CAR_Public/080704.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 132
  
                            Headlines

ABSOLUTE CAPITAL: Sued Over Millions Lost In Penny Stocks
AT&T CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma for Cheating On Fees
ATLAS COLD: July 9 Hearing Scheduled for Ontario Suit Settlement
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Defective Homes
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal

CITGO PETRLEUM: Dealers File Breach of Contract Suit in Okla.
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Dec. 12 Hearing Set for $85M Suit Settlement
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Jan. 28, 2009 Hearing Set for Ontario Deal
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for B.C. Suit Deal
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: March 9-10, 2009 Hearing Set for Quebec Deal

E-Z-GO: Recalls RXV Golf Cars Due to Fall Hazard
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Jury Acquits One Lawyer in Wire Fraud Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Fax Machines Due to Fire Hazard
METABANK: Sued in N.H. Over Refused $4.2M Embezzlement Repayment
MINDWARE: Recalls Tracking Explorer Kits Containing Irritants

MOODY'S CORP: Shareholders File Derivative Complaint in N.Y.
MORTGAGE INDUSTRY: NAACP Files Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
NEWS & OBSERVER: Faces N.C. Lawsuit Challenging Layoffs
NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Girls' Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
R&G FINANCIAL: Sept 16 Settlement Hearing Set in Securities Suit

RADIOSHACK: Recalls Power Supplies for Electrocution, Fire Risk
RESCUE MISSION: Sued for Destroying Homeless People's Property
SMITH & WESSON: Faces Mass. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
TELIK INC: Sept. 5 Hearing Set for $5-Mln. Securities Suit Deal
TIME WARNER: Dec. 9 Fairness Hearing Set for "Parker" Settlement

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Illinois Suit Over Abusive Collector Hilco
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Resolves Minnesota Shareholder Lawsuit
VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal
WASHINGTON: Health Dept. Accused of "Opiophobia" in Doc's Suit
WELLS REAL: No Appeals Filed Over Ga. Court Rulings in "Hendry"


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Cadlo Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Richardson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Ford
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Suit v. Treadwell Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor LaConte

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Decision to Favor Mapes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Subject to Mounting Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fiji Council's Cleanup to Cost Nearly $650T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BBC Technician's Kin Gets GBP55T in Payout

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Orders Payout for 17 Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-UNISON Member's Kin Gets GBP140T Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jones Act Suit Filed v. Amoco in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Black's Widow Sues 35 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept Imposes $350 Fine on N.C. School

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Rafter
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Perfection's Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDL Panel Remands McCarthy, Chiasson Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Griffith Action v. Monterey
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite Not to Assume Asarco Legacy Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt OKs Sterlite Request on Asarco Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine S.p.A. Faces 60 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Chiyoda Ward Parking Sites
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tramontozzis Charged for Botched Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept. Report Says NZ Builders at Risk

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Inspectorate Blamed for Work Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradford Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exemption on Clemenceau Granted to Able UK
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 N.Y. Hospitals Lauded for Clinical Trials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurance Group Spends $460,000 for Reforms

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Trackman's FELA Suit Filed on June 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 30 Companies in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Hampers Olympic Stadium Works
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxic Vessel to be Dismantled in England
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MVEI Action v. W.Va. Board, Others Underway
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Civic Center Cleanup to Start in Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Northamptonshire Locals Exposed to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Checks Air Quality at Iowa Cleanup
ASBESTOS ALERT: COE Mfg. to Pay $25T Fine for Cleanup Violations

ASBESTOS ALERT: R.L.R. Investments Pays $227,700 Fine to EPA



                           *********


ABSOLUTE CAPITAL: Sued Over Millions Lost In Penny Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Capital Management and its five directors are facing a
class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado over allegations that it defrauded
investors of "hundreds of millions of dollars of securities in
illiquid U.S. penny stocks in the names of multiple Absolute
Capital hedge funds," CourtHouse News Service reports.

This case concerns an international fraudulent securities scheme
based on the illicit purchases of hundreds of millions of
dollars of securities in illiquid U.S. penny stocks in the names
of multiple Absolute Capital hedge funds.  When the truth about
these purchases was revealed in Sept. 2007, the value of the
hedge funds promptly plunged by up to 40%, or by hundreds of
millions of dollars in the aggregate.

The seven hedge funds involved are:

     -- the Absolute East West Fund Ltd.,
     -- Absolute East West Fund,
     -- Absolute Return Europe Fund,
     -- Absolute Octane Fund,
     -- Absolute Octane Fund LP,
     -- Absolute Activist Value Fund and
     -- the European Catalyst Fund Ltd.

The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all United States investors and foreign investors
controlled or advised by United States residents who purchased
shares of limited partnership interests in the Absolute Return
Fund, the Octane Fund or the Activist Fund within three years
prior to the filing of the complaint and who held their
investments on Sept. 18, 2007.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by
         defendants' acts as alleged;

     (b) whether defendants disseminated false and misleading
         statements in the Offering Memoranda concerning the
         investment restrictions and objectives of the Funds and
         the manner by which the Net Asset value of the Funds
         would be determined;

     (c) whether the defendants violated:

         (i) the Investment Restrictions contained in the
             Offering Memoranda;
        (ii) the Investment Objectives and Policies contained in
             the Offering Memoranda; or
       (iii) the Determination of Net Asset Value as described
             in the Offering Memoranda;

     (d) whether the defendants omitted material facts by
         failing to disclose defendant's relationship with
         Hunter World Markets and Ficeto, and by not disclosing
         defendant's use of plaintiffs' funds to generate secret
         profits for Hunter and himself;

     (e) whether defendants employed a device, scheme, or
         artifice to defraud by using the funds invested by
         plaintiff and the class members to generate secret
         profits for Hunter World Markets and for defendant;

     (f) whether defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in
         issuing the Offering Memoranda that contained material
         misrepresentations of fact and omitted facts material
         to an investment in the Funds;

     (g) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, the proper measure of damages; and

     (h) whether the large investments by the Funds in thinly
         traded, illiquid U.S. penny stocks caused losses to
         plaintiff and the class.

The plaintiff ask the court for an order:

     -- determining that this action is a proper class action,
        designating plaintiff as lead plaintiff, certifying
        plaintiff as the class representative under Rule 23 of
        the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and designating
        plaintiff's counsel as Lead counsel for the class;

     -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and
        the other class members against defendants for all
        damages sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing,
        in an amount to be proven at trial, including
        prejudgment and post-judgment interest thereon;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs
        and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
        and expert fees; and

     -- directing that the clerk enter judgment on behalf of
        plaintiff and the class in accordance with the relief
        requested.

The suit is "The Cascade Fund, LLP, et al. v. Absolute Capital
Management Holdings Limited, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel F. Wake, Esq. (dwake@siplaw.com)
          Sander Ingebretsent & Parish, PC
          633 17th Street, Suite 1900
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-285-5544
          Fax: 303-285-5301


AT&T CORP: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma for Cheating On Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the
District Court of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, over
allegations it defrauds customers by charging them "early
termination" fees even if they cancel services after the term of
their contracts expired, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The named plaintiff, a business, also says AT&T never informed
it there were early termination fees.

The suit is "Michael McElroy, et al. v. AT&T Corp., Case No. CJ-
2008-5951," filed in the District Court of Oklahoma County,
State of Oklahoma.


ATLAS COLD: July 9 Hearing Scheduled for Ontario Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness
hearing on July 9, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final
approval of a settlement in a purported class action lawsuit
against Atlas Cold Storage Holdings Inc., and others, over
allegations that the defendants misrepresented the earnings of
Atlas, causing damages to the plaintiffs.

The hearing for court approval will take place at the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice court house, 361 University Avenue, in
Toronto, Ontario.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed in 2004 against Atlas Cold Storage Holdings
Inc., certain directors and officers of Atlas Holdings, certain
trustees of Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust, Ernst & Young LLP
and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., under Court File No. 04-CV-263289CP.  

The claim is on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Atlas Trust Units during the period March 1, 2002, and August
29, 2003, under the terms of a prospectus offering, on the
Toronto Stock Exchange, or in any other fashion, and held some
or all of those Trust Units at the close of trading on the TSX
on Aug. 29, 2003.


The statement of claim alleged that Atlas' net income for the
fiscal years ended 2001 and 2002 was overstated thereby causing
the Atlas Trust Units to trade at artificially high prices.  It
also alleged that some of the defendants breached section 130 of
the Securities Act and that the defendants were negligent.
The suit seeks damages from the company -- the operating arm of
Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust -- several of its senior
directors and officers, and the trustees of the Trust (Class
Action Reporter, June 16, 2008).

For details, contact

          The Administrator, Atlas Class Action
          Deloitte & Touche LLP
          Suite 1400, 181 Bay Street
          Toronto, Ontario M5J 2V1,
          Fax: 866-808-1384
          e-mail: atlasclassaction@deloitte.ca
          Web site: http://www.atlasclassaction.com/

          Kirk Baert
          Koskie Minsky LLP
          20 Queen Street West
          Suite 900, Box 52
          Toronto, ON M5H 3R3
          Phone: 888-723-4304
          Fax: 416-997-3316
          e-mail: atlasclass@kmlaw.ca

          Joseph Groia
          Groia & Company Professional Corporation
          The Sterling Tower
          372 Bay Street, Suite 1000
          Toronto, ON M5H 2W9
          Phone: 416-203-4471
          Fax: 416-203-9231
          e-mail: ksearman@groiaco.com

               - and -

          Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.
          Stutts Strosberg LLP
          600-251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          Phone: 888-460-0824
          Fax: 866-316-5308
          e-mail: atlasclassaction@strosbergco.com


BEAZER HOMES: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Defective Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sacramento, over allegations it built and sold 173 defective
homes in the Primrose development in Sacramento, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The complaint alleges that the homes have had water damage
inside from, including but not limited to, cracked stucco,
leaking roofs, condensate lines, leaking windows, pipes and
shower assemblies.

Named plaintiff Deborah Gomez brings this action as a class
action on behalf of the owners of approximately 173 properties,
estimated to comprise over 346 total family
members.

The plaintiff ask the court:

     -- for damages according to proof;

     -- for attorney's fees and costs of suit;

     -- for interest at the maximum legal rate;

     -- for prejudgment interest on all sums awarded at the
        maximum legal rate;

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

The suit is "Deborah Gomez, et al. v. Beazer Homes Holdings
Corp., Case No. 34-2008-00013838-CU-CD-GDS," filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          Roshm V. Patel, Esq.
          Shinnick & Ryan LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-239-5900
          Fax: 619-239-1833


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 26, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. to
consider final approval of a proposed settlement by British
Airways PLC and Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., in the matter,
"In Re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation MDL-1793, Case No. 06-cv-01793-CRB."

The hearing will be held before U.S. District Court Judge
Charles Breyer, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue (Courtroom 8, 19th
Floor), in San Francisco, California.

Any objection to the settlement must be made by Sept. 12, 2008.  
Deadline for the submission of claim forms is on Dec. 31, 2012.

                        Case Background

In general, the lawsuit claims that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to fix prices of fuel surcharges imposed on "long-
haul" passenger fares.  

Long-haul flights include all Virgin Atlantic flights and most
British Airways flights between the U.K. and non-E.U.
destinations, including flights to and from the U.S.  All
flights on Virgin Atlantic qualify as long-haul flights.

The suit defines as a class member anyone who bought a ticket on
British Airways or Virgin Atlantic Airways in the U.S. or in the
United Kingdom between Aug. 11, 2004, and March 23, 2006.  These
class members are entitled to a partial refund of the fuel
surcharge.

Recently, a proposed settlement was reached by British Airways  
and Virgin Atlantic.  The settlement resolves the claims of U.S.
Classes and U.K. Classes.

In the U.S., the deal requires the companies to refund up to
$59,007,273 to members of the U.S. Settlement Classes who submit
valid claim forms, with any unclaimed funds being paid to a
charity, Miracle Flights for Kids.

In the U.K., the deal requires the companies to refund up to
GBP73,531,076 to U.K. Class Members who submit valid claim
forms.  In the U.K., British Airways and Virgin Atlantic will
keep refunds that are not claimed.

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esq.
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Epiq Systems, P.O. Box 19263
          Washington, D.C. 20036-9263
          Phone: 1-877-625-9432
          e-mail: info@airpassengerrefund.com
          Web site: http://www.airpassengerrefund.com/


CITGO PETRLEUM: Dealers File Breach of Contract Suit in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citgo Petroleum Corp. is facing a class-action lawsuit before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
accusing it of breaching contract by secretively reducing gas
prices for franchisees in selected areas where it sought
increased sales, cheating the other franchisees, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Stephenson Oil Co. brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
all disfavored distributors of gasoline supplied by Citgo who
signed the Citgo Contract, in the 50 United States, who
purchased gasoline from Citgo from March 30, 2004, to the
present.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Citgo gave the Favored Distributors a lower net
         price for gasoline than it extended to members of the
         class;

     (b) whether Citgo's lower net price to the Favored
         Distributors constitutes a breach of the Citgo Contract
         with the members of the class;

     (c) what damages are available to the members of the class
         under Oklahoma law.

The plaintiff ask the court to:

     -- certify this action as a class action under Federal Rule
        of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);

     -- award plaintiff and the class compensatory damages and
        pre and post judgment interest;

     -- award plaintiff and the class their attorney's fees,
        costs and expenses; and

     -- award plaintiff and the class such further relief as is
        appropriate in the interests of justice.

The suit is "Stephenson Oil Company, et al. v. Citgo Petroleum
Corp., Case No. 08 CV-380 TCK SAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          John E. Dowdell, Esq.
          William W. O'Connor, Esq.
          Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell
          2900 Mid Continent Tower
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: 918-583-7571
          Fax: 918-584-7846


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Dec. 12 Hearing Set for $85M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 12, 2008, at 11:30 a.m. to
consider final approval of the proposed $85,000,000 settlement
by Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss
International Air Lines Ltd. (collectively Lufthansa) in the
matter, "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-md-01775-CBA-VVP."

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Nov. 12, 2008.  Deadline for the
submission of a claim form is on Feb. 12, 2009.

                        Case Background

Initially, several purported purported class action suits were
filed in the U.S. against certain foreign and domestic air
carriers over allegations that they conspired to fix the prices
of airfreight cargo shipping services in violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.

As a result of this alleged conduct, the plaintiffs contend that
they and other members of the class paid more for airfreight
cargo shipping services than they would have paid in the absence
of this alleged conduct.

On June 20, 2006, the cases were later consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re
Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775."

The suit defines members of the class as anyone who purchased or
availed of air cargo shipping services from any air cargo
carrier, for shipments within, to, or from either the U.S. or
Canada.  The class period is from Jan. 1, 2000, to Sept. 11,
2006.

To resolve the claims against Lufthansa concerning airfreight
cargo shipping services within, to, or from the U.S., it has
agreed to pay $85 million for valid class member claims and to
cooperate in the prosecution of claims against the remaining
defendants who are not part of the U.S. settlement.

For more details, visit:

         Air Cargo Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9162
         Dublin, Ohio 43017-4162
         Phone: 1-800-749-3518 (U.S. or Canada)
                1-941-906-4822 (International)
         Web site: http://aircargosettlement.com/

The suit is "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01775-CBA-VVP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Carol
Bagley Amon presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Lee Albert, Esq. (lalbert@magergoldstein.com)
         Mager & Goldstein, LLP
         One Liberty Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-640-3280
         Fax: 215-640-3281

              - and -  

         Steven A. Asher, Esq. (asher@wka-law.com)
         Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-545-7200
         Fax: 215-545-6535

Representing the defendants are:

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

              - and -

         Christian Reginald Bartholomew, Esq.
         (cbartholomew@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius
         200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
         Wachovia Financial Center
         Miami, Fl 33131-2339
         Phone: 305-579-0418
         Fax: 305-415-3001


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Jan. 28, 2009 Hearing Set for Ontario Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness
hearing on Jan. 28, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final
approval of a US$5,338,000 settlement by Deutsche Lufthansa AG,
Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines Ltd.
(collectively Lufthansa) in a lawsuit alleging that the group
conspired to fix the prices of airfreight cargo shipping
services in violation of Canadian competition law.

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Nov. 12, 2008.  Deadline for the
submission of claim forms is on Feb. 12, 2009.

                        Case Background

Several class-action suits are pending against Lufthansa in
three separate Canadian courts: the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Quebec
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in the cases allege that Lufthansa and other air
carriers participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize prices of air cargo shipping services, through a
number of mechanisms, including, inter alia, levying inflated
surcharges, jointly agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting
on prices charged for air cargo shipping, and agreeing on yields
and customer allocations.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result, the Canadian class
members paid substantially more for air cargo shipping services
than they would have paid in the absence of this alleged
conduct.

The case deals in large part with surcharges charged by the
defendants.  Surcharges are fees, in addition to normal air
cargo shipping rates, that air cargo carriers charge to
customers, purportedly to compensate the air cargo carriers for
certain external costs, including, for example, increased costs
for fuel and increased costs related to security measures taken
after the September 2001 attacks in the U.S.  

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a
conspiracy to set the prices of these surcharges, as well as the
yields collected by the defendants.

To resolve the claims against Lufthansa concerning airfreight
cargo shipping services within, to, or from Canada, Lufthansa
has agreed to pay US$5,338,000 into a Canadian Fund that
Canadian Class Counsel will request to be held in trust for the
future benefit of the Canadian Classes.

For more details, visit:

         Air Cargo Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9162
         Dublin, OH 43017-4162
         Phone: 1-800-749-3518 (U.S. or Canada)
                1-941-906-4822 (International)
         Web site: http://aircargosettlement.com/


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Feb. 27, 2009 Hearing Set for B.C. Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of British Columbia will hold a fairness
hearing on Feb. 27, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final
approval of the US$5,338,000 settlement by Deutsche Lufthansa
AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines Ltd.
(collectively Lufthansa) of a lawsuit that accused the group  of
conspiring to fix the prices of airfreight cargo shipping
services in violation of Canadian competition law.

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Nov. 12, 2008.  Deadline for the
submission of a claim form is on Feb. 12, 2009.

                        Case Background

Several class-action suits are pending against Lufthansa in
three separate Canadian courts: the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Quebec
Superior Court.

The plaintiffs allege that Lufthansa and other air carriers
participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of air cargo shipping services, through a
number of mechanisms, including, inter alia, levying inflated
surcharges, jointly agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting
on prices charged for air cargo shipping, and agreeing on yields
and customer allocations.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result, the Canadian class
members paid substantially more for air cargo shipping services
than they would have paid in the absence of this alleged
conduct.

The case deals in large part with surcharges charged by
Defendants.  Surcharges are fees, in addition to normal air
cargo shipping rates, that air cargo carriers charge to
customers, purportedly to compensate the air cargo carriers for
certain external costs, including, for example, increased costs
for fuel and increased costs related to security measures taken
after the September 2001 attacks in the U.S.  

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a
conspiracy to set the prices of these surcharges, as well as the
yields collected by the defendants.

To resolve the claims against Lufthansa concerning airfreight
cargo shipping services within, to, or from Canada, Lufthansa
has agreed to pay US$5,338,000 into a Canadian Fund that
Canadian Class Counsel will request to be held in trust for the
future benefit of the Canadian Classes.

For more details, visit:

         Air Cargo Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9162
         Dublin, OH 43017-4162
         Phone: 1-800-749-3518 (U.S. or Canada)
                1-941-906-4822 (International)
         Web site: http://aircargosettlement.com/


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: March 9-10, 2009 Hearing Set for Quebec Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court will hold a fairness hearing from
March 9 to March 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final
approval of a US$5,338,000 settlement by Deutsche Lufthansa AG,
Lufthansa Cargo AG, and Swiss International Air Lines Ltd.
(collectively Lufthansa) of a lawsuit that accused the group of
conspiring to fix the prices of airfreight cargo shipping
services in violation of Canadian competition law.

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Nov. 12, 2008.  Deadline for the
submission of a claim form is on Feb. 12, 2009.

                        Case Background

Several class-actions are pending against Lufthansa in three
separate Canadian courts: the Supreme Court of British Columbia,
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Quebec Superior
Court.

The plaintiffs allege that Lufthansa and other air carriers
participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of air cargo shipping services, through a
number of mechanisms, including, inter alia, levying inflated
surcharges, jointly agreeing to eliminate or prevent discounting
on prices charged for air cargo shipping, and agreeing on yields
and customer allocations.

They allege that, as a result, the Canadian class members paid
substantially more for air cargo shipping services than they
would have paid in the absence of this alleged conduct.

The case deals in large part with surcharges charged by
Defendants.  Surcharges are fees, in addition to normal air
cargo shipping rates, that air cargo carriers charge to
customers, purportedly to compensate the air cargo carriers for
certain external costs, including, for example, increased costs
for fuel and increased costs related to security measures taken
after the September 2001 attacks in the U.S.  

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a
conspiracy to set the prices of these surcharges, as well as the
yields collected by the defendants.

To resolve the claims against Lufthansa concerning airfreight
cargo shipping services within, to, or from Canada, Lufthansa
has agreed to pay US$5,338,000 into a Canadian Fund that
Canadian Class Counsel will request to be held in trust for the
future benefit of the Canadian Classes.

For more details, visit:

         Air Cargo Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9162
         Dublin, OH 43017-4162
         Phone: 1-800-749-3518 (U.S. or Canada)
                1-941-906-4822 (International)
         Web site: http://aircargosettlement.com/


E-Z-GO: Recalls RXV Golf Cars Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------
E-Z-GO, of Augusta, Ga. (a Textron Company), in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
16,500 RXV Golf Cars.

The company said the hip restraints on the cars can detach at
the base, posing a fall and injury risk to consumers.

E-Z-GO has received 20 reports of hip restraints breaking,
including nine reports of broken bones and abrasions from falls.

This recall involves electric and gasoline-powered Fleet RXV,
Freedom RXV and RXV Shuttle 2+2 golf cars.  The model names and
the E-Z-GO logo are printed on the sides and front panel of all
three vehicles.  Serial numbers ranging from 9300001 to 9300188
and 5000000 to 5021328 are printed on a plate attached to the
steering column, and the front and rear frames.

These recalled golf cars were manufactured in the United States
and were being sold by E-Z-GO and independent golf car dealers
nationwide from January 2008 to June 2008 for between $7,000 and
$9,000.

Pictures of the recalled golf cars are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08591a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08591b.jpg

Consumers are advised to contact the nearest E-Z-GO dealer to
arrange for a free repair.  E-Z-GO and E-Z-GO dealers are
contacting known owners.

For additional information, contact E-Z-GO at 800-774-3946
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.ezgo.com/


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Jury Acquits One Lawyer in Wire Fraud Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury acquitted one attorney of defrauding clients in a
diet-drug settlement, but was sent back to deliberate on two
others, The Associated Press reports.

According to the AP's Brett Barrouquere, jurors acquitted
Melbourne Mills of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.  However,
the panel was given instructions to keep considering the case
against attorneys William Gallion and Shirley Cunningham Jr.,
who face the same charge.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2008, and
in other earlier reports, the three lawyers were accused of
taking more than $65 million from their former clients in a suit
settlement.  Specifically, Messrs. Gallion, Mills, and
Cunningham are accused of taking $65 million more than what
their individual contracts with 440 clients said they should
receive.  Specifically, court records say that the lawyers were
entitled to about $60 million in fees, but took an additional
$45 million and put another $20 million into a charity they
created and controlled.

Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Cunningham have been held in jail
since August 2007.  The Kentucky Bar Association has already
suspended the lawyers.  A judge in a civil lawsuit regarding the
same fen-phen settlement has said the lawyers have to repay at
least $42 million to their former clients, the CAR report said,
citing an earlier Associated Press report.

The verdict on Mr. Mills came in the sixth day of deliberations,
just after jurors sent a note to the judge saying that they
could not reach a unanimous verdict on all the defendants, the
AP report says.

Mr. Mills' attorney, Jim Shuffett, Esq., told the AP that he was
pleased, but said he could not pinpoint what part of his defense
had swayed the jury.

According to the report, Mr. Mills still faces a civil lawsuit
from 414 former clients in state court.  Messrs. Gallion and
Cunningham are also defendants in that case.

Prosecutors said in closing arguments that the lawyers were
motivated by greed when they took a $127 million payment to
settle a 2001 lawsuit in which they should have been paid
$60 million.  Defense attorneys said the lawyers didn't commit
any crimes and any mistakes in the settlement were
unintentional.

The AP notes that Mr. Shuffett argued that Mr. Mills was "a bad
alcoholic" who was unable to form the intent to defraud his
clients out of settlement money.

Much of the six-week trial focused on how the class-action
settlement was handled, the report points out.

Mr. Gallion testified for the defense, at one point telling
jurors that he, Messrs. Cunningham and Mills would have been
justified in keeping $170 million of the money.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Fax Machines Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co., of Palo Alto, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
367,000 units HP Fax 1010 and 1010xi Machines.

The company said an internal electrical component failure can
cause overheating of the product posing a risk of burn or fire.

Hewlett-Packard has received three reports of overheating
including two in the U.S. resulting in minor property damage.  
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the HP Fax 1010 and HP Fax 1010xi models
manufactured from November 2002 through September 2004.  The HP
logo and the model name and number are printed on the front of
the fax machine.

These recalled fax machines were manufactured in China and were
being sold at electronic, computer and camera stores nationwide,
as well as Web retailers from November 2002 through December
2004 for between $130 and $150.

A picture of the recalled fax machines is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08313.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately disconnect the recalled fax
machine from the electrical power source and contact HP to
receive a rebate.

For additional information, contact HP toll-free at 888-654-9296
between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. MT Monday through Friday, or
visit HP's Web site at http://www.hp.com/go/fax1010recall


METABANK: Sued in N.H. Over Refused $4.2M Embezzlement Repayment
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetaBank of Iowa is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire over
allegations that it refuses to repay an embezzled $4.2 million,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Guardian Angel Credit Union, of Berlin, N.H., that MetaBank
allowed an employee to embezzle $4.2 million in deposits, and
has refused to reimburse the customers from whom she stole the
money.

The credit union claims MetaBank admits that its employee
Charlene Pickhinke absconded with the money, including Guardian
Angel's $99,000.

The credit claims MetaBank admits that Ms. Pickhinke stole
$99,000 deposits from 50 MetaBank customers, and it has refused
to refund any of the money, or interest owed on it.

It claims Ms. Pickhinke stole the money over three years.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of all other persons or entities residing or doing
business within the United States who satisfy the following
criteria:

     (i) the class member made a deposit with MetaBank, or any
         employee, representative or agent thereof, with the
         intention of receiving a certificate of deposit from
         such institution;

    (ii) MetaBank, or any employee, representative or agent
         thereof, issued the class member a certificate of
         deposit on account of such deposit;

   (iii) MetaBank believes, or the available evidence indicates,
         that a MetaBank employee, representative or agent,
         whether current or former, has absconded with the
         deposit made by the class member; and

    (iv) as of the date of the complaint, MetaBank has failed to
         repay the class member the deposit which it made or any
         accrued interest.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether MetaBank's actions and conduct constitute a
         breach of contract;

     (b) whether MetaBank's actions and conduct constitute a
         negligence on its behalf, or on behalf of its officers
         and management;

     (c) whether MetaBank is vicariously liable for the unlawful
         actions of its employee; and

     (d) whether MetaBank's insurance coverage is applicable to
         the claims of the class members.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an award in the amount of its damages;

     -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and

     -- any further relief which this court deems appropriate.

The suit is "Guardian Angel Credit Union, et al. v. MetaBank et
al," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher T. Meier, Esq.
          (cmeier@coopercargillchant.com)
          Cooper Cargill Chant, PA
          29563 White Mountain Highway
          North Conway, NH 03860
          Phone: 603-356-5439
          Fax: 603-356-76-975


MINDWARE: Recalls Tracking Explorer Kits Containing Irritants
-------------------------------------------------------------
MindWare, of Roseville, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,200
Animal Tracking Explorer Kit.

The company said the powder in the kit marked "plaster of paris"
is actually calcium hydroxide, which poses a risk of skin and
eye irritation to children using the product.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled "Animal Tracking Explorer Kit" includes a bag of
white powder marked "plaster of paris" which is actually calcium
hydroxide.  It also includes nature study tools and equipment
(field lens, specimen jars and bags, labels, puff bottle,
plastic gloves, spatula, cardboard strips, paper clips, mixing
pot, tweezers, spoon, notebook) and Explorer Guide.

These recalled Animal Tracking Explorer Kits were manufactured
in China and were being sold at the firm's Web site --
http://www.MindWareOnline.com/-- and by MindWare's catalog from  
September 2007 through December 2007 for about $25.

A picture of the recalled Animal Tracking Explorer Kits is found
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08298.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled explorer
kit away from children and contact MindWare to receive either a
free replacement product or for a full refund.

For additional information, contact MindWare at 800-588-1072
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT, or e-mail at
custserv@mindware.com


MOODY'S CORP: Shareholders File Derivative Complaint in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corp. and its directors are facing a derivative
complaint before the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York over allegations that they "reaped millions
in fees for assigning ratings to subprime mortgage-backed
securities," and gave high ratings to risky investments,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Plaintiff Brockton Contributory Retirement System files this
Shareholder Derivative Complaint on behalf of the Company
against certain of its officers and directors seeking to remedy
the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty from October 2006 to
the present, that have caused substantial financial losses to
Moody's and other damages, including, but not limited to, its
reputation and goodwill.

According to its public filings, Moody's, through its
subsidiaries, provides credit ratings, research, and analysis
covering fixed-income securities, other debt instruments and the
entities that issue such instruments in the global capital
markets.

Among other things, the Company assigns ratings to mortgage
bonds comprising risky "subprime" home loans, including bonds
packaged as "collateral debt obligations" and other securities
backed by subprime assets.  Investors rely on these ratings to
assess the value and risk of these investments.  While the
nation's housing market was booming, the Company reaped millions
of dollars in fees for assigning ratings to subprime mortgage-
backed securities.

The plaintiff brings this action derivatively in the right and
for the benefit of Moody's to redress injuries suffered, and to
be suffered, by Moody's as a direct result of the breaches of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment, as well
as the aiding and abetting thereof, by the defendants, Moody's
is named as a nominal defendant solely in a derivative capacity.

The plaintiff demands judgment:

     -- against all defendants and in favor of the Company for
        the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a
        result of the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties;

     -- directing Moody's to take all necessary actions to
        reform and improve its corporate governance and internal
        procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect
        the Company and its shareholders from a repeat of the
        damaging events described herein, including, but not
        limited to, putting forward for shareholder vote
        resolutions for amendments to the Company's By-Laws or
        Articles of Incorporation and taking such other action
        as may be necessary to place before shareholders for a
        vote a proposal to strengthen the Board's supervision of
        operations and develop and implement procedures for  
        greater shareholder input into the policies and
        guidelines of the Board.

     -- awarding to Moody's restitution from the defendants, and
        each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits,
        benefits and other compensation obtained by the
        defendants;

     -- awarding to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the
        action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
        accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses; and

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

The suit is "Brockton Contributory Retirement System, et al. v.
Raymund W. McDaniel Jr., et al., Case No. 08601910," filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. (Ctrinko@trinko.com)
          Wai K. Chan, Esq.
          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


MORTGAGE INDUSTRY: NAACP Files Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The NAACP is filing a class action lawsuit and holding rallies
in multiple cities alleging discrimination based on race.

The defendants are:

     -- Washington Mutual, Inc.,
     -- Citimortgage, Inc.,
     -- HSBC Finance Corporation,
     -- GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC,
     -- GMAC Residential Capital,
     -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
     -- Chase Bank USA NA,
     -- Fremont Investment & Loan,
     -- Option One Mortgage Corporation,
     -- WMC Mortgage Corporation,
     -- Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
     -- Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. (Encore Credit)
     -- First Franklin Financial Corporation,
     -- National City Corporation,
     -- First Tennessee Bank dba First Horizon National Corp.,
     -- Long Beach Mortgage Company, and
     -- Suntrust Mortgage.

"The only difference between the victims in this case and other
customers is the color of their skin," said Brian Kabateck, who
is co-lead counsel on the suit.  "They had the same credit, the
same income and the same qualifications.  But because they were
African American, they were ripped off."

Discriminatory loans are not just affecting individual
borrowers, but entire families and communities as well.

"Owning a home means much more than not paying rent.  Home
ownership is the key to building the wealth that pays for
college, supports retirement, and is reinvested in communities,"
said NAACP Interim President & CEO Dennis Courtland Hayes.
"Discrimination is keeping communities and the next generation
of young people from moving forward."

Recent research, including federal data, proves the rampant
discrimination in mortgage lending:

    * A July 2007 report by Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan
      Mortgage Corporation) showed that minority borrowers pay
      higher annual percentage rates on mortgage loans than non-
      minorities with equal income and credit risk.  For
      instance, in 2005, African American borrowers paid an
      average of 128 basis points more for loans than their
      white counterparts.  In the subprime market, the
      difference was even greater -- 275 basis points more.

    * A 2006 Center for Responsible Lending study that found  
      when income and credit risk were equal, African-Americans
      were 31% to 34% more likely to receive higher-rate, more
      expensive subprime loans than Caucasians.

    * A 2008 study by United for a Fair Economy finds cites
      federal data showing people of color are more than three
      times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans
      account for 55% of loans to African Americans, but only
      17% of loans to Caucasians.

      The study also estimated losses of between $164 billion
      and $213 billion for subprime loans taken by people of
      color during the past eight years.  This is thought to be
      "the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern
      US history."

    * The National Community Reinvestment Coalition found in
      2006 that lending institutions in six major metropolitan
      areas were engaged in "pervasive discriminatory and
      predatory practices" involving high-cost subprime loans to
      African-Americans.  The metro areas were: Baltimore,
      Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis and Atlanta.

      In addition to finding discrimination nationwide, the
      study found that people of all income levels -- not just
      low or middle -- were victimized.  For example, the study
      found that in Boston, 73% of high income ($92,000 to
      $152,000 annual salary) African Americans received
      subprime loans in 2005.

    * The Federal Reserve Board has concluded that African
      Americans were more likely to pay higher prices for
      mortgages than their Caucasian counterparts.  The United
      States Inspector General cited the Federal Reserve Board
      report as showing "significant" differences, making it
      "clear" that African-Americans were "much more likely to
      get higher-priced loans" than Caucasians.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest
civil rights organization.  Its members throughout the United
States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights
in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and
monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.


NEWS & OBSERVER: Faces N.C. Lawsuit Challenging Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------
The News & Observer Co. is facing a class-action complaint
before the General Court of Justice in North Carolina
challenging its layoffs, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all print subscribers to
the News & Observer and all of McClatchy Company's daily
newspapers as of June 16, 2008, when the defendants let it be
known in its June 17, 2008 edition that the company would begin
subtantial cuts in its workforce.

A subscriber filed the class action suit claiming its plan to
lay off 70 workers will deliver an inferior product to customers
who subscribed before the layoffs began on June 17 -- part of
1,400 layoffs in the McClatchy newspaper chain.

Keith Hempstead, Esq., an attorney and a former newspaper
reporter, said McClatchy's buyouts and layoffs will eliminate
daily editions for some areas, including as the Durham edition
to which he subscribes.

The News & Observer announced on June 16, 2008, that the paper
will have fewer sections and the ones that remain will be
thinner.  

Mr. Hempstead says he would not have renewed his subscription in
late May if he knew the layoffs were coming.  He claims the News
& Observer and McClatchy breached contract.

Mr. Hempstead requests that the court:

     -- issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
        the defendant, its agents, successors, employees,
        attorneys and those acting in concert with it and at its
        direction from engaging in the unlawful practices set
        forth in the complaint and from continuing further
        practices shown to be in violation of the applicable
        laws;

     -- grant such other and further relief as may be just and
        proper such as treble damages to plaintiff and the
        members of the class he represents; and

     -- award plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable
        attorney's fees and expenses, where provided for in
        statute pursuant to which suit is brought.

The suit is "Keith Hempstead et al. v. The News & Observer Co.
et al., Case No. 08CV011054," filed in the General Court of
Justice in North Carolina.

To contact Mr. Hempstead:

          Keith Hempstead
          1409 Logan Street
          Durham, NC 27704
          Phone: 919-455-5984


NORDSTROM INC: Recalls Girls' Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom Inc. of Seattle, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,500  
Nordstrom's Cadence-Lea and Trio-Lea Girl's Sandals.

The company said the flower embellishments on the sandals can
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled girl's sandals are leather with attached leather
flowers and were sold under the "Cadence-Lea" and "Trio-Lea"
names.  "Cadence-Lea" sandals are white, light green or silver.
"Trio-Lea" sandals are white or silver.  They were sold in
girls' sizes 5 through 12. Nordstrom is printed on the sandals.

These recalled girls' sandals were manufactured China and were
being sold exclusively at Nordstrom stores nationwide from March
2008 through May 2008 for about $30.

Pictures of the recalled girls' sandals are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08311a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08311b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take the recalled sandals away from
children immediately and return the sandals to any Nordstrom
store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Nordstrom at 800-804-0806
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.nordstrom.com/


R&G FINANCIAL: Sept 16 Settlement Hearing Set in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has scheduled a hearing at 3:00 p.m. on September 16, 2008, to
consider approval of the settlement agreement in the case "In Re
R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-
Civ.4186 (JES)."

There are two proposed settlements that together will resolve
the Action if they are approved by the Court:

     -- one is for $39 million in cash to resolve the Class's
        claims against R&G and certain of its former officers
        and directors; and

     -- the other settlement is for $12 million in cash to
        resolve the Class's claims against R&G's independent
        outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The suit is filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
R&G between Jan. 21, 2003, and Nov. 2, 2007, inclusive, and were
allegedly injured thereby.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on September 2,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on September 26, 2008,

                        Case Background

On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial claiming that the  
financial holding company issued false and misleading financial  
statements to the investing public.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the  
Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of  
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased  
R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and including
April 25, 2005.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)  
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules  
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.  
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were  
materially false and misleading when made because defendants  
failed to disclose:  

     -- that the company's earnings quality had been  
        significantly weakened by the company's use of more  
        aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income,  
        as well as to the value it retained in its interest only  
        residuals in securitization transactions;  

     -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value  
        of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused  
        the company to overstate its financial results by at  
        least $50 million;  

     -- that the company's financial statements were not  
        prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted  
        Accounting Principles;  

     -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and  
        was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial  
        condition of the company; and  

     -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income  
        and financial results were materially overstated at all  
        relevant times.

On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the  
investing public when it announced that it would restate its  
earnings for 2003 and 2004.

On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to  
close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low.

On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead  
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with court.  Judge John  
Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25, 2005 and, on July 26,  
signed an Order consolidating all related cases into one  
class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities  
Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing  
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, according to an update posted  
by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &  
Pucillo (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006).

In March, R&G reached an agreement in principle to settle all
claims with the lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action
originally filed in 2005 (class Action Reporter, March 4, 2008).


RADIOSHACK: Recalls Power Supplies for Electrocution, Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
160,000 13.8V DC Power Supplies.

The company said the recalled power supplies are wired
incorrectly, posing electrocution and fire hazards.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves RadioShack 13.8V DC Power Supplies, catalog
numbers 22-507 and 22-508 with date codes from 08A04 through
01A08.  Date code format is MMAYY where MM is the month and YY
is the year.  The catalog number and date code are located on
the back of the power supply.  Power Supplies with a green dot
on the product and the product's packaging have already been
repaired and are not included in the recall.

These recalled power supplies were manufactured in China and
were being sold at RadioShack stores nationwide from October
2004 through January 2008 for between $50 and $85.

Pictures of the recalled power supplies are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08319a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08319b.jpg

Consumers are advised to unplug the recalled power supply
immediately and take it to any RadioShack store for a free
repair.  Registered owners of the recalled power supplies will
be mailed a notice.

For additional information, contact RadioShack at 800-843-7422
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.radioshack.com/recall


RESCUE MISSION: Sued for Destroying Homeless People's Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed against the Rescue Mission in Fresno for
allegedly taking and destroying properties of homeless people,
Mike Rhodes writes for Indybay.  

The suit, according to the report, was filed in the Fresno
County Superior Court by six homeless people who allege that the
Rescue Mission -- a homeless shelter in downtown Fresno -- has
taken and destroyed personal belongings that are critical to
their survival, such as clothing, medication, tents and
blankets, as well as irreplaceable personal possessions, such as
family photographs, identification, personal records and
documents.

Through the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking to be
compensated for their losses.

Indybay recounts that a similar class action lawsuit by homeless
people was settled earlier.  Under the settlement, homeless
people were given $2.3 by the City of Fresno and Caltrans.  The
city and Caltrans admitted taking and destroying homeless
people's property and agreed to settle the case before it went
to trial.  This, according to the report, was the largest
settlement of its kind in the United States.

Indybay points out that for the last several years, Rescue
Mission CEO Larry Arce has directed his staff to take and
destroy homeless people's property.  In October 2006, when he
was called as a witness in the federal lawsuit, he said "we
clean the street in front of the Rescue Mission every day and
throw everything away that is left behind."  When asked if they
would throw someone's property away if they had left it in a
cart in front of the mission while they got a warm meal, he said
"if someone leaves their property in front of the Fresno Rescue
Mission, they have no sense."

Mr. Arce said they have thrown many shopping carts full of
homeless people's possessions away over the last several years.


SMITH & WESSON: Faces Mass. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's
June 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008.

Initially, three lawsuits were filed.  These suits are:

       -- "William Hwang v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et
          al.;"

       -- "Joe Cranford v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et
          al.;" and

       -- "Joanne Trudelle v. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., et
          al."

The three cases are purported securities class action suits
brought individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of the company between June 15 and Dec. 6, 2007.

The putative plaintiffs seek unspecified damages against the
company, its officers, and its directors for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the plaintiffs in each of the actions filed
motions for consolidation and to appoint lead class plaintiffs
and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

On April 15, 2008, these three cases were consolidated under the
caption "In re Smith and Wesson Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation."  The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the putative class.

On May 30, 2008, Oklahoma Firefighters filed a consolidated
class action complaint seeking unspecified damages against the
company and several officers and directors for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.  

The consolidated suit is "William Hwang, et al. v. Smith &
Wesson Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-30238-MAP,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Michael A. Ponsor presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-542-8300
          Fax: 617-542-1194

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          John A. Sten, Esq. (stenj@gtlaw.com)
          Greenberg Traurig, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-310-6283
          Fax: 617-310-6001

               - and -

          Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Esq. (fdibble@bulkley.com)
          Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas, LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          P.O. Box 15507
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Phone: 413-272-6246
          Fax: 413-272-6804


TELIK INC: Sept. 5 Hearing Set for $5-Mln. Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 5, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. to
consider final approval of a proposed $5,000,000 settlement in
the matter, "In re Telik Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:07-cv-04819-CM."

The hearing will be held before Judge Colleen McMahon at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, in 500 Pearl
St., Courtroom 21B, New York.

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Aug. 8, 2008.  Deadline for the
submission of proofs of claim is on Sept. 6, 2008.

                        Case Background

Starting on June 6, 2007, a series of putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced against Telik and certain of its
current officers, one of whom is also a director (Class Action
Reporter, March 18, 2008).  

The suits were filed either before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York or before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaints filed in New York also named as defendants the
underwriters for the company's November 2003 and January 2005
stock offerings.  

The plaintiffs in the California cases subsequently voluntarily
dismissed their complaints without prejudice.  

All of the complaints allege violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising
out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements
about the company's business and prospects, including the
efficacy, safety and likelihood of success of the company's drug
TELCYTA.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of purchasers of the company common stock during the
period between March 27, 2003, and June 4, 2007, including
purchasers in the January 2005 stock offering.

In January 2008, the parties to the securities class action suit
reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims.  This
agreement is contingent on a number of factors, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval.

The suit is "In re Telik Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.  
1:07-cv-04819-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. (macfall@bernlieb.com)
          Joseph R. Seidman, Esq. (seidman@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414
          Fax: 212-779-3218

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977


TIME WARNER: Dec. 9 Fairness Hearing Set for "Parker" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 9, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., to
consider final approval of a proposed settlement in the matter
"Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., et al., Case
No. CV 98-4265."

The hearing will be held before Judge I. Leo Glasser, at the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225
Cadman Plaza East, in Brooklyn, New York, Courtroom 8B-S.

Any objection or request for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made by Nov. 24, 2008, and Nov. 10, 2008,
respectively.  Deadline for the submission of claim forms is on
March 10, 2009.

                        Case Background

The case was brought on behalf of anyone who subscribed to Time
Warner Cable at any time between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31,
1998, and was on a list of subscribers whose personal
information may have been sold by the company.

In general, the lawsuit claimed that Time Warner Cable sold
personal information about its subscribers to other companies
that wanted the information to advertise and try to sell you
products and services.

The suit also claimed that Time Warner Cable is required to tell
subscribers how the company collects and uses their personal
information, and that Time Warner Cable failed to do so in
compliance with applicable law.

For more details, contact:

          Time Warner Cable Settlement
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9264
          Dublin, OH 43017-4664
          Phone: 1-800-291-3831
          Web site: http://www.twcsettlement.com/

               - and -

          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Ste 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-268-9345
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          e-mail: info@hbsslaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Illinois Suit Over Abusive Collector Hilco
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. is facing a class-action complaint
before the U.S. District Cuort for the Northern District of
Illinois over allegations that it hired an abusive collector,
Hilco Receivables, to collect nonexistent debts, which it does
through misrepresentation and abuse of credit laws, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Matthew Dalton brings this action to secure
declaratory, injunctive damage relief regarding unlawful credit
and collection practices.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a), 23(b)92) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons who signed
contracts with TMCC providing that in the event of default and
repossession "if you owe more than the net proceeds of sale, and
you have not paid 60% or more of the Total Sale Price at the
time of default, you agree to pay the Creditor the difference
between the net proceeds of the sale and what you owe when the
Creditor asks for it", who defaulted after paying 60% of the
Total Sale Price, from whom TMCC or Hilco attempted to collect a
deficiency.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the contract language bars a deficiency
         following a repossession if over 60% of the Total Sale
         Price has been paid;

     (b) whether Hilco violated the FDCPA by attempting t
         collect nonxistent debts; and

     (c) whether Hilco violated the Illinois Collection Agency
         Act by attempting to collect nonexistent debts.

The plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment in his
favor for:

     -- appropriate actual, punitive and statutory damages;

     -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit;

     -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper.

The suit is "Matthew Dalton, et al. v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation et al., Case No. 08CV3747," filed in the U.S.
District Cuort for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Edelman, C ombs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-739-4200
          Fax: 312-419-0379


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Resolves Minnesota Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group reached an agreement in principle with lead
plaintiff California Public Employees' Retirement System and
plaintiff class representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting
Industry Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of
the class, to settle the federal securities class action lawsuit
arising from the consolidated amended complaint filed on
December 8, 2006, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors relating to its historical stock options practices.
    
The lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the California Public Employees
Retirement System.  It claimed that investors were hurt because
UnitedHealth and its then-chairman and chief executive officer,
William McGuire, didn't really grant stock options when they
said they did in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  Mr. McGuire
stepped down, and UnitedHealth was forced to restate profits
back to 1994 by $1.5 billion before taxes.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge James Rosenbaum granted
class-action status to a shareholder lawsuit over stock options
backdating at UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH) (Class Action
Reporter, March 20, 2008).

In the order, Judge Rosenbaum certified the class as anyone who
bought or otherwise acquired UnitedHealth Group's publicly
traded securities between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006,
including those buyers who also held UnitedHealth stock during
the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 UnitedHealth proxy
solicitations and those who acquired UnitedHealth's stock in or
related to its Dec. 20, 2005 merger with PacifiCare Health
Systems (Class Action Reporter, March 24, 2008).

Under the terms of the recently proposed settlement,
UnitedHealth Group will pay $895 million into a settlement fund
for the benefit of class members.

"This is a significant agreement that resolves a major issue
before our company in a way that is in the best interests of our
shareholders and other stakeholders," said Thomas L. Strickland,
chief legal officer of UnitedHealth Group.  "The settlement
provides UnitedHealth Group with certainty and closure on this
lawsuit, avoids potentially costly and protracted litigation and
allows us to continue to focus on providing Americans with high-
quality, affordable health care solutions."

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the Company, all current officers and directors named in the
lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors named in the
lawsuit.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by CalPERS' board
of directors, UnitedHealth Group's board of directors, the
completion of final documentation and preliminary and final
court approval.  Neither the Company nor any of the individuals
admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement
agreement.  In addition to the payment to the settlement fund,
the Company will also supplement the substantial changes that it
has already implemented in its corporate governance policies and
practices with additional changes and enhancements.  These
actions are fully consistent with the Company's ongoing
commitment to leadership in corporate governance.
Separately, the Company also announced today it has reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act class action litigation relating to the Company's
historical stock options practices that was originally filed on
June 2, 2006, in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, UnitedHealth Group
will pay $17 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of
class members, most of which will be paid by the Company's
insurance carriers.  The proposed settlement, which is subject
to the completion of final documentation and preliminary and
final court approval, will fully resolve all claims against the
Company and all of the individual defendants in the ERISA class
action litigation.  Neither the Company nor any of the
individuals admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement agreement.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, UnitedHealth Group Inc.
(NYSE: UNH) -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/-- is a
diversified health and well-being company which offers offers a
broad spectrum of products and services through six operating
businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise,
Specialized Care Services and Ingenix.  Through its family of
businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million
individuals nationwide.


VIRGIN ATLANTIC: Sept. 26 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 26, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider final approval of the proposed settlement by Virgin
Atlantic Airways, Ltd., and British Airways PLC in the matter,
"In Re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation MDL-1793, Case No. 06-cv-01793-CRB."

The hearing will be held before Judge Charles Breyer at the U.S.
District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue (Courtroom 8, 19th
Floor), in San Francisco, California.

Any objection to the settlement must be made by Sept. 12, 2008.  
Deadline for the submission of claim forms is on Dec. 31, 2012.

                        Case Background

In general, the lawsuit claims that defendants unlawfully
conspired to fix prices of fuel surcharges imposed on "long-
haul" passenger fares.  

Long-haul flights include all Virgin Atlantic flights and most
British Airways flights between the United Kingdom and non-E.U.
destinations, including flights to and from the U.S.  All
flights on Virgin Atlantic qualify as long-haul flights.

The suit defines a class member as anyone who bought a ticket on
British Airways or Virgin Atlantic Airways in the U.S. or in the
U.K. between Aug. 11, 2004, and March 23, 2006.  These class
members are entitled to a partial refund of the fuel surcharge.

Recently, a proposed settlement was reached by British Airways  
and Virgin Atlantic.  The settlement resolves the claims of U.S.
Classes and U.K. Classes.

In the U.S., the deal requires the companies to refund up to
$59,007,273 to members of the U.S. Settlement Classes who submit
valid claim forms, with any unclaimed funds being paid to a
charity, Miracle Flights for Kids.

In the U.K., it requires the companies to refund up to
£73,531,076 to U.K. Class Members who submit valid claim forms.
In the U.K., BA and Virgin Atlantic will keep refunds that are
not claimed.

For more details, contact:

          Kenneth R. Feinberg, Esq.
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Epiq Systems
          P.O. Box 19263
          Washington, D.C. 20036-9263
          Phone: 1-877-625-9432
          e-mail: info@airpassengerrefund.com
          Web site: https://www.airpassengerrefund.com/


WASHINGTON: Health Dept. Accused of "Opiophobia" in Doc's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A doctor filed a federal civil rights class action with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against
the Washington State Department of Health, claiming its
"Interagency Guidelines for Opioid Dosing of non-Cancer Pain"
are invalid, ultra vires, unenforceable, pre-empted by federal
law, and based on irrational "Opiophobia," CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Courthouse explains that Opiophobia is the syndrome of failure
to administer adequate opioid analgesics because of the fear of
producing addiction or toxicity.  The etiology of opiophobia is
multifactorial: Peer pressure (provider and patient), regulatory
agency pressure (real or perceived), and lack of education on
opioids and the fundamentals of pain management all contribute
to its persistence.  Lower socioeconomic groups, younger
patients, and other minority populations are particularly likely
to be its targets; these patients frequently receive lower doses
of opioids but higher levels of scrutiny.  All of these factors
contribute to the underuse of these relatively simple and very
effective medications, due to no fault of the patients.

The other named defendants are:

     -- Peter J. Harris;
     -- Dr. George Heye;
     -- Erin Obenland;
     -- Dr. Frederick H. Dore Jr;
     -- State of Washington;
     -- Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission;
     -- Washington State Department of Health;
     -- Washington Agency Medical Directors Group;
     -- Dr. Gary M. Franklin;
     -- Craig McLaughlin;
     -- Marc Stern;
     -- Michael Arnis;
     -- Dr. Maxine Hayes;
     -- Dr. Nancy Fisher;
     -- Alfie Alvaredo-Ramos; and
     -- Gov. Christine Gregoire.

This action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to
the federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-
2202, under the Civil Rights Act of 1861, 1866, and 1871, 42
U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 & 1986, under the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and
directly under the Constitution of the United States and under
the laws of the State of Washington, for, inter alia,
declaratory, temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive
relief, damages, and such other and further relief as may be
just and proper in accordance with law and equity, from past,
current, and threatened deprivations of plaintiffs' rights under
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
Washington, by the defendants, acting individually and in
concert.

This action arises from official actions on the part of the
senior-most Washington State Health Officials that has gravely
harmed countless numbers of Washington state citizens.  Those
officials engaged in overreaching when, while acting under color
of their authority as state officials, they knowingly crafted
ultra vires public health policy, which they also knowingly
passed off as a form of "apparent" law entitled "Interagency
Guidelines on Opioid Dosing for non-Cancer Pain."

These Dosing Guidelines are based on an opiophobic
discriminatory animus and are irreconcilable with the statutory
mandate for physicians to provide effective treatment for
chronic, nonmalignant pain.  In crafting and publishing the
Dosing Guidelines in contravention of existing law, those
senior-most state health officials completely ignored the limits
of their own statutory authority as well as their fundamental
statutory mission to safeguard the public health.  Instead,
these officials used their authority as senior state public
health officials to create an "appearance of authority" that
would effectively overrule current explicit statutory and
administrative law with which they disagreed.

The plaintiffs request:

     -- that the Court assume jurisdiction;

     -- that the Court certify Plaintiffs' Classes pursuant to
        Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure, as follows:

        CLASS A consists of all persons who reside in Washington
                State who have substantial impairments of major
                life activities (who are persons with
                disabilities within the meaning of the ADA),
                which disabilities have resulted in severe,
                chronic, nonmalignant intractable pain
                syndromes, and who on or after March 1, 2007,
                required opioid pain relieving agents in excess
                of 120 MEQ per day for effective mitigation of
                pain to be prescribed by a Washington-licensed
                physician.

        CLASS B consists of all persons who will in the future
                reside in Washington State and who will have
                substantial impairments of major life activities
                (who are persons with disabilities within the
                meaning of the ADA), which disabilities will
                have resulted in severe, chronic, nonmalignant
                intractable pain syndromes, and who will at that
                time require pain relieving agents in excess of
                120 MEQ per day for effective mitigation of pain
                to be prescribed by a Washington-licensed
                physician.

     -- that the Court appoint Dr. Merle Janes and Jane Does A
        and B as representatives of Class A.  [Additional
        representative Plaintiffs may include Does C-Z or John
        Doe].

     -- that the Court appoint Dr. Janes and John Doe as
        representatives of Class B.

     -- that the Court find that representation of Classes A and
        B is adequate.

     -- that the Court issue a temporary and a permanent
        injunction enjoining State Defendants, Health Official
        Defendants, their subordinates, and their officers,
        successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or
        participation with them, by:

        a. declaring that the Interagency Guidelines on Opioid
           Dosing for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain do not constitute
           enforceable law of any kind and should be stricken
           and removed from all state publications of every
           variety;

        b. declaring that the Pain Patients Individuals and
           Classes are protected by the ADA, that physician
           investigations based specifically upon treatment of
           such Pain Patients are inherently suspect as
           discriminatory in nature under the ADA; and that
           state action that specifically and unduly burdens the
           treatment of severe pain of those classes with no
           meaningful alternatives is unlawful;

        c. prohibiting State Defendants from engaging in any
           practice or activity which discriminates on the basis
           of disability within the meaning of the Americans
           with Disability Act;

        d. prohibiting State Defendants from imposing any
           regulatory scheme or artifice that requires
           Washington licensees to commit unlawful
           discrimination in any manner within the meaning of
           the Americans With Disabilities Act;

        e. prohibiting State Defendants from defaming, or
           encouraging, aiding, abetting, or in any way
           involving themselves in or contributing to any
           conduct whatsoever that may have the current or
           future effect of unlawfully depriving members of
           Classes A or B of access to necessary medical care,
           specifically including, inter alia, applying
           standards of practice not based on science, applying
           standards of practice based on nonmedical concerns,
           failing to sanction medical licensees who currently  
           do so, unreasonably targeting for sanction medical
           licensees who provide such care, applying special
           administrative requirements on such care, or
           sanctioning any medical licensees when doing so would
           create an unreasonable scarcity of such care in the
           local medical community;

        f. declaring that measures designed to treat the pain of
           Members of Class A and B are protected as mitigation
           efforts by the ADA;

        g. declaring that physician investigations based
           specifically upon treatment of such Class Members are
           inherently suspect as having differential impact on
           mitigation measures for persons with disabilities
           under the ADA;

        h. declaring that state action that unduly burdens the
           provision of mitigation measures for members of
           Classes A and B is unlawful under the ADA;

        i. declaring that State action that burdens the
           mitigation measures for members of Classes A and B
           must be narrowly tailored and based upon specific
           scientific evidence that establishes safety and
           effectiveness;

        j. finding as a matter of law that legally conclusive
           evidence of safety and effectiveness is established
           when the FDA approves a drug label;

           1. and further, that state law purporting to impose
              additional conditions or limitations on treatment
              with any pre-existing FDA approved drug label is
              pre-empted as a matter of law;

           2. or, alternatively, that state laws purporting to
              create additional conditions or limitations for
              prescribing any pre-existing FDA approved drug
              relied on for mitigation by people with
              disabilities creates a different and unequal
              health service within the meaning of the ADA; and

     -- that the court declare any additional conditions or
        limitations on the treatment of pain with an FDA-
        approved drug that is imposed by a State in excess of an
        existing drug label regime creates a different and
        unequal health service within the meaning of the ADA;

     -- that the court declare that medically-necessary pain
        care (in the form of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals) when
        there is no effective alternative to be a fundamental
        liberty interest of patients in severe pain;

     -- or alternatively, declare existence of a fundamental
        liberty interest by all patients in a physician-patient
        relationship wherein a physician is allowed to exercise
        his best unburdened professional and scientific
        judgment;

     -- that the court order the Washington Dep't of Health, the
        Washington Medical Quality Assurance Commission, and the
        Governor of the State of Washington as its Chief law
        enforcement officer to take no action against any other
        physician licensee in the State of Washington that would
        have the effect of deterring such licensees from
        providing medically appropriate treatment for patients
        in severe pain now or in the future, in conformity with
        e., above;

     -- that the court order all State Defendants to take no
        other action that would deter the Washington
        medical licensees from providing medically appropriate
        treatment for patients in severe pain now or in the
        future, even when such treatment requires opioid
        medications, and regardless of dosage or length of
        treatment, in conformity with e., above;

     -- that the court order that the Dosing Guidelines be de-
        published and replaced by a specific notice to the
        public disseminated equally as widely as the Guidelines
        were disseminated, of the withdrawal of the Dosing
        Guidelines for any and all legal purposes;

     -- that the court order the Governor as chief law
        enforcement officer, along with the State Defendants, to
        undertake a campaign designed to educate state health
        employees, medical and other health licensees, and the
        general public about the medical imperative to treat
        pain, the nature of Opiophobia, principles of science-
        based appropriate chronic pain treatment with opioid
        medications , the difference between addiction and
        dependence, and the great harm that results from
        applying addiction paradigms and terminology to the
        treatment of chronic pain, with all deliberate speed;
        and

     -- that the court order the defendants to pay the
        plaintiffs the costs of the action and attorney fees, in
        accordance with all applicable provisions of law,
        including but not limited to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
        Section 12205 [ADA Section 505] and 42 U.S.C. Section
        1988.

The suit is "Merle Janes, MD, et al. v. Peter J. Harris et al.,
Case No. CV-08-200-EFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura D. Cooper, Esq. (laura@lauracooper.com)
          Attorney at Law
          808 Lariat Drive
          Eugene, OR 97401
          Phone: 541-302-6527

          William J. Powell, Esq. (bill@pkp-law.com)
          Powell, Kuznetz & Parker
          Rock Pointe Tower
          316 West Boone Ave., Suite 380
          Spokane, WA 99 201-2346
          Phone: 509-455-4151


               - and -

          Kevin P. Byers, Esq. (Kevin@KPByersLaw.com)
          Kevin P. Byers Co., L.P.A.
          107 South High Street, Suite 400
          Columbus, OH 43215-3456
          Phone: 614-228-6283
          Fax: 614-228-6425


WELLS REAL: No Appeals Filed Over Ga. Court Rulings in "Hendry"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to reconsider or notice of appeal has yet to be filed
in connection with the recent rulings issued by the Superior
Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, that effectively concluded
the matter, "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil
Action No. 04A-13051-6."

On or about Nov. 24, 2004, four individuals filed a putative
class-action complaint, captioned, "Hendry et al. v. Leo F.
Wells, III et al.," in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Georgia (Civil Action No. 04A-13051-6) against the Wells Real
Estate Fund I (Partnership), Leo F. Wells, III and Wells
Capital, Inc. (the General Partners), and Wells Management Co.
Inc.

The Hendry Action states that the Partnership is named only as
an allegedly necessary party defendant and that the plaintiffs
seek no money from or relief at the expense of the Partnership.
As of December 31, 2006, Wells Capital had incurred
approximately $866,000 in legal fees, costs, and expenses
related to defending against the Hendry Action.

The indemnification provisions of the partnership agreement
require the Partnership to indemnify the General Partners for
their costs of defending the Hendry Action under certain
circumstances upon the conclusion of this litigation.  

The plaintiffs filed the Hendry Action purportedly on behalf of
all limited partners of the Partnership holding Class B Units as
of Jan. 9, 2002.  

The Hendry Action alleges, among other things, that the General
Partners breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners
by, among other things:

     (a) failing to timely disclose alleged inconsistencies
         between sales literature and the partnership agreement
         relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds;

     (b) engaging in a scheme to fraudulently conceal alleged
         inconsistencies between sales literature and the
         partnership agreement relating to the distribution of
         net sae proceeds; and

     (c) not accepting a settlement offer proposed by a holder
         of Class A Units and a holder of Class A and Class B
         Units in other litigation naming the Partnership as a
         defendant, in which the Court subsequently granted
         summary judgment in favor of the Partnership.

The Hendry Action also alleges that misrepresentations and
omissions in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited
partners caused that consent solicitation to be materially
misleading.  

In addition, the Hendry Action alleges that the General Partners
and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of
a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited partners
relating to an alleged waiver of deferred management fees.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies:

     -- judgment against the General Partners of the
        Partnership, jointly and severally, in an amount to be
        proven at trial; punitive damages;

     -- disgorgement of fees earned by the General Partners
        directly or through their affiliates;

     -- a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of
        an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void;

     -- enforcement of an alleged contract arising out of the
        June 2000 consent solicitation to allegedly waive Wells
        Management's deferred management fees; and

     -- an award to the plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees,
        costs, and expenses.

On Jan. 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.  On
March 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to the
defendants' motions.

Pursuant to orders entered on July 1, 2005, the Court granted
the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on
all counts in the complaint.  On Aug. 3, 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting the Court to vacate and re-enter the
orders to give them an opportunity to file a motion for
reconsideration or notice of appeal.

In February 2006, the Court heard argument on the plaintiffs'
motion to vacate and to re-enter the July 1, 2005 orders.

In August 2005, the defendants filed a motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation.  The plaintiffs then filed a
motion for attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation as to one
of the defenses asserted by defendants.  

On April 20, 2006, the Court held a hearing addressing only the
liability aspects on the defendants' and plaintiffs' motions for
attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Court eventually denied the
plaintiffs' and the defendants' motions to recover attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation.  

The Court also re-entered its July 1, 2005 judgments granting
the Wells defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment on all counts in the complaint, so as to allow the
plaintiffs 30 days within which to file a notice of appeal.

In June 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the Court's Order granting the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment.  

On July 5, 2006, the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal
with respect to the Court's Order denying the defendants' motion
for attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the appeal and cross appeal were docketed in
the Georgia Court of Appeals.  

On July 10, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered a
decision that affirmed the trial court rulings in favor of the
defendants for summary judgment on the main counts I and V
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud or negligence in
communications with limited partners and other conduct by the
General Partners.

The decision also affirmed the trial court's dismissal of count
IV alleging breach of contract in connection with the June 2000
consent solicitation.

The decision reversed the dismissal on two counts, finding that
the plaintiffs had standing to assert as direct claims in count
II alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the General Partners'
decision not to negotiate for a settlement in a prior related
action and in count III alleging that the April 2002 consent
solicitation for approval of an amendment to allow net sale
proceeds to be reinvested in the Partnership's condominium
property, Paces Pavilion, was invalid.

The decision reversing dismissal of counts II and III does not
mean those claims have merit, but only that the plaintiffs have
standing to proceed in an action for either or both of those two
counts.

The Court of Appeals also ruled on the cross-appeal by affirming
the trial court's denial of the defendants' request for an award
of litigation fees and expenses.  

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of this
decision, and on July 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

On July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to
petition the Georgia Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to
review the judgment of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

On Aug. 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court requesting review of
the Georgia Court of Appeals' decision on the breach of
fiduciary duty claims in counts I and V.

The plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari was denied in a
judgment entered by the Georgia Supreme Court on Jan. 7, 2008,
resulting in the successful resolution of counts I, IV, and V.

The trial court adopted the judgment of the Georgia Court of
Appeals in an Order entered in Gwinnett Superior Court on
Aug. 6, 2007.

In November 2007, the Wells defendants filed motions for summary
judgment on counts II and III in the trial court.  The
plaintiffs moved to dismiss count III as moot, and the Court
entered an Order of dismissal with prejudice as to count III.

On April 10, 2008, the Court entered an Order that granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on count II.

The time period for the plaintiffs to file either a motion to
reconsider or a notice of appeal from this Order expired on May
12, 2008.

Absent a timely filed motion to reconsider or notice of appeal,
the case is concluded.  The defendants have not been notified
that either a motion to reconsider or notice of appeal was
timely filed, according to Wells Real Estate Fund I's May 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a  
national real estate investment company.  More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Cadlo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 5, California
reversed the ruling of the San Francisco Superior Court, which
granted summary judgment to Metalclad Insulation Corporation, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Maxyln Cadlo and others on
behalf of Anthony Cadlo.

The case is styled Maxyln Cadlo et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and
Respondent.

Judges Simons, Jones, and Needham entered judgment of Case No.
No. A118866 on June 4, 2008.

Mr. Cadlo sued Metalclad and others for personal injuries
sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos. In March 2005, a
jury returned a special verdict in Mr. Cadlo's favor.

After the verdict, Mr. Cadlo died of his injury on March 24,
2005. Judgment was entered nunc pro tunc as of March 23, 2005.

Metalclad appealed, contending that the evidence of causation
was insufficient, because there was no foundation for the expert
testimony of Charles Ay that Mr. Cadlo was exposed to
Metalclad's insulation while onboard the USS Black, and Mr. Ay's
percipient testimony of the presence of large quantities of
Metalclad products was insufficient.

In June 2007, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment in Cadlo
1, ruling that Mr. Ay's percipient witness testimony was
sufficient to raise an inference of causation.

After the judgment in Cadlo 1 and Mr. Cadlo's death, but before
the Cadlo 1 judgment had become final, the Cadlos filed the
instant lawsuit against Metalclad and others in June 2005,
alleging numerous causes of action for survival, loss of
consortium, and wrongful death.

While the Cadlo 1 appeal was pending, Metalclad moved for
summary judgment on the ground there was insufficient evidence
of causation. With the Cadlo 1 appeal still pending, the court
in Cadlo 2 granted Metalclad summary judgment due to a lack of
causation.

Specifically, the court ruled that there was no foundation for
Mr. Ay's testimony as an expert, and his percipient testimony
that Metalclad supplies arrived at the workplace was not
sufficient to raise a triable issue as to causation,
specifically that Mr. Ay's percipient observations did not give
rise to any inference that Metalclad-supplied insulation was
used onboard the USS Black.

This appeal followed.

The Appeals Court subsequently affirmed Cadlo 1 in June 2007.
Metalclad's petition for review was denied, and the judgment in
Cadlo 1 became final in September 2007.

The Cadlos then filed a motion in the Appeals Court for an order
granting summary reversal of the trial court's judgment in Cadlo
2, contending that Metalclad is collaterally estopped from
relitigating the issue of the legal cause of Cadlo's disease and
death.

The order granting summary judgment was reversed and the
judgment was vacated.

Alan Richard Brayton, Brayton, Purcell, Curtis & Geagan, Novato,
Calif., represented Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Lisa L. Oberg, McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP, San Francisco,
represented Metalclad Insulation Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Richardson
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, reversed the ruling
of a trial court, which dismissed LaShun Richardson's claims
against Foster & Sear, L.L.P. and Scott W. Wert (collectively,
"Foster & Sear") for failing to serve him with notice of suit
under the Texas Deceptive Trace Practices Act (DTPA).

The case is styled LaShun Richardson, Appellant, v. Foster &
Sear, L.L.P., Attorneys at Law, Appellees, and Scott W. Wert.

Judges Livingston, Dauphinot, and Gardner entered judgment of
Case No. 2-07-207-CV on June 5, 2008.

LaShun Richardson's father, Willie Richardson, hired Foster &
Sear to represent him for a personal injury claim resulting from
asbestos exposure. Willie Richardson died before resolution of
the claim.

LaShun Richardson and his sister, Willie Richardson's only
heirs, agreed to allow Foster & Sear to represent their
interests as Willie Richardson's heirs in the asbestos
litigation.

LaShun Richardson, a pro se inmate, sued Foster & Sear on
May 22, 2006, for "negligence, professional negligence, breach
of warranty, breach of contract and gross negligence" and DTPA
violations.

LaShun Richardson alleged that Foster & Sear settled the
asbestos claim without his approval and withheld settlement
proceeds from him.

Foster & Sear filed an original answer and verified plea in
abatement, asserting that LaShun Richardson had failed to serve
pre-suit notice of his claim under the DTPA.

Foster & Sear later filed a motion to abate, and the trial court
abated the suit on Aug. 22, 2006, "until written notice is
tendered to Defendants in accordance with the Texas Business and
Commerce Code."

On Aug. 30, 2006, LaShun Richardson served a one-page letter on
Foster & Sear, stating that he would "submit a claim of
professional liability against you in reference to the
underlying asbestos litigation" for "misrepresentation ... and
fraudulent misrepresentation ... that has formed the basis of my
claim in connection with negligence ... and professional
negligence."

LaShun Richardson did not state an amount of actual damages, but
he stated that he sought exemplary damages of US$1.5 million. He
filed a motion to lift the abatement on Nov. 15, 2006. The trial
court denied his motion on Feb. 20, 2007.

On March 5, 2007, LaShun Richardson served a second DTPA notice
letter on Foster & Sear through their attorney. This second
letter was six pages long and alleged that Foster & Sear settled
the underlying asbestos claim with various defendants but failed
to forward LaShun Richardson's share of the settlement proceeds
to him. LaShun Richardson demanded a total of US$500,000 to
settle the various claims asserted in the letter.

On April 17, 2007, Foster & Sear filed a motion to dismiss
LaShun Richardson's suit, arguing in a single sentence that
LaShun Richardson's March 5, 2007 letter did not meet the
requirements of the DTPA.

On May 22, 2007, the trial court signed an order dismissing
LaShun Richardson's entire suit against Foster & Sear, including
his non-DTPA causes of action. This appeal followed.

In a single issue, LaShun Richardson argued that the trial court
abused its discretion by dismissing his claims.

Having sustained LaShun Richardson's sole issue, the Appeals
Court vacated the trial court's order of dismissal and remanded
the case for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Ford
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), reversed
the ruling of the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court, which had ruled in favor of John Roland and the
Estate of Carolyn Miller.

The case is styled Ford Motor Company, Appellant v. Glenn
Miller, Individually and as a Personal Representative of the
Heirs and Estate of Carolyn Miller, Deceased, Shawn Leann Dean,
John Roland, and Alma Roland, Appellees.

Justices Leslie B. Yates, Guzman, and Brown entered judgment of
Case No. 14-05-00026-CV on June 10, 2008.

From 1954 to 1965, Mr. Roland was a union laborer in Michigan,
and independent contractors hired him to work in numerous
industrial facilities, including Ford's Rouge facility outside
of Detroit. Mr. Roland's job was to repair, tear out, and
rebuild blast furnaces.

Ms. Miller assisted her mother in washing these work clothes and
eventually took over the job when she was about 12 years old.

In 1999, many years after she left home and no longer washed
these clothes, Ms. Miller became ill and was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. She died in 2000.

Chest x-rays for Mr. Roland revealed the existence of pleural
plaques. While pleural plaques is benign and itself causes no
pain, impairment, or symptoms of any type, it increases Mr.
Roland's chances of developing lung cancer in the future.

Appellees sued Ford under Michigan law, claiming that Ford's
blast furnaces contained asbestos, thereby exposing Mr. Roland
while he was working on them, who in turn exposed Miller. The
jury agreed and awarded Mr. Roland US$500,000 and Ms. Miller's
estate and family US$9.5 million.

This appeal followed.

Ford owed no duty to Ms. Miller, and Mr. Roland suffered no
compensable injury and provided no evidence of any damages.

Thus, the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment and
render judgment in favor of Ford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Suit v. Treadwell Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, New York,
cleared Treadwell Corporation, in an asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Robert F. Perdicaro.

The case is styled In re: New York County Asbestos Litigation
Robert F. Perdicaro, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O.
Smith Water Products, et al., Defendants, Treadwell Corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Tom, Mazzarelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny, and DeGrasse entered
judgment of Case No. 3875 on June 10, 2008.

This was an appeal from an order, Supreme Court, New York
County, entered Feb. 25, 2008, which denied Treadwell's motion
for summary judgment.

In opposition to Treadwell's prima facie showing of entitlement
to summary judgment, plaintiffs' evidence failed to raise a
factual issue whether Mr. Perdicaro (a Consolidated Edison Inc.
employee) was present at various Con Edison powerhouses at the
same time Treadwell workers or its subcontractors were
installing alleged asbestos-based insulation on new equipment.

Mr. Perdicaro's evidence was insufficient to raise a triable
issue of fact whether he was exposed to asbestos-based
insulation at any given time at the powerhouses. He admittedly
lacked training in insulating work, and offered no factual
support that would reasonably suggest that the insulation he saw
in use at the time he was purportedly present at the Con Ed
powerhouses was asbestos-based.

The evidence indicated that insulation utilized at these
powerhouses often contained fire/heat-resistant components other
than asbestos.

Although the record indicated Treadwell had ordered asbestos-
content paper, glass-cloth and millboard in connection with Con
Edison's Arthur Kill contract, there was no testimony from Mr.
Perdicaro that he ever observed the use of such materials at the
Arthur Kill construction site.

The Supreme Court found that plaintiffs' evidence in opposition
to the motion was insufficient to raise a factual issue whether
Treadwell's acts constituted a substantial factor in causing Mr.
Perdicaro's alleged lung disease.

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Kerryann M. Cook of counsel),
represented Treadwell Corporation.

Belluck & Fox, LLP, New York (Seth A. Dymond of counsel),
represented Robert F. Perdicaro, et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor LaConte
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st District, 4th Division,
reversed the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
favor attorney Lisa A. LaConte, in an asbestos-related suit
filed by law firm Cooney and Conway (C & C).

The case is styled In re All Asbestos Litigation (Cooney and
Conway, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lisa A. LaConte, as Counsel for
Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC; and Christopher P. Larson, as
Counsel for Defendant Riley Stoker Corporation, Contemnors-
Appellants).

Justices Campbell, O'Brien, and Murphy entered judgment of Case
Nos. 1-06-2163, 1-06-2691 on June 5, 2008.

According to C & C, Cook County asbestos plaintiffs are
typically union journeymen tradesmen who worked at numerous
commercial and industrial job sites over the course of their
careers. All Cook County asbestos cases are consolidated into a
special, segregated calendar called, In re: All Asbestos
Litigation.

On Feb. 27, 2006, C & C filed a motion to compel Warren Pumps to
produce all invoices, records, purchase orders, receipts,  
specifications, bills of lading, sales memoranda, business
records correspondence, publications, sales brochures, manuals,
instruction sheets or any other documents concerning the sales
of Warren Pumps' products to any person or entity in the State
of Illinois, as well as documents indicating knowledge of
hazards relating to asbestos fibers or asbestine particles, from
1948 through 1986.

Ms. LaConte filed a response stating that Warren Pumps
previously provided copies of its answers to interrogatories and
response to request for production to C & C on Oct. 25, 2005.

Ms. LaConte later provided C & C additional copies of the
discovery responses it filed in October 2005, and supplemented
Warren Pumps' original response with documents relating to pumps
sold to specific jobsites at issue in the cases set for trial in
2006.

Ms. LaConte also submitted the affidavit of Roland Doktor, a
Warren Pumps manager and employee since 1978. Mr. Doktor averred  
that Warren Pumps' records were not maintained in a manner that  
allowed them to be searched by geographic region; records for
the State of Illinois were not segregated but, rather, kept
according to the customers who purchased products. C & C did not
file any written reply to Warren Pumps' response.

On May 3, 2006, the trial court granted C & C's motion to compel
Warren Pumps to respond to C & C's request for production.
Warren Pumps objected and moved for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, immediate interlocutory appeal.

On June 13, 2006, the trial court entered an order denying
Warren Pumps' combined motion.

On July 7, 2006, Ms. LaConte filed a motion advising the trial
court that Warren Pumps was unable to comply with the court's
order of May 3, 2006.

On July 11, 2006, the trial court entered an order finding
friendly contempt against Ms. LaConte based on her advice to the
court that Warren Pumps was unable to and refused to comply
further with the order of May 3, 2006. The trial court imposed a
fine of US$1 as a sanction.

Ms. LaConte filed a timely notice of appeal on July 25, 2006.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
compelling Warren Pumps to produce excessive documentation. The
Appeals Court vacated the order to compel, vacate the friendly
contempt citation entered against Ms. LaConte, and remanded this
matter to the trial court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Decision to Favor Mapes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the
judgment of the Labor and Industries Relations Commission, which
favored Anna Mapes, widow of Robert Lee Mapes.

The case is styled Sachs Electric Co., Appellant; TIG Insurance
Company, Appellant, v. Robert Mapes, Deceased; Anna Mapes,
Respondent.

Judges Harold L. Lowenstein, Howard, and Welsh entered judgment
of Case No. WD 68615 on June 10, 2008.

Sachs Electric Company employed Mr. Mapes prior to his death
from exposure to asbestos on Oct. 1, 1987. On Jan. 4, 1994, the
Division of Workers' Compensation ordered Sachs Electric and its
insurer, Transamerica Insurance Company, to pay Mrs. Mapes a
death benefit of US$269.81 per week.

On appeal, the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, on
Nov. 18, 1994, affirmed the amount of the weekly benefit.

On May 29, 2007, Sachs and Transamerica filed an application
with the Commission, seeking review of the death benefit award.
Sachs and Transamerica asserted that they were due credits
against future payments for past overpayment and a credit for an
unspecified March 1999 third-party recovery.

Sachs and Transamerica asserted that, "because of an error,
weekly compensation was paid to Mrs. Mapes in the amount of
US$289.91 or US$20.10 extra each week for multiple weeks. During
other weeks, compensation was paid to Mrs. Mapes in the amount
of US$286.21 or US$16.40 extra each week."

Sachs and Transamerica sought a credit for US$4,184.80 in
overpayments. The Commission dismissed the application for lack
of jurisdiction.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.

Thomas R. Hill, Kansas City, Mo., Sachs Electric Co.

Scott W. Mach, Kansas City, Mo., represented Anna Mapes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Subject to Mounting Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Along with other vehicle manufacturers, Navistar International
Corporation has been subject to an increase in the number of
asbestos-related claims in recent years, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 27, 2008.

In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have
resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in
older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged
presence of asbestos in the Company's facilities.

In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

Warrenville, Ill.-based Navistar International Corporation is a
manufacturer of International brand commercial trucks, IC brand
buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, WCC brand chassis for
motor homes and step vans, and a provider of service parts for
all makes of trucks and trailers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in asbestos-
related cases involving 29 claimants as of June 1, 2008,
compared with 25 claimants as of March 2, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 27, 2008.

The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek
unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company and others.

At this time, the Company is generally not aware of the extent
of injuries allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts
supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's
products.

For the quarter ended June 1, 2008, there were new claims
involving seven claimants, dismissals and/or settlements
involving three claimants and no judgments.

No net costs or expenses were incurred by the Company for the
quarter ended June 1, 2008 in connection with asbestos-related
claims.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Corporation is a
manufacturer of highly-engineered products and materials for the
chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure
markets. The Company produces water transmission lines;
fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals and
corrosive fluids and specialized materials and products used in
infrastructure and energy projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fiji Council's Cleanup to Cost Nearly $650T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Suva City Council, the municipal law-making body of Suva,
Fiji, will be spending nearly US$650,000 to conduct cleanup
operations to remove asbestos from the roof of the municipal
market building, The Fiji Times Online reports.

Council spokesperson Jillian Hicks said the Council had approved
the budget for this project. She said, "Asbestos will be wrapped
in polythene and disposed at the Naboro Landfill on a daily
basis."

Asbestos poses a health risk when the material is broken and
particles are exposed to the environment and inhaled by humans.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BBC Technician's Kin Gets GBP55T in Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
British Broadcasting Corporation, on June 22, 2008, agreed to
pay GBP55,000 to Julie Leach, the daughter of BBC technician
Derek Leach, for Mr. Leach's asbestos-related death, Harrow
Times reports.

Derek Leach, who worked at BBC for 30 years, died in January
2006 from mesothelioma.

The settlement was reached at the High Court wherein BBC agreed
to pay the money to Ms. Leach, of Kingsbury, England. However,
she had attacked BBC for continuing to deny liability in her
father's death, and for fighting the case all the way.

Ms. Leach said, "Thirty years of loyal service and we haven't
even received an apology. When you hear the BBC are paying
Jonathan Ross GBP18 million and they fight so hard over
GBP55,000 it makes you so angry."

Mr. Leach took up the fight against BBC after he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma, and his daughter kept going after his death
at the age of 69.

Mr. Leach had worked for the corporation as a scenery fitter
from 1964 to 1994 and was often asked to clamber around roofs
and tight spaces to make sure scenery remained in place.

Ms. Leach said her father was paid GBP1 a day extra for one job,
soon after he started at the company, to work in a roof space
full of asbestos.

The 44-year-old Ms. Leach moved back to Kingsbury to be with her
father after he was diagnosed with the disease.

Ms. Leach remains angry at BBC for refusing to apologize to her,
and hopes her father's case will act as a benchmark for others
who may have been exposed to asbestos while working for the
corporation.

Gill Munro, BBC spokesman, said, "Our insurers have spent some
time seeking to agree a resolution to the matter. Ms. Leach has
accepted a proposal which she had previously rejected. The BBC
is saddened by the death of Mr. Leach."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Orders Payout for 17 Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor court in the southwestern town of Bergerac, France,
ordered papermaker Ahlstrom Labelpack to pay 17 former employees
compensation of up to EUR85,000 (US$133,800) for lost earnings,
Reuters reports.

Ahlstrom Labelpack forced the 17 workers to retire early because
of asbestos exposure.

The labour court ordered Ahlstrom Labelpack to pay the 17
workers between EUR9,000 and EUR85,000 each for the loss of 35
percent of their earnings up to the legal retirement age.

In addition, the court ordered the Company to pay EUR10,000 for
stress and anxiety to the workers, none of whom has so far
contracted an asbestos-related disease.

If confirmed by an appeal court ruling in September 2008, the
decision could add to compensation costs for asbestos-related
diseases, expected to total between EUR11.7 billion to EUR22
billion over the next 20 years, according to a report to
parliament in 2004.

Jean-Paul Teissonniere, a lawyer for Andeva, an association
representing asbestos victims, said, "It's an important decision
because it potentially concerns several tens of thousands of
people."

Mr. Teissonniere said the ruling could also encourage other
affected workers who had put off seeking early retirement for
financial reasons to now do so.

The former employees already receive benefits equivalent to 65
percent of their salaries from Acaata, a government-backed fund
set up to workers forced to take early retirement because of
asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-UNISON Member's Kin Gets GBP140T Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Jim Crowe, a former UNISON member, has received
more than GBP140,000 in compensation following his death from
mesothelioma, Medical News TODAY reports.

Mr. Crowe, from Wood Green in London, died in June 2007 at the
age of 79. He was exposed to asbestos while working for Greater
London Council (GLC) and Haringey Council.

Mr. Crowe worked as a general foreman for GLC between 1968 and
1971, responsible for supervising 120 men who worked with
asbestos materials.

Mr. Crowe was employed as a clerk of works and senior clerk of
works for Haringey Council between 1972 and 1988 where he was
responsible for supervising employees stripping out boilers
lagged with asbestos. However, he was never given any protection
from asbestos by his employers despite regularly questioning
them about health and safety at work.

Mr. Crowe's daughter, 42-year-old Anita Crowe, said it was
important for her dad to claim compensation. The family decided
to pursue compensation after one of Mr. Crowe's former
colleagues received assistance from UNISON to make personal
injury claims.

Mr. Crowe, who moved to London from County Clare in Ireland in
the 1950s, was formally a shop steward UNISON. Throughout his
employment he fought for safer working conditions for his
workmates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jones Act Suit Filed v. Amoco in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Seaman Edgar Taylor, on June 25, 2008, has filed a Jones
Act asbestos suit against Amoco Shipping in the Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Taylor worked for Amoco in the 1940s.

According to the plaintiff's petition, in 1945, Mr. Taylor was
employed by BP Amoco Chemical Company and BP Products North
America Inc. (Amoco Shipping) as a seaman and member of the
crew.

The suit says, "Plaintiff would show that while the Plaintiff
was working aboard the said vessels, he was exposed to asbestos
dust and/or fibers. Further, Plaintiff would show that he
sustained severe and permanent personal injuries from said
exposure."

Mr. Taylor faults Amoco for failing to provide a safe place to
work and failing to warn him of the highly harmful nature of
asbestos dust and fibers.

The suit says, "The Defendant's . . . breach of warranties and
acts of negligence (have caused) injury to the Plaintiff's
health. Plaintiff has suffered a loss of wages, that he was
unable to continue in his employment as a seaman, due to his
medical condition, an employment that he had been engaged in for
many years, and he was unable to engage in any gainful activity,
and his earning capacity had been greatly and forever
permanently diminished and impaired."

Mr. Taylor also sues for mental anguish and medical expenses,
plus attorneys' fees. He is represented by Provost Umphrey
attorney Colin Moore.

Case No. D181-960 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Black's Widow Sues 35 Firms in W.Va. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steelworker Steve Black's widow, Mary Kathryn Black, on June 5,
2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 35 companies in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Cindy Kiblinger of James F. Humphreys & Associates in
Charleston, W.va., filed the suit in association with the firm
of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C.

The complaint stated that Mr. Black worked for Armco Steel Co.,
an Ohio corporation, but it did not state where he resided or
worked.

Defendants exposed Mr. Black to asbestos dust as a result of
manufacture, sale, distribution, installation and removal of
products that contained asbestos, Ms. Kiblinger wrote.

The roster of defendants included six West Virginia
corporations: McJunkin Corporation, Ohio Valley Insulating,
State Electric Supply, Union Boiler Company, Vimasco
Corporation, and West Virginia Electric Supply.

The complaint alleged at one point that Mr. Black developed lung
cancer, but at another point it alleged that he developed
esophageal cancer.

Mrs. Black seeks punitive damages.

The case has been assigned to a visiting judge, under special
order of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The Court
consolidated all asbestos litigation under circuit judges Arthur
Recht and James Wilson of Ohio County.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept Imposes $350 Fine on N.C. School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Stone Day School, located in Miseheimer, N.C., is to pay a
US$350 fine to the State Department of Labor for an asbestos
breach, SalisburyPost.com reports.

The state has cited Gray Stone, which is on the campus of
Pfeiffer University, for being lax about determining the
presence of asbestos-containing materials in its building and
informing its employees.

According to a citation report from the Department of Labor, the
Harris Science Building, where Gray Stone is housed, contained
asbestos in thermal insulation on steam piping and also in
sprayed-on fireproofing material. The building also contained
lead paint, but the school was not cited for that.

Paul Sullivan, supervisor of the Bureau of Compliance for the
Department of Labor, said the state had received a complaint
about the building. He added that the state determined that
asbestos-containing materials were in the building.

Gray Stone also received a citation, which carries no monetary
fine, for not having a "written hazard communication program,"
the report states. Employees exposed to chemicals must have
access to information about potential hazards.

Another citation, which has no fine, stems from a lack of
employee training about hazardous materials. According to the
report, employees should have been trained on the handling of
acetic acid, iodine, aluminum oxide and dry-board cleaner.

Pfeiffer is now in the process of training its employees about
potential environmental hazards, said Natasha Suber, director of
communications for the university. She added that Pfeiffer also
has plans to assist in training Gray Stone staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Rafter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary
judgment to American Biltrite, Inc., in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Kathleen Rafter on behalf of her late husband
James T. Butler.

The case is styled Kathleen Rafter, as Personal Representative
of the Estate of James T. Butler, deceased, Appellant, v.
American Biltrite, Inc.; Domco Products Texas, L.P.; Kentile
Floors, Inc.; Sea-Pac Sales Company; Sound Floor Coverings,
Inc.; Tile Council of America, Inc.; and First Doe Through One
Hundredth Doe, Respondents.

Judges Cox, Becker, and Grosse entered judgment of Case No.
60203-9-I on June 9, 2008.

In 2006, Ms. Rafter commenced this wrongful death action on
behalf of herself and other beneficiaries of the estate of her
late husband James Butler against several entities, including
Biltrite.

Ms. Rafter alleged that Biltrite manufactured flooring materials
containing asbestos that Mr. Butler used in his flooring
business, and that those products caused Mr. Butler to develop
and die from mesothelioma and other asbestos related illnesses.

Ms. Rafter took the deposition of Douglas Stewart, a former
employee of Mr. Butler. When asked about manufacturers of
asbestos flooring products the company used, Mr. Stewart did not
mention Biltrite. Nor was he asked whether Biltrite was one of
the manufacturers whose products were used.

Biltrite moved for summary judgment on the basis that Ms. Rafter
had failed to produce any competent or admissible evidence that
Mr. Butler inhaled asbestos fibers from Biltrite products.

In response to the summary judgment motion, Ms. Rafter filed a
declaration by Mr. Stewart. In the declaration, Mr. Stewart
stated that he had personal recollection of Mr. Butler
installing Biltrite products sold under the name Amtico.

In response, Biltrite argued that the trial court should not
consider the Stewart declaration because it contradicted Mr.
Stewart's deposition testimony and Mr. Stewart had not explained
the contradiction.

The trial court agreed that the declaration contradicted the
deposition testimony and declined to consider it. The trial
court granted Biltrite's motion for summary judgment. Ms. Rafter
appealed.

The declaration showed there is a genuine issue of material
fact: the potential liability of Biltrite for this claim. It was
not necessary for Mr. Stewart to explain the assertions in his
declaration. They did not contradict his earlier testimony.

The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's grant of Biltrite's
motion for summary judgment and remanded for trial.

Zachary B. Herschensohn, Anderson Connell & Carey, Bellingham,
Wash. Delaney L. Miller, Brayton Purcell LLP, Portland, Ore.,
represented Kathleen Rafter.

Carl Edward Forsberg, Melissa K. Habeck, Forsberg & Umlauf PS,
Diane J. Kero, Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Seattle, represented
Respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Perfection's Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied Perfection Clutch's
motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit
styled Saul Himmelfarb et al. v. Arvin Industries, Inc. et al.

Judge David W. Skolnick entered judgment of Case No.
FBTCV065001259S on May 28, 2008.

The plaintiff claimed to have contracted lung cancer as a result
of his employment with Weiner Auto Parts, a family-owned
business, through repeated exposure to clutch components
containing asbestos manufactured and supplied to Weiner by
Perfection, and other clutch companies.

Perfection claimed that plaintiff's identification of Perfection
is speculative because of plaintiff's deposition testimony that
Perfection clutch components arrived at Weiner in the form of
unidentified loose bulk packings without identification on the
packaging.

Furthermore, defendant claimed that Perfection never shipped
clutch components in bulk packaging so that whatever was
received in this form could not have been Perfection's products.

An examination of plaintiff's deposition led the court to
conclude that plaintiff's identification of Perfection Clutch as
a manufacturer and/or supplier of clutches and clutch components
to Weiner and to which plaintiff was exposed during his years of
working at Weiner are sufficient to allow plaintiff's claim to
ultimately be determined by the jury.

Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists to be
determined by the trier of fact.

Perfection Clutch's motion for summary judgment was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDL Panel Remands McCarthy, Chiasson Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation separated
and remanded to different courts asbestos-related lawsuits filed
by Diana Wheeler McCarthy and Beatrice Chiasson.

The case are under In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
(No. VI).

These cases are Diana Wheeler McCarthy, et al. v. AstenJohnson,
Inc., et al., E.D. Pennsylvania (C.D.California, C.A. No. 2:03-
3046), and Beatrice Chiasson, et al. v. Honeywell International,
Inc., et al., E.D. Pennsylvania (E.D.Louisiana, C.A. No. 2:05-
5221).

Judges D. Lowell Jensen, John G. Heyburn, Frederick Motz, Robert
L. Miller, Jr., Kathryn H. Vratil, David R. Hansen, and Anthony
J. Scirica entered judgment of MDL No. 875 on April 8, 2008.

AstenJohnson, Inc. and Eaton Corp. in two actions (McCarthy and
Chiasson) pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have
moved to vacate the Panel's orders, entered at the suggestions
of the transferee court, conditionally remanding McCarthy to the
Central District of California and Chiasson to the Eastern
District of Louisiana, with the exception of any claims for
punitive or exemplary damages that have previously been severed
by the transferee court.

Responding plaintiffs opposed the motions to vacate.

After considering all argument of counsel, the Panel found that
remand of the non-punitive/exemplary damage claims in McCarthy
and Chiasson was appropriate at this time.

In McCarthy and Chiasson, the transferee court has entered
suggestions of remand reflecting its determination that the two
actions' non-punitive/exemplary damage claims should be remanded
to their respective transferor courts.

The Panel ordered that all claims by plaintiffs in these two
actions except the severed claims for punitive or exemplary
damages are separated and remanded to the Central District of
California and the Eastern District of Louisiana, respectively.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Griffith Action v. Monterey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, 6th District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Monterey County Superior Court, which dismissed
Christopher L. Griffith's asbestos-related lawsuit against the
Monterey County Sheriff's Department.

The case is styled Christopher L. Griffith, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. Monterey County Sheriff's Department, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Elia, Rushing, and Bamattre-Manoukian entered judgment of
Case No. H032108 on June 10, 2008.

Mr. Griffith filed his complaint on Jan. 10, 2007. At the time
he was allegedly exposed to asbestos, Mr. Griffith was awaiting
trial on criminal charges. He had been in the custody of the
Monterey County Sheriff's Department since Aug. 22, 2005.

Mr. Griffith's complaint alleged that since Aug. 22, 2005, he
had noticed warning signs around the Monterey County Courthouse
located in Salinas, Calif., warning of measurable levels of
asbestos.

Mr. Griffith claimed that he was intentionally exposed to
asbestos. The complaint alleged causes of action for general
negligence, criminal negligence and toxic exposure. He sought
US$3.5 million in damages. The County filed a demurrer on
April 5, 2007.

On May 18, 2007, the matter was heard and taken under
submission. On May 23, 2007, Judge O' Farrell sustained the
County's demurrer based on Mr. Griffith's failure to allege a
statutory cause of action and failure to allege that he had
suffered any damage. Judge O' Farrell gave Mr. Griffith 30 days  
to amend his pleading.

On May 24, 2007, Mr. Griffith filed a first amended complaint.
He alleged causes of action for general negligence, criminal
negligence, negligent supervision and civil rights violations.
He alleged that he had suffered hospital and medical expenses,
general damage and emotional distress.

On May 24, 2007, the County filed a demurrer. This time, the
County's demurrer was based on three grounds.

Subsequently, Mr. Griffith filed another first amended complaint
with supplement on May 25, 2007. He included numerous dates of
the hearings he had attended in the courthouse.

In response to County's demurrer, Mr. Griffith filed a reply on
June 7, 2007. On June 18, 2007, he filed a memorandum of points
and authorities. On June 25, 2007, Mr. Griffith filed a pleading
entitled "Cause of Action to Plaintiff's Supplement to Amended
Complaint."

The court held a hearing on the County's demurrer on July 13,
2007. After argument by both parties, Judge O' Farrell sustained
the County's demurrer without leave to amend. The order after
hearing was filed Aug. 3, 2007. The order reflected that the
court dismissed Mr. Griffith's action against the County. Notice
of entry of order was filed Aug. 9, 2007.

Mr. Griffith filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 2007, with the
appellate division of Superior Court in which he appealed from
the "Ruling on Defendant's Demurrer."

According to a notation on the notice of appeal, the appellate
department received Mr. Griffith's notice of appeal on Sept. 10,
2007. This court received a copy of the notice of appeal on
Sept. 28, 2007.

The judgment is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own
costs on appeal.

John Erick Dimalanta, Oscar Gene Jimenez, Lewis, Brisbois,
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Francisco, represented Monterey County
Sheriff's Department and others.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sterlite Not to Assume Asarco Legacy Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterlite Industries (India) Limited says it will assume Asarco
LLC's operating liabilities but not legacy liabilities for
asbestos and environmental claims for ceased operations,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive agreement to purchase substantially all of the
operating assets of Asarco, a Tucson based mining, smelting and
refining company, for US$2.6 billion.

Asarco, currently the third largest copper producer in the
United States, produced 235,000 tons of refined copper in 2007
and had total revenue of about US$1.9 billion for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Asarco's mines currently have estimated reserves of about five
million tons of contained copper. The Company will finance the
asset acquisition through a mix of debt and existing cash
resources. The asset acquisition is on a cash free and debt free
basis.

The integrated assets to be acquired include three open-pit
copper mines and a copper smelter in Arizona and a copper
refinery, rod and cake plant and precious metals plant in Texas.

The agreement is subject to the approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi
Division before which Asarco has been in reorganization
proceedings under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The Company says, however, that there can be no assurance that
court approval will be obtained or that the proposed sale will
be concluded.

Mumbai, India-based Sterlite Industries (India) Limited operates
as a non-ferrous metals and mining company. In addition to the
its three primary businesses of copper, zinc and aluminum, the
Company also develops a commercial power generation business in
India that leverages its experience in building and managing
captive power plants used to support its primary businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt OKs Sterlite Request on Asarco Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to court documents, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Richard
Schmidt, on July 1, 2008, has approved a break-up fee and other
protections sought by Sterlite Industries (India) Limited in its
US$2.6 billion bid for Asarco LLC, Reuters reports.

Judge Schmidt said that Asarco's parent Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de
C.V. could put forward its own bankruptcy reorganization plan
for the subsidiary it lost board control over when Asarco filed
for bankruptcy in 2005.

Judge Schmidt's ruling during a hearing in Corpus Christi, Tex.,
will allow Sterlite and Grupo Mexico to compete against one
another to resolve the bankruptcy that began in 2005 when Asarco
was sued for US$1 billion over environmental cleanup and
asbestos claims.

After the ruling, Judge Schmidt vowed to win back control of
Asarco in the competition.

Grupo Mexico said in a statement, "Although we disagree with the
court's ruling in granting bid protections to Sterlite
Industries and we intend to appeal that decision, we are
gratified that the court also recognized that we should have the
right to file our own reorganization plan and we are confident
that our plan will ultimately be confirmed by the bankruptcy
court."

The break-up fee could be triggered by the acceptance of a rival
bid by the Asarco board. For its part, Grupo Mexico, instead of
purchasing assets it already owns, has proposed providing as
much as US$4.14 billion to pay off environmental and asbestos
claims against Asarco.

Grupo Mexico would initially put up US$2.7 billion, use US$1
billion that Asarco has on hand and then kick in an additional
US$440 million if needed.

Asarco faces US$5.3 billion in claims.

Mumbai, India-based Sterlite Industries (India) Limited operates
as a non-ferrous metals and mining company. In addition to its
three primary businesses of copper, zinc and aluminum, the
Company also develops a commercial power generation business in
India that leverages its experience in building and managing
captive power plants used to support its primary businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine S.p.A. Faces 60 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of March 31, 2008,
faced a total of 60 asbestos-related claims, of which three are
covered by insurance, according to the Company's annual report,
on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 30, 2008.

Dalmine is subject to 13 civil proceedings for work-related
injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing
processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In addition,
another 46 asbestos related out-of-court claims and one civil
party claim have been forwarded to Dalmine as of March 31, 2008.

During 2007, 29 new claims were filed, two claims were
adjudicated, two claims were dismissed and no claims were
settled.

During the first quarter of 2008, four new claims were filed,
one claim was adjudicated, no claims were dismissed and no
claims were settled.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company total EUR5.9
million. Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in
connection with the claims not yet settled as of March 31, 2008
is about EUR20.7 million (US$32.7 million).

Luxembourg-based Tenaris S.A. is a global manufacturer and
supplier of steel pipe products and related services for the
world's energy industry as well as for other industrial
applications. Customers include most of the world's oil and gas
companies as well as engineering companies engaged in
constructing oil and gas gathering, transportation and
processing facilities. Products include casing, tubing, line
pipe, and mechanical and structural pipes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Chiyoda Ward Parking Sites
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned that about 160 times more
asbestos than allowed by standards for newly constructed
buildings under the Building Standards Law was detected at an
elevator parking site in Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo.

Asbestos levels were found to exceed the standard at 14 similar
structures in the ward. Elevator parking sites use a lift system
to stack cars in a tower structure.

The ward office likely will tell parking site owners to take
measures to prevent asbestos dispersal as stipulated by the law.

Because fireproof materials are exposed in many parking
buildings, experts say asbestos is more likely to disperse from
those structures than other buildings.

However, these structures are not included in the list of
private structures on which the Construction and Transport
Ministry is supposed to conduct inspections through prefectural
governments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tramontozzis Charged for Botched Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francis D. Tramontozzi and his son, Thomas M. Tramontozzi, on
July 1, 2008, pleaded no contest to charges they illegally
removed asbestos from the old Fitchburg Theater building in
Fitchburg, Mass., Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports.

The 72-year-old Francis D. Tramontozzi, of Tewksbury, Mass., and
the 47-year-old Thomas Tramontozzi, of Fitchburg, Mass., were
each fined a total of US$3,850 in fines and penalties after
making their pleas in Fitchburg District Court.

The complaints against them were scheduled to go before a jury
on July 1, 2008.

The pair were charged with causing asbestos to be released into
the air and removing asbestos without notifying the state
Department of Environmental Protection.

According to the state Attorney General's office, the case was
brought to the attention of the state Environmental Crimes
Strike Force during the fall of 2006 by an inspector of the
Fitchburg Board of Health. An anonymous complaint indicated a
potential asbestos hazard at the old Fitchburg Theater building.

The inspector observed that asbestos insulation on heat pipes in
the back of the building was in poor condition and needed
removal or repair.

A Board of Health violation notice was issued to Francis
Tramontozzi, who owns the property with two of his sons. The
notice ordered the Tramontozzis to fix the violation in
accordance with state regulations.

Several months later, when the inspector returned to the
property, the deteriorating asbestos insulation remained,
according to the Attorney General's office.

In September 2006, after a hearing was requested in the Housing
Court to resolve the asbestos violation, Francis Tramontozzi
notified the Board of Health inspector that Thomas Tramontozzi,
had repaired the asbestos insulation and that the job was
"complete."

Upon inspection by the Board of Health, asbestos debris and
powder were found lying uncontained in the area surrounding the
building, the AG's office said.

The inspector subsequently contacted the Department of
Environmental Protection to report an improper asbestos removal
and notified Francis Tramontozzi that the work done was
unauthorized and needed to be rectified by a licensed asbestos
removal company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Labor Dept. Report Says NZ Builders at Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report commissioned by New Zealand's Department of Labor
states that building products with asbestos in them are putting
builders at deadly risk, The National Business Review reports.

The report, obtained by the New Zealand Press Association under
the Official Information Act, says many builders would not know
asbestos if they saw it.

And while local manufacturing of those products ceased in the
1980s, builders might also be at risk of imported goods from
countries where there is no such ban.

New Zealand has a ban on importing raw asbestos but no ban on
importing asbestos in goods as long as they are labeled, and no
testing for them at ports.

Mike Cosman, the report's author, said he knew of several
unlabeled imported products in recent months that had tested
positive for asbestos. They included roofing materials, flooring
and even tape.

However, Mr. Cosman said there was no way of knowing how much
was coming into the country at the moment. Much of it is from
southeast Asia, where there are no constraints on manufacturing
with asbestos. His report also found low awareness of asbestos
in the construction industry.

New Zealand factories stopped making building products
containing asbestos in the mid-1980s after the fiber became
linked with respiratory illnesses and cancer.

The Department of Labor said it was carrying out a wider review
of asbestos handling in the workplace, which might include a ban
on imported asbestos products.

In April 2008, a cancer researcher said he believed one in 10
Australian carpenters born before 1950 would die of
mesothelioma. Professor Julian Peto said the use of brown
asbestos or amosite, and blue asbestos or crocidolite, in
building products in Australia and Britain until the 1980s had
been completely uncontrolled.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has called for a national
inquiry to examine ways of eliminating asbestos from workplaces
and homes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UK Inspectorate Blamed for Work Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Construction Safety Campaign in the United Kingdom is urging
workers to report their bosses to the authorities if they fail
to properly manage asbestos on work premises, the North-West
Evening Mail reports.

In a stinging attack on the Health and Safety Inspectorate
William Whalen, Chairman of the Construction Safety Campaign,
said, "We're losing confidence in the factory inspectors so
we're asking the lads to give evidence. We're taking samples to
the chemist so we can take proof to the factory inspector.

"We can't rely on the Health and Safety Inspectorate. They
haven't the resources. The policing of our sites and workplaces
is not being done. The builders and contractors just want to get
on with the job, that's why I believe there's got to be more
forceful legislation. If you don't know about something how are
you going to avoid it?"


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradford Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest, held at Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, heard
that the death of 63-year-old joiner Kenneth Cooper was linked
to exposure to asbestos, Telegraph & Argus reports.

Mr. Cooper, of Outlands Rise, Apperley Bridge, Bradford, worked
for many years refitting industrial and retail premises, which
involved removing materials that could have been affected with
asbestos. He also assisted in the maintenance of a mill where
the pipes were lagged with the fibers.

Mr. Cooper died of a malignant mesothelioma tumor on Nov. 14,
2007, the inquest heard on June 26, 2008.

Recording his verdict, Deputy Coroner Mark Hinchliffe said,
"Given that he worked at so many different places it is not
possible to say where the relevant asbestos exposure occurred."

After the hearing, Mr. Cooper's widow Margaret Cooper said, "I'm
very angry. I've lost my husband at such a young age and I do
feel like someone should pay for it."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exemption on Clemenceau Granted to Able UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has granted Able UK Ltd of
Teesside an exemption under the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006, to allow them to import asbestos into the United Kingdom
contained in the French ship Q790 (formerly the Clemenceau),
according to an HSE press release dated June 26, 2008.

The Company applied for the exemption in order to dismantle the
ship at their Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling
Centre (TERRC), in Hartlepool.

HSE has imposed strict conditions governing the removal of
asbestos from the vessel. The exemption does not come into force
until the Company has been granted a Waste Management License by
the Environment Agency for the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 N.Y. Hospitals Lauded for Clinical Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center recognizes the
joint efforts of New York's Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia
University Medical Center and commends them for their continued
research in the field of thoracic oncology, according to a MAA
press release dated June 26, 2008.

The Presbyterian Hospital, along with Columbia University
Medical Center, announced on June 26, 2008 that they are seeking
individuals who are suffering from mesothelioma to participate
in a trial for a newly developed targeted-radiation treatment.

Dr. Robert Taub, Director of The Mesothelioma Center at New
York-Presbyterian, stated that current treatments, including
intense chemotherapy and painful surgery to remove the patient's
affected lung, may prolong the life of an individual. However,
the quality of life associated with these treatments is poor,
and the patient generally continues to suffer greatly until they
succumb to this deadly disease.

The newly developed treatment, which involves the targeted
injection of radioactive isotope P-32 in mesothelioma patients,
will hopefully eliminate the need for serious surgery.

Dr. Rashid Fawwaz, a Radiologist at New York-Presbyterian,
believes that the implementation of P-32 could prove to be a
"significant and effective therapeutic approach" for those
suffering from mesothelioma.

Patients that are chosen to participate in the upcoming clinical
trial will receive a combination of two of the cancer drugs
Cisplatin, Pemetrexed, and Doxorubicin during several
chemotherapy sessions. In addition, all patients will undergo
targeted radiotherapy involving the injection of P-32.

Individuals can also opt to have their affected lung removed,
and will also have access to additional chemotherapy on an
outpatient basis. Previous related studies showed an average
survival rate for participants of 70 months. After three years,
the survival rate was about 67 percent.

The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center is recognized as a
web resource for information related to mesothelioma,
mesothelioma treatment, and top physicians.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurance Group Spends $460,000 for Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Insurance Association spent US$460,000 in the first
quarter of 2008 for lobbying on legislation, including asbestos,
Associated Press reports.

The group, which represents 350 major property and casualty
insurance companies, is based in Washington.

According to an April 21, 2008 filing with the House clerk's
office, the trade group lobbied on legislation affecting
insurance for floods, terrorism, hurricanes and tornadoes, as
well as on data privacy, asbestos, and foreclosure prevention.

Owners of property, casualty and auto insurers include Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., Travelers Cos. Inc., Allstate Corp., Chubb Corp.,
and Progressive Corp.

The trade group also lobbied the Commerce and Treasury
departments, the White House, U.S. Trade Representative's
office, Council of Economic Advisers and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services

Among those registered to lobby on behalf of the trade group was
Joseph Engelhard, formerly an official with the Treasury
Department and a Republican staffer for the House Financial
Services Committee and Joint Economic Committee.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. Trackman's FELA Suit Filed on June 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trackman for Illinois Central Railroad Company (Inc), Conward
L. Frame, on June 24, 2008, filed a Federal Employers' Liability
Act lawsuit claiming lung injuries due to asbestos exposure on
the job, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The complaint, filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill.,
states that Mr. Frame, who worked from 1952 through 1996, claims
he inhaled asbestos which has caused "severe and permanent
injuries to his lungs, respiratory system and body."

Represented by Gregory M. Tobin of Pratt & Tobin in East Alton,
Ill., Mr. Frame seeks in excess of US$50,000 in damages plus
costs of the suit.

Mr. Frame claims the railroad failed to provide him a safe place
to work, failed to warn him of asbestos hazards, failed to
provide safety equipment and proper tools, and failed to provide
safe methods of work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 30 Companies in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky local Terry Joe Meadows, on behalf of the estate of
Danny Joe Brown, on June 3, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 30 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit names CSX Transportation Inc., AK Steel Holding
Corporation, and 28 other companies as defendants.

According to the suit, Mr. Brown worked from 1955 to 1991 as a
laborer and carman for Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, the
predecessor to CSX Transportation. He also worked at Armco
Steel, Monsanto Chemical and Union Carbide Corporation.

Ms. Meadows claims that starting in 1955, Mr. Brown was exposed
to toxic materials, including asbestos and asbestos-containing
products, which left him with lung cancer.

The suit says Mr. Brown was unaware of the dangerous
propensities of asbestos and was unaware it would cause lung
cancer. He suffered a diminished enjoyment of life, mental and
physical anguish, diminished earning capacity and death.

According to the suit, which seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, Mr. Brown's family has incurred his medical bills and
other drug, doctor and hospital expenses, as well as sorrow,
loss of society, loss of companionship, loss of comfort, loss of
guidance and advice, loss of services, protection, care and
assistance.

Attorney Victoria L. Antion represents Ms. Meadows.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-1065 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Find Hampers Olympic Stadium Works
----------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos has halted the work on the foundations
of the 2012 Olympics Stadium in Stratford, London, England, East
London Advertiser 24 reports.

On July 2, 2008, the Olympic Delivery Authority revealed that
samples of material containing the asbestos were found in the
construction site.

Work was stopped in one section of the site "as a precautionary
measure," while construction of the rest of the stadium and
Olympic Park continued.

The authority's Head of Health and Safety Lawrence Waterman
confirmed, "A small amount of asbestos-containing material has
been discovered within the ground of the Olympic Stadium."

The authority expects work to restart progressively as
protective measures are put in place over the next few days.

The stadium's construction started in May 2008, three months
ahead of schedule. The piling work to create the foundation is
already over halfway through.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toxic Vessel to be Dismantled in England
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Times reported, on July 1, 2008, that the Clemenceau, an
asbestos-laden French aircraft carrier that was toxic for Indian
breakers' yards is to be towed near Hartlepool, England, for
dismantling.

The agreement to send the Clemenceau, once the flagship of the
French navy, to Able UK Ltd, ends a five-year saga that saw the
toxic vessel wander the high seas in a vain search for a final
resting place.

The stripped-down hull has been moored off Brest, France since
an odyssey that ended in 2006 when then-President Jacques Chirac
called it back from India amid an outcry. The Socialist
opposition at the time denounced Mr. Chirac for "lecturing the
world on the environment while having other countries deal with
our toxic ships."

The French Defense Ministry awarded to contract to Able UK after
the British Environment Agency issued a waste management license
that allows the Tyneside, England firm to dismantle ships and
oil rigs at its TERRC facility at Graythorp.

Hull Q790, as the Clemenceau is now named, is to arrive late in
the summer.

Environmental campaigners were initially opposed the break-up of
the Clemenceau in Britain, but Able has convinced them that its
methods for decontaminating 700 tonnes of asbestos are reliable.

Ingvild Jenssen of the Brussels, Belgium-based Platform on
Shipbuilding, a coalition of 14 environmental organizations
including Greenpeace, said that Able appeared to have the
necessary controls to protect workers.

Mr. Jenssen said, "Overall we are happy to see the ship going to
the UK rather than India. As far as we know now, Able does have
all its environmental permits and planning permits."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of a certain Mr. McDonald, a
former shipyard worker, was linked to asbestos, North-West
Evening Mail reports.

The inquest found that Mr. McDonald died of a combination of
natural and industrial causes.

Mr. McDonald's widow, Margaret McDonald, told the coroner that
as well as having cancer, her husband had suffered from angina,
bowel problems and was diabetic.

Dr. Margaret Stewart, consultant pathologist for University
Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust, said there was evidence
that the 68-year-old Mr. McDonald was exposed to asbestos at
some point in his life.

In 2007, Mr. McDonald was awarded over GBP100,000 in
compensation after contracting the fatal cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MVEI Action v. W.Va. Board, Others Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mountainview Excavating Inc.'s action concerning asbestos
removal and filed against the West Virginia School Building
Authority, the Randolph County Board of Education, and Thermal
Solutions Inc. is underway.

The Randolph County Circuit Court was set to hear a request on
July 1, 2008 from Mountainview, which seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction claiming that although it submitted the
lowest bid for asbestos removal at Elkins Middle School, it was
not selected for the contract.

Mountainview also claims that the company that did receive the
bid does not have a West Virginia Contractor's License.

According to the complaint, Mountainview submitted a bid on
June 5, 2008 for the asbestos removal project.

The complaint states, "As part of the bid, a precaution was
issued to the bidders to send a copy of the bid to Pinnacle
Environmental Consultants Inc., the consultant for the Randolph
County Board of Education; however the bid did not specify the
date and time upon which the copy of the bid was required to be
submitted to Pinnacle, the consultant."

According to a copy of the bid package provided by the Randolph
County Board of Education, Mountainview's bid was discarded
because it did not submit the proper information to Pinnacle.
The bid accepted was from Thermal Solutions for US$274,319 and a
bid amount for Mountainview was not available because the bid
was removed.

In addition, the complaint states that before the bid opening on
June 5, 2008, a discussion took place among Randolph County
Schools Director of Transportation and Facilities John Daniels,
Chris Belcher of Pinnacle Environmental Consultants and John
Miller of Mountainview and it was agreed that the copy of the
bid submitted to the board for the asbestos abatement project
was not required to be presented prior to the award of the bid
to the lower responsive bidder.

The complaint states, "Accordingly, the Randolph County Board of
Education and its consultant effectively waived any alleged
irregularity with the bid submitted by the plaintiff."

According to the complaint, when the bids were opened it was
determined that Mountainview was the lowest responsive bidder
based upon the bid amount. The suit added, "Another bidder,
Thermal Solutions Inc. was not a responsive bidder based upon
the lacking of the requisite West Virginia General Contractor's
License which was required as part of the bid."

The complaint states Mountainview requested consideration of
disqualification of Thermal Solutions based upon its failure to
comply with the bid requirements of possessing and submitting a
West Virginia General Contractor's License.

According to the complaint, on June 11, 2008, the board told
mountainview it had been disqualified from the bid process
because it had not submitted a copy of the bid to Pinnacle prior
to bid opening.

According to the complaint, Mountainview seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to stop any further asbestos
abatement at Elkins Middle School, to award a hearing in the
issues raised in relation to the award of the bid to Thermal
Solutions and disqualification of MVEI as the lowest responsive
bidder and to prevent any further harm or damage to MVEI as well
as compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs
and other equitable relief.

Randolph County Schools Superintendent Sue Hinzman said
Mountainview is contesting the bid process but not following the
procedure. She said the Board of Risk is going to take over the
case on behalf of the Randolph County Board of Education.

West Virginia School Building Authority Executive Director Dr.
Mark Manchin said on June 30, 2008 the SBA was still in the
process of assessing the case. He said the SBA is going to
attempt to be dismissed from the complaint.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Civic Center Cleanup to Start in Oct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal at the Dubbo Civic Centre in Dubbo, New South
Wales, Australia may start around October 2008, during a period
of no bookings, Daily Liberal reports.

Dubbo City Council closed the Civic Centre on June 24, 2008 due
to public fears about asbestos. A consultant tested air in the
center on June 25, 2008, finding no trace of asbestos.

The fears became public after media outlets were faxed sections
of a report detailing where the asbestos was. Ironically the
"leaked" report had been on public submission for 28 days
earlier in June 2008.

The civic center is being redeveloped to link it with the tiered
theater. The report detailed all risks associated with the
center redevelopment, and rated all asbestos in the center by
how serious a risk it posed to construction workers.

It was compiled for construction firms considering tendering for
the theater construction, which includes civic center
redevelopment, according to council's community services
director David Dwyer.

Mr. Dwyer said, "Some of the asbestos is considered a risk only
to construction workers, and the report says that particular
asbestos should be removed before any work begins."

The civic center was been built in the mid-1960s, and that
council knew asbestos was present. More than 20 years ago,
council encased all the asbestos with wood, steel, or spray-on
foam, which is now covered in dirt.

The removal will take three to four weeks.

Tenders for the tiered theater closed on July 1, 2008, and the
winning construction firm will be chosen at a council meeting at
the end of July 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Northamptonshire Locals Exposed to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that four former engineers and tradesmen from
Northamptonshire, England, all exposed to asbestos during their
work died within eight months of each other, Evening Telegraph
reports.

The 77-year-old Albert Conrad Harris, from Mill Lane, Brackley,
died last July after becoming short of breath and being
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. A retired carpenter,
Albert Harris also had a history of depression and made three
suicide attempts before developing the incurable disease.

The 68-year-old John Norman Harris died at Cynthia Spencer
Hospice in November 2007 of malignant mesothelioma. John Harris
was a machinist and designer from Rushden. He was exposed to
asbestos during his career with British Steel.

Northampton-born engineer, Terence Dunkley, from Long Mallows
Rise, Ecton Brook, came into contact with asbestos while working
on the Wolverton carriageway. He died on January 2008 at Cynthia
Spencer Hospice at the age of of 67.

Eric Stanley Champion, of Manor Road, Pitsford, died at
Northampton General Hospital at the age of 71 after he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma. He served in the Royal Air Force
when he was 18, was exposed to asbestos while working as a
designer for heating systems.

Coroner Anne Pember recorded verdicts of an industrial disease
in relation to all four deaths.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. EPA Checks Air Quality at Iowa Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting air
sampling for asbestos and air monitoring for particulates as
Iowa communities clean up from recent floods, according to an
EPA press release dated July 2, 2008.

EPA on-scene coordinators will assess air quality by using fixed
monitoring equipment situated at key points throughout the
flood-damaged area.

The initial locations for sampling and monitoring activities
include the cities of Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Fort Madison,
Iowa City, Keokuk, Montrose, Parkersburg, and Waterloo and
Louisa County. The monitoring has begun in each of these
locations.

The monitoring equipment will be set up in areas where
demolition activity is taking place as part of the cleanup.

Monitoring will be conducted during the times that the
demolition contractors are performing their work (seven days a
week, if necessary) to ensure readings during the dustiest days
and times.

As analytical results for asbestos sampling and particulate
level monitoring become available, reports will be posted on the
EPA Region 7 Web site.


ASBESTOS ALERT: COE Mfg. to Pay $25T Fine for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has issued a US$25,000
fine to the COE Manufacturing Co. for asbestos cleanup
violations, The Plain Dealer reports.

The Ohio EPA said COE removed asbestos from five buildings on
its Bank Street property without notifying health department
officials 10 days before performing the work.

The unauthorized activity took place in March 2007. About 320
feet of asbestos-containing pipe insulation and 900 square feet
of asbestos-containing floor tile were removed from the
buildings.

An inspector discovered the activity after most of the material
had been removed and hauled away, so he could not determine
whether the work had been done without releasing asbestos into
the air.

The buildings were demolished in November 2007.

Company profile:

          COE Manufacturing Co.
          609 Bank St., Box 520
          Painesville, OH 44077-3707  
          Phone: 216-352-9381
          FAX: 216-352-1487
          Web site: http://www.coemfg.com/
          Business Activity: Manufacturer/Service

The Company's products include veneer dryers, veneer cutting
machines, fakers, power saws, power screwguns, power staple
guns, power trimmers, impact wrenches, power caulking guns,
power chippers, power nail guns, heat guns, engravers, glue
guns, torque tools, biscuit jointers, power blowers, power
buffers, and power drills.


ASBESTOS ALERT: R.L.R. Investments Pays $227,700 Fine to EPA
------------------------------------------------------------
R.L.R. Investments, L.L.C. paid a US$227,700 fine for breaching
Ohio's asbestos emission control standards at the Urban Resort
property, formerly a Days Inn, at 330 W. First St., Dayton,
Wilmington News Journal reports.

The Ohio Attorney General's office on behalf of the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency settled the case, in which the
fine is the largest civil penalty ever collected by the State
for asbestos violations in Ohio, according to a press release
from the Ohio EPA.

The Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, which serves as Ohio
EPA's contractual representative in Montgomery County,
discovered and documented the violations. RAPCA subsequently
referred the case to Ohio EPA for enforcement.

In 2003, R.L.R. Investments was responsible for renovating the
Days Inn Hotel and failed to provide proper initial notification
for the asbestos abatement project.

Between April 1, 2003, and Dec. 15, 2003, RAPCA staff performed
multiple inspections of the asbestos abatement activities.
Significant work practice violations were documented during 10
of the inspections.

On three occasions, RAPCA inspectors were denied access to the
work site by the Company, and on one of these occasions a search
warrant had to be obtained for RAPCA's inspectors to gain
access.

Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski said, "The asbestos regulations
are intended to protect public health, which is why we take
violations very seriously. We urge anyone involved in building
demolition or renovation to understand the asbestos requirements
and follow them to the letter."

Assistant Attorney General Robert James, who headed the state's
legal team, said the settlement is good for all Ohioans.

Of the US$227,700, US$45,540 will go to Ohio EPA's Clean Diesel
School Bus program. The remaining US$182,160 will be used to
administer air pollution control programs.

Company profile:

          R.L.R. Investments, L.L.C.
          600 Gilliam Road
          Wilmington, OH 45177-9089
          United States
          Phone: 937-382-1494
          Fax: 937-383-0123
          Web site: http://www.rlrllc.com/

The Company invests in real estate properties including
manufacturing, warehousing, hospitality, resorts, and vacant
ground for development.





                            *********

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  * * *