CAR_Public/080627.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 127
  
                            Headlines

180 CONNECT: Still Faces Labor Violations Suits in Three States
AETNA INC: N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Suit Deal OK'd
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Seek Stay in FACTA Violations Suit
ANZ BANK: Opes Prime Lawsuit Adjourned in Court Until Aug. 21
BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over "Toxic" Bottles

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Court Decertifies Classes in Viewing Fee Case
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Del. Suit Over 2004 Deal Appealed
CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Wash. Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit
CVR ENERGY: Kansas Court Denies Certification in Oil Spill Suit
DEJA VU: Exotic Dancers Launch Suit in Mich. Claiming Back Wages

DELL INC: Michigan Lawsuit Claims Misrepresented Warranty
ECOST.COM INC: Still Faces Labor Code Violations in California
ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches Settlement in Texas ERISA Litigation
FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Burrata Cheese for Possible Health Risk
GOOGLE: Sued Over Failure to Police Mobile Services Advertisers

INFOSONICS CORP: Calif. Court Nixes Claims in Securities Suit
INLAND WESTERN: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Illinois
IRONWOOD COMMS: Still Faces Wage & Hour Laws Violations Lawsuit
LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Settlement Results in Dismissal of Suits
MANILA ELECTRIC: Consumer Group Launches $292-Million Lawsuit

NAVISITE INC: Faces Federal Suit in Maryland Over Service Outage
NESTLE CORP: Recalls Purified Water that May Possibly Taste Sour
OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Neighbors Sue Over Noisy Camp Activities
OREGON: Suit Challenges Yamhill's Strip-Search Policy
ORPHAN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Little Gem" Case

PANZEROTTO PIZZA: Faces $1-Mln Suit Due to Alleged Overcharging
PEP BOYS: Settles Remaining Claims in Calif. Labor-Related Suits
POINT BLANK: N.Y. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
ROGERS INT'L: July 28 Status Conference Set for Lanes Lawsuit
ROO HD: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Acquisition of Wurld Media Assets

ROSS STORES: Faces Several Lawsuits Asserting Wage & Hour Claims
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Wants Calif. Shareholder Complaint Dismissed
SOYO GROUP: California Court Approves Settlement in Rebates Case
SUPREME CUTS: Recalls Contaminated Off The Cob Fresh Kernel Corn
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in N.M. Lawsuit

TYSON FOODS: Settles Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens
WORLDSPACE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
WSB FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Yet to OK $2.8MM Deal in Securities Lawsuit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST AMERICAN: Grant & Eisenhofer Files N.Y. Securities Suit
JP MORGAN: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards Tripoli Family $7MM in Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Delays Madison School Renovation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Huntley Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Finds Risks at West Australia Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA's Cleanup at Libby, Mont. Site Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kerrison Widow Gets GBP60T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Enters Into Settlement with Mont. DEQ
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Fitzgerald Sets ZAI Bar Date to Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Case Transfer to Ramsey County Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 Actions Pending v. American Locker Group

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept.'s Ruling Upheld in Delli Santi
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Manske
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued for Suit v. Williams
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Fines Olean City for Survey Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feltwell Builder's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Releases Report on Ore. Cleanup Options
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monton, U.K. Villagers Call for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court OKs Ruling to Favor Saberhagen
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Denies O'Connell Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment in 2 Fla. Hospitals' Favor Upheld

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orders in 39 Canadian Suits Vacated in R.I.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace's Appeal to Libby Case Rejected
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Martin's Lawsuit Filed v. 14 Firms in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Suit Filed v. 28 Firms in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 51 U.K. Families Get Late Payments From T&N

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LegalView Reminds Kans. Residents of Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruston Gas Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Workers Still Await Testing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Merseyside Primary School Partially Closed

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dubbo Civic Center Shut Down Due to Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Cleanup Discovered at Kaluna Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norwich Union Pushes Hidden Killer Campaign
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Accident Closes Southend Road for 7 Hours
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at El Paso, Colo. Courts Costs $12M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed to Hazard at B.C. Residence
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigners Commend Bill on Pleural Plaques
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Walthamstow Council Bldg. Contains Asbestos



                           *********


180 CONNECT: Still Faces Labor Violations Suits in Three States
---------------------------------------------------------------
180 Connect Inc. and its subsidiaries, Ironwood Communications
Inc. and Mountain Center Inc., are facing three class action
lawsuits filed in federal courts in Washington, California and
Oregon by current and former employees.

The suits are alleging violations of state wage and hour laws
and violations of state paycheck laws in federal court in
California.

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

180 Connect, Inc. -- http://www.180connect.net/-- is one of  
North America's largest provider of installation, integration
and fulfillment services to home entertainment and
communications, enterprise data and home integration service
industries.  The Group provides these services in the U.S.  It
employs technicians in each of its 82 locations to ensure the
timely completion of its services.


AETNA INC: N.J. Eating Disorders Coverage Denial Suit Deal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted preliminary approval to a settlement of a
class-action lawsuit over Aetna Inc.'s denial of coverage for
people with eating disorders, Henry Gottlieb of the New Jersey
Law Journal reports.

Business Insurance recounts that Nagel Rice L.L.P. brought the
lawsuit in November 2006 on behalf of two individuals attempting
to gain the same benefits for anorexia and bulimia that are
available to those with biologically based mental illnesses such
as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2008, the
class-action lawsuit was allowed by Judge Hochberg to proceed
under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 when she denied Aetna's motion to dismiss the suit.  The
judge did not buy the company's argument that the coverage
dispute should be handled by the New Jersey Department
of Banking & Insurance or its own internal appeals procedures.

Bruce Nagel, Esq., a senior partner with the firm, pointed out
that coverage for those illnesses is often unlimited, or at
least covers multiple hospitalization and outpatient therapy
treatments, among other treatments.  Eating disorders, however,
have not typically been classified as biologically based mental
illnesses by Aetna, and coverage has been limited to 20
outpatient visits per calendar year and 30 days for inpatient
benefits.

In late May, the Hartford, Conn.-based insurer agreed to settle
the class action lawsuit, giving parity treatment to eating
disorder claims for people already enrolled in Aetna insurance
plans, as well as pay $250,000 in reimbursements to New Jersey
policyholders after denying their claims for eating disorder-
related treatments (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2008).

Recently, Judge Hochberg granted preliminary approval to the
settlement after the plaintiffs' class action lawyer said the
pact was good for the insureds and that litigating for a better
deal would be risky.

The settlement requires the company to treat some claims for
anorexia and bulimia as it does claims for biologically based
mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.  BBMI claimants are
eligible for months of treatment, while those with non-BBMIs are
limited by Aetna to 20 outpatient visits per calendar year and
30 days for inpatient benefits.

Aetna also agreed to establish a process in which eating-
disorder patients for whom coverage is denied can appeal to an
internal panel that includes an eating-disorder specialist
selected by the plaintiffs attorneys.

Judge Hochberg said she was satisfied the settlement met the
criteria for preliminary approval under federal rules of civil
procedure governing class action deals for which injunctive
relief is the primary benefit to a group that could not achieve
the same results in individual litigation.

A fight is brewing, however, on whether Judge Hochberg should
make the settlement final by ruling it is fair to members of the
class.  She will make that decision after the class has been
notified and members with objections have time to come forward.

Based in Hartford, Conn., Aetna Inc. provides health insurance
products and related services, including medical, pharmacy,
dental, behavioral health, group life, long-term care and
disability plans, and medical management capabilities primarily
in the U.S.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Seek Stay in FACTA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the suit "Michael Bateman v. American Multi-
Cinema, Inc., Case No. 07-00171," which names AMC Entertainment,
Inc., as a defendant, are seeking a stay on the matter,
according to the company's June 18, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 3, 2008 .

The suit was filed in January 2007 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, alleging violations of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The parties have requested the District Court to stay all
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit
case.  

The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Gary A. Feess,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. (greg@spirmoss.com)
         Ira Spiro, Esq. (ira@spiromoss.com)
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


ANZ BANK: Opes Prime Lawsuit Adjourned in Court Until Aug. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit by Opes Prime investors against the failed
stockbroker, ANZ Bank, and investment bank Merrill Lynch is  
adjourned until August 21, 2008, for a further directions
hearing, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Law firm Slater & Gordon has launched a claim for more than
$100 million on behalf of more than 50 former clients of Opes
Prime.  The class action alleges negligence and breaches of
corporations law.

The lead claimant in the class action is Imobilari Pty Ltd, the
investment company of a Sydney businessman who lost several
hundred thousand dollars as a result of the Opes Prime collapse.

In May, the Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific reported that
the Commonwealth Legal Funding -- a US-based litigation firm --
agreed to fund a class action (Troubled Company Reporter-Asia
Pacific, May 19, 2008).

According to the TCR-AP report, Slater and Gordon lawyer James
Higgins said they have been contacted by in excess of 130 people
with in excess of AU$150 million worth of losses.  "At least 80
of those have expressed an interest in having their actions
funded by the litigation funder, and we've sent out funding
agreements to those people from Commonwealth Legal Funding in
order for them to consider their position," Mr. Higgins told ABC
Radio's AM program.

                      About Opes Prime

Opes Prime Group Ltd is an Australian unlisted public company
providing a range of financial services and products for high
net worth individuals, stockbrokers and financial advisors,
asset managers, banks and other firms, both for themselves and
their clients.  The Group conducts business via a number of
operating subsidiaries based in Melbourne, Sydney and Singapore.


BABY BOTTLE MAKERS: Faces Illinois Lawsuit Over "Toxic" Bottles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
several manufacturers of plastic baby bottles and trainer
"sippy" cups which contained the chemical bisphenol A (BPA).

The plaintiffs are purchasers of the following brand name
products, among others:

     -- Avent,
     -- Gerber,
     -- Handi-Craft,
     -- Playtex, and
     -- Nalgene Grip'n Gulp.

Keller Rohrback previously filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle) against Handi-Craft Company on behalf of purchasers of
the "Dr. Brown's" brand of plastic baby bottles and cups which
contained BPA.

The Complaints allege that the defendants manufactured,
distributed, marketed, tested and sold hazardous baby products
containing BPA, which is an endocrine disruptor and an estrogen
receptor agonist which has been linked by lab studies to a
variety of reproductive effects in animals.

BPA has been called a "developmental, neural, and reproductive
toxicant."  According to Attorney Gretchen Cappio: "We are
hearing from many parents who are justifiably alarmed and
outraged to learn that the name-brand bottles they purchased for
their children contained harmful toxins, especially since
numerous safe alternatives exist."

Laura Gerber, Esq., notes, "It is unbelievable that parents who
purchased baby products thinking they were safe for their family
have unwittingly been forced by these bottle and cup
manufacturers to give their children a small dose of BPA along
with every feeding."

The suit is "Smith v. Playtex Products Inc., et al., Case No:
1:2008cv03352," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Honorable Virginia M. Kendall,
presiding.

For more information, contact:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 800-776-6044
          e-mail: productliability@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.krclassaction.com/


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Court Decertifies Classes in Viewing Fee Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division
decertified the classes in the matter "Cohen v. Blockbuster,"
which was filed against Blockbuster, Inc., and asserts claims
regarding the company's "extended viewing fees policies."

The suit was filed on Feb. 18, 1999.  In it, the plaintiffs --
Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper, and Denita Sanders --
asserted common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive
practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding
Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were
brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all
entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.

The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other
plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended
viewing fees and purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18,
1994, and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of a settlement
of a similar litigation filed in January 2002 with the 136th
Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, or those who
do not have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration clause.

In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class
comprised of all entities that have done business in the U.S. as
Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since Feb. 18, 1994.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied a motion by Blockbuster
to reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff
classes.

On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the
certification of plaintiff classes back to the trial court for
reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to decertify.

The plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for
leave to appeal.  

On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration, the trial court granted
Blockbuster's request and decertified both plaintiff and
defendant classes, according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 6, 2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Del. Suit Over 2004 Deal Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
Court of Chancery of New Castle County over allegations that the
executives of Viacom Inc. lied about the financial state of
Blockbuster Inc. when it was spun off in a 2004 stock swap deal
has appealed the dismissal of her case with regard to certain
defendants.

On Aug. 3, 2006, Beverly Pfeffer filed a putative class action
complaint under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- Sumner M. Redstone,
      -- George S. Abrams,
      -- David R. Andelman,
      -- Joseph A. Califano, Jr.,
      -- William S. Cohen,
      -- Philippe P. Dauman,
      -- Alan C. Greenberg,
      -- Jan Leschly,
      -- Shari Redstone,
      -- Frederic V. Salerno,
      -- William Schwartz,
      -- Patty Stonesifer, and
      -- Robert D. Walter.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint and asserted additional claims under Delaware
corporate fiduciary laws against:

      -- National Amusements, Inc.,
      -- John F. Antioco,
      -- Richard J. Bressler,
      -- Jackie M. Clegg,
      -- Michael D. Fricklas,
      -- Linda Griego, John L. Muething, and
      -- CBS Corp. (f.k.a. Viacom, Inc.).

The amended class action complaint purports to be filed on
behalf of all former Viacom stockholders who tendered their
Viacom stock in exchange for common shares of Blockbuster stock
as part of the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer commenced on
Sept. 8, 2004, and completed on Oct. 5, 2004, and all
Blockbuster shareholders at the time a special dividend was
declared by the Blockbuster Board of Directors in connection
with the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer in June 2004.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Delaware corporate fiduciary
laws and, as a result, plaintiff seeks declaratory relief,
compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
court costs and expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys'
fees.

On Feb. 1, 2008, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants'
request and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

On Feb. 28, 2008, Ms. Pfeffer filed her notice of appeal of the
Court of Chancery's dismissal.

On April 14, 2008, Ms. Pfeffer withdrew her notice of appeal of
the Court of Chancery's dismissal as it applied to defendants
John F. Antioco, Jackie M. Clegg, Linda Griego, and John L.
Muething.  

Ms. Pfeffer, however, is pursuing her appeal of the Court of
Chancery's dismissal against the remaining defendants, according
to Blockbuster, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 6, 2008.

Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global  
provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game
entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S, its
territories and 24 other countries.  The company operates in the
home video and home video game industries, which include in-home
movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-
to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by
traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and
cable and satellite providers.


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Wash. Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CellCyte Genetics Corp., formerly Shepard Inc., is facing a
consolidated shareholder lawsuit before the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Initially, three purported shareholder class action complaints
were filed:

       1. "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al,
          No. C08-0047,"

       2. "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          No. C08-0163," and

       3. "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No.
          C08-0178."

The three lawsuits are virtually identical and allege, inter
alia, that the company and its officers and directors filed
misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the company's products, and that the
company posted misleading information regarding an officer on
its Web site.

The suits claim that investors purchased the company's stock
based on the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs
are seeking monetary relief.  

The three lawsuits have been consolidated and an amended
complaint will be filed shortly.  None of the lawsuits has been
certified as a class action.

The suit is "Armbruster v. CellCyte Genetics Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00047-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

          Rebecca M. Lamberth, Esq. (rmlamberth@duanemorris.com)
          Duane Morris
          1180 W Peachtree St., Ste. 700
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3448
          Phone: 404-253-6921


CVR ENERGY: Kansas Court Denies Certification in Oil Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Montgomery County, Kansas, ruled against a
motion that sought certification of a class in a lawsuit over an
oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas, that named CVR Energy Inc. as
a defendant.

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

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

As a result of the crude oil discharge, a putative class lawsuit
was before the District Court of Montgomery County, Kansas,
seeking unspecified damages with class certification under
applicable law for all residents, domiciliaries and property
owners of Coffeyville, Kansas, who were impacted by the oil
release.

The court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of class
certification on Oct. 24-25, 2007, and ruled against the class
certification request, leaving only the original two plaintiffs,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

CVR Energy, Inc. -- http://www.cvrenergy.com/-- is an  
independent refiner and marketer of transportation fuels and,
through a limited partnership, a producer of ammonia and urea
ammonia nitrate.  Its petroleum business includes a 113,500
barrel per day (bpd) complex full coking sour crude refinery in
Coffeyville, Kansas.  In addition, its supporting businesses
include a crude oil gathering system serving central Kansas,
northern Oklahoma and southwest Nebraska; storage, and terminal
facilities for asphalt and refined fuels in Phillipsburg,
Kansas, and a rack marketing division supplying product through
tanker trucks directly to customers located in geographic
proximity to Coffeyville and Phillipsburg and to customers at
throughput terminals on Magellan Midstream Partners L.P.'s
refined products distribution systems.  Its refinery is situated
approximately 100 miles from Cushing, Oklahoma.


DEJA VU: Exotic Dancers Launch Suit in Mich. Claiming Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 25, 2008, a class action suit was filed before the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan on behalf of exotic dancers who have worked at nine
Deja Vu nightclubs over the past three years, claiming back
wages, liquidated damages, penalties and injunctive relief
alleged to be owed.

The dancers assert that the companies named as Defendants in the
action, Deja Vu Consulting Inc. and Cin-Lan Inc. misclassified
all dancers at the nightclubs as independent contractors, as
opposed to employees, and as a result, the dancers were not paid
the minimum wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Michigan Minimum Wage Law.

The complaint also alleges that the dancers were also not
allowed to retain all tips given to them by customers, but
instead were forced to split those tips with the defendant
companies.  The lawsuit alleges these tactics were done to
enhance the Deja Vu Nightclubs profits at the expense of the
dancers.

According to Hart Robinovitch, Esq., one of the attorneys for
class: "It appears that despite longstanding case law confirming
that exotic dancers are employees under the FLSA, not
independent contractors, the nightclubs continue to
intentionally misclassify the dancers that work at their
nightclubs to avoid paying them minimum wages, in addition to
the tips they are given by patrons."

Jason Thompson, Esq., added: "Employees who receive tips, even
substantial tips from patrons, are still entitled to minimum
wages for the hours they work under both federal and Michigan
law."

Caleb Marker, Esq., another attorney for the dancer class said:
"This lawsuit is just the first step in assuring these employees
receive fair wages.  It's also an important step that will allow
us to inform other employees at Deja Vu Nightclubs, around the
country, of their fundamental employment rights, and also
provides the means for them to join this lawsuit."

The defendants are based in Lansing and Durand, Michigan.

For more information, contact:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq. (jthompson@jta-law.com)
          J. Thompson & Associates PLC
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1000
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Phone: 248-436-8448


DELL INC: Michigan Lawsuit Claims Misrepresented Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the Circuit
Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan, over allegations that
it charges customers for a one-year warranty but tells them
falsely that the warranty is included in the purchase price,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This case involves the breach of defendants' written promises
and representations to plaintiff and class members that their
one-year onsite warranty repair service came standard with their
computers when in fact defendants charged plaintiff and class
members for this service.

Named plaintiff Barry Adler claims Dell sells its computers with
a standard, written one-year warranty.  He claims that Dell
charges for this warranty without disclosing it, but tells
customers "that this service came standard with the computer
purchase for the first year for no additional consideration."

Mr. Adler says Dell does not disclose to its customers that they
have the option not to buy the warranty with the computers.  He
believes the cost of the warrant is less than $100.

Mr. Adler brings this action on behalf of all persons in the
State of Michigan who purchased a Dell desktop or notebook
computer system who also received the right to have onsite
warranty repair service for one year after purchase.

Mr. Adler wants the court to rule on whether the defendants
engaged in the following conduct and whether such conduct is
improper and wrongful:

     (a)  charging plaintiff and the class for onsite warranty
          repair service for the first year after they purchased
          their computers;

      (b) failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose to
          plaintiff and the class priors to, at the time of, and
          after the purchase of their Dell computers that they
          were being charged for the cost of the onsite warranty
          repair service;

      (c) misrepresenting that the onsite warranty repair
          service came with the computer for the first year at
          no additional charge; and

      (d) failing to disclose that plaintiff the class had the
          option to purchase their computers for less money              
          without the one-year onsite warranty repair service.

Mr. Adler asks the court for:

     -- an order confirming that this action is properly
        maintainable as a class action appointing plaintiff and
        his counsel to represent the class;

     -- an award of compensatory damages, restitution of all
        moneys wrongfully obtained from plaintiff and members of
        the class, disgorgement, statutory damages and all
        monetary relief authorized by law or referenced herein;

     -- an order enjoining defendants from charging customers
        for first year onsite repair warranty services without
        conspicuously disclosing this to customers, and from
        engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices as set
        forth in or related to the allegations herein;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest and post-judgment  
        interest;

     -- an award providing for payment  of costs of suit,
        including payment of experts' fees and expenses;

     -- an award of reasonable attorneys' fees; and

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

The suit is "Barry Adler, et al. v. Dell Inc., et al., Case No.
08-115912 CZ," filed in the Circuit Court for the County of
Wayne (Mich.).

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Richard E. Segal, Esq. (Rsegalatty@aol.com)
          Todd W. Grant, Esq. (Tgrantatty@aol.com)
          Richard E. Segal & Associates
          6230 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 294
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Phone: 248-855-4880


ECOST.COM INC: Still Faces Labor Code Violations in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
eCOST.com, Inc., a subsidiary of PFSweb, Inc., continues to face
a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County.  The suit is captioned "Darral
Frank and Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC Mall, Inc. d/b/a eCOST.com
and eCOST.com, Inc."

The purported class consists of all of current and former sales
representatives who worked for the defendants in California from
July 24, 2003, through July 24, 2007.

The lawsuit, filed on July 25, 2007, alleges that the defendants
failed to pay overtime compensation and interest, failed to
timely pay compensation to terminated employees and failed to
provide meal and rest periods, all in violation of the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.

The complaint seeks unpaid overtime, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, restitution and
injunctive relief.

PFSweb, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

PFSweb, Inc. -- http://www.pfsweb.com/-- is an international  
provider of integrated business process outsourcing services to
companies seeking to maximize their supply chain efficiencies
and to extend their traditional and e-commerce initiatives.  It
is also a multi-category online discount retailer of new, close-
out and recertified brand-name merchandise.  


ELECTRONIC DATA: Reaches Settlement in Texas ERISA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. discloses that the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas preliminarily approved a
settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
and sales of unregistered EDS stock to the EDS 401(k) Plan in
violation of Section 12(a)(1) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with the Electronic Data Systems Corporation
401(k) Savings Plan.

The class includes:

     (a) All participants and former participants in the Plan,
         and their beneficiaries for whose individual accounts
         the Plan purchased and held interests in EDS stock
         through the EDS Company Stock Fund (f/k/a the EDS Stock
         Fund or the GM Class E Stock Fund) at any time during
         the period September 7, 1999, through and including
         October 9, 2002, and the beneficiaries of such
         participants or former participants; and

     (b) all participants and former participants in the Plan,
         and their beneficiaries for whose individual accounts
         the Plan purchased EDS stock through the EDS Company
         Stock Fund at any time during the period October 20,
         2001 through and including November 18, 2002,
         (collectively the Settlement Class).

Initially, five class action suits were filed on behalf of
participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and, in some cases, its
directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of EDS
shares.  

All of the foregoing cases have been centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA
action filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The consolidated complaint alleges violation of fiduciary duties
under ERISA by some or all of the defendants and violation of
Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by selling
unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.

The defendants in the ERISA claims are EDS, certain current and
former officers of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits
Committee of its Board of Directors, and certain current and
former members of the two committees responsible for
administering the plan.

On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the
ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty, of all participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and
their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose
accounts the plan made or maintained investments in EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999, and Oct. 9,
2002.

The court also certified a class in the ERISA action on the
allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities
Act of all participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries,
excluding the defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased
EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and
Nov. 18, 2002.

On Jan. 18, 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its
decision vacating the district court's class certification
decision and remanding the matter to the district court to re-
evaluate whether the action may be maintained as a class
certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion and
instructions (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2007).

The parties then engaged in talks to resolve the case.

The recent settlement will provide for a payment of
$12.5 million to the Plan and former Plan participants (minus
Court-approved fees and expenses).  The Settlement funds will be
allocated to the Settlement Class based on their Plan account
holdings in the EDS Company Stock Fund during the settlement
class period.

The Settlement also provides for injunctive relief in the form
of certain Plan design changes.  The injunctive relief has been
valued to be worth at least $19 million.

On May 13, 2008, Hewlett-Packard Company and EDS announced a
definitive merger agreement under which HP will purchase EDS at
a price of $25.00 per share.  The merger is expected to close
sometime in the second half of 2008.

If the merger is consummated, the EDS Company Stock Fund will
become an all cash fund, and certain of the benefits provided by
the injunctive relief will be expedited.  The cash proceeds in
the EDS Company Stock Fund will then be transferred to the
Qualified Default Investment Alternative offered by the Plan,
and obligations to perform the injunctive relief may be assumed
by the successor company and plan to the extent applicable.

Deadline to file objections to the Settlement is on July 28,
2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will
hold a Fairness Hearing on August 6, 2008.

The suit is "In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Leonard
Davis, presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Barry C. Barnett, Esq.
         Susman Godfrey LLP
         901 Main Street, Suite 4100
         Dallas, TX 75202-3775
         Phone: 214-754-1900
         Fax: 214-754-1933

Representing the defendants are:

         David J. Bailey, Esq. (djbailey@jonesday.com)
         Michael McConnell (mmcconnell@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3053
         Phone: 214-969-3700
         Fax: 1-214-969-5100

              - and -
  
         Richard P. Keeton, Esq. (rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com)
         Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell & Flack
         600 Travis Suite 7500
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-571-9191
         Fax: 713-571-9652


FRESCA ITALIA: Recalls Burrata Cheese for Possible Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fresca Italia of Brisbane, California, is recalling Burrata, a
type of cheese, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

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

This product was distributed in the San Francisco Bay Area and
Southern California in retail stores and restaurants.

This product weighs approximately 8.8oz and is packaged in a
white and green plastic wrapper with the manufacturer's name,
"Caseificio Voglie di Latte" and the product name "Burrata."  
ALL LOT CODES AND EXPIRATION DATES from this manufacturer are
subject to recall.  Previously, the only batch subject to the
recall will be labeled with the expiration date of 24/5/2008.
The following quantities were distributed:

    * 606 lbs with the Lot Code 24/5/2008
    * 661 lbs with the Lot Code 31/5/2008
    * 490 lbs with the Lot Code 07/06/2008

The recall is the result of survey sampling by the California
Dept. of Food & Agriculture which revealed that the product in
question contained the bacteria.  Fresca Italia has immediately
halted further distribution.  This recall is an expansion of the
previous recall initiated on May 30, 2008.  Positive results for
Listeria were found in other lots of the product by the Food and
Drug Administration.

If you have any Caseificio Voglie di Latte Burrata with an
expiration of 24/5/2008 please return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 415-468-9800.


GOOGLE: Sued Over Failure to Police Mobile Services Advertisers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed against Google Inc. in April alleging that
the search company puts profits ahead of user protection by
refusing to ban online advertisements for fraudulent mobile
services, despite evident ad policy violations, Thomas Claburn
writes for InformationWeek.

The case was filed on behalf of plaintiff Jenna Goddard, a
resident of New Jersey, who claims to have used Google to search
for the keyword "ringtone" and related terms in December 2007.
The complaint states that she clicked on an AdWords ad and was
taken to the Web site of "Fraudulent Mobile Subscription
Services Web sites," which failed to display pricing information
as required by Google's mobile services ad policy.

When Ms. Goddard entered her phone number at one or more of
these sites promising free content, the complaint says, her
mobile account was charged for "unwanted mobile content services
in the form of 'premium text messages.' "

Ms. Goddard's attorney is seeking class-action certification on
behalf of others believed to have been subject to deceptive
mobile phone services that have been advertised on Google.

The complaint speculates that unauthorized charges to members of
the affected class exceeded $5,000 over the last year, the
report notes.  The suit also estimates that many if not all of
the companies offering such mobile services pay Google in excess
of $10,000 each month.  The complaint provides no information as
to how those figures were arrived at.

"Driven by financial motivations, Google intentionally refuses
to enforce its policies with respect to mobile subscription
services," the complaint states.  "Google intentionally misleads
its users by, on one hand, making public representations that it
will not allow advertising for mobile subscription services
which do not 'clearly and accurately' disclose relevant pricing
and related information, while at the same time allowing such
advertising to regularly appear on its Web site."

InformationWeek says that the complaint points out that Google's
tolerance of policy violations committed by mobile subscription
service advertisers stands in stark contrast to the company's
active effort to block gambling ads -- a position, the complaint
suggests, that Google only took "because it felt pressure to do
so after a separate lawsuit was filed against it."

Google had just filed to move the case from Santa Clara Superior
Court to U.S. District Court in San Jose, California.  "While we
cannot comment on ongoing litigation, we are confident in our
position and will defend vigorously against these claims," a
company spokesperson told InformationWeek via e-mail.


INFOSONICS CORP: Calif. Court Nixes Claims in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed certain claims asserted in a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against InfoSonics Corp., according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June
and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp.
Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231."  

The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14,
2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in
connection with the company's restatement announced June 12,
2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and
accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with
VK Corp.  

The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified
relief.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006.  

On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.  In April 2008, the Court
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' dismissal motion.  

Specifically, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first
quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims
against a certain individual defendant.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss claims against another individual defendant
based on the Feb. 6, 2006 press release.  

The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead
Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-201-9150
          Fax: 310-201-9160
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com)
          Latham and Watkins
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101-3375
          Phone: 619-236-1234
          Fax: 619-696-7419


INLAND WESTERN: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc., is facing a
purported class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws and common law causes of action,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on Nov. 1, 2007, by the City of St. Clair
Shores General Employees Retirement System in connection with
with the company's merger with its business manager/advisor and
property managers.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

       -- that the consideration paid as part of the merger was
          excessive;

       -- violations of Section 14(a), including Rule 14a-9
          thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
          based upon allegations that the Proxy Statement
          contains false and misleading statements or omits to
          state material facts;

       -- that the business manager/advisor and property
          managers and certain directors and defendants breached
          their fiduciary duties to the class; and

       -- that the merger unjustly enriched the business
          manager/advisor and property managers.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

       -- certification of the class action;
   
       -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
          misleading;

       -- unspecified monetary damages;

       -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
          the proxy process;

       -- nullification of the merger and the related merger
          agreements with the business manager/advisor and the
          property managers; and

       -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
          fees.

The suit is "City of St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System v. Inland Western Retail Real Estate, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06174," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W.
Gettleman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq. (levitt@whafh.com)
          Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 111
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: 312-984-0000

               - and -  

          Aya Bouchedid, Esq. (abouchedid@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the defendants are:

          Joseph Edward Collins, Esq.
          (joseph.collins@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP IL
          203 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-368-4000

               - and -

          James L. Thompson, Esq. (jthompson@jenner.com)
          Jenner & Block LLP
          330 North Wabash
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: 312-222-9350


IRONWOOD COMMS: Still Faces Wage & Hour Laws Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ironwood Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of 180 Connect,
Inc., is still facing a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the state court in Los Angeles, California, by current and
former employees of the company.

The suit was filed on October 2007, and its claims relate to
alleged violations of California wage and hour laws.  

The purported class action period allegedly relates back to
October 2003, although the class period may be limited to after
June 30, 2004, by virtue of settlement of previous wage and hour
class action litigation in California.

180 Connect, Inc., reported no development in the matter in its
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

180 Connect, Inc. -- http://www.180connect.net/-- is one of  
North America's largest provider of installation, integration
and fulfillment services to home entertainment and
communications, enterprise data and home integration service
industries.  The Group provides these services in the U.S.  It
employs technicians in each of its 82 locations to ensure the
timely completion of its services.


LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Settlement Results in Dismissal of Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action lawsuits against Liberman
Broadcasting of California LLC, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of LBI Media Holdings Inc., alleging labor-related
violations, were dismissed after a settlement was reached in the
cases.

                        2005 Litigation

In June 2005, eight former employees of Liberman Broadcasting
filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on
their own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class of
former and current employees of LBI Sub.

The complaint alleged, among other things, wage and hour
violations relating to overtime pay, and wrongful termination
and unfair competition under the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs sought to recover, among other relief,
unspecified general, treble and punitive damages, as well as
profit disgorgement, restitution and their attorneys' fees.

                        2007 Litigation

In June 2007, two former employees of Liberman Broadcasting
filed a separate complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging claims on their own behalf and also on behalf of a
purported class of former and current employees of LBI Sub.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of
California labor laws with respect to providing meal and rest
breaks.

The plaintiffs sought, among other relief, unspecified
liquidated and general damages, declaratory, equitable and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

                          Settlement

On July 13, 2007, Liberman Broadcasting entered into a
settlement agreement with the class action representatives to
settle the cases.

While Liberman Broadcasting denied the allegations in both
lawsuits, it agreed to the final settlement of both actions that
was approved by the court in January 2008 to avoid significant
legal fees, other expenses and management time that would have
to be devoted to the two litigation matters.

The final settlement provided for a payment of $469,000
(including attorneys' fees and costs and administrative fees).

In consideration of the settlement, the plaintiffs in both cases
agreed to dismiss the two class action suits with prejudice and
to release all known and unknown claims arising out of or
relating to such claims, according to the company's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

LBI Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lbimedia.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of Liberman Broadcasting, Inc.  The
Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries own and operate radio
and television stations in Los Angeles, California, Houston,
Texas and Dallas, Texas and a television station in San Diego,
California.  The Company operates in two segments: radio and
television.  


MANILA ELECTRIC: Consumer Group Launches $292-Million Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer group filed a class action suit against Manila
Electric Co. seeking $292 million in refunds for fees it said
were illegally collected, Reuters reports.

In a class suit lodged before the Makati RTC, the group whose
members mostly belong to Volunteer Against Crime and Corruption
also includes in their complaint the Energy Regulatory
Commission and the National Power Corporation, which they
accused of "collusion and indispensable cooperation" in the
pricing, assessment and collection of the monthly electricity
bills including the much-maligned system losses, Sun.Star Daily
recounts.

The group is also asking the court:

     -- to order the "opening of the corporate books of Meralco
        and Napocor;

     -- to compel the ERC and Napocor to provide copies of all
        documents related to power rate increases, as well as
        costs of electricity sold to Meralco; and

     -- to conduct audit and accounting procedures on all
        charges being billed by Meralco to all its subscribers
        and consumers.

According to Leonard de Vera, one of the group's lawyers, the
court should immediately issue a TRO or injunction on Meralco's
imposition of the systems loss charges including the imposition
of the value-added tax, stop the continued collection of meter
deposits and pass-on charges to consumers and subscribers of all
expenses incurred in Meralco's pension fund, and the recent
application for electricity rate increase.

"We have enough evidence against Meralco as they have even
admitted before the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
during the hearings conducted by the Joint Congressional Power
Committee last May 29," Mr. de Vera added.

Headquartered in Ortigas, Pasig City, the Manila Electric
Company aka Meralco -- http://www.meralco.com.ph/-- is
engaged in the distribution and sale of electric energy through
its distribution network facilities in its franchise area.  The
franchise area of Meralco covers specific areas in Luzon,
consisting of 25 cities and 86 municipalities, with a size
of approximately 9,337 square kilometers.  This includes
Metro Manila, industrial estates and urban and suburban areas
of adjacent provinces.  The principal sources of power of
Meralco include the National Power Corporation, First Gas Power,
Quezon Power and the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market.

Meralco's subsidiaries are Meralco Industrial Engineering
Services Corporation, Corporate Information Solutions Inc.,
Rockwell Land Corporation, Meralco Energy Inc., e-Meralco
Ventures Inc., and Meralco Financial Services Corporation.
These companies are engaged in various businesses such as
engineering and construction services, information technology
services, integrated business solutions and property
development.


NAVISITE INC: Faces Federal Suit in Maryland Over Service Outage
----------------------------------------------------------------          
NaviSite, Inc., is facing a purported consolidated class action
lawsuit in Maryland over a service outage, according to the
company's June 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2008.

In November 2007, the company, pursuant to its integration
plans, closed the former Alabanza LLC data center in Baltimore,
Maryland, and moved all equipment to its data center in Andover,
Massachusetts.  This allegedly caused a service outage.

In that same month, the company was served notice of a plaintiff
seeking a class status for the customers affected by the service
outage.  The total damages claimed approximately $5.0 million.

In January 2008, the company was served notice of another
plaintiff seeking a class status for the customers affected by
the service outage.  The purported class includes Alabanza
direct customers and entities that purchased hosting services
from those direct customers.  The total damages claimed
approximate $10.0 million.

On May 21, 2008, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
cases in the federal district court in Maryland.

NaviSite, Inc. -- http://www.navisite.com/-- is an application  
management and Internet solutions provider to middle market
companies.  The Company offers a range of enterprise resource
planning (ERP) application solutions, custom applications,
managed infrastructure services, hosting services, co-location,
content delivery and consulting to more than 1,400 customers
helping them to achieve superior business results.  Its core
competencies are to customize, implement and support outsourced
ERP solutions.  These packaged, third party applications include
Oracle e-Business Suite, PeopleSoft Enterprise, Siebel, Lawson,
Kronos and Microsoft Dynamics.  In addition to delivering
packaged application support, the Company leverages its
application services platform, NaviView, to enable its partners'
software to be delivered on-demand.  In August 2007, it acquired
the assets of Alabanza LLC and Hosting Ventures LLC and all of
the issued and outstanding stock of Jupiter Hosting, Inc. In
September 2007, it acquired netASPx, Inc.


NESTLE CORP: Recalls Purified Water that May Possibly Taste Sour
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle Corp. announced a product recall for the one-gallon
Nestle Pure Life Purified Drinking Water sold ONLY in Shop-Rite
stores in the five Northeast states of Connecticut, Delaware,
New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

This affects ONLY the one-gallon size.

Fewer than 150 one-gallon bottles of Nestlé Pure Life Purified
Water are implicated, produced in a short timeframe on May 5,
2008 between 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM.  The product date code is
printed on the shoulder of one-gallon bottles.  The code is:

    First line ...... 050508126WF024
    Second line ..... Starts with the numbers "08"
    For example: 0801BB05/2010

The product in question may contain a diluted form of a common
food grade cleaning compound that results in a bitter or sour
taste.  This could pose a potential health concern if ingested
in large quantities over an extended period of time and should
not be consumed or used in preparing infant formulas or other
foods or beverages.  No illnesses have been reported.

To further assure consumers, Shop-Rite, as of Monday, June 23,
has removed any remaining affected product from their stores and
warehouses.

Consumers who possess this product or have questions should
contact the company at a toll free number 866-599-8980 available
24 hours a day.  This same toll-free number is also printed on
the front of all product labels for the one-gallon size.


OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Neighbors Sue Over Noisy Camp Activities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on April 25, 2008, that a
group of Gilboa residents is suing Oorah Catskill Retreat for
not being a good neighbor.  The residents claim that the summer
camp is trying to push them out of their homes and there is
nothing the village or county can do.

In an update, R. J. Kelly of the Gazette Reporter relates that a
class-action suit seeking $10 million in damages and reduced
property values is now pending against the camp.

Gazette Reporter says that Barbara and Joe Kraus, and seven
other neighbors are fighting to stop the camp from repeating
what they claim was a nightmare last summer -- of noise,
brilliant sports lights shining into the wee hours of the
morning, traffic problems, and a roaming bull and cows.

According to the report, earlier this month, State Supreme Court
Judge Eugene P. Devine gave attorneys for Oorah Catskill Retreat
and the objecting neighbors about 10 days to resolve their
differences before deciding whether to grant the neighbors'
request to block the camp from reopening on June 27.

The camp, the report notes, schedules separate four-week
programs for girls and boys in July and August.  The neighbors
complain that loud music can be heard almost around the clock,
and that ball fields are lit and regularly used even in the
middle of the night.

"It's been a learning experience," Oorah's attorney, Kevin
Young, Esq., told Gazette Reporter, since the New Jersey-based,
New York City area nonprofit group began modernizing and
expanding the former Golden Acres Farm camp they bought June 13,
2006.  The camp now primarily serves underprivileged Jewish city
kids, Mr. Young said.

One thing neighbors learned, according to Ms. Kraus, is that the
town of Gilboa has no land-use, noise or lighting regulations to
control impacts on neighbors from such developments.

A $200,000 system of 97 high-intensity lights installed last
summer on 15 towers, each 60 feet high, on several camp
recreational fields is a particularly sore point, the report
says.

Mr. Young told Gazette Reporter that the camp is making some
changes this season which he believes will lessen lighting and
loudspeaker noise impacts.  He said the camp plans to put visors
on the lights, has upgraded 4,000 feet of fencing to control
livestock, and plans to reduce music and limit loudspeaker use
to six hours per day, ending at 10:00 p.m.  And this summer, the
camp plans to keep fields lit only when they are in use, Mr.
Young added.

However, the residents say they are "not going to accept" this.
They believe the camp "is recognizing some things that [it] has
to do something about, but [it is] also confirming that there
are some obnoxious things that [it is] not planning to do
anything about."

Now, the town is proposing a site-plan law and a hearing on the
proposed law is set for July 7, Town Supervisor Anthony VanGlad
told Gazette Reporter.

According to county property records, Oorah Catskill Retreat LLC
bought the 115-acre former Golden Acres Farm resort on June 13,
2006, from Jerome Gauthier of Bradenton, Fla., and a family
trust.  Mr. Gauthier was still listed last week as owning
several nearby parcels, including 280 acres of vacant land.


OREGON: Suit Challenges Yamhill's Strip-Search Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon claims that Yamhill County's policy of
strip-searching teen-agers who are arrested for misdemeanors and
nonviolent crimes is unconstitutional, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a class action suit brought to redress the deprivation
by Defendants of rights secured to the plaintiffs and proposed
Class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the
United States of America.

For at least the past several years, the Yamhill County Juvenile
Detention Center has had a policy of strip-searching all
individuals who enter the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention
Center are placed in jail-type clothing, regardless of the crime
upon which they are charged, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(l),
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all persons who have been or will be placed into the
custody of the Yamhill County Juvenile Detention Center (YCJDC)
after being charged with misdemeanors, violations, civil
commitments, nondrug, non-weapon offense or other minor crimes
and were or will be strip searched upon their entry into the
YCJDC pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the Y d i I
1 County Juvenile Detention Department.

The class period commences on June 12, 2006 and extends to the
date on which Yamhill County is enjoined from, or otherwise
cease, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice and
custom of conducting strip searches absent reasonable suspicion.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action
        pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

     -- a judgment against all defendants, jointly and severally
        on plaintiffs' First Cause of Action detailed herein,
        awarding Compensatory Damages to each named plaintiff
        and each member of the proposed class in an amount to be
        determined by a Jury and the Court on both an
        individual and a class wide basis.

     -- a judgment against each individual defendant on
        Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action for $1,000,000.00 in
        punitive damages for each.

     -- a declaratory judgment against all defendants declaring
        the aforementioned Counties and County Departments'
        policies, practices and customs of strip and visual
        cavity searching all detainees entering the respective
        County YCJDC detention center, regardless of the crime
        charged or suspicion of contraband, to be
        unconstitutional and improper.

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
        defendants from continuing to strip and visual cavity
        search individuals charged with misdemeanors or minor
        crimes or non-drug, non-weapon offenses absent
        particularized, reasonable suspicion that the arrestee
        subjected to the search is concealing weapons or other
        contraband.

     -- A monetary award for attorney's fees and the costs of
        this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5 1988 and Fed. R.
        Civ. P. 23.

The suit is "Jefory Masshburn, et al. v. Yamhill County, et al.,
Case No. CV 08-718-HU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Leonard R. Berman, Esq.
          471 1 SW Huber St., Suite E-3
          Portland, OR 972 19
          Phone: 503-473-8787
          e-mail: Easyrabbi@yahoo.com


ORPHAN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Little Gem" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter, "Little Gem Life Sciences LLC v.
Orphan Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-01377-ADM-AJB,"
are appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.

On April 10, 2006, Little Gem Life Sciences LLC, individually
and purportedly on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, filed a complaint against Orphan Medical, Inc., and
former officers of Orphan Medical before the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in the proxy statement prepared by Orphan
Medical in connection with the solicitation of proxies to be
voted at the special meeting of Orphan Medical stockholders held
on June 22, 2005.  The purpose of the special meeting was to
consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., acquired
Orphan Medical.

The plaintiff seeks damages for itself and the putative class,
in an unspecified amount, together with interest, litigation
costs and expenses, and its attorneys' fees and other
disbursements, as well as unspecified other and further relief.

On Oct. 25, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and oral argument on the motion was heard by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Feb. 16, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the defendants' dismissal motion, with leave
to amend.

On March 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
the defendants responded with another dismissal motion on
March 16, 2007.

Oral argument on the dismissal motion was heard on June 8, 2007.  
On Sept. 13, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota granted the defendants' request and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The plaintiff
then filed its brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.  In December 2007, the defendants filed their
own brief.

The suit is "Little Gem Life Sciences LLC v. Orphan Medical,
Inc., et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-01377-ADM-AJB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge Ann D.
Montgomery, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joel C. Feffer, Esq. (jcfeffer@hfesq.com)
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Ave 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-935-7400

               - and -

          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. (gmfishbein@locklaw.com)
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200
          Mpls, MN 55401-2179
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard G. Wilson, Esq. (Rich.wilson@maslon.com)
          Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand
          90 S 7th St. Ste. 3300
          Mpls, MN 55402-4140
          Phone: 612-672-8200
          Fax: 612-672-8397

               - and -

          Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
          Dorsey & Whitney LLP
          50 S 6th St. Ste. 1500
          Mpls, MN 55402-1498
          Phone: 612-340-5635
          Fax: 612-340-2868


PANZEROTTO PIZZA: Faces $1-Mln Suit Due to Alleged Overcharging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Panzerotto Pizza franchisee, 6323588 Canada Ltd., filed a
class-action complaint before the Ontario Superior Court of   
Justice accusing Panzerotto Pizza and Wing Machine of
overcharging its franchisees for advertising, order processing
and supplies, Jim Daw of the Toronto Star reports.

6323588 Canada alleges that operators of the 50-outlet Toronto
chain founded in 1976 misrepresented fees and policies regarding
product rebates.

A statement of claim prepared by Toronto franchise lawyer Ben
Hanunka asks the court to order a refund of excess profits for
all franchisees, plus a $1 million award as a punishment.

Joseph Schiavone, who runs Panzerotto with his brothers Vito and
Frank, said that "none of the allegations are true and they
can't be backed up at all."

For example, he said, the company has had to supplement
franchisees' contributions to the advertising fund.


PEP BOYS: Settles Remaining Claims in Calif. Labor-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack has reached a settlement with
regard to several remaining claims in purported labor class
action lawsuits filed against the company, according to the
company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007,
the Company was served with four separate lawsuits brought by
former associates employed in California, each of which lawsuits
purports to be a class action on behalf of all current and
former California store associates.  

One or more of the lawsuits claim that the plaintiff was not
paid for:

       -- accrued vacation time,
       -- overtime,
       -- all time worked (i.e. "off the clock" work), and
       -- late or missed meal periods or rest breaks.

The plaintiffs also allege that the company violated certain
record keeping requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged
violations.  

The lawsuits:

       -- claim these alleged practices are unfair business
          practices,
       
       -- request back pay, restitution, penalties, interest and
          attorney fees, and

       -- request that the company be enjoined from committing
          further unfair business practices.

The initial accrued vacation time claims were filed in
California state court and subsequently removed by the company
to Federal court on jurisdictional grounds.  

During the third quarter of 2007, the company reached a
settlement in principle regarding the accrued vacation time
claims, which was subject to court approval.  

Following the Federal court approval hearing on May 5, 2008, the
Federal court reversed its earlier finding of proper Federal
jurisdiction and remanded the case back to California state
court.  

While the company has appealed this ruling, it is also
negotiating with the plaintiffs to restructure the previously
agreed to settlement in principle for the purpose of submitting
such settlement to the California state court for approval.  

On May 8, 2008, the company reached a settlement in principle
with respect to the remaining purported class action claims,
which is subject to court approval.

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack -- http://www.pepboys.com/-- is  
an automotive retail and service chain.  The Company operates in
one industry, the automotive aftermarket.  It is engaged
principally in the retail sale of automotive parts, tires and
accessories, automotive repairs and maintenance and the
installation of parts.


POINT BLANK: N.Y. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court Eastern District of New York
has approved the settlement entered into in connection with the
securities class action against Point Blank Solutions, Inc.
(Pink Sheets: PBSO) and certain individual defendants, as well
as the related shareholder derivative action.

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiff class consists
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Point Blank
Solutions, Inc. shares (formerly DHB Industries, Inc.) during
the period November 18, 2003, through November 30, 2006.

The class action was settled for $34.9 million in cash, plus
3,184,713 shares of Company common stock.

The derivative action was settled in consideration of Point
Blank Solutions adopting certain corporate governance provisions
and the payment of $300,000 as attorneys' fees and expenses to
lead counsel in the derivative action.

Included in the terms of the settlement are provisions releasing
the Company and all of the Company's present and former officers
and directors who were named in the class and derivative actions
from any and all liability to members of the plaintiff class for
the conduct alleged in the class action complaint.  The Company
has not admitted any wrongdoing.

The decision approving the settlement was announced from the
bench earlier today by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert, who
directed the parties to submit a written order embodying the
decision.  The decision approving the settlement is subject to
appeal.

Larry Ellis, President and CEO of Point Blank Solutions, Inc.
stated, "The Courts' ruling resolves another legacy issue and
removes uncertainty surrounding our Company and potential
liability."

Mr. Ellis continued, commenting on the previously announced
strategic process and the Company's position: "I am confident in
our Company's future and look forward to communicating our
progress with our shareholders and other constituents.  We are
continuing on our path of pursuing all strategic alternatives
while growing our market position both domestically and
internationally."

Point Blank Solutions Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the manufacture and marketing of protective body armor and
health related sports braces, and related equipment in the
United States and internationally.  The Company is headquartered
in Pompano Beach, Fla.


ROGERS INT'L: July 28 Status Conference Set for Lanes Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A July 28, 2008 status hearing has been set for a purported
class action lawsuit pending with the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, against Rogers International Raw Materials
Fund, L.P.

Beeland Management Company L.L.C., Walter Thomas Price III,
Allen D. Goodman, and James Beeland Rogers Jr. have been named
as defendants, and Rogers International as a nominal defendant,
in a class action and derivative action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Steven
L. Lane and Pamela I. Lane, as Trustees of the Lane Family Trust
dated April 10, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Rogers International in terms of management
and were negligent in connection with the transfer of Rogers
International assets to Refco Capital Markets.  The suit seeks
judgment for damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees and class certification of Rogers
International's limited partners.

Following the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, the Lanes
voluntarily withdrew their complaint from federal court and
filed a similar complaint in the Law Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Walter Thomas Price was not
named as a defendant in the state court complaint.

The defendants successfully moved to have the case reassigned to
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The defendants also filed a motion to stay the Lanes'
suit in light of a related case pending in the Southern District
of New York.   

On March 1, 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs certain
discovery related to personal jurisdiction over defendant James
Rogers in the matter.  This personal jurisdiction dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant Rogers is still ongoing.


On June 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
derivative and class action complaint.  The amended complaint
adds Connie M. Watkins and John V. Watkins as plaintiffs.  

The court has entered a briefing schedule with respect to any
dismissal motions, which will be completed by July 21, 2008.  

A status hearing is set in this matter on July 28, 2008,
according to the company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2008.


ROO HD: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Acquisition of Wurld Media Assets
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROO HD, Inc., a subsidiary of ROO Group, Inc. -- now known as
KIT digital, Inc. -- is facing a purported class action lawsuit
in New York Supreme Court, Saratoga County filed by former
employees of Wurld Media, Inc., who claim that ROO HD's
acquisition of Wurld Media assets was structured in a way that
would keep ROO HD from paying their salaries and benefits.

The suit is entitled, "Julie Vittengl, et al. vs. ROO HD, Inc.,"  
and was specifically brought by four former employees of Wurld
Media purportedly on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated.

The suit claims that ROO HD's acquisition of certain assets of
Wurld Media was a fraudulent conveyance and that ROO HD is
Wurld's alter-ego.

The plaintiffs seek the appointment of a receiver to take charge
of the company's property in constructive trust for plaintiff
and payment of plaintiff's unpaid wages and costs of suit, both
in an unspecified dollar amount.    

ROO HD timely filed its answer to the complaint, and there have
been no further developments, 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.

KIT digital, Inc. -- http://www.kit-digital.com/-- formerly ROO  
Group, Inc. is a service provider that enables businesses to
leverage digital media assets and provide an enhanced user
experience.  Its business is divided into two segments: online
digital media and advertising agency.  Online digital media
provides products and solutions that enable the broadcast of
topical video content from its customers' Internet Websites as
well as monetizing that video through advertising sales.  This
includes Website creation and providing the technology and
content required for video to be played on computers via the
Internet as well as emerging broadcast platforms such as set top
boxes and wireless devices (mobile phones and personal digital
assistants).  Advertising agency provides varied forms of media
and services which support its client campaigns.


ROSS STORES: Faces Several Lawsuits Asserting Wage & Hour Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., has been named defendant in several purported
class action lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims, according
to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 3,
2008.

Litigation involving allegations that hourly associates have
missed meal and rest break periods, as well as allegations of
unpaid overtime wages to assistant store managers at company
stores under federal and state law, remains pending as of May 3,
2008.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- operates two  
chains of off-price retail apparel and home accessories stores.
As of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated a total of 890 stores,
of which 838 are Ross Dress for Less locations in 27 states and
Guam and 52 dd's DISCOUNTS stores in four states. Both chains
target value-conscious women and men between the ages of 18 and
54. Ross customers are primarily from middle-income households,
while the dd's DISCOUNTS target customer is typically for lower
income households.  Ross offers in-season, name-brand and
designer apparel, accessories, footwear and home merchandise for
the entire family at everyday savings of 20% to 60% off
department and specialty store regular prices.  dd's DISCOUNTS
features priced assortments of in-season, name-brand and fashion
apparel, accessories, footwear and home merchandise for the
entire family at everyday savings of 20% to 70% off moderate
department and discount store regular prices.


SONIC SOLUTIONS: Wants Calif. Shareholder Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint
filed in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit against the
company and various of its executive officers and directors.

The putative shareholder class action suit was filed on Nov. 16,
2007, in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and various of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of persons that
purchased its shares between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.

The action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is based on
substantially similar factual allegations and claims as in the
other lawsuits.

The court in the state putative shareholder class action
sustained the company's demurrers to the complaint with leave to
amend.  

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in that action filed an
amended complaint, and in May, the company filed additional
demurrers to the complaint, according to the company's June 23,
2008 Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008.

Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com/-- develops and markets    
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats.  Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.   
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats.  The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name.  The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.


SOYO GROUP: California Court Approves Settlement in Rebates Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has approved the settlement in a purported class action lawsuit
filed against Soyo Group, Inc., entitled, "Robert Lewis, Jr. v.
Soyo Group, Inc., et al., Case No. EDCV 06-699 VAP (JWJx)."

The suit was filed on June 30, 2006, and sought class-action
status.  It alleged failures to timely pay rebates to purchasers
of Soyo products allegedly in violation of unfair competition
laws, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and contracts
with purchasers.  

The plaintiff sought disgorgement of all amounts obtained by the
company as a result of the alleged misconduct, plus actual
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company subsequently agreed to settle the matter and the
deal was approved by the court.  The company's final settlement
payment was paid on April 2, 2008, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Robert Lewis v. Soyo Group Inc. et al., Case No.
5:06-cv-00699-VAP-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge Virginia A. Phillips,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Evan D. Buxner, Esq.
         Walther-Glenn Law Associates
         10 S Brentwood Blvd, Suite 102
         St Louis, MO 63105
         Phone: 314-725-9595

              - and -

         Hoyt A. Rowell, Esq.
         Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman
         1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
         Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
         Phone: 843-727-6500

Representing the defendant is:

         Jeffrey K. Riffer, Esq. (jkr@jmbm.com)
         Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro
         1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010
         Phone: 310-203-8080


SUPREME CUTS: Recalls Contaminated Off The Cob Fresh Kernel Corn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Cuts LLC is voluntarily recalling 87 cases of Off the
Cob Fresh Kernel Corn in 12 oz bags.  The product may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail and elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems.

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

The recalled product comes in a 12 oz clear plastic bag marked
with a "best if used by" date of May 26, 2008, and lot # 5343.
Off the Cob Fresh Kernel Corn with other lot numbers and "best
if used by" dates are not affected.  Package instructions call
for cooking this raw corn product.

While thorough cooking would be an effective control of Listeria
monocytogenes contamination, consumers are urged to dispose of
the product to avoid risks of undercooking or contamination of
other foods.  Other Supreme Cuts products also are not affected.

The recalled product was distributed to a small number of stores
in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  All retail outlets
carrying the product have been notified, and the bags affected
by the recall are believed to have been removed from store
shelves.

The potential for contamination was discovered when the company,
during its standard company testing procedures, found a sample
containing a very small amount of Listeria monocytogenes.
[Production of Off the Cob Fresh Cut Corn has been suspended
while Supreme Cuts investigates the source of the problem.

No other products from Supreme Cuts are involved in the recall.
Supreme Cuts packages each of its products on separate
production lines, so no other products are affected.  Supreme
Cuts is committed to rigorous product testing and food safety,
and has a strong history as a premier processor and distributor
of high quality pre-cut vegetables.

Any consumers who may still have "Off the Cob" with a "best if
used by" date of May 26 should dispose of the product.

Consumers with questions can contact Lucy Rosen at 516-222-0236.


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Amended Complaint Filed in N.M. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, according to the company's June 18, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

On Aug. 21, 2007, a securities class action complaint, entitled
"Slater v. Thornburg, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

Subsequently, three similar class action complaints were filed
in the Southern District of New York, and one more was filed in
the District of New Mexico.  

All five complaints allege that the company and the other named
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements in financial reports filed with the SEC,
press releases and other public statements, which resulted in
artificially inflated market prices of the company's common
stock, and that the named plaintiff and members of the putative
class purchased common stock at these artificially inflated
market prices.

Two complaints allege a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005,
through Aug. 17, 2007, one alleges a class period running from
Oct. 6, 2005, through Aug. 20, 2007, and two more allege a class
period running from April 19, 2007, through Aug. 14, 2007.  

Each complaint seeks unspecified money damages.  The five
actions have been formally consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.  On May 27, 2008, a
consolidated amended complaint, under the caption, "In re
Thornburg Mortgage Inc. Securities Litigation," was filed.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company and
certain individual defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading statements in financial reports
filed with the SEC, press releases and other public statements,
which resulted in artificially inflated market prices of the
company's Common Stock, and that the named plaintiffs and the
members of the putative class purchased Common Stock at these
artificially inflated market prices between April 19, 2007, and
March 19, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that all
defendants are liable under federal securities laws for
materially false and misleading statements in the registration
statements and prospectuses for the company's May 2007, June
2007, September 2007, and January 2008 securities offerings.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified money
damages in favor of the putative class of purchasers of the
company's securities, injunctive relief, restitution, the costs
and expenses of the action, and other relief that may be granted
by the court.

The suit is "Slater v. Thornburg, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00815-JB-WDS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, Judge James O. Browning, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Sandoval, Esq.
          (rsandoval@branchlawfirm.com)
          Branch Law Firm
          2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87104
          Phone: 505-243-3500
          Fax: 505-243-3534

          Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7056
          Fax: 610-667-7706

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert Badal, Esq. (robert.badal@hellerehrman.com)
         Heller Ehrman LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 39th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043
         Phone: 213-689-0200
         Fax: 213-614-1868


TYSON FOODS: Settles Suit in Arkansas Over "Drug-Free" Chickens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc. has settled a class-action suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas over
its "Drug-Free" chickens, Tricia Bishop of the Baltimore Sun
reports.

Filed on April 25, the complaint claims Tyson cheats its
customers in a "calculated and cynical fraudulent scheme," by
falsely claiming that its chickens are raised without
antibiotics, and charging more for them, "knowing full well that
all of its products were in fact raised with antibiotics,"
(Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2008).

The named plaintiffs, from five large states, claim that Tyson
advertises and sells chicken "that it represents to be 'Raised
Without Antibiotics'."  The plaintiffs say the chicken behemoth
"in fact uses a type of antibiotic known as 'ionophores' in
raising its chickens," and that "it is undisputed that
ionophores are antibiotics."

The purportedly "raised without antibiotics" and "raised without
antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" chicken
or chicken products were sold throughout the time period of
May 16, 2007, through the date of filing this class action.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all consumer
residents and domiciliaries of New York, California, Florida,
Illinois and Ohio, who purchased Tyson chicken products during
the relevant time period, having been exposed to Tyson's false
advertising.

Earlier this year, Salisbury's Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms
of Mississippi sued Tyson in Baltimore federal court over the
antibiotics claims, which the Tyson competitors say falsely
implies their birds are less healthy to eat.

Both companies also treat their chickens with ionophores.
Sanderson says it lost a $4 million account to Tyson because of
the company's ad campaign, while Perdue says it lost about $10
million in revenue since last year.  The plaintiffs wanted Tyson
to stop its marketing and return any gains.

After a hearing in Baltimore in April, U.S. District Judge
Richard D. Bennett ordered Tyson to stop its advertising
campaign.

The Daily Record reported that the lawsuit had been settled,
which was confirmed by Perdue attorney Randall K. Miller.  The
terms are confidential, he said in an e-mail to The Sun.

Judge Bennett signed an order dismissing the case.

That same day, attorneys for Norman and Mary Cutsail of
Baltimore filed a lawsuit against Tyson on their behalf.

"Tyson's misrepresentations allow it to overcharge consumers for
its chicken and chicken products.  Tyson saw substantial
increase in volume at the artificially elevated price," court
documents filed in Baltimore federal court claim.

The suit is "Mariko Cohen, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No.
4:08-CV-0366," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Damon Chargois, Esq. (damon@cmhllp.com)
          Che D. Williamson, Esq. (che@cmhllp.com)
          Chargois & Herron LLP
          2201 Timberloch Place, Suite 110
          The Woodlands, TX 77380
          Phone: 281-444-0604
                 866-444-0604
          Fax: 281-440-0124


WORLDSPACE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WorldSpace, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's May  
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

Several lawsuits were filed in March and April 2007 on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded securities.  They were filed against the
company; its president and chief executive officer, Noah A.
Samara; its chief financial officer, Sridhar Ganesan; Cowen &
Co. LLC; and UBS Securities LLC.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)2, and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.  They claim that certain
customers were incorrectly counted as subscribers after they had
ceased to be paying subscribers.

The complaints have been consolidated and on Aug. 9, 2007, an
amended complaint was filed on behalf of all the plaintiffs.

The suit is "Larry Patel, et al. v. WorldSpace, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jack Gerald Fruchter, Esq.
          (JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, L.L.P.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

               - and -

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477

Representing the defendants are:

          Jack C. Auspitz, Esq. (jauspitz@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Phone: 212-468-8046
          Fax: 212-468-7900

               - and -

          Jennifer Lise Parkinson, Esq.
          (parkinsonj@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-1637
          Fax: 212-558-3588


WSB FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WSB Financial Group, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, according to the company's
May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008.

In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class action
lawsuit was commenced before the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and certain
of its directors and current and former officers.

The suit is alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and other relief in connection with the
company's initial public offering.

Since then, four additional, similar actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington.

As is typical in these types of cases, all the actions have been
consolidated into a single action, "In Re: WSB Financial Group
Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ."

The suit is "Robert McLain, et al. v. WSB Financial Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-01747," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge James L. Robart,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com

          Smith & Lowney, PLLC
          2317 East John St.
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Phone: 206.860.2883
          Fax: 206.860.4187
          e-mail: info@smithandlowney.com

               - and -

          Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-223-3900
          Fax: 212-371-5969,
          e-mail: inquiry@zsz.com


XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Yet to OK $2.8MM Deal in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to give final approval to the tentative $2.8-million
settlement in the matter, "In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB."

On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action suit was filed by
Milton Ariail against Xethanol, Lawrence S. Bellone, Christopher
d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg (Civil Action No. 06-
10234).  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
the individual defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's operations, management and
internal controls in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

Mr. Bellone is the company's chief financial officer and a
member of its board of directors.  Mr. d'Arnaud-Taylor is a
member of the company's board of directors and its former
chairman, president and chief executive officer.  Mr. Langberg
is a former member of the company's board of directors.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period between Jan. 31, 2006, and April 8, 2006.  

Six nearly identical class action complaints were then filed in
the same court, all of which have been consolidated into one
action captioned, "In re Xethanol Corporation Securities
Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
March 23, 2007.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on April 23, 2007, which dismissal request was later denied by
the District Court.

Subsequently, on Nov. 28, 2007, the defendants, including the
company, reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs'
lead counsel to settle the case.  

The tentative settlement agreement, which was reached during a
mediation overseen by a retired U.S. District Court judge, calls
for the payment of $2.8 million to the plaintiffs, of which the
company will pay $400,000 and the company's insurance carriers
will pay $2.4 million.  In addition, the company's insurance
carriers will pay the plaintiffs $300,000 in legal costs.

The agreement remains subject to final negotiated writings
executed by the parties and approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's May 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2008.

The suit is "In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. (kimmiller225@yahoo.com)
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-696-3730
         Fax: 504-455-1498

Representing the defendant is:

         Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq. (kh@pwlawyers.com)
         Paduano & Weintraub LLP
         1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: 212-785-9100
         Fax: 212-785-9099


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FIRST AMERICAN: Grant & Eisenhofer Files N.Y. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., has filed a class action lawsuit
against First American Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company
between April 26, 2006, and November 6, 2007, inclusive,
asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b),
78n(a) and 78t(a).

Named as defendants are First American, Parker S. Kennedy, the
Company's Chief Executive Office and Chairman of the Board, and
Fred F. McMahon, the Company's Vice Chairman and Chief Financial
Officer.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, First
American and certain of the Company's officers and directors
engaged in an illegal scheme with Washington Mutual, Inc.,
whereby the defendants, through First American's real estate
subsidiary, eAppraiseIT LLC, prepared artificially inflated
appraisals of homes for use in connection with mortgages issued
by WaMu.  During the Class Period, in quarterly earnings
reports, the Company's management reported increased earnings
from appraisal fees and reassured investors that internal
controls were adequate.

The Complaint alleges that First American's fees from the
improper appraisals resulted in the Company overstating its
gross profit margins and net income during the Class Period and
that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's internal controls
and financial performance.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 25,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq. (mbarry@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-622-7000
          Fax: 302-622-7100


JP MORGAN: Curtis Trinko Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York seeking to recover damages on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Auction Rate Securities from
JP Morgan Chase & Co., and J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., between
May 16, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceptively
offering for sale Action Rate Securities, and represented to
investors that these securities were the equivalent of cash or
money-market substitutes, and other short term investments that
were highly liquid and could be purchased with a minimum
investment of $25,000.

Defendants were deceptive in that they failed to disclose to
consumers that auction rate securities are long-term financial
instruments with maturities of 30 years to perpetuity, and that
such securities were only liquid due to Defendants and other
broker-dealers creating an artificial market for auction rate
securities by manipulating the auction process.

On or about February 13, 2008, Defendants and other major
broker-dealers withdrew their support of these securities,
causing holders of auction rate securities offered by the
defendants as being highly-liquid investments to be left with no
means of liquidating their holdings.

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

For more information, contact:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: 212-490-9550
          Fax: 212-986-0158


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jury Awards Tripoli Family $7MM in Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Alleghany County, Pa., awarded the family of the late
Alphonse Tripoli US$7 million dollars in damages after a brief
asbestos trial, TransWorldNews reports.

The lawyer of Mr. Tripoli's family, Rick Nemeroff, told
reporters that Koppers, Inc., which owned the Grant Building in
Pittsburgh, where Mr. Tripoli worked as a union contractor for
about seven years, knew about the dangerous asbestos inside the
building, but kept this information from its workers.

"Koppers failed to warn him or anybody what they knew," Mr.
Nemeroff said. "They knew, and I guess they just didn't care."

Mr. Tripoli was likely exposed to asbestos between 1968 and 1975
and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in June 2006. He passed away
on Jan. 20, 2006, less than six months after his diagnosis. His
surviving wife, Nancy, and their son, Jeffrey, filed a wrongful
death suit upon Mr. Tripoli's death.

According to Mr. Nemeroff, Koppers, Dravo Corporation, and
Fisher Scientific, which were all housed in the asbestos-laden
Grant Building, are liable for Mr. Tripoli's death.

Koppers was found to be liable for 40 percent of damages, while
Dravo and Fisher Scientific were responsible for about 10
percent each. Several other defendant companies, which were not
named in the judgment, will be accountable for the remaining
damages.

In 2006, a separate trial in the same county deemed that Koppers
(now owned by Beazer East) did in fact hide facts related to
asbestos in the Grant Building dating back to 1918, establishing
precedence for the Tripoli family's suit.

The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center is a resource for
information related to mesothelioma, mesothelioma treatment
options, and content related to asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement Delays Madison School Renovation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos delays the renovation of the old
Madison County Middle School building in Madison County, Ga.,
MainStreetNews.Com reports.

The problem is expected to slow down the project by two to three
days. It will cost US$41,000 to abate the asbestos.

However, the central office was initially told there would be a
two-week hold-up which would costs the school system US$200,000.

The old MCMS building is being transformed into a hybrid
building, one that will house the central office, the Madison
County High School Freshmen Academy and the Danielsville
Elementary "Colt Academy (grades 4-5)."

Asbestos tile was found beneath carpet while Charles Black
construction was working on the ninth grade academy end of the
building. The core of the building was constructed in 1956 and
layers of flooring have been laid on top of the asbestos tile in
the years that have passed.

Madison County Schools superintendent Dr. Mitch McGhee noted
that the tile "was not on any report that we have as a school
system."

Dr. McGhee explained that the system is audited for asbestos
every three years by a firm hired by Northeast Georgia RESA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Huntley Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 75-year-old Monty Horne, a
former Huntley & Palmers worker, was linked to asbestos, Reading
Evening Post reports.

Coroner Peter Bedford heard that Mr. Horne, of Earley,
Berkshire, England, had worked at the biscuit factory between
1950 and 1956.

In a statement written by Mr. Horne before he died, he described
how he had to clean large galvanized iron tanks used for export.
This statement said every tank contained "an eighth of an inch
of white fibrous substance at the bottom of the tank."

Mr. Horne said he and other workers had to get into the tanks to
clean them and got the white dust on their clothes and in their
hair. He said he heard managers talking about the substance and
they said it was asbestos.

Mr. Horne also cleaned and scraped asbestos areas round ovens
during his time at Huntley & Palmers, but knew of no other
circumstances during his career where he came into contact with
asbestos.

Mr. Horne went to his doctor in April 2007 with a persistent
cough and tests revealed a tumor in his left lung which was
diagnosed as mesothelioma. He died on Nov. 8, 2007.

Mr. Bedford said at the inquest on June 17, 2008, the postmortem
examination confirmed the cause of death as mesothelioma and
revealed actual asbestos fibers in Mr. Horne's lungs.

Mr. Bedford recorded a verdict of death from an industrial
disease, namely mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Study Finds Risks at West Australia Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an Australian parliamentary report released on
June 18, 2008, Western Australia schools are littered with more
than 21,000 asbestos-containing materials, The West Australian
reports.

The report has prompted fears for health and safety if a
comprehensive database is not strictly observed.
  
The Upper House committee inquiry into the level of exposure to
asbestos found that 769 schools had asbestos products in their
fences, walls, sunshades and vinyl flooring.

The report said, "There is an extensive presence of ACM
(asbestos-containing materials) in State schools. The Asbestos
Survey identified over 21,000 ACM components in 769 State
schools."
  
The report found that stipulated procedures had failed
Karrinyup's Deanmore Primary School when an electrician
unknowingly worked on asbestos during school hours.
  
In its submission to the inquiry, the State School Teachers
Union called for all ACMs to be removed from WA schools and
colleges.
  
However, WA Council of State School Organisations president
Robert Fry said that task would be well beyond the economic
means of any government. He urged people to be extra cautious
when working with older buildings.
  
The committee recommended that information relating to the
location and removal of ACMs be strictly recorded on a register
and the Department of Education and Training maintain a record
of all air monitoring.
  
Liberal MP Barry House, who chaired the committee, said the
department had already begun to enforce those recommendations
but highlighted the need for more transparency in its management
processes.
  
DET acting executive director of infrastructure Mal Parr said 60
cases of overhanging branches rubbing against asbestos materials
had been dealt with after an asbestos registry identified more
than 21,000 ACMs in 2007.
  
The remaining incidents were "low risk."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA's Cleanup at Libby, Mont. Site Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is remediating asbestos
at the former W. R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine near Libby,
Mont., Billings Gazette reports.

The mine is blamed for widespread death and disease in Libby
stemming from exposure to toxic asbestos dust.

As part of a Superfund cleanup, contractors working for the EPA
hauled 50,000 cubic yards of asbestos-laden dirt to the mine for
disposal in 2007 and are on track to deposit the same amount in
2008.

Truckers have been hauling soil from a staging area to the top
of the mine and hot, dry weather has worsened the dust problem.

Two water trucks treat the mine road to keep dust at a minimum,
but EPA's Mike Cirian says a dust-suppression sealant called
Surfactant will be applied week to further curtail dust.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kerrison Widow Gets GBP60T in Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Kerrison, the widow of painter and decorator Alexander
Kerrison, was awarded GBP60,000 in compensation for her
husband's death, BBC News reports.

Mrs. Kerrison, of Great Yarmouth, England, nursed Mr. Kerrison
in the months before his death in 2005 at the age of 58.

The High Court heard that while employed by WP Wiseman and Son
Ltd on decorating jobs, Mr. Kerrison was exposed to asbestos.

WP Wiseman will also pay further sums to Mr. Kerrison's family
for their "loss of dependency" on Mr. Kerrison. The total payout
is likely to run well into six figures.

Judge Richard Seymour QC made the awards for the "pain and
suffering" Mr. Kerrison endured after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

The court heard Mr. Kerrison began working for WP Wiseman during
the 1970s and during his employment was exposed to asbestos
while working on decorating jobs.

The court heard that Mr. Kerrison, described as a hands-on
husband and father, had always been "fit and active", but in
early 2004 was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Kerrison underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but died
in May 2005.

Judge Seymour rejected arguments on behalf of WP Wiseman that
Mr. Kerrison should be held partially responsible because he
could have been exposed to asbestos during a five-year period
between 1966 and 1971 when he was self-employed.

The judge said there was "scant" evidence that Mr. Kerrison
would have come into contact with asbestos during that time, and
declined to reduce his award accordingly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Enters Into Settlement with Mont. DEQ
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. entered into a settlement with the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality to avoid protracted
litigation and resolve the Debtors' liabilities with respect to
the environmental remediation and operation and maintenance
costs at the Debtors' Libby, Mont., mine.

The settlement provides that:

(a) Claim No. 18496 will be allowed as a general unsecured, pre-
    petition, non-priority claim against the Debtors for
    US$5,167,000;

(b) Except as to claims relate to Operable Unit 3 in the Libby    
    Site, which is specifically reserved under the settlement,
    the remaining portions of Claim No. 18496 are resolved;

(c) Claim No. 15296 will be disallowed and expunged;

(d) MDEQ will not be entitled to any interest payment on Claim
    No. 18496 with respect to any period prior to the effective
    date of a confirmed Chapter 11 plan or plans with respect to
    the Debtors;

(e) MDEQ will place and maintain any distributions received by
    on account of the Allowed Claim in a State special revenue
    fund to be known as the "Libby Asbestos Site State Cost
    Account;"

(f) MDEQ will use the funds in the Account, together with all
    its interest and earnings, only for its cost share
    requirements, including operation and maintenance expenses
    or other costs related to asbestos at the Site, under the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act;

(g) MDEQ is forever barred, estopped, and enjoined from
    asserting any additional claims against the Debtors for
    past, present and future costs of investigation,
    remediation, monitoring, and maintenance at the Libby Site,
    other than OU 3, under the Montana Comprehensive
    Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act, and the
    CERCLA;

(h) The Debtors release and agree not to assert any claims or    
    causes of action against the state of Montana with respect
    to the Libby Site, including but not limited to any claims
    for reimbursement, contribution, cost recovery or damages
    under CECRA, CERCLA, or any other provision of law.

The settlement resolves the MDEQ's Claims, which asserted more
than US$50 million of environmental costs.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask the Court to approve the MDEQ
settlement. The settlement is subject to a public comment
period, which ends on July 7, 2008.

A full-text copy of the proposed MDEQ Settlement is available
for free at:

http://www.deq.mt.gov/rem/PDFs/Stipulation_LibbyAgreement_May2008.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 160; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Fitzgerald Sets ZAI Bar Date to Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
For reasons stated in the open court, Judge Judith Fitzgerald
denies the ZAI Claimants' motion to dismiss individual ZAI
Claims and let the ZAI litigation proceed in the state tort
system.

Instead, Judge Fitzgerald sets Oct. 31, 2008, as the ZAI Claims
Bar Date. Counsel who have participated in the ZAI Bar Date
proceedings are directed to turn over to W. R. Grace & Co. any
address lists of additional individuals who may have ZAI Claims
so the Debtors can mail the ZAI Bar Date Notice package to those
individuals.

Holders of ZAI Claims are not required to submit any physical
samples of ZAI with the ZAI proof of claim. However, Judge
Fitzgerald does not prohibit the Debtors from seeking relief
from the Court in the future should they determine that samples
are necessary to inform subsequent proceedings in the Debtors'
Chapter 11 cases.

The Debtors told Judge Fitzgerald during the June 2, 2008
omnibus hearing, that they have reached a settlement-in-
principle with the Canadian ZAI Claimants resolving the Canadian
ZAI property damage claims.

The agreement, according to the Debtors' counsel, James Restivo,
at Reed Smith LLP, in Pittsburgh, contemplates a contribution by
the Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. The settlement
also calls for a ZAI claim bar date and notice program.

The Canadian ZAI Claimants ask Judge Fitzgerald to to establish
a protocol for cross-border communications between Judge
Fitzgerald and The Honorable Mr. Justice Geoffrey B. Morawetz of
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who is overseeing the
reorganization proceedings of the Debtors' Canadian affiliates.

To effectuate the terms of the settlement-in-principle with the
Debtors concerning the treatment of Canadian ZAI PD Claims and
the bar date notice program approved by the U.S. Court, the
Canadian ZAI Claimants requested from the Crown disclosure of
certain governmental documents and databases, which contain the
addresses of the Canadian homes that have been insulated with
ZAI, Daniel K. Hogan, at The Hogan Firm, in Wilmington, Del.,
relates.

In response, the Crown said it needs a court order to release
the requested documents and databases asserting that Canadian
privacy laws prohibit the disclosure of the Canadian ZAI
Databases. However, Mr. Hogan says there has been some informal
indication from the Crown that disclosure would be made subject
to the entry of an order by the Canadian Court. Furthermore, Mr.
Hogan avers that, to the extent the settlement-in-principle is
consummated, the involvement of the Canadian Court will be
necessary to implement certain terms of the settlement.

Thus, a framework for cross-border communications between the
U.S. and Canadian Courts must be established to allow for the
creation of a mechanism that would enable the two proceedings to
coordinate and resolve issues affecting both proceedings, the
ZAI Claimants assert. A framework for communications between the
two Courts is vital to assist both in determining that due
process has been afforded the parties under their respective
laws, the ZAI Claimants further asserts.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 160; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Case Transfer to Ramsey County Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the ruling of the Hennepin
County District Court, which transferred the venue of an
asbestos insurance case, involving Continental Casualty Company,
Continental Insurance Company and 3M Company, to Ramsey County.

The case is styled In re Continental Casualty Company and
Continental Insurance Company, Petitioners. Continental Casualty
Company, et al., Appellants, v. 3M Company, Respondent, ACE
Bermuda Insurance, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Transamerica
Premier Insurance Company, n/k/a Fairmont Premier Insurance,
Respondent.

Justice Meyer entered judgment of Case No. A07-784 on May 29,
2008.

This case arose from a declaratory judgment action commenced in
Hennepin County by Continental Casualty Company and Continental
Insurance Company, insurers of 3M Company.

The action sought a declaratory judgment denying 3M coverage
under Continental's policies based on various breach-of-contract
claims.

In addition, in the event that coverage is not denied,
Continental sought resolution of trigger and allocation issues
to apportion coverage among insurers and 3M.

The claims against 3M underlying the coverage dispute involved
allegations that defective protective masks manufactured by 3M
resulted in injury to users who were exposed to various harmful
agents, including asbestos.

More underlying claims allege injury resulting from exposure to
products produced by 3M that themselves contained harmful
agents, including asbestos.

Continental venued its declaratory judgment action in Hennepin
County District Court on the basis that both the plaintiffs and
3M reside in Hennepin County.

3M moved for a change of venue to Ramsey County, contending that
no defendant resided in Hennepin County and further, that the
ends of justice would be promoted by a change of venue to Ramsey
County based on certain asbestos orders.

Hennepin County District Court transferred venue to the asbestos
judges in Ramsey County. The court of appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court also affirmed.

Patrick J. Sauter, Jeanne H. Unger, Brian H. Sande, Bassford
Remele, PA, Minneapolis, represented Continental Casualty
Company and Continental Insurance Company.

Douglas L. Skor, Louise Dovre Bjorkman, Larson King, LLP, St.
Paul, Minn., represented 3M Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 45 Actions Pending v. American Locker Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated, as of May 9, 2008, faced
about 45 unresolved asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 19, 2008.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through June 19,
2008, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in
about 165 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the
Company manufactured and furnished components containing
asbestos to a shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and
that injury resulted from exposure to such products. The assets
of this division were sold by the Company in 1973.

During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced
which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in
the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained
asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts
shipyards.

Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's
insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.
Settlement agreements have been entered in about 20 cases with
funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance
carrier.

Further, over 100 cases have been terminated as to the Company
without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural
rules.

As of June 18, 2007, the Company recorded about 40 unresolved
asbestos-related cases filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 7, 2007)

Grapevine, Tex.-based American Locker Group Incorporated is a
manufacturer and distributor of lockers, locks and keys with a
wide-range of applications for use in numerous industries. The
Company is known for manufacturing and servicing the widely-
utilized key and lock system with the iconic plastic orange cap.
The Company serves customers in a various industries in all 50
states, Canada, Mexico, Europe, India and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept.'s Ruling Upheld in Delli Santi
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed
the decision of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, Division of Workers' Compensation, which ruled
against Peter R. Delli Santi.

The case is styled Peter R. Delli Santi, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. Essex Recycling & Fibers, Inc., Newark Disposal Service,
Inc., and The Second Injury Fund, Respondents-Respondents.

Judges Graves and Sabatino entered judgment on Docket No. A-
4380-06T2 on May 12, 2008.

Mr. Delli Santi is a 59 year old man who worked for almost 30
years in the garbage hauling business. At the age of 19, he
started his own company, Newark Disposal Services, Inc. In the
1980s, he formed a second related company, Essex Recycling &
Fibers, Inc.

In April 1992, Mr. Delli Santi injured his back at work while
replacing the wheel bearings on a loader.

In June 1996, Mr. Delli Santi filed a workers' compensation
disability claim based upon his 1992 accident. He and Essex
Recycling reached a settlement on that claim, which was approved
by the compensation court on Jan. 21, 1998.

Mr. Delli Santi also filed a claim for disability benefits with
the Social Security Administration. After his initial claim was
rejected in 1994, he re-filed in December 1998.

Following a hearing, a Federal administrative law judge (ALJ)
deemed Mr. Delli Santi "disabled," for purposes of Social
Security law, after Aug. 1, 1997.

Mr. Delli Santi contended that he has developed asthma and other
pulmonary illnesses and his knee condition has worsened. He also
began seeing a psychiatrist in the 1990s and was prescribed
various antidepressants.

On April 7, 1998, Mr. Delli Santi filed three new claim
petitions seeking workers' compensation from his former
employers, Essex Recycling and Newark Disposal. These claims
were identical in nature, alleging that Mr. Delli Santi was
totally disabled due to injuries to his pulmonary system, ears,
nose, throat and eyes.

Mr. Delli Santi further alleged that these injuries were caused
by "[exposure] to dust[,] fumes, noxious substances,
industr[ial] waste, asbestos, hazardous [hospital] disposal
chemicals, and other deleterious substances," as well as
exposure to loud and repetitive noises.

Two of these new claim petitions, 98-12040 and 98-12045, were
filed against Essex Recycling.

The first claim listed Liberty Mutual Insurance as Essex
Recycling's insurer and pertained to the dates of that insurance
coverage, from Aug. 22, 1989 to Oct. 1, 1991. The second
petition listed CIGNA WCC as an insurer for the ensuing policy
period. The third claim petition, 98-12572, was filed against
Newark Disposal, which was insured by New Jersey Manufacturers.
Respondents opposed these claims.

On Aug. 16, 2001, Mr. Delli Santi amended his three claims to
add injuries to his neck, back, knees and legs, and to claim
neurological and psychiatric injuries. He specifically alleged
that he had become "totally disabled."

Mr. Delli Santi also filed an application in December 1999
seeking a review and modification of his original award from
January 1998 under claim 95-22307. His claims were consolidated
and listed for trial. The trial took place over intermittent
dates between December 2004 and September 2006, before
Compensation Judge Rose Mary Granados.

Judge Granados dismissed the claims against Liberty Mutual, as
the pre-1991 insurer of Essex Recycling.

Mr. Delli Santi now appealed those aspects of the final judgment
denying his new claims. Essex Recycling has not cross-appealed
the hearing loss award.

On appeal, Mr. Delli Santi argued that Judge Granados erred in
finding that his present maladies, apart from the hearing loss,
were not caused, aggravated, and/or accelerated by the April
1992 accident.

Mr. Delli Santi maintained that he is totally and permanently
disabled as the result of that accident, and that the settlement
that he negotiated in January 1998 was inadequate to compensate
him for those injuries.

Alternatively, Mr. Delli Santi argued that he is totally and
permanently disabled as a combination of the injuries from the
April 1992 accident, plus pre-existing conditions.

The March 26, 2007 final judgment of the compensation court was
affirmed in all respects.

Erwin C. Schnitzer argued the cause for Peter R. Delli Santi.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Manske
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded the
ruling of Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI), which denied
Catherine Manske's application for death benefits following her
husband Robert Manske's death from lung cancer.

The case is styled Catherine Manske, Claimant and Appellant v.
Workforce Safety and Insurance, Appellee and Northern States
Power Company a/k/a Xcel Energy, Respondent.

Judges Vande Walle, Dale V. Sandstrom, Carol Ronning Kapsner,
Mary Muehlen Maring, and Allan L. Schmalenberger entered
judgment of Case No. 20070173 on April 23, 2008.

Mr. Manske was employed by Northern States Power Company as a
mechanic's helper from 1959 to 1963, a meter reader from 1963 to
1970 and a lineman from 1970 to 1995. He was exposed to asbestos
at work, although the parties disputed the degree of exposure.  

Mr. Manske also smoked somewhere between one and a half to three
packs of cigarettes per day. He died from lung cancer on Nov.
28, 2000.

On Nov. 25, 2002, Mrs. Manske filed an application for death
benefits, alleging Mr. Manske died from lung cancer caused by
occupational asbestos exposure.

In May 2003, WSI determined Mrs. Manske failed to show asbestos
exposure was a substantial cause of Mr. Manske's lung cancer and
denied her claim. A hearing with an administrative law judge
("ALJ") was held in January 2006.

Depositions of Mr. Manske and co-workers, taken during prior
litigation against asbestos manufacturers, establish heavy
exposure to asbestos from 1959 to 1963. Mr. Manske testified to
reading meters from 1963 to 1970, with 60 percent of the meters
located indoors.

From 1970 to 1995, Mr. Manske worked as a lineman and was
exposed to insulation from insulated wiring but was unsure if
the wiring and cloth tape he used contained asbestos. Ninety-
nine percent of his work was outdoors at this time.

The ALJ concluded Mrs. Manske failed to prove the lung cancer
was the "direct result" of Mr. Manske's asbestos exposure. WSI
adopted the ALJ's findings and fact and recommendations and
denied the claim in May 2006.

Mrs. Manske appealed to the District Court, Grand Forks County,
Northeast Central Judicial District, which affirmed WSI's
decision.

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for WSI to make a
determination using the correct "substantial contributing
factor" analysis.

David C. Thompson (argued), David C. Thompson, P.C., Grand
Forks, N.D., and Jeanette T. Boechler (on brief), Boechler Law
Firm, Fargo, N.D., represented Catherine Manske.

Douglas W. Gigler, Special Assistant Attorney General, Fargo,
N.D., represented Workforce Safety and Insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued for Suit v. Williams
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos, filed against Derek
Oneal Williams.

The case is styled United States of America v. Derek Oneal
Williams, Defendant.

District Judge Kristi K. DuBose entered judgment of Criminal
Action No. 08-00092-KD on May 28, 2008.

This matter was before the Court on Mr. Williams' motion to fix
trial in the Northern Division with jury selected from a panel
of Northern Division residents and the government's response in
opposition.

A hearing was held on May 27, 2008. Mr. Williams, his counsel
and counsel for the United States were present.

In the motion to fix trial, Mr. Williams moved the court to fix
trial in the Northern Division because under the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments, Mr. Williams is entitled to an impartial jury
selected from a fair cross-section of the community in which he
resides and where the offenses are alleged to have occurred.

The Court also addressed Mr. Williams' request to have the trial
held in Selma, Ala.

However, as to the prompt administration of justice, the
conditions of the Selma Courthouse's jail facility present a
problem. U.S. Marshal Bill Taylor testified as to the conditions
of the United States courthouse jail facility in Selma, Ala.

Mr. Taylor cited concerns of inadequate security and inadequate
facilities at the Selma courthouse. Specifically the proximity
of the courthouse's two holding cells for purposes of holding
defendant and prosecution witnesses would present a safety
concern for the defendant and the witnesses.

Moreover, Mr. Taylor stated that the current lack of an adequate
number of deputy marshals and court security officers to staff
the trial make it "impossible" to hold trial in Selma with an
in-custody defendant.

Mr. Taylor also testified that the Selma courthouse jail
facility contains possible health and safety hazards in the form
of exposed pipes, asbestos, and lead paint.

These problems have been reported to GSA for repair; however no
commitment or time-line has been provided by GSA to address
these problems.

The Court found that the health and safety hazards in the Selma
courthouse jail facility warranted denying Mr. Williams' motion
to fix trial in the Northern Division because the facility will
not be repaired in time to provide a trial within the near
future.

However, the Court did not find that inadequate funds to provide
security is a sufficient reason to deny a criminal trial setting
in Selma.

Therefore, Mr. Williams' request for a jury selected from a
panel of Northern Division residents was denied.

However, in the interest of fairness concerning the denial of
Mr. Williams' motion to fix trial in the Northern Division, Mr.
Williams was granted a jury drawn from the district at large,
i.e. both the Northern and Southern Divisions of the Southern
District of Alabama.

Fred Tiemann, Federal Defender's Office, Southern District of
Alabama, Mobile, Ala., represented Derek Oneal Williams.

Gloria A. Bedwell, U.S. Attorney's Office, Mobile, Ala.,
represented the United States of America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Fines Olean City for Survey Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Department of Labor's Asbestos Control Bureau has
issued a citation to the City of Olean for not surveying
asbestos before demolishing the locker rooms and restrooms at
Bradner Stadium on East State Street, Olean Times Herald
reports.

Al Jakubowski, an industrial hygienist and supervisor with the
bureau, confirmed on June 13, 2008, that the Asbestos Control
Bureau issued a citation to the city on June 12, 2008 after
Department of Labor inspectors visited the site.

Inspectors also went to the town of Olean Fire Hall, where the
concrete from Bradner was dumped to inspect the debris.

Mr. Jakubowski said any fines levied against the city for not
obtaining an asbestos survey would be determined by the
Department of Labor in Albany, N.Y.

On June 17, 2008, Mayor David Carucci assured the public that no
laws had been broken during the June 2, 2008 demolition.

Under the mayor's direction, Wayne Paving and Concrete
demolished the bathrooms, locker rooms and a section of the
stadium's eastern wall on June 2, 2008. The structure is made of
reinforced concrete. City dump trucks hauled the debris to the
town of Olean Fire Hall because the department needed fill.

While supportive of the Bradner renovation, Common Council
members have spoken out against the demolition because Mayor
Carucci did not inform the council or the public the work was
beginning.

The city has formed a local development corporation, a not-for-
profit corporation owned by the city of Olean, to raise funds
and seek grants for the project.

Because all funds for the US$3 million to US$8 million effort
will come from the corporation, the council did not need to be
informed of the demolition, Mayor Carucci said.

Mayor Carucci also said that since the council has passed
resolutions supporting the project, he did not feel he had to
give them advanced warning the work was beginning.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feltwell Builder's Death Linked to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Norwich, England inquest on June 18, 2008 heard that the death
of 72-year-old retired builder Peter Morris was due to asbestos,
Lynn News reports.

On June 8, 2008, Mr. Morris was found dead at his home at
Feltwell, England. He died from mesothelioma.

Greater Norfolk coroner William Armstrong adjourned the case
until a date is fixed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Releases Report on Ore. Cleanup Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a feasibility
report describing possible asbestos cleanup options for the
North Ridge Estates site located about three miles north of
Klamath Falls, Ore., NewsWatch12 reports.

The EPA expects to release its proposed cleanup plan by
September 2008.

In the 1940s, the U.S. Navy constructed a Marine Barracks on the
land, and asbestos was used to build 80 buildings. In the 1970s
those buildings were demolished, and the North Ridge Estates, a
residential housing subdivision, was constructed.

Since that time, both the Department of Environmental Quality
and the EPA have worked to remove the asbestos from the area.

On June 19, 2008, crews simulated raking an area where the EPA
has not observed asbestos yet.

The activity-based sampling mimics what residents do at home to
determine if there are asbestos fibers in the soil. While there
have been some clean-up at the site, officials say there is
still a large amount in the area. This is the last sampling the
EPA will take before assessing a final clean-up plan.

Public Information Officer Judy Smith said, "Cleaning up
asbestos to protect the health of people, we'll do one of two
things. One is to just fence off parts of the site so that
people can't come in contact with the contamination. Another way
is to conceal it under a cap of clean soil."

DEQ is looking for public input on the site and will hold a
forum and workshops in July 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Monton, U.K. Villagers Call for Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------
Villagers at Monton, Manchester, England, are calling for urgent
cleanup action at the former Mitchell Shackleton factory on
Canal Bank, Salford Advertiser reports.

Parents are worried that the factory has turned into a lethal
playground for their children. And they have turned to the
village's own website to warn other families of the danger.

Monton Village Community Association chairman Paul Ashton said,
"We were alerted to the problem when messages began to flood our
website. Immediately, we phoned the council to ask them to send
environmental health officers out to investigate. The site is
just not secure enough and is proving a real lure to children
wanting to play on it, but if there is asbestos about they could
be playing with their lives."

Councilor Derek Antrobus, lead member for planning at Salford
City Council, said they have been out to investigate. He said,
"The site is owned by private developers whose responsibility it
is to keep the site safe and secure. We have agreed with the
developers that the area needs to be secured and that we will do
this on their behalf and recharge the costs to them."

Anthony Hirsch, boss of Chester Developments, who owns the
premises, said asbestos had been found on the premises during
demolition of the buildings but it was of the non-toxic variety.

Chester Developments wanted to build a GBP100 million eco-
friendly estate on the 11-acre plot but has run up against
council objections because the land was designated for
industrial use under the city's Unitary Development Plan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court OKs Ruling to Favor Saberhagen
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, upheld the
ruling of a trial court, which granted summary judgment to
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed
by Rose Callahan and Maureen Lansford, on behalf of Patrick
Callahan.

The case is styled Rose Callahan and Maureen Lansford, for
herself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Patrick
Callahan, Appellants, v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., Respondent.

Judges Schindler, Ellington, and Agid entered judgment of Case
No. 59377-3-I on June 2, 2008.

The Callahans filed a personal injury lawsuit against Saberhagen
and others, alleging that Mr. Callahan was exposed to asbestos-
containing products supplied by Saberhagen's predecessor, the
Brower Company, when he worked as an electrician from 1943 to
1945 at the Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Todd shipyards.

Mr. Callahan also alleged that he was exposed to a number of
asbestos products when he worked in the construction industry
from 1950 to 1970. As a result of asbestos exposure, he
developed mesothelioma.

After Mr. Callahan passed away on Jan. 21, 2005, the Callahans'
daughter, Maureen Lansford, individually and as the personal
representative of the Estate joined the lawsuit.

Following discovery, Saberhagen filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that because there was no admissible evidence
that Mr. Callahan was exposed to Brower-supplied asbestos
products he could not prove causation.

In opposition, Mrs. Callahan and Mrs. Lansford argued that
admissible evidence showed Mrs. Callahan was exposed to
asbestos-containing Brower products while working as an
electrician at the Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Todd
shipyards from 1943 to 1945.

Saberhagen argued there is no admissible evidence that Mr.
Callahan was ever exposed to any asbestos-containing products
supplied by either Saberhagen or Brewer.

Mrs. Callahan and Mrs. Lansford's epidemiology expert relied on
the deposition testimony of Mr. Callahan and a former Brower
employee to conclude Mr. Callahan was exposed to asbestos-
containing Brower products when he worked at the shipyards from
1943 to 1945.

Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking
the deposition of Mrs. Callahan and the former Brower employee,
the Appeals Court concluded the trial court did not err in
disregarding the expert testimony that was not based on
admissible facts.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Denies O'Connell Remand Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts, denied William A.
O'Connell's motion for remand in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed against Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, A.W. Chesterton
Company, and Buffalo Pumps, Inc.

The case is styled William A. O'Connell v. Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company, and Buffalo Pumps, Inc.

U.S. District Judge Stearns entered judgment of Civil Action No.
08-10078-RGS on April 7, 2008.

Mr. O'Connell was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in July
2007. He alleged an exposure to asbestos while working at the
Fore River Shipyard (Fore River) in Quincy, Mass., from about
1960 to 1961.

Mr. O'Connell claimed that defendants, including Buffalo Pumps,
Inc., were negligent and breached a duty under state law by
failing to warn him of the health hazards associated with
asbestos.

Buffalo Pumps manufactured and supplied pumps for U.S. Navy
ships.

Mr. O'Connell filed this action in Middlesex Superior Court on
Nov. 9, 2007. On Jan. 18, 2008, Buffalo Pumps filed a notice of
removal. On Feb. 6, 2008, he filed a motion to remand.

Buffalo Pumps filed its opposition on March 11, 2008.

The District Court denied Mr. O'Connell's motion. The parties'
motion for a hearing were also denied.

Edward P. Coady, David W. Fanikos, Coady & Associates, Boston,
represented William A. O'Connell.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment in 2 Fla. Hospitals' Favor Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, 4th District, upheld
the ruling of the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit,
which granted summary judgment in favor of Boca Raton Community
Hospital, Inc. and Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Anna Johnson, on behalf of her
husband Gene Johnson.

Judges Taylor, Stone, and Stevenson entered judgment of Case No.
4D07-1153 on June 4, 2008.

Mr. Johnson worked as a pipe insulator at Boca Raton Community
Hospital and Bethesda Memorial Hospital during the 1960s. At all
times while working at these hospitals, he was employed by an
independent subcontractor hired by the hospitals to perform
insulation work.

During the course of his employment, Mr. Johnson worked with
pipe covering, cement, and asbestos-containing products that
exposed him to asbestos dust. In September 2000, he was
diagnosed with lung cancer. He died a year later.

Mrs. Johnson sought to hold the hospitals liable for the
injuries Mr. Johnson suffered as a result of his exposure to
asbestos while working at sites owned by the hospitals.

Mrs. Johnson alleged that the hospitals had superior knowledge
of the dangers of asbestos in the 1960s and thus owed Mr.
Johnson a duty to warn of the dangers existing on their
premises.

Mrs. Johnson also alleged that, as landowners, the hospitals
owed a duty to maintain their premises in a safe condition,
which they breached by allowing Mr. Johnson to install asbestos-
laden products on their premises.

Both hospitals moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did
not control the manner or means by which Mr. Johnson performed
his duties and, further, did not owe a duty to warn him of the
dangers of asbestos.

The hospitals argued that Mr. Johnson possessed at least equal
knowledge of the dangerous condition as the hospitals. The trial
court granted the motion and entered summary judgment on behalf
of the hospitals.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court properly granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospitals.

Reed A. Bryan, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., represented Anna Johnson.

William T. Viergever of Sonneborn, Rutter, Cooney &
Klingensmith, P.A., West Palm Beach, Fla., represented Boca
Raton Community Hospital, Inc. and Bethesda Memorial Hospital,
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orders in 39 Canadian Suits Vacated in R.I.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the orders of the
Superior Court, Providence County, in 39 asbestos-related
lawsuits filed by Canadians.

The case is styled Deborah L. Kedy, Legal Representative for the
Estate of Brian Scallion et al. v. A.W. Chesterton Co. et al.

Judges Williams, Goldberg, Flaherty, Suttell, and Robinson
entered judgment of Case Nos. 2005-332-M.P., 2005-319-M.P. on
May 9, 2008.

The issue before the Supreme Court arose out of 39 cases filed
in the Superior Court that alleged personal injury and wrongful
death caused by workplace exposure to products containing
asbestos.

The plaintiffs are all Canadian residents, and their employment,
exposure, injuries, and treatment occurred in Canada. Several
actions were filed against various corporations, all of which
conduct business in Rhode Island.

None of the remaining corporate defendants, however, either was
incorporated in Rhode Island or has its principal place of
business in the state.

On Oct. 27, 2004, General Electric Company moved to dismiss the
23 asbestos actions then before the Superior Court based on the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Several other defendants joined General Electric's motion to
dismiss. Subsequently, 16 additional similarly situated
plaintiffs filed asbestos actions in Rhode Island, after which
defendants moved to dismiss those cases as well.

On May 27, 2005, the Superior Court filed a consolidated
decision that denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On Oct. 12,
2005, the court entered 39 orders denying defendants' motions to
dismiss.

General Electric Company, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, The
Lincoln Electric Company, Hobart Brothers Company, and The
Anchor Packing Company filed petitions for writs of certiorari
in the Supreme Court in the 39 cases, each of which were opposed
by the various plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court consolidated the defendants' petitions, and it
granted certiorari on May 18, 2006.

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the Superior Court.

Gerald Petros, Providence, R.I., represented General Electric
Company.

Robert J. Quigley, Providence, R.I., represented Lincoln
Electric and Hobart Bros.

Garland Cassada, Charlotte, N.C., represented Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC.

Donald A. Migliori, Providence, R.I., represented respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace's Appeal to Libby Case Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 23, 2008, rejected W. R. Grace &
Co.'s appeal over the alleged release of asbestos from the
Company's former vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont.,
LegalNewsLine.com reports.

The cases are W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States, 07-1286, and
Henry A. Eschenbach v. United States, 07-1287.

The Supreme Court's ruling allows the federal government's
criminal case against Grace to go to trial. The Company filed
for bankruptcy protection in 2001.

Grace and six of its executives were charged in February 2005
for violating the federal Clean Air Act by releasing asbestos
from the Libby mine, even though prosecutors say they were aware
of its dangers.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say asbestos from the mine has sickened
about 2,000 residents and caused up to 225 deaths.

The Company argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's definition of asbestos does not cover most of the
substances taken from the mine.

A federal district court judge agreed, but the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.

The Company said it had been named in 110,000 asbestos-related
lawsuits. In April 2008, it agreed to a US$3 billion settlement
that will allow it to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection without further asbestos liability.

The US$3 billion settlement established a trust fund to pay
claims against the Company.

The Supreme Court also declined to hear the separate appeal by
the Company's executives, who could face prison sentences of up
to 15 years if found guilty.

The U.S. solicitor general's office, which argues cases on
behalf of the White House, urged the court to deny the appeal,
arguing that the case has yet to go to trial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Martin's Lawsuit Filed v. 14 Firms in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Coon & Associates attorney Tina Bradley, on June 20, 2008
and on behalf of spouses Jerry Martin and Barbara Martin, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit against 14 defendants in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Ms. Bradley alleges chemical companies like Union Carbide
Corporation acted with tortious indifference by exposing Mr.
Martin to asbestos and that insurance companies like MetLife,
Inc. conspired to conceal the truth about the hazards of the
mineral.

Some of the defendants include Able Supply Co., Freeman Hardware
and Pump Co., and Garlock Inc.

Since the suit names at least one Texas-based defendant, Freeman
Hardware, Ms. Bradley asserts jurisdiction is proper in
Jefferson Court and is asking the suit not be removed to federal
court.

According to the original petition, Mr. Martin worked with and
installed asbestos products throughout the county while employed
by Freeman from 1962 through 1970.

The suit says, "The illnesses and disabilities of Martin are a
direct and proximate result of the negligence of each Defendant
and its predecessor-in-interest in that said entities
manufactured, distributed, designed, sold...and put into the
stream of commerce, asbestos-containing products, including
asbestos-containing pipe … which Martin worked around."

The suit goes on to say defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. was also negligent in failing to convey and actively
suppressing information regarding the dangers of asbestos.

On top of exemplary damages, the Martins sue for physical pain
and suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past
and future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement
in the past and future, physical impairment in the past and
future, and past and future medical expenses, plus attorneys'
fees.

Case No. B181-944 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Suit Filed v. 28 Firms in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Conn, on June 19, 2008 and on behalf of the estate of
Elray Conn, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against A. O.
Smith Corporation and 27 other corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Conn is represented by Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan
Blevins.

According to the plaintiff's petition, Mr. Conn worked as
laboratory analyst, maintenance supervisor and contract
administrator, where he worked with asbestos-containing products
and materials, "which caused him to suffer from asbestos-related
diseases and other industrial dust diseases."

The suit's defendants include companies like Lockheed Martin
Corporation, Owens-Illinois, Inc., and Viacom Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants were further negligent in
continuing to manufacture and distribute their asbestos products
after the hazards of asbestos exposure "were well known and
documented in the medical and scientific literature."

Mrs. Conn is suing for exemplary damages. She is also suing for
Mr. Conn's past and future mental anguish, medical expenses and
lost wages.

Case No. A181-940 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham, 58th
Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 51 U.K. Families Get Late Payments From T&N
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some 51 families in the United Kingdom have received
compensation from Turner & Newall (T&N) Ltd., a defunct asbestos
company, seven years after claims were frozen, Legal & Medical
reports.

Employees were exposed while working for T&N. When the Company
went into administration in 2001. All compensation claims
against T&N were frozen until administrators reached an
agreement with their insurers and parent company Federal-Mogul
Corporation.

More than 100 employees died during the wait.

T&N was responsible for exposing thousands of its workers to
asbestos dust. The employees' lawyers say that minutes from the
Company's board meetings show they were aware of the risk
asbestos posed to employees for decades but did not do enough to
protect them.

Many went on to develop asbestos-related diseases including
mesothelioma.

Lawyer Ian McFall, of Thompsons solicitors, who represented the
families, said, "Turner & Newall exposed thousands of people to
asbestos across the U.K. We have been engaged in one of the
longest running and most difficult battles to obtain
compensation for those who are suffering or have died from
asbestos related disease following exposure at T&N's factories
and elsewhere."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
South and East Cumbria coroner Ian Smith ruled that a certain
Mr. Smith, who was a 75-year-old worker, died after being
exposed to asbestos while working at a shipyard, North-West
Evening Mail reports.

Mr. Smith's son, Stephen Smith, told Coroner Smith that his dad
had never smoked and had no long-term health problems until he
became ill in 2007.

Stephen Smith said, "He never said he had any contact with
asbestos but it was rife there at the time."

Coroner Smith said, "He was most certainly exposed to it but it
is not my place to point the finger. I would normally have to be
more than 50 percent certain of something. But in this case I am
well beyond the necessary burden of reasonable doubt that it was
industrial exposure. I am more than 90 percent sure that Alan
Smith died after being exposed to asbestos during his job."

After the inquest, Stephen Smith said that a compensation claim
had begun while his father was still alive. He said, "This makes
things much easier now because we have a death certificate
stating that the asbestos exposure was the reason for his
death."

The verdict was that Mr. Smith had died from an industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LegalView Reminds Kans. Residents of Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
LegalView.com reminded Kansas residents to be aware of the risk
for asbestos exposure associated with cleaning up debris after a
severe storm season, which left homes and buildings damaged,
according to a LegalView press release dated June 23, 2008.

LegalView informed mesothelioma blog readers of the preexisting
dangers that can be associated with removing or disposing of
debris that is left in the wake of natural disasters like storms
and tornadoes. Victims in Kansas, who recently suffered from
severe storms, were left with massive amounts of debris in areas
of the state that could be tainted with asbestos.

According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(KDHE), precautions must be taken when removing and disposing of
debris because many homes constructed before the 1980s could
have been built with materials containing asbestos.

Individuals are advised to wear respirators, gloves, coveralls
and hardhats, and to immediately shower and wash after contact
with debris to wash away any dust or fibers that may later
become airborne and inhaled through the lungs.

However, if an individual feels they may have been exposed to
asbestos fibers through cleaning up wreckage, it may be
important for them to seek medical attention as well as to find
a mesothelioma law firm.

Not only mesothelioma lawyers provide reassurance about
potential asbestos-related litigation, but an experienced lawyer
will be able to offer mesothelioma information and resources to
better understand the condition.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruston Gas Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 80-year-old Charles Knott,
who worked as an instrumentation engineer for Ruston Gas
Turbines from 1957 to 1978, was linked to asbestos, Lincolnshire
Echo reports.

Mr. Knott, of Greetwell Close, Lincoln, England, died at his
home on April 22, 2008, a month after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

At some time during Mr. Knott's career, the asbestos roof at the
works in Waterside South, now owned by Siemens AG, was removed
and replaced. The work took several months to complete, causing
him to repeatedly come into contact with asbestos dust.

The inquest heard that Mr. Knott had been planning legal action
against Siemens.

Lincoln and district coroner Roger Atkinson recorded a verdict
that Mr. Knott died due to the industrial disease of
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Workers Still Await Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only 72 of almost 1,000 Marine Atlantic Inc. employees, as of
June 25, 2008, have been tested to confirm their exposure to
asbestos, CBC News reports.

These testings were promised them by their employer in 2007.

Marine Atlantic, which provides the ferry service between
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia posted warnings about asbestos on
one of its vessels, the MV Atlantic Freighter, in October 2007
and promised in November 2007 to test almost 1,000 workers for
exposure.

Sue Irvine, the Canadian Auto Workers union representative for
the employees, said many of the 600 Marine Atlantic workers she
represents worked on the MV Atlantic.

Ms. Irvine said, "There are many [for whom]...this is occupying
their every moment. Wondering if they brought home asbestos to
their family; wondering if they're going to become older and
suddenly very sick from asbestos exposure; wondering what the
company is going to do to look after them."

Ms. Irvine said the people most likely to be affected are still
waiting to be tested, and the results of the testing that has
been done worry her.

Ms. Irvine added, "Out of the 72 people [tested], somewhere in
the ball park of...59...completed the full function testing —
the x-ray and everything. [Of those], there may have been four
or five that showed potential asbestos exposure, with a couple
of those people testing positive for asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Merseyside Primary School Partially Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos during construction work caused the
Thomas Gray primary school, in Merseyside, England, to partially
close its building, Mesothelioma reports.

On June 18, 2008, workers found the asbestos during renovation
work. The amount was much more than anticipated, and school
officials were advised by Janet Atherton, Sefton Council's
director of public health to close the building immediately.

The junior school is expected to remain closed, but the infant
school is still open as no danger is present there.

At Thomas Gray, council members briefed parents of the findings.
They said that according to their tests, students and staff were
not at risk for exposure.

Thomas Gray, a school with 346 students, is in the middle of a
renovation project consisting of the building of four new
classrooms and a refurbishment of the junior school.

Building workers knew to expect asbestos in the building due to
its age, but the investigation showed that they had
underestimated the amount of the cancer-causing material
present.

Ms. Atherton said the council felt closing the school for the
time being was the smart decision because upcoming work would
cause more asbestos to become exposed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dubbo Civic Center Shut Down Due to Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos scare has forced the Dubbo City Council to close the
Regional Theatre and Convention Centre in Dubbo, New South
Wales, Australia, ABC News reports.

A report done in January 2008 and leaked to the ABC on June 24,
2008, revealed damaged asbestos near the ceiling of the stage
area posed a high risk. The council had planned to remove the
asbestos.

Mayor Greg Matthews says now that it has been brought to his
attention the council has launched an immediate investigation.
He said, "I believe this material has been there probably for
tens of years perhaps even since the 1960s when it was built.

"The risk assessor doesn't believe there's any real danger, but
we felt to be on the safe side we will close and have the air
tested which we'll have done by lunchtime today."

Councilor Richard Mutton says he is outraged councilors were not
told about the report until June 24, 2008.

Council general manager Mark Riley says the asbestos is six
meters above the ground. He said, "We didn't view it as urgent,
I mean the whole report was done on the basis of being prepared
for contractor's employees when carrying out demolition
construction ... the whole theatre project, so there's a whole
lot of asbestos that this report is saying that needs to be
either basically taken out or encapsulated."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Botched Cleanup Discovered at Kaluna Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valore Cellars, the owner of the old Kaluna Cellars building in
Smithfield, New South Wales, Australia, say they had no idea
that asbestos had been left at the site for almost a year,
Fairfield Advance reports.

More than a dozen sheets of corrugated asbestos are still piled
on the grounds of the former bottle shop. Residents say the
asbestos was pulled out of the heritage-listed building at a
clean-up last July 2007.

The clean-up was not authorized by Fairfield Council, and was
stopped by Mayor Nick Lalich, Councilor Lawrence White, and
Councilor Del Bennett hours after it started.

Residents complained to WorkCover NSW, who have sent inspectors
out to the site twice in 2007.

When contacted by the Fairfield Advance, Valore Cellars part-
owner Angela Valore said the asbestos would be removed "as soon
as possible."

Councilor Lalich said council officers inspected the site
regularly. He said, "If asbestos is found on private property,
and it is in a condition that may present a problem for the
public or people at the property, council can issue the owners
of the site a notice under the Protection of the Environment
Operations Act to have the asbestos removed."

Councilor Lalich would not determine whether a clean-up notice
would be issued to Valore Cellars, which is listed on Fairfield
Council's heritage register.

In 2005, Valore Cellars submitted plans for the subdivision of
the site which were refused by the council. The building was
partially destroyed by fire in 2006.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norwich Union Pushes Hidden Killer Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Grace, Norwich Union liability risk manager, has warned
trades people not be become complacent about asbestos, bizhelp24
reports.

As the Health and Safety Executive steps up its asbestos
campaign, "Hidden Killer," Mr. Grace said, "Although property
owners have a duty to identify the presence of asbestos and take
steps to reduce the risk, the material can still be present and
workers must be vigilant. The law cannot cover every eventuality
and therefore workers must be aware of the precautions they need
to take.

"The HSE reports that 20 workers die from asbestos related
diseases every week, and contrary to many people's beliefs,
asbestos can be present in any building built or refurbished
before the year 2000."

Mr. Grace warns that tradesmen should work with asbestos if they
have had asbestos training and the work is properly planned and
the right controls and equipment are in place.

As part of Norwich Union's Simply Safety campaign, a
downloadable guide is available at www.nurs.co.uk


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Accident Closes Southend Road for 7 Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
The A127 was closed for seven hours while the emergency services
removed two heavy goods lorries involved in a crash, in which
one lorry contained 14 tons of asbestos, Echo reports.

The A127, also known as the Southend Arterial Road, is a trunk
road in England linking London with Southend-on-Sea.

The A127 was closed from 6:30 a.m. Until 1:30 p.m. on June 24,
2008, following the accident between the Dunton and Fortune of
War turnoffs, in Laindon. This caused 15 mile tailbacks all the
way to Romford during rush hour.

One of the lorries' cabs was badly crushed, when it hit the back
end of another lorry and knocked a giant metal container off its
trailer.

Sub officer Marc Diggory, from Basildon Fire Station, said, "The
road had to be closed for a long time, because it was always
going to take hours to lift two huge heavy goods vehicles and
their cargo off the road."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at El Paso, Colo. Courts Costs $12M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers are removing asbestos at the Terry R. Harris Judicial
Complex, in El Paso County, Colo., in which the two-year
asbestos removal project costs US$12 million, The Gazette
reports.

The project has judges and clerks moving courtrooms, entire
hallways being closed to the public and people generally
scratching their heads as to where they need to go. The complex
has about 4,000 visitors per day.

Courthouse administrator Victoria Villalobos said, "We're doing
everything we can to keep the public informed. The tough part is
that everything will change again in six months."

The asbestos removal project is ongoing in the south, or older,
tower, which was opened in 1972. About a quarter of the tower is
closed to the public now so Walsh Environmental and GH Phipps
construction workers can scrape the asbestos fire retardant off
the steel beams in the ceiling. Half of the third and fourth
floors were sealed off last June 9, 2008.

Don Johnson, GH Phipps project supervisor, said, "There's no way
we can get contamination with these special filters."

Becky Montes, El Paso County's facilities and environmental
manager, said air tests performed since a south tower judge
reported seeing strange dust in the courtroom years ago "never
exceeded" state Department of Public Health and Environment
standards.

Workers in special contamination suits will wet the material,
scrape it off, then dispose of it in a large sealed Dumpster,
said Dan Benecke, Walsh Environmental's project manager.

That Dumpster will be taken to a special landfill that accepts
asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Workers Exposed to Hazard at B.C. Residence
----------------------------------------------------------------
WorkSafeBC says that workers removing asbestos from a residence
in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada may have been exposed to
the substance, Richmond News reports.

A worker, dressed in a white body suit with a ventilator
strapped to his face, can be seen on the balcony. Nearby, the
owner of Tornado Demolition affixes signs to the fence, warning
of the sleeping killer prowling Larkspur Avenue.

The demolition of a house at 4580 Larkspur Ave. was shut down on
a verbal order by WorkSafeBC on June 12, 2008 because it was
suspected the house had asbestos-containing materials on site.

According to the inspection report, the WorkSafeBC officer saw
that "unprotected workers were exposed to asbestos and the area
had uncontrolled asbestos fiber release thereby causing all
materials to become contaminated."

The inspection report cited that the employer or owner of the
property failed to ensure that any hazardous materials found
were safely removed, before he authorized work to begin on
drywall and ceiling texture coat removal at the site. Tornado
Demolition was then called in to do the proper cleanup.

WorkSafeBC only learned of the asbestos-containing home after a
neighbour called the organization to complain.

WorkSafeBC spokesperson Donna Freeman explained that the
organization's 240 or so inspection and investigation officers
look after 500,000 work sites including two million workers
province-wide.

Ms. Freeman explained that unless someone complains or every
homeowner in the province called them to tell them they were
renovating their home, they have no way of knowing about work
sites in homes.

Ms. Freeman added that WorkSafeBC does focused activity on
construction safety issues including asbestos, speaks about
asbestos in the media and provides information about asbestos on
its webpage.

According to Phil Macka of Tornado Demolition, homes built
between 1970 and 1985 are the most likely to contain asbestos,
either in the drywall or as insulation around pipes. The
material can be left in a home safely if it is not loosened.

The real danger is when the material is disturbed -- by
renovations, for example -- because if one of the fibers is
breathed in, it can stay in a person's lungs for years.

A complainant would like asbestos removal to be part of the
permit process for home renovation/demolition process. The
Building Approvals department at the City of Richmond explained
that the city issues demolition permits but stays away from
asbestos removal and leaves that up to WorkSafeBC.

However, according to WorkSafeBC, it is the obligation of the
homeowner to not only conduct a hazard assessment inspection by
a qualified person but if there is asbestos, the homeowner must
hire a qualified asbestos abatement contractor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Campaigners Commend Bill on Pleural Plaques
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos campaigners have applauded a bill, introduced at the
Scottish Parliament on June 24, 2008, overturning a House of
Lords ruling that there could be no compensation for the
asbestos-related condition pleural plaques, The Herald reports.

Fergus Ewing, Minister for Community Safety, said, "Industries
such as shipbuilding and construction contributed to our
nation's wealth in the past. Sadly, however, these industries
have also given many Scots a legacy which still impacts on their
lives today through exposure to asbestos. It is, therefore,
right and proper that we should not turn our back on these
people."

Harry McCluskey, Secretary of Clydeside Action on Asbestos,
stated, "This charity is delighted that the minister has acted
with speed and efficiency."

However, Nick Starling of the Association of British Insurance
said, "To compensate for pleural plaques would fly in the face
of accepted medical opinion, the law lords' ruling, and common
sense."

Iain Ferguson of the Confederation of British Industry in
Scotland said they were "fundamentally opposed" to the bill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Walthamstow Council Bldg. Contains Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found in a council building, in Lockwood Way,
Walthamstow, England, prompting the Health and Safety Executive
to order it to be closed until it is made safe, Your local
Guardian reports.

The building houses a team of council workers and is also used
to store files containing information about people using council
services.

The facility was recently refurbished and Waltham Forest joint
unions health and safety convenor Su Manning has since become
concerned about dust in the building.

An investigation by a council team has now revealed both white
and the more dangerous brown asbestos (amosite) in the building.
Mrs. Manning said, "The building has a corrugated roof and I
know that many roofs contain white asbestos. But there is also
amosite, I don't know how that has got there but it is worrying
because people need access to those files."

Because of the find, the council was obliged to report the
matter to the HSE.

Mrs. Manning fears there could be more HSE orders or
prosecutions against the authority and claimed the council's
corporate helath and safety team, which advises council
managers, will be axed as part of an efficiency review.





                            *********

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  * * *