CAR_Public/080801.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 1, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 152
  
                            Headlines

ANB BANCSHARES: Three Former Bank Workers Sue Over Stock Plan
APPLE COMPUTER: Nov. 7 Certification Hearing Set for Tie-Up Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Vogel" Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Faces iPod Nano Screen Scratching Lawsuits in Canada
APPLE INC: Nov. 7 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit

APPLE INC: Faces New "Vogel" Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
C. R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Lawsuits
C. R. BARD: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Minn. Suit Over Charged Phone Services
DELL INC: Class Action Arbitration Sought Over $500 Rebates

EARTHENTREE: Recalls Wooden Toys Posing Strangulation Hazards
ELGIN MENTAL: Ill. Suit Says Patients Have Limited Phone Access
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Kansas Suit Over Backdating of Stock Options
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Investors File Calif. Suit Over Brocade Deal
JASPER COUNTY: Lawsuit Wants Public Administrator Removed

KENTUCKY: Officials Sued Over "Wrongful" Budget Fund Transfers
KPMG LLP: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $65M Settlement in Calif. Suit
MATSON NAVIGATION: Hawaiian Shippers Fix Prices, Lawsuit Claims
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Delaware Suit Over Breach of Labor Laws
MORGAN STANLEY: Nov. 3 Approval Hearing Set for "Steinberg" Deal

NEW ENGLAND ROPES: Recalls Climbing Lines Due to Fall Hazard
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Suits Over Termite-Related Services
ORKIN INC: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California State Court
PALM BEACH SCHOOL BOARD: Court Nixes ACLU's Graduation Rate Suit

PALM INC: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to Treo Suit Settlement
PARMALAT: N.Y. Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hermes Suit
ROLLINS INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Alleging FDCPA Violations
SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Wants Class Status for Ticket Suit Denied
SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit

SILOAM SPRINGS POLICE: Sued Over Unconstitutional Strip Searches
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over F.A.A. Violations
TRANS UNION: FCRA Suit Deal Provides for Free Credit Monitoring
UNITED STATES: Vets Seek to Overturn PTSD Care Suit Dismissal

* Khorrami Pollard Adds New Attorney to Class Action Group


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Texas Securities Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kaplan Fox Files Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $3.6B Claims Reserves at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Involved in ACandS Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Sensus Metering
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $53M in Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 611 Cases at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Plaintiffs Sue 124 Corporations in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,000 Claims v. CertainTeed Filed in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Cites $530M Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $925M Liabilities in June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liberty Mutual Reports $4Mil Net A&E Losses

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fine for East Liverpool Lowered to $5,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Resident Charged for Illegal Removal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Behshid Wins Appeal in Suit v. Bondex Int'l
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites $258M Liability at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Subject to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,800 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in Mississippi Still Ongoing v. ENSCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: August 2008 Trial Set for ENSCO Calif. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 104T Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability as of June

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Morton Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Third-Party Actions Ongoing v. Badger Meter
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Roper Industries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Supports Grace's Disallowance Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDEQ Supports Approval of Grace Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Deny ZAI Claimants' Request
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Long Term Liability Totals $904.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Adds $50Mil to Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd Records $53M Obligations at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dennett Sues 73 Companies in Madison Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Wire Operator's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Rules on MoD Carpenter's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canada Navy Veterans Asked to Get Checkups
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Cites $216.3M Liabilities at June
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Facing 25,760 Claims as of June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 81,979 Claims Pending v. Crane at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $43.4M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.54M Judgment Paid by Crane Last July 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Awaits Ruling on Bid v. Baccus' Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Mulls Payment Over Brewer Suit Ruling

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Crown Cork Drop to 69T at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing v. Mine Safety
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Dismissal of MSA Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Pursuing Case v. Century in Pa.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simpson Case Remanded to Schenectady County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Olin Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Records $3M Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Rockwell Automation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Rise to 350 at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26 Actions Still Pending v. Minerals Tech.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. Diamond Offshore
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RSA Settles $1B Dispute with General Motors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Builder Charged for Disposal Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Village Sued by Code Enforcement Officer



                           *********


ANB BANCSHARES: Three Former Bank Workers Sue Over Stock Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three former employees of ANB Bancshares Inc. invested in the
bank's employee stock ownership plan have sued the Rogers bank
and trustees of the plan, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports.

The three former employees are Jan Taylor, Carla Crosswhite and
Laura Godsey.  They claim that the defendants should have known
that the deteriorating condition of ANB made the company stock
"an imprudent investment" for the stock ownership plan.

According to the report, the lawsuit was filed on July 29, 2008,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
by two Rogers law firms -- Kendall Law Firm and Drewyor Law Firm
-- and Lewis Feinbereg Lee Renaker & Jackson of Oakland,
California.

The former trustees of the plan named as individual defendants
in the lawsuit are:

      -- Vic Evans, former chairman of ANB Financial Bank;

      -- Dan Dykema, former chief executive officer;

      -- Debra Jackson, former chief operating officer;

      -- Gregrey Landis, chief financial officer of the holding
         company;

      -- Harry Brown, bank director;

      -- Eric Brown, bank director; and

      -- Blake Evans, bank director.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recounts that ANB Financial was shut
down by federal regulators on May 9, 2008, because of "unsafe
and unsound banking practices."

Assets of the stock ownership plan were almost $68 million as of
Dec. 31, 2006, with $56 million invested in the bank's stock,
the lawsuit states.  There were about 250 employees invested in
the plan, it adds.  

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status.


APPLE COMPUTER: Nov. 7 Certification Hearing Set for Tie-Up Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 7, 2008 hearing is set for a consolidated class action  
lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Apple Computer, Inc., accusing
the company of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales.

                     Charoensak Litigation

The plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer,
Inc." -- formerly "Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc." -- on
Jan. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging various claims including
alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music
Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power.  

The plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California
Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq., California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law
monopolization.  It seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The company, on Feb. 10, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit, which motion was subsequently denied by the court in part
and granted in part.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005,
which the company answered.  

On May 8, 2006, the court heard the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new
plaintiffs for "Slattery."

In August 2006, the court dismissed "Slattery" without prejudice
and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming
two new plaintiffs.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

                          Tucker Case

The plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as
a purported class action suit on July 21, 2006, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and
videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods
and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of
monopoly market power.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section
16700 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Section
17200 and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  The
plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.  

On Nov. 3, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which request was denied by the Court.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

                    Consolidation of Cases

On March 20, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

On June 6, 2007, the company filed an answer to the consolidated
complaint denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing for
Nov. 7, 2008, according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-
cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq. (rak@katriellaw.com)
          The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-625-4342

               - and -

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. (jstoia@lerachlaw.com)
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the company is:

          Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. (cnmitchell@jonesday.com)
          Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-875-5712
          Fax: 415-875-5700


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Vogel" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case
No. 5:06-cv- 05208-JF," are appealing the dismissal of their
case, which named Apple Computer, Inc., as a defendant.

The purported class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on
Aug. 24, 2006.  It was brought against the company and certain
of the company's current and former officers and directors,
alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize
certain defendants' profits, failing to properly account for
those grants and issuing false financial statements.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.  

On March 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
several classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts
claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act, as well as state law.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to
various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an
accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants, on June 8, 2007, filed a motion to dismiss the
suit.  Subsequently, on Nov. 14, 2007, the Court issued an order
dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that
any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a first amended consolidated class action complaint.  

On Jan. 23, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion.  The plaintiffs' motion was heard on
March 21, 2008.

On May 14, 2008, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.  The court entered
judgment dismissing the case on June 12, 2008.  

On June 17, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according
to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
05208-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Mary Sikra Thomas, Esq. (mthomas@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
          1201 N. Market St., Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000

Representing the defendants is:

          David Malcolm Furbush, Esq. (dfurbush@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          2765 Sand Hill Road
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-473-2600
          Fax: 650-473-2601


APPLE INC: Faces iPod Nano Screen Scratching Lawsuits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to face several
purported class action lawsuits in Canada over its iPod Nano
products, according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 28, 2008.

In general, the suits allege that the company's iPod Nano was
defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during
normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.

Two similar complaints, "Carpentier v. Apple Canada, Inc.," and
"Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.,"
were filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on Oct. 27, 2005, and
Nov. 9, 2005, respectively, seeking authorization to institute
class actions on behalf of iPod Nano purchasers in Quebec.

The Royer-Brennan case was stayed in May 2006 in favor of the
Carpentier case.  

Two similar complaints, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc.," and "Apple
Computer, Inc.," were filed in Ontario, Canada, on Jan. 9, 2006,
seeking authorization to institute a class action on behalf of
iPod Nano purchasers in Canada.

Apple Canada and Apple Computer, Inc., have served Notices
of Intent to Defend.

Apple, Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer,  
Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and
related software, services, peripherals and networking
solutions.  It also designs, develops and markets a line of
portable digital music players along with accessories, including
the online sale of third-party audio and video products.  


APPLE INC: Nov. 7 Certification Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 7, 2008 hearing was set for a purported class action
lawsuit entitled, "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
CV 07 6507," which was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc.

The suit, filed on Dec. 31, 2007, accuses the company of making
digitally recorded music sold through its online stores
inoperable with operating systems other than iPods, and of
making iPods unable to play music downloaded through
competitors' Web sites (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

Named plaintiff Stacie Somers brought the action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S., that, during
the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who purchased
audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from Dec. 31,
2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this matter.

Ms. Somers wants the court to rule on whether:

     (a) the definition of the relevant markets;

     (b) Apple's market power within these markets;

     (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the
         relevant markets;

     (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt   
         to monopolize the relevant markets;

     (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its
         customers are unconscionable;

     (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff
         which prices paid by the classes are higher than the
         and members of the classes, including the degree to
         prices that would be paid in a market free from tying,
         monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and

     (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain
         ongoing and future violations of the law.

The plaintiff asks that the court declare, adjudge and decree
that:

     -- the action may be maintained as a class action
        pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to the claims for damages and other
        monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as
        representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel
        for the classes;

     -- the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying,
        monopolization, and attempted monopolization in
        violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and
        sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act;

     -- the conduct alleged is in violation of the  
        California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate
        injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages,
        penalties and other monetary relief provided by
        applicable law, including treble damages;

     -- the plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of
        suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and
        post-judgment interest;

     -- the company is permanently restrained and enjoined
        from continuing the alleged unfair and anti-competitive
        activities;

     -- all funds acquired from Apple's unfair business
        practices, including disgorgement of revenues and
        profits require full restitution;

     -- the plaintiff and the class are awarded expenses and
        costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to
        the extent provided by law; and

     -- the plaintiff and the classes are granted such other,
        further, and different relief as the nature of the case
        may require or as may be determined to be just,
        equitable, and proper by the court.

On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all
material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.

The Court has scheduled a class certification hearing in
connection with the suit for Nov. 7, 2008, according to the
company's July 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
28, 2008.

The suit is "Stacie Somers et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. CV 07
6507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alreen Haegguist, Esq.
          Haegguist Law Group
          501 West Broadway, Suite A-276
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-955-8218
          Fax: 619-342-7878

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. (helenz@zeldeslaw.com)
          Law Office of Helen Zeldes
          249 S. Highway 101, #370
          Solana Beach, CA 92075
          Phone: 858-523-1713
          Fax: 858-523-1783

               - and -

          Steven A. Skalet, Esq. (sskalet@findjustice.com)
          Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbrinskin@findjustice.com)
          Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
          1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-822-5100
          Fax: 202-822-4997


APPLE INC: Faces New "Vogel" Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud class action
lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the company's July 23, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

The purported class action suit was filed on June 27, 2008,
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.

The allegations, which arise out of the company's past stock
option practices, are similar to those in the suit filed in 2006
entitled, "Vogel et al. v. Jobs et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 05208-
JF," which was dismissed on June 12, 2008.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several
classes of holders of the company's stock and asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock
option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and
damages in an unspecified amount.

The suit is "Vogel et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No.
5:2008-cv-03123," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Jeremy Fogel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087
          e-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Phone: 845-356-2570
          Fax: 845-356-4335


C. R. BARD: Continues to Face Composix Kugel Mesh Patch Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., continues to face several lawsuits that were
filed or asserted against the company with respect to its Bard
Composix Kugel product intended for ventral hernia repair,
according to the company's July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

As of July 25, 2008, approximately 735 federal and 1,100 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,940
plaintiffs, as well as three putative class action suits, have
been filed or asserted against the company with respect to
Composix Kugel.

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
product beginning in December 2005.

One class action lawsuit consolidates eight previously filed
class action lawsuits.

The actions generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the product.

The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek:

       -- medical monitoring,
       -- compensatory damages,
       -- punitive damages,
       -- a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
       -- attorneys' fees.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix lawsuits pending in federal courts
nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island.

Approximately 1,075 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by approximately 1,090 plaintiffs, are pending in the
Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder
in various other jurisdictions.

In March 2008, the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island
directed that certain lawsuits had improperly consolidated
numerous plaintiffs and ordered the re-filing of complaints on
behalf of those plaintiffs, resulting in an increase in the
number of lawsuits but a decrease in the number of plaintiffs in
lawsuits pending in that court.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- is engaged in the  
designing, manufacturing, packaging, distribution and sale of
medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices.  The
Company sells a range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities
and alternate site facilities.


C. R. BARD: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Urological Catheters
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc., continues to face an antitrust class action
lawsuit that claims several companies colluded to monopolize the
market on urological catheter products.  The suit is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
according to the company's July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The defendants named in the suit are:

    -- C.R. Bard, Inc.,
    -- Tyco International (U.S.), Inc., and
    -- Tyco Health Care Group.

The suit, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, was brought on behalf of all
persons or entities, including hospitals and other healthcare
providers in the U.S. who directly purchased Urological
Catheters produced, promoted, sold, marketed and distributed by
one or more of the defendants, from Jan. 1, 2002, through the
present (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2007).

Named plaintiff Southeast Missouri Hospital says the companies
use exclusionary compliance discounts, sole-source exclusive
dealing contracts and bundled discounts and rebates to restrict
and eliminate competition and charge inflated prices.

As a result of the defendants' unlawful conduct, the plaintiff
and the class allegedly paid prices for Urological Catheters
that were artificially inflated, and were foreclosed from the
opportunity to purchase more effective and innovatively advanced
Urological Catheters.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for itself and on behalf
of direct purchasers of Urological Catheters, as well as
recurring injunctive relief from these ongoing violations of
federal antitrust laws.

Questions of law and fact common to the class include:

     (a) whether the defendants engaged in a contract,
         combination or conspiracy among themselves to fix,
         raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate
         the market for Urological Catheters;

     (b) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators were
         participants in the contracts, combinations or
         conspiracies alleged herein;

     (c) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in conduct that violated Sections 1 and 2 of
         the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators
         engaged in unlawful, unfair or deceptive contracts,
         combinations or conspiracies among themselves, express
         or implied, to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
         prices of Urological Catheters sold in and/or
         distributed in the U.S.;

     (f) whether the anticompetitive conduct of the defendants
         caused prices of Urological Catheters to be
         artificially inflated to non-competitive levels;

     (g) whether the defendants unjustly enriched themselves as
         a result of their inequitable conduct at the expense of
         the Class members;

     (h) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (i) whether plaintiff and other class members were injured
         by the conduct of defendants and, if so, the
         appropriate class-wide measure of damages

     (j) what is the scope of the relative market for Urological
         Catheters; and

     (k) whether defendants have market power in the Urological
         Catheter.

The plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the class, respectfully
prays:

     (1) that this action may be maintained as a class action
         pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
         Procedure, that plaintiff's counsel be appointed class
         counsel, and that reasonable notice of this action be
         given to the class;

     (2) that the acts alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to
         be unlawful restraints of trade in violation of
         Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of
         the Clayton Act;

     (3) that the class recover treble the damages determined to
         have been sustained by them, and that joint and several
         judgments be entered against defendants in favor of the
         class;

     (4) that defendants be enjoined from entering into the
         unlawful agreements discussed above;

     (5) that the class be granted the costs and expenses of
         suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided
         by law; and

     (6) that the class be granted such other and further relief
         as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper
         by the court.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1a58

The suit is "Southeast Missouri Hospital v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00031-TCM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Thomas C.
Mummert, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Nathan Cihlar, Esq. (ncihlar@straus-boies.com)
          Straus & Boies, LLP
          4041 University Dr., Fifth Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: 703-764-8700
          Fax: 703-764-8704

Representing the defendants is:

          Ryan B. Bowers, Esq. (rbowers@winston.com)
          Winston and Strawn LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-558-5600
          Fax: 314-558-5700


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Faces Minn. Suit Over Charged Phone Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership -- doing business as Verizon Wireless -- and
Dada USA are facing a class-action complaint before the Hennepin
County Court over allegations that the phone companies charged
customers for cell-phone services they did not order or
authorize, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Cellco Partnership provides wireless voice and data services and
related equipment to consumers and business customers in the
markets in which it operates.  The company is based in Basking
Ridge, N.J.


DELL INC: Class Action Arbitration Sought Over $500 Rebates
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for consumers filed a demand for arbitration of a
class action over Dell's denial of consumers' rebate claims.

The case originally was filed in St. Clair County, where a judge
ruled that a provision in Dell's contracts requiring consumers
to waive their legal rights was unenforceable.  The Illinois
Fifth District Appellate Court upheld the ruling of the St.
Clair County circuit judge (Wiggington v. Dell, Cause No. 03-L-
455) in April 2008.  Dell decided not to appeal the decision to
the Illinois Supreme Court.  As a result, the case can now move
forward as a class action arbitration.

Dell argued that its contracts unilaterally require consumers to
waive their right to bring a class action proceeding.  St. Clair
County Judge Lloyd Cueto's order found the arbitration
prohibition to be unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.

The class action demand for arbitration was filed with JAMS, a
national organization providing arbitration and mediation
services.  The class sought includes:

All persons and entities in the State of Illinois who, since
July 22, 1998, made a purchase from Dell via telephone and
submitted a rebate claim to Dell or any of its authorized
retailers that was denied as untimely, or to whom Dell promised
an instant rebate that it did not pay.

Customer Steve Wigginton filed the suit after Dell refused to
pay rebates totaling $500 for the purchase of computer
equipment.  Dell took the position that rebate claim forms were
filed too late, even though the company did not disclose to
customers any deadline for filing the rebates at the time of
sale.  Mr. Wigginton was not made aware of the alleged need to
meet a claim deadline when he was enticed to buy the computers
by Dell's rebate offer.

This ruling follows the Lakin Law Firm's precedent-setting
victory for consumers in Kinkel v. Cingular, where the Supreme
Court of Illinois in 2006 found similar class action prohibition
language in a cell phone contract unconscionable and against
public policy.  Brad Lakin, President of The Lakin Law Firm,
said: "This is yet another great victory for consumer rights.  
We think it's clear that it is not right for Dell and other
companies to put fine print language in their contracts and
attempt to take away consumers' rights given by the legislature.
The legislature has the class action mechanism for a reason --
to allow consumers to band together in cases affecting many but
where the money, like the $500 rebate here, is a small amount."

The Court's ruling also follows numerous state Supreme Court
decisions ruling in favor of consumers.  On July 3, 2008, an
article in The Wall Street Journal, Recent Rulings Bolster the
Case for Class Actions, discussed the New Mexico Supreme Court's
ruling against Dell in a similar case.  In its ruling the court
stated, "The opportunity to seek class relief is of particular
importance to the enforcement of consumer rights, because it
provides a mechanism for the spreading of costs."

The Lakin Law Firm, P.C. regularly represents consumers in class
action litigation.


EARTHENTREE: Recalls Wooden Toys Posing Strangulation Hazards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Earthentree of Kirkland, Wash., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 375
wooden toys.

The company said the recalled toys contain small parts or can
break into small parts, posing a choking hazard.  The recalled
rattles violate the federal rattle standard.  Some of the toys
also have a string longer than 12 inches, which can pose a
strangulation hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

This recall involves a variety of wooden toys including egg
shakers (maracas), pull toys, rattles, and trains.  The toys are
painted glossy red, orange, green, brown, yellow or natural
wood.

These recalled wooden toys were manufactured in India and were
being sold at Earthentree's Web site, Fairs, Trade Shows and
retail stores nationwide from December 2007 through May 2008 for
about $7 to $34.

Pictures of the recalled wooden toys are found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347a.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347b.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347c.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347d.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347e.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347f.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347g.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347h.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347i.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347j.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347k.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347l.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347m.jpg
   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08347n.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away
from children and contact Earthentree for exchange or refund.

For additional information, contact Earthentree at 800-963-1593
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.earthentree.com/recall.asp


ELGIN MENTAL: Ill. Suit Says Patients Have Limited Phone Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patients at the Elgin Mental Health Center filed a class-action
complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
claiming they have limited access to telephones, often wait for
more than an hour to use one of the few phones available, have
to nag staff members to turn the phones back on after meals and
medication times, and are barred from speaking privately with
their lawyers, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The patients are limited to 15 minutes per call, the lawsuit
claims, and the center lets the patients police the time limits.
As a result, patients who are "more timid, less intimidating or
less functional often receive less time on the telephone," the
plaintiffs claim.

Patients say the consequences of the center's inadequate phone
service include the inability to receive calls, lost contact
with friends and family, and difficulty coordinating in-person
visits.

However, the center bars patients from owning or using cell
phones.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the cell-phone ban until
the state Department of Human Services complies with the law,
which states that patients have a right to "unimpeded, private,
and uncensored communication with person of (their) choice by
mail, telephone and visitation."

The plaintiffs request that the court issue an injunction
compelling defendants to adopt policies which:

     -- increase plaintiffs' access to telephones;

     -- enable plaintiffs to communicate with lawyers in
        private;

     -- provide plaintiffs with a more reliable system of
        receiving incoming calls and personal messages;

     -- provide plaintiffs with a more reliable system of
        receiving incoming calls and personal messages;

     -- allow plaintiffs to own and use personal cell phones;

     -- restrict the use of cell phones only upon individual
        determinations pursuant to 405 ILCS 5/2-103;

     -- provide notice of any such restrictions pursuant to 405
        ILCS 5/2-201;

     -- rescind the general prohibition of cell phone use;

     -- make individual determinations as to which plaintiffs
        are prohibited from owning and using a cell phone;

     -- require notifications of such individual restrictions
        pursuant to 405 ILCS 5/2-103(c) and 405 ILCS 5/2-201;
        and

     -- enforcing their policy prohibiting plaintiffs from
        owning and using a cell phone until the Department
        complies with the requirements of 100/5-10(c).

The suit is "Mathew Dempsey et al. v. Carol Adams et al.,  Case
No. 08CH27221," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mark J. Heyrman, Esq.
          Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
          6020 South University Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60637-2786
          Phone: 773-702-9611


EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Kansas Suit Over Backdating of Stock Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
Epiq Systems Inc. is facing a lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas accusing the company's officers
and directors of backdating stock options going back to 1997 and
falsifying filings with regulators, Dan Margolies writes for The
Kansas City Star.

The report notes that Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, an Epiq
shareholder, contends that the plaintiff's investigation has
revealed that Epiq has secretly backdated millions of options to
its top officers and directors for nearly a decade, reporting
false financial statements and issuing false proxies to
shareholders.

The pension fund, which has filed numerous securities actions
across the country, said that it performed a statistical
analysis of Epiq's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and found that stock option grants to officers and
directors were consistently priced at the lowest closing price
or intraday trade for the month, quarter or year "with highly
improbable frequency."

"Indeed," AEPF alleged, "the odds that Epiq priced certain of
its options by chance (rather than manipulation) are well over 1
in 1,000,000."

The complaint alleges that the Epiq officials enabled the
company to file false and misleading statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, wreaking "tens of millions
of dollars of damages on Epiq."

"The company's senior executives were incentivized to over-pay
themselves, to profit from their misconduct by cashing in on
under-priced stock options and to issue false financial
statements to cover up their misdeeds," the complaint states.

Epiq was acquired by a private investor group led by Tom
Olofson, its chairman and chief executive officer, in 1988, the
report recalls.  It went public in 1997.

AEPF's complaint alleges that Mr. Olofson sold more than 2
million shares of Epiq stock for $18.5 million since 1997 "based
on his knowledge of material and non-public information
regarding the Company."

The suit also alleges that Mr. Olofson's son, Epiq President and
Chief Operating Officer Christopher Olofson, sold nearly 900,000
shares for about $10.5 million since 1997 "based on his
knowledge of material non-public information" about Epiq.

Epiq Chief Financial Officer Betsy Braham said that the company
had not seen the complaint but was confident it was without
merit.  "Epiq has always followed the highest standards of
corporate governance practice."

The suit is "Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Olofson et al.,  
Case Number: 2:2008cv02344," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas, Judge Carlos Murguia, presiding,
with referral to Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Investors File Calif. Suit Over Brocade Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders filed on July 23, 2008, a proposed shareholder
class action lawsuit against members of Foundry Networks Inc.'s
board of directors before the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara, PR-Inside.com reports.

The plaintiffs accuse, on behalf of the Company's other
stockholders, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties
to them in connection with a proposed $3-billion acquisition of
the Company by Brocade Communications Systems Inc. and engaged
in self-dealing in connection with the approval of the merger,
allegedly resulting in an unfair process and unfair price to the
Company's stockholders.

Foundry Networks Inc. has a 20 years history and is a specialist
in enterprise Ethernet LANs with about 1100 employees.

The report relates that Brocade announced that it was going to
buy Foundry Networks for $19.75 in cash and stock or a total of
$3 billion, a move if realized may make Brocade Communications
the second most powerful vendor of Fibre Channel over Ethernet
(FCoE) technology after Cisco.

The plan is that the newly combined entity will be headed by
Brocade CEO Michael Klayko to be functional under the Brocade
brand in order to compete with Cisco in the FCoE market.

For more information, contact:

          Trevor Allen
          PR Manager
          Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
          3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 423
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: +1-858-779-1554
          Web site: http://www.ShareholdersFoundation.com/


JASPER COUNTY: Lawsuit Wants Public Administrator Removed
---------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit was filed Wednesday asking that Jasper
County public administrator Rita Hunter be removed as
conservator of her 450 to 500 clients or be ordered to refund
any fees she has charged them that the court deems excessive,
Debby Woodin writes for The Joplin Globe.

The report relates that the lawsuit was brought by the same
attorney who won dismissal of criminal charges against a
California woman and her husband who had been charged with
kidnapping the woman's Carthage mother while she was a ward of
the public administrator.  The attorney, R. Lynn Myers, of
Springfield, filed the lawsuit against the public administrator
over the case.

Mr. Myers said that he has studied about 90 of the probate court
files of public-administrator cases since he initially took the
case of 95-year-old Emma France and her 67-year-old daughter,
Dolores Forste.

According to Joplin Globe, one of the issues in the lawsuit is
an allegation that Ms. Hunter was careless in obtaining
guardianship and conservatorship, and that she charged Ms.
France about $4,500 for her services.  Mr. Myers said he
believes that fees have been charged other clients, too, beyond
what state law allows.

Mr. Myers added that the fees set by Ms. Hunter have increased
about 400% over those charged by her predecessor.  Ms. Hunter is
double-billing some clients, he alleges, by charging fees for
some of her work or a deputy clerk's work when she is paid a
salary by the county to provide those services.

Mr. Myers also pointed out that under Missouri law, public
administrators generally are allowed to either collect a salary
or charge fees for services, but not both, though there are
certain exceptions.  The law does allow some special fees to be
charged by salaried administrators for things such as attorney
bills, he said.  He also believes there must be a contract in
place that specifies the services and fees to be charged.

"I think you have to establish the standards the public
administrator can use to charge" clients, Mr. Myers said.  "The
administrator is there to be the safety net.  They're there to
catch those without families or the indigent," and the service
should not be used as a profit center for county operations, he
said.  He further noted that the office has generated about
$400,000 for county coffers since Ms. Hunter took office in
2005.

Joplin Globe says that Ms. Hunter, who is a candidate for re-
election facing two Republican opponents in the Aug. 5 primary,
said she had not yet been served with a copy of the lawsuit as
of Wednesday afternoon.  "I know nothing about this until I'm
actually served," she said, adding that her attorney would not
be aware of it yet either.  "I have no comment," she said,
though she did question the timing of the lawsuit coming less
than a week before the primary election and asked how reporters
knew about the lawsuit.

Mr. Myers told Joplin Globe that the timing is just
coincidental.  

Mr. Myers clarified that he is not asking that Ms. Hunter be
removed as guardian of her cases.  In Missouri, guardians make
decisions for the person, such as granting permission for
medical care or placement for housing, and the role as
conservator is a separate function to manage a person's money
and property.  Courts may limit powers to the role of one or the
other, depending on the need of a client.

Mr. Myers also said he started looking into fees charged in
other cases after he had Ms. France released from Ms. Hunter's
oversight and the criminal charges dismissed.

The report relates that Ms. France asked her daughter to take
her home with her, and when the daughter did take her mother to
California, she and her husband were charged with interfering
with custody and other crimes.  The report recalls that all the
charges eventually were dismissed when Mr. Myers showed that Ms.
France was not in need of a guardian, and that state law was not
followed in making her a ward of the public administrator.

                        Two Other Cases

According to Joplin Globe, Mr. Myers also cites two other cases
in his lawsuit.

One is that of Treba Benson, a Neosho woman who has taken
guardianship of her mother while Ms. Hunter serves as
conservator.  Mr. Myers alleges that Ms. Benson's source of
income was two rental houses, but that Ms. Hunter has not
maintained renters in at least one of the houses and won't make
repairs to the houses so that they are fit for rental.

Mr. Myers also cites the case of Guy Sesler, who was made a ward
of Ms. Hunter while he was in a coma.  Mr. Myers says Mr.
Sesler's house was nearly sold for property taxes that Ms.
Hunter did not pay.  

Mr. Myers indicated that he has found other cases in which
houses were turned over to lenders rather than being sold.

"The purpose of a conservator is to preserve assets," Mr. Myers
said.

                         Another Judge

Joplin Globe says it could take some time for the case to be
resolved.  Mr. Myers said he will ask that a judge from another
part of the state be appointed by the Missouri Supreme Court to
hear the case to remove the appearance of any conflict of a
local judge hearing the case.

The report recounts that Ms. Forste was arrested in November on
charges that she kidnapped her mother while she was a ward of
the public administrator's office.  Ms. Forste's husband, Steve,
also was charged, but he was not arrested.

Mr. Myers last week filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Forstes
against the special prosecutors in the kidnapping case -- Joseph
Hensley and John R. Briggs.

Ms. Hunter previously said that she followed the law in the
France case, and that action making Ms. France a ward came after
Ms. France lost a large amount of money to lottery scams.  Ms.
Hunter also said that agencies, including the Missouri
Department of Health and Senior Services, were involved in
efforts that led to her appointment as guardian.

Mr. Myers said it will be up to a judge to decide which of Ms.
Hunter's 450 to 500 clients specifically are to be included in
the class-action lawsuit, and what issues must be decided in
determining whether Ms. Hunter should be removed or whether she
overcharged clients.


KENTUCKY: Officials Sued Over "Wrongful" Budget Fund Transfers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in Franklin Circuit Court alleges
Kentucky officials wrongfully transferred fees collected under
the Charitable Gaming Act to the general state budget fund,
forcing non-profit groups to pay higher annual fees to hold
raffles, bingo games, fund raisers and other gaming activities,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to CourtHouse, soccer enthusiasts teamed up with
churches to file the suit on behalf of all organizations that
pay annual fees to the Office of Charitable Gaming.  The amount
is recalculated every two years to collect only what is needed
to operate the office.

However, the report notes, an executive order in 2008, approved
by Gov. Steven Beshear, tried to eliminate an expected general
fund budget short-fall by curbing spending and transferring
money from other state budget accounts, including the Office of
Charitable Gaming.

The plaintiffs say the state took nearly $6 million of their
charitable gaming fees, which required the Office of Charitable
Gaming to bump up the annual fee to cover costs.  They say state
officials violated the law by transferring their fees.

"Under separation of power doctrine, the Governor has no
constitutional authority to exercise legislative power by
ordering the transfer of OCG funds contrary to statutory
authority," the plaintiffs claim.

The plaintiffs demand:

     -- a declaration of rights that all payments made to OCGG
        for applications, licenses, permits, and other related
        activities by persons and entities engaged in charitable
        gaming are fees statutorily dedicated to regulatory and
        enforcement purposes under the State Charitable Gaming
        Act, and that none such payments constitutes a tax for
        expenditure in the general fund;

     -- a declaration of rights that the taking of payments
        assessed and collected by OCG for transfer to the
        general fund violates Sections 2, 15, 28, 51, 59, 81,
        171, and 180 of the Kentucky Constitution;

     -- a temporary injunction prohibiting transfer under
        Executive Order 2008-011 to the general fund of $700,000
        from the OCG account;

     -- assessment of all costs, attorneys' fees and other fees
        against the Commonwealth; and

     -- any other relief the court may deem proper.

The suit is "Louisville Soccer Alliance, Inc. et al. v. Steven
L. Beshear, et al.," filed in Franklin Circuit Court (Kentucky).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Oliver H. Barber Jr.
          Barber, Banaszynski
          100 North Sixth Street, 5th Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Phone: 502-585-2100


KPMG LLP: Oct. 21 Hearing Set for $65M Settlement in Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 21, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.. to
consider final approval of a proposed $65,000,000 settlement by
KPMG LLP in the matter, "Tenet Healthcare Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08462."

The hearing will be held before Judge Ronald S.W. Lew at
Courtroom 21 of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, U.S. Courthouse, in 321 N. Spring Street, Los
Angeles.

Any objection or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Sept. 19, 2008.  The deadline for the
submission of a claim form is on Oct. 30, 2008.

                        Case Background

The lawsuit was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Nov. 4, 2002.  After the
lead plaintiff was appointed by the Court on Feb. 10, 2003, and
the first amended and consolidated complaint was dismissed
without prejudice, a second amended and consolidated complaint
was filed, alleging, among other things, that Tenet Healthcare
Corp and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, issued false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding Tenet's business model and its financial condition
during the KPMG Class Period (Jan. 11, 2000, to Nov. 7, 2002).

By Order dated Dec. 23, 2004, the Court certified this matter as
a class action.  

Although KPMG was named a defendant in a complaint filed on or
about Jan. 2, 2003, KPMG was not subsequently named as a
defendant in the First or Second Amended Consolidated
Complaints.

The Lead Plaintiff and KPMG entered into a tolling agreement
extending the statute of limitations for filing a complaint
against KPMG until March 28, 2005.

On March 28, 2005, the Lead Plaintiff filed a third amended
class action complaint for violations of the Federal Securities
Laws, naming KPMG as a defendant and asserting claims against
KPMG for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, and Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges, inter alia, that KPMG made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions to investors
concerning Tenet's corporate consolidated financial statements
for Tenet's fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, inter alia, that KPMG
falsely certified that:

       -- Tenet's fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002 financial
          statements were fairly presented in accordance with
          GAAP, and that

       -- KPMG's audits of these financial statements were
          performed in accordance with GAAS.

On Sept. 9, 2005, KPMG filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which both sides fully briefed.  On Dec. 5, 2005, the Court
denied KPMG's dismissal motion.

The Lead Plaintiff ultimately reached a tentative settlement of
the Action with the Tenet Defendants in the Fall of 2005.  The
Court approved the Tenet Settlement by Order dated May 26, 2006.

KPMG answered the complaint on Jan. 20, 2006, denying any
wrongdoing and liability for all of the claims asserted against
it.

Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive merits and expert
discovery.  After the completion of approximately 19 months of
discovery, the parties engaged in extensive dispositive motion
practice.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2007, the Court, among other things,
granted in part KPMG's motion to amend the class period, thereby
shortening the previous class period (from Jan. 11, 2000, to
Nov. 7, 2002) to Aug. 15, 2000 to Nov. 7, 2002.

The Lead Plaintiff and KPMG, through their respective counsel,
engaged in two formal settlement mediations, reaching a
tentative agreement to settle the action against KPMG following
the second mediation in January 2008.  

At the time the KPMG Settlement was reached, the parties were
actively preparing for trial, which had been scheduled to
commence on May 13, 2008.

For more details, contact:

     In re Tenet Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation
     c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
     Claims Administrator
     P.O. Box 9000 #6385
     Merrick, NY 11566-9000
     Phone: 1-800-283-9475
     Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/878

     Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
     Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: 610-667-7706
     Fax: 610-667-7056
     Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/

          - and -

     Allyn Z. Lite, Esq. (alite@ldgrlaw.com)
     Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas LLC
     Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07102-5003
     Phone: 973-623-3000
     Fax: 973-623-0858


MATSON NAVIGATION: Hawaiian Shippers Fix Prices, Lawsuit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matson Navigation Co., Matson Terminals, Alexander & Baldwin,
and Horizon Lines are facing a class-action complaint before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
over allegations these companies conspired to fix the price of
shipping services between the mainland United States and Hawaii,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

TJ Gomes Trucking brings this action on behalf of all those
persons and entities who purchased domestic ocean shipping
services between the continental United States and the State of
Hawaii directly from one of the defendants between at least July
2004 to the present.

The plaintiff claims that Matson and Horizon -- which control 65
and 35% of the Hawaii shipping market, respectively -- control
prices through a "capacity sharing agreement," among other
tactics.  The agreement allows each to transport cargo on the
other's ships at favorable rates.

"The capacity sharing arrangement was the functional equivalent
to two duopolists acting like a monopoly," the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiff also challenges the "parallel, identical, and near
simultaneous imposition of fuel surcharges."  Matson and Horizon
justify these fees as necessary to offset rising fuel costs.

In a truly competitive market, the plaintiff says the more fuel-
efficient operator would find ways to lure business from the
less fuel-efficient shipper.

However, the defendants chose not to compete on price, the suit
claims, "and a plausible explanation for that lack of
competition in this duopoly is that Defendants were conspiring."

The cost of shipping goods from Hawaii has risen by nearly 40%
since 2005, a spike attributed in part to the defendants'
alleged cartel.

CourtHouse notes that Matson and Horizon allegedly control 100%
of the containerized market, and about 96 percent of the total
market for Hawaiian shipping.  The only other players are small,
specialized barge and auto-carrier lines.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination
         or conspiracy among themselves and their co-
         conspirators to raise, fix and maintain the prices of
         Hawaiian Ocean Shipping and engaged in market
         allocation for those services sold in the United States
         and its territories and possessions;

     (b) the identities of the co-conspirators;

     (c) the duration of the conspiracy and nature and character
         of the acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy;

     (d) whether the conspiracy violated Section 1 of the
         Sherman Act;

     (e) whether defendants actively concealed the contract,
         combination or conspiracy from plaintiff and other
         class members;

     (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of
         Hawaiian Ocean Shipping sold in the United States and
         its territories and possessions; and

     (g) whether plaintiff and the class were injured by the
         conduct of defendants and their co-conspirators and, if
         so, the appropriate class-wide measure of damages and
         appropriate injunctive relief.

The plaintiff requests the court:

     -- that this action be certified and maintained as a class
        action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
        of Civil Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, combination or
        conspiracy alleged here be adjudged to be an
        unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation
        of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1;

     -- that the members of the class recover damages,
        including treble damages, as allowed by law, together
        with the costs of this action, including reasonable
        attorney's fees;

     -- that the defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees, and all other persons
        acting or claims to act on their behalf, be permanently
        enjoined and restrained from continuing to engage in the
        anticompetitive conduct described in the complaint;

     -- that the members of the class have such other, further
        and different relief as the case may require and the
        court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.

The suit is "TJ Gomes Trucking Co. Inc., et al. v. Matson
Navigation Company, Inc. et al., Case No. CV 08 3597," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Alex C. Turan, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846


MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Delaware Suit Over Breach of Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
McDonald's Corporation is facing a class-action complaint before
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware over
allegations that it has been routinely violating federal labor
laws, Sean O'Sullivan writes for The News Journal.

Named plaintiff Alissa Justison alleges that when she was an
assistant manager at the McDonald's in Elkton, Maryland, they
improperly denied her overtime pay and did not properly pay her
for expenses and extra work hours related to training.

The court papers charge that though Ms. Justison and others were
called "managers" by McDonald's, they did not have management
duties or responsibilities and were not exempt from the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Justison was required to work at least 10 to 20 hours a week
over the full-time standard of 40 hours, without overtime
compensation, according to the lawsuit.  She was employed at
McDonald's for about a year, leaving in August 2006 and now
works for an online retailer, the suit indicates.

The suit contends assistant managers have little authority and
cannot hire or fire employees and essentially perform the same
functions as other non-management employees, like taking and
filling food orders, providing change and throwing out trash.

"Plaintiffs were not permitted to exercise discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance,"
the lawsuit states.

Ms. Justison's attorney, Timothy J. Wilson, said the lawsuit
only applies to corporate-owned McDonald's, of which there are
about 2,100 in the United States.

"All assistant managers who have worked for McDonald's Corp.
from July 18, 2005, until the present are eligible to join this
lawsuit," Mr. Wilson said.

A spokesman for McDonald's USA said the company is taking the
charges seriously, but added they are unproven allegations at
this point.

"We comply with all employment laws, including wage and labor
laws.  We would caution anyone from jumping to conclusions
without having all the facts.  We are confident, once the facts
are presented, we will prove these claims are without merit,"
said spokesperson Danya Proud in an e-mailed statement.

The suit is "Justison v. McDonald's Corporation, Case Number:
1:2008cv00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

To contact Mr. Wilson:

          Timothy J. Wilson, Esq.
          Margolis Edelstein
          1509 Gilpin Ave
          Wilmington, DE 19806


MORGAN STANLEY: Nov. 3 Approval Hearing Set for "Steinberg" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 3, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed settlement in the matter
"Steinberg, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 3:2006cv02628."

The hearing will be held at Courtroom 4, at the 4th Floor of the
U.S. District Court in 940 Front St., San Diego, California.

Any objection or exclusion to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Nov. 3, 2008.

                        Case Background

On Sept. 1, 2005, a purported class action, entitled, "Steinberg
v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.," was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen
County.  The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount
and other relief on behalf of certain present and former
employees in New Jersey (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2006).  

On Oct. 7, 2005, the matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The plaintiff filed a
first amended complaint on Jan. 13, 2006, seeking damages in an
unspecified amount and relief on behalf of certain present and
former employees in New Jersey and nationwide.

After that lawsuit, various similar complaints raising
allegations of unpaid overtime and unlawful wage deductions were
also filed against Morgan Stanley in New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Texas, Florida, Illinois, California, and Ohio
seeking damages on behalf of certain current and former
employees (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008).

In October 2006, Morgan Stanley reached an agreement to resolve
these claims on behalf of the individual claimants as well as
other potential class members nationwide.

In November 2006, for purposes of executing the settlement, a
consolidated amended complaint captioned, "Steinberg, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley, Case No. 3:2006cv02628," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

In December 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation issued an order centralizing the various matters
pending across the country in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The settlement covers anyone who was employed by Morgan Stanley
& Co., Inc., or Morgan Stanley DW in any of these positions:

       -- Financial Advisors and Financial Advisor Trainees
          employed by Morgan Stanley in the U.S. Outside of the
          State of California; and

       -- Producing Branch Managers, Assistant Branch Managers,
          and Sales Managers employed by Morgan Stanley anywhere
          in the U.S. (including California) who supervise or
          supervised Financial Advisors or Financial Advisor
          Trainees.

For more details, contact:

          Rust Consulting, Inc.
          Phone: 1-866-305-9993

          Francis Michael Gregorek, Esq. (gregorek@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
          750 B Street, Symphony Towers, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101-5050
          Phone: 619-239-4599
          Fax: 619-234-4599

               - and -

          David P. Strauss, Esq. (ds@dstrausslaw.com)
          The Law Office of David P. Strauss
          1111 Sixth Avenue, Suite 404
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-237-5300
          Fax: 619-237-5311


NEW ENGLAND ROPES: Recalls Climbing Lines Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
New England Ropes, of Fall River, Mass., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 530
Maxim Apogee and Maxim Pinnacle Dynamic Climbing Lines/Ropes.

Two types of climbing ropes have been included in this recall,
the Maxim Apogee 9.1mm and Maxim Pinnacle 9.5mm.  The Maxim
Apogee 9.1mm is a 48 carrier climbing rope.  The colors are
yellow and black, and red and yellow.  The model numbers are
3411-91 and 3415-91, with date codes 060801 thru 080601.  The
UPC codes are: 75396312299, 75396312298, 75396312301, and
75396312300.  The Maxim Pinnacle 9.5mm is a blue 48 carrier
climbing rope.  The Model number is 3403-95, with date codes
070201 thru 080601.  The UPC codes are 75396312292 and
75396312293.  The date codes and the UPC codes are on the
original packaging.

These recalled climbing ropes were manufactured in the United
States and were being sold at retailers nationwide from August
2006 through June 2008 for between $180 and $262.

Pictures of the recalled climbing ropes are found at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08346a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08346b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08346c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
dynamic climbing lines and contact the manufacturer for a free
replacement.

For more information, consumers can contact New England Ropes
toll-free at 866-617-9038 anytime or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.neropes.com/Climbing.aspx


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.,
continues to face a purported class action lawsuit entitled,
"Mark and Christine Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,
Inc., et al."

The suit was filed before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County in Tampa, Florida, in March 1999.  It seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

The court, in early April 2002, certified the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this certification ruling to the
Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case
back to the trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin again appealed this new ruling to the
Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals.  In June 2006, the
Florida Second District Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying
certification of the class.  

Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the appeals
court upheld its prior decision that class certification was
improper, but also ruled that the plaintiffs can return to the
trial court and attempt to certify a narrower class.  

Rollins reported no furtehr development in the matter in its
July 28, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of Rollins  
provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Suits Over Termite-Related Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is
facing two purported class action lawsuits in California and
Arkansas over allegations that the plaintiffs have been damaged
as a result of the rendering of services by the company.

The suits are:

       1. "Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin
          Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.;" and

       2. "Roy Sheppard et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company,
          Inc. and Rollins, Inc."

The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit, a termite service related matter, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and has not been scheduled for a class
certification hearing.

The Sheppard lawsuit, also a termite related matter, was
recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas and a date has not been set for a hearing
on class certification.

Rollins reported no development in both matters in its July 28,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of  
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN INC: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc. -- is facing a
purported wage and hour class action lawsuit that was filed
before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.

The suit is captioned, "John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et al."  It
has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing.

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its July 28,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of  
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


PALM BEACH SCHOOL BOARD: Court Nixes ACLU's Graduation Rate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jonathan Gerber this week
dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union against local education officials over the
county's high school graduation rate, Marc Freeman writes for
the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

According to the report, Judge Gerber ruled that the ACLU, on
behalf of parents and students, had no right to sue the School
Board and Superintendent Art Johnson over a state constitutional
requirement to provide students with "a high quality education."

In an order signed on July 28, 2008, Judge Gerber gave the ACLU
until Aug. 12 to either sue on different grounds or agree with
the decision to dismiss the lawsuit.

"While it is common sense that education also is a duty of
individual school boards and superintendents, the question here
is the enforcement of an express constitutional provision, which
refers only to the state," the judge wrote.

Superintendent Johnson told Sun-Sentinel that he agreed that
graduation rates are a concern but said the suit was
unnecessary.  "Our highest priority is for 100 percent of our
students to graduate from high school and we did not need the
ACLU to tell us or to sue us to keep it as our priority," he
said.

The report recounts the suit, filed in March 2008, contended
that at least one in three county students does not graduate on
time, worse than state and national averages.  The dispute
centered on differing methods of figuring graduation rates.

Sun-Sentinel notes that according to state Department of
Education calculations, the school district graduated 71.8% of
its students last year, about 5 percentage points higher than in
2002.

However, the ACLU cited a "shamefully low" rate of 58.1% in
2006, up from 53.8% in 2002, according to a formula developed by
a University of South Florida professor.

The report further relates that the lawsuit also cited figures
used by the Harvard Civil Rights Project and the nonpartisan
Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C. public-policy research
organization.  That method includes only students who receive a
regular high school diploma, which is 56.1% for 2004, up from
46.6% in 2001.

ACLU spokesman Brandon Hensler told Sun-Sentinel that the
problems remain despite the judge's order.  "This decision does
not change the fact that the Palm Beach [County] School District
is not graduating a large number of students," he said, adding
that the court's decision "does not close the door to appeal or
future litigation to address the crisis in Palm Beach County's
public schools, and we are evaluating all of our litigation
options to determine the most effective way to move forward with
this important case."

Sun-Sentinel points out that in discussions with the ACLU,
Superintendent Johnson had been suggesting for more than a year
that the civil rights organization instead take aim at state
legislators for insufficient classroom funding.  "They sued the
wrong party," he said.

However, ACLU representatives have countered that because the
school district grants diplomas, it is responsible for
graduation rates.

The report also notes that Superintendent Johnson also has
pointed to two encouraging signs in the district's defense:
Graduation rates in 46 of the 67 school districts in Florida
went down, while Palm Beach County's rose, and the district is
eighth in graduation rates of the country's 25 largest
districts.

According to Sun-Sentinel, Judge Gerber's ruling did not address
the ACLU's request for a court order forcing the district to use
a formula that "accurately measures graduation rates."

The report explains that the Department of Education's
graduation rate is based on a group that begins in ninth grade
and graduates four years later.  That includes students who earn
a diploma through the General Educational Development test in
those four years and students with disabilities who earn a
special diploma.


PALM INC: Calif. Court Gives Final Okay to Treo Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave final approval to the proposed settlement in the matter "In
re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-
RMW," according to Palm Inc.'s July 25, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 30, 2008.

In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against Palm on behalf of all
purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products.

These lawsuits are:

      1. "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      2. "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

      3. "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in
         the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

      4. "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed
         in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California; and

      5. "Palza v. Palm," filed before the Superior Court of
         California for Santa Clara County.

The complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or
misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600
and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that
the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm
breached its warranty of these products.

The suits' plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief.  

In September 2005, another purported consumer class action suit,
entitled, "Gans v. Palm," was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Palm.  That suit
was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product.

The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California
laws, Palm made false or misleading statements regarding
automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product.  It seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and
injunctive relief.  

Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single
judge in that Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated,
amended complaint.  

The parties subsequently agreed to a tentative settlement.  On
Jan. 7, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the deal
resolving the consolidate action.  Palm proceeded with a notice
to the settlement class members.  

A hearing to determine final approval of the settlement was
conducted in May 2008, and on July 9, 2008, the Court issued an
order approving the settlement on a final basis with respect to
the class and dismissing claims of the settlement class with
prejudice.

The Court reserved ruling on the application of plaintiffs'
counsel for attorneys' fees and incentive awards to the
representative plaintiffs.

The suit is "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case
No. C-05-03774-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

               - and -

          Scott K. Johnson, Esq. (skjohnson@sheller.com)
          Sheller Ludwig & Badey, P.C.
          1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215-790-7300
          Fax: 215-546-0942

Representing the defendants are:

          Roger E. Collanton, Esq. (rcollanton@mofo.com)
          Morrison & Foerster LLP
          101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: 925-295-3345


PARMALAT: N.Y. Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hermes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the request of Lead Plaintiffs Hermes Focus Asset
Management Europe Limited, Cattolica Partecipazioni, S.p.A.,
Capital & Finance Asset Management, Societe Moderne des
Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat for preliminary
certification to the Settlement Class, for the purpose of
partially settling the securities class action litigation,
according to a report by the PARMALAT Bankruptcy News, Issue No.
104.

The Settlement Class will include all persons and entities that
purchased or acquired securities of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A.
and its subsidiaries and affiliates between January 5, 1999 and
December 18, 2003.

The Settlement Class excludes Parmalat, the Defendants, officers
and directors of Parmalat or the Defendants, entities in which
the Defendants have a controlling interest, Parmalat's insurers,
banks and other financial institutions that transacted with
Parmalat, the relatives and legal representatives of the
foregoing.

The Court also approved, as to form and content, the Notice and
Publication Notice to putative class members.  Further, Judge
Kaplan has appointed Epiq Systems Class Actions and Claims
Solutions as the notice and claims administrator supervising and
administering the notice procedure as well as the processing of
claims.

Judge Kaplan will convene a hearing on Sept. 24, 2008, at 9:30
a.m., to determine whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable
and accurate.  The Court will also consider the approval of the
related plan of allocation, as well as the reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and other costs.


ROLLINS INC: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rollins, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District of
California over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The suit, "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," was filed on Nov. 15, 2007.  A hearing date for class
certification has not been set.

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its July 28,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Amir Goldstein, Esq. (ajgold@hauserlawoffices.com)
          Amir J. Goldstein
          591 Broadway, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Phone: 212-966-5253
          Fax: 212-941-8566

Representing the defendant is:

          Mark L. Eisenhut, Esq. (meisenhut@calljensen.com)
          Call Jensen & Ferrell
          610 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-717-3000


SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Wants Class Status for Ticket Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of Seattle SuperSonics -- now Oklahoma City's NBA
basketball team -- are urging the court not to grant class
action status to a federal lawsuit filed by three people who
renewed season tickets for last season's games in Seattle,
NewsOK.com reports.

NewsOK recounts that the three ticket holders filed their
lawsuit in Seattle federal court against the team owners in
November 2007, alleging that the owners deceived them into
renewing their season tickets for 2007-2008 by guaranteeing
purchasers that if they bought 2007-2008 season tickets, their
prices would not be raised the next two seasons.

The owners moved the team to Oklahoma City before the other two
seasons could be played, NewsOK notes.

The ticket holders now are requesting all or part of their money
back for last season, even though they attended games.  They
have asked a judge to certify their lawsuit as a class action so
they can represent all 349 individuals who renewed their season
tickets for 2007-2008 before owners initiated efforts to
terminate their Seattle arena lease and move the team to
Oklahoma City.

According to United Press International, lawyers for the
ownership group led by Clay Bennett said in court documents that
Seattle fans who bought season tickets had too many different
motivations for their purchases to be considered a single group.

"It is readily apparent that the reasons why each of those 349
persons renewed for 2007-08 are highly personal and not
susceptible to class treatment," John Tondini, Esq., wrote,
according to UPI.  "Some renewed because they always renew.  
Some renewed because they use the tickets for business clients,
employee recognition and the like."

Team owners contend it would be unjust to require them to refund
ticket purchases for last season when ticket holders have
benefited by attending games or selling their tickets to others,
NewsOK says.


SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
hearing in connection with an appeal of the dismissal of the
fourth consolidated amended securities fraud complaint in a
purported class action suit against Silicon Image, Inc.,
according to the company's July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and
Robert Gargus," was filed on Jan. 31, 2005, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 19, 2004, to Jan. 24, 2005.

The suit asserts that the company and certain of its officers
and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and
violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.  In July    
2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
dropping individual defendant Robert Gargus, but adding another
defendant, Dr. David Lee.  The consolidated amended complaint
also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004, to April 22,
2005.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in September 2005.  

On Dec. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which extended the end of the class period
from April 22, 2005, to Oct. 13, 2005, and added additional
factual allegations under the same causes of action against the
company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee.  The complaint also added a new
plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.  

The defendants, on Feb. 9, 2006, filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint.  This request was granted
by the court on June 21, 2006, with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint, which the defendants again sought to be dismissed.    

Subsequently, on Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, still
with leave to amend.  

The plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint,
which was again dismissed by the court at the defendants'
behest, without further leave to amend.  Final judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants on Sept. 25, 2007.

On Oct. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the   
Ninth Circuit.

The appellants' opening brief was due on Feb. 28, 2008, and the
company's answer was due April 14, 2008.  

The court has not yet set a date for a hearing on the appeal.

The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Aaron H. Darsky Esq. (adarsky@schubert-reed.com)
          Schubert & Reed, LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-788-4220
          Fax: 415-788-0161

          Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
          212 Wood Street
          Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
          Phone: 831-333-0309
          Fax: 831-333-0325

              - and -

          Richard A. Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Phone: 212-223-3900

Representing the defendants is:

          Emmett C. Stanton, Esq. (estanton@fenwick.com)
          Fenwick & West, LLP
          Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
          Phone: 650-988-8500
          Fax: 650-938-5200


SILOAM SPRINGS POLICE: Sued Over Unconstitutional Strip Searches
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit has been filed against the Siloam Springs
Police Department accusing officers of subjecting more than
1,000 people to unnecessary and unconstitutional strip searches,
4029tv.com reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in
federal court in Fayetteville by Doug Norwood.  Specifically,
the suit names Siloam Springs, Police Chief Joe Garrett, former
Chief Jerry Toler, and nine "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" city
employees.

The suit claims that people arrested or detained for minor
offenses not involving drugs, weapons or other contraband were
regularly subjected to illegal searches at the city jail since
at least July 2005.  The lawsuit also claims that officers
conducted strip searches and body cavity searches for anyone who
was arrested, regardless of the offense.  

Mr. Norwood said that the searches affected more than 1,000
people who were arrested and jailed in Siloam Springs.

Siloam Springs City Attorney Jay C. Williams, Esq., told
4029tv.com that the searches were reasonable and that they were
done to ensure that weapons and contraband are not getting into
the jail.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over F.A.A. Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. is facing two purported class action
lawsuits over alleged violations of Federal Aviation
Administration safety regulations, according to the company's
July 25, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On March 6, 2008, F.A.A. notified Southwest Airlines that it was
seeking to fine the airline company approximately $10 million in
connection with an incident concerning the company's potential
non-compliance with an airworthiness directive.  Southwest
accrued the proposed fine as an operating expense in the first
quarter of 2008.

The company has started an "informal conference" with the
F.A.A., which is a process through which the parties may explore
common ground, or differences, to determine whether the matter
will be formally litigated or resolved.  

In connection with the incident, during the first quarter and
early second quarter of 2008, the company was named as a
defendant in two putative class action suits on behalf of
persons who purchased air travel from the company while the
company was allegedly in violation of F.A.A. safety regulations.

Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class
action complaints include breach of contract, breach of
warranty, fraud or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
negligent and reckless operation of an aircraft.  

Southwest Airlines Co. -- http://www.southwest.com/-- is a  
passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in
the U.S.  Southwest predominantly serves short-haul routes with
high frequencies.  It complements this service with more medium
to long-haul routes, including transcontinental service.


TRANS UNION: FCRA Suit Deal Provides for Free Credit Monitoring
---------------------------------------------------------------
A recent class action lawsuit against the credit reporting
agencies Trans Union and Acxiom has resulted in a $75-million
settlement that will allow consumers to enroll in free credit
monitoring service for up to nine months.

The settlement includes any consumer who had a line of credit
from a credit grantor (including credit cards, automobile loans,
student loans and mortgages) and opened those accounts between
1987 and May 2008.

The lawsuit alleged that the companies violated state laws and
the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by selling lists that
contained consumers' personal information to third parties for
marketing purposes.

There are several options for claiming the benefits.  Consumers
may opt for six months of credit monitoring, which includes the
ability to lock your credit report to prevent third parties from
viewing it, unlimited access to your Trans Union credit report
and 24 hour notification of changes to your credit report.

The nine month enhanced credit monitoring includes the same
features as the six month version, plus insurance scores and a
mortgage simulator.  If consumers sign up for the nine month
service, they will not be able to claim a payment from the
settlement or start an individual lawsuit.

Consumers must sign up to receive the service by September 24,
2008.

A credit monitoring service can help detect fraud and identity
theft quickly, so consumers can work to correct the damage done
and prevent future incidents.  The "lock" feature will help
prevent an ID thief from opening new lines of credit in your
name.

To find out more about the settlement, go to:
http://www.listclassaction.com/or call 1-866-416-3470.


UNITED STATES: Vets Seek to Overturn PTSD Care Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two veterans groups filed a notice with the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco to overturn the decision of a
lower court judge that dismissed a class action suit seeking to
force changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care
system.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in June dismissed the lawsuit,
filed by the Veterans for Common Sense and the Veterans United
for Truth.

Lawyers for the two veterans groups said that staff shortages,
long waits, inadequate care and an adversarial appeals process
for denied care have created an "epidemic of suicides" among
veterans.

The lawsuit also said that VA was ignoring or delaying treatment
of post-traumatic stress disorder for as many as 750,000
veterans.  The lawsuit did not seek damages but instead sought
for the court to force VA to improve care for veterans,
especially those with PTSD and other mental health issues.

In his ruling, Judge Conti agreed with the veterans groups'
claims that there was a high veteran suicide and PTSD rate; that
the VA was understaffed; and that there were long waiting
periods for hearing veterans' appeals of benefit denials.

In addition, the judge found that members of the two groups
"have faced significant delays in receiving disability benefits
and medical care from the VA," often with "dire consequences."
However, he noted that a majority of veterans have been seen
within 30 days.  He added that although the delays were
"significant," they did not violate a veteran's right to due
process because there was no consensus on how "timely"
processing would be defined.

A statement from the veterans groups said that a "flood of
veterans with mental health problems will continue to increase"
as soldiers continue to be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan for
multiple tours of duty.


* Khorrami Pollard Adds New Attorney to Class Action Group
----------------------------------------------------------
Khorrami Pollard & Abir, LLP, a downtown Los Angeles law firm
representing plaintiffs across the nation, has hired H. Scott
Leviant, Esq., as a senior associate of its class action group.

Mr. Leviant arrives at KPA with extensive experience in complex
commercial litigations, class actions, appellate matters and
civil trials.  He has obtained several published appellate
decisions, including "Laliberte v. Pacific Mercantile Bank," 147
Cal.App.4th 1, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (January 25, 2007), which
reversed an adverse trial court ruling and reaffirmed the
expansive nature of the "community of interest" concept in
California class actions.  In connection with his appellate
activities, Mr. Leviant has been admitted to the bar of the
United States Supreme Court.

He has authored and co-authored a number of articles, frequently
contributes to lectures for educational seminars, and founded in
2008, The Complex Litigator, http://www.thecomplexlitigator.com/  
a site which comments on current class action and complex
litigation developments.

Mr. Leviant received his B.A. in math and economics from
Occidental College and his J.D. from the University of Southern
California. He is a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association
of Los Angeles, the Consumer Attorneys of California and the
American Bar Association.

"We feel that Scott's talents, skills, and dedication to
representing plaintiffs in complex litigation is precisely in
line with the direction of the firm," says Shawn Khorrami, Esq.,
founder of Khorrami, Pollard & Abir.  "We are very excited to
have him on board."

To contact the law firm:

          Khorrami, Pollard & Abir, LLP
          444 S. Flower Street, 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-596-6000
          Web site: http://www.kpalawyers.com/


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ARTHROCARE CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Texas Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 25, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas against
ArthroCare Corp.  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The class period is for those investors or entities who
purchased call options or sold put options in the Company's
common stock from October 27, 2006, through July 18, 2008, or
for those persons or entities who purchased "common stock" from
January 24, 2008, through July 18, 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 23,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Kaplan Fox Files Conn. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against General Electric Company and certain of its executives
that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of purchasers of GE common stock during the period
between March 12, 2008, through April 10, 2008, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period
defendants assured investors that the Company would hit its
financial goals for 2008 and, with respect to the Company's
financial services businesses, differentiated itself from other
financial service providers, noting it could "withstand a market
slowdown in the U.S. and still grow earnings."  Indeed, as
alleged, at the beginning of the Class Period defendants
reaffirmed 2008 guidance of "hitting 10% EPS growth, getting
$2.42 a share or greater."

The Complaint alleges that these statements to investors were
false when made because defendants failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others, which they knew or
recklessly disregarded:

     (i) that GE's financial services division was not
         performing as well as previously stated and that the
         division's investments had materially declined in value
         and would require the Company to record mark-to-market
         losses and recognize certain asset impairments;

    (ii) that the Company was depending on the sale of $900
         million in real estate assets during the last two weeks
         of the first quarter of 2008 in order to achieve a gain
         of approximately $100 million; and

   (iii) demand for products in the Company's Consumer and
         Industrial Division had materially declined.

As alleged in the Complaint, just a few short weeks after the
Company's assurances regarding its earnings guidance, on
April 11, 2008, GE shocked the market when it reported
materially worse results for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,
than it previously promised, substantially lowered 2008 full
year EPS guidance and cut its growth estimate for the year from
5-10% to 0-5%.  Indeed, as alleged, instead of the $0.50-0.53
EPS the Company had promised for the first quarter, GE reported
EPS of $0.44 for the quarter and lowered EPS guidance for 2008
from $2.42 to $2.20-2.30.  On this news, it is alleged that on
April 11, 2008 the price of GE shares declined $4.70 per share
-- a one day decline of almost 13%, on heavy trading volume.

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

For more information, contact:

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 800-290-1952
                 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          e-mail address: mail@kaplanfox.com

               - or -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-772-4700
          Fax: 415-772-4707
          e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common units of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.
between February 20, 2008, and July 17, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that SGLP's parent SemGroup, L.P. was in
financial difficulty or at high risk for such financial
difficulty as a result of its investment in risky crude oil
hedge transactions by the start of the class period, but hid
this from investors in SGLP and, on or about February 20, 2008,
SGLP effected a secondary offering, where it sold 6 million
units at $23.90 for proceeds of $137 million.

It is also alleged in the complaint that the Company also
borrowed substantial funds and purchased the Parent's asphalt
business for $387 million, a transaction designed to financially
prop up the Parent.  The complaint further alleges that while
the Prospectus for the Offering described the positive
relationship between SGLP and the Parent, and further described
how important the Parent was to SGLP since it was SGLP's primary
customer and provided almost all of the Company's revenue, there
was no discussion of the Parent's financial difficulties or risk
factors.

The allegations include that in the period following the
Offering, SGLP units traded in the $24-27 range reflecting that,
as far as the investing public was aware, the Company was
operating according to its business plan.  The complaint further
alleges that by July 11, 2008, SGLP unit values began to decline
on increased trading volume despite the release of no adverse
news and that on July 17, 2007, SGLP unit prices declined 50% to
$11.00 on greatly increased volume of 5.7 million units, after
material adverse news which had been withheld by defendants
began to leak, thus forcing the defendants to issue a statement
after the market closed on July 17, 2008 revealing that the
Parent was experiencing liquidity issues and was exploring
various alternatives, including raising additional equity, debt
capital or the filing of a voluntary petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The complaint indicates that as a result, the price of the
Company's units continued to decline, wiping out almost
$300 million in unit holder value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 19,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         The World Trade Center-Baltimore
         401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: 410-332-0030
         e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
         Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/


                         Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $3.6B Claims Reserves at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were
US$3.596 billion at June 30, 2008, compared with US$3.859
billion at June 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 23, 2008.

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first six months of
2008 were US$138 million, compared with US$192 million in the
same period of 2007.

Net paid losses in the first six months of 2008 decreased from
the same 2007 period primarily because installment payments on
settlements reached in prior years were completed during the
first quarter of 2007.

As a result, about 19 percent in the first six months of 2008
(40 percent in the first six months of 2007) of total net paid
losses related to policyholders with whom the Company had
entered into settlement agreements limiting the Company's
liability.

The Company's net asbestos-related reserves were US$3.672
billion at and for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$3.926 billion at and for the three months ended
March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008)

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc.
provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation,
marine, and general and financial liability coverage to
companies in North America and the United Kingdom. The Company
also offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as professional
and management liability coverage for commercial operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Property Involved in ACandS Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary,
Travelers Property Casualty Corp., continues to be involved in
three significant proceedings relating to ACandS, Inc., formerly
a national distributor and installer of products containing
asbestos.

The proceedings, which are pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (In re: ACandS, Inc.) and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Pennsylvania (ACandS, Inc. v.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., No. 03-MC-222 and ACandS,
Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., 00-CV-4633), involve
disputes as to whether and to what extent any of ACandS'
potential liabilities for current or future bodily injury
asbestos claims are covered by insurance policies issued by TPC.

On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-
related coverage claims relating to AcandS.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will contribute
US$449 million to a trust to be established under ACandS's plan
of reorganization. In exchange, the Company will be released
from any obligations it has to ACandS for asbestos-related
claims and will be protected from any such claims by injunctions
to be issued in the Company's favor by the federal court
overseeing ACandS's bankruptcy case.

On Aug. 27, 2007, the bankruptcy court overseeing ACandS's
bankruptcy approved the settlement and no appeals from that
approval were taken. As a result, the Company placed US$449
million into escrow.

On May 8, 2008, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming
ACandS's plan of reorganization. On June 27, 2008, the district
court entered an order affirming the bankruptcy court's
confirmation order and issuing the injunctions required by the
settlement.

The Company expects to seek to recover about US$84 million of
the US$449 million from reinsurers.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies,
Inc.) in state court in West Virginia.

These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were
consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, W.Va. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer
defendants engaged in unfair trade practices by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. Similar lawsuits were
filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts (these suits and
the West Virginia suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions).

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products. Lawsuits seeking
similar relief and raising similar allegations, primarily
violations of purported common law duties to third parties, are
also pending in Texas state court against TPC and SPC, and in
Louisiana state court against TPC (the claims asserted in these
suits, together with the West Virginia suit, are collectively
referred to as the Common Law Claims).

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-
sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar
future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a
payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying its prior orders that
all of the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and
substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC are
barred.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy
court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy
courtís orders that required all future direct actions against
TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before
proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district courtís March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of an order
issued by the bankruptcy court prohibiting the prosecution of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims, as
well as future similar direct action litigation, against TPC.  

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, requesting
reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were
denied.

TPC has advised the parties that it intends to file a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc.
provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation,
marine, and general and financial liability coverage to
companies in North America and the United Kingdom. The Company
also offers surety and fidelity bonds as well as professional
and management liability coverage for commercial operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Sensus Metering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc., as well as many other third
parties, continues to face several lawsuits related to illnesses
from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2008.

The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products.

Because the cases are in initial stages, it is uncertain whether
any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the
Company's products, much less whether any plaintiffs were
exposed to an asbestos-containing component part of the
Company's product or whether such part could have been a
substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal
and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, under the
stock purchase agreement under which it acquired Invensys
Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with all
other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid
by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys
Metering Systems.

Headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
provides advanced metering and related communications solutions
to the worldwide utility industry. The Company manufactures
water, gas, heat and electric meters including comprehensive
metering communications system solutions that include both
automatic meter reading ("AMR") and advanced metering
infrastructure ("AMI") systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Has $53M in Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved about US$53 million in total for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims at June 30, 2008, compared with US$50
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

As of June 30, 2008, about US$14 million of about US$53 million
related to 164 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$39 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses.

In the second quarter of 2005, Generation performed analyses to
determine if a reasonable estimate of future losses could be
calculated associated with asbestos-related personal injury
actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by
Generation or were previously owned by other Company
subsidiaries: Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy
Company.

Generation recorded an undiscounted US$43 million pre-tax charge
for its estimated portion of all estimated future asbestos-
related personal injury claims estimated to be presented through
2030. This amount did not include estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters.

During the second quarter of 2005, Generation's management
determined that it was not reasonable to estimate future
asbestos-related personal injury claims past 2030 based on only
three years of historical claims data and the significant amount
of judgment required to estimate this liability.

In the second quarter of 2008, Generation performed updated
analyses of claims data and claims payment history. Generation
determined that the estimate of future asbestos-related personal
injury claims would be extended to consider claims through 2050.

Generation had reserved about US$50 million in total for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims at March 31, 2008, the
same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, May 2, 2008)

Based in Chicago, Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to
5.4 million customers in northern Illinois and southeastern
Pennsylvania through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Company
and PECO Energy Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 611 Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese Corporation, Celanese Ltd. and
CNA Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2008, are defendants in about
611 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23,
2008.

During the three months ended June 30, 2008, 19 new cases were
filed against the Company, 41 cases were resolved and two cases
were revised after further analysis by outside counsel.

The Company's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings,
Inc., as of March 31, 2008, faced about 631 asbestos cases.
(Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation is a global
integrated chemical and advanced materials company. The
Company's business involves processing chemical raw materials
like methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and natural
products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals,
thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4 Plaintiffs Sue 124 Corporations in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh attorney David P. Chernevick, Esq., and Charleston
attorney Scott Segal, Esq., on July 11, 2008, filed an asbestos
lawsuit on behalf of four plaintiffs against 124 defendants in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Doris Bowen of Barboursville, W.Va. filed the suit on behalf of
the estate of Lemuel Bowen, who worked as a welder at American
Car Foundry in Huntington. He had lung cancer and asbestosis.

Virginia Harris, also of Barboursville, W.Va. filed the lawsuit
on behalf of the estate of Jack Harris, who worked for years as
an electrician for IBEW Local 317. He had asbestosis and lung
cancer.

Walter Socha, of Martins Ferry, Ohio, filed the suit on his own
behalf. He worked as a laborer and pipefitter at Wheeling
Pittsburgh Steel. He currently has asbestosis and lung cancer.

John F. Stoll and Betty J. Stoll live in Wintersville, Ohio. Mr.
Stoll worked as a laborer, electrician and crane operator at
Weirton Steel in Weirton, W.Va. He has asbestosis and
mesothelioma.

According to the suit, the plaintiffs were each exposed to
asbestos and other harmful ingredients contained in products
manufactured, supplied and sold by various defendants. The suit
says the defendants failed to warn of the dangers of their
products.

In the 17-count suit, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages. Mrs. Bowen and Mrs. Harris also claim the
deaths of their husbands constitute wrongful deaths.

The suit also seeks injunctive relief for other people similarly
situated. Kanawha Circuit Court Cases 08-C-1136, 08-C-1137, 08-
C-1138 and 08-C-1139 will be assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,000 Claims v. CertainTeed Filed in 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
Some 3,000 asbestos-related claims were filed against Compagnie
de Saint-Gobain's subsidiary in the U.S., CertainTeed, in the
first half of 2008, compared with 4,000 claims in first-half
2007, according to a Company press release dated July 24, 2008.

Over the period, 4,000 claims were settled (5,000 in first-half
2007), bringing the total number of outstanding claims down to
73,000 at June 30, 2008 (74,000 at Dec. 31, 2007).

A total of US$70 million in indemnity payments were made over
the last 12 months, compared with US$73 million at end-December
2007.

Non-operating costs came in at EUR79 million, compared with
EUR126 million in first-half 2007. They include EUR41.5 million
in net restructuring costs, and a charge of EUR37.5 million for
asbestos-related litigation involving CertainTeed in the U.S.
(EUR47.5 million in first-half 2007).

Headquartered in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain
controls more than 1,000 companies in three sectors: Building
Distribution (plumbing, windows, and other building materials),
Construction Products (insulation, gypsum, pipe, and other
products), and Innovative Materials (flat glass and high-
performance materials, including ceramics, polymers, and glass
textiles).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Cites $530M Reserve at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was
US$530 million at June 30, 2008, compared with US$567 million at
June 30, 2007, according to a Company press release dated
July 24, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was
US$539 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$569 million
at March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$438 million at June 30, 2008, compared with US$460 million at
June 30, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$443 million at March 31, 2008, compared with US$449 million
at March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

Income from discontinued operations for both the 2008 and 2007
periods included net favorable adjustments to asbestos reserves
and related insurance receivables of US$6 million and US$16
million, respectively, resulting from the Company's ongoing
assessment of these matters.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides quality
products, services and solutions to customers in more than 100
countries. The Company operates through four divisions: Ashland
Performance Materials, Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and
Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $925M Liabilities in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$925 million as of June 30, 2008, compared
with US$1.001 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a
Company press release dated July 24, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$681 million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$696
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company
produces plastics, chemicals, hydrocarbons, and agrochemicals.
The Company also produces performance plastics (engineering
plastics, polyurethanes, and materials for Dow Automotive).
Other products include polyethylene resins for packaging (such
as Styrofoam brand insulation), fibers, and films, as well as
performance chemicals like acrylic acid.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liberty Mutual Reports $4Mil Net A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Group recorded US$4 million as net incurred
asbestos & environmental losses during the three and six months
ended June 30, 2008, according to a Company press release dated
July 24, 2008.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company
recorded US$1 million as net incurred A&E losses.

Headquartered in Boston, Liberty Mutual Group is a diversified
global insurer and sixth largest property and casualty insurer
in the United States. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had
US$94.742 billion in consolidated assets, US$82.376 billion in
consolidated liabilities, and US$25.961 billion in annual
consolidated revenue.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fine for East Liverpool Lowered to $5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of East Liverpool, Ohio will pay US$5,000 in penalties
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for mishandling
asbestos instead of the US$30,000 fine the EPA initially
assessed, Morning Journal reports.

On July 23, 2008, Mayor Jim Swoger said that Law Director
Charles Payne had received a phone call from the OEPA advising
him the agency will agree to the lowered fine.

Mayor Swoger said, "That's unofficial." He added that the city
is awaiting formal notification and revised documentation from
the OEPA.

The penalty resulted from a May 2006 incident in which former
streets Superintendent Earl Taylor gave the go-ahead for removal
of pipes wrapped in asbestos-bearing material which were then
disposed of on Cadmus Street property owned by the city.

None of these actions complied with OEPA requirements for
removal or disposal of asbestos.

City officials notified the EPA when they first learned of the
incident, and the city was required to clean up the car barn
from where the pipes were removed and the Cadmus Street site at
a cost of about US$15,000.

Mr. Taylor was fined US$2,000 for his part in the situation and
has since retired.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Resident Charged for Illegal Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald F. Ely, a Pittsfield, Mass., local has been charged with
illegally removing asbestos without notifying state regulators,
The Berkshire Eagle reports.

The 68-year-old Mr. Ely allegedly removed asbestos from an
apartment building at 1223-1230 North St., according to the
state attorney general's office. On July 22, 2008, Mr. Ely said
that he manages the building, which is owned by his wife,
Kathryn.

Mr. Ely is charged with two counts of an air pollution
violation, one count of unlicensed removal of asbestos, and two
counts of violating a workplace safety regulation. He pleaded
not guilty during his arraignment in Central Berkshire District
Court on July 18, 2008 and was released on personal
recognizance.

Three of the five charges are punishable by fines. The maximum
penalty for an air pollution violation is one year in jail, a
US$25,000 fine, or both. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for
Aug. 22, 2008.

Mr. Ely, who also owns K&K Discount Liquors and Variety on North
Street, said he has had problems with city officials since 1970
and claimed the asbestos case is "personal."

The case was brought to the attention of the state Department of
Environmental Protection's Environmental Crimes Strike Force
following a series of inspections of the North Street property.

Pittsfield code enforcement inspectors said they first
discovered deteriorating asbestos insulation in the basement of
the North Street apartment building in March 2006 and ordered it
removed.

In March 5, 2007, officials again inspected the property to
ensure compliance with the asbestos removal order. According to
court documents, the tenants have access to the basement and
store personal property there.

The inspectors said they found remnants of asbestos that had
been improperly removed over the previous 12 months. Significant
quantities of asbestos debris were also found on the basement
floor, according to the state attorney general's office. The
state issued an order prohibiting anyone from entering the
basement until all the asbestos had been properly removed.

According to court documents, Mr. Ely told environmental police
that after posting a sign at his liquor store advertising for a
licensed individual to remove asbestos at his property, he was
approached in February 2007 by a man named David Hart of
Vermont, who claimed to fit that description.

Mr. Hart removed the asbestos, but Mr. Ely said he was not happy
with the job because he left asbestos hanging from the pipes and
on the ground. Although he was not pleased, Mr. Ely said he paid
Mr. Hart US$1,500, then cashed the check at his liquor store.

A records check by state DEP investigators indicated that no one
by the name of David Hart has ever been certified as an asbestos
remover in either Massachusetts or Vermont.

Eva Tor, a spokeswoman for the state DEP in Springfield, said
Mr. Ely failed to take the proper precautions before removing
the asbestos.

In December 2007, Pittsfield officials said they received an
anonymous tip claiming work was being done in violation of the
cease and desist order. On Dec. 14, 2007, inspectors conducted
another examination of the basement and found that a proper
abatement had not been completed and that work had been done on
a boiler. At that point, the case was referred to the state
Environmental Crimes Strike Force.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Behshid Wins Appeal in Suit v. Bondex Int'l
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California,
affirmed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
which ruled against Bondex International, Inc., in an asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by Saeed Behshid, Ph.D.

The case is styled Saeed Behshid, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
Bondex International, Inc., Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Aldrich, Croskey, and Kitching entered judgment in Case
No. B194789 on July 22, 2008.

In 1961, at age 26 or 27, Dr. Behshid moved from Iran to the
United States. In 1963, he settled in California. In 1980, he
received a doctorate degree in psychology. For a while
thereafter, he worked as a psychologist for the California Youth
Authority.

In 1965, Dr. Behshid bought his first home. From that time until
the late 1970s, he remodeled about a dozen homes, including the
one he bought in 1965. This work was done on evenings and
weekends.

The bulk of the work involved the installation of drywall during
which Dr. Behshid used joint compound. The compound was employed
to cover the seams between different sheets of drywall and to
cover up holes and nail marks so the surface would be smooth.

Dr. Behshid used a number of different drywall compounds,
including those made by Bondex Inc., Dowman, Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Paco and Hamilton. The compound made by Bondex Inc.
was called "Bondex." Bondex, and that made by Bondex Inc.'s
predecessor (Reardon), contained chrysotile asbestos.

In December 2004, Dr. Behshid was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
He filed a lawsuit against Bondex Inc. and 12 other companies
for personal injuries based upon negligence and strict liability
causes of action.

By the time the case went to trial, six defendants remained:
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.,
Hamilton Materials, Inc., Dowman Products, Inc., Bondex, Inc.,
and Certainteed Corporation.

Dr. Behshid claimed that his use of Certainteed's asbestos
cement pipe was a cause of his illness. Plaintiff's experts also
testified that exposure to the asbestos from the pipes was a
substantial contributing factor to the development of Dr.
Behshid's illness.

During trial, Dr. Behshid settled with Georgia-Pacific, Kelly-
Moore, and Certainteed. However, all six defendants remained on
the jury form for purposes of apportionment of fault. Bondex
Inc. rested without presenting a single witness.

The jury found in favor of Dr. Behshid on his causes of action
for strict liability and negligence against Bondex Inc. and the
five other defendants listed on the jury form.

The jury awarded Dr. Behshid US$600,000 in economic damages and
US$12 million in non-economic damages, for a total of US$12.6
million.

The trial court entered judgment against Bondex Inc. in the
amount of US$2,911,904.76. Bondex Inc. appealed from the
judgment.

On appeal from the jury verdict in favor of Dr. Behshid, Bondex
Inc. contended:

-- Dr. Behshid failed to prove that his injuries were caused by
   Bondex Inc.'s product;

-- The trial court erroneously precluded the jury from assigning
   fault to "others;" and

-- The trial court erred in granting Dr. Behshid's motion in
   limine to exclude Dr. Behshid's responses to requests for
   admissions.

The judgment was affirmed. Bondex Inc. was ordered to pay all
costs on appeal.

Horvitz & Levy (Curt Cutting, Esq., and Julie L. Woods, Esq.)
and Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, (Stephen M. Nichols,
Esq., and Eileen Spadoni, Esq.) represented Bondex
International, Inc.

Waters & Kraus (Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien, Esq.)
represented Saeed Behshid.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites $258M Liability at June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was
US$258 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared
with US$296 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$261 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008,
compared with US$300 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

Of the US$258 million liability at June 30, 2008, US$11 million
was current. Of the US$296 million at June 30, 2007, US$13
million was current.

Asbestos-related payments were US$7 million for the six months
ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$6 million for the six
months ended June 30, 2007.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits in which current and
former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos.
Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos
exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases,
the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount
of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and the Company has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at
June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Union Pacific Corporation's
subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad Company, transports coal,
chemicals, industrial products, and other freight over a system
of more than 32,200 route miles in 23 states in the western two-
thirds of the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion).

These claims are often not caused by a specific accident or
event but rather result from a claimed exposure over time. Many
such claims are being asserted by former or retired employees,
some of whom have not been employed in the rail industry for
decades.

The independent actuarial firm provides an estimate of the
occupational claims liability based upon the Company's history
of claim filings, severity, payments and other pertinent facts.  

Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation's
subsidiary, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, transports freight
over a network consisting of more than 21,000 route miles in 22
states in the eastern U.S. and in Ontario, Canada. The Company
transports coal and general merchandise, including automotive
products and chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,800 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,800 asbestos-
related claims at June 30, 2008, compared with 1,930 claims at
June 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2008.

The Company recorded 1,827 asbestos claims filed against it at
March 31, 2008, compared with 1,941 claims at March 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

In the three months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted 109
claims filed, and 136 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. In the three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company
noted 93 claims filed and 104 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

In the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted 272
claims filed and 253 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. In the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company
noted 232 claims filed and 277 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The
heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters were US$261 million for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$297 million
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007.

Of the June 30, 2008 obligation, US$216 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$45 million was related to asserted
claims. At June 30, 2008, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities. The recorded liability was not discounted.

In addition, defense and processing costs, which are recorded on
an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded
liability. The Company is primarily self-insured for asbestos-
related claims.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation is engaged primarily in the freight rail
transportation business. The Company's primary operating
subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, operates a rail network with
about 32,000 route miles in 28 states and two Canadian
provinces. The Company also transports products and commodities
including Consumer Products, Industrial Products, Coal and
Agricultural Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in Mississippi Still Ongoing v. ENSCO
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to face three multi-party lawsuits filed
in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District)
and Jasper County (First Judicial District), Miss.

Filed in August 2004, the lawsuits sought an unspecified amount
of monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 66 individual
plaintiffs.

Of these claims, 63 claims or lawsuits are pending in
Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.
Currently, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits
against the Company have been set for trial.

The Company has filed responsive pleadings preserving all
defenses and challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However,
discovery is still ongoing and thus available information
regarding the nature of these claims is limited.

Headquartered in Dallas, ENSCO International Incorporated
operates as an offshore drilling contractor. The Company owns a
fleet of 46 offshore rigs, including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig,
and one semisubmersible (capable of drilling in up to 8,500 ft.
of water). In 2008, about 19 of the Company's rigs were
operating in the Asia/Pacific region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: August 2008 Trial Set for ENSCO Calif. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos suit filed against ENSCO International Incorporated
in the Superior Court of the State of California has been
scheduled for trial in August 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 24, 2008.

In January 2008, the Company assumed the defense and indemnity
of two parties that formerly held an interest in a predecessor
company named in the suit.

The assumption of their defense and indemnity arises under the
terms and conditions of an Assumption Agreement given by Penrod
Drilling Corporation, the predecessor of one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages allegedly arising from
exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos while
employed by Penrod and several other named defendants between
1960 and the early 1990s. Plaintiff alleges employment with
Penrod in 1980 and 1981.

Discovery is underway.

Headquartered in Dallas, ENSCO International Incorporated
operates as an offshore drilling contractor. The Company owns a
fleet of 46 offshore rigs, including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig,
and one semisubmersible (capable of drilling in up to 8,500 ft.
of water). In 2008, about 19 of the Company's rigs were
operating in the Asia/Pacific region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 104T Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2008, about 104,000 open asbestos claims were
pending against ITT Corporation, essentially unchanged from
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2008.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other industrial
companies in product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to
asbestos. These claims stem from products sold before 1985 that
contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket,
which allegedly contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure.

During the first six months of 2008, the Company resolved about
2,600 claims. Most of these claims were dismissed, with
settlement on a modest percentage of claims.

The Company's estimated accrued costs, net of expected insurance
recoveries, for the resolution of all of these pending claims
were US$27.1 million as of June 30, 2008 and US$24.8 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company is involved in two actions, Cannon Electric, Inc. et
al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Company et al. Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, Calif., Case No. BC 290354, and Pacific
Employers Insurance Company et al., v. ITT Industries, Inc., et
al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.

The parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation
of responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers.

The California action is filed in the same venue where the
Company's environmental insurance recovery litigation had been
pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor
of the California suit.

The Company and ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully
resolved the matter and the Company is working with other
parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers.

In addition, Goulds has negotiated coverage-in-place agreements
with Utica National and ACE allocating the Goulds' asbestos
liabilities between insurance policies issued by Utica, ACE and
those issued by others.

The terms of the settlements provide Goulds with substantial
coverage from those two insurers for asbestos liabilities.
Goulds will continue to seek coverage from its other insurers
for these liabilities.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is a global
multi-industry company with worldwide operations engaged
directly and through its subsidiaries in the design and
manufacture of a wide range of engineered products and the
provision of related services. The Company's three principal
business segments are Fluid Technology, Defense Electronics &
Services, and Motion & Flow Control.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability as of June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company, for the period ended June 30, 2008, had not
recorded any liability associated with asbestos-related
indemnifications, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25,
2008.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had
previously been named as defendants in a large number of
asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

The Company has concluded that the likelihood of any claims
triggering the indemnity obligations is remote, and the Company
said it believes any potential liability for these
indemnifications will be immaterial. Further, an estimate of
possible loss or range of loss related to this matter cannot be
made.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company provides products
and services to the energy industry. The Company serves the
upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the
reservoir, from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological
data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction
and completion, and optimizing production through the life of
the field. With more than 53,000 employees, the Company operates
in about 70 countries around the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Morton Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton International, Inc., a subsidiary of Rohm and Haas
Company, still faces pending lawsuits related to employee
exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks
Island, La., with additional lawsuits expected.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers' compensation laws.
However, cases involving asbestos-caused malignancies may not be
barred under Louisiana law.

Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, the Company commissioned
medical studies to estimate possible future claims and recorded
accruals based on the results.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises. Historically, these
premises cases have been dismissed or settled for minimal
amounts because of the minimal likelihood of exposure at the
Company's facilities.

The Company has reserved amounts for premises asbestos cases
that it currently believes are probable and estimable.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982. Settlement
amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have closed
with no payment.

The Company estimates that all costs associated with future
Friction Division claims, including defense costs, will be well
below the Company's insurance limits.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Rohm and Haas Company divides its
operations among six units, the largest of which is the paints
and coatings materials group. There's also the packaging and
building materials group and the primary materials division. The
electronic materials segment makes photoresists and materials
for printed wiring boards. The Company's salt group markets salt
for road ice control, table salt (Morton Salt), and water
softening. The performance materials unit makes plastics
additives and antimicrobials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Third-Party Actions Ongoing v. Badger Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. continues to be a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or sold with
a very limited number of the Company's products.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2008.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and
markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and
control technologies, which are developed both internally and in
conjunction with other technology companies. The Company's
product lines fall into two general categories: utility and
industrial flow measurement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Roper Industries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2008.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and the Company said it believes it has
valid defenses to such claims. Given the state of these claims
it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. is a
diversified growth company that designs, manufactures and
distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and
industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology
products and radio frequency products and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Supports Grace's Disallowance Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Equity Holder supports W. R. Grace &
Co. in its request for the disallowance of JP Morgan Chase,
N.A.'s demand for additional interest payments.  

Giving in to the demands of JP Morgan would cause the asbestos
personal injury settlement entered into by the Debtors, and the
asbestos, creditor, and equity holder constituents, to fail,
Philip Bentley, Esq., at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, in
New York, argues on behalf of the Equity Committee. He says the
Equity Committee has made significant concessions despite its
continued belief that equity holders would receive significantly
greater distributions if the asbestos claim estimation process
were litigated to conclusion.

The Equity Committee is not prepared to agree to provide the
Lenders a higher rate of postpetition interest than the
Negotiated Bank Default Interest Rate provided under the
asbestos settlement, Mr. Bentley tells Judge Fitzgerald. "Any
further dilution of equity's proposed distribution would make
the economics of the Settlement disadvantageous to equity
holders," he argues. "If any such modifications were made, the
Equity Committee would have no choice but to withdraw its
support for the Settlement, causing the Settlement to fail."

The Lenders are currently demanding payments for accrued
postpetition interest at 7.77 percent rather than at 6.09
percent interest through the end of 2005 and at the prime rate
for later periods as proposed in the asbestos settlement. An
increase in the interest rate would mean additional payment of
about US$100 million. According to Bloomberg News, the non-
default rate was 5.77 percent at the outset of the Chapter 11
case.

Under the plan of reorganization proposed by the Debtors,
existing shareholders will retain their stock, although diluted
by warrants and shares securing the Debtors' obligation to make
future payments.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, however, argue
that the Debtors are solvent, and, that the roughly US$100
million in additional postpetition interest payable to the
Lenders does not diminish the payout to any other creditor.

The Debtors currently have a market capitalization between
US$1.6 billion and US$2 billion, and have committed to the
asbestos settlement, which preserves more than US$1 billion off
value for the Debtors' existing equity holders, Lewis Kruger,
Esq., at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, in New York, on behalf
of the Creditors' Committee, tells Judge Fitzgerald.

Mr. Kruger tells Judge Fitzgerald that the Creditors' Committee
has not and will not support a plan of reorganization, like the
one contemplated by the Asbestos Settlement, that fails to
provide for payment of appropriate postpetition interest to the
members of its constituency.

The Creditors' Committee, in defense of the Lenders, complain
that the Asbestos Settlement deprive the Lenders of their right
to payment of postpetition interest at the contract default rate
and is also inadequate in the manner in which postpetition
interest is to be paid to the estates' trade creditors.

The Debtors' proposed reorganization plan provides that
unsecured creditors will be paid in full with interest.

The Lenders and JP Morgan ask the Court to overrule the Debtors'
objection to their Claims arguing that, because the Debtors are
solvent, the Lenders are entitled to payment of postpetition
interests at the contract default rate.  

Adam Landis, Esq., at Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, in Wilmington,
Del., echoes the Creditors' Committee's point that the Asbestos
Settlement propose to divide the Debtors' reorganization value
among all constituencies, including the preservation of more
than US$1 billion for equity holders. He notes that an
additional feature of the settlement limits the Lenders'
$500,000,000 prepeption principal claims to an amount less than
the contractual default rate presumed in the circumstance of a
solvent debtor.

In attempting to limit the Lenders' postpetition interest
recovery, Mr. Landis argues that the Debtors are trying to have
it both ways -- depriving the Lenders of postpetition default
interest by claiming that there is no solvency determination to
justify its award, at the same time letting equity holders keep
almost $2,000,000,000 of value without any solvency
determination.

Mr. Landis asserts that the parties should not waste their time
and money or the energies of the Court over the argument that
the Lenders have no right to postpetition interest in the
absence of a solvency determination. "If the Debtors insist that
the Lenders must establish solvency as a condition precedent to
establishing their entitlement to postpetition interest, so be
it; the Bank Lenders are prepared to do so," he tells Judge
Fitzgerald.

"If the Debtors want their shareholders to retain their
interests through this shift and gift, value must shift a second
time -- approximately US$100 million must move to the Bank
Lenders from equity's US$2 billion of value," Mr. Landis
asserts. "Otherwise, the now-unfiled plan that will implement
the Proposed Asbestos Settlement will violate the absolute
priority rule because it will let equity keep US$100 million
that belongs to the Bank Lenders."

Judge Fitzgerald will convene a hearing on Sept. 18, 2008, to
rule on the issue.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 162; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDEQ Supports Approval of Grace Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Montana Department of Environmental Quality urges the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to approve the stipulation resolving MDEQ's
environmental response costs claims relating to W. R. Grace &
Co.'s Libby, Mont., asbestos site.

The settlement entitles the MDEQ an allowed unsecured,
prepetition, non-priority claim worth US$5,167,000 as payment of
the environmental claims.

The MDEQ, however, informs the Court that the Libby Community
Advisory Group, which generally supports the settlement, raised
points to be considered in the management and use of the funds
to be received on the allowed claim.

Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esq., at Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rics, APC, in Wilmington, Del., relates that the CAG agreed that
it is appropriate that the Debtors provide dollars for
operations and maintenance costs. The CAG, however, urged the
state of Montana and all federal agencies involved in the
cleanup effort "not to lose sight of the need to provide funding
for day-to-day healthcare needs of those affected by asbestos
exposure."

Mr. Monaco adds that the CAG believed that it is imperative that
the settlement money, and all accrued interest, be used for
ongoing operations and maintenance costs at the Libby Asbestos
Site. The CAG emphasized that reallocation of the funds to
another use or to another community must not be allowed to
happen. If not needed for O&M, the settlement money should be
given to the Libby community, the CAG asserted.

Based on the CAG comments, Mr. Monaco contends that nothing in
the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

Accordingly, after finding that the settlement is in the best
interest of all parties-in-interest, the Court approves the
settlement.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 162; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Deny ZAI Claimants' Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
In W. R. Grace & Company's bankruptcy case, Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to deny
the ZAI Claimants' request to establish a cross-border protocol
between the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
and the Canadian Court.

The Canadian Government, however, tells the U.S. Court that it
is agreeable and consents to an immediate order from the U.S.
Court requesting the aid of the Canadian Court to make an order
under Section 8(2)(c) of the Federal Privacy Act.

Section 8(1) prohibits the release of personal information
contained in government records without the consent of the
individual whose information is sought to be disclosed or
without an order from a properly authorized court, Francis A.
Monaco, Jr., Esq., at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC, in
Wilmington, Del., notes.

Mr. Monaco says that unless the U.S. Court determines that the
Canadian ZAI claims can only be decided by the Canadian Court,
and in light of the Canadian Government's consent to an order
requesting the Canadian Court to determine the Privacy Act
issues, the request for a communication protocol is at best
premature and at worst, unnecessary. He adds that a protocol is
unnecessary unless the U.S. Court determines that there is
"something unique" about the asbestos claims being asserted by
the Canadian Claimants.

In response, the Debtors tell the U.S. Court that they have no
objection to the establishment of a communication protocol
between the U.S. Court and the Canadian Court from time to time.   
However, with respect to specific issues in the Canadian ZAI
Claimants' request, the Debtors assert that no protocol is
necessary.

David M. Bernick, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago,
says the Debtors agree with the Canadian ZAI Claimants that the
Canadian Court is the appropriate court to issue whatever order
may be necessary to address the privacy concerns raised by the
Crown. With respect to any other cross-border issues that may
arise, he contends, that, to the extent necessary, the Debtors
certainly are willing to negotiate the appropriate protocol with
the Claimants and the Crown.

The Debtors thus ask the Court to deny the Canadian Claimants'
request at this time.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 162; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Long Term Liability Totals $904.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$904,469,000 as
of June 30, 2008, compared with US$942,776,000 as of Dec. 31,
2007, according to a Company press release dated July 28, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$928,098,000 as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
April 25, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$84 million as of
June 30, 2008, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$284,864,000 as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$306,557,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivable
was US$293,940,000 as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
April 25, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$33.6
million as of June 30, 2008, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos-related payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$14,553,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2008, compared
with US$5,972,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2007.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures highly
engineered industrial products. Founded in 1855, the Company
provides products and solutions to customers in the aerospace,
electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical, chemical,
power generation, automated merchandising, transportation and
other markets. The Company has about 12,000 employees in North
America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Financial Adds $50Mil to Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. recorded an addition
of US$50 million, pre-tax, to its nearly US$2 billion of
reserves for asbestos-related claims, according to a Company
press release dated July 28, 2008.

The Company completed its annual, ground-up asbestos reserve
evaluation in the second quarter of 2008.

A full year, pre-tax underwriting loss of US$160 million,
inclusive of the US$50 million charge in the second quarter
related to an increase in asbestos reserves, from other
operations in property and casualty.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc. is a diversified financial services
company, with 2007 revenues of US$25.9 billion. The Company
provides investment products, life insurance and group benefits;
automobile and homeowners products; and business property and
casualty insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Ltd Records $53M Obligations at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd recorded US$53 million in asbestos obligations as of
June 30, 2008, compared with US$101 million as of Dec. 31, 2007,
according to a Company report, on From 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2008.

Included in cash flow from operations was a planned payment to
asbestos trusts of US$25 million.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd provides power and
automation technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial
customers. Power products include transmission and distribution
components, as well as turnkey substation systems. Automation
technologies are used to monitor and control equipment and
processes in industrial plants and utilities. The Company
operates in about 100 countries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dennett Sues 73 Companies in Madison Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado local Joann Dennett, on July 23, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 73 corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Ms. Dennett claims she was employed from 1958 to 2008 in various
positions at various locations throughout the United States. She
claims that during the course of her employment and during home
and automotive repairs she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested
or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers emanating from certain
products she was working with and around.

Defendants include: Bondex International Inc., CBS Corporation,
Chrysler LLC, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, Ford Motor
Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation,
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Honeywell International
Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, International Paper
Company, John Crane Inc., MetLife Inc., Monsanto Company, Pfizer
Inc., Royal Philips Electronics N.V., and Trane Inc.

Ms. Dennett claims the defendants knew or should have known that
the asbestos fibers contained in their products had a toxic,
poisonous and highly deleterious effect upon the health of
people. She says that she first became aware that she suffered
from mesothelioma on Aug. 12, 2007.

Ms. Dennett alleges that the defendants included asbestos in
their products even when adequate substitutes were available and
failed to provide any or adequate instructions concerning the
safe methods of working with and around asbestos. She also
claims that the defendants failed to require and advise
employees of hygiene practices designed to reduce or prevent
carrying asbestos fibers home.

As a result of the alleged negligence, Ms. Dennett claims she
was exposed to fibers containing asbestos. She developed a
disease caused only by asbestos which has disabled and
disfigured her, the complaint states.

Ms. Dennett also claims that she has sought, but has been unable
to obtain, full disclosure of relevant documents and information
from the defendants leading her to believe the defendants
destroyed documents related to asbestos.

Ms. Dennett alleges that as a result of each defendant breaching
its duty to preserve material evidence by destroying documents
and information she has been prejudiced and impaired in proving
claims against all potential parties.

Ms. Dennett seeks at least US$200,000 in damages for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

Brian Cooke, Esq., and Drew Sealy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Dennett. Case No. 08 L 660 has
been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Rules on Wire Operator's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 80-year-old retired wire
manufacturer Russell Noble was linked to exposure to asbestos,
the Evening Courier reports.

Mr. Noble, of Hambleton Drive, Halifax, England, died in a
hospital on April 5, 2008.

At the inquest, coroner Roger Whittaker heard Mr. Noble had been
exposed to asbestos during his working life. Mr. Noble was
suffering from lung cancer and asbestosis. He died of pneumonia.

Mr. Whittaker could not make a full connection between the
asbestos exposure and Mr. Noble's death. He recorded an open
verdict.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Rules on MoD Carpenter's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
The coroner of Wiltshire, England, David Masters has found that
carpenter Maurice Bilby, who worked in the Ministry of Defence
underground base near Corsham, died of lung cancer caused by an
industrial disease, This is Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

The 81-year-old Mr. Bilby, of Southwick Road, North Bradley,
died on Nov. 28, 2007. He was confined to his bed for the last
three years of his life and cared for by his wife Nora.

A carpenter by trade, Mr. Bilby started work at a local Devizes-
based firm. From 1952, he was contracted to work in the
underground quarries at Corsham, much of which was used by the
MoD as a weapons store and bunker.

Mrs. Bilby said, "He worked there on and off for 10 years. He
said it was very dusty because they were grinding stone down
there. I didn't know much about what he was doing because the
Official Secrets Act prevented him from discussing it."

Mr. Bilby left the job in the 1960s and set up a small building
firm with his brother and son.

A consultant pathologist at Salisbury District Hospital found
the cause of death to be cancer of the lung due to asbestos
exposure.

Giving evidence at the inquest held in Trowbridge Town Hall on
Monday, Doug Hills, the coroner's officer, said, "The MoD
quarries at Corsham used large fans to circulate air around the
tunnels. The majority of the underground tunnels were lined with
asbestos sheeting. When they were damaged or being repaired the
asbestos particles would circulate in the atmosphere throughout
the entire complex. I know of at least six other cases of death
by industrial disease caused by this in the last 18 years."

Mr. Masters said, "Mr. Bilby's death from lung cancer was due to
asbestos exposure. He also had heart problems." He recorded a
verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canada Navy Veterans Asked to Get Checkups
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Lung Association urges Canadian navy veterans who worked on
ships or shipyards during World War II and up until the 1970s to
see their doctor for health examinations, Medical News Today
reports.

These veterans may have been exposed to asbestos and may have an
asbestos-related breathing disease as a result. Those who have
been diagnosed with asbestos-related breathing diseases may be
entitled to compensation from the federal government.

Up until the 1970s, the Royal Canadian Navy ships used asbestos-
based insulation around pipes and boilers to prevent fires and
to line bulkheads.

Veterans who worked as pipe fitters or in an engine room or
shipyards may have been exposed to asbestos. Others who slept
near or handled asbestos insulation may also have been exposed.
As a result of this asbestos exposure, some veterans have now
developed asbestos-related breathing diseases.

Navy veterans who worked with or near asbestos should tell their
doctors about their asbestos exposure and ask for an
examination. Veterans who have been diagnosed with an asbestos-
related disease like asbestosis may be eligible for disability
benefits.

For more information, call Veterans Affairs Canada at 1-866-522-
2122.

Established in 1900, The Lung Association is one of Canada's
oldest and most respected health charities, and the leading
national organization for science-based information, research,
education, support programs and advocacy on lung health issues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Cites $216.3M Liabilities at June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated's long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$216.3 million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$227
million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$221 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 2, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$28
million as of June 30, 2008, the same as for the periods ended
March 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Long-term asbestos-related assets were US$9.6 million as of
June 30, 2008, compared with US$24.1 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$17.4 million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 2, 2008)

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Incorporated is a
global solutions provider of specialty chemicals, services and
applied chemistry expertise primarily for water-based products
and water-borne systems. The Company serves markets including
pulp and paper, the regulated industries of food,
pharmaceuticals and personal care, paints and adhesives,
construction materials and energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Facing 25,760 Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated says that, as of June 30, 2008, there were
about 25,760 unresolved claims, of which about 902 were premises
claims and the rest were products claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

There were also about 1,759 unpaid claims which have been
settled or are subject to the terms of a settlement agreement.
Between Jan. 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008, the Company received
about 1,146 new claims.

Unresolved asbestos-related claims against the Company, as of
March 31, 2008, dropped to 25,320, of which about 905 were
premises claims and the rest were product claims. (Class Action
Reporter, May 2, 2008)

During that same period, the Company spent a net amount of
US$14.8 million to resolve and defend asbestos matters,
including US$10.7 million directly related to settlement
payments and US$4.1 million for defense costs.

As of June 30, 2008, all of the cash recovered and all of the
monies placed into trust from the settlements with certain of
the Company's insurance carriers have been used by the Company
with respect to its asbestos-related liabilities or for other
corporate purposes, except for about US$9.6 million remaining in
trust as of June 30, 2008.

As of June 30, 2008, defense costs and settlement payments for
qualifying asbestos products claims of about US$117 million have
been credited towards that range.

Headquartered in Wilmington, Del., Hercules Incorporated is a
global solutions provider of specialty chemicals, services and
applied chemistry expertise primarily for water-based products
and water-borne systems. The Company serves markets including
pulp and paper, the regulated industries of food,
pharmaceuticals and personal care, paints and adhesives,
construction materials and energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 81,979 Claims Pending v. Crane at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 81,979 asbestos-related claims as of June 30,
2008, compared with 84,652 pending claims as of June 30, 2007,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

For the three months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted
1,608 new claims, 303 settlements, and 429 dismissals. For the
three months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 902 claims
filed, 271 settlements, and 1,863 dismissals.

For the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted 2,649
claims filed, 640 settlements, and 1,029 dismissals. For the six
months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 1,997 new claims,
800 settlements, and 2,486 dismissals.

Of the 81,979 pending claims as of June 30, 2008, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 24,000 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,400 claims were pending in Texas
and about 3,700 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Since the termination of the comprehensive master settlement
agreement (MSA) on Jan. 24, 2005, the Company has been resolving
claims filed against it in the tort system. The Company has not
re-engaged in discussions with representatives of current or
future asbestos claimants with respect to such a comprehensive
settlement.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and
electronic components, engineered materials, merchandising
systems, and controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $43.4M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled
US$43.4 million in the six months ended June 30, 2008 and
US$41.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company in the
three-month period ended March 31, 2008 totaled US$22.5 million
in the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$21.1
million in the three months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, April 25, 2008)

The Company's total pre-tax cash receipts/payments for
settlement and defense costs, including payments from insurers,
totaled a US$16.6 million net payment in the six months ended
June 30, 2008 and a US$15.2 million net receipt in the six
months ended June 30, 2007 (reflecting the January 2007 receipt
of US$31.5 million in previously escrowed funds from Equitas).

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and
electronic components, engineered materials, merchandising
systems, and controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.54M Judgment Paid by Crane Last July 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that a final judgment amount of US$2.54 million,
in the Joseph Norris asbestos case, was paid on July 14, 2008,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

The Company tried the Norris Claim to verdict in California,
however, and received an adverse jury verdict on Sept. 15, 2006.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the court entered judgment on this verdict
against the Company in the amount of US$2.15 million, together
with interest thereon at the rate of 10 percent per annum until
paid.

The Company appealed the judgment, and on June 25, 2008, the
Supreme Court of California declined to review an appellate
court ruling adverse to the Company.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and
electronic components, engineered materials, merchandising
systems, and controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Awaits Ruling on Bid v. Baccus' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that no judgment has been entered on a post-trial
motion it has filed over the trial verdict in the asbestos-
related lawsuit filed by James Baccus, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 28, 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.

However, on March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse
verdict in the Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory
damages of US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9
million.

The Company has filed a post-trial motion asserting numerous
errors in the trial proceedings.

The Company intends to pursue all available rights to appeal the
verdict.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and
electronic components, engineered materials, merchandising
systems, and controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Mulls Payment Over Brewer Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., on May 16, 2008, received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles, Calif., according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

The amount of the judgment to be entered against the Company has
not yet been determined, but it is not expected to exceed the
US$725,000 judgment requested by plaintiffs, plus interest and
costs.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. makes industrial
products, including fluid handling equipment, aerospace and
electronic components, engineered materials, merchandising
systems, and controls. The Company serves the power generation,
transportation, defense, commercial construction, food and
beverage, and chemical industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Crown Cork Drop to 69T at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., faced about 69,000 outstanding asbestos claims at the end
of the six months ended June 30, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

Crown Cork, for the period ended March 31, 2008, faced about
79,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims. (Class Action
Reporter, May 23, 2008)

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, Crown Cork received
about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 2,000 claims
for a total of US$3 million.

The Company is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock the Company purchased in 1963. About 90
days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into the Company.

Before 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to the Company under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring the Company through 1976, when the
Company became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and
the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related
costs.

Settlement amounts include amounts committed to be paid in
future periods. During the second quarter of 2008, the Company
updated its claims database to remove about 9,000 duplicate
claims.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$193 million, including US$68 million for unasserted claims
and US$3 million for committed settlements that will be paid
over time.

Historically (1977-2007), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for
settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Underlying the accrual are assumptions that claims for exposure
to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the U.S. company's
insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to   
settlement payouts and that the Georgia, South  Carolina,
Florida, Ohio, Mississippi, Texas and Pennsylvania asbestos
legislation are expected to have a highly favorable impact on  
Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend against asbestos-
related claims in those states, and other states where
Pennsylvania law may apply.

Estimated additional costs of US$42 million beyond 2017 have not
been included in the Company's liability, as the Company said it
believes cost projections beyond 10 years are inherently
unreliable due to potential changes in the litigation
environment and other factors whose impact cannot be known or
reasonably estimated.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. produces
consumer packaging; metal food and beverage cans, and related
packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns,
and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative
novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also
makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits are still ongoing against Crown
Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., in
Texas courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total
gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's
assets.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its
motion for summary judgment in two asbestos-related cases
pending against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex.  
(in Re  Asbestos Litigation  No. 90-23333, District  Court,
Harris County, Tex.), which were appealed.

On May 4, 2006, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals upheld the
favorable ruling in one of the two cases (Barbara Robinson v.
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, 14th Court
of Appeals, Tex.).

The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to
the Texas Supreme Court where oral argument was held on Feb. 7,
2008. The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeal.

In addition, a favorable ruling for summary judgment in an
asbestos case pending against Crown Cork in the district court
of Travis County, Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as
Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown
Cork & Seal Company, Inc. District Court Travis County 98th
Judicial District Cause No. GN-203572) has been appealed.  

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. produces
consumer packaging; metal food and beverage cans, and related
packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns,
and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative
novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also
makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits are still ongoing against Crown
Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation
limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired
company's asset value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.

On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the
June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion
by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending
asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and
remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
(Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002).

The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished
the plaintiffs' pre-existing and accrued causes of action.

In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute
providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related
claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations
for asbestos-related claims had not yet commenced at the time
the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001.

On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted
Crown Cork's global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all
pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17,
2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001).  

Additional cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005
by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

These decisions remain subject to potential appeal by the
plaintiffs and, in some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania have been filed by the plaintiffs in connection
with these decisions and oral argument was held before the
Superior Court.

The Superior Court has not ruled on these appeals. The Company
cautions that the limitation of the statute may not be upheld.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. produces
consumer packaging; metal food and beverage cans, and related
packaging. Products include aerosol cans and metal caps, crowns,
and closures, as well as specialty packaging like decorative
novelty containers and industrial paint cans. The Company also
makes canmaking equipment and replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing v. Mine Safety
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to face product
liability claims, including asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,600 lawsuits,
primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these
lawsuits represent a total of about 16,600 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there
has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company
develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that
protect people's health and safety. Sophisticated safety
products typically integrate any combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and advanced materials to protect users
against hazardous or life threatening situations. The Company's
safety products are used by workers around the world in the fire
service, homeland security, construction, and other industries,
as well as the military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Court Upholds Dismissal of MSA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, on
Feb. 26, 2008, upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, which favored Mine Safety Appliances Company in an
asbestos suit filed against Century Indemnity Company.

Century filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court seeking a
declaration of Century's obligations with respect to certain
asbestos, silica and other claims under five insurance policies
issued to the Company by Century.

The Superior Court issued an order granting the Company's motion
to dismiss this case on jurisdictional grounds. Century appealed
that order.

On Feb. 26, 2008, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of
the trial court dismissing the case. The decision of the
appellate court was not appealed and the New Jersey action is
concluded.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company
develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that
protect people's health and safety. Sophisticated safety
products typically integrate any combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and advanced materials to protect users
against hazardous or life threatening situations. The Company's
safety products are used by workers around the world in the fire
service, homeland security, construction, and other industries,
as well as the military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Pursuing Case v. Century in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is pursuing an asbestos insurance
coverage case against Century Indemnity Company in the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa.

The Company alleges that Century breached five insurance
policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the Company.

The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or
dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of a New Jersey
action. The court also denied certain preliminary motions filed
by both parties to narrow the issues in dispute.

It is expected that additional motions will be filed during
discovery.

The Company said it believes that Century's refusal to indemnify
the Company under the policies is wholly contrary to
Pennsylvania law and the Company is pursuing the legal actions
necessary to collect all amounts.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company
develops, manufactures, and supplies sophisticated products that
protect people's health and safety. Sophisticated safety
products typically integrate any combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and advanced materials to protect users
against hazardous or life threatening situations. The Company's
safety products are used by workers around the world in the fire
service, homeland security, construction, and other industries,
as well as the military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simpson Case Remanded to Schenectady County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, remanded
Richard Simpson's asbestos case to the New York State Supreme
Court for Schenectady County, citing that defendant General
Electric Company did not timely file a notice of removal.

The case is styled Richard Simpson, Plaintiff, v. AWC 1997 Corp.
et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy entered judgment in Case
No. 1:08-CV-545 on July 23, 2008.

Mr. Simpson commenced the instant action in state court in March
2008. General Electric received the summons and complaint in
late March 2008. The complaint did not provide General Electric
with sufficient detail to inform it that the case might have
been removable to federal court.

From 1965 until 1994, Mr. Simpson worked for General Dynamics
Electric Boat Division. He worked at several different General
Dynamics Electric Boat Division facilities, including but not
limited to, the Groton and West Milton sites.

During his tenure at General Dynamics, Mr. Simpson held various
positions including but not limited to, a Electrical Test Tech
Supervisor, Test Engineer and Test Supervisor.

At this time, Mr. Simpson believed he handled or worked with
various types of asbestos-containing materials, particularly
those found in submarines.

On April 28, 2008, counsel for General Electric received an e-
mail from Mr. Simpson including the identical response to
interrogatories in pdf format.

On May 1, 2008, Mr. Simpson testified at deposition that he was
exposed to asbestos on General Electric turbines aboard certain
Navy ships identified in his response to interrogatories.

On May 22, 2008, General Electric removed the state action to
the District Court. Before the Court was Mr. Simpson's timely
motion to remand to state court.

Hence, the District Court remanded the case to the Supreme
Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Olin Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are defendants in various
legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures
to asbestos) incidental to the Company's past and current
business activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2008.

Headquartered in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation is a
manufacturer concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali
Products and Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine
and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid,
hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide. Winchester
produces and distributes sporting ammunition, reloading
components, small caliber military ammunition and components,
and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Records $3M Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has recorded US$3 million in
"Other long-term liabilities" (to address asbestos and
environmental cleanup) as of June 30, 2008, compared with
US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has recorded US$4.5 million in "Accounts payable and
other" as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$3.4 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, and outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets.

Headquartered in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns
the 1,900-mile U.S. Portion of the world's longest liquid
petroleum pipeline. Other midstream assets include 5,000 miles
of crude oil gathering and transportation lines and 28.9 million
barrels of crude oil storage and terminaling capacity, and
11,500 miles of natural gas gathering and transportation
pipelines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Rockwell Automation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of the Company's
products many years ago, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2008.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its
Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair
services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company,
which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against Rockwell
International Corporation's (RIC) divested measurement and flow
control business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from the Company's former Allen-
Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance
carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and
future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.

Nationwide will receive and administer the Kemper buyout funds
and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay the
substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for
Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds are
depleted.

The Company said it believes that these arrangements will
continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims
throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an
industrial automation company. The Company's control systems
unit makes industrial automation products like motor starters
and contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable
speed drives. To complement its automation product offerings,
the Company also offers factory management software
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. U.S. Steel Rise to 350 at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2008, was a
defendant in about 350 active asbestos cases involving about
2,950 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2008.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in about 325
active asbestos-related cases involving about 2,950 plaintiffs.
(Class Action Reporter, May 2, 2008)

Many of these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from
50 to more than 100. About 2,600 or about 88 percent, of these
claims are pending in jurisdictions, which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs.

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company paid
about US$4 million in settlements. These settlements and other
dispositions resolved about 350 claims. New case filings in the
first six months of 2008 added about 300 claims.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company was a defendant in about 325
active cases involving about 3,000 plaintiffs. During 2007, the
Company paid about US$9 million in settlements. These
settlements and other dispositions resolved about 1,230 claims.
New case filings in 2007 added about 530 claims.

Most claims filed in 2007 and 2008 involved individual or small
groups of claimants as many jurisdictions no longer permit the
filing of mass complaints.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 170 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma. The potential
for damages against defendants may be greater in cases in which
the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against the
Company, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to the Company or its products or premises.
However, with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence
of claimants actually alleging a claim against the Company is
increasing.

In addition, in many asbestos cases, the claimants have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to the Company or its products or premises.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation
produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled
and tubular, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in
North America also include iron ore mining and processing to
supply steel producing units; real estate management and
development; transportation services; and engineering and
consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26 Actions Still Pending v. Minerals Tech.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. continues to face 26 pending
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials.

To date, one asbestos case has been dismissed.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.
Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company
or its subsidiaries.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these
cases since inception was about US$100,000.

Headquartered in New York, Minerals Technologies Inc.'s
precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) products brighten and
whiten paper, polymers, and teeth. PCC products account for
about half of the Company's sales. The Company's processed
mineral products include lime (used to make PCC), limestone, and
talc. The Company also sells monolithic and pre-cast refractory
products, which are used to coat steel, cement, and glass
production surfaces with high-temperature-resistant material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits in Miss. Ongoing v. Diamond Offshore
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to be a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of the
State of Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2008.

The suits allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard the
Company's offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a
contract offshore oil and gas driller capable of descending
depths of 7,500 feet. The Company has 30 semisubmersibles, 13
jack-up rigs (mobile drilling platforms), and one drillship. The
Company contracts with major oil and gas companies, including
Anadarko Petroleum and PETROBRAS.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RSA Settles $1B Dispute with General Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------
RSA, an insurance company, enters an agreement with U.S. auto
maker General Motors Corporation, following a four-year dispute
over an estimated US$1 billion (GBP506 million) asbestos claim.

In a July 30, 2008 statement, RSA revealed that it had ended
litigation between the two parties, adding that the confidential
figure would have "no effect" on its earnings.

The final settlement was not disclosed but is understood to be
"nowhere near" US$1 billion.

The dispute started in 2004 when General Motors approached
former RSA Group subsidiary Royal Indemnity Company (RIC)
claiming that it was covered for compensation claims from
workers who suffered asbestos-related injuries.

Although RIC was later sold to Arrowpoint Capital in 2007, as
part of the insurer's disposal of its U.S. operation, the
approach eventually led to litigation against both RIC and other
members of the RSA Group, which denied that General Motors was
covered for the liability claims.

RSA later won a victory in Michigan Circuit Court, which ruled
in a pre-court hearing in January 2007 that General Motors was
not entitled to claim for the asbestos and environmental
liabilities, which were believed to have reached up to US$1
billion.

However, General Motors brought the suit into the British courts
and subsequently appealed against the outcome of the U.S.
hearing.

Sources close to RSA have said the decision to reach a
settlement with General Motors was taken in an attempt to stop
legal bills escalating further.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Builder Charged for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Alexander Taylor, a builder and roofer from Lincoln,
England, has been ordered to do 180 hours of community service
after being found guilty of dumping asbestos sheeting in someone
else's skip, Safety Med!a reports.

Lincoln magistrates' court heard how Mr. Taylor was seen in the
early hours of a Saturday morning putting sheets of asbestos
into a skip outside a house in Rasen Lane.

When confronted, Mr. Taylor said he had received permission from
a man called Steve to do so, but his registration plate number
was recorded and passed on to the Environment Agency.

The organization traced the van to Mr. Taylor who told the court
he was in the area but did not put any asbestos in the skip.

District Judge Richard Blake, said Mr. Taylor's actions put the
health and safety of people in the area at risk.

Judge Blake said, "This case was particularly serious as it
involved asbestos being thrown into a skip next to a busy
pavement in a residential area by a school route."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NY Village Sued by Code Enforcement Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Watson, a former code enforcement officer, has filed a
lawsuit against his former employer, the village of Cherry Creek
in Chautauqua County, N.Y., Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Watson claims he was fired for refusing to sign permits for
a demolition.

The trouble began in February 2008, when demolition of the
Cherry Creek schoolhouse was initiated. At the time, code
enforcement had not issued any permits, and there were questions
about whether an asbestos inspection had been carried out before
demolition.

Mr. Watson was asked to sign papers that would have allowed
demolition of the building to proceed, but he refused, saying
his refusal was on the grounds that proper asbestos abatement
procedures were not being followed.

On April 5, 2008, Cherry Creek officials voted to terminate Mr.
Watson's employment.

At a meeting held on March 12, 2008, the state Department of
Labor's Asbestos Control Division confirmed that notice of
asbestos code violations in relation to the Cherry Creek school
building had been issued to the village.

Department spokesperson Chris Perham confirmed that "the
violations ha[d] stipulations attached that state the village
must correct whatever the specific issue was."

Edward Krasinski, a Labor Department industrial hygienist, said
the village hired a non-licensed contractor, and the contractor
was using non-certified workers to carry out the work on the old
school building.

Mr. Watson claims that after the demolition already began,
Cherry Creek's mayor asked him to sign off on the demolition,
but Mr. Watson refused because of his concerns about asbestos.

Mr. Watson further claimed he was fired for purely political
reasons related to his refusal to illegally sign the permit,
calling the incident "small-town politics at its worst."

Cherry Creek Mayor Dean Mount claimed that budget constraints
were a more significant contribution to Mr. Watson's being
fired, and that the incident "probably" had something to do with
Mr. Watson being fired, but only "a very small part of it."

The village subsequently defended its actions in a letter sent
to residents, but now Mr. Watson has sued, alleging defamation
of character by the village in the letter that was sent out.




                            *********

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  * * *