arthur H. Leith, New Orleans, represented
Jacobs Constructors, Inc.

Scott F. Higgins, Donovan J. O'Pry, II, Lafayette, La.,
represented Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors ITT in Scotts Co. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which ruled
in favor of ITT Corporation, in a case involving asbestos
indemnification filed against The Scotts Company, LLC.

The case is styled ITT Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
The Scotts Company, LLC, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Kriegler, Turner, and Mosk entered judgment of Case No.
B197825 on May 20, 2008. Judge Mosk dissented.

For 15 years, from April 1971 through November 1986, Scotts
(then known as O.M. Scott & Sons Company) was a wholly-owned
lawn and garden products subsidiary of ITT. Scotts, as a
subsidiary, was insured under policies issued to ITT.

On Nov. 24, 1986, the parties entered into a sale agreement
whereby all of Scotts' stock was transferred from ITT to CDS
Acquisition Corporation, which then changed its name to The
Scotts Company. The transaction closed on Dec. 30, 1986.

A number of lawsuits were subsequently filed alleging asbestos
injuries arising from exposure before the Dec. 30, 1986 sale.
ITT brought this action against multiple insurers alleging they
had a duty to defend and indemnify it in connection with the
asbestos actions.

In addition, ITT sought a declaration it had no duty to
indemnify Scotts with respect to the asbestos injury claims.

On April 27, 2006, the trial court granted ITT's summary
adjudication motion in that regard. The trial court construed
the sale agreement between the parties and ruled ITT had no duty
to indemnify Scotts.

The judgment was entered on Feb. 7, 2007. This appeal followed.

The judgment was affirmed. ITT is to recover its costs on appeal
from Scotts.

Howrey, Keith A. Meyer; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges,
Harold A. Barza, Daniel H. Bromberg and William B. Adams
represented The Scotts Company.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Thomas M. Peterson; Paul A. Zevnik,
Michel Y. Horton and David S. Cox represented ITT Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeal Court Favors Lee Armstrong
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 2nd District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, which
granted summary judgment to Lee Armstrong Co. Inc. and its owner
Steve Armstrong, in a lawsuit filed by Robert Gomez.

The case is styled Robert Gomez, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lee
Armstrong Co. Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Kriegler, Armstrong, and Mosk entered judgment of Case
No. B198151 on May 20, 2008.

This appeal concerned Mr. Gomez's claim that he was wrongfully
terminated by Lee Armstrong Co., Inc. (LAC) in violation of
public policy. Mr. Gomez alleged the same claim against LAC's
owner, Steve Armstrong, under an alter ego theory.

According to his allegations, Mr. Gomez had a long-term
employment relationship with LAC as a floor-installer. Twice,
when pulling up tiles or carpet on an LAC jobsite, he
encountered the carcinogen asbestos. He notified his supervisors
and refused to do additional work on those projects.

As a result, Mr. Gomez contended LAC reduced his work hours
before firing him for his asbestos complaints, using the pretext
that he refused to show up to work when ordered at a time when
the employer knew he had conflicting childcare responsibilities.  

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LAC and Mr.
Armstrong, finding insufficient evidence as to various elements
of Mr. Gomez's claims.

In his timely appeal, Mr. Gomez contended the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment because defendants failed to (1)
comply with the procedural requirement that a moving party's
separate statement of undisputed facts separately identify each
cause of action and each supporting material fact claimed to be
without dispute, and (2) present evidence sufficient to shift
the burden of proof to Mr. Gomez to show the existence of a
material issue of disputed fact, leaving genuine issues of
disputed facts as to all the elements of plaintiff's wrongful
dismissal claim, as well as to his alter ego allegation as to
Armstrong.

Mr. Gomez also contended the trial court erroneously denied his
motion for reconsideration.

The Appeals Court's independent review demonstrated that summary
judgment was properly granted and there was no abuse of
discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. The Appeals
Court therefore affirmed.

Law Offices of John Y. Igarashi and John Y. Igarashi represented
Robert Gomez.

Law Office of John M. Kalajian and John M. Kalajian represented
Lee Armstrong Co. Inc. and other defendants and respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Flips Ruling to Favor Perman
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon, reversed and remanded the ruling
of the Multnomah County Circuit Court, which granted summary
judgment in favor of Quimby Welding Supplies, Inc., in an
asbestos action filed by Judy Perman on behalf of her late
husband Donald Perman.

Mrs. Perman appealed, challenging the trial court's allowance of
summary judgment in favor of Quimby, on claims arising out of
Mr. Perman's alleged exposure to asbestos while working as a
welder and sheet metal mechanic at American Sheet Metal (ASM) in
Tualatin, Ore., between 1966 and 1978.

The complaint, filed in January 2004, alleged that various
entities, including Quimby, had distributed asbestos-containing
products and that, as a result of exposure to those products
in workplaces, including at ASM, Mr. Perman had suffered
asbestos-related injuries and disease.

Specifically, with respect to Quimby, the complaint alleged that
Quimby had "engaged in the supply, distribution and sale of
hazardous asbestos-containing products, including gloves,
mittens, and welding blankets."

Quimby subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that
Mr. Perman had been unable to adduce evidence that he had been
injuriously exposed at ASM to any asbestos-containing products
distributed by Quimby.

In support of that motion, Quimby proffered a declaration from
one of its former employees, Crowther, stating that Quimby had
never distributed asbestos-containing products to ASM during the
period of Mr. Perman's employment.

The Appeals Court concluded that Mrs. Perman's evidence was
sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The trial court erred
in granting summary judgment.

Lloyd F. LeRoy, California, argued the cause for appellants. On
the opening brief were Elaine J. Brown, Scott Niebling, and  
Brayton Purcell, LLP. On the reply brief were James Shadduck,
Robyn Stein, and Brayton Purcell, LLP.

Rudy R. Lachenmeier argued the cause for respondent. With him on
the brief were Lori K. DeBobbelaere and Lachenmeier Enloe Rall &
Heinson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSK Auto Still Involved in Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSK Auto Corporation continues to be involved in litigation
incidental to the conduct of its business, including but not
limited to asbestos and similar product liability claims.

The damages claimed in some of this litigation are substantial.
Based on internal review, the Company accrues reserves using its
best estimate of the probable and reasonably estimable
contingent liabilities.

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

Phoenix-based CSK Auto Corporation's subsidiary CSK Auto, Inc.
is a specialty retailer of automotive aftermarket parts and
accessories. At May 4, 2008, the Company operated 1,345 stores
in 22 states, with its principal concentration of stores in the
Western United States, under the following brand names: Checker
Auto Parts, Schuck's Auto Supply, Kragen Auto Parts, and
Murray's Discount Auto Stores.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 503 Claims at March 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of March 30, 2008, faces about
503 asbestos-related claims, of which about 15 are "malignant"
and about 488 are "non-malignant," according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 12, 2008.

As of Dec. 30, 2007, the Company faced about 498 asbestos-
related claims, of which about 16 were "malignant" asbestos
claims and about 482 were "non-malignant" claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 15, 2008)

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at its Seattle shipyard and closed former
facilities.

In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers as defendants, and arise from injuries or
illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other
toxic substances.

Included in about 425 cases open as of March 30, 2008 are about
503 claimants. The exact number of claimants is not determinable
as about 86 of the open cases include multiple claimant filings
against 20-100 defendants.

About 194 cases do not assert any specific amount of relief
sought. About 153 cases assert on behalf of each claimant a
claim for compensatory damages of US$2 million and punitive
damages of US$20 million against about 20-100 defendants.

About 37 cases assert US$5-20 million in compensatory and US$5-
20 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant
against about 20-100 defendants. About 37 cases assert US$1-5
million in compensatory and US$5-10 million in punitive damages
on behalf of each claimant against about 20-100 defendants.
About four cases seek compensatory damages of less than US$1
million per claim.

Bodily injury reserves declined from US$5.8 million at April 1,
2007, to US$5.4 million at March 30, 2008. Bodily injury
insurance receivables also decreased from US$4.3 million at
April 1, 2007 to US$4 million at March 30, 2008.

The Company resolved six malignant claims in 2008, compared with
19 in 2007 and nine in 2006.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private (or non-
Governmental) shipyard operating in the Pacific Northwest. The
Company's business is repair and maintenance work on commercial
and federal government vessels engaged in various maritime
activities in the Pacific Northwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Court Rules v. Congoleum's Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, on
June 6, 2008, entered on its docket an opinion in connection
with American Biltrite Inc.'s majority-owned subsidiary
Congoleum Corporation's Chapter 11 Case No. 03-51524, ruling
that the Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code of the Futures Representative, the Debtors, the
Official Asbestos Claimants' Committee and the Official
Committee of Bondholders for Congoleum Corporation, et al.,
dated as of Feb. 5, 2008, is not confirmable as a matter of law.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing for June 26, 2008
to address the question of whether the reorganization case
should be converted or dismissed under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code,
according to a Company press release dated June 12, 2008.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division manufactures adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes
and films used to protect materials during handling and storage,
as well as for applications in the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC), automotive, and electrical industries. The
Company also designs and distributes wholesale jewelry and
accessories to specialty and department stores through its K&M
subsidiary, while its AB Canada subsidiary makes floor tile and
rubber products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corp. Seeks to Dismiss Plan Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corporation maintains the Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants' challenge of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York's subject matter
jurisdiction to enter the injunction under the Plan of
Reorganization is legally in error, equitably moot, and should
be rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Corinne Ball, at Jones Day, in New York, asserts the Bankruptcy
Court had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to determine the
legality of the Debtors' 3rd Amended Reorganization Plan's
disposition of the property of the Debtors' estates.

The Bankruptcy Court therefore had the authority to issue an
injunction preventing any challenge of that disposition in
subsequent collateral actions. Neither Johns-Manville Corp. v.
Chubb Indem. Ins. Co. (In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 517 F.3d
52(2d Cir. 2008), nor In re Zale Corp., 62 F.3d 746 (5th Cir.
1995), suggest anything to the contrary.

Ms. Ball adds that even if there were some question as to the
Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction to enter the Injunction, the Ad
Hoc Committee lacks the standing to challenge the Bankruptcy
Court's authority where the Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants
it represents are wholly unaffected by the Injunction.

Ms. Ball further asserts that in light of the substantial
consummation of the Plan, the Ad Hoc Committee's arguments
should be deemed equitably moot. Where a court cannot order
effective relief, like the requested vacatur of the Confirmation
Order, appellate challenges of a bankruptcy court's subject
matter jurisdiction are as vulnerable to dismissal on grounds of
equitable mootness as challenges unrelated to jurisdiction.

(Dana Corporation Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 77; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Urged Not to Grant Relief to AWI
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter addressed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, William B.
Yancey, Sr., an 83 year old war veteran, asks Judge Judith
Fitzgerald to avoid granting any more relief to Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.  

Mr. Yancey relates that he signed a notice of settlement dated
May 21, 2007, as a proof of claim based on the Department of
Veterans Affairs' findings that he has 30 percent asbestos
rating with chronic, severe pulmonary disease.

Mr. Yancey complains, however, that the AWI attorneys denied his
claim on the grounds that the Veteran Affairs' doctors are not
qualified pulmonary physicians.

"We the veterans of all wars did our jobs for you, now, you can
repay the sacrifices we made by doing your job for us," Mr.
Yancey says. "As AWI Attorneys have no intentions of following
any Court Order, make these attorneys responsible by doing what
the Court ordered."

(Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 125; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. Phone 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeals Court Rules v. Owens-Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed
the ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Camden County, which granted summary judgment to Owens-Illinois,
Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuits filed by 15 Spanish
plaintiffs.

Judges Parrillo, Gilroy, and Baxter entered judgment on the
cases on May 27, 2008.

This was on appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Docket Nos. L-4763-04, L-7333-04, L-
7311-04, L-7334-04, L-7410- 04, L-7408-04, L-7409-04, L-7390-04,
L-7727-04, L-7728-04, l-7729-04, L-7730-04, L-7731-04, L-7732-
04, L-7733-04.

Owens-Illinois began manufacturing and distributing asbestos
products under the name of Kaylo in 1943, and later Kaylo-20.
Both Kaylo and Kaylo-20 were developed, designed, tested and
marketed exclusively from Owens-Illinois' two plants in New
Jersey, first in Berlin, then in 1948 in Sayreville.

By 1948-1949, Kaylo was being large-scale manufactured out of
the Berlin plant while a new line of Kaylo products was in
development. In 1955, the Kaylo-20 product line was ready for
manufacturing, to be used for power, refining and chemical
industries where high-temperature insulation was needed.

On April 30, 1958, Owens-Illinois sold its entire Kaylo thermal
insulation business to Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, and
has not manufactured asbestos-containing products since.

Plaintiffs are skilled tradesmen who worked alongside other
tradespersons common to large military installations, while
servicing American naval warships in Spain at various times from
1950 to 1998.

They claim that as a result of the routine performance of their
workplace maintenance operations duties, they came into contact,
directly and indirectly, with asbestos dust and fibers emitted
from the Kaylo products onboard these ships, and consequently,
suffer from asbestos-related illnesses, including asbestosis.

The naval vessels on which the plaintiffs worked were docked at
the Rota Naval Base in Rota, Spain and before its construction,
across the bay at the port city of Cadiz.

Construction of the Rota Naval Base was completed in 1958 and
was a collaborative effort between the United States and Spanish
governments.

In 2004, plaintiffs filed the instant action against Owens-
Illinois in the Law Division, Camden County, sounding in strict
liability and breach of warranty, and alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing products.

After some discovery was conducted, in August 2006, Owens-
Illinois successfully moved for dismissal of the complaints on
forum non conveniens grounds, urging that Spain, the situs of
the alleged exposure and residence of plaintiffs, was the more
appropriate forum.

On appeal, plaintiffs maintained the court erred as a matter of
law in finding Spain an available, alternative forum and in its
balancing of the public- and private-interest factors.

The Appellate Court agreed and concluded that the determination
to dismiss plaintiffs' actions in favor of a foreign
jurisdiction was a clearly mistaken exercise of the court's
discretion.

The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Mitchell S. Cohen argued the cause for appellants (Locks Law
Firm, L.L.C., attorneys; Jennifer E. Troast and Mr. Cohen, on
the briefs).

John C. Garde argued the case for Owens-Illinois, Inc. (McCarter
& English, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Garde and Debra M. Perry, of
counsel and on the brief).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Spence Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the
ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Joseph L.
Spence claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), dizziness and headaches as residuals of head
trauma, and a lung disorder due to asbestos exposure.

The case is styled Joseph L. Spence, Appellant, v. James B.
Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Schoelen entered judgment of Case No. 05-2773 on March 14,
2008.

Mr. Spence served in the U.S. Navy from September 1973 to May
1975.

In August 2001, Mr. Spence filed a claim for service connection
for PTSD, and in November 2001, Mr. Spence amended his claim to
include entitlement to service connection for dizziness and
headaches as a residual of head trauma, and a lung condition
caused by asbestos exposure.

In September and December 2001, VA sent Mr. Spence letters
purporting to comply with the notice requirements of the
Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

In response to VA's September 2001 letter, Mr. Spence submitted
information in support of his claim, and informed VA that there
were no medical records to obtain. He also responded to VA's
December 2001 letter, indicating that he may have been exposed
to asbestos while working in the Navy.

In April 2002, VA requested additional information from Mr.
Spence regarding his PTSD claim, to which he promptly responded.  

In June 2002, Mr. Spence underwent a VA respiratory examination.   
In the examination report, the examiner noted that pulmonary
function tests conducted in 1997 were normal, and that there was
no change after bronchodilators. Further, the examiner noted
that "a recent chest x-ray showed no evidence of pleural
plaquing or any interstitial lung disease."

Ultimately, the examiner diagnosed Mr. Spence with "a history of
reactive airway disease, not found at the time of this
examination," and concluded that there was "[n]o evidence of any
lung condition associated with asbestos exposure."

With respect to its denial of Mr. Spence's claim for service
connection for a lung disorder due to asbestos exposure, the
Board explained that it based its findings on the June 2002
examination which concluded that there was no evidence that the
appellant suffered from a lung condition associated with
asbestos exposure, on the lack of any medical evidence of record
linking his current lung disorder to service, as well as on Mr.
Spence's own testimony that no physician had ever informed him
that he had a respiratory disorder related to asbestos exposure.  

Mr. Spence appealed.

After consideration of Mr. Spence and the Secretary's pleadings,
and a review of the record, the Board's June 15, 2005, decision
was affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in Tarzia Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Oct. 19, 2005
ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
which granted summary judgment in favor of American Standard,
Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Dolores Tarzia.

The case is styled Dolores Tarzia, Administratrix of the Estate
of Cosimo Tarzia, Deceased, Appellant, v. American Standard,
Inc., Appellee.

Judges Ford Elliott, Stevens, Musmanno, Orie Melvin, Lally-
Green, Klein, Bender, Gantman, and Panella entered judgment of
Case No. 3053 EDA 2005 on May 21, 2008. Judge Panella dissented.

Mrs. Tarzia appealed from an order granting summary judgment
against her and in favor of American Standard in her lawsuit
filed alleging that her late husband, Cosimo Tarzia died of lung
cancer caused by exposure to certain asbestos containing
products.

Specifically, the relevant claim here is that the lung cancer
was in part caused from asbestos exposure to "Cobra" railroad
brake linings through Mr. Tarzia's employment as a Conrail
railroad worker from 1976 through 1985.

The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to
demonstrate causality.

American Standard also claimed there was insufficient evidence
to show that Mr. Tarzia was exposed to Cobra brake linings
distributed by American Standard.

The Superior Court agreed that there was insufficient evidence
to show causality and therefore affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling in Leonard Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed
the ruling of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Division of Workers' Compensation, which awarded asbestos-
related dependency benefits to Carol A. Leonard.

The case is styled Carol A. Leonard, Petitioner-Respondent, v.
Mid-State Sprinkler, Inc., Respondent-Appellant and Alert
Sprinkler System, Inc., Penray Sprinkler, Respondents.

Judges Parrillo, Reisner, and Baxter entered judgment of the
case on May 20, 2008.

Mrs. Leonard's husband, decedent Lawrence Leonard, was employed
as a fire sprinkler installer and repairer with Penray Sprinkler
from 1965 to 1974, with Mid-State from 1974 to 1980, with Alert
Sprinkler, Inc. from 1980 to 1981 and with his own company,
Shore Fire Protection, Inc., from 1981 to December 1995.

Mrs. Leonard testified that her husband smoked about two packs
of cigarettes a day from age 15 to age 25, quit for about 10
years, and then smoked again for two years before being
diagnosed with cancer in 1996.

At another point in her testimony, Mrs. Leonard maintained that
her husband had quit smoking for as long as 20. She further
testified that her husband would "always" come home from
his job with dusty and dirty clothes when he worked at Penray,
Mid-State, Alert and Shore Fire.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Leonard testified that Alert was the
last company where her late husband worked until he started his
own fire sprinkler fitter company, Shore Fire, in 1981. She
maintained that when her husband started his own company, he
functioned as a supervisor and no longer had contact with
asbestos.

On cross-examination, however, Mrs. Leonard acknowledged that
"in the beginning," Mr. Leonard assisted his employees on the
installation work and when "things started to get tight" in the
1990s, "he started putting the sprinklers up himself" and
frequently came home "dirty."

The Judge of Compensation entered a confirming order on Nov. 8,
2006.

Mid-State filed a timely motion for reconsideration. On appeal,
Mid-State argues that it is entitled to reversal of the judgment
in Mrs. Leonard's favor because she failed to sustain her burden
of proof to establish that: (1) Mr. Leonard was exposed to
asbestos while employed at Mid-State; (2) any such exposure was
a "material cause" of his death; and (3) Mid-State was the last
place of employment at which Leonard was exposed to asbestos.

Finally, Mid-State argued that the award of dependency benefits
at the rate of 70 percent of Mr. Leonard's average weekly salary
exceeded the percentage that was applicable under N.J.S.A.
34:15-13 at the time of Mr. Leonard's death in 1997.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors American Standard et al
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, 5th District, upheld the ruling
of the Circuit Court of Crawford County, which granted summary
judgment in defendants' favor, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Linnie Kathryn Berry, on behalf of her late husband,
Howard L. Berry.

The case is styled Linnie Kathryn Berry, on Her Own Behalf and
as Personal Representative of the Estate of Howard L. Berry,
Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Standard, Inc.,
American Water Works Service Company, Inc., Arkla Industries,
Inc., Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, G.W. Berkheimer
Company, Inc., Industrial Contractors, Inc., John Crane, Inc.,
Lennox Industries, Inc., Marathon Oil Company, Sealing Equipment
Products Company, Union Carbide Corporation, and The Whirlpool
Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Welch, Chapman, and Wexstten entered judgment of Case No.
5-06-0621 on May 19, 2008.

On Jan. 2, 2004, the Berrys filed a complaint against 47
defendants, seeking damages resulting from Mr. Berry's exposure
to asbestos on various job sites. He had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Sept. 23, 2003, with a life expectancy of
between eight and 18 months.

On Jan. 21, 2004, the plaintiffs' counsel served upon the
defendants a notice that Mr. Berry's evidence deposition would
be taken on Feb. 25, 2004. The defendants objected and requested
that a discovery deposition take place first.

On May 21, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective
order and/or an order limiting the time allotted for the
continuation of Mr. Berry's discovery deposition.

The motion came on for a hearing on May 28, 2004. The motion was
denied and the previous order allowing additional time for the
discovery deposition stood.

Mr. Berry appeared for further discovery deposition on June 9,
2004 and June 10, 2004. His evidence deposition had been
scheduled for July 6, 2004.

These motions were heard on July 16, 2004, and the circuit court
allowed additional time for the discovery deposition.

The discovery deposition resumed and was completed on July 28,
2004. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Berry was hospitalized and he died
on Aug. 23, 2004. His evidence deposition was never taken. On
Oct. 6, 2004, Mrs. Berry, was substituted as the personal
representative of the estate of Mr. Berry.

The defendants filed motions to bar the use of the discovery
deposition. Subsequently, Mrs. Berry moved to use the discovery
deposition as evidence at the trial, and she responded to the
defendants' motions to bar its use.

The matter was heard on May 18, 2005, and the court found that
Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(5) bars the use of a party's discovery
deposition as evidence at a trial and that a deceased
plaintiff/deponent remains a party through his estate for
purposes of this rule.

In an order entered June 1, 2005, the court ruled that Mr.
Berry's deposition had been taken for the purpose of discovery
and that if a deponent or the estate of a deceased deponent is a
party to the proceeding, the discovery deposition of that
deponent cannot be used as an evidence deposition.

The circuit court barred Mrs. Berry from using Mr. Berry's
discovery deposition as an evidence deposition at the trial.

Thereafter, the defendants filed motions for a summary judgment
in their favor on the basis that without Mr. Berry's testimony,
Mrs. Berry would be unable to prove her case. These motions were
granted by the circuit court.

Mrs. Berry now appealed the circuit court's ruling barring the
use of Mr. Berry's discovery deposition as evidence at a trial.
The circuit court in the case at bar found that Mr. Berry's
discovery deposition was not admissible as evidence.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $278T Liability, Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation, for the three months ended March 28, 2008,
recorded US$278,000 for asbestos liability and defense costs,
according to a Company press release dated June 17, 2008.

For the three months ended March 30, 2007, the Company recorded
US$2,305,000 as income for asbestos liability and defense.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$3,139,000 for the
three months ended March 28, 2008, compared with US$2,253,000
for the three months ended March 30, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation provides critical fluid-
handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Key product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Inc. Exclusivity Extended to July 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Richard S. Schmidt further extended
Asarco Inc.'s exclusive period to file a plan until July 2,
2008.                   

Asarco Inc., ASARCO LLC's 100 percent equity holder, and
Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., a major creditor
in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases, each asked the Court to
terminate the Debtors' exclusivity to allow them to file
separate Chapter 11 reorganization plans for the Debtors.

Asarco Inc. and Harbinger are intent on filing their own plans
of reorganization for the Court's consideration.

Asarco Inc. has delivered to the Court a copy of its proposed
full-payment reorganization plan, a full-text copy of which is
available for free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/asarcoincplan.pdf

Asarco Inc. asserts that the Full-Payment Plan yields the best
legally possible recoveries for all constituents by providing
that:

* Asarco Inc. will contribute cash in the maximum amount set by
  the Court as required to fund all distributions and reserves
  under the Full-Payment Plan, will post a good faith cash
  deposit of $500,000,000, and will provide a guaranty of up to
  an additional US440 million to demonstrate the feasibility of
  the Full Payment Plan;

* All claims, including environmental and asbestos claims, will
  be paid in cash in the full amount allowed by final Court
  order;

* Bonds issued by ASARCO will be reinstated and any defaults
  cured, or, to the extent the Court finds that reinstatement is
  not available, will be paid in full in cash;

* Interest will be paid on any and all claims to the extent
  required by law; and

* No break-up fee is required.

According to Dow Jones Newswires, Asarco Inc. would put up
US$2.7 billion, use US$1 billion the Debtors have on hand, and
then put in a further US$440 million.

The Debtors cannot demonstrate that cause exists for the Court
to extend the exclusive periods for the eleventh time in light
of the fact that Asarco Inc. stands ready to immediately file a
Full Payment Plan, Luc A. Despins, at Haynes and Boone, LLP, in
New York, asserted. "The Debtors' out-of-hand rejection of the
Full Payment Plan is both emblematic of a lack of good faith
progress towards reorganization and demonstrates the Debtors'
abuse of exclusivity as a tactical device against Asarco Inc."

For its part, Harbinger believes that exclusivity should be
terminated in light of the substantial risks that indicate that
the proposed ASARCO LLC asset sale to Sterlite Industries
(India), Ltd., is not likely to close. Harbinger pointed out,
Sterlite has not entered into a collective bargaining agreement
with the United Steelworkers, and it may take months for
Sterlite to raise the financing necessary to fund its
obligations under the contemplated sale.

Weiting Hsu, at Winstead PC, in Dallas, on Harbinger's behalf,
asserted that "allowing exclusivity to lapse would enable
parties to file competing Chapter 11 plans that do not have the
risks inherent in the Sterlite PSA."

Harbinger informed the Court that it has crafted and is
immediately ready to propose a Chapter 11 plan that is
confirmable, does not present risks to closing, and will provide
for prompt cash distributions to creditors.  

ASARCO LLC said it has "nearly completed" drafting a Chapter 11
plan and a disclosure statement explaining that plan, and  
expects the documents to be filed by Aug. 1, 2008, Bloomberg  
News said.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 74; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Files More Objections to 13 Claims  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated filed under seal more objections to 13
asbestos-related claims against the Debtors, each seeking more
than US$1 million each. Asarco Inc. has filed objections to a
total of 65 claims. Asarco Inc. said the Claims lack any
supporting evidence and were filed beyond the Claims Bar Date.  

In another filing, Asarco Inc. addressed the responses filed by
ASARCO LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors, the Future Claims Representative,
and Lipitz & Ponterio LLC, a law firm representing some of the
asbestos claimants.  

The responses to the claims objections make it clear that none
of the Debtors' estate fiduciaries want to subject patently
insufficient asbestos claims to judicial review, Charles A.
Beckham, Jr., at Haynes and Boone, LLP, in Houston, told the
Court. None of the Opposing Parties has challenged the validity
of the asbestos claims yet each insists that no claim should be
reviewed by the Court.

By requesting that the Court not dismiss the asbestos claims,
the Opposing Parties continue to demonstrate that they are
content to spend down the equity of ASARCO LLC without regard to
where or how that equity is spent, Mr. Beckham complained.

Asarco Inc. asserted that the Court can consider each claim
objection without disrupting either the Court's schedule or the
Debtors' reorganization in any way. No discovery need to be
taken as the Court has jurisdiction to expunge the claims as a
mater of law, without delay or the need for trial, Mr. Beckham
said.

The Debtors have claimed that they have reached an agreement-in-
principle, without the consent or involvement of Asarco Inc. at
the mediation or otherwise, with the Asbestos Committee in
connection with the sale of the Debtors' assets, and an
agreement to distribute a large portion of the sale proceeds to
asbestos claimants, Mr. Beckham related. Whatever the amount of
the secret settlement, Asarco Inc. told the Court that its
claims objections demonstrate that the Court should be wary of
the validity of the assertions by either the Debtors or the
Opposing Parties regarding the amount of the asbestos claims.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 74; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Parliament Visitors Face Exposure Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clinica has learned that staff and visitors to London's Houses
of Parliament have been at risk of exposure to high levels of
asbestos contamination for significant periods during the last
three years, according to a Clinica press release dated June 16,
2008.

This news comes despite warnings from experts hired to monitor
the situation as well as Parliamentary assurances that the
material discovered in 2005 was safely contained.

In addition, the news casts serious doubt on whether regulations
introduced three decades ago to control asbestos contamination
are working to eliminate risk of exposure to asbestos.

Potential mass exposure has serious health care implications
including the urgent need to screen all those who may have been
exposed, particularly given the important benefits derived from
early diagnosis of asbestosis and mesothelioma.

An asbestos survey of the Palace of Westminster was conducted as
far back as 2005, identifying more than 200 contaminated sites.
In 2007, the House of Lords was told that more than 1,000 air
tests had been carried out and that 40 sites were deemed
negative for asbestos risk, but no mention was made of the
remaining 160 sites.

According to the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, if
asbestos is in good condition, it may be safely left in place as  
long as its condition is monitored and steps are taken to ensure
that it is not disturbed.

Contrary to assurances otherwise, Clinica has learned that a
number of easily accessible sites within the Houses of
Parliament were not made safe during a period of at least 11
months during 2006 to 2007. These included a kitchen cupboard
that was wedged shut with a spoon and other cupboards that were
routinely disturbed by cleaners and Palace staff.

Experts had estimated that the incidence of asbestos-related
diseases would peak within the next decade and then tail off,
but ongoing exposure to asbestos fibers means that the problem
will continue to grow unchecked.

Clinica Deputy Editor Bernard Murphy said, "The health care
diagnostics industry is racing to develop technologies for the
early detection of cancer and other asbestos related lung
disease, but the implications of public health failures such as
this are huge."

Some 1,800 new cases of asbestosis or related disease are
diagnosed annually in England alone and U.K. deaths are
predicted to total 30,000 by 2020.

London-based Clinica is provides news to medical technology
industries. Clinica has been reporting on industry developments
for more than 27 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe to Begin on Risk to Isebrook Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northamptonshire Primary Care Trust officials are to launch an
inquiry on how 3,000 Isebrook Community Hospital patients may
have come into contact with asbestos, Evening Telegraph reports.

Four departments at the hospital in Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, have been shut and hundreds of
appointments transferred to Kettering General Hospital after
asbestos was disturbed by builders working on the site.

Parts of the Wellingborough hospital could be closed for at
least three weeks.

About 3,000 patients and 300 staff have been through the areas
where there might have some asbestos. However, Dr. Stephen
Horsley, the county's director of public health, says the risk
of contamination is low.

A Trust spokesman said, "The trust reported the incident
immediately to the Health and Safety Executive and are now
seeking advice from the experts to quickly resolve the
situation. Affected areas will be cleaned and reopened as soon
as possible.

"The trust will commission a review to learn all that it can
from the incident and reduce the likelihood of this type of
incident occurring in the future."

Many services have been transferred to other sites in the county
or at safe locations at the Wellingborough hospital.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Remote Aussie Communities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found in houses in most remote communities
caught up in the Australian federal government's intervention
into the Northern Territory, National Indigenous Times reports.

The asbestos was discovered in August 2007 by tradespeople
working on houses in one of the remote communities, prompting
the federal government to order surveys of all 73 communities
affected by the intervention.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said the surveys
conducted so far had revealed the presence of asbestos in 45 out
of the 50 remote communities surveyed to date.

Testing in the remaining 23 communities is expected to be
completed by the end of July 2008.

Ms. Macklin said that none of the material discovered to date
presented an immediate risk to health, but that the government
would take steps to ensure the communities were not adversely
affected.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Imposes $110T Penalty on N.Y. Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ordered Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center to
pay US$110,000 in fines for asbestos exposure breaches, Niagara
Gazette reports.

OSHA issued the medical center 17 "serious" citations, carrying
US$85,000 in proposed fines for failing to monitor asbestos
exposure levels during the work, not using designated asbestos
control methods, failing to provide employees with protective
clothing and respirators, improper disposal of materials
containing asbestos and other work-site deficiencies.

In addition, the agency cited the medical center for one "repeat
citation" for failing to notify employees of the presence,
location and amount of asbestos-containing or potentially
asbestos-containing materials in the work area. OSHA had cited
the facility for a similar violation in April of 2006. "Repeat
citations" carry fines of up to US$25,000.

The hospital allegedly failed to provide proper employee
safeguards during a December 2007 renovation project in which
workers handled materials containing asbestos.

Following up on a complaint from a hospital employee, OSHA's
investigation of the project determined that hospital workers
removed material that contained asbestos from a steel ceiling
beam without wearing respirators or proper protective clothing.

OSHA's investigation also determined that workers on the project
were not adequately informed about the hazardous nature of their
work, nor did the medical facility do an adequate job of
decontaminating workers' clothing, monitoring asbestos levels
on-site or disposing of materials containing asbestos.

Arthur Dube, OSHA's area director in Buffalo, N.Y., said, "There
was a breakdown of essential precautions before, during and
after this work and the sizable fines proposed here reflect the
gravity of the hazard. The medical center's failure to supply
and ensure these basic and required safeguards placed these
employees at risk of debilitating illness."

The hospital has 15 days from receipt of the citations to
request and participate in an informal conference with OSHA or
to contest them before the independent Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission.

In a statement released on June 16, 2008, Memorial Medical
Center officials said they do plan to request an informal
conference with OSHA representatives to present information they
believe will "support an adjustment to the citations and
proposed penalties."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG Expects $10MM-$15MM A&E Reserves at 2Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s Co-Chief Executive Officer,
Carl H. Lindner III, said that the Company expects to record
additional asbestos and environmental reserves of between US$10
million and US$15 million on a pre-tax basis in the second
quarter, according to a Company press release dated June 17,
2008.

The Company has substantially completed its previously announced
annual study of the adequacy of its asbestos and environmental
reserves.

The Company reaffirmed its 2008 core net operating earnings
guidance of US$3.90 to US$4.10 per share. These expected results
exclude the potential for significant catastrophe losses and
crop losses, unforeseen major adjustments to asbestos and
environmental reserves, and large gains or losses from asset
sales.

Mr. Lindner addressed the Fox-Pitt Kelton Cochran Caronia Waller
Conference in New York City, as disclosed previously in the
Company's press release dated June 10, 2008.

Cincinnati-based American Financial Group, Inc. is an insurance
holding company with assets in excess of US$25 billion. Through
Great American Insurance Group, the Company is engaged in
property and casualty insurance, focusing on specialized
commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of
traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a variety
of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: East Liverpool to Oppose EPA's $30T Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Payne, East Liverpool City Council's Law Director, said
the City still intends to challenge the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed US$30,000 asbestos fine, The Review
reports.

Council members, on June 16, 2008, met in executive session to
discuss the EPA's fine against the city.

Mr. Payne said, "Their demand of US$30,000 is still the issue
here. During our last meeting with the EPA, the city made a
counter offer of US$2,000 for a fine, and we basically tied that
into the fine for Earl Taylor during the initial court case."

The Ohio EPA issued its proposed US$30,000 civil penalty for
improper removal and disposal of asbestos from a city building.
The original incident dates back to 2006.

When the original incident came to light in May 2006, then-
Street Department Supervisor Earl Taylor was accused of removing
asbestos pipe insulation from old, unused water piping at the
city-owned car barn on Pennsylvania Avenue.

On May 31, 2006, then-Service Safety Director William Cowan made
a phone call to the Ohio EPA's Northeast District Office and
voluntarily provided the agency with the details.

The city then paid Cardinal Environmental Services to clean up
the asbestos at both the car barn and at the Cadmus Street
landfill.

Mr. Payne said, "When it came to light, the city notified the
Ohio EPA and spent US$14,500 to remediate the problem."

As for the US$2,000 fine proposal made by the city, "They (the
state EPA) rejected that," Mr. Payne said. "The executive
session was to consider the possibility of another counter
offer."

The Council took no action on the matter after the executive
session.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Field Fisher Helps Recover GPB130T Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP has succeeded in
recovering GBP130,000 in compensation for a lagger's wife who
died after developing mesothelioma, according to a Field Fisher
Waterhouse press release dated June 15, 2008.

Jacky Merritt's husband, Don Merritt, worked as a lagger for the
Cape Asbestos Company in the 1960s. She developed mesothelioma
as a result of washing her husband's overalls. Washing the
clothes exposed her to the asbestos dust that had accumulated on
her husband's overalls while he was at work.

Mr. Merritt decided to bring the case against Cape, which had
allowed him to take his overalls home to be washed.

Mr. Merrit had gone to Peter Williams, a partner in the Asbestos
Claims Group at Field Fisher Waterhouse.

Mr. Merritt comes from a family of laggers, a number of whom
have also been affected by asbestos-related diseases. Mr.
Williams has also acted and recovered damages for Mr. Merritt's
brother and brother-in-law, and is acting for another brother
who has lung cancer.

Cape denied liability, arguing that in the 1960s it did not know
that such small amounts of asbestos dust were dangerous.
However, after an extensive review of the Field Fisher
Waterhouse database of documents regarding Cape's knowledge of
mesothelioma in the 1960s, Mr. Williams was able to argue the
company was liable and proceed to settle the claim.

The Merritt family, including Mrs. Merritt's grandchildren, were
awarded GBP130,000 in compensation.

Mr. Williams said, "Jacky was unknowingly exposed to asbestos
whilst washing her husband's overalls, which led to the
development of mesothelioma nearly 40 years later. I am pleased
we persuaded Cape to pay compensation to the Merritt family in
this tragic case."

In 2007, the Asbestos Claims Group at Field Fisher Waterhouse
LLP recovered over GBP10 million in compensation for victims of
asbestos-related diseases in 102 successful cases.

Over the years, the lawyers in the firm's Asbestos Claims group
have recovered a total of GBP116 million in over 1,901
successful claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Jury Rules v. Plaintiffs in Scott Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
After about six hours of deliberation over two days, a Morgan
County, Ill., jury ruled against the family of a Robert C. "Bob"
Scott, of Jacksonville, Ill., who died, their attorney claimed,
in part due to asbestos exposure, myjournalcourier.com reports.

On June 13, 2008, a jury of six men and six women returned a
verdict in favor of defendants Pneumo-Abex and Honeywell
International Inc., and against Betty Scott, Mr. Scott's widow.

Mrs. Scott's attorneys, James Wylder and Lisa Corwin, were
seeking over US$1.5 million in damages for losses suffered by
Mr. Scott in his lifetime, Mrs. Scott in her husband's lifetime
and for wrongful death.

The attorney for the plaintiff stated that Mr. Scott, who
displayed symptoms of lung cancer in 1996 and died eight years
later, contracted the disease due to cigarette smoking and
exposure to asbestos while he was an employee for over 30 years
at Passavant Area Hospital.

They also claimed the two defendants, manufacturers of
industrial supplies, suppressed information on the dangers of
asbestos exposure.

At center of the four-week trial was whether Mr. Scott, who died
from lung cancer, developed the disease solely from cigarette
smoking or from a "synergy" of smoking and exposure to asbestos.

The defense argued Mr. Scott, a heavy smoker for about 20 years
before quitting years before he died in July 2004, was never
diagnosed with asbestosis. Medical experts for the defense
testified that asbestosis is always found in patients with
asbestos-caused lung cancer.

"I think that was key," Raymond Modesitt, attorney for Pneumo
Abex, told the Journal-Courier after the verdict, "because not
having asbestosis  at his working environment did not produce a
sufficient asbestos burden in his lungs that could be
synergistic. You can only have synergism if you have a high
burden of asbestos with smoking. He didn't have that, so
therefore, we believed, and we believe the jury found that, his
death was caused by cigarette-induced lung cancer."

Mrs. Scott filed the lawsuit three years ago.

Mr. Scott worked as maintenance supervisor at the Jacksonville
hospital from the 1960s to the 1990s. Witnesses for the
plaintiff testified Mr. Scott was a "hands-on" employee who
helped rip out pipes and blocks at the hospital that were
insulated with asbestos years ago.

That, according to Lisa Corwin, the attorney for Mrs. Scott, led
to the exposure to asbestos dust.

Mr. Modesitt said he refuted the idea that a medical institution
would allow asbestos dust to permeate throughout its quarters,
especially with the early 1972 enactment of the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.

Ms. Corwin reminded jurors in her closing arguments that a
Harvard-educated doctor testified that he never heard of a
"hypothesis" stating that if a patient has lung cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos, he or she must also have asbestosis.

Ms. Corwin and lead counsel for the plaintiff, James Wylder,
also were claiming in the four-week trial that Pneumo-Abex and
Honeywell agreed to suppress information about the harmful
effects of asbestos.

Asbestos companies knew as early as the 1930s that exposure to
asbestos would cause disease or death but chose not to make that
public in order to be able to make their products and not lose
employees or consumers.

"The family is disappointed with the result," Mr. Wylder said
after the verdict. "Prior, similar cases, including one here
last August, the jury found in favor of the family of a victim
with asbestos exposure. But, jurors can come to different
results, and this jury found as it did. They spent a lot of time
and I'm sure they did their best."

In 2007, a Morgan County jury awarded the estate of a Beardstown
man US$1 million after finding that Honeywell suppressed
information from him on the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Mr. Wylder also represented the family of Edward E. Hill, who
died from lung cancer in 2003. Mr. Hill worked as an insulator
from 1947 to 1981 and was exposed to asbestos at job sites
including Jacksonville State Hospital, Illinois College,
MacMurray College and Anderson-Clayton plant, now ACH Foods.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Court Denies Montegut's Remand Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana, denied Arthur Montegut,
Sr.'s motion to remand in an asbestos-related action filed
against various defendants.

The case is styled Arthur Montegut, Sr. v. Bunge North America,
Inc., et al.

District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman entered judgment of Civil
Action No. 08-1740 on May 21, 2008.

In March 2006, Mr. Montegut (a Louisiana resident) filed suit in
Louisiana state court against his employer, various vessel
owners and operators contractors associated with his employment
as a longshoreman, and other firms for negligence and other
state law claims arising out of his exposure to asbestos during
the course of his 32-year career as a longshoreman.

Mr. Montegut has added additional defendants in January 2007 and
2008. Several of the defendants are, like Mr. Montegut,
Louisiana residents.

On March 3, 2008, one of the defendants, Dixie Machine &
Welding, filed a third-party demand for indemnity and
contribution against various others, including South African
Marine Corporation and Industrial Development Corporation of
South Africa, Ltd. (IDC), vessel lines which allegedly
transported asbestos from South Africa into the Port of New
Orleans.

Within two weeks of service of the third-party demand, IDC
removed the suit to this Court.

Mr. Montegut now moved to remand the case to Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, or alternatively, to sever the
third party claims and remand the main action.

Mr. Montegut relied on the following reasons: (1) procedural
defects in IDC's removal to this Court, (2) circumstances of the
case, including Mr. Montegut's medical condition, (3) the
separate and independent nature of the main demand from
the third-party claim, and (4) principles of judicial economy
and justice.

The defendants opposed remand and that severance and remand were
improper.

Accordingly, Mr. Montegut's motion to remand was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $343.9M Liability at March 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$343,913,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with
US$347,332,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 17, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability, as of Sept. 28,
2007, was US$354,091,000. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008)

The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,820,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with US$28,901,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

As of Sept. 28, 2007, the Company's current accrued asbestos
liability amounted to US$29,032,000. (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 11, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$283,037,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with
US$286,169,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$18,992,000
as of March 28, 2008, compared with US$19,059,000 as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$49,218,000 as of March 28, 2008, compared with US$44,664,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$3,139,000 for the
three months ended March 28, 2008, compared with US$2,253,000
for the three months ended March 30, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation provides critical fluid-
handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Key product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Colfax Drop to 37,632 at March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unresolved asbestos claims against Colfax Corporation dropped to
37,632 for the three months ended March 28, 2008, from 41,919
claims for the three months ended March 30, 2007, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 17, 2008.

The Company recorded 38,477 asbestos-related claims in the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2007, compared with 53,291 claims in the
nine months ended Sept. 29, 2006. (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 11, 2008)

For the three months ended March 28, 2008, the Company recorded
1,406 claims filed and 1,328 claims resolved. For the three
months ended March 30, 2007, the Company recorded 1,746 claims
filed and 9,847 claims resolved.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many
defendants in lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries nor were the
subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The
manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of
the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

Of the pending claims, about 15,400 of those claims have been
brought in various state courts in Mississippi; about 4,200 of
those claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York
County, N.Y.; about 400 of such claims have been brought in the
Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 1,900 claims
have been filed in state courts in Michigan and the U.S.
District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.

The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and
federal courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Washington.

One of the subsidiaries has had all of its liability and defense
costs, covered in full by its primary and umbrella insurance
carrier. In May 2008, its primary insurance carrier provided
notice that one of its policies had exhausted and therefore,
would pay 92.9 percent of liability costs but would continue to
pay 100 percent of defense costs.

The subsidiary is in litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court
with its primary and umbrella insurer and with a third-party
company concerning the availability of insurance under certain
policies issued to the then-parent of both the subsidiary and
the third-party company. While coverage for the claims is not in
dispute, the third-party company is seeking a partition of the
insurance policy limits for its sole benefit.

The subsidiary has also brought an action against all of its
insurers in Massachusetts Superior Court. In that action, the
subsidiary primarily seeks declaratory relief regarding the
excess insurers' obligations to fund in full the defense and
settlement of the asbestos lawsuits following the exhaustion of
the underlying umbrella policies.

For the other subsidiary it was determined by court ruling in
the fourth quarter of 2007, that the allocation methodology
mandated by the New Jersey courts will apply.

The Company increased its expected recovery percentage to 87.5
percent from 75 percent of all liability costs recorded after
Sept. 28, 2007 and revalued its insurance asset at that date.

In 2003, the subsidiary brought legal action against a large
number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a
variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos bodily
injury claims asserted against it. Although none of these
defendant insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed
the timing, reasonableness and allocation of payments.

One of the primary insurers and one of the excess insurers
stopped or severely reduced payments alleging that its policies
were exhausted and the subsidiary began paying various amounts
of its liability and defense costs during 2004.

In 2007, certain insurance carriers agreed to settle with this
subsidiary by reimbursing the subsidiary for amounts it paid for
liability and defense costs as well as entering into formal
agreements detailing the payments of future liability and
defense costs in an agreed to allocation.

In addition, a number of non-settling insurance carriers have
paid significant amounts for liability and defense costs paid by
the subsidiary in the past and continue to pay a share of costs
as they are incurred.

The subsidiary received about US$65.5 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, of which about US$49.4 million represents
reimbursement of past cost, which reduced the Company's
outstanding insurance receivables, and about US$16.1 million
represents settlement in full for future costs not yet incurred
by the subsidiary.

Of the US$16.1 million, about US$7.6 million relates to
insurance policies which are triggered within the Company's 15
year-estimate of asbestos-related liability and as such were
recorded as a reduction to the insurance asset, while, about
US$8.5 million relates to insurance policies which were not
included in the Company's 15 year estimate of asbestos-related
liability cost and, as such, were recorded as income in Asbestos
liability and defense costs (income).

During the three months ended March 28, 2008, the subsidiary
received an additional US$1.7 million in reimbursement of past
cost from an insurer and another US$900,000 from an insurer
previously considered insolvent.

Presently certain insurers are paying about 36.8 percent of
costs for current asbestos-related liability and defense cost.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation provides critical fluid-
handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Key product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $372.7MM Reserves at March 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established asbestos reserves of $372.7
million as of March 31, 2008, compared with US$376.2 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2008.

These reserves are for the probable and reasonably estimable
asbestos-related liabilities the Company believes that two of
its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years.

The Company has also established recoverables of US$302 million
as of March 28, 2008, and US$305.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2007,
for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the
same time period.

Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on
a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
over the next 15 years was US$70.7 million as of March 28, 2008
and US$71 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has recorded the reserves for the asbestos
liabilities as "Accrued asbestos liability" and "Long-term
asbestos liability" and the related insurance recoveries as
"Asbestos insurance asset" and "Long-term asbestos insurance
asset" in the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

In addition the Company has recorded a receivable for liability
and defense costs it had previously paid in the amount of
US$49.2 million as of March 28, 2008, and US$44.7 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.

The expense related to these liabilities and legal defense was
US$300,000, net of estimated insurance recoveries, for the three
months ended March 28, 2008, and the related income was US$2.3
million, net of estimated insurance recoveries, for the three
months ended March 30, 2007.

Legal costs related to the Company's subsidiaries' action
against their asbestos insurers were US$3.1 million for the
three months ended March 28, 2008, compared with US$$2.3 million
for the three months ended March 30, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation provides critical fluid-
handling solutions, including the manufacture of positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in global oil &
gas, power generation, marine, naval and a variety of other
industrial applications. Key product brands include Allweiler,
Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve,
Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Urchfont Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest held in Salisbury, England, over the death of Shirley
Mathews, heard that her death was linked to asbestos, Gazette &
Herald reports.

The inquest heard that the 70-year-old Mrs. Mathews, of Uphill
Urchfont, died in September 2007, after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma. However, how Mrs. Mathews, a former hospital
worker and dinner lady, came into contact with the substance
could not be determined.

Mrs. Mathews developed pneumonia in September 2007 and, although
she received treatment, her condition deteriorated in hospital.

Pathologist Dr. Michelle Khan told the inquest that Mrs. Mathews
had a tumor in her right lung and asbestos fibers could be seen
using a microscope.

Mrs. Mathews' husband James had worked for the railway, but as a
linesman working in the open air and, to his knowledge, he had
never come into contact with asbestos.

Mrs. Mathews had worked in the laundry at Roundway Hospital in
Devizes, but there was no evidence that the hospital had
subcontracted to other companies as she could have encountered
asbestos from washing overalls and she had then worked as a
dinner lady at Urchfont School.

Wiltshire Coroner David Masters recorded an open verdict that
Mrs. Mathews had died from malignant pleural mesothelioma but
that he could not determine if it was an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brick Worker Seeks Colleagues' Help in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Roach is calling on his former work colleagues from
Ollerton Brick Works and the Kirton Brick Works to support his
claim that he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers, Mansfield
Chad reports.

The 60-year-old Mr. Roach worked in brick production at Ollerton
between 1955 and 1967 and at Kirton between 1967 and 1995. He
first became unwell in January 2007 and three months later was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Roach has taken legal action with law firm Irwin Mitchell
and his solicitor Simone Hardy is urging anyone who worked with
Mr. Roach to come forward.

A spokesman for Hanson Building Products, which took over the
now defunct Ollerton, confirmed that they were aware of the
claim and are currently investigating it.

The spokesman said, "We are looking into the details of the
appeal and we are pretty certain that if there was any exposure
it would have been at Ollerton Brick Works and not at Kirton."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vandals Exposed to Hazard at Nevada School
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of destructive vandals, on June 16, 2008, targeted Swope
Middle School in Reno, Nev., while unknowingly exposing
themselves to asbestos, KOLO8 reports.

The school is currently undergoing roof replacement. Like many
old buildings in Reno, the roof contains asbestos.

On June 17, 2008, school police were dispatched to Swope for a
report of vandalism. When they arrived, they found several
hundred shingles from the old roof had been thrown into the
parking lot and street.

The contractor told police that when shingles are broken, they
can release asbestos.

Hazmat crews wearing respirators and full-body suits worked well
into the afternoon, to clean up and remove the dangerous
materials.

School district officials say the vandals should come forward,
not only to pay for the damage they did but also because they
probably need to seek medical treatment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zimbabwe's Asbestos Mines Face Staff Exodus
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zimbabwe's asbestos mines are facing a battle to retain their
staff, who could become redundant as a result of a new
development, The Financial Gazette reports.

The mines lost their bid to prevent South Africans from imposing
a ban on the use of asbestos in their country in line with an
international crusade against the use of asbestos. South Africa
expressed concerns over the environmental and health effects of
using asbestos, prompting the ban.

This was despite concerted efforts by Zimbabwean miners, who
reassured the South Africans that the type of asbestos produced
in Zimbabwe, chrysotile or white asbestos, was harmless.

Massive job losses are feared in Zimbabwe due to the ban on the
use of asbestos in South Africa, which was one of Zimbabwe's
major markets.

Revenue generated from asbestos sales had supported in excess of
10,000 workers for decades, and helped keep the troubled economy
afloat through foreign currency receipts.

South Africa joined more than 50 other countries in the
prohibition of chrysotile asbestos arguing that "any person who
has ever suffered from exposure to asbestos would see the
absolute necessity for the regulations."

The main objectives of the South African regulations is to
prohibit the use, processing or manufacturing of any asbestos or
asbestos-containing products unless it can be proved that no
suitable alternative exists.

The regulations, which were gazetted in 2004, came into force in
2008 and are causing panic among companies in asbestos-related
industries in Zimbabwe.

These include Shabani and Gaths mines, which support more than
70,000 people, and industrial manufactures and distributors of
fiber cement products, Turnall Holdings.

An estimated 10,000 workers are employed at the two chrysotile
mines and downstream industries, which produce irrigation and
water reticulation pipes, brake pads and gaskets.

At least US$60 million was being generated from the sale of
Zimbabwe's chrysotile asbestos annually before the South African
ban.

The crusade to ban asbestos has been spearheaded by the European
Green Movement, a grouping of environmental enthusiasts who have
declared war against the world asbestos industry.

An executive with Turnall told The Financial Gazette the fight
against the ban was close to being lost and development of
alternative products was underway to save jobs. He said, "We are
working on the establishment of alternative products. This is
one of the major issues to be discussed at our annual general
meeting on Wednesday."

The Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) has said
the use of asbestos has been on the decline worldwide due to the
hazards reportedly associated with the mineral.

The major producer of asbestos locally, SMM Holdings, produces
an average of 180,000 metric tons annually, exported mainly to
India, Iran, Brazil, the Far East and the Middle East. Industry
statistics show there is potential to improve production output
by up to 200,000 metric tons.

To escape the effects of the punitive bans of chrysotile
worldwide, the MMCZ had proposed to increase asbestos exports to
markets currently unaffected by the ban by at least 70 percent
of total annual production, and to establish offices in such
countries. Some of these countries include Dubai and China.

Zimbabwe commands a nine percent market share of the global
asbestos market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Risk Found at 1,408 Homes in Fife, Scotland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 1,500 homes in Fife, Scotland, have asbestos in their
loft spaces or flat stairwells, dunfermlinepress reports.

A total of 1,408 "common areas," stairwells and loft spaces, are
under review, which means they are being monitored regularly by
Fife Council after it was discovered they contain asbestos.

Senior manager of Fife Council's housing estate services Alan
Russell explained, "Each one has been surveyed and we have
identified in those cases that there is asbestos present and we
check that, anything between annually and five years, depending
on the nature of the asbestos and carry out maintenance, it
continues to be safe. We would remove it if we felt it would be
a significant hazard."

Mr. Russell continued, "A common area is any part of the
dwelling that is common to the individual properties the
stairwells and the loft spaces if it's a common loft."

The news comes after hundreds of residents in Abbeyview were
told they could be living with old-style asbestos in their attic
spaces.

Fife Council contacted residents in Wedderburn Crescent and
Wedderburn Street in May 2008 after routine surveys showed they
may have old-style asbestos-clad water tanks in the attic
spaces.

Surveys which are being carried out on 53 council-owned
properties and 149 privately-owned properties in the two streets
in advance of the installation of new boiler and central heating
systems will be completed this week, which will allow a detailed
program for removal of the asbestos to be drawn up.

The situation in Abbeyview came six months after contractors
building maintenance firm ECG changing water tanks in Fraser
Avenue in Inverkeithing dislodged brown asbestos into a close,
which has led to residents having to be decanted while the
asbestos is removed.

The council has started the first of two Fife-wide surveys
across all council houses which looks into house conditions and
involves around 4,000 properties over the next two to three
months.

The second survey looks into elements that may contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind'l Disease Verdict Given to Engineer
------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of retired maintenance engineer
George Albert Keeley was due to exposure to asbestos at work,
Evening Post reports.

The 72-year-old Mr. Keeley, from Hill View Avenue, Newark,
England, died on Feb. 28, 2008 at the City Hospital. A
postmortem showed the cause of death was lung cancer, and
asbestos particles were found in his lungs.

Notts coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GARDS Applauds Law Changes for Sufferers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gippsland Asbestos Related Diseases Support (GARDS) group
commends the recent announcement of changes to Victorian law in
2008 for asbestos sufferers, Latrobe Valley Express reports.

The new laws will allow residents of Victoria, Australia, who
have been compensated for asbestosis the right to seek more
compensation if they develop mesothelioma and asbestos related
cancers.

Until the Victorian Government's announcement, if an asbestosis
sufferer made a claim they could not make any more claims for
their condition if they later developed mesothelioma or asbestos
related lung cancer.

GARDS secretary Vicki Hamilton said, "It has been like trying to
second guess whether you should or should not make a claim now
or wait till later in case the unspeakable happens."

Ms. Hamilton continued, "Meanwhile these sufferers would have to
endure a debilitating illness that took away their health and
freedom so that they could not even do the simplest of tasks
because they could not get enough breath. It meant that they
would need aids such as oxygen and wheelchairs, or hire
tradesmen to do jobs they would normally have done themselves."

Ms. Hamilton said the cost of supplying medical equipment to
make life easier or to have other people maintain their home
environment was a burden on families.

GARDS wrote letters and emails to the Victorian Government
earlier this year to highlight the plight of asbestos sufferers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMB Urges U.K. Firms to Contribute to Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMB Consultancy LLC is urging companies in the United Kingdom to
contribute data for its research into claim levels for asbestos-
related diseases, Insurance Times reports.

EMB has found that company-specific estimates, based on an
epidemiological model produced by the Health and Safety
Executive, can vary significantly from the experience of its
clients.

The study aims to reach a conclusion about the number of future
claims resulting from asbestos-related diseases. The results
will provide an accurate picture of the expected future number
of mesothelioma claims for those contributing businesses.

Steve Mathews, director at EMB, said, "Future claims will be a
substantial cost for big British businesses and the UK economy
in the future, so it's important we create an accurate picture
of future claims. We also believe the presence of a more robust
model could encourage the insurance industry to provide
retrospective cover for Employer's Liability exposures."

EMB operates as a non-life independent actuarial and business
consultancy offering expertise in all areas of non-life
insurance, with offices in Epsom, London, Cambridge, Germany,
France, Norway, North America, Brazil, India, South Africa and
Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Group Lauds Grant for Libby Study
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center commends the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental
Protection Agency for their dedication to the further study of
the effects of asbestos exposure in Libby, Mont., TransWorldNews
reports.

A five-year initiative that Federal Agencies have named the
"Libby Amphibole Health Risk Initiative" will go into effect
immediately in a monumental effort to further examine the long-
term effects of asbestos exposure to Libby residents.

The HHS and the EPA have been working closely with scientists,
health professionals and Libby residents since the mid-1990s.

Funded by the HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, the
project will provide an in-depth assessment of adverse effects
related to asbestos exposure, as well as a long-term study of
Libby residents who were exposed at some point to asbestos and
may not yet display symptoms related to mesothelioma.

In addition, the initiative will also assess the public health
databases and local patient records in order to track asbestos
exposure and eventual development of asbestos-related disease.

The funding is a monumental opportunity for the community and
most especially for Montana Senator Max Baucus, who has been
credited for his devotion to Libby residents and his tireless
efforts related to ongoing asbestos awareness and
investigations. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt called Senator Baucus
"passionate" and stated that his organization and the other
participating Federal Agencies looked forward to serving the
affected Libby residents.

The concern over asbestos exposure in Libby dates back to the
1950s, when mining corporation W.R. Grace & Co. knowingly
exposed workers to asbestos and kept the dangers hidden from
their workers and the general public.

The funding will not only provide the means for ongoing
investigation, but will also greatly benefit affected Libby
residents in the form of preventative and long-term healthcare
and treatment.

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center is an
informational resource related to asbestos exposure,
mesothelioma, and mesothelioma treatment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taconite Lung Health Checks to Start in '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Taconite Lung Workers Health Partnerships's planned random
health screening for asbestos diseases will begin in the summer
of 2009, TransWorldNews reports.

The Taconite Lung Workers Health Partnership, which includes the
Minnesota Department of Health, announced that a former Iron
Range taconite miner passed away as a result of mesothelioma at
their third meeting on June 12, 2008. It was the 59th fatal case
of mesothelioma in former Iron Range mine workers.

The meeting was held to discuss continued critical health
investigations into the prevalence of deadly mesothelioma
present in former Iron Range mine workers.

The University of Minnesota is also involved in these ongoing
studies. A timeline and list of specific goals was unveiled
during the June 12, 2008 meeting.

Included is a comprehensive plan to provide unannounced
respiratory and general health screenings for about 1,200
current and former mine workers, as well as their spouses.

Recent cases involving mesothelioma diagnoses in spouses of mine
workers prompted the group to expand the health screenings to
include individuals that may be exposed to asbestos indirectly
[recent news stories claim that several women who were married
to miners were exposed by washing their spouses clothing].

Currently, former health studies are being organized and
analyzed. Additionally, air quality samples are being collected.
A US$4.9 million dollar trust will fund the Taconite Lung
Workers Health Partnership's long-term goals.

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center is an
informational resource related to asbestos exposure,
mesothelioma, and mesothelioma treatment.






                            *********

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  * * *