CAR_Public/080725.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 147
  
                            Headlines

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Investors Demand Billions in Compensation
CARMAX INC: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Vehicle's Rental History
CHAMPION'S CHOICE: Recalls Air Cylinders Posing Burst Hazard
CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of "Garlique"
DELTA AIR: N.Y. Lawyer Sues Over Delayed and Stressful Trip

DITECH: No Hearing Date Set for Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
DOMEGA INT'L: Undeclared Content Prompts Sweetened Ginger Recall
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Consolidates Five Securities Suits
ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
ENDOSCOPY CENTER: Judge Allows Emotional Distress in Hepa Case

FILTER MANUFACTURERS: Court Yet to Rule on Quick Lube Class Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bruce Mansfield Soot-Discharge Lawsuit Filed
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Suits Over Trailers and Homes
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: 6th Circuit Upholds $42MM Stock Suits Deal
GENENTECH INC: Chimicles & Tikellis Challenges Roche Buyout

GENENTECH INC: Cohen Milstein Files Dela. Suit Over Roche Buyout
GEORGIA PDSC: First Hearing in Conflict Defenders Lawsuit Held
HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tennessee
INDYMAC BANCORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Court
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint

NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Hires Doxsey to Review Court Proceedings
PORSCHE CARS: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges 911 Carrera Coupes Defects
RED HAT: Plaintiff Seek Class Certification in Securities Suit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Cheated Employees Commence Lawsuit in N.J.
SHAW GROUP: Parties in N.Y. Suit File Stipulation of Dismissal

SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in Securities Lawsuit
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
TOTAL BODY: Georgia Suit Claims Diet Supplement is Poisonous
U.S. SUGAR CORP: Sued for "Cheating" Employee Shareholders
UNITED GENERAL: Faces Pennsylvania Lawsuit Over Home Refinancing


* SPDR(R) Announces Impact of Receiving Settlement Payments


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

STATE STREET: Schiffrin Barroway Files Mass. Securities Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Still Subject to Hazard Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.43B Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $925M NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Involved in Travelers Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 52,487 Bendix Claims at June

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.68B for Bendix, NARCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $613M Settlement at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scott Represents Creditors in USG Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors 2 Defendants in Gregory Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Huber Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $65M Current Liabilities at May 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Appeals Court Favors Henry Vogt Machine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bergeron Suit Filed v. 19 Companies in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Housing Cleared in Asbestos Probe
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calgary Blamed for Taking Asbestos Lightly

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: R.I. Contractor Pleads Guilty to Extortion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Engineer's Cause of Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on UK Council Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim's Kin Settles Case With HVAC Makers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3rd Circuit Junks Jesensky Suit v. Bosses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Beck in Suit v. Huber
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants Settle Martin Case in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Croatian Ministry Sued for Faulty Disposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Expands Monitoring to 2Mil Buildings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Cumbrians Call for Campaign Renewal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup May Delay Guyana School's Opening
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Appoint ASARCO LLC Committee
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Calls for Appointment of Judge Pate
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Expunge 65 ASARCO LLC Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Danos in Suit v. Foster

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Upholds Board Ruling for Pollitt
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $7.4M Adjustments at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Contingency Remains at $1.7BB in June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Orders Oct. 31 Bar Date for ZAI Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearne Sues 43 Corporations in Texas Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Engineer's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Case v. Japan Gov't., 46 Companies Underway
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Lawyers Release Updated Education Tool
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts GBP300M Doncaster Housing Work
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in 2 Buffalo Structures Costs $12M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Breton Workers to Enter Pleas in Oct.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guam School Mulls Ways to Dispose of Tiles
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Gold Coast Airport



                           *********


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Investors Demand Billions in Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Investors seek billions in compensation, citing
misrepresentations and negligence in relation to Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce's U.S. subprime investments.

Investors who purchased common shares of CIBC between May 31,
2007, and February 28, 2008, have launched a multi billion
dollar class action suit against CIBC and several former and
current officers and directors.

The claim, issued with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
alleges that the defendants engaged in a series of
misrepresentations during the class period concerning the extent
of CIBC's total exposure to investments in the failing U.S.
subprime residential mortgages market (USSRMM).

Specifically, it is alleged that CIBC misrepresented the
magnitude and level of risk associated with its U.S. subprime
residential mortgage investments.  In particular, CIBC
represented during the class period that its total exposure in
USSRMM investments, including both hedged and unhedged
investments, was "not a major issue" when, in fact, the bank had
exposure to billions of dollars of losses, as was only
subsequently disclosed.

Further, CIBC failed to disclose that one of its principal hedge
counterparties, ACA Financial, was woefully undercapitalized
with an asset to guarantee ratio of "1-180" and was far from
able to provide any meaningful hedge protection to the bank's
USSRMM investments.

It is alleged that these misrepresentations, among others, had
the effect of substantially artificially inflating the price of
CIBC common shares through the class period.  Indeed, when CIBC
provided more complete disclosure, through a series of partial
disclosures regarding its USSRMM investments in late 2007 and
early 2008, CIBC common shares fell dramatically.  In its Q1
2008 financials, CIBC disclosed write downs of $3.487 billion,
$3.379 billion of which were related to the bank's USSRMM
investments.

These disclosures contradicted the company's earlier
representations and disclosures during the class period.

Joel Rochon, counsel for the class, stated, "This claim alleges
that a major Canadian issuer apparently ignored its legally
required disclosure obligations to the detriment of the
investing public.  It is alleged in the claim that CIBC, over a
period of months, repeatedly misled the market and investors as
to the size of the bank's exposure to the U.S. subprime market,
and also to the volatility of its related investments."

Mr. Rochon added, "Investors appear to have lost billions due to
the bank's misrepresentations and its failure to manage
investments prudently."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.

The plaintiff and the prospective class members are represented
by the firm:

          Rochon Genova LLP
          121 Richmond St. West, Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1
          Phone: 416-363-1867
          Fax: 416-363-0263
          Toll Free: 1-866-881-2292


CARMAX INC: Still Faces Md. Suit Over Vehicle's Rental History
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc., continues to face a purported class action suit
before the Baltimore County Circuit Court in Maryland over
allegations that the company has not properly disclosed its
vehicles' prior rental history.

Regina Hankins filed the suit on June 12, 2007.  The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

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

CarMax, Inc. -- http://www.carmax.com/-- is a holding company  
and its operations are conducted through its subsidiaries.  The
Company is a retailer of used cars.


CHAMPION'S CHOICE: Recalls Air Cylinders Posing Burst Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Champion's Choice, of La Vergne, Tennessee, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
70 Walther Air Cylinders for Air Pistols.

The company said the cylinders can burst when in use and while
being filled, posing a risk of serious injury to consumers.

Walther has received one report where a cylinder burst while a
consumer was refilling the cylinder, resulting in a minor hand
injury.

The recalled Walther air cylinders for air pistols are aluminum
and involve model 2/WALTHER 85 cm3, with the imprinted test date
between 6 00 and 6 01 2000/2001 located on the end of the
cylinder.

These recalled Walther air cylinders were manufactured by Carl
Walther GmbH, Sportwaffen, of Germany and were being sold by
Champion's Choice store in La Vergne, Tennessee and
International Shooters Service in Ft. Worth, Texas from 2000
through 2002 for about $47.

A picture of the recalled Walther air cylinders is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08338.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled cylinders
immediately and depressurize them, and contact Champion's Choice
to get a free replacement cylinder.

For more information, contact Champion's Choice at 800-345-7179
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the manufacturer's Web site at
http://www.carl-walther.com/


CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of "Garlique"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc., continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California accusing it of defrauding customers by selling
them the dietary supplement Garlique.

Named plaintiff Robert O. Wilkinson alleges that Chattem
manufactures, markets, distributes and promotes the product
known as Garlique, a diet supplement sold as an enteric-coated
tablet containing garlic that Chattem contends is "America's #1
selling garlic supplement," (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1,
2008).

The complaint, filed on May 24, 2007, claims that Chattem has
actively promoted the product as an aid to cardiovascular
health, using celebrities such as television talk show host
Larry King.  

The labeling and packaging of the product states that it is
"Cholesterol's Natural Enemy" and that it "Supports
Cardiovascular Health."

In support of its claims, Chattem has referenced a 2001 analysis
of data pooled from 37 studies that indicated that garlic
slightly lowered high blood cholesterol levels when taken for
three months.  

However, further analysis by those same researchers showed that
garlic had no effect on cholesterol levels when taken for six
months or more.  Furthermore, when a panel of national experts
reviewed the two studies, they determined that the effect of
garlic on cholesterol was unclear.

The plaintiff claims he had purchased, used and ingested the
product for its intended and foreseeable purpose as marketed,
promoted, advertised and labeled by Chattem as set forth in the
complaint.  He relied on these representations by Chattem in
purchasing and using the product.

However, as he has now learned, the product does not provide the
benefits of cholesterol reduction as claimed by Chattem.  As a
result, he contends that he has been misled by Chattem's false
claims into purchasing and paying for a product that did not
perform as promised when he used it for its intended and
foreseeable purpose as marketed, promoted, advertised and
labeled by Chattem, and that he has as a direct result been
deprived of the benefit of his bargain and has spent money on a
product that did not have any value, a product he would not have
purchased and used had he known the true facts about it.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of himself and all other consumers who
purchased, used and ingested the product.  

The complaint questions whether:

     (a) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or unfair in any respect,
         thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et. seq.;

     (b) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product were deceptive or false in any respect,
         thereby violating California's False Advertising Law,
         Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et. seq.;

     (c) defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (d) defendant breached express warranties in its sale of
         the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and
         class members;

     (e) defendant's practices in connection with the
         marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of
         the product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense
         of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class
         members;

     (f) defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted,
         advertised, labeled and sold the product;

     (g) defendant breached California's Consumer Legal
         Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et. seq., in its
         sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff
         and class members; and

     (h) defendant's conduct as set forth injured consumers
         and if so,. the extent of the injury.

The plaintiff asks the court:

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

     -- for an award of equitable relief as follows:

        (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the
            unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices
            and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and
            advertising described in the complaint;

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

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

        (d) requiring defendant to provide public notice of the
            true nature of the product.

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

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

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

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

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

The company was served with this lawsuit on July 5, 2007.

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

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

             http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2052

The suit is "Wilkinson v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00952-
W-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com)
          Hewell Law Firm
          402 West Broadway, Fourth Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-235-6854
          Fax: 619-235-9122


DELTA AIR: N.Y. Lawyer Sues Over Delayed and Stressful Trip
-----------------------------------------------------------
A New York City lawyer is suing Delta Air Lines Inc. for
$5 million, claiming the carrier's incompetence and indifference
left him stranded in Paris for four days in October last year
during an airport workers' strike, the Associated Press reports.

Thomas Mullaney, Esq., related that the Atlanta-based airline
refused to let passengers rebook flights by telephone and for
"unfathomable" reasons insisted that they go to the airport and
rebook there.

Mr. Mullaney also said that he paid $5,000 for two round-trip
tickets and Delta refused to reimburse him for the unused
portion.  The AP noted that Mr. Mullaney returned home on
American Airlines.

According to the AP, Mr. Mullaney said in his Manhattan lawsuit
that he believes Delta stranded and failed to reimburse
thousands of passengers.  Thus, the suit seeks class action
status.

Delta spokeswoman Betsy Talton told the AP that she cannot
comment on pending litigation.


DITECH: No Hearing Date Set for Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
hearing date for an appeal in connection with the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit against
Ditech Communications Corp.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed by Richard E. Jaffe against
Ditech Communications, former chief executive officer Timothy K.
Montgomery, and chief financial officer William J. Tamblyn (Case
No. C 05 02406) on June 14, 2005, before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf
of a class of investors who purchased Ditech's stock between
Aug. 25, 2004, and May 26, 2005.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its
former executives.

Several similar lawsuits were later filed.

All the suits against the company were subsequently consolidated
into a single action, captioned "In re Ditech Communications
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406-JSW."  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 2, 2006.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated suit.  By order
dated Aug. 10, 2006, the court sided with the defendants and
dismissed the complaint, but with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Sept. 11,
2006, and the defendants again moved to dismiss this.  By order
dated March 22, 2007, the court dismissed the Second Amended
Complaint, with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs, in April 2007, filed their third amended
complaint, which the defendant again moved to dismiss.  By order
dated Oct. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the Third Amended
Complaint with prejudice.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  This appeal has
been fully briefed.  

However, no date for oral argument of the appeal has been set
yet, according to the company's July 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge
Jeffrey S. White, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
         (cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com)
         Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C.
         425 California Street, Suite 2025
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-433-3200
         Fax: 415-433-6382

Representing the defendants is:

         William S. Freeman, Esq. (freemanws@cooley.com)
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
         Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155
         Phone: 650-843-5000
         Fax: 650-857-0663


DOMEGA INT'L: Undeclared Content Prompts Sweetened Ginger Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Domega International Co. Ltd., of 98 Bay 35th Street, Brooklyn,
New York, is recalling Korica Brand "Mut Gung" Sweetened Ginger
because it contains undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Korica Brand "Mut Gung" Sweetened Ginger is sold in
uncoded 7 oz plastic tubs and is a product of Vietnam.  The
product was sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
Subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in Korica Brand "Mut Gung"
Sweetened Ginger in packages which did not declare sulfites on
the label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some
asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.

No illnesses involving this product have been reported to date.
Consumers who have purchased Korica Brand "Mut Gung" Sweetened
Ginger should return them to the place of purchase.  Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 646-938-7345.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: N.Y. Court Consolidates Five Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated five securities class action
complaints against E*Trade Financial Corp. and appointed Brower
Piven as lead counsel and Levi & Korsinsky as co-lead counsel,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

On Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company and
its chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

The suit was initially entitled, "Larry Freudenberg,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, versus E*TRADE Financial Corporation, Mitchell H.
Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, Defendants."

The plaintiff contends, among other things, that between
Dec. 14, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants:

       -- issued materially false and misleading statements and
          failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a
          rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home
          equity portfolios;

       -- failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage
          and home equity portfolios and materially overvalued
          its securities portfolio, which includes assets backed
          by mortgages; and

       -- based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for
          the positive statements it made about the Company's
          earnings and prospects.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven
at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Four additional class action complaints alleging similar
violations of the federal securities laws and alleging either
the same or somewhat longer class periods were filed in the same
court between Oct. 12, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2007, by named
plaintiffs William Boston, Robert D. Thulman, Wendy M. Davidson,
and Joshua Ferenc -- who subsequently dismissed his complaint on
May 2, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008).

The recently consolidated class action suit is on behalf of
people who bought shares in E*Trade between April 20, 2006, and
Nov. 9, 2007.

The first identified suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Robert W. Sweet, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Avi 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 is:

          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4900
          Fax: 212-450-3900


ECHOSTAR COMMS: August 2008 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative August 2008 trial was scheduled for a class action
lawsuit filed against EchoStar Communications Corp. eight years
ago by thousands of its retail distributors.

In 2000, retailers filed lawsuits in Arapahoe County and the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, attempting to
certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's
satellite hardware retailers (Class Action Reporter, April 30,
2008).

The plaintiffs in the two suits are requesting the courts to
declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.   

The company is vigorously defending against the suits and has
asserted a variety of counterclaims.  

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

EchoStar Communications later filed a motion for summary
judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion.

The court granted limited discovery, which ended in 2004.
   
The plaintiffs claimed that the company did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.  The court agreed, and
recently denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a
result.   

Recently, Judge John Wheeler issued a ruling in which he blamed
EchoStar for demonstrating "a willingness and proclivity for
drawing out legal proceedings as long as humanly possible and
burying their opponents in paperwork and filings."

In addition, the judge granted class certification to the state
lawsuit.

Trial in the state lawsuit has been set for August 2008,
according to Echostar DBS Corp.'s July 10, 2008 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

EchoStar Communications Corp. -- http://www.echostar.com/-- is   
primarily a holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company operates two interrelated business units: the DISH
Network and EchoStar Technologies Corp.  The DISH Network
provides a direct broadcast satellite subscription television
service in the U.S. DISH Network services include hundreds of
video, audio and data channels, interactive television channels,
digital video recording, high-definition television,
international programming, professional installation and around-
the-clock customer service.  ETC designs and develops DBS set-
top boxes, antennae and other digital equipment for the DISH
Network (collectively referred to as EchoStar receiver systems).   
ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar equipment for
international satellite service providers.


ENDOSCOPY CENTER: Judge Allows Emotional Distress in Hepa Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County District Court Judge Allan Earl ruled that patients
who were not made ill can claim emotional distress in a class-
action lawsuit alleging that Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada
exposed them to the hepatitis virus by reusing syringes and
vials of medication, the Associated Press reports.

According to the report Judge Earl's ruling could expand the
number of people seeking damages in lawsuits against the Las
Vegas medical clinic.  A court spokesman told the AP that
Endoscopy Center is currently facing 121 lawsuits.

                        Case Background

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14, 2008,
the Southern Nevada Health District in January urged about
40,000 patients to get tested for blood-borne diseases after an
investigation found that syringes and single-use vials of
anesthetics were being reused on patients at the Endoscopy
Center, Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center, the Gastroenterology
Center of Nevada, the Gastroenterology Center and the Spanish
Hills Surgical Center.  These blood-borne diseases include
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV, which is the virus that causes
AIDS.  Since then, health officials have traced seven acute
cases of Hepatitis C to the Endoscopy Center and one to its
affiliate clinic, Desert Shadow.

The AP explains that Hepatitis C results in the swelling of the
liver and can cause stomach pain, fatigue and jaundice.  It may
eventually result in liver failure.  Even when no symptoms
occur, the virus can slowly damage the liver.

An earlier CAR report -- March 4, 2008 -- wrote that a class
action lawsuit was filed against Endoscopy Center on Feb. 28,
2008, in the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, accusing it
of potentially exposing thousands of patients to HIV and
hepatitis by treating them with used syringes over a four-year
period.  

Named plaintiffs Michael Cordero and Richard Taylor claim that
during the period from March 2004 until Jan. 11, 2008, Endoscopy
Center treated class members with dirty syringes that were
previously exposed to unknown persons.

A used syringe or dirty syringe is a defective product that is
unfit for its intended use because the dirty syringe exposes
persons to communicable disease from the prior person that the
dirty syringe was used upon, the report notes.

The plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of of all
other persons who were treated with dirty syringes previously
used for unknown persons at the Endoscopy Center during the time
period.  They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Endoscopy Center had a common practice during
         the time periods March 2004 through Jan. 11, 2008, to
         reuse syringes for persons receiving needle injections;

     (b) whether a "dirty syringe" is a defective product; and

     (c) whether Endoscopy Center distributed "dirty syringes."

The plaintiffs asked the court to enter an order:

     -- directing payment of costs to be tested for Hepatitis B,
        Hepatitis C and HIV antibody;

     -- directing payment of general damages in excess of
        $10,000;

     -- directing payment of special damages in excess of
        $10,000;

     -- directing payment of punitive damages in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- directing payment of reasonable attorneys' fees; and

     -- directing payment of costs of suit.

                  Case vs. Doctors Postponed

An earlier report by KLAS-TV stated that a portion of the
pending class action lawsuit against Endoscopy Center and four
of the doctors at the clinic has been postponed.

KLAS-TV said that defense attorneys have asked the judge to
postpone the pending lawsuit, specifically depositions of trhe
four doctors who would be asked to answer certain questions
about practices at the clinic.  Attorneys have argued that any
comments made at these depositions by the defendants during the
class action suit could possibly be used against them in the
current criminal investigation.

The four doctors include Dr. Dipak Desai, who is the majority
owner of the Endoscopy Center.

Thus, the court decided to postpone those depositions until the
end of July in hopes that attorneys would know where the
criminal investigation stands.  Doctors would also be able to
assert their Fifth Amendment rights.

All of the attorneys will meet again on July 29, 2008, to talk
about the current postponement of those depositions.  The judge
said the court will see if they have any more of an appetite to
extend the postponement.

No date has been set for filing criminal charges against the
doctors.  The DA's office said in the past that they are working
on it and should see something in the near future.

                     Judge's Recent Ruling

Judge Earl, on July 22, rejected arguments by a lawyer for the
clinic who said patients who did not suffer actual injury should
not be allowed to recover damages.  Judge Earl said that the
mental anguish of potential exposure to incurable blood-borne
illnesses during treatment at the now-closed clinic could lead
to physical ailments.

However, Judge Earl dismissed claims that the Endoscopy Center
should be held liable under product liability and warranty laws.
He said the clinic did not sell vials of anesthesia and other
supplies to patients.

Will Kemp, Esq., who leads the class-action lawsuit, argued that
the clinic sold the anesthesia Propofol, billing patients $200
for 50 milliliter vials it bought for $33 apiece.

The AP relates that in an earlier ruling in a separate lawsuit,
Judge Earl dismissed Nevada Mutual Insurance Co., which provided
medical malpractice insurance to the Endoscopy Center.

Robert Cottle, Esq., who represents patients who filed the
lawsuit against Nevada Mutual, claimed the insurer should have
inspected and evaluated clinic procedures.  Mr. Cottle also
suggested Dr. Desai -- who is also a former Nevada Mutual
Insurance board member -- might have used his influence to avoid
oversight.

The AP notes that Dr. Desai has already voluntarily surrendered
his license to practice medicine in Nevada pending the results
of the hepatitis investigations.

Alice Campos Mercado, Esq., a lawyer for Nevada Mutual, had
contended that the company had no duty to the clinic's patients
or to tell doctors what to do.

The suit is "Michael Cordero et al v. Endoscopy Center of
Southern Nevada, LLC, Case No. A558091," filed in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Will Kemp, Esq. (hkj@hkj-law.com)
          Harrison, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Seventeenth Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89169


FILTER MANUFACTURERS: Court Yet to Rule on Quick Lube Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut still
has to rule on a class-action petition filed by S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. against 12 filter manufacturers involved in an
alleged "massive conspiracy" to, among other things, fix prices,
according to Land Line Magazine.

Quick Lube filed the suit on March 31, 2008, against:

         -- Champion Laboratories,
         -- Purolator Filters,
         -- Honeywell International,
         -- Wix Filtration Products,
         -- Cummins Filtration,
         -- the Donaldson Company,
         -- Baldwin Filters,
         -- Bosch,
         -- MANN + Hummel,
         -- Arvin Meritor,
         -- United Components and
         -- The Carlyle Group.

The suit alleges that filter manufacturers engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers
for after-market automotive filters (Class Action Reporter,
April 22, 2008).

According to the suit, a confidential informant who was a senior
sales executive employed by two of the defendants, contends the
defendants conspired and agreed to coordinate prices, rig bids
and allocate customers from at least Jan. 1, 1999, to the
present.

"Through meetings at industry events and elsewhere and the
exchange or confidential pricing materials, defendants
unlawfully agreed to the magnitude and timing or price
increases," the lawsuit states.

Because of the alleged price fixing, the lawsuit claims that
customers were forced to pay inflated "prices for filters and as
a result have suffered antitrust injury to their business or
property."

The suit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc. v. Champion
Labortories, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:2008cv00475," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet
Bond Arterton presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bruce Mansfield Soot-Discharge Lawsuit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 80 local residents sued FirstEnergy Corp., claiming that
chronic toxic pollution from the company's Bruce Mansfield
electrical plant at Shippingport has poisoned them and their
properties.

The residents, most from Beaver County, filed three separate
lawsuits in U.S. District Court, Pittsburgh, alleging the
company "knowingly, intentionally and willfully" caused white
and black rain fallout from the coal-fired plant, which has
triggered life-threatening illnesses and exacerbated existing
illnesses.

The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $6.8 million, plus
unspecified amounts for compensatory, punitive and property
damages.  They also ask for a court injunction to prevent
further pollution.

"It's not only air pollution," said Deanna Tanner, Esq., who is
lawyer representing the residents.  "It's really a deposition of
waste.  That plant is using the properties surrounding it as a
toxic dump.  They're dumping their toxic wastes on the
properties surrounding it."

Last year, The Times discovered that Bruce Mansfield has
consistently violated air emission standards since 1998 and is
listed as a "high priority" violator by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  FirstEnergy has paid more than $1 million in
fines to the state over the years for pollution emissions.

FirstEnergy, which has spent millions upgrading pollution
control systems at Bruce Mansfield, has said that it is
continually working to reduce emissions from the plant.  On
Tuesday, company spokesman Mark Durbin said the company was
reviewing the lawsuits, but he could not comment further.

The legal action focuses on four specific incidents -- "black
rain" fallout on July 22, 2006, and similar episodes on June 10,
July 7 and July 8, 2007 -- and "white rain" events that the suit
describes as "ongoing and chronic."

FirstEnergy and the state Department of Environmental Protection
reported that the black gunk coating lawns, vegetable gardens,
cars, outdoor furniture and homes during the four incidents was
not hazardous to humans.  FirstEnergy has paid fines totaling
$50,000 for the incidents.

The suit claims the black and white rain discharges from plant
stacks contained an alphabet soup of toxic contaminants,
including lead, mercury, arsenic, thallium, beryllium, boron,
cadmium, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium and
zinc.

As a result of being exposed to the chemicals, residents allege
they have developed life-threatening illnesses, including severe
respiratory disorders, lung disease, heart disease, allergies
and rashes, according to the suit.

One of the worst cases, according to one of the suits, involves
a 4-year-old Greene Township girl who developed alopecia (loss
of all body hair), significant gastrointestinal and respiratory
problems, and emotional disorders after being exposed to the
contaminants.

Mike and Jessica Hartle of Greene Township allege their
daughter, Gracie, was a normal, healthy toddler prior to the
July 22, 2006, incident.  Gracie was exposed to the soot that
day while visiting with her mother at the home of her
grandmother in Raccoon Township and during the subsequent
discharges, according to the suit brought by her parents.

Samples taken by the state after the July 22 incident uncovered
concentrations of arsenic, thallium, mercury and selenium that
exceeded accepted residential standards, according to the suit.

Since her health problems began, Gracie Hartle has been teased
by other children and developed negative behaviors such as
hitting, yelling, tantrums and bedwetting.  The only thing she
wanted for Christmas last year was a wig, according to the suit.

In addition to the Hartle suit, Ms. Tanner, who works in the
firm Villari, Brandes & Kline of Conshohocken, has filed suit on
behalf of 21 other plaintiffs.

The firm has also filed a class-action suit on behalf of more
than 75 residents living in the region around Bruce Mansfield.
The suit notes that the potential number of plaintiffs eligible
to enter the suit could exceed 3,000.

Last year, the environmental group PennFuture filed a class-
action suit against FirstEnergy concerning the pollution levels
at the plant.  That case is pending.

The first identified suit is "Hartle et al. v. FirstEnergy
Generation Corp., Case Number: 2:2008cv01019," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge
Joy Flowers Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Deanna Tanner, Esq.
          Villari Brandes & Kline PC
          161 Washington St Ste 400
          Conshohocken, PA 19428


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Suits Over Trailers and Homes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., is still facing several complaints,
some of which are putative class actions, filed against
manufacturers of travel trailers and manufactured homes supplied
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be used for
emergency living accommodations in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.

The complaints generally allege injury due to the presence of
formaldehyde in the units (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12,
2007).

                      Oldenburg Litigation

One of these class action suits is "Oldenburg et al. v. United
State of America et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02961-ILRL-DEK," which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007).

This purported federal class action accuses the federal
government, along with several other parties, of housing victims
of Hurricane Katrina in FEMA trailers contaminated by
carcinogenic formaldehyde.

Robin Oldenburg, Austin Sicard, and Cindy McDonald -- all
residents of the Parish of St. Bernard -- filed the lawsuit on
May 18, 2007.  In it, the trio also named as defendants:

      -- Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.;
      -- Fleetwood Canada, Ltd.; and
      -- Other as yet unnamed travel trailer vendors to FEMA.

The case was brought on behalf of those persons residing or
living in manufactured mobile homes, mobile homes or travel
trailers along the Gulf coast of the U.S.   

The housing units were provided by FEMA after the landfalls of
Hurricane Katrina, and the victims were allegedly subjected to
harmful levels of formaldehyde while residing in the housing
units.

Formaldehyde (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html)is used in  
the manufacture of certain construction materials as
particleboard and plywood, particularly in the manufactured home
industry.  According to the National Cancer Institute,
formaldehyde has been classified as a human carcinogen (cancer-
causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer and as a probably human carcinogen by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

The plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages in an
amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as
to themselves and each proposed class member.  They are
demanding a jury trial for their case.

                       Hillard Litigation

Another similar suit is "Hillard et al. v. United States of
America et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02576-MVL-KWR," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2006).

The suit was initiated by Sean Trundy, Esq., also over dangerous
levels of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers provided to Hurricane
Katrina victims.  It alleges that high concentrations of
formaldehyde, emitted from products in the Indiana-made
trailers, caused "a clear and present danger to the health and
well-being" of the people who live in the trailers.

Mr. Trundy claimed the trailers caused his clients to experience
allergy or flu like symptoms including headaches and stuffed
noses.

After Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region,
the federal government bought thousands of trailers to house
victims of the storm.

The named defendants in the Hillard suit are:

     -- United States of America,

     -- Federal Emergency Management Agency,

     -- Gulf Stream Coach of Nappanee,

     -- Pilgrim International Inc. of Middlebury,

     -- KZRV LP of Shipshewana,

     -- Starcraft RV of Topeka,  

     -- Monaco Coach of Oregon with plants in northern Indiana,   
        and

     -- Fleetwood Enterprises of California with operations  
        south of Fort Wayne

The suit seeks a court order that will require the government to
fix the problem rather than offer a monetary award.  

The suit stemmed from tests conducted by the Sierra Club on 31
FEMA trailers and found out that 29 trailers were above the 1
part per million-formaldehyde safety limit recommended by the
federal government and the American Lung Association.

The company reported no development in the matters in its
July 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 27, 2008.

Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.fleetwood.com/-- is  
engaged in producing both recreational vehicles and manufactured
housing.  The Company also operates three supply companies that
provide components for the recreational vehicle and housing
operations, while also generating outside sales.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: 6th Circuit Upholds $42MM Stock Suits Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld
the $42-million settlement in two securities class action
lawsuits filed against Fruit of the Loom Inc., CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The suits were filed by investors and the New England Health
Care Employees Pension in 1998 and 2000 in U.S. District Court
in Bowling Green.  They alleged that the company's former top
officers issued misleading statements to boost the company's
stock price.

The New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund filed the
suit on Sept. 30, 1998, on behalf of all those who purchased the
Class A Common Stock and publicly traded options of Fruit of the
Loom, Inc., between July 24, 1996, and September 5, 1997.

The defendants were:

     (1) Fruit of the Loom

     (2) William F. Farley,

     (3) Bernhard Hansen,

     (4) Richard C. Lappin,

     (5) G. William Newton,

     (6) Burgess D. Ridge,

     (7) Larry K. Switzer, and

     (8) John D. Wigodsky

The individuals named in the case have served as company
officers (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2001).

In 2006, a federal judge approved the settlement deals in the
two securities class action suits, totaling $42 million (Class
Action Reporter, March 23, 2006).

It was unknown how many stockholders could collect cash from the
settlement, but notices were mailed to more than 28,000 people
in the two lawsuits.  People who purchased stock will receive
$1.01 to $4.07 per share, depending upon when the stock was
purchased.  The settlement is allocated as:

   Settlement Amount                 Class Period
   -----------------                 ------------
$23.2 million stock purchased   July 24, 1996 - Sept. 5, 1997
$19.1 million stock purchased   Sept. 28, 1998 - Nov. 4, 1999

Subsequently, plaintiff-appellant James J. Hayes, appearing pro
se, sought review of the district court's approval of the
settlement.

Mr. Hayes, a non-named member of a class of Fruit of the Loom
shareholders, contended that the district court erred in
approving the settlement because certain class members, received
notice of the settlement after the deadline for objecting to the
settlement.

Mr. Hayes maintained that the settlement should be set aside and
the class renotified. Additionally, he requested that the
attorney's fees granted by the district court to class counsel
be reduced due to the alleged deficiencies in providing notice
to the class.

In turn, the lead plaintiffs -- the appellees in the instant
case -- argue that the appeals court should decline to hear
Mr. Hayes's appeal because he, as a non-intervening, non-named
class member, is not a "party" for purposes of appealing the
settlement.

Recently, the 6th Circuit upheld the settlement.  The appeals
court concluded that Mr. Hayes has the power to bring this
appeal, notwithstanding his status as a non-intervening, non-
named class member.

Nonetheless, the 6th Circuit affirms the district court's order
approving the settlement, as well as the court's award of
attorney's fees to class counsel.

The suit is "Bernard Fidel et al. v. William Farley et al., Case
No. 06-5550," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green, Judge Joseph H.
McKinley, Jr., presiding.


GENENTECH INC: Chimicles & Tikellis Challenges Roche Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2008, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of Genentech, Inc., in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, against Genentech,  
its Board of Directors, Roche Holdings, Inc. -- asserting claims
for breaches of fiduciary duty against the directors of
Genentech and breaches of fiduciary duty and entire fairness
against Roche and its three designees on the Genentech board of
directors -- in connection with the proposed acquisition by
Roche of all of the outstanding shares of Genentech stock it
does not already own for $89.00 per share.

After months of internal deliberation, on July 21, 2008, Roche
announced that it had submitted a proposal to acquire all the
outstanding stock of Genentech which Roche does not already own
for $89.00 per share in cash.  

Roche had not informed Genentech of its intent to do so until
July 20, 2008, the night prior to the proposal.  The Proposed
Acquisition represents a mere 8.8% premium over the Company's
closing price on July 18, 2008.  

According to Dealogic, the average premium offered in similar
squeeze-out deals is 21% this year, well above the 8.8% offered
by Roche.  The bid by Roche is an opportunistic attempt to buy
the remaining shares of Genentech for an unfairly low price.  

On July 14, 2008, the Company raised its 2008 earnings forecast.  
The Proposed Acquisition is also timed opportunistically to take
advantage of the weakness of the U.S. Dollar against the Swiss
Franc and to secure a bargain price before the public release of
research data on Genentech's developmental colon cancer drug,
Avastin.  By squeezing out Genentech's public stockholders,
Roche stands to benefit by increased profits of over $800
million and pretax savings of $750 - $850 million.  Roche holds
approximately 55.9% of voting power of Genentech's shares and
has the power to designate three of the seven members of the
Genentech Board.  

Roche also has many other powers of control under its many
agreements with Genentech.  By virtue of its control power,
Roche controls Genentech and its board of directors, ensuring
that the Genentech Board is conflicted and cannot act
effectively on behalf of the Genentech public stockholders.  As
such, Roche stands to profit significantly from the Proposed
Acquisition at the expense of Genentech's public stockholders.

The Action alleges that the proposed acquisition by Roche is not
in the best interests of Genentech's shareholders because, among
other things, it is not fairly priced, Roche is making an
opportunistic offer, and by virtue of Roche's control over
Genentech and its Board, Genentech's Board is disabled from
effectively acting on behalf of the unaffiliated public
stockholders.  Given the inability of Genentech's Board to
ensure the best deal and fair value for Genentech, only
independent shareholder litigants are now in a position to
ensure that the Genentech's shareholders will not be forced to
exchange their shares for less than fair compensation.

The suit is "Montgomery County Employees' Retirement Fund et al.
v. Herbert W. Boyer, Transaction ID: 20739575," filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
          (PamelaTikellis@chimicles.com)
          Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
          (RobertKriner@chimicles.com)
          A. Zachary Naylor, Esq. (ZacharyNaylor@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis LLP
          P.O. Box 1035, One Rodney Square
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: 302-656-2500


GENENTECH INC: Cohen Milstein Files Dela. Suit Over Roche Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed a lawsuit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of
Genentech Inc. shareholders concerning the proposed buy-out of
Genentech by its majority shareholder, Roche Holdings AG.

The complaint alleges violations of breach of fiduciary duty,
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty with respect
to Roche's Proposed Buy-Out.

On July 21, 2008, Roche announced in a press release that it had
offered to purchase the remaining shares of Genentech that it
did not already own for $89 per share, for a total price of
$43 billion.  Roche is Genentech's majority shareholder, owning
more than 50% of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Proposal is unfair and inadequate
and timed to take advantage of general market turmoil as well as
a weak U.S. dollar, and is directed at enabling Roche to assume
even greater control of Genentech's businesses.  In reaction to
the Proposed Buy-Out, analysts have stated publicly that the
price offered by Roche is inadequate and they expect that the
Company is worth in excess of $100 per share.  The complaint
further asserts that based upon the control structure that Roche
holds over Genentech, Genentech's Board of Directors will be
unable to independently and adequately negotiate or consider a
fair deal. Upon completion of the Proposed Buy-Out, Genentech
will no longer be publicly traded.

Steven J. Toll, Esq., Cohen Milstein managing partner, stated,
"It is clear that the Proposed Buy-Out is on unfair terms and
shortchanges Genentech's shareholders."

Cohen Milstein partner Lynda J. Grant, Esq., said, "This is the
second time Roche has attempted to purchase Genentech.  Roche
has a history of exploiting Genentech with repeated purchases
and sales of the Company for its own gain."

The suit is " Ira J. Gaines et al. v. Genentech Inc. et al.,
Transaction ID: 20766857," filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Rigrodsky & Long, PA
          919 North Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-295-5310

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.          
          1100 New York Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600

          - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          150 E. 52nd Street, 30th fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-7797


GEORGIA PDSC: First Hearing in Conflict Defenders Lawsuit Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday, July 24, 2008, a judge heard the first arguments in a
class-action lawsuit filed against Georgia's public defenders
agency, PBA Online reports.

According to PBA Online, the suit centers on a decision to
replace four full-time lawyers from Fulton County's conflict
defenders office with attorneys on contract.

The report recounts that in last month, the Georgia Public
Defenders Standards Council decided not to fire most of the 21
attorneys in the Fulton County Conflict Defenders Office.  
However, the council still means to fire four full-time
attorneys that handle the less-complex criminal cases at the end
of July.

Steve Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights told PBA
Online that replacing the four full-time lawyers with contract
attorneys will hurt hundreds of client cases every year.

"Your financial incentive is going to be to spend time on
private cases, because if you're only paid $50,000 without any
benefits, at the end of the day you're only going to be taking
home less than $30,000.  So you've got to be doing something
else," Mr. Bright said.  He represents people accused of crimes
in the lawsuit.

The report notes that the Standards Council planned the
termination because the state gave the conflict defenders office
$3 million less than it requested.


HEALTHWAYS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
Healthways, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud class
action suits before the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, according to the company's July 10, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The two purported class action suits were filed beginning
June 5, 2008, against Healthways and its chairman, chief
executive officer and chief financial officer.

The complaints seek monetary damages on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock between Oct. 17, 2007, and
Feb. 26, 2008.  

The suits allege claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to
certain disclosures made by Healthways during the Proposed Class
Period regarding its results of operations, business and
prospects.

Discovery in these cases has not yet commenced and no trial
dates have been set.

Healthways, Inc. -- http://www.healthways.com/-- provides  
specialized, Health and Care Support solutions to help people
maintain or improve their health, and as a result, reduce
overall healthcare costs.  The company delivers its programs to
customers, which include health plans, governments, employers,
and hospitals, in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and Guam.  It's programs focus on prevention,
education, physical fitness, health coaching, behavior change
and evidence-based medicine to drive adherence to proven
standards of care, medications and physicians' plans of care.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. has commenced a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of employees and former employees of
IndyMac Bancorp. Inc. and asserting violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Benefits Security Act of 1974 against the
Company and other fiduciaries of its retirement plan.

The Complaint alleges that IndyMac and other administrator and
fiduciaries of the Plan breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence to participants and beneficiaries
of the Plan.

The administrator and the fiduciaries of the Plan failed to
manage the assets of the Plan prudently and loyally, by
investing the assets in the Company stock at a time when it was
no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement
savings.

In particular, IndyMac and the Plan's administrator and
fiduciaries continued to invest in IndyMac stock in the Plan,
despite knowingly inflating the price of the IndyMac stock by
issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.

For more information, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 877-495-1187 (toll free)
                 212-952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Court Okays Filing of Second Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
partially granted th plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended
complaint in the purported class action lawsuit, "David Barrie,
et al. v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al., Case No. 3-01CV1071-
D."

Initially, several related class action suits were filed on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of InterVoice, Inc., during
the period from Oct. 12, 1999, through June 6, 2000.

The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into
one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 against the company as well as certain
named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on
behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the company and
certain named current and former officers and directors issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period
concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of
the merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future
business projections of Intervoice.

The plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because
it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet
the pleading standards applicable to federal securities
litigation.  The plaintiffs' appealed this dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which later affirmed the
dismissal in part and reversed in part.  The 5th Circuit
remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in
the District Court.

On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice
stock during the Class Period between Oct. 12, 1999, and June 6,
2000.  This ruling was subsequently appealed by the company to
the Fifth Circuit and briefing on the merits of this appeal has
been completed and oral argument occurred on Oct. 1, 2007.

The company filed a motion to stay further discovery pending the
Fifth Circuit's decision on the merits of the company's appeal,
but the District Court denied the motion.  On Jan. 8, 2008, the
Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-certification
order and remanded the case to the District Court for further
consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in the
case, "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom,
Inc."

The parties have filed additional briefing in the District Court
regarding class certification and are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.

The District Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs for leave
to file a second amended complaint and the company moved to
dismiss portions of that amended complaint.

On March 14, 2008, the District court granted this motion in
part and denied it in part, according to the company's July 10,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "Barrie, et al. v. Intervoice Brite Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:01-cv-01071," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Judge Ed Kinkeade, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
         Stanley Mandel & Iola
         3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
         Dallas, TX 75205
         Phone: 214-443-4301
         Fax: 214-443-0358

              - and -

         Lauren M. Winston, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         100 Pine St., Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545.

Representing the defendants is:

          Timothy R. McCormick, Esq.
          (timothy.mccormick@tklaw.com)
          Thompson & Knight
          1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300,
          Dallas, TX 75201-4693
          Phone: 214-969-1103
          Fax: 214-880-3253


NYMEX HOLDINGS: Capozza Hires Doxsey to Review Court Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cataldo J. Capozza, an original member and shareholder of NYMEX
Holdings, Inc., who filed a class action lawsuit on March 17,
2008, in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of all NYMEX
shareholders, has hired Cindy Doxsey as Chief Executive
Assistant to review court proceedings.

Earlier this month, the Delaware Chancery Court has granted
expedited discovery in anticipation of a motion to enjoin the
proposed sale of NYMEX to CME Holdings, Inc (Class Action
Reporter, July 18, 2008).

Mr. Capozza said, "The recent announcement by CME and NYMEX of
the revised merger agreement and the shareholder vote on
August 18, 2008 offers nothing new to NYMEX shareholders since
it maintains the original exchange ratio and cash consideration
per share offered in January 2008.  It also requires NYMEX, not
CME, to pay NYMEX members $750 million from company assets.
NYMEX is buying seat rights for CME with its shareholder cash
reserves.  CME should be paying this expense, not the NYMEX
shareholders.  If NYMEX has extra cash available, it should pay
a special dividend to NYMEX shareholders to make up for billions
of dollars lost in this deal."

                        Case Background
                         
On March 17, 2008, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on behalf of shareholders of NYMEX Holdings, against
NYMEX, Richard Schaeffer, certain other directors and officers
of the company, and CME Group for breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX to CME (Class Action
Reporter, March 19, 2008).

The complaint alleges that the director-defendants, aided and
abetted by NYMEX and CME, breached their fiduciary duties to
Mr. Capozza -- an original member and shareholder -- and the
other NYMEX shareholders by agreeing to sell NYMEX to CME for
grossly inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the proposed acquisition was
negotiated through a process that was fundamentally flawed.

In August 2007, NYMEX Chairman Richard Schaeffer valued NYMEX at
$14 billion.  Five months later, in January 2008, he negotiated
the sale to CME valuing NYMEX at $11 billion.  Today, despite
record results reported by NYMEX, the sale deal is worth only
$7 billion because of the sharp decline in the price of CME
stock.

Mr. Capozza is currently seeking a substantial improvement to
the terms of the proposed sale.

The suit is "Capozza v. NYMEX Holdings, Inc., et al.," filed
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (rifkin@whafh.com)
          Rachel Poplock, Esq. (poplock@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600


PORSCHE CARS: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges 911 Carrera Coupes Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche Cars North America Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey over allegations that its 1999 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe
has a defective water-cooled engine that leaks antifreeze
through a cracked cylinder, ruining the engine, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiffs say Porsche "actively concealed" the defects and
refused to recall the engines or pay for repairs, which often
are needed after the 4-year, 50,000-mile warranty expires.  The
allegedly defective engine is also known as the Porsche 996
water-cooled engine.

"The Porsche 911s are equipped with defectively designed Porsche
engines," the complaint states.  "Due to these defective
engines, the Porsche 911s are rendered inoperable.  These design
defects cause antifreeze to leak into the engine oil through a
defective and cracked cylinder.  The Porsche engine is water-
cooled and when the antifreeze and water solution mix with the
engine oil, the damage to the engine is irreparable.  These
defects are unreasonably dangerous, as they may cause large
amounts of smoke to be emitted from the tail pipe as well as
severe damage to and ultimate failure of the Porsche engine."

The plaintiffs bring this class action complaint on behalf of
all persons who purchased a 1999 Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe for
use and as a collector and which vehicle had or currently has
the defective Porsche 996 water-cooled engine.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment:

     -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class
        action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure and for an order certifying this case as a
        class action;

     -- awarding plaintiffs damages, both compensatory and
        punitive;

     -- awarding plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this
        expenses in amounts to be determined by the court;
        action, including reasonable counsel fees, costs and

     -- awarding interest and costs of suit;

     -- awarding injunctive relief to plaintiff and the class by
        requiring Porsche to notify present and future owners of
        the Porsche 911 Carrera Coupe, model year 1999, that
        said product contains a defective engine; recall the
        class vehicles; inspect all class vehicles currently
        owned by plaintiff and the class to ascertain the nature
        and extent of the defect; repair or replace all engined
        related defects; conduct regular inspections of all
        recalled vehicles; subsequently make repairs to or
        replace defective engine components as necessary and
        when discovered after regular inspection; and to do so
        at Porsche's sole expense; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as is just and
        proper.

The suit is "Gilbert Noble, et al. v. Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., Case 2:33-av-00001," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          Nagel Rice, LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: 973-618-0400


RED HAT: Plaintiff Seek Class Certification in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina against Red Hat, Inc., has filed a motion to
certify the suit as a class action.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed
against the company and several of its present and former
officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's
securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through
July 13, 2004.  All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  

All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR."

A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class
action complaint was filed.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.  

On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion
to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against
several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the
company, its chief executive officer and its former chief
financial officer.

The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.  A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery
was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.  

In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order
denying class certification and denying all other pending
motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment
as class representative, as moot.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr.
Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him
as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to
certify the action as a class action, according to the company's
July 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Judge W. Earl Britt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         William Webb, Esq. (woodywebb@wwedmisten.com)
         The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm,
         P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602
         Phone: 919-831-8700

Representing the company is:
        
         Pressly M. Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com)
         Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq.
         P.O. Box 831
         Raleigh, NC 27602
         Phone: 919-755-2135


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Cheated Employees Commence Lawsuit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey over
allegations that it cheated employees who invested in company
stock by failing to disclose problems with its cholesterol drug,
Vytorin, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class-action brought pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2)
and (a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERIS), 29 USC Sections 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3), on behalf of
Schering-Plough Employees' Savings Plan and the Schering-Plough
Puerto Rico Employees' Retirement Savings Plan.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, as fiduciaries of the
plans, breached their duties of the plans in violation of ERISA,
particularly with regard to the plans' holdings of Schering-
Plough stock.

The complaint alleges that Schering-Plough had at all applicable
times, effective control over the activities of its officers and
employees, including their plan-related activities.
Additionally, by failing to properly discharge their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, the officer, director, and employee
fiduciaries breached duties thety owed to the plans'
participants and their beneficiaries.  Accordingly, the actions
of the plans' directors, officers, and other employee
fiduciaries are imputed to Schering-Plough under the doctrine of
respondent superior, and Schering-Plough is liable for these
actions.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a),
(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the plans at any time between Oct. 22, 2007,
and the present whose accounts included investments in Schering-
Plough stock.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to
         plaintiff and the class;

     (b) whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
         plaintiff and the class by failing to act prudently and
         solely in the interests of the plans' participants and
         beneficiaries;

     (c) whether defendants violated ERISA; and

     (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiffs request for:

      -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them,
         have breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the
         participants;

      -- a declaration that the defendants, and each of them,
         are not entitled to the protection of ERISA Section
         404(c)(1)(B), 29 USC Section 1104(c)(1)(B);

      -- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
         plans all losses to the plans resulting from imprudent
         investment to the plans' assets, and to restore to the
         plans all profits the defendants made through use of
         the plans' assets, and to restore to the plans all
         profits which the participants would have made if the
         defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;

      -- imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by
         which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the
         expense of the plans as the result of breaches of
         fiduciary duty;

      -- an order enjoining defendants, and each of them, from
         any further violations of their ERISA fiduciary
         obligations;

      -- actual damages in the amount of any losses the plans
         suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
         individual accounts in proportion to the accounts
         losses;

      -- an order that defendants allocate the plans' recoveries
         to the accounts of all participants who had their
         accounts invested in the common stock of Schering-
         Plough maintained by the plans in proportion to the
         accounts' losses attributable to the precipitous
         decline in the stock of Schering-Plough equity;

      -- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 USC Section
         1132(g);

      -- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 USC
         Section 1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and

      -- an order for equitable restitution and other
         appropriate equitable and injunctive relief against the
         defendants, including appropriate modifications to the
         plans to ensure against further violations of ERISA.

The suit is "Maureen Sabatella, et al. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
et al., Case 2:08-cv-03568-DMC-MF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          Squitieri & Fearon LLP
          1600 Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1K
          Jersey City, NJ 07306
          Phone: 201-200-0900


SHAW GROUP: Parties in N.Y. Suit File Stipulation of Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs and the defendants in the class action lawsuit
entitled "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08245-RCC," have jointly filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, where the case is on appeal.

The purported class action suit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Shaw Group
and certain of its officers on Oct. 10, 2006, over alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  

The suit also alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from Jan. 6, 2006, to July 9,
2006.  

The suit also alleges, among other things, that:  

    * the company falsely represented that internal controls  
      were adequate and effective in the second quarter of  
      fiscal 2006, and

    * in the second quarter of 2006, materially overstated  
      revenues and understated losses.  

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.  
The suit has not been certified as a class action by the Court.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the judge in the matter signed an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs The City of Brockton Retirement
System and The Norfolk County Retirement System, and appointing
as lead counsel for plaintiffs the firm of Labaton Sucharow &
Rudoff LLP.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended class action
complaint, which includes the same substantive allegations and
the same two claims as the initial complaint.

On Jan. 10, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to transfer
venue to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, and a motion to dismiss the amended class action
complaint.  The Court denied the request to transfer venue, but
later granted the defendants' dismissal motion in its entirety,
with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the court to appeal
the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
on April 16, 2008.

However, the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly filed a
Stipulation of Dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on May 19, 2008, according to Shaw Group's
July 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2008.

The suit is "City of Brockton Retirement System v. The Shaw
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08245-RCC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Richard C. Casey, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alan Ian Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
         Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
         Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0877
                212-907-0853
                212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-883-7077
              212-883-7053


SHAW GROUP: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue
a ruling on an appeal in the consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit, "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc."

On July 23, 2004, an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw
Group, Inc., claiming that the company and three top officers
misled the investing public about its finances (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2007).  The class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought Shaw Group common stock from
Oct. 19, 2000, through and including June 10, 2004.

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

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- Shaw Group;

     -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer;

     -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer,
        and director since 2003; and

     -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive
        vice president.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group
issued materially false and misleading information about its
financial performance to the investing public.  

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established
excessive or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two
acquisitions and then tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to
artificially boost its earnings when needed.  

The defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection
with its long-term construction contracts, violating its own
reported revenue recognition policy.

These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices
and resulted in significantly overstated revenues and net income
throughout the class period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's
stock price.

The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock
price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common
stock to the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt
securities.  

Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by
selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common
stock during the class period, for proceeds of roughly
$80 million.

After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked
the investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the
subject of an informal investigation by the SEC into the
company's method of accounting for acquisitions.

In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's
common stock plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading
resumed on June 14, 2004 (following a long weekend).

On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.  

On Aug. 31, 2004, all related cases were consolidated into one
class action, "Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04-1685."

On Oct. 20, 2004, a hearing on the motions for the appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was held and, after argument,
Judge Helen G. Berrigan took the motions under submission and
ordered any supplemental briefing be filed by Nov. 3, 2004.  

Further briefing was filed and on Dec. 13, 2004, Judge Berrigan
signed an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

Lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
on Feb. 11, 2005 and names as an additional defendant, Richard
F. Gill, who was until 2003, the company's executive vice
president and chief operating officer.  

On June 16, 2005, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On Nov. 3, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint.  

On Jan. 13, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were
held on May 24, 2006 and the motion was denied.

On July 18, 2006, the judge granted defendant's motion for an
immediate appeal of the motion to dismiss to the fifth circuit
court of appeals and that the case be stayed pending the outcome
of the appeal.  

On Sept. 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit agreed to hear the appeal of the motion to dismiss.

The company's and individual defendants' appeal is fully briefed
and was argued on Oct. 2, 2007.  The Fifth Circuit Court has
taken the appeal under advisement and has not yet rendered a
decision.

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

The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case  
No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Helen G. Berrigan,
presiding.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297

          Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr., Esq.
          (bcharbonnet@charbonnetassociates.com)
          Law Office of Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr.
          365 Canal Street, One Canal Place, Suite 1155
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-561-0996

              - and -

          David Lyman Browne, Esq. (dbrowne@brownelaw.com)
          Law Offices of David L. Browne, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-0171

Representing the defendants are:
      
          Steven W. Copley, Esq. (scopley@gordonarata.com)
          Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000
          New Orleans, LA 70170-4000
          Phone: 504-582-1111


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Court Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on an appeal in connection with the dismissal of
a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against TIBCO Software, Inc.

In May 2005, three purported shareholder class action complaints
were filed against the company and several of its officers:

      1. "Guzzetti v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02373-SBA," filed on June 10, 2006;

      2. "Bernheim v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No.
         4:05-cv-02205-SBA," filed on May 31, 2005; and

      3. "Siegall v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-    
         cv-02146-SBA," filed on May 25, 2005.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of
the company's common stock from Sept. 21, 2004, through March 1,
2005.

The complaints generally allege that the company made false or
misleading statements concerning its operating results, its
business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  

They charge the defendants with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

The actions were consolidated and in September 2006, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
the consolidated suit with prejudice.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 10, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 1, 2008.

The suit is "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-02146," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Elizabeth Pei Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas John Clark, Esq. (dclark@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: 650-493-9300
          Fax: 650-565-5100


TOTAL BODY: Georgia Suit Claims Diet Supplement is Poisonous
------------------------------------------------------------
Total Body Essential Nutrition Inc. is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia over allegations that its "Total Body
Formula" diet supplement poisons people with selenium and
chromium, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff James Kelly brings this action on behalf of all
persons residing in the United States who purchased the liquid
dietary supplement.  He brings this action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to recover compensatory,
equitable, actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges that the defendant designed, researched,
manufactured, tested and advertised, promoted, marketed, sold
and distributed the products as "a complete full-spectrum
dietary supplement for the entire family in liquid form."

The suit says that as a result of defendant's negligence and the
defective nature of the products, the products contains
excessive selenium and hazardous amounts of chromium which can
cause serious health problems.

Selenium and chromium are trace minerals essential to good
health, but only in very small amounts, the report explains.
Excessive amounts of both are toxic.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant manufactured and marketed and
         sold defective products;

     (b) whether the defendant failed to give adequate and
         timely warning of the dangers of the products;

     (c) whether the defendant concealed adverse information
         from the plaintiff and the class regarding the
         products;

     (d) whether the defendant violated applicable state
         consumer protection laws;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and the class members are
         entitled to recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive,
         and other damages as a result of defendant's
         negligent and unlawful conduct;

     (f) what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding
         damages and administering relief to class members,
         including the relief to reduce the threat of future
         harm to class members;

     (g) whether the defendant's conduct in manufacturing,
         failing to warn, selling and promoting and marketing
         and distributing the products fell below the duty of
         care owed by defendant to plaintiff and members of the
         class;

     (h) whether the defendant negligently, recklessly, or
         intentionally concealed information about the safety of
         the products from the plaintiff and the class, as well
         as their physicians, hospitals, healthcare
         professionals, and the FDA;

     (i) whether the defendant under-reported the adverse events
         associated with the products;

     (j) whether the defendant is strictly liable in tort for
         selling defective products;

     (k) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes fraudulent
         concealment;

     (l) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes fraudulent
         misrepresentation;

     (m) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes negligent
         misrepresentation;

     (n) whether the defendant's conduct constitutes negligence;

     (o) whether the defendant is liable for intentional and
         negligent infliction of emotional distress;

     (p) whether the defendant breached express warranties;

     (q) whether the defendant breached implied warranties of
         merchantability;

     (r) whether the plaintiff and class members have sustained
         irreparable harm and whether they are entitled to
         equitable relief including restitution and refund
         and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages;

     (s) whether the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory
         damages and, if so, the nature and extent of such
         damages;

     (t) whether the defendant is liable for punitive damages
         and, if so, how much is necessary and appropriate to
         punish the defendant for its conduct, deter others and
         fulfill the policies and purpose of punitive and
         exemplary damages;

     (u) how many and all punitive and exemplary damages
         awarded to plaintiff should be equitable allocated
         among the plaintiff and the plaintiff class members;

     (v) whether defendant acted to defraud, misrepresent, and
         deceive the plaintiff and the class;

     (w) whether the defendant failed to adequately test their
         products;

     (x) whether the defendant failed to adequately reveal the
         results, if any, that were yielded by the testing of
         their products to the plaintiff and the class;

     (y) whether the defendant failed to adequately warn of the
         adverse effects of the products; and

     (z) whether the safety defects in the defendant's products
         constitute a design defect for purposes of strict
         products liability.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class, appointing plaintiff as
        class representative, and appointing Morgan & Morgan PA
        as counsel to the class;

     -- equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief;

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

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum
        rate allowable at law;

     -- treble, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount
        to be determined at trial;

     -- the costs and disbursements incurred by plaintiff and
        the class in connection with this action, including
        reasonable attorneys' fees;

     -- all statutory damages;

     -- disgorgement of defendant's profits from the sale of the
        products;

     -- return or refund of any purchase price paid, including,
        but not limited to, interest on these amounts from the
        date of purchase, attorneys' fees and costs, non-
        pecuniary damages, as well as any other legal or
        equitable relief to which plaintiff may be entitled;

     -- medical monitoring; and

     -- such other and further relief under all applicable state
        and federal law and any other relief the court deems
        just and appropriate.

The suit is "James Kelly et al. v. Total Body Essential
Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 1:08-CV-2364," filed before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Keenan R.S. Nix, Esq. (knix@forthepeople.com)
          Morgan & Morgan PA
          191 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: 404-965-8811
          Fax: 404-965-8812


U.S. SUGAR CORP: Sued for "Cheating" Employee Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------
On the heels of a June 24 announcement made by United States
Sugar Corp. in connection with its potential sale for $1.75
billion, three class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court in Miami claiming that the sugar and citrus
producer cheated its employee shareholders out of millions of
dollars in retirement savings tied to company stock, Charles
Trainor writes for Miami Herald.

According to the report, the three lawsuits were filed on
June 30, July 15, and July 16, 2008, and are similar to a
complaint filed in federal court in Miami in January 2008.

                       The Four Lawsuits

Miami Herald relates that all three new complaints and the
January suit hinge on the fair price for U.S. Sugar shares and
whether the company and its directors breached their duty to
shareholders by rebuffing a 2005 offer from the Lawrence Group
of Sikeston, Mo., to buy U.S. Sugar for a sum that would have
paid $293 a share.

From 2005 to the present, shares have been redeemed at $213 to
$195.40 per share, according to the suits.

                          Stock Plan

The report explains that under the company's Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, shares cannot be traded, only redeemed after an
employee retires.  There are an estimated two million shares in
the company, which is controlled by descendants of its founder,
Charles Stewart Mott, and two foundations.

Butch Wilson, who was laid off in October 2007 among a group of
some 40 employees as U.S. Sugar tried to cut costs, sold his 700
shares in U.S. Sugar Corp.  He said that he sold his shares at
the time he left the company because he expected the stock to
sink and it did.  Mr. Wilson said that he had first considered
himself lucky because the shares fell as low at $152.50.

However, after recent news that U.S. Sugar plans to sell its
assets to Florida water managers at a price that would have
given Mr. Wilson a $150 premium on each share or $350 per share,
the computer specialist regretted his action.

"If we had all known, we would have left the stock in the
company," he said.

                          Higher Offer

The sale, which still is being negotiated and calls for U.S.
Sugar to continue operating the company for another six years
before exiting the business, had an immediate impact on the
January lawsuit, Miami Herald says.

According to the report, the recent developments halted all
proceedings in the January lawsuit until Aug. 13, 2008, to allow
the law firm of Colson Hicks Eidson time to file a revised suit,
addressing the proposed purchase by the state.

Curtis B. Miner, Esq., of Colson Hicks, said that the higher
share price of $350 bolsters the claims against U.S. Sugar.
"For all the poor people who sold their shares, it accentuates
the unfairness," Mr. Miner said.

However, the $350 share price also boosts the company's argument
that the offer from the Lawrence Group in 2005 was too low.  In
a motion to dismiss the January lawsuit, U.S. Sugar also claimed
that the Lawrence Group never presented a formal offer.

The company also argued in its dismissal motion that shares have
different prices when a company is an ongoing concern and when
the assets are being liquidated, which is what will happen if
the U.S. Sugar sale is completed.

Those familiar with the sale and the lawsuits also point out
that the $1.75 billion price is much higher than the
$575 million Lawrence Group offer because it includes at least
$700 million to repay debt as well as allowances for capital
gains taxes on the land, the funding of the company's pension
plan and other obligations.

                    Consolidation of Suits?

Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq., a Boca Raton attorney who filed the
three latest lawsuits, said that it is up to the courts to
decide if all the lawsuits are consolidated.

The report notes that the new suits offer additional insight
into some of U.S. Sugar's financial problems.  One of the three
new lawsuits said that some six months before the planned sale
was announced, U.S. Sugar sent a memo to employees that shares
would be redeemed at $180 per share – which is "obviously a
decrease in value."

                      Suspended Dividends

Early this year, U.S. Sugar ended all retiree healthcare
benefits, and on April 15, announced that it had "no other
choice than to temporarily cease paying dividends," the June 30
lawsuit stated.

Ellen Simms, a former corporate controller at U.S. Sugar, said
she is happy that she and her husband cannot sell their shares
in the company until next year under company requirements.  
However, she said the lawsuits address the issue of retirees who
sold their shares.

"Some of the best people you would ever want to meet worked for
that company, and they should get their fair share," Ms. Simms
said.


UNITED GENERAL: Faces Pennsylvania Lawsuit Over Home Refinancing
----------------------------------------------------------------
United General Title Insurance Co. is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania over allegations that it systematically
cheated customers who refinanced their homes by charging more
than legally allowed, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action by Pennsylvania homeowners seeking relief
from the predatory practices of a title insurance company which
violated both their statutory and common law obligations.

The plaintiff and the class do not challenge the title insurance
premium rates approved by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.
Rather, under the common and statutory law of Pennsylvania, this
action seeks to recover the excess and unearned premiums
improperly collected by defendant.

Named plaintiff Deborah M. Amato brings this action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all persons or entities in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who, within 10 years of having
previously purchased title insurance in connection with their
mortgage fee interest, refinanced the identical mortgage or fee
interest and were charged a title insurance premium by United
General that did not include the applicable premium discount for
title insurance on file with the Pennsylvania Insurance
Commissioner.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant systematically collected premiums
         from class members in amounts not permitted under
         Pennsylvania law;

     (b) whether the defendant intentionally and negligently
         omitted to disclose material facts to the plaintiff and
         the class that they need only pay the discounted
         premiums for the reissuance of title insurance on the
         refinancing of their mortgages or fee interests;

     (c) whether the defendant was unjustly enriched by its
         improper conduct;

     (d) whether the defendant should be enjoined from further
         engaging in such improper conduct;

     (e) whether the plaintiff and members of the class have
         sustained damages and the proper measure of such
         damages; and

     (f) whether the actions of the defendant constituted unfair
         or deceptive practices in violation of the Pennsylvania
         Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73
         P.S. Section 201-2 et seq.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- a determination that this action may proceed and be
        maintained as a class action;

     -- compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive
        damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, to
        plaintiff and the class;

     -- appointment of an auditor or special master, to
        determine the amount of funds wrongfully collected from
        the class as a result of excessive title insurance
        premiums and interest accruing upon the same;

     -- disgorgement of all funds wrongfully collected, together
        with such amounts as have accrued, at the applicable
        judgment rate of interest from the time of such wrongful
        collection until date of judgment, and award of such
        disgorged funds to plaintiff and the class;

     -- an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit
        to plaintiff and the class; and

     -- such other and further relief as is necessary and just.

The suit is "Deborah M. Amato, et al. v. United General Title
Insurance Co., Case No. 08CV3423," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          Donovan Searles, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-732-6067


* SPDR(R) Announces Impact of Receiving Settlement Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
The SPDR(R) S&P 500 ETF, The Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund
and The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund, announced that each
Fund received payments from certain class action settlements as
authorized claimants.

The SPDR(R) S&P 500 ETF will record payments received from
separate class action settlements related to Molex, Inc. and
Freddie Mac.  The Technology Select Sector SPDR(R) Fund will
record a payment received from a class action settlement related
to Molex, Inc.  The Financial Select Sector SPDR(R) Fund will
record a payment received from a class action settlement related
to Freddie Mac.

The total amount payable to each Fund is listed below.  When
each Fund calculates its net asset value (NAV) per share, it is
estimated that each Fund's NAV will be impacted by the receipt
of the corresponding payments in the amount stated below based
on the shares outstanding as of July 22, 2008.

                                         Shares
                        Settlement    Outstanding as  Per Share
     Fund                Payment      of 07/22/2008    Amount
     ----               ----------    --------------  ---------
SPDR(R)                
S&P 500 ETF            $2,778,328      569,342,836    $0.0049

Technology             
Select Sector
SPDR(R) Fund              $12,145      154,404,397   $0.00008

Financial              
Select Sector
SPDR(R) Fund             $247,179      421,219,586    $0.0006

State Street manages more than $150 billion in ETF assets
worldwide (as of June 30, 2008) and is one of the largest
providers in the U.S. and globally, with a market share of more
than 18.7 percent globally.

                About State Street Global Advisors

State Street Global Advisors – http://www.ssga.com/-- the  
investment management arm of State Street Corporation, delivers
investment strategies and integrated solutions to clients
worldwide across every asset class, investment approach and
style.  With $1.9 trillion in assets under management as of June
30, 2008, State Street Global Advisors has investment centers in
Boston, Hong Kong, London, Toronto, Montreal, Munich, Paris,
Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo and Zurich, and offices in 27 cities
worldwide.

                  SPDR(R) Exchange Traded Funds

SPDR ETFs are a comprehensive family spanning an array of
international and domestic asset classes.  Offered by State
Street Global Advisors, SPDR ETFs provide professional investors
with the flexibility to select investments that are precisely
aligned to their investment strategy.  Recognized as the
industry pioneer, State Street--in partnership with the American
Stock Exchange--created the first ETF in 1993 (SPDR S&P 500 -
Ticker SPY).  Since then, we've sustained our place as an
industry innovator through the introduction of many ground-
breaking products, including first-to-market successes with
gold, international real estate, international fixed income and
sector ETFs.

SPDR ETFs are managed by SSgA Funds Management, Inc, a
registered investment adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of
State Street Bank and Trust Company.

ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk and will
fluctuate in market value.

Foreign investments involve greater risks than U.S. investments,
including political and economic risks and the risk of currency
fluctuations, all of which may be magnified in emerging markets.
Small company issues can be subject to increased volatility and
considerable price fluctuations.

The "SPDR" trademark is used under license from The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.  No financial product offered by State Street
Corporation or its affiliates is sponsored, endorsed, sold or
promoted by McGraw-Hill.  S&P(R) is a trademark of McGraw-Hill
and has been licensed for use by State Street Bank and Trust
Company.

ALPS Distributors, Inc., member FINRA, SIPC, distributor.
Before investing, carefully consider the Funds' investment
objectives, risks, charges and expenses.  A prospectus, which
contains this and other important information about the funds
can be obtained by calling 1-866-787-2257.  Read it carefully
before investing.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

STATE STREET: Schiffrin Barroway Files Mass. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of SSgA
Yield Plus Fund from June 30, 2005, through June 30, 2008,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges State Street Corporation and certain
related entities, among others, with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.

State Street Global Advisors is the investment advisor to the
entire group of mutual funds under the State Street name.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that a majority of the Fund's assets were invested in
         mortgage-backed or mortgage-related securities;

     (2) that the "Risk Management" disclosed by defendants was
         insufficient in that it did not warn of the extent to
         which the Fund was invested in mortgage-backed and
         mortgage-related securities, nor of the actual risks of
         investing in the Fund; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Fund's
         Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
         relevant times.

The Fund is a mutual fund promoted as having an objective of
seeking "high current income and liquidity."  In the Fund's
Registration Statement and supplemental amendments, defendants
maintained that the Fund invested "primarily in a diversified
portfolio of high-quality debt securities."  Defendants touted
the Fund's "high credit quality," maintained that decisions were
made by "experienced investment professionals," and stated that
they had engaged in a "sophisticated credit analysis."

From July 2006 through July 10, 2007, the Fund's shares traded
at or above $9.88 per share.  Thereafter, the value of the
Fund's shares began to plummet.  By April 2008, the value of the
Fund's shares had fallen to as low as $6.60.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than September 2,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Still Subject to Hazard Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation continues to be subject to occupational claims,
including asbestos-related, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 16, 2008.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposure to
certain materials in the workplace, such as asbestos, solvents  
and diesel fuels or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.

The Company retains a third party specialist with extensive
experience in performing asbestos and other occupational studies
to assist management in assessing the value of the Company's
claims and cases.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation's rail and
intermodal businesses provide rail-based transportation services
including traditional rail service and the transport of
intermodal containers and trailers. The Company's principal
operating company, CSX Transportation, Inc., provides the
transportation supply chain through a 21,000 route mile rail
network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.43B Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.430 billion as of June 30, 2008 and
US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 18, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.419 billion as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
April 25, 2008)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$998 million as of June 30, 2008 and
US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
recoveries were US$1.007 billion as of March 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, April 25, 2008)

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been
identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in
most claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries fall into two
categories: refractory products and friction products.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services, control, sensing and security technologies for
buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced
materials, and process technology for refining and
petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $925M NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., as of June 30, 2008, recorded a
US$925 million insurance receivable corresponding to the
liability for settlement of pending and future asbestos claims
of North American Refractories Company.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded a US$939 million
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO asbestos claims.

The Company's insurance receivable on the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO asbestos claims was
US$936 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
April 25, 2008)

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims.

On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy
filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are
automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO.

In addition, the bankruptcy court enjoined both the filing and
prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos claims against the
Company. The stay has remained in effect since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.

The Company also agreed to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent
company upon the filing of a plan of reorganization for NARCO
acceptable to the Company and to pay NARCO's parent company
US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO indebtedness
to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan of
reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court's amended confirmation order. This appeal is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 of
US$1.1 billion.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services, control, sensing and security technologies for
buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced
materials, and process technology for refining and
petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Involved in Travelers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to be involved in
litigation with Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company over
insurance claims related to the Company's former subsidiary
North American Refractories Company (NARCO).

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers filed a lawsuit against
the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of
New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-
related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage
issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
June 30, 2008.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed in the New
York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the
appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos
liabilities to triggered policies.

The Court's ruling is subject to appeal.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services, control, sensing and security technologies for
buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced
materials, and process technology for refining and
petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 52,487 Bendix Claims at June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business had 52,487 unresolved asbestos claims for the six
months ended June 30, 2008 and 51,658 claims for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded 51,952 unresolved asbestos-related claims
for its Bendix friction materials business for the three months
ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2008)

In the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded
2,312 Bendix claims filed and 1,483 Bendix claims resolved. In
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 2,771 Bendix
claims filed and 8,221 Bendix claims resolved.

In the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded
5,464 claims related to mesothelioma and other cancer claims and
47,023 were classified as other claims. In the year ended Dec.
31, 2007, the Company recorded 5,011 claims related to
mesothelioma and other claims and 46,647 were classified as
other claims.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. There is a group of
existing and potential claimants consisting of individuals who
allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing
or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake
replacements.

From 1981 through June 30, 2008, the Company has resolved about
115,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. Trials covering 128
plaintiffs resulted in 127 favorable verdicts and one mistrial.

Trials covering 11 individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, six are
or shortly will be on appeal, and the remaining three claims
were settled.

About 45 percent of the pending claims at June 30, 2008 are on
the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in some
jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment.

These pending claims also include claims filed in jurisdictions
such as Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that historically
allowed for consolidated filings.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85
percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result
of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the average resolution values
per claim, excluding legal costs, were US$33,000 for malignant
claims and US$500 for nonmalignant claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average resolution values
per claim, excluding legal costs, were US$33,000 for malignant
claims and US$250 for nonmalignant claims.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$546 million at June 30, 2008 and
US$517 million Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$123 million (at June
30, 2008) and US$197 million (at Dec. 31, 2007) are reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services, control, sensing and security technologies for
buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced
materials, and process technology for refining and
petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $1.68B for Bendix, NARCO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$1.680 billion in
asbestos-related liabilities for the six months ended June 30,
2008, of which US$546 million was related to the Bendix friction
materials business and US$1.134 billion was related to North
American Refractories Company (NARCO).

The Company recorded US$1.048 billion in insurance recoveries
for asbestos-related liabilities, of which US$123 million was
related to Bendix and US$925 million was related to NARCO.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and
services, control, sensing and security technologies for
buildings, homes and industry, turbochargers, automotive
products, specialty chemicals, electronic and advanced
materials, and process technology for refining and
petrochemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $613M Settlement at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. recorded US$613 million as asbestos
settlement (under current liabilities) as of June 30, 2008 and
US$601 million as of June 30, 2007, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 17, 2008.

The Company recorded US$579 million as of March 31, 2008 for
asbestos settlement (under current liabilities), compared with
US$593 million as of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
April 25, 2008)

The Company's net asbestos settlement (under condensed statement
of operations) was US$4 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2008, compared with US$8 million for the three months
ended June 30, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos settlement (under condensed statement
of operations) was US$4 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2008, compared with US$17 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2007.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. supplies
paints, coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty
materials, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 150
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scott Represents Creditors in USG Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
Tom B. Scott, III, Esq., at Scott & Scott, Ltd., in Jackson,
Miss., informs the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that his firm
represents asbestos creditors in USG Corporation's Chapter 11
cases.

Mr. Scott relates that under the Court's order dated Aug. 27,
2004, all of the relevant information identifying the Creditors,
and the nature and amount of their claims, are contained in
exhibits, which have not been electronically scanned, but is
available for release to any party that files a request, and
obtains an order from the Court.

In addition, each of the creditors on the list has executed a
Power of Attorney or Contract authorizing Mr. Scott to represent
the appropriate creditor in the Debtors' bankruptcy proceedings.

Mr. Scott says that each of the Creditors hold claims in varying
amounts for monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
installed or produced by the Debtors.

In addition, Scott & Scott will file an amended and supplemental
statement if there are any future material changes that will
occur in the Rule 2019 Statement submitted by the firm.

Mr. Scott assures the Court that Scott & Scott has no interest
in or hold any claims against the Debtors.

(USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 144; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors 2 Defendants in Gregory Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division,
affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court of Cook County, which
favored Exxon Mobil and Georgia-Pacific Corporation in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Stacey Gregory, on behalf of
her late husband, Larry Gregory.

The case is styled Stacey Gregory, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Larry Gregory, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Beazer East, Bondex International, Exxon
Mobil, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, and Union Carbide
Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Fitzgerald Smith, Gallagher, and O'Mara Frossard entered
judgment in Case No. 1-06-3597 on July 3, 2008.

Mrs. Gregory filed a complaint in Illinois against defendants
including Beazer East, Bondex International, Exxon Mobil,
Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Union Carbide Corporation,
regarding Mr. Gregory's contraction of mesothelioma and
subsequent death.  

Mobil moved for summary judgment on various grounds, and the
trial court granted this motion finding that Mobil owed no duty
to Mr. Gregory.

Meanwhile, Union Carbide moved for the application of Indiana
law rather than Illinois law, and Georgia-Pacific joined in this
motion.

The trial court granted the motion, finding that choice-of-law
factors in the cause favored Indiana law. Georgia-Pacific
subsequently moved for summary judgment based on the Indiana
statute of repose, and the trial court granted the motion
finding that Indiana's statute of repose barred Mrs. Gregory's
claim against Georgia-Pacific.

Bondex was dismissed as a party to the appeal on March 14, 2007,
Union Carbide was dismissed as a party on July 25, 2007, and
Beazer was dismissed as a party on Dec. 19, 2007, thereby
leaving Mobil and Georgia-Pacific as relevant defendants.

On appeal from the grant of Mobil's motion for summary judgment
and Georgia-Pacific's motion for the application of Indiana law,
Mrs. Gregory contended that the trial court erred in finding
that Mobil owed no duty to Mr. Gregory to warn him of the
presence of asbestos in its facility where he worked and that
the trial court erred when it determined that Indiana law
applied to the claim against Georgia-Pacific for manufacturing
and selling its joint compound without including a warning that
this product contained asbestos.

Mrs. Gregory asked that the Appeals Court reverse the order
granting summary judgment to Mobil and remand the matter for
further proceedings.

Mrs. Gregory also asked that the Appeals Court reverse the order
finding that Indiana law applies and enter judgment that
Illinois law applies and, accordingly, reverse the order
granting summary judgment to Georgia-Pacific.

Alternatively, Mrs. Gregory asked the Appeals Court that it
reverse the order finding that Indiana law applies, reverse the
grant of summary judgment to Georgia-Pacific, remand the matter
for further proceedings, and grant any other appropriate relief.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court affirmed both the trial court's
order granting summary judgment to Mobil and its order in favor
of Georgia-Pacific finding that Indiana law applies.

Nicholas J. Vogelzang, Esq., and Michael W. Rathsack, Esq., in
Chicago, represent Stacey Gregory.

Victor P. Henderson, Esq., and Christopher W. Carmichael, Esq.,
of Holland & Knight LLP in Chicago, represent Georgia-Pacific
Corporation.

H. Patrick Morris, Esq., and David F. Fanning, Esq., of Johnson
& Bell, Ltd., in Chicago, Reagan W. Simpson King & Spaulding
LLP, in Houston, represent Exxon Mobil.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Huber Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, reversed the judgment
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, in an asbestos lawsuit involving Plaintiffs:
Ronald L. Huber, William J. Airgood, Anthony DeFabbo, John
Dinio, Ernest Gishnock, John Bidlencsik, Hilma Mullins, and
William Deem.

District Judge Stafford and Circuit Judges Smith and Nygaard
entered judgment in Case No. 07-2473 on July 11, 2008.

Alleging diversity of citizenship, Plaintiffs filed this federal
lawsuit in 2002 against several lawyers--Robert G. Taylor, II,
Cletus P. Ernster III, Robert A. Pritchard, Christopher
Fitzgerald, and Joseph B. Cox, Jr.--and their respective law
firms (collectively, "Defendants").

Plaintiffs, all of whom have asbestosis, were previously
represented by Defendants in asbestos personal injury actions in
Mississippi state court.

Asserting multiple claims on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of asbestosis victims, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants
failed to disclose both the material terms of settlement offers
as well as the fee-sharing arrangements among co-counsel during
the course of the Mississippi litigation.

Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, disgorgement of
attorneys' fees, as well as punitive damages. Plaintiffs
asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion,
conspiracy to convert and defraud, professional malpractice, and
violation of the Pennsylvania Deceptive Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

Following limited discovery and the filing of two amended
complaints, the District Court entered orders denying
Plaintiffs' request for class certification and granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The District Court found that Plaintiffs failed to show actual
harm, namely, that Plaintiffs would have achieved a better
outcome in the Mississippi litigation but for Defendants'
conduct. Concluding that actual harm was a required element of
all of Plaintiffs' claims, the District Court granted summary
judgment to Defendants.

Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification and the
grant of summary judgment with respect to their breach of
fiduciary duty claims.

Plaintiffs did not appeal the grant of summary judgment with
respect to their claims of fraud, conspiracy to defraud and
convert, legal malpractice, conversion, and violation of
deceptive trade practices laws.

The Appeals Court vacated the District Court's denial of class
certification as well as its grant of summary judgment to
Defendants on Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims. The
Court accordingly remanded the case for adjudication of
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims in light of Texas
law.

On remand, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a proposed third
amended complaint, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
under Texas law and again seeking certification of a class.

The District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
their third amended complaint, then dismissed Plaintiffs' six-
year-old claims for want of jurisdiction. Specifically, the
District Court was persuaded that no single plaintiff could
satisfy the statutory minimum amount in controversy.

The District Court also decided that Plaintiffs' local counsel  
were necessary and indispensable parties who had not been named
in Plaintiffs' complaint.

Plaintiffs now appeal the District Court's order of dismissal.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment of dismissal entered by
the District Court and remanded for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $65M Current Liabilities at May 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$65 million as of May 31, 2008, compared with US$53
million as of May 31, 2007, according to a Company press release
dated July 21, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$57.5 million as of Feb. 29, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
April 11, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$494,745,000 as of May 31, 2008, compared with US$301,268,000
as of May 31, 2007.

The Company paid US$15 million during the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2008 to cover indemnity and defense costs for asbestos
litigation, compared with US$18.6 million during the fiscal 2007
fourth quarter.

Frank C. Sullivan, president and chief executive officer, said,
"These fiscal 2008 fourth-quarter cash costs are more in line
with what we expect to experience on a quarterly basis in fiscal
2009."

For the full year, the Company paid US$82.6 million in pre-tax
asbestos indemnity and defense costs, compared with total cash
costs for the full 2007 fiscal year of US$67 million.

Most of the year-over-year increase resulted primarily from
various one-time defense related transitional expenses that
added about US$13 million to the Company's fiscal 2008 outlays.

The US$288.1 million fourth-quarter charge extends the Company's
accrual for asbestos-related liabilities from 10 to 20 years.
Following the fiscal 2008 payments, the Company's total accrued
asbestos liabilities are US$559.7 million.

Mr. Sullivan stated, "Our charge for future asbestos liabilities
in fiscal 2006 covered a 10-year horizon. With more experience
in hand, we were able to project our future asbestos exposure
over a longer period. This additional charge will move us yet
another step closer to putting the asbestos issue permanently
behind us."

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. owns
subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings and sealants. The
Company's industrial products include roofing systems, sealants,
corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and specialty
chemicals. The Company's consumer products are used by
professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home maintenance and
improvement, boat repair and maintenance, and by hobbyists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Appeals Court Favors Henry Vogt Machine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the ruling of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor
of Henry Vogt Machine Company, in a lawsuit involving asbestos
indemnification filed by Invensys, Inc.

The case is styled Invensys, Inc. v. Henry Vogt Machine Company;
Tube Ice, LLC; Vogt Ice, LLC; Icelease Partners, Ltd.; Turbo
Marine Refrigeration, Ltd.; Turbo Refrigeration, LLC; Henry Vogt
Machine Co., (dba Vogt Forge & Die); Vogt Holding Corporation;
and Unistar, LLC.

Judges Lambert and Moore and Senior Judge Buckingham entered
judgment in Case No. 2007-CA-000606-MR on July 11, 2008.

In 1996, Vogt sold the assets of its Valve & Fitting Division to
an entity known as 1880 Acquisition Corporation. Vogt and 1880
signed an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA), which provided that
Vogt would indemnify the "Buyer," 1880, for product liability
claims arising from valves manufactured by Vogt before the date
of the closing. This provision was included primarily to deal
with lawsuits wherein plaintiffs alleged they were injured by
asbestos contained in Vogt products.

After the execution of the APA, 1880 changed its name to Vogt
Valve Company and two years later was merged into Edward Valves,
Inc.

In February 1999, BTR plc entered into a stock transaction with
another British company, Siebe plc, merging the two companies to
form BTR Siebe plc.  Within a few months, the new company
changed its name to Invensys plc.

Edward Vogt Valve Company operated as a stock-held subsidiary of
BTR Dunlop, Inc. until March 2002. At that time, Invensys plc
entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Flowserve
Corporation, from which it appears that Flowserve Corporation
purchased all the stock in Edward Vogt Valve Company, which had
converted into Edward Vogt Valve, LLC.

In May 2002, Edward Vogt Valve LLC was merged into Flowserve US,
Inc. In the Flowserve transaction, Invensys plc agreed to retain
liability for its asbestos claims brought against Flowserve.
Invensys plc agreed to defend, indemnify, and reimburse
Flowserve with respect to the retained liabilities.

In the Flowserve transaction, Invensys, Inc. claimed there was
an error. Since Invensys plc retained the asbestos liabilities
for the Vogt asbestos-containing products, Invensys plc needed
to retain the companion rights to indemnity for those products
from Vogt.

Invensys, Inc. filed its complaint on Aug. 12, 2004, in the
Jefferson Circuit Court. The complaint alleged that Invensys,
Inc. is the assignee of 1880's rights under the APA, and that
Invensys, Inc. currently is a defendant in asbestos lawsuits for
which Vogt is obligated to indemnify it under the APA.

After brief discovery revealed that Invensys, Inc. claimed to
have acquired rights under the APA through a series of corporate
transactions, mergers, acquisitions and assignments, Vogt filed
its motion for summary judgment.

Several months after Vogt moved for summary judgment, Invensys,
Inc. amended its complaint to allege that it was also entitled
to common law indemnity from Vogt. The Jefferson Circuit Court
ruled in favor of Vogt on its motion for summary judgment on
Dec. 28, 2006.

Invensys, Inc. moved for reconsideration. On Feb. 21, 2007, the
Jefferson Circuit Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Invensys, Inc. appealed from the summary judgment granted in
favor of Vogt, wherein the Jefferson Circuit Court found that no
material issues of fact existed with regard to Vogt's claim that
Invensys was not entitled to indemnification under a prior
contract to which it was not a party.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the
Jefferson Circuit Court.

Donald L. Cox, Esq., David W. Hemminger, Esq. of Lynch, Cox,
Gilman & Mahan, P.S.C. in Louisville, Ky., represented Invensys,
Inc.

K. Gregory Haynes, Esq., Lisa C. DeJaco, Esq., of Wyatt, Tarrant
& Combs, LLP in Louisville, Ky., represented Henry Vogt Machine
Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bergeron Suit Filed v. 19 Companies in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins, on behalf of pipe-fitter
Gliese Bergeron, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the
A.O. Smith Corporation and 18 other companies in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., on July 17, 2008, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Mr. Bergeron's petition says A.O. Smith and the other defendants
knowingly and maliciously manufactured and distributed asbestos-
containing products throughout Jefferson County.

Mr. Bergeron worked as a pipe-fitter and maintenance planner for
various employers, "which caused him to suffer from...industrial
dust diseases caused by breathing the asbestos-containing
products," the suit says. However, the complaint fails to list
specific dates and locations of Mr. Bergeron's employments.

The suit further alleges the defendants in the lawsuit were
negligent for failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced
products before flooding the market with dangerous goods and for
failing to warn the consumer of the dangers of asbestos
exposure.

Some of the defendants listed in the lawsuit include the CBS
Corporation and iron supplier Zurn Industries. The petition also
faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp. (3M Corporation)
and American Optical Corp. for producing defective masks that
failed to provide respiratory protection.

Although Mr. Bergeron has already sued and received a claim, the
suit says, "Plaintiff now seeks damages against defendants not
released in the previous actions pursuant to Pustejovsky v.
Rapid-American Corp."

In the precedent-setting Pustejovsky opinion in 2000, the Texas
Supreme Court held that a victim of asbestos may later have a
second lawsuit for an asbestos-related cancer if he develops the
cancer at a future date.

The opinion reversed a long history of Texas cases holding that
a person may bring one lawsuit for an asbestos-related injury,
even if he develops a second, catastrophic asbestos-related
cancer at a much later date.

The suit said, "The court must apply a separate accrual rule in
these cases because a single action rule would forbid a second
suit and in doing so force the asbestos plaintiff to file
premature litigation on speculative claims, which the court in
Pustejovsky notes is neither efficient or desirable."

Mr. Bergeron sues for exemplary damages, plus physical pain and
suffering in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and
future, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in
the past and future, physical impairment in the past and future,
and past and future medical expenses.

Judge Bob Wortham of the 58th Judicial District has been
assigned to Case No. A182-077.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Housing Cleared in Asbestos Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
The probe of the Carlisle City Council, in Carlisle, Cumbria,
England, has cleared Carlisle Housing Association of violating
rules on handling asbestos, News & Star reports.

The Council launched a probe in response to claims by an
official of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and
Technicians (UCATT), William Whalen, who produced a lump of
asbestos at a recent council meeting. He said it had been
removed from one of the association's homes on a shovel, thrown
into a wagon and dumped.

However, Councilor Ray Bloxham, the environmental portfolio
holder, says those claims are unfounded. He said, "The Health
and Safety Executive told us they were aware of Mr. Whalen's
allegations, had investigated them and that Carlisle Housing
Association do have a safe method of removal."

However, Mr. Whalen told the News & Star that the Health and
Safety Executive's inquiry related to an earlier complaint,
before the latest evidence came to light.

The HSE says it is satisfied with Carlisle Housing Association's
procedures.

The housing association manages 6,140 former council homes that
transferred from the city council in 2002. It has written to
tenants to reassure them that its methods of working are safe.

Managing director Patrick Leonard welcomed the HSE's statement
and accused Mr. Whalen of scaremongering.

Asbestos was widely used for insulation until the 1970s. Its
dust causes an aggressive and always fatal form of lung cancer,
mesothelioma, which can appear decades later.

Because of the health risks, there are strict rules on how
asbestos is handled and removed from buildings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calgary Blamed for Taking Asbestos Lightly
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alberta Federation of Labour, on July 18, 2008, accused the
City of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, of treating the discovery
of asbestos-contaminated asphalt throughout its road system "far
too casually," according to an AFL press release dated July 18,
2008.

AFL President Gil McGowan said, "Asbestos is one of the worst
workplace killers in Canada, and as far as labor is concerned,
no amount is safe for human exposure."

Mr. McGowan points out that under Part IV of the Occupational
Health and Safety Code, there is a section detailing how to deal
with asbestos contamination, including measures for both worker
and public safety in circumstances where asbestos may be
released.

"Calgary should not be dismissing this as something that can be
dealt with by a study later in the summer," says Mr. McGowan.
"Inhalation of asbestos dust and fiber can lead to asbestosis,
pleural plaques, lung cancer and mesothelioma, a malignant
cancer whose only known cause is exposure to asbestos."

Mr. McGowan added, "Calgary should be taking exactly the same
precautions that the City of Toronto is taking under similar
circumstances, including limiting workers' exposure during road
construction with hazmat suits, keeping dust down, and ensuring
that citizens know the risks and counter-measures that should be
taken.

"I also think that every other municipality in the province
engaging in major roadway construction and resurfacing should
take immediate steps to ensure that their projects are either
asbestos-free or being done with necessary safety precautions."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: R.I. Contractor Pleads Guilty to Extortion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Macaruso, an asbestos removal contractor from Johnston,
R.I., has admitted extorting kickbacks from his employees and
cheating on his taxes, The Associated Press reports.

On July 18, 2008, Mr. Macaruso pleaded guilty in federal court,
admitting he cashed his workers' paychecks and then paid them
less than the prevailing wage on various public sector projects.

Mr. Macaruso also failed to report about US$450,000 in income on
his 2005 and 2006 tax returns.

Mr. Macaruso pleaded guilty to one count of extorting kickbacks
from public works employees and one count of filing a false tax
return. He faces up to eight years in prison at his sentencing
in January 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Engineer's Cause of Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Dorchester, Dorset, England, heard that the death
of 67-year-old engineer Anthony Hamshaw was linked to asbestos
exposure, the Dorset Echo reports.

Mr. Hamshaw died at his home in Radipole Lane, Weymouth, Dorset,
in May 2008 after suffering from disseminated mesothelioma and
pneumonia.

In a statement prepared after he was diagnosed, Mr. Hamshaw
recalled that he was exposed to asbestos during his
apprenticeship and after qualifying as an electrical engineer
working for Dunlop Rubber at Erdington in Birmingham.

Mr. Hamshaw often had to work in tunnels where steam and water
pipes were lagged with asbestos and where the lagging often got
knocked and damaged. He stated some tunnels were poorly
ventilated. He also worked close to boilers where pipework was
lagged in asbestos.

Mr. Hamshaw joined the Royal Navy in 1963 and served for seven
years. He later worked for a company that used a type of
asbestos classed as safe.

Coroner Michael Johnston recorded a verdict that Mr. Hamshaw
died from an industrial disease.

Mr. Johnson also warned that west Dorset is facing a rise in the
number of people dying from mesothelioma. He said he had dealt
with 10 deaths so far this year with two more coming up that
were suspected to be mesothelioma.

The figures marked an ongoing rise in the disease. And Mr.
Johnston expected it to continue to increase in this area before
reducing as the number of people who had been exposed to
asbestos falls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on UK Council Worker's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Hereford, England, heard that the death of
Worcestershire County Council officer worker, Angela Coldicott,
was linked to asbestos, Worcester News reports.

Mrs. Coldicott worked for the Council for more than 30 years,
mainly in the education department. Her family claims she was
exposed to asbestos while in the Conder building in Worcester's
Castle Street.

On July 16, 2008, Herefordshire coroner David Halpern said Mrs.
Coldicott died from a metastatic malignant mesothelioma,
although he could not say for sure when or where she had been
exposed to asbestos.

Mrs. Coldicott died at the age of 57 on Jan. 31, 2008 at St.
Michael's Hospice, Hereford. She was admitted after a fall at
her home in Bromyard.

The inquest heard from Mrs. Coldicott's GP, Dr. Ian Tait, who
remembered her expressing concern over asbestos exposure during
her time as a junior clerk and later a senior administrative
officer with the county council.

Mrs. Coldicott had recalled a time when building work was
carried out resulting in dust, thought to be brown asbestos,
circulating in the office.

Mr. Coldicott assured the inquest that, although the farm where
the couple lived had asbestos roof sheeting, his wife neither
came into contact or was exposed to it.

Pathologist Dr. Mark Hayes said Mrs. Coldicott had been
receiving chemotherapy for mesothelioma, but had started to
deteriorate and had been taken into St. Michael's shortly before
she died. He said that although his post-mortem tests did not
uncover any asbestos fibers it did not mean there was no
asbestos present in her body.

Mr. Halpern said Mrs. Coldicott's job did not seem to have
exposed her to concentrated levels of asbestos. However, he
concluded it was "most likely" that the asbestos was caused by
the dust exposure she mentioned. He said that the death was
related to an employment exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Coldicott launched an appeal for witnesses who worked with
his wife to come forward to help him win compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victim's Kin Settles Case With HVAC Makers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., on July 21, 2008, announced
that an unnamed mesothelioma patient and his family have reached
a confidential settlement with several manufacturers of home
heating and air conditioning equipment, including industry
leaders Lennox International Inc., Trane Inc., and Carrier,
according to a Baron & Budd press release dated July 21, 2008.

The plaintiff developed mesothelioma after working for 40 years
as a repairman on residential HVAC units, according to attorney
John Langdoc.

Mr. Langdoc said, "Baron & Budd has been investigating asbestos
related injuries for years, and even we were surprised to
discover that common residential air conditioners and heaters
contained the carcinogen asbestos. We had scientists dismantle
and test some of the units -- units that had no warnings or
notifications that they had asbestos in them -- and we were
shocked to discover that they contained asbestos parts."

The plaintiff operated a small HVAC repair business in
Telephone, Tex., about a hundred miles northeast of Dallas.

Over several decades, the plaintiff worked at hundreds of local
homes, repairing name-brand heating and air conditioning units
for families in the Dallas and Fort Worth area.

During the course of the lawsuit, Baron & Budd discovered that
many of these HVAC units contained asbestos parts that released
hazardous amounts of asbestos into the air during routine repair
work.

According to Mr. Langdoc, the evidence that he and his
colleagues turned up established that the HVAC manufacturers
intentionally added asbestos parts into their equipment and
never warned consumers or repairmen that the units had asbestos
in them.

Russell Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd, said,
"Because these manufacturers have been successful in keeping
this secret for so long, HVAC repairmen have been largely
unaware of their asbestos exposure and the health risks their
work entailed."

The case was filed in Oakland, Calif.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3rd Circuit Junks Jesensky Suit v. Bosses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, which granted summary judgment in favor of
McCarl's, Inc. and Duquesne Light Company, in an asbestos
lawsuit filed by Karen Jesensky and Anthony Jesensky.

Judges Scirica, Ambro, and Fisher entered judgment in Case No.
06-3102 on July 11, 2008.

Eugene Schirra, a union steam fitter and pipe fitter for nearly
30 years, worked as a contractor at several industrial sites.
During that time period, his daughter, Karen Jesensky, regularly
loaned her car to him for a work carpool, picked him up from his
bus stop after work, and washed his work clothes. In late 1994
or early 1995, Mrs. Jesensky was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mrs. Jesensky filed claims against 69 defendants in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. She alleged her mesothelioma
was caused by secondhand exposure to asbestos products present
at her father's workplaces.

Two defendants, McCarl's and Duquesne Light, were neither
manufacturers nor suppliers of asbestos products. Mrs.
Jesensky's claims against McCarl's allegedly arose out of a
four-month period during which McCarl's employed Mr. Schirra at
Babcock & Wilcox's steel mill in Koppel, Pa.

Mrs. Jesensky's claims against Duquesne Light arose out of a
four-year period in which Mr. Schirra worked at the Shippingport
Atomic Power Station.

Mrs. Jesensky's complaint, originally filed in the Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas, was removed by Duquesne Light under the
federal officer removal statute.

In District Court, Duquesne Light moved for summary judgment,
contending that Mrs. Jesensky's complaint failed to properly
plead a claim, and if a claim had been properly pleaded, that it
owed no duty to Mrs. Jesensky under Pennsylvania law.

The Magistrate Judge interpreted Jesensky's complaint as
asserting a claim of negligence, predicated on a premises
liability theory, without discussing the sufficiency of the
pleadings.

Reaching the merits, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting
Duquesne Light's motion, finding the company owed Mrs. Jesensky
no duty under Pennsylvania law. The District Court, adopting the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granted summary
judgment in favor of Duquesne Light.

McCarl's also moved for summary judgment in District Court,
contending that it had not been identified as a source of any
asbestos exposure that allegedly injured Mrs. Jesensky. The
Magistrate Judge, finding that Mrs. Jesensky had not alleged any
facts to support a negligence claim against McCarl's and
indicating that no such claim could be found in the pleadings,
recommended granting McCarl's summary judgment motion.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
McCarl's.

The Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of Duquesne Light and McCarl's. Accordingly,
the Jesenskys' claims against both defendants were dismissed
without leave to amend.

David B. Rodes, Esq., Jason T. Shipp, Esq., of Goldberg, Persky
& White, in Pittsburgh, represented the Jesenskys.

David P. Helwig, Esq., of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney in
Pittsburgh, represented McCarl's, Inc.

Cathy R. Gordon, Esq., of Swartz Campbell, LLC, in Pittsburgh,
represented Duquesne Light Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Beck in Suit v. Huber
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California,
reversed the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which had granted summary judgment to Huber, Hunt & Nichols of
California, Inc. (n/k/a Hunt Construction Group, Inc.), in a
lawsuit filed by the family of Earl Beck.

The case is styled Christine Beck et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols of California, Inc.,
Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Stein, Marchiano, and Swager entered judgment in Case No.
A117979 on July 18, 2008.

Mr. Beck died from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and asbestos-related
lung disease.

According to the allegations of plaintiffs' first amended
complaint, Mr. Beck worked as an insulator in Northern
California from 1945 to 1990, and all defendants were in some
way involved in exposing Mr. Beck to asbestos and benzene at
over 200 job sites over the course of his career.

The allegations against Huber appeared to arise from Huber's
work as a general contractor during a number of those years.

On Dec. 1, 2006, Huber moved for summary judgment, which the
trial court granted.

The Appeals Court reversed, finding the evidence Huber submitted
in support of its motion was insufficient to shift the burden to
plaintiffs to produce evidence to show the existence of a
triable issue of fact.

Christopher Daniel Wasson, Esq., in Berkeley, Calif.,
represented the heir of Earl Beck.

Jason Frederick Meyer, Esq., in San Diego, Calif., represented
Huber, Hunt & Nichols of California, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants Settle Martin Case in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the asbestos case styled "Belinda Martin vs.
Georgia Pacific and Guard-Line," on July 22, 2008, reached a
settlement before trial in Jefferson County District Court,
Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The case was slated for trial in Judge Gary Sanderson's 60th
District Court. However, the two companies settled for an
undisclosed amount before the selection process of 40 jurors was
completed.

Hammering out the deal for Mrs. Martin was attorney Philip
Kanayan, Esq., of Brent Coon & Associates. The defendants were
represented in part by attorney Tracy Richardson, Esq., of the
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard law firm.

Representing the estate of Charlie Martin, Jr., Mrs. Martin
joined a massive ongoing asbestos lawsuit, Harold Daniels vs.
Pittsburgh Corning et al, in July 2005.

The original lawsuit (B150-374) was filed in 1994. It boasts
thousands of plaintiffs and has been severed roughly 216 times.

Mrs. Martin's suit was severed out of the class action in
November 2005. Her suit faulted more than 110 defendant
companies for the death of Mr. Martin.

Although the settlement amount was not disclosed, plaintiffs
from the original lawsuit have won millions of dollars. In 2001,
Plaintiff Mat Boney was severed out of the class action and
granted a trial against Rapid American Corp. Jurors levied a
US$4 million verdict in Mr. Boney's favor.

The original lawsuit faults defendant corporations for
negligently manufacturing, selling and using asbestos containing
products.

The suit (Case No. B150-374BS) says, "All of the asbestos
products placed into the stream of commerce by the
defendants...were defective and dangerous. Defendants were
negligent for failing to adequately test their products."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Croatian Ministry Sued for Faulty Disposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Social Democratic Party of Croatia sued Environment Ministry
officials over alleged omissions in the process of disposing
asbestos waste from the Salonit plant in Vranjic, Croatia,
redOrbit reports.

More than two months after the public found out about high
concentrations of asbestos in the air in Vranjic, the SDP has
sued Environment Minister Marina Matulovic Dropulic, State
Secretary Nikola Ruzinski, and the director of the Environment
Protection Fund, Vinko Mladineo.

Although the Ministry has rejected the alarming facts on
asbestos pollution as false, the SDP believes that the public
should have been informed about this.

Due to justified suspicions that the removal of asbestos around
Salonit was carried out unlawfully, the state prosecution is now
expected to act. SDP deputy Mirela Holy hopes that charges will
be filed.

The SDP proposal to set up a parliamentary commission for
Salonit was not accepted, while the committee for environmental
protection discussed this case while SDP deputies were busy with
other tasks, SDP deputy Danijel Mondekar complains.

Mr. Mondekar said, "The people in Vranjic and Solin will still
have asbestos, almost in their back yards, and because it is
located above the source of the Jadro river it might even be
found in the sea all they way to the city of Split."

Vranjic will continue to have an asbestos problem, regardless of
what the state prosecution decides to do with the request for
charges filed by the SDP.

Namely, parliament has given the Environment Ministry a deadline
until the end of 2008 to inform it exactly how much asbestos can
be found in Vranjic and how it will be removed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Japan Expands Monitoring to 2Mil Buildings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Official sources said the Japanese Government plans to expand
biannual checks on the management of asbestos, from the current
260,000 buildings to about 2 million, The Japan Times reports.

Sources added that the checks would possibly start on March
2009, to cover almost all private-sector facilities nationwide.

The Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Ministry will
examine with local officials the 2 million buildings to lessen
public anxiety over health hazards caused by asbestos, the
sources said.

The facilities will include retail shops and hotels but exclude
wooden facilities, single-family homes and schools, which fall
under the responsibility of other ministries, they said.

The infrastructure ministry's checks currently target large
facilities, including factories that have a floor space of more
than 1,000 sq. meters and were built between 1956 and 1989.

Among the 2 million facilities, the ministry will prioritize
examinations of buildings that were constructed before 1975, the
year when regulations on use of asbestos were tightened.
Facilities where a large number of people have access will also
take priority, they said.

The infrastructure ministry broadened the targets of the survey
following a recommendation issued in December 2007 by the
Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry.

In December 2007, that ministry revealed the results of its own
sample survey on the management of asbestos at small private
businesses. It found that seven out of 42 buildings, or 16.7
percent, left asbestos exposed to the air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Cumbrians Call for Campaign Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
People in South Cumbria, England, who were affected by asbestos
are supporting a campaign to get compensation payments of up to
GBP15,000 restarted, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

A team from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and
Technicians called at Barrow because Furness MP John Hutton is a
high ranking minister and the town has a serious asbestos
related diseases problem.

The UCATT team handed out leaflets to shoppers in Dalton Road
asking them to contact Mr. Hutton at his constituency office in
Hartington Street. They want the law changed to allow
compensation payments for pleural plaques to resume.

Payments were made until October 2007 when insurers won their
case in a House of Lords Appeal saving the industry an estimated
GBP1.4 billion.

George Guy, NW regional secretary for UCATT, said, "Barrow has
the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the country.
This is John Hutton's constituency and we are asking the
government the overturn the decision of the House of Lords to
not recognize pleural plaques as a compensatory disease."

Mr. Guy said an important side benefit of the former
compensation scheme was that it established asbestos exposure
and witnesses to that exposure.

That made the task of victims or relatives seeking much higher
compensation if people went on to developed deadly mesothelioma
cancer caused by work asbestos, much easier.

Many hundreds of people in Furness, most of them former shipyard
and power station workers, got either interim or full and final
pleural plaques payments ranging from a few thousand to
GBP15,000 over a period of 20 years before they were stopped.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup May Delay Guyana School's Opening
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Sankies, Head of the University of Guyana Asbestos
Technical Team, said that the university may not open its doors
this September 2008 as the contractors working on the removal of
asbestos commenced the task a couple of weeks late, Stabroek
News reports.

Mr. Sankies said he was unofficially told that the Ministry of
Education had placed government engineer Walter Willis in charge
of the four contractors involved in the process at UG.

In June 2008, Deputy Registrar of UG, Vincent Alexander, had
announced that the GYD200 million exercise was expected to last
two months and it would see asbestos being removed from some 15
buildings at the Turkeyen campus.

The entire campus has been shut down. The administrative staff
have been moved to the Dennis Irvine dormitory at Goedverwagting
and summer classes are being held at the Tutorial High School.
Library services are being facilitated at the university's
location in Pere Street, Kitty.

According to Mr. Sankies, in the initial stages his team had put
up a proposal which had suggested that the removal of the
material be done over an extended period and this would not have
totally disrupted the operation of the university.

However, the Ministry of Education consulted with a consultant
and it was suggested that the process be done all at once. Mr.
Sankies told Stabroek News that at the last formal meeting his
team had with the ministry it was decided that the team would be
consulted during the process.

Meanwhile, through the unofficial chain of communication Mr.
Sankies he had learned that Mr. Willis would instead be the
consultant for the process.

The asbestos problem was highlighted in the news in the middle
of 2007 following protests from staff members of the Faculty of
Social Sciences.

Hector Edwards, Head of Business and Management Studies, had
told Stabroek News that he and staff members were not prepared
to continue working in their building as they were exposed to
the asbestos. He had said the issue was pending for a number of
years and the administration was doing nothing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Appoint ASARCO LLC Committee
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to direct the U.S.
Trustee to appoint an official committee of asbestos claimants
under Sections 1102(a)(2) and 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to
represent the class of creditors with asbestos-related claims
against ASARCO LLC, Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltee, Lake Asbestos
of Quebec, Ltd.; LAQ Canada, Ltd., CAPCO Pipe Company, Inc., and
Cement Asbestos Products Company.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Subsidiary
Debtors already serves in this capacity with respect to
creditors asserting asbestos claims against the Asbestos
Debtors.

The Debtors ask the Court to direct the U.S. Trustee to appoint
the current members of the Asbestos Subsidiary Committee and
three new members, who have direct asbestos-related premises
liability claims against ASARCO, to represent the entire class
of asbestos creditors with asbestos claims against the Debtors.

James R. Prince, Esq., at Baker Botts, LLP, in Dallas, stresses
that the appointment of an official asbestos committee is
necessary to assure that creditors with asbestos claims against
all of the Debtors have adequate representation during the
negotiation of the terms of a plan of reorganization.

Mr. Prince relates that one of the key elements of the Chapter
11 plan to be proposed by the Debtors will be the protection of
an asbestos claims channeling injunction under Section 524(g).
All current and future asbestos claims involving the Debtors
will be channeled to a trust, funded by the Debtors or non-
Debtor entities, for payment and satisfaction.

To properly establish the trust, the interests of both current
and future asbestos-related claimants should be assessed and
accommodated, Mr. Prince notes.

It is expected that the official asbestos committee will share
professionals with the Asbestos Subsidiary Committee, Mr. Prince
tells the Court. The appointment of an official asbestos
committee will expedite the Debtors' journey through Chapter 11
because it will be uniquely well-suited to perform certain tasks
that will benefit the Debtors and their estates, he adds.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Calls for Appointment of Judge Pate
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC requests for the appointment of former judge Robert
C. Pate as the legal representative for future claimants with
asbestos-related claims against ASARCO.

Jack L. Kinzie, Esq., at Baker Botts, L.L.P., in Dallas,
stresses that to best protect the interest of future asbestos
claims against ASARCO, an FCR for the ASARCO Future Claims
should be appointed.  

Judge Pate relates that, in connection with prepetition
services, he received an initial retainer of US$50,000 for
ASARCO as security for unpaid fees and expenses. The Debtors
have agreed to pay Judge Pate based on his hourly rate of US$350
per hour, plus reimburse him of necessary out-of-pocket-
expenses.

Judge Pate assures the Court that he is a disinterested person
as the term is defined in Section 101(14) and modified by
Section 1107(b), and otherwise qualified to serve as ASARCO FCR.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Expunge 65 ASARCO LLC Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated insists that the Court should expunged and
disallow the 65 asbestos-related personal injury claims.

Charles A. Beckham, Jr., Esq., at Haynes and Boone, LLP, in
Houston, Texas, maintains that the Asbestos Claims are
meritless, and the counsel for a significant number of the
Asbestos Claims has admitted in open court that he has no
response where the statute of limitations has been raised as a
defense, and agreeing at the appropriate junction to withdraw
the claims if it's the proper way to do it.

Mr. Beckham says Asarco Inc. remains firm that the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos Subsidiary
Debtors and the Future Claims Representative are wrong in their
insistence that the Court has no jurisdiction to disallow the
Asbestos Claims.

Mr. Beckham adds that the Asbestos Committee and the FCR's
arguments betray their true motivation to bulk up their claims
with invalid claims to artificially inflate the estimated value
of their recovery. He adds that none of the Asbestos Claims
require evidentiary hearing as each is insufficient, hence, the
court should disallow the claims without delay.

Annie E. Joynt, Esq., at Lipsitz and Ponterio, LLC, in Buffalo,
N.Y., informs the Court that the law firm withdraw, with
prejudice, 54 asbestos-related personal injury claims against
the Debtors.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Danos in Suit v. Foster
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which had
granted summary judgment for Foster Wheeler, LLC, in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by the estate of Golzie Danos.

The case is styled Golzie Danos and Thibodeaux Danos v. Avondale
Industries, Inc. (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, Inc.) and its
Executive Officers, et al.

Judges James F. McKay III, Michael E. Kirby, David S. Gorbaty,
Roland L. Belsome, and Moon Landrieu entered judgment in Case
No. 2007-CA-1094 on July 2, 2008. Judges Kirby and Gorbaty
dissented.

This suit was initially filed on behalf of Mr. Danos and his
wife, Faye Thibodeaux Danos, for injuries sustained by Mr. Danos
in connection with his employment by Northrup Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc., f/k/a Avondale Industries, Inc., f/k/a Avondale
Shipyards, Inc. (Avondale) from about 1964 to 1977.

Following Mr. Danos' death from mesothelioma, his widow and
adult children filed survival and wrongful death actions. The
plaintiffs allege that Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos-
containing products developed and manufactured by Foster
Wheeler, which exposure caused him to contract mesothelioma and
ultimately caused his death.

Foster Wheeler filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that
it is an engineering company that designs power generation
equipment such as boilers and that it never manufactured
asbestos products.

The trial court granted summary judgment finding that there was
insufficient evidence to overcome plaintiffs' burden of proof at
trial that Mr. Danos was exposed to asbestos from any products
manufactured by Foster Wheeler.

Plaintiffs appealed that ruling.

On the application of the plaintiffs, the Appeals Court granted
rehearing to reconsider its opinion of Feb. 13, 2008, which
affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of
Foster Wheeler.

Following reargument, the Appeals Court vacated its earlier
opinion, reversed the trial court judgment and remanded the
matter for further proceedings.

Gerolyn P. Roussel, Esq., Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Esq., Jonathan
B. Clement, Esq., Lauren R. Clement, Esq., of Roussel & Clement,
in Laplace, La., represented Faye Thibodeaux Danos, Julie Danos
Landry, Jill Danos Trosclair, Jana Danos Anzelmo.

Lynn M. Luker, Esq., of Lynn Luker & Associates, LLC, in New
Orleans, represented Foster Wheeler L.L.C.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Upholds Board Ruling for Pollitt
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the ruling of the
Workers' Compensation Board, which favored Paul Pollitt, in an
asbestos-related compensation case filed against AK Steel
Corporation.

The case is styled AK Steel Corporation, Appellant v. Paul
Pollitt; John B. Coleman, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers'
Compensation Board, Appellees.

Judges Nickell, Thompson, and Vanmeter entered judgment in Case
No. 2007-CA-001698-WC on July 18, 2008. Judge Vanmeter
dissented.

Mr. Pollitt filed a workers' compensation claim against his
former employer, AK Steel, alleging that he was affected by an
occupational disease arising out of that employment.

Mr. Pollitt produced evidence demonstrating that he was exposed
to asbestos while working in various positions for AK Steel
between 1978 and 1992. In part, he asserted that he worked in a
bonder area cutting materials that contained asbestos during
1983 and 1984.

Additional evidence indicated that Mr. Pollitt also may have
been exposed to asbestos after he began working for another
employer in 1994.

Mr. Pollitt first sought treatment in May 2004, when he
developed a nagging cough. After being advised by his physician
that he may have asbestos-related damage, in June 2004, Mr.
Pollitt provided a notice letter to AK Steel.

AK Steel produced evidence regarding asbestos abatement
procedures during the time of Mr. Pollitt's employment. It
disputed Pollitt's claim that asbestos products were used in the
bonder section where he had worked, and it asserted that any
exposure Mr. Pollitt may have had to asbestos during his
employment was limited.

After reviewing the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge found
that Mr. Pollitt's last injurious exposure "most likely"
occurred in July 1986, while he was employed by AK Steel, and
that the medical evidence demonstrated Mr. Pollitt suffered from
a calcified pleural plaque condition rather than from newer or
current exposure to asbestos.

The ALJ concluded that Mr. Pollitt provided timely notice to AK
Steel within one month of discovering that he may have an
asbestos-related lung condition, and that the claim was timely
filed within 20 years from the July 1986 exposure.

AK Steel filed this petition for review from an order entered by
the Board affirming an opinion and order of the ALJ.

The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board is affirmed.

Elaina L. Holmes, Esq., in Ashland, Ky., represented AK Steel
Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Has $7.4M Adjustments at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's net adjustments for asbestos-related
assets and liabilities were US$7.4 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$43.8 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2007, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 22, 2008.

The Company's net adjustments for asbestos-related assets and
liabilities were US$4.2 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2008, compared with US$43.1 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, April 25,
2008)

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Incorporated
manufactures and markets chemical specialties globally for
making a variety of products for home, office and industrial
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Contingency Remains at $1.7BB in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7
billion as of June 30, 2008, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company press release dated
July 23, 2008.

The Company recorded asbestos-related contingencies of US$1.7
billion as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 2,
2008)

Asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of June 30,
2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries
and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary
W. R. Grace & Co.–Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order
to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On April 7, 2008, the Company announced an agreement in
principle that provides for a settlement of all present and
future asbestos-related personal injury claims. The agreement,
reached with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, the Future Claimants Representative and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders, requires the establishment
of a trust under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to
which all present and future asbestos-related claims would be
channeled.

This agreement contemplates the filing of a plan of
reorganization and related documents with the Bankruptcy Court,
and would be subject to obtaining exit financing and Bankruptcy
Court and District Court approvals.

Most of the Company's non-core liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

The agreement to resolve the Company's asbestos-related
liabilities and the settlement of other unresolved claims in the
Chapter 11 case would result in allowable claims that differ
from amounts recorded as part of liabilities subject to
compromise as of June 30, 2008.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing entity interest income, were US$18 million in the second
quarter compared with US$23.6 million in the prior year quarter.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts
for the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and
specialty materials for industrial applications; sealants and
coatings for food and beverage packaging; and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction. The Company has about 6,500 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Orders Oct. 31 Bar Date for ZAI Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has set a
Bar Date for Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) Claims to be filed
in the W. R. Grace & Co. Bankruptcy, according to a July 23,
2008 press release by the Claims Processing Agent, W. R. Grace 7
Co. Bankruptcy.

The Company and other related entities filed for protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 2, 2001.
To preserve a claim against the Company, all persons and
entities with ZAI Claims must file these claims on or before
October 31, 2008 (the Bar Date).

ZAI claims are property-related claims that could include the
cost of abatement or removal, the diminution of property value,
economic loss, or other property-related claims caused by ZAI
manufactured by the Company.

ZAI is a loose-fill, non-roll vermiculite home attic insulation
that may contain naturally occurring asbestos. It was sold from
the 1920s and the 1930s to 1984, and it was sold or manufactured
by the Company under the brand name of Zonolite Attic Insulation
and under other brand names.

Brand names include: Attic Fill, House Fill, Home Insulation,
Zonolite Insulating Fill, Econofil, Quiselle Insulating Fill,
Sears Micro Fill, Wards Mineral Fill, Wickes Attic Insulation,
Attic Plus, Mica Pellets Attic Insulation, Unifil and Cashway
Attic Insulation.

ZAI may have a glittery granular appearance. The granules are
shaped like small nuggets and expanded like an accordion and may
have a silvery, gold translucent or brownish cast. After years
in the attic, the granules may darken to black or gray. ZAI may
be found underneath subsequently installed insulation of other
types such as rolled fiberglass insulation.

The Bar Date does not apply to Asbestos Property Damage Claims,
Medical Monitoring Claims, Non-Asbestos Claims, Settled Pre-
Petition Asbestos Personal Injury Claims, or Non-Settled
Asbestos Personal Injury Claims. These bar dates have passed.

For complete information, including a Bar Date Notice, ZAI Proof
of Claim Form and instructions for filing a claim, call 1-877-
465-4817, visit www.graceclaims.com, or write to Claims
Processing Agent, W. R. Grace & Co. Bankruptcy, P.O. Box 1620,
Faribault, Minn. 55021-1620.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearne Sues 43 Corporations in Texas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Hearne, on behalf of Garland Adams, on July 9, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the A.O. Smith
Corporation and 42 other companies in Orange County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The lawsuit names corporations from aerospace giant Lockheed
Martin Corporation to iron supplier Zurn Industries for
manufacturing and distributing asbestos-laced products.

The petition also faults Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Corp. (3M Corporation) and American Optical Corp. for producing
defective masks that failed to "provide respiratory protection."

Court documents suggest Mr. Adams was exposed to asbestos dust
and fibers while working as a welder and machinist. The lawsuit
does not give dates of Mr. Adams' employment, locations where he
worked or when or how he died.

The petition says the 43 defendants entangled in his lawsuit
were negligent, failing to adequately test their asbestos-laced
products before flooding the market with dangerous goods.

Ms. Hearne is suing for Mr. Adams' physical pain and suffering
in the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future,
lost wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past
and future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past
and future medical expenses.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins represents Ms. Hearne.

Case No. A-080259-c has been assigned to District Judge Patrick
Clark.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Engineer's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Windsor Guildhall in Berkshire, England, heard
that the death of former marine engineer, William Ward, was
linked to asbestos exposure, getreading reports.

During the July 17, 2008 hearing, Berkshire coroner Peter
Bedford described the 72-year-old Mr. Ward's death as a very
"complex case."

Mr. Bedford said doctors notes showed Mr. Ward was suffering
from "very advanced mesothelioma" after being exposed to
asbestos in his working life, but died after a hip operation at
Royal Berkshire Hospital.

Mr. Ward had worked as a "fitter and turner" for a company in
Newbury from 1946 and then moved on to work on ships until 1981.

In later life, Mr. Ward suffered hypertension and osteoarthritis
and had to undergo two hip operations. He was at hospital in
Reading on Aug. 17, 2007, for a routine operation to stop his
hips dislocating.

However, Mr. Ward died after suffering a cardiac arrest just
hours after the procedure was finished.

Post mortem examination results suggested Mr. Ward would have
survived another month if the operation had not taken place
because of his mesothelioma.

Recording a narrative verdict, Mr. Bedford said, "Mr Ward's
cause of death was due to a combination of the hip surgery and
advanced mesothelioma on the likelihood of mesothelioma being
the major contributor."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Case v. Japan Gov't., 46 Companies Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed against the Japanese
government and 46 construction materials manufacturers opened on
July 24, 2008 at the Tokyo District Court, The Japan Times
reports.

The 178 plaintiffs, who are mostly construction workers, are
demanding a combined JPY6.6 billion in compensation for failing
to take appropriate measures despite being aware of asbestos-
related health hazards, including lung cancer.

Kazuo Miyajima, a former construction worker who was diagnosed
in 2003 with lung cancer, said, "Many of my colleagues are
suffering from asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma."

Pointing out that the government and manufacturers were aware of
asbestos risks as early as 1955, the 76-year-old Mr. Miyajima
argued that construction workers were treated unjustly and were
considered "unworthy of proper care."

The plaintiffs are mainly carpenters and plasterers from Tokyo
and Chiba and Saitama prefectures. Other plaintiffs include
family members of workers who have died due to asbestos
exposure.

Mr. Miyajima told the court 84 of the plaintiffs have passed
away due to illnesses induced by the toxic mineral.

The defendants, including manufacturers of construction
materials containing asbestos, among them Tokyo-based Nichias
Corp., did not make a statement on July 24, 2008 but revealed
they would fight the claims and ask the court to dismiss the
case.

According to the suit, which was filed in May 2008, the
plaintiffs were exposed to severe health risks stemming from
inhaling asbestos while working at construction sites.

In demanding JPY38.5 million each in addition to enhancement of
financial support for victims as well as better medical
assistance, the plaintiffs claim the government and
manufacturers failed to curb the use of asbestos because of its
reasonable price and accessibility.

The Diet implemented a law in 2006 to provide financial support
to victims of asbestos-related ailments, including a monthly
allowance of JPY100,000 for treatment. However, the plaintiffs
have said this is not enough.

Faced with similar lawsuits, the government revealed plans to
expand its biannual asbestos inspections to about 2 million
buildings from the current 260,000, possibly starting in March
2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Lawyers Release Updated Education Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey mesothelioma lawyers Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.
released an updated version of "The History of Asbestos,"
TransWorldNews reports.

This asbestos education tool, written by asbestos mesothelioma
attorney Chris Placitella, chronicles the strategy of silence
adopted by the asbestos industry to keep the public ignorant of
the health risks of asbestos exposure.

"The History of Asbestos" is a 25-minute film that investigates
the decades of lies, half truths, and deceptions practiced by
the asbestos industry.

From the first asbestos claim in 1925, to the misnamed Air
Hygiene Foundation of the 1930s, and the bankruptcy of the major
asbestos companies in the 1980s, the film tells the story of the
asbestos cover-up and the staggering number of victims it
claimed through asbestosis and mesothelioma fatalities.

Hidden documents, corporate negligence, and a policy of
deception contributed to a conspiracy aimed at preventing
asbestos industry workers from learning that asbestos dust could
kill them.

To watch "The History of Asbestos" or to have your asbestos
exposure case evaluated by an experienced New Jersey
mesothelioma lawyer, visit
http://mesothelioma.cprlaw.com/History-of-Asbestos-Legal-Video--
6-11293-212.html.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts GBP300M Doncaster Housing Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GBP300 million project to improve Doncaster Council homes in
Doncaster, England has been halted because of asbestos concerns,
the Doncaster Free Press reports.

Workmen carrying out improvements to homes across the borough
have been ordered to stop for 48 hours while checks are carried
out to make sure health and safety procedures designed to deal
with asbestos are being carried out.

It is believed the action, which was done on July 23, 2008, was
a precautionary measure in case asbestos was discovered again.

Areas affected by the latest action include Edenthorpe,
Armthorpe, Balby, Bentley and Cantley.

Early in July 2008, 34 people returned to their homes in The
Crescent, Woodlands, three weeks after they were evacuated when
asbestos was found by builders carrying out improvements as part
of the Decent Homes program, which started in 2007.

Also in July 2008, 36 flats in Askern House and Treeton House,
on Balby's St. James estate, were evacuated after traces of
asbestos were uncovered.

Paul Hart, Doncaster Council's managing director and Martin
Musgrave, chief executive of St. Leger Homes (the group
responsible for more than 20,000 of the authority's homes),
released a statement confirming work had stopped for two days.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in 2 Buffalo Structures Costs $12M
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to reports, about US$12 million was expended to remove
asbestos that is infesting the Memorial Auditorium and Donovan
State Office Building in Buffalo, N.Y., the Environmental Expert
reports.

A US$400 million demolition project is set to begin in the
redevelopment of the city's Erie Canal Harbor neighborhood.

In order for the demolition to begin, the asbestos must first be
removed from the buildings, which reportedly contain about 1,250
tons of asbestos material.

Jordan A. Levy, chairman of the Erie Canal Harbor Development
Corp., said, "It's an unavoidable, necessary part of getting
those buildings gone so we can redevelop the Buffalo
waterfront."

Since 1940, the Memorial Auditorium has supposedly undergone
three renovations, each one resulting in more layers of asbestos
being found.

At both demolition sites, crews are required to wear safety
suits and respirators and they air-lock systems have been
implemented to keep the fibers from being released.

Robert Kreuzer, a consultant for the project, said, "We do
constant self-monitoring, and both sites are subject to frequent
visits by state inspectors."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cape Breton Workers to Enter Pleas in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Edward Della Valle, Joseph Darrel McNeil, Darryl Todd
Routledge, and a representative of the Community Services
Department, on July 16, 2008, appeared in a Sydney, Nova Scotia,
Canada courtroom to request another delay in asbestos
proceedings, The Chronicle Herald reports.

Charged with failing to protect the public after asbestos was
discovered in several regional housing units in 2004 and 2005,
the Community Services Department and Mr. Della Valle, Mr.
McNeil and Mr. Routledge were ordered to return Oct. 22, 2008 to
enter pleas.

The three men, who were working for the government-funded Cape
Breton Island Housing Authority, face single counts under the
Occupational Health and Safety Act while the provincial
department faces four counts. The department owns the units and
the housing authority handles renovations, repairs or management
of the units.

The Labor Department charged all four parties early in 2008
after a two-year investigation into allegations that the
government covered up test results for asbestos when residents
in several units in Whitney Pier complained about excessive dust
during renovations.

Mr. Della Valle, the authority's safety officer, received a
letter dated Oct. 25, 2005, from a company confirming asbestos
in the air in the apartment building on Rose Terrace.

However, residents in the building did not find out until April
2006 when Gordie Gosse, the area's member of the legislative
assembly, went public about it after a housing authority
employee leaked the letter to him.

The workers are charged with failing "to take every reasonable
precaution in the circumstances to protect the employees' own
health and safety and that of other persons at or near the
workplace" between Oct. 25, 2005, and April 6, 2006.

The four counts against the Community Services Department allege
it failed to ensure employees' safety from March 31, 2004 to
April 6, 2006.

The authority has since inspected all 3,200 of its units for the
insulation and found it in 100 units in Whitney Pier and Ashby,
and another three in Glace Bay.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guam School Mulls Ways to Dispose of Tiles
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Guam Public School System is looking for ways to dispose of
over 4,000 asbestos tiles, KUAM News reports.

Costs to ship and dispose of these tiles would total to about
US$2.1 million.

One of the options included asking for help from the military,
but Lieutenant Governor's chief of staff Carlotta Leon Guerrero
says GPSS may just even store the tiles in containers for now.

Mr. Guerrero said, "Bruce Williams, the safety manager for the
Guam Public School System, his fourth option in this is to put
the tiles in 40-foot containers here on Guam and store it in
lockdown, so it'll be safe for typhoons for another two years
until the landfill opens. And we have proper liners and we could
properly dispose of it in our landfill."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Gold Coast Airport
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Gold Coast Airport in Queensland, Australia
confirmed the presence of asbestos in the terminal ceiling,
which will be disturbed when reconstruction work on the terminal
gets under way within the next six months, Tweed Daily News
reports.

On July 23, 2008, Gold Coast Airport chief operating officer
Paul Donovan stressed there would be no risk to passengers or
staff. He said, "No-one is at risk. There will not be two
million people affected by this. We will be removing it after
hours so that neither staff nor passengers will be introduced to
it."

Mr. Donovan said the airport had not yet informed the public
about the presence of asbestos because its%renovations had not
yet started. He assured airport users that every step had been
taken to ensure their health would not be put at risk in any
way.

Asbestos was outlawed in Australia in the late 1980s because of
its link to illnesses like asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung
cancer.

Mr. Donovan said he could not confirm how much asbestos was in
the ceilings in the terminal.

The Transport Workers Union of Australia (TWUA), which
represents more than 50 baggage handlers at the airport, was
unaware of the situation when contacted by the Tweed Daily News
on July 23, 2008.

Hughie Williams, branch secretary of TWUA Queensland, said he
would pull the workers from the airport if there was any threat
to them from the asbestos.

Preliminary work for the AUD100 million terminal redevelopment
began in April 2008 and is scheduled to be completed by March
2010.





                            *********

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  * * *