CAR_Public/080822.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 167

                            Headlines

3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed
3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
AETNA LIFE: N.J. Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Still Pending
AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over Payment of Claims
AETNA INC: Continues to Face Pennsylvania Securities Fraud Suit

APPLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Defective iPhone 3G"
BASF CORP: Minnesota Farmers Receive $17 Million Money Judgment
BEAR STEARNS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Option ARM Product
BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
BEAR STEARNS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in California

BRISTOL-MYERS: U.S. Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed
CITIGROUP: Kirby McInerney Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration of "Breckenridge" Dismissal Sought
CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit in Missouri
D.R. HORTON: Faces Nevada Lawsuit for Building Defective Homes

EXXON MOBIL: High Court Vacates $2.5B Award in Exxon Valdez Suit
JACK DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Supplements with Undeclared Content
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certified for Suit Settlement Purposes
MERRILL LYNCH: Texas Court Considers Dismissal Motion in "Newby"
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts

MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Securities/ERISA/Derivative Suit Dismissed
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in Calif. Consumers' Case
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
PARMALAT: Thorp Reed Secures Dismissal for Pavia in Class Suit
PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Denies Expedited Proceedings Request

PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Pa. Consolidated Flat Glass Antitrust Suit
PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Cherry Pies Due to Soya Component
RCN CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over "Fast and Uncapped" Internet Service
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas

SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Considers Motions in Antitrust Suit
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Seeks High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case
SUN MAR: Elder Care Operator and Plaintiff Attorney Settle Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Stills Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Labor Code Violations


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GT SOLAR: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
PERINI CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
REDDY ICE: Spector Roseman Commences Michigan Securities Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Resolves ASARCO Confidentiality Issue
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McVay to Help in ASARCO Committee Selection
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,741 Abex Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,185 Remaining Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Facing 115,000 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exide to Indemnify French Agency for $300T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.541B for Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Still Facing 1,500 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Reserves $1.25Bil at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Cites 34,735 Cases at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Facing 38 Suits as of July 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Facing 848 Claims in W.Va., Pa.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Enters Joint Proposal with N.Y. PSC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 29 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. IDEX, Units Ongoing in 30 States

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,292 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 192 Claims at June 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Still Facing Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Suits Pending v. RBS at June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 150 Actions Pending v. Falk Unit at June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Zurn Drop to 6T at June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. BJ Services in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Ongoing v. Transocean Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Facing 976 Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec, Units Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Facing Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kraton Still Indemnified by Shell Chemicals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Facing 122 Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Imperial Ind. Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Facing 45 Lawsuits at May 9
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Worker's Suit Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glenn's Suit Filed v. 66 Firms in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodman's Action Filed v. CSX in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kirk's Suit Filed v. 89 Firms in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA County Jury Awards $14.876M to Engineer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korando Estate Sues Boeing, et al. in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelley Estate Sues 13 Firms in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Erie County to Collect $1.2M in Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-BNFL Employee's Widow Gets Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Crew Claims to be Expedited
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial For Whisnant Case Set for Feb. 9
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Renfrew Gets GBP130,375 Payout in Scotland
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disabled Woman Awarded GBP160T in Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Huddersfield Plumber Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Urged to Clean Up Abandoned Mine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Ruling to Affect Workers Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie's Profits Fall 96% in 1st Qtr.



                           *********


3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals granted 3M Co.'s petition for
interlocutory review of a decision by the District Court of
Ramsey County granting class certification for an age
discrimination class action lawsuit against 3M, according to the
company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action suit, seeking to represent a
class of all current and certain former salaried employees
employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who
were aged 46 or older at any time during an applicable period to
be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21,
2008).

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."

The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately
selects younger employees for a leadership-training program
called "Six Sigma."

The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms
of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.  On
April 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document
on their last day of employment purporting to release claims
arising out of their employment with 3M.

No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set
at this time.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.  All
other activity on the case is stayed while the appeal is
pending.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to face two purported class action lawsuits in
Alabama over alleged perflourooctanyl pollution at its Decatur
facility.

                        2002 Litigation

A former employee filed a purported class action complaint in
2002 before the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama,
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the
plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, sub-clinical injuries,
and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry
at or near the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility.

The Circuit Court, in 2005, granted the company's motion to
dismiss the named plaintiffs' personal injury-related claims on
the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

                        2005 Litigation

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit -- filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds -- granted the company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action filed in the same court
in 2002.

Despite the stay, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property
damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a
purported class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

The company reported no further development in the cases in its
Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


AETNA LIFE: N.J. Suit Over ERISA & RICO Violations Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Life Insurance Co., a unit of Aetna, Inc., continues to
face a purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey over alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit, "Michele Cooper, et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance
company, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on July 30, 2007, and amended on Oct. 19,
2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the company violated state law, the
ERISA and RICO Act in connection with various practices related
to the payment of claims for services rendered to the company's
members by providers with whom it do not have a contract (out-
of-network providers), resulting in increased out-of-pocket
payments by the company members.

The purported classes together consist of all members in
substantially all of its health benefit plans who received
services from out-of-network providers from 2001 to date for
which were allowed less than the full amount billed by the
provider.

The plaintiffs seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits,
recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance
amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and to disqualify the company from
acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Cooper v. Aetna Health Inc. PA, Corp. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03541," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Faith S. Hochberg, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Barry M. Epstein, Esq. (bepstein@wilentz.com)
         Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095
         Phone: 732-636-8000

              - and -

         Robert J. Axelrod, Esq.
         Levinson Axelrod
         3641 Highway #9 North
         Howell, NJ 07731
         Phone: 732-730-9600

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael Xavier McBride, Esq.
         (mmcbride@connellfoley.com)
         Connell Foley LLP
         85 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1765
         Phone: 973-535-0500


AETNA INC: Faces Suit in Connecticut Over Payment of Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc., is facing a purported class-action suit in
connection with various practices related to the payment of
claims for services rendered to the company's members by out-of-
network providers, resulting in increased out-of-pocket payments
by the members, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, entitled "Weintraub, et al. v. Ingenix, et al." is a
purported nationwide class action lawsuit that was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 29,
2008.

The plaintiff alleges that the company and the other defendants
violated state consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and federal antitrust
laws.

The purported classes together consist of all members in
substantially all of the company's health benefit plans who
received services from out-of-network providers from Jan. 1,
2004, to date for which the company determined amounts payable
based on information provided by Ingenix, Inc.

The plaintiff seeks actual damages, unspecified damages, treble
damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit is "Weintraub v. Ingenix Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-
00654-MR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Mark R. Kravitz, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (cburke@scott-scott.com)
         Scott & Scott, LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1500
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-233-4565
         Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants are:

         Vaughan Finn, Esq. (vfinn@goodwin.com)
         Shipman & Goodwin
         One Constitution Plaza
         Hartford, CT 06103-2819
         Phone: 860-251-5000
         Fax: 860-251-5599

              - and -

         Michael P. Shea, Esq. (mpshea@DayPitney.com)
         Day Pitney LLP
         242 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-1212
         Phone: 860-275-0146
         Fax: 860-275-0343


AETNA INC: Continues to Face Pennsylvania Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc., continues to face a purported securities fraud
class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's
July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The purported class action suit was filed on Oct. 24, 2007, by
the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority on behalf
of all purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 27,
2005, and April 27, 2006.

The plaintiff alleges that the company and three of its current
or former officers and directors -- John W. Rowe, M.D.; Alan M.
Bennett; and Craig R. Callen -- violated federal and state
securities laws and applicable common law.

The suit alleges misrepresentations and omissions regarding,
among other things, the company medical benefit ratios and its
health plan pricing policies, as well as insider trading by
Messrs. Rowe, Bennett and Callen.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

The suit is "Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
et al. v. Aetna Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-04451," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Judge Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Grant & Eisenhofer PA
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7000
          Fax: 302-622-7100
          e-mail: info@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Alabama Over "Defective iPhone 3G"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over
allegations that it advertised its iPhone 3G model as "twice as
fast for half the price" of the previous model, but the phone's
Internet connection is slower than advertised and is plagued
with dropped calls, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Jessica Smith says that "immediately after
purchase Plaintiff soon noticed that her Internet connection,
receipt and sending of email, text messages and other data
transfers through the device were slower than expected and
advertised."

The plaintiff was familiar with the speeds at which the previous
iPhone operated, the suit says.  The defective iPhone 3G
appeared to connect to the 3G standard and protocol less than
25% of the time.

The suit adds that the plaintiff experienced an inordinate
amount of dropped calls.

The plaintiff brings the suit as a class action, pursuant to
Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)93) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons in the United States
who purchased a defective iPhone 3G.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant breached express and implied
         warranties relating to the sale of its defective iPhone
         3Gs;

     (b) whether the defendant breached any express or implied
         warranties when they manufactured and sold the
         defective iPhone 3Gs;

     (c) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief;
         and

     (d) the appropriate measurement of restitution and
         measure of damages to award to her and the members of
         the class.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- determine that the claims alleged may be maintained as a
        class action under Rule 2S(a), (b)(2), and (b)(S) of
        the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue order
        certifying the class;

     -- award all actual, general, special, incidental,
        statutory, and consequential damages to which plaintiff
        and class members are entitled;

     -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such
        monetary relief;

     -- grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief,
        including without limitation, an order that requires
        defendant to repair and replace its defective iPhone
        3G;

     -- award reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

     -- grant such further and other relief that the court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Jessica Alena Smith, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
CV-08-AR-1498-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Haydn M. Trechsel, Esq.
          Edward S. Reisinger, Esq.
          Trimmier Law Firm
          2737 Highland Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-251-3151
                 205-322-6444


BASF CORP: Minnesota Farmers Receive $17 Million Money Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
After more than a decade in litigation, which included two U.S.
Supreme Court appearances and five trips to the Minnesota
Supreme Court, Minnesota farmers will finally receive payments
from a class action lawsuit brought against BASF Corporation in
1997 for fraudulent marketing practices.

Following a prolonged appeals process and an exhaustive claim
validation period, payments totaling $32 million are being
mailed to more than 1,137 claimants nationwide.  There are 647
approved claimants in Minnesota with a combined payout exceeding
$17 million.

With claims allocated as a pro rata share of gallons of BASF's
Poast herbicide purchased by individual claimants during the
1992-96 claim period, the majority of farmers will receive
checks for thousands of dollars.  A small number of farmers,
including one in Minnesota, will receive payments exceeding
$450,000.

"This is an enormously successful national class action that
rectifies a fraudulent market segmentation scheme," said Douglas
J. Nill of Minneapolis, the lead attorney for the farmers.
"From their own admission, such marketing practices were common
within the industry.  For 10 years we fought a 'David and
Goliath' battle with the chemical industry.  The disbursement of
the money judgment is a warning bell to the chemical industry
that they cannot market and price herbicides using fraud and
intimidation."

                         Case Background

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 in Norman County District Court,
in Ada, Minnesota, by 11 farmers who accused New Jersey-based
BASF Corp. of fraudulently marketing the same herbicide as
different products -- POAST and POAST Plus -- at different
prices.

The lawsuit claimed that this marketing was intended to obtain
inflated prices for the same herbicide from minor crop farmers.
Minor crop farmers are growers of sugarbeets, sunflowers,
potatoes, field beans, fruits and vegetables, and flowers.

After a trial and numerous appeals, the farmers prevailed.

On Nov. 17, 2006, BASF paid $62.5 million into the Farmers'
Common Fund, an interest-bearing bank account approved by the
court, to hold farmers' money until distribution.

The jury found that the herbicides were essentially the same,
but that BASF charged more for Poast (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 15, 2006).

The farmers who bought Poast herbicide from 1992 to 1996 are
eligible to share in the judgment.  The plaintiffs' attorney
Douglas Nill estimated that several thousand farmers are
eligible.  The distribution will be pro rata.

The Plan of Distribution in the $62.5 million nationwide
settlement of a suit filed by farmers who purchased BASF Corp.'s
herbicide POAST(R) was approved at a June 5, 2007 Final Approval
Hearing (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007).

The class action on the Net: http://www.poastclassaction.com/

The suit is "Peterson v. BASF Corp., Case No. C2-97-295," filed
in Norman County District Court, Ada, Minnesota.

The class is represented by:

         Douglas J. Nill, P.A.
         1100 One Financial Plaza
         120 South Sixth Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801
         Phone: 1-866-573-3669 (Toll-free)
         Web site: http://www.FarmLaw.com/


BEAR STEARNS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Option ARM Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. is facing a purported
class-action suit in California over its Option ARM product,
according to Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5's
Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit, entitled "Joseph A. Monaco, et al. v. Bear Stearns
Residential Mortgage," was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in August 2007.  A third
amendment to the complaint was filed on Feb. 26, 2008.

The case, which involves BSRMC's Option ARM product, alleges
that certain aspects of the loan, including the variable rate
feature and the possibility of negative amortization, were not
properly disclosed.

The case brings counts under the Truth-in-Lending Act and under
California law prohibiting unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent
business practices.

The complaint seeks to clarify a class made up of all borrowers
who obtained an Option ARM loan from BSRMC secured by their
primary residence in the four years prior to the case being
filed.

The suit is "Joseph A. Monaco, et al. v. Bear Stearns
Residential Mortgage, Case No. 2:2007-cv-05607," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Judge S. James Otero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Mills Arbogast, Esq. (darbogast@law111.com)
          Arbogast and Berns LLP
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: 818-961-2000
          Fax: 310-861-1775

               - and -

          Patrick A. DeBlase, Esq. (deblase@kbla.com)
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444

Representing the defendants is:

          Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. (mdl@severson.com)
          Severson & Werson
          1 Embarcadero Ctr., Ste. 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-398-3344
          Fax: 415-956-0439


BEAR STEARNS: Seeks Dismissal of Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., is asking the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut to dismiss a purported class-
action suit entitled "Rodriguez v. EMC Mortgage Corporation and
The Bear Stearns Companies, Case No. 3:07-cv-01816-JCH."

The purported class action complaint was filed on Dec. 10, 2007.
It seeks certification of a class made up of African-American
and Hispanic borrowers who had a non-prime loan serviced by EMC
Mortgage and who were subjected to allegedly improper servicing
practices, including imposition of unwarranted fees, pyramiding
of late fees, unjustified forced-placing of insurance, failure
to properly apply payments, improper reporting of derogatory
credit information, and failure to properly administer escrow
accounts.

EMC and Bear Stearns have filed motions to dismiss and to strike
the suit.

Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5 reported no further
development in the matter in its Aug. 12, 2008 Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The suit is "Rodriguez, et al. v. Bear Stearns Co Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:07-cv-01816-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet C. Hall, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Christa L. Collins, Esq. (ccollins@jameshoyer.com)
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. -FL
         4830 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550
         Tampa, FL 33609
         Phone: 813-286-4100
         Fax: 813-286-4174

              - and -

         M. Hatcher Norris, Esq. (rnorris@bnglaw.com)
         Butler, Norris & Gold
         254 Prospect Ave.
         Hartford, CT 06106-2041
         Phone: 860-236-6951
         Fax: 860-236-5263

Representing the defendants are:

         Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. (mdl@severson.com)
         Severson & Werson, PC-CA
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-398-3344
         Fax: 415-956-0439

              - and -

         James T. Shearin, Esq. (jshearin@pullcom.com)
         Pullman & Comley
         850 Main St., Po Box 7006
         Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
         Phone: 203-330-2000


BEAR STEARNS: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp. -- doing business as
Encore Credit -- is facing a purported racial discrimination
class-action suit that was filed in the U. S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 11, 2007, according
to Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5's Aug. 12, 2008
Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On March 7, 2008, a second amended complaint was filed.  The
complaint names 18 lenders as defendants, including BSRMC.  It
alleges that each defendant engages in disparate treatment of
African-Americans and has adopted facially neutral policies that
have a disparate and discriminatory impact on African-Americans.

For each lender, the plaintiff seeks certification of a sub-
class made up of African-Americans:

       -- who received subprime loans even though they qualified
          for loans on more favorable terms, or

       -- whose variable rate loans were approved based on a low
          initial "teaser" interest rate but who would not have
          qualified for the loan based on the anticipated
          adjusted interest rate during the first four years of
          the loan.

The claims are brought under the Fair Housing Act, the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act.  BSRMC
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
00794-AG-AN," filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Andrew J. Guilford, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gary L. Bledsoe, Esq. (garybledsoe@sbcglobal.net)
         Law Offices of Gary L. Bledsoe & Associates
         316 West 12th Street, Suite 307
         Austin, TX 78701
         Phone: 512-322-9992

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com)
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-217-5000
         Fax: 213-217-5010

              - and -

         Austin Tighe, Esq. (austin@feazell-tighe.com)
         Feazeall and Tighe
         Bridgepoint 2
         6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 220
         Austin, TX 78730
         Phone: 512-372-8100

Representing the company is:

         Benjamin B. Klubes, Esq. (bklubes@skadden.com)
         Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP
         1440 New York Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-371-7508
         Fax: 202-661-8296


BRISTOL-MYERS: U.S. Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan federal court Judge Paul Crotty ruled in favor of
shareholders suing Bristol-Myers Squibb about its disclosures
while settling patent litigation with Canadian generic drug
maker Apotex Inc over the blood-thinner Plavix, Reuters reports.

According to Reuters, Judge Crotty said in his ruling that the
shareholders had "plausibly alleged that Bristol Myers' silence
with regard to the details of the Apotex settlement made its
public statements misleading or false."

Bristol-Myers said in an emailed statement to Reuters that its
efforts to settle with Apotex "were at all times full, fair and
accurate" and that the company "intends to vigorously defend
itself as this litigation proceeds."

Reuters recounts that Bristol-Myers and Sanofi sued Apotex for
patent infringement in March 2002 but a statutory stay of the
Canadian company's application with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to make a generic form expired in 2005, prompting
Apotex to immediately begin making Plavix.

Reuters explains that Plavix is jointly manufactured by Bristol-
Myers and French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Avantis to treat
and prevent heart attack, stroke, arterial disease, acute
coronary syndrome and other heart conditions.

The report further recalls that the drugmaker announced a
settlement with Apotex in March 2006 but did not disclose that
it had agreed to limitations on damages and other provisions,
according to the Manhattan class action filed by two pension
funds.

State regulators rejected the settlement and in 2007, Bristol-
Myers pleaded guilty on two counts of making false statements to
the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to pay a $1 million
fine.

Judge Crotty's wrote that the two pension funds -- Ontario
Teachers Pension Plan Board and the Minneapolis Firefighters'
Relief Association -- "have adequately alleged that a reasonable
investor would have considered the undisclosed information
material in making investment decisions."

In the ruling dated August 19, 2008, Judge Crotty rejected
Bristol-Myers' motion to dismiss the class action case and gave
the parties 10 days to contact the court to schedule a pretrial
conference.

The judge separately rejected a lawsuit against Bristol-Myers'
board of directors over their actions while the company was
trying to reach settlement with Apotex.


CITIGROUP: Kirby McInerney Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP has been appointed lead counsel to act on
behalf of a group of investors named as lead plaintiff in a
securities class action lawsuit against Citigroup Inc.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Citigroup between Jan. 2,
2004, and November 21, 2007, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that during the class period, the defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's exposure to losses based upon the Company's creation
and sponsorship of numerous off-balance sheet Variable Interest
Entities, and that these actions constitute violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants are Citigroup
and certain of its officers and directors.

Disclosure of the truth regarding exposure to VIE-related risks
allegedly caused the price of Citigroup common stock to fall by
approximately half, all totaled, $122 billion in shareholder
losses, which made Citigroup common stock the worst performing
stock in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Roger Kirby, Esq.
          Ira Press, Esq.
          Kirby McInerney LLP
          825 Third Avenue
          New York, NY  10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          e-mail: km@kmllp.com/


CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration of "Breckenridge" Dismissal Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action suit, entitled
"Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et
al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as a defendant, requested
reconsideration of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado's earlier order granting the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of
natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court
in May 2006.

The defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services,
Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to
have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection
with their natural gas price reporting activities.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado on June 12, 2006.  An order transferring the case
and similar others as a multidistrict litigation proceeding,
captioned "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," was
entered on Oct. 17, 2006.

The court issued an order dated Dec. 4, 2006, denying the motion
to remand the case back to Colorado state court.  The defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

On Aug. 21, 2007, the court granted the dismissal motion by CMS
Energy on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction.  However, the
court granted the plaintiff's request for reconsideration and
allowed jurisdictional discovery to proceed.  CMS then re-filed
its dismissal motion and is awaiting the court's decision.

The remaining CMS Energy defendants filed a summary judgment
motion, which the court granted in March 2008 on the basis that
the named plaintiffs made no natural gas purchases from any
named defendant.

The plaintiffs requested reconsideration of the summary judgment
order and the court ordered further briefing.  The company is
awaiting the court's decision on the reconsideration request,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v.
Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Preston Baker, Esq. (jbaker@stklaw.com)
          Philip Wayne Bledsoe, Esq. (pbledsoe@stklaw.com)
          Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.
          1050 17th Street #2300
          Denver, CO 80265
          Phone: 303-572-9300
          Fax: 303-572-7883

Representing the defendants are:

          Michelle B. Goodman, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          555 West 5th Street, #4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Phone: 213-896-6014
          Fax: 213-896-6600

               - and -

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq. (mark.hamer@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP
          401 B Street, #1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-699-4758
          Fax: 619-699-2701


CMS ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Purchasers' Lawsuit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
alleging that the company falsely reported natural gas trades in
an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices, according to
the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit, entitled "Heartland Regional Medical Center v. e
prime, Xcel Energy et al.," was filed in March 2007 before the
Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri.

The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of natural
gas purchasers alleging that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy and falsely reported natural gas trades in order to
artificially raise natural gas prices.  The complaint alleges
restraint of trade, price manipulation, and violation of
Missouri's antitrust laws.

The defendants removed this case to Missouri federal court, and
it has been conditionally transferred to as a Multidistrict
Litigation proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In Re: Western
States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."

The plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand this case back to
state court, but the court has yet to decide on this request.

CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy
holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S.,
primarily in Michigan.  Its two principal subsidiaries are
Consumers and Enterprises.  Consumers is a public utility that
provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of
Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68
counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula.  Enterprises, through
various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged
primarily in domestic independent power production.  CMS Energy
manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides
and operates principally in three business segments: electric
utility, gas utility and enterprises.


D.R. HORTON: Faces Nevada Lawsuit for Building Defective Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Horton Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court of Clark County, Nevada, alleging the
company built 559 defective homes in the Cobblestone Ridge,
Cobblestone Cove and Cobblestone Manor developments and refuses
to repair them, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring the action, pursuant to Nevada Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all owners of the subject
property.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- general and special damages in excess of $10,000
        including but not limited to, costs of repair, loss of
        market value, loss of use, loss of financing, loss of
        investment and out-of-pocket expenses to be determined
        at time of trial;

     -- damages in an amount according to proof;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs according to proof;

     -- prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums
        awarded, according to proof at the maximum legal rate;

     -- all damages pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute 40.600
        through 40.695, in particular NRS 40.650 and 40.655;

     -- costs of suit incurred; and

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

The suit is "Wesley W. Arndt, et al. v. D. R. Horton, Inc., et
al., Case No. A567840," filed in the U.S. District Court of
Clark County, Nevada.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Duane E. Shinnick, Esq.
          Megan M. Chodzko, Esq.
          Eric Ransavage, Esq.
          Shinnick Law Firm, PC
          2881 Business Park Court, Suite 210
          Las Vegas, NV 89128


EXXON MOBIL: High Court Vacates $2.5B Award in Exxon Valdez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the $2.5-billion punitive damage
award to victims of the accidental release of crude oil from the
tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, according to Exxon Mobil Corp.'s
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against Exxon Mobil and certain of its
subsidiaries relating to the accident.  All the compensatory
claims have been resolved and paid.  All of the punitive damage
claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began in 1994.

The first judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District
of Alaska in the amount of $5 billion was vacated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as being excessive under
the constitution.

The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was vacated by
the Ninth Circuit panel without argument and sent back for the
district court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in "Campbell v. State Farm."

The most recent district court judgment for punitive damages was
for $4.5 billion plus interest and was entered in January 2004.
The corporation posted a $5.4-billion letter of credit.

ExxonMobil and the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
Ninth Circuit, which ruled on Dec. 22, 2006, that the award be
reduced to $2.5 billion.  On Jan. 12, 2007, ExxonMobil
petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en
banc of its appeal.  On May 23, 2007, with two dissenting
opinions, the Ninth Circuit determined not to re-hear
ExxonMobil's appeal before the full court.

Afterwards, the Ninth Circuit court reconfirmed the $2.5-billion
award (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007).  ExxonMobil filed
a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on
Aug. 20, 2007.

On Oct. 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court granted ExxonMobil's
petition for a writ of certiorari.

On June 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the
$2.5-billion punitive damage award previously entered by the
Ninth Circuit and remanded the case to the Circuit Court with an
instruction that punitive damages in the case may not exceed a
maximum amount of $507.5 million.

Exxon Mobil Corp. recorded an after tax charge of $290 million
in the second quarter of 2008 reflecting the maximum amount of
the punitive damages.

In early July 2008, the plaintiffs filed a brief before the U.S.
Supreme Court requesting interest on the punitive damage award
from September 1996.  ExxonMobil filed a brief opposing interest
for the period prior to the Supreme Court's decision in June
2008.

The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc., et al. v. Exxon Corp., et
al., Case No. 3:89-cv-00095-HRH," filed in the U.S. District
Court of Alaska, Judge H. Russel Holland, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Charles W. Coe, Esq.
         Law Office of Charles W. Coe
         805 W 3rd Avenue, #10
         Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S.
         Phone: 907-276-6173
         Fax: 907-279-1884
         e-mail: charlielaw@gci.net

              - and -

         Lloyd B. Miller, Esq. (lloyd@sonosky.net)
         Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP
         900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
         Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S.
         Phone: 907-258-6377
         Fax: 907-272-8332

Representing the defendants are:

         John F. Clough, III, Esq.
         Clough & Associates
         POB 211187
         Auke Bay, AK 99821
         Phone: 907-790-1912
         Fax: 907-790-1913

              -  and  -

         Douglas J. Serdahely, Esq. (dserdahely@pattonboggs.com)
         Patton Boggs LLP
         601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
         Anchorage, AK 99501
         Phone: 907-263-6300
         Fax: 907-263-6345


JACK DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Supplements with Undeclared Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Distribution, LLC, of 1501 Green Road Unit C Pompano Beach,
Florida, and its wholesale distributors G & N works, Inc., and
Devine Distribution, Inc., are conducting a voluntary nationwide
recall of all lot numbers of the company's supplement products
sold under the brand names Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her.
New lots of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her -- not subject to the recall
-- will contain lot numbers beginning in "BL".

Jack Distribution is conducting this recall after being informed
by representatives of the Food and Drug Administration that lab
analysis by FDA of Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her samples of random lots
found the product contains potentially harmful, undeclared
ingredients.  FDA asserts that its chemical analysis revealed
that Rize 2 The Occasion and Rose 4 Her contain
thiomethisosildenafil, an analog of sildenafil, the active
ingredient of a FDA-approved drug used for Erectile Dysfunction.

FDA maintains that this ingredient is close in structure to
sildenafil and is expected to possess a similar pharmacological
and adverse event profile.  This undeclared chemical poses a
potential threat to consumers because it may interact with
nitrates found in some prescription drugs (such as
nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.

Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,
or heart disease often take nitrates.  ED is a common problem in
men with these conditions, and consumers may seek these types of
products to enhance sexual performance.

Customers who have this product in their possession should stop
using it immediately and contact their physician if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking this
product.

Any adverse events that may be related to the use of this
product should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by
phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at:

          MedWatch
          HF-2, FDA
          5600 Fishers Lane
          Rockville, MD 20852-9787

The company advises that any unused portions can be returned to
the place of purchase for a full refund of purchase price.  Jack
Distribution will manufacture new lots of these products which
are not subject to the recall.  Those lot numbers will begin
with "BL" and will begin to be sold shortly.

Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her are sold in adult stores, vitamin &
nutrition shops, convenience stores, and via the Internet
nationwide.  The Rize 2 product is sold as a (single blister
pack, three count bottles, twelve count bottles, and thirty
count bottles.  Rose 4 Her is only available in single blister
packs and three count bottles.

The Company says it is taking this voluntary action because it
is committed and is always concerned with the health of persons
who have consumed this product.  The Company is reviewing the
procedures and policies of all firms involved with the
manufacture of the product to ensure that there will be no
future issues with regard to Rize 2 and Rose 4 Her pills
composition.  The Company is working closely with the FDA in the
recall process and is committed to the quality and integrity of
its products.  It says it sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers and its other customers.


MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certified for Suit Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
certified as a class action for purposes of a proposed
settlement made by defendants Merge Healthcare (f/k/a Merge
Technologies) and Richard A. Linden, Scott T. Veech and David
Noshay, valued at $16 million in cash.

Between March 22 and April 26, 2006, seven putative securities
class action suits were filed on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired shares of the company's common stock
between Aug. 2, 2005, and March 16, 2006.

The defendants in the suit include the company; Richard A.
Linden, its former president and chief executive officer; and
Scott T. Veech, its former chief financial officer.  One of the
suits also names Brian E. Pedlar, former president of Cedara
Software Corp. who served as interim co-president and co-chief
executive officer of Merge from July 2, 2006, to Aug. 18, 2006.
One case has been voluntarily dismissed.

The cases arise out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement
that it would revise its results of operations for the
fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005, and Sept. 30, 2005, as well
as its investigation of allegations made in anonymous letters
received by the company.

The lawsuits allege that the company and the individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  It seeks damages
in unspecified amounts.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the suits on July 16,
2007.  The plaintiff filed its response brief afterward (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2008).

In May, Merge Healthcare entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the consolidated securities class-action (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2008).

The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims asserted against Merge and the
individual defendants in the litigation.  In exchange, Merge
Healthcare has agreed to a one-time cash payment of $3,025,000
to the plaintiff and Merge's primary and one of its excess D&O
insurance carriers agreed to a one-time cash payment of
$12,975,000 to the plaintiffs, for a total of $16 million.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, the closing of
the financing, the drafting and execution of the final
settlement documents, and the approval of the settlement by the
court (Class Action Reporter, June 24, 2008).

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rudolph T. Randa at
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin at
2:00 p.m. on November 10, 2008, to determine whether the
proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, whether the Plan of Allocation is fair
and equitable and therefore should be approved in connection
with this settlement, and to consider the application of Lead
Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses.

Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on October 13,
2008.  Deadline to file claims is on November 12, 2008.

The suit is "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc, et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00349-RTR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Judge Rudolph T. Randam, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel M. Shanley, Esq.
         DeCarlo & Connor
         533 S. Fremont Ave., 9th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1706
         Phone: 213-488-4100
         Fax: 213-488-4180

              - and -

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Phone: 561-750-3000
         Fax: 561-750-3364

Representing the defendants is:

         David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
         (david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com)
         Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
         525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1900
         Chicago, IL 60661-3693
         Phone: 312-902-5200
         Fax: 312-577-4481


MERRILL LYNCH: Texas Court Considers Dismissal Motion in "Newby"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is
considering and has yet to rule on a motion by Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc., that sought the dismissal of the case, captioned
"Newby v. Enron Corp., et al., Case No. 4:01-cv-03624,"
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2008.

On April 8, 2002, Merrill Lynch was added as a defendant in the
class-action suit.  The complaint alleges, among others, that
the company engaged in improper transactions in the fourth
quarter of 1999 that helped Enron misrepresent its earnings and
revenues in the fourth  quarter of 1999 (Class Action Reporter,
March 8, 2006).

The complaint also alleges that Merrill Lynch violated the
securities laws in connection with its role as an underwriter of
Enron stock, its research analyst coverage of Enron stock, and
its role as placement agent for and limited partner in an Enron-
controlled partnership called LJM2.

The parties are currently awaiting the court's decision on the
company's request to dismiss the case based on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Fifth Circuit's March 19, 2007 decision rejecting
class certification, and the U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 15, 2008
decision rejecting liability in another case, entitled
"Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta."

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with
its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and
related services to individuals and institutions on a global
basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial
services subsidiaries.  The company's operations are organized
into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment
Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM).  GMI provides
service global markets and origination products and services to
corporate, institutional, and government clients around the
world.  GWM creates and distributes investment products and
services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and
employee benefit plans.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Guaranteed Investment Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., is facing a consolidated lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in connection with guaranteed investment contracts,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 27, 2008.

Between March and July 2008, multiple class action complaints
were filed by municipalities against dozens of defendants,
including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the municipalities'
investments in GICs.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
conspired to fix prices for GICs and other derivative products
in violation of the antitrust laws over a period of more than
ten years.

On June 16, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
consolidated several cases under the caption, "Hinds County,
Mississippi v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-
02516."

The consolidated suit is "Hinds County, Mississippi v. Wachovia
Bank N.A. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-02516-VM," pending with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Victor Marrero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Magda Maria Jimenez, Esq. (mjimenez@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2333
          Fax: 212-446-2350

          Roland Gustaf Riopelle, Esq. (rriopelle@juno.com)
          Sercarz & Riopelle, L.L.P.
          152 West 57th Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-586-4900
          Fax: 212-586-1234

          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. (mbuchman@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-661-1100
          Fax: 212-661-8665

               - and -

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          (bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godfrey LLP
          654 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10065
          Phone: 212-336-8334
          Fax: 212-336-8340


MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Securities/ERISA/Derivative Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., is seeking the dismissal of several
consolidated principal class action lawsuits under the federal
securities laws and the the Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act, as well as shareholder derivative actions under
state law, that are pending with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption, "In re Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation,
Case No. 07-CV-09633," according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2008.

                    Securities Class Actions

On May 21, 2008, the plaintiffs in the securities class action
suits filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of
persons who acquired Merrill Lynch common stock and certain
preferred stock between Oct. 17, 2006, and Jan. 16, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Merrill
Lynch and certain present and former officers, misrepresented
and omitted facts related to Merrill Lynch's exposure to
subprime collateralized debt obligations in violation of the
federal securities laws.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount related to
the drop in value of Merrill Lynch shares.

On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and other defendants filed
motions to dismiss to the claims.

                      ERISA Class Actions

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs in the ERISA class actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint on behalf of the Merrill Lynch
401(k) Savings and Investment Plan, the Merrill Lynch Retirement
Accumulation Plan, and the Merrill Lynch Employee Stock
Ownership Plan.

The complaint alleges that between Sept. 25, 2006, and May 6,
2008, Merrill Lynch and the individual defendants violated ERISA
by permitting employees to invest Plan assets in Merrill Lynch
common stock even though they knew or should have known that
such investments were unduly risky.

The complaint seeks an order compelling defendants to reimburse
the plans for losses of an unspecified amount related to the
alleged violations.

On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the case.

                Shareholder Derivative Actions

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative
actions filed a consolidated amended complaint against Merrill
Lynch and certain present and former officers and directors for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other alleged violations
of state law in connection with Merrill Lynch's exposure to
subprime collateralized debt obligations and compensation
provided to its former CEO.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and certain
corporate governance reforms.

On July 21, 2008, Merrill Lynch and other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the action.

The consolidated suit is "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-
09633," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Leonard B. Sand, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jill Sharyn Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         William Edward Bernarduci, Esq.
         (wbernarduci@izardnobel.com)
         Schatz and Nobel PC
         20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6289
         Fax: 860-493-6290

Representing the defendants are:

         Jay B. Kasner, Esq. (jkasner@skadden.com)
         Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-735-3000
         Fax: 212-735-2000

              - and -

         Stuart Jay Baskin, Esq. (sbaskin@shearman.com)
         Shearman & Sterling LLP
         599 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-848-4000
         Fax: 646-848-4974


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Underway in Calif. Consumers' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a putative class-action suit entitled,
"Ed Oshaben v. Tickle Inc., Emode.com, Inc., and Monster
Worldwide, Inc., Case No. CGC-06-454538," which was filed
against Monster Worldwide, Inc., and its Tickle Inc. subsidiary.

The suit was filed in July 2006 before the California State
Court.  An amended complaint was subsequently filed, alleging
that Tickle engaged in deceptive consumer practices and purports
to be a class action representing all users who purchased a test
report from Tickle and received "unauthorized charges."

The amended complaint alleges various violations of the
California consumer and unfair business practice statutes and
seeks, among other things, unspecified restitution for the
class, disgorgement of revenues, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable relief.

Discovery in this action is underway, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/-- provides a
global online employment solution, Monster.  With a presence in
markets in North America, Europe and Asia, Monster works by
connecting employers with job seekers at all levels and by
providing personalized career advice to consumers globally.
Monster Worldwide delivers targeted audiences to advertisers.
The company operates in three business segments: Monster
Careers-North America, Monster Careers-International, and
Internet Advertising & Fees.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Discovery Ongoing in ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action suit against
Monster Worldwide, Inc., that was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

A former company employee filed the putative class action suit
in October 2006 against the company and a number of its current
and former officers and directors.  The action purports to be
brought on behalf of all participants in the company's 401(k)
plan.  It alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to plan participants under Sections 404, 405, 409
and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 et seq., by allowing
plan participants to purchase and to hold and maintain company
stock in their plan accounts without disclosing to those plan
participants the historical stock option practices.

The complaint seeks equitable restitution, attorneys' fees and
an order enjoining defendants from violating the ERISA.

At the defendants' behest, the Court, on Dec. 14, 2007,
dismissed the ERISA action with prejudice as against the company
and certain of the individual defendants including all of the
company's current directors who have been named as defendants
and without prejudice against certain of the individual
defendants including one current employee of the company.

On Feb. 15, 2008, the plaintiff (joined by three new proposed
class representatives) filed a second amended complaint against
the company, three of the individual defendants who had been
dismissed from the action without prejudice, and three new
defendants who are former employees of the company.  The second
amended complaint asserts the same allegations.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  Discovery is now pending.

The suit is "Taylor v. McKelvey, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-08322-
AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas James McKenna, Esq.
         (tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com)
         Gainey & McKenna, LLP
         295 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-983-1300
         Fax: 212-983-0383

Representing the defendants are:

         Evan T. Barr, Esq. (ebarr@steptoe.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         750 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 1900
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-506-3918
         Fax: 212-506-3961

              - and -

         Geoffrey Shannon Stewart, Esq. (gstewart@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         222 East 41st Street
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-326-3939
         Fax: 212-755-7306


PARMALAT: Thorp Reed Secures Dismissal for Pavia in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP, has successfully secured a
dismissal for independent Italian law firm Pavia e Ansaldo
(Pavia) in a major class action suit brought by the shareholders
of Parmalat SpA.

The suit was brought against a number of independent
institutions, including Bank of America, Citigroup and Pavia,
following the Italian dairy firm's entering into bankruptcy, the
largest in Europe's history.  Bank of America and Citigroup were
dismissed along with Pavia.

The dismissal, handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A.
Kaplan, was issued on August 7 and made available to the public
on August 11.

The class action suit sought billions of dollars in damages and
was brought on behalf of buyers of shares in Parmalat.
Investors accused accounting firms, the banks, and Pavia, of
willfully misleading them about the value of shares they
purchased in Parmalat prior to the company's collapse in 2003.
The collapse of Parmalat has been referred to as the "Enron of
Europe."

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Stoneridge
vs. Scientific Atlanta provided the basis for the ruling and
clarified that Pavia, and the banks involved in the suit, had no
liability for the fraud alleged in the Parmalat case.

Joe Donley, Esq., the Thorp Reed & Armstrong partner who was
lead counsel for Pavia in the case, commented, "The dismissal is
extremely satisfying for all of us who worked on the case, but
perhaps most importantly, it is an important moral, ethical and
legal victory for Pavia e Ansaldo, a highly respected Italian
law firm.  The firm always maintained that it had no involvement
in the Parmalat collapse and that it did not engage in any
fraudulent or deceptive conduct, and the evidence showed that.
We applaud the decision by Judge Kaplan and his recognition that
the plaintiffs' arguments were unfounded in this matter."

                        About Parmalat

Headquartered in Milan, Italy, Parmalat S.p.A.
-- http://www.parmalat.net/-- sells nameplate milk products
that can be stored at room temperature for months.  It also has
about 40 brand product lines, which include yogurt, cheese,
butter, cakes and cookies, breads, pizza, snack foods and
vegetable sauces, soups and juices.

The company's U.S. operations filed for chapter 11 protection on
Feb. 24, 2004 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 04-11139).  Gary
Holtzer, Esq., and Marcia L. Goldstein, Esq., at Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, represent the Debtors.  When the U.S. Debtors filed
for bankruptcy protection, they reported more than US$200
million in assets and debts.  The U.S. Debtors emerged from
bankruptcy on April 13, 2005.

Parmalat S.p.A. and its Italian affiliates filed separate
petitions for Extraordinary Administration before the Italian
Ministry of Productive Activities and the Civil and Criminal
District Court of the City of Parma, Italy on Dec. 24, 2003.
Dr. Enrico Bondi was appointed Extraordinary Commissioner in
each of the cases.  The Parma Court has declared the units
insolvent.

On June 22, 2004, Dr. Bondi filed a Sec. 304 Petition, Case No.
04-14268, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Parmalat has three financing arms: Dairy Holdings Ltd., Parmalat
Capital Finance Ltd., and Food Holdings Ltd.  Dairy Holdings and
Food Holdings are Cayman Island special-purpose vehicles
established by Parmalat S.p.A.  The Finance Companies are under
separate winding up petitions before the Grand Court of the
Cayman Islands.  Gordon I. MacRae and James Cleaver of Kroll
(Cayman) Ltd. serve as Joint Provisional Liquidators in the
cases.  On Jan. 20, 2004, the Liquidators filed Sec. 304
petition, Case No. 04-10362, in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.  In May 2006, the
Cayman Island Court appointed Messrs. MacRae and Cleaver as
Joint Official Liquidators.  Gregory M. Petrick, Esq., at
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, and Richard I. Janvey, Esq.,
at Janvey, Gordon, Herlands Randolph, represent the Finance
Companies in the Sec. 304 case.


PERINI CORP: Mass. Court Denies Expedited Proceedings Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court denied the plaintiff's request
for expedited proceedings regarding a putative class action suit
brought in opposition to a proposed merger between Perini
Corporation -- a leading building, civil construction and
construction management company -- and Tutor-Saliba Corporation.

Earleir, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP, disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the Massachusetts Superior Court on
June 17, 2008, on behalf of shareholders of Perini Corp. against
the company, Tutor-Saliba Corporation, and the individual
members of Perini's Board of Directors (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 12, 2008).

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
April 2, 2008, as amended, in exchange for all the outstanding
stock of Tutor-Saliba, Tutor-Saliba shareholders will receive a
total of 22,987,293 shares of Perini common stock, representing
approximately 45% of the outstanding Perini common stock
following the completion of the transaction.

The Merger has been approved by Perini's Board of Directors but
requires the approval of Perini's common stockholders.  Such
shareholder approval, among other matters, is being sought by
the Perini Board of Directors at the Perini annual meeting of
shareholders that will be held on September 5, 2008.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, various disclosure
violations in the proxy statements issued by Perini in
connection with the Merger between Perini and Tutor-Saliba.

The plaintiff has alleged that Perini's shareholders are being
denied their fundamental right to make an informed decision on
whether to vote for or against the Merger.  Additionally, the
Complaint alleges that the Merger was agreed to without any
market check and that the Company's financial advisor is
conflicted.

The plaintiff intends to seek injunctive relief, inter alia,
enjoining the shareholder vote scheduled for September 5, 2008,
until additional information is provided in the proxy materials
concerning the Merger.

On August 13, 2008, the judge denied the plaintiff's request,
finding that the plaintiff failed to make colorable claims or
demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable harm requiring
injunctive relief.  The judge noted that the Securities and
Exchange Commission's approval of the final Perini proxy on
August 6, 2008 "was a particularly persuasive indication that
the proxy is adequate to permit shareholders to make an informed
choice" regarding the proposed merger.

With the Court's denial of the motion, the litigation will
proceed in an ordinary process. All defendants have moved to
dismiss the litigation.  Accordingly, Perini is not aware of any
potential legal impediment to holding the shareholder vote on
the proposed merger with Tutor-Saliba on schedule.

For more information, contact:

           Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
           Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
           18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Phone: 212-213-6222
           Fax: 212-213-9405


PPG INDUSTRIES: Flat Glass Antitrust Suit Deal Hearing Canceled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing in connection with the final approval of a settlement
of antitrust claims against PPG Industries, Inc., has has yet to
be scheduled.

On Nov. 8, 2006, PPG entered into a class-wide settlement
agreement to resolve all antitrust claims asserted by indirect
purchasers of flat glass in California.

PPG agreed to make a payment of $2.5 million, inclusive of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  The Court has also approved the form of notice to
the settlement class.

Initially scheduled for July 10, 2007, the hearing was canceled
and has not been rescheduled.

The company reported no further 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.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global
supplier of protective and decorative coatings.  The company
operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial
Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals
and Glass.  The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers
in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment,
appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions
and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment;
automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer
products.  In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive
original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to
the aftermarket.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Pa. Consolidated Flat Glass Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust lawsuit
in Pennsylvania with regard to flat glass, 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.

Initially, several complaints have been filed in different
federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers as
defendants in purported antitrust class action complaints.  A
handful of complaints where PPG is not named have been filed in
additional federal courts.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and
conditions of sale of flat glass in the U.S. in violation of
federal antitrust laws.

In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Many allegations in the complaints are similar to those raised
in recently concluded proceedings in Europe in which fines were
levied against other flat glass producers arising out of alleged
antitrust violations.  PPG was not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global
supplier of protective and decorative coatings.  The company
operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial
Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals
and Glass.  The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers
in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment,
appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions
and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment;
automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer
products.  In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive
original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to
the aftermarket.


PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS: Recalls Cherry Pies Due to Soya Component
--------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on three
codes of No Sugar Added Cherry Pie with a sell-by-date of July 8
to July 27.  UPC numbers for the affected product may be found
on the back label below the Nutritional Facts panel:

     * Publix NSA 8inch Cherry Pie, UPC: 41415-65990
     * Publix NSA 1/2 Cherry Pie, UPC: 03000-00225
     * Publix NSA 1/4 Cherry Pie, UPC: 41415-66990

These products were sold in the retail bakeries and were
recalled due to the undeclared soy ingredient.  People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.  The recall affected stores in Georgia, Alabama, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Florida stores in Citrus County south
through Monroe County, excluding Orlando proper stores.

"The packaging error was detected during a routine label
review," said Maria Brous, Publix media and community relations
director.  "As part of our commitment to food safety, we
routinely inspect our product labeling for accuracy and for
product quality.  There have been no reported cases of illness.
Customers who have purchased the product may return it to their
store for a full refund or replacement.  Consumers with
questions may contact Publix at 1-800-242-1227."


RCN CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over "Fast and Uncapped" Internet Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
RCN Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan accusing it of offering subscribers
"fast and uncapped" Internet service at "unrivaled speeds," and
then intentionally throttling communications, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Herndon, Va.-based RCN Corporation is a broadband
telecommunications services provider, delivering video, high-
speed data and voice services to services primarily to
Residential and Small & Medium Business (SMB) customers under
the brand names of RCN and RCN Business Services. The Company
serves about 416,000 residential and small and medium business
customers.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Multiple Antitrust Suits Over Natural Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc., is a party to approximately 30 lawsuits,
several of which are class-action suits, filed in state and
federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

These lawsuits relate to the company's alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and
similar laws.  The suits also name a number of unaffiliated
energy companies as parties.

The suits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and
expenses.

Reliant Energy, Inc. -- http://www.reliant.com/-- provides
electricity and energy services to retail and wholesale
customers through two business segments.  Retail energy provides
electricity and energy services to more than 1.8 million retail
electricity customers in Texas, including residential and small
business customers and commercial, industrial and governmental
or institutional customers.  It also serves commercial,
industrial and governmental or institutional customers in the
PJM Market, which primarily covers Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia.  Wholesale energy provides
electricity and energy services in energy markets in the U.S.
through its ownership and operation of or contracting for power
generation capacity.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company had
approximately 16,000 megawatts of power generation capacity.  On
Aug. 20, 2007, the company's Channelview, Texax, power-plant
project, filed for bankruptcy.


SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Considers Motions in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on certain motions filed in the consolidated
class-action suit entitled "In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086," which named SanDisk Corp.
as a defendant, according to SanDisk's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, SanDisk, along with a number
of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
in eight purported class action complaints.

On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one
on behalf of indirect purchasers, before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in a purported class
action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Case No. C07-0086."

The plaintiffs allege that the company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in
violation of state and federal laws.

The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash
memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present.

The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees,
costs, and disgorgement of profits.

On April 8, 2008, the company, along with its co-defendants,
filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser complaints.  Also, the company, along with co-
defendants, filed a motion for a protective order to stay
discovery.

On April 22, 2008, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed oppositions to the dismissal motions.

The company's, along with co-defendants', reply to the
oppositions was filed on May 13, 2008.  The court took the
motions to dismiss and the motion for a protective order under
submission on June 3, 2008, and has yet to rule on the motions.

The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
C07-0086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

          C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com)
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510-615-6000
          Fax: 510-615-6024

               - and -

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

Representing the company is:

          Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262
          Fax: 415-393-2286


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Seeks High Court Review of Lead Pigment Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwin-Williams Co. and several other defendants in a purported
class-action suit in connection with lead pigment in paints
filed a petition before the California Supreme Court requesting
that it review an earlier decision made by the California Court
of Appeal in the case.

Initiated in March 2000, the suit names as plaintiffs the County
of Santa Clara, County of Santa Cruz, County of Solano, County
of Alameda, County of Kern, City and County of San Francisco,
San Francisco Housing Authority, San Francisco Unified School
District, City of Oakland, Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland
Redevelopment Agency, and the Oakland Unified School District.

The case purports to be a class action on behalf of all public
entities in the State of California except the state and its
agencies.

The plaintiffs' second amended complaint asserts claims for
fraud and concealment, strict product liability or failure to
warn, strict product liability or design defect, negligence,
negligent breach of a special duty, public nuisance, private
nuisance and violations of California's Business and Professions
Code.

Various asserted claims were resolved in favor of the defendants
through pre-trial demurrers and motions to strike.

In October 2003, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment against the remaining counts on statute of
limitation grounds.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's decision, and on
March 3, 2006, the Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate District,
reversed in part the demurrers and summary judgment entered in
favor of the company and the other defendants.

The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for abatement brought by the cities of Santa
Clara and Oakland and the City and County of San Francisco, and
reversed summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' fraud claim
to the extent that the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had made fraudulent statements or omissions minimizing the risks
of low-level exposure to lead.  The Court of Appeal further
vacated the summary judgment holding that statute of limitations
barred the plaintiffs' strict liability and negligence claims,
and held that those claims had not yet accrued because physical
injury to the plaintiffs' property had not been alleged.

The Court of Appeal also affirmed the dismissal of the public
nuisance claim for damages to the plaintiffs' properties, most
aspects of the fraud claim, the trespass claim and the unfair
business practice claim.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended
complaint.

On April 4, 2007, the trial court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to bar payment of contingent fees to private
attorneys.  The plaintiffs appealed this order and the
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order.

The defendants filed a petition with the California Supreme
Court requesting the Supreme Court to review the decision of the
Court of Appeal, according to the company's July 22, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The Sherwin-Williams Co. -- http://www.sherwin-williams.com/--
is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of paint,
coatings and related products to professional, Industrial,
commercial and retail customers primarily in North and South
America.


SUN MAR: Elder Care Operator and Plaintiff Attorney Settle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., Sun Mar Management, and its 18
California skilled nursing homes recently settled for $2 million
a class action lawsuit (Case #30-200800037875) by Warren
Richardson, by and through his Attorney in Fact Marlene Miller,
Esq., on behalf of all California citizens who resided in, or
are residing in, one of the company's California facilities from
Jan. 9, 2005, through Jan. 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges the company's California facilities failed
to comply with applicable laws and regulations, which has been
addressed and resolved through settlement.

"Though we do not admit liability, we chose to settle this case
because we are, and have been, firmly committed to the well-
being of our residents," said Irving Bauman, president and
principal of Brea, Calif.-based Sun Mar Health Care, Inc.
"Litigation is a long, expensive process that would take our
focus away from where it belongs . . . on our residents."

The $2 million settlement will be distributed to class members
at a per diem rate for the amount of time that they did reside
or still reside in a Sun Mar owned or managed skilled nursing
and long-term facility from Jan. 9, 2005, to Jan. 9, 2008.

The settlement also mandates that all unclaimed money that
revert back to Sun Mar must be utilized for staffing the
facilities.

"The purpose of a class action suit is to make positive change,"
says Long Beach, Calif., plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of
The Garcia Law Firm.  "We appreciate that Sun Mar is stepping up
to the plate and taking action to ensure its compliance with
such important regulations as maintaining minimum staffing."

Mr. Bauman says that he is agreeing to the appointment of an
independent monitor, who will undertake quarterly inspections of
select Sun Mar facilities, because Sun Mar management and staff
are committed to providing the best possible care to its
residents.

In fact, Sun Mar management has abdicated all rights to the
selection of the monitor.  To maintain the monitor's
credibility, he will be selected by plaintiff attorney Stephen
Garcia, Esq.

"This settlement demonstrates how the civil justice system can
benefit everybody," says Mr. Garcia.  "The elder and infirm
adults and their families at Sun Mar's 18 facilities can
hopefully now be assured of quality care, and Sun Mar has the
opportunity to improve the level of quality care it offers its
residents.  Should they not, the auditor will act vigilantly."

For more information, contact:

         Geri Wilson, Esq. (gerij9@yahoo.com)
         The Jonathan Group
         Phone: 626-403-6741


TENET HEALTHCARE: Stills Faces Calif. Labor Law Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. continues to face several purported
class-action suits, alleging violations various labor laws,
which were coordinated in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
according to the company's Aug. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

                  McDonough & Tien Litigation

On Sept. 28, 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending wage and hour actions, captioned,
"McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," and "Tien,
et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The McDonough case was originally filed on June 24, 2003, in the
San Diego Superior Court and the Tien case was originally filed
on May 21, 2004, in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Tenet's hospitals
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of one
hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest periods not taken.

The complaint in the Tien case also alleges that the company
have improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping
records and that our pay stubs do not include all information
required by California law.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

Later, the plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed
motions, which the company opposed, to certify these actions on
behalf of virtually all nonexempt employees of our California
subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass)
based on the specific claims at issue.

The court issued a ruling on plaintiffs' motions on June 3,
2008.  In that ruling, the court denied plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claim that employees missed rest
periods. H owever, the court granted plaintiffs' request for
class certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did
not contain all information required by California law and
hourly employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the
time of their termination.

The court also certified a subclass of 12-hour shift employees
who received missed meal penalties at a reduced rate, but stated
that this subclass should be handled in connection with the
purported class-action suit, "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley
Regional Medical Center," which was filed with the Orange County
Superior Court.

Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current
or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal
periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited
preliminary factual issues.

A hearing on the company's motion for reconsideration of the
court's class certification ruling was held on July 16, 2008,
and the company is awaiting the court's decision.

                 Pagaduan & Falck Litigation

The company also faces two proposed class-action suits involving
allegations regarding unpaid overtime.  The suits are:

       a. "Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical Center,"
          filed with the Orange County Superior Court, and

       b. "Falck v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation," pending with
          U.S. District Court for the Central District of
          California

These lawsuits allege that the company's pay practices since
2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate
California and, in the Falck case, federal overtime laws by
virtue of the alleged failure to include certain payments known
as Flexible (or California) Differential payments in the regular
rate of pay that is used to calculate overtime pay.

These payments are made to 12-hour shift employees when they do
not work a shift that is exactly 12 hours.

The company contends that these differential payments need only
be included in the regular rate of pay when they actually are
paid (as opposed to merely being potentially payable), and that
they always are included in the regular rate calculation in
these circumstances.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking back pay, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees.

In February 2007, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that the
Pagaduan case be coordinated with the previously coordinated
McDonough and Tien cases already pending there, as described
above.

The company is now defending these wage and hour cases in a
single court.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the Pagaduan case.

Since that time, the court has set Oct. 14, 2008, as the date a
trial on one of the defendants' principal defenses will begin.

Separately, the Falck case, which was first provisionally
certified as a collective action under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act for the purpose of giving notice to potential
class members, was certified as a class action for all purposes
on Feb. 12, 2008.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
engaged in the provision of healthcare services, primarily
through the operation of general hospitals.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Minn. Suit Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
alleging it violates the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section
216(b), on behalf of all employees of defendant who work or
worked as drivers and ride-along loaders or helpers in excess of
40 hours per week without being paid for all overtime hours
worked during the applicable statute of limitations.

The plaintiffs demand:

     -- judgment against defendant for an amount equal to
        plaintiffs' and similarly situated individuals' unpaid
        back wages at the applicable overtime rate;

     -- an equal amount to the overtime damages as liquidated
        damages;

     -- all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
        this claim;

     -- an award of prejudgment interest (to the extent
        liquidated damages are not awarded);

     -- leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing
        of written consent forms, or any other method approved
        by the court;

     -- leave to amend to add claims under applicable state
        laws; and

     -- such further relief as the court deems just and
        equitable.

The suit is "Chuck Saleen, et al. v. Waste Management, Inc.,
Case No. 08-4959 PJS/AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, LLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3200
          Fax: 612-218-4870


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GT SOLAR: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of GT Solar
International, Inc., in connection with the Company's July 23,
2008 initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that GT Solar and certain of its officers,
directors, and underwriters violated the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934.  On July 23, 2008, GT Solar closed its initial
public offering of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 a share.
According to the complaint, since June 2005, GT Solar has
entered into a number of contracts for the sale of equipment and
technology to LDK Solar Co. Ltd.  Since then, the importance of
GT Solar's relationship with LDK has grown.  In the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2008, LDK reportedly accounted for 63% of GT
Solar's revenue.

According to the complaint, GT Solar misrepresented or failed to
disclose that it was at a serious risk of losing its contracts
with LDK because of delays in shipping equipment to LDK and that
this would severely impact GT Solar's business.  As a result of
Defendants' failure to disclose the material facts concerning
LDK, GT Solar's stock sold at inflated levels in the IPO.  Once
the reality of LDK and GT Solar's relationship came to light,
the Company's shares dropped 14% to close at $12.42 per share, a
30% drop from the $16.50 per share price during the Company's
IPO.

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

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          The Duvall Foundry
          1050 30th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000
                 877-337-1050 (toll free)
          Fax: 202-337-8090
          e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com
          Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/


PERINI CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Perini Corp. common
stock during the period between Nov. 2, 2006, and Jan. 17, 2008.

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

Perini and its subsidiaries offer general contracting,
construction management, and design-build services to private
clients and public agencies worldwide.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose:

     (a) that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada
         projects, including the CityCenter Project, was
         experiencing financial problems because it failed to
         secure financing for the entire project and was
         dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing
         from the expected sale of residential units.  However,
         the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based
         on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the
         condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak;

     (b) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being
         delayed, and could possibly be halted;

     (c) that the developer was in risk of defaulting on its
         construction loan;

     (d) that the Company's future revenue and profit was
         dependent upon the Las Vegas projects since the
         projects consisted of approximately 20% of its backlog;
         and

     (e) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         maintain its profit margins was in serious doubt.

Then, on January 17, 2008, the Company issued a press release
announcing that Deutsche Bank "delivered a notice of loan
default to the developer of the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino
project under construction in Las Vegas, Nevada."  In response
to this announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell
$10.05 per share, or 27%, to close at $27.65 per share, on heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Perini common stock during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900


REDDY ICE: Spector Roseman Commences Michigan Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., commenced a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.,
between August 10, 2005, through March 6, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects in
violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the
complaint, from at least 2002 to the present, defendants engaged
in a conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially raise,
fix, maintain or stabilize prices for packaged ice in the United
States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1.

Additionally, it is alleged that defendants divided up the
packaged ice market so that they would not compete with other
packaged ice makers, such as Arctic Glacier International, Inc.,
and Home City Ice Co.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Reddy Ice failed to disclose that:

     (a) the Company was recognizing significant amounts of
         revenues derived from illegal activities in violation
         of the U.S. antitrust laws; and

     (b) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
         not a fair presentation of Reddy Ice's results and were
         presented in violation of U.S. Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange
         Commission rules.

On March 6, 2008, after the markets closed, Reddy Ice issued a
press release announcing that "federal officials executed a
search warrant at the Company's corporate office in Dallas on
March 5, 2008."  Upon this news, on the next trading day, shares
of the Company's stock fell $7.73 per share, or 33%, to close at
$15.38 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

           Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
           Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
           1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Phone: 888-844-5862


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Resolves ASARCO Confidentiality Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Schmidt resolves the objections filed by Mt.
McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company, as
well as the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to the request of
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of ASARCO LLC's
subsidiaries to prohibit the disclosure of personal information
of asbestos claimants.

Judge Schmidt ruled that MMIC and FFIC may receive copies of all
asbestos claims, including materials and supporting documents
for the purpose of prosecuting or defending any interest MMIC
may assert against the Debtors; provided that:

     (a) MMIC and FFIC will maintain copies of the asbestos
         claims materials on a confidential basis and not
         disseminate or disclose the information for other
         purposes; and

     (b) To the extent that MMIC uses the Asbestos Claims
         Materials in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, these will
         be filed under seal with the Court.

Judge Schmidt also ruled that if an entity in possession of the
Asbestos Claims Materials receives a subpoena or other request
seeking production of Asbestos Claims Materials, that entity
will immediately notify the counsel for the Asbestos Committee,
indicating the Asbestos Claims Materials sought and enclosing a
copy of the subpoena or other request, at least 10 days before
the deadline of the requested production or other disclosure.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 79; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McVay to Help in ASARCO Committee Selection
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Trustee for Region 7 Charles F. McVay informs ASARCO LLC
that he agrees to cooperate with the Debtors in the selection,
addition, and appointment of asbestos claimants to the
reconstituted Official Unsecured Creditors Committee for the
Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors.

The U.S. Trustee points out that the Motion seeks the
establishment of a sub committee within the reconstituted
creditors' committee for the Asbestos Debtors to resolve
conflicts, if they arise. He says conflicts should be addressed
in the bylaws of the reconstituted committee.

Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation ask for more
time to allow them to conclude negotiations, or allow them to
present orally their position on the request.

Luc A. Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP in
New York, tells the Court that Asarco Inc., the Asbestos
Subsidiaries' Committee and the Future Claims Representative
have been actively engaged in constructive negotiations to
settle and resolve the asbestos-related claims.

Mr. Despins says that although there is no certainty that a
settlement will be reached, the parties are very close to a
consensual resolution, which would subsume the issues subject to
the Motions. In the event that a settlement cannot be reached,
then Asarco Inc. and AMC reserve their rights to take a position
with respect to the Motions when considered by the Court.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 79; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,741 Abex Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at June 30, 2008, recorded 25,741
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo Abex Corporation.

At March 31, 2008, the Company recorded 29,599 pending asbestos-
related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex
Corporation. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex product line obtained from
Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through
subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was
sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
Aug. 17, 1998 ("1998 Agreement").

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex product line and any
potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo under a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware has confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company
and Federal-Mogul have reached a settlement agreement, resolving
Federal-Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex product line ("Abex Claims"), the
Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant
insurance for such claims.

Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-
Mogul and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through
June 30, 2008, a total of 145,070 Abex Claims were filed, of
which 119,329 claims have been resolved.

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, 1,536 claims were
filed and 5,245 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,100
before insurance. A total of US$138 million was spent on defense
costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2008.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is
currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to
exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with
certain excess insurers.

Headquartered in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes
electrical products, tools, hardware, and metal support
products. Subsidiary Cooper B-Line makes metal support products
that include conduits, cable trays, and fasteners. Customers in
the United States provide more than 70 percent of the Company's
sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,185 Remaining Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of July 15, 2008, 1,185
asbestos cases remain against its subsidiary Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corporation, out of 3,312 asbestos cases filed.

Central Hudson, as of April 15, 2008, had about 1,183 asbestos
cases remaining of the 3,310 cases filed against Central Hudson.
(Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,976
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.
provides electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary
Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000
customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River
Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-
square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to
Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in several
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the
Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and
mixed dust.

About 470 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a
total of about 6,500 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of
about 3,400 former plaintiffs have been administratively
dismissed from Ohio State Courts.

The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has not accrued any amounts for this litigation
because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to
reasonably estimate the liability, if any.

The Company faced about 470 pending injury cases, including
asbestos, involving a total of about 7,000 plaintiffs and their
spouses. (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008)

Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. operates in the
component products industry through its majority-owned
subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company also owns a
non-controlling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. Valhi owns 83
percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Facing 115,000 Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had 115,000 open asbestos-related claims for the
nine months ended June 30, 2008, compared with 139,000 claims
for the nine months ended June 30, 2007.

The Company recorded 117,000 open asbestos claims filed against
it for the six months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
145,000 for the six months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, May 23, 2008)

During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted
2,000 claims settled and 20,000 claims dismissed. During the
nine months ended June 30, 2007, the Company noted 1,000 claims
settled and 26,000 claims dismissed.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.

Although Riley was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-
containing components provided by other companies.

Because claims are frequently filed and settled in large groups,
the amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims
can fluctuate significantly from period to period. Since Oct. 1,
2004, the Company has been dismissed as a defendant in 88
percent of the resolved claims.

New claims filed for the nine months ended June 30, 2008 were
3,154 claims (3,525 claims for the nine months ended June 30,
2007).

During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2008 quarter, it was determined that the reserve
adjustment for asbestos claims should be increased by US$2
million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$580 million
at June 30, 2008, compared with US$610 million at Sept. 30, 2007
and US$617 million at June 30, 2007.

At June 30, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$468 million, of which US$74 million relates to
costs previously paid.

Receivables from insurers amounted to US$488 million at Sept.
30, 2007 and US$490 million at June 30, 2007. The receivable was
increased by US$8 million during the June 2008 quarter.

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: Exide to Indemnify French Agency for $300T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exide Technologies, in calendar 2007, had been adjudged liable
to indemnify a French governmental agency for about US$300,000
for asbestos claims.

From 1957 to 1982, CEAC, the Company's principal French
subsidiary, Compagnie Europenne D Accumulateurs (d/b/a CEAC)
operated a plant using crocidolite asbestos fibers in the
formation of battery cases, which, once formed, encapsulated the
fibers.

About 1,500 employees worked in the plant over the period. Since
1982, the French governmental agency responsible for worker
illness claims received 64 employee claims alleging asbestos-
related illnesses.

For some of those claims, CEAC is obligated to and has
indemnified the agency in accordance with French law for about
US$400,000 in calendar 2004.

In addition, CEAC has been adjudged liable to indemnify the
agency for about US$100,000 during the same period for the
dependents of four such claimants. The Company was not required
to indemnify or make any payments in calendar years 2005 and
2006.

Headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., Exide Technologies produces
and recycles lead-acid batteries. The Company's four business
segments, Transportation Americas, Transportation Europe and
Rest of World, Industrial Energy Americas, and Industrial Energy
Europe and ROW, provide stored electrical energy products and
services for transportation and industrial applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.541B for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserve for
losses and loss expenses was US$3.541 billion for the six months
ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$4.079 billion for the six
months ended June 30, 2007.

The Company's gross asbestos reserves for losses and loss
expenses were US$3.598 billion for the three months ended
March 31, 2008, compared with US$4.313 billion for the three
months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 16,
2008)

The Company's net asbestos reserve for losses and loss expenses
was US$1.288 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008,
compared with US$1.596 billion for the six months ended June 30,
2007.

Most of the claims arise from policies written in 1984 and prior
years.

The Company's gross reserve for losses and loss expenses for
incurred-but-not-reported asbestos claims was US$2.520 billion
for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$3.068
billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007.

The Company's net reserve for losses and loss expenses for IBNR
asbestos claims was US$997 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2008, compared with US$1.279 billion for the six months
ended June 30, 2007.

For the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company had 392
claims opened, 97 claims settled, 551 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,307 claims at end of period.

For the six months ended June 30, 2007, the Company had 300
claims opened, 66 claims settled, 544 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,568 claims at end of period.

The Company's survival ratios for asbestos claims were a gross
of 5.7 years (net of 4.3 years) at June 30, 2008, compared with
a gross of 8.6 years (net of 7.4 years) at June 30, 2007.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc.
provides insurance, financial and investment products and
services to both businesses and individuals in more than 130
countries and jurisdictions. The Company's subsidiaries serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through a
property-casualty and life insurance and retirement services
network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Still Facing 1,500 Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at June 30, 2008, faced
about 1,500 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company N.V. faced about 1,500 pending asbestos-related
claims as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 9,
2008)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed
at various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through June 30, 2008, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700
plaintiffs. Of those claims, 3,200 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements.

Through June 30, 2008, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount per claim of about US$1,000.

With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, the Company cannot
identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient
certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a
reasonable estimate of liability, if any.

At June 30, 2008, the Company had accrued US$1,335,000 for
liability and related expenses.

Headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge &
Iron Company N.V. is a global specialty engineering and
construction company that maintains liquefied natural gas
storage tanks; petrochemical and gas processing plants; steel
pressure vessels for high-temperature applications; and heat
transfer equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Reserves $1.25Bil at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's asbestos claims reserves were US$1.25
billion (net of insurance recoverables of US$724) at June 30,
2008.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's asbestos claims reserves were
US$1.30 billion (net of reinsurance recoverables of US$752
million).

The Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.28 billion
(US$737 million net) at March 31, 2008, compared with US$1.30
billion (US$752 million) at Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, May 23, 2008)

About 63 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 were for incurred
but not reported estimated losses.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation
sells auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance
products in Canada and the United States. The Company's life
insurance subsidiaries include Allstate Life, American Heritage
Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Cites 34,735 Cases at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of June 27, 2008, was a defendant
in about 34,735 asbestos cases, in which about 1,253 were non-
maritime cases and 33,482 were maritime cases.

These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States.

As of March 28, 2008, the Company was a defendant in about
34,717 asbestos-related cases, in which about 1,269 were non-
maritime cases and 33,448 were maritime cases. (Class Action
Reporter, May 16, 2008)

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by the Company.

As of June 27, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has accrued,
on a gross basis, about US$5.2 million and has recorded about
US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits.

Headquartered in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable
Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes copper, aluminum, and fiber optic wire and cable
products. The Company manages its worldwide operations based on
three geographical reportable segments: 1) North America, 2)
Europe and North Africa and 3) Rest of World (ROW).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Anadarko Petroleum
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face various
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene while working at refineries.

These refineries were previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies and are located in Texas, California and
Oklahoma.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation explores for, develops, produces, gathers,
processes, and markets natural gas, crude oil, condensate and
natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the hard
minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and
royalty arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Faces Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to face cases alleging
injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to
asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seeks damages from the Company alone.

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care
products. The Company's major customers include home improvement
centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware
chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers,
food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and
specialty crop growers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Facing 38 Suits as of July 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at July 31, 2008, faces 38 asbestos lawsuits,
one of which is scheduled for trial in 2008.

The Company faces lawsuits that are incidental to its operations
in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages for personal injury, including claims purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.

At April 30, 2008, the Company faced about 38 asbestos-related
lawsuits, two of which were scheduled for trial in 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corporation is an
offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The
Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62
offshore drilling units located worldwide, including the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico, the Middle East, India, Mexico, the North Sea,
Brazil, and West Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Facing 848 Claims in W.Va., Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s asbestos exposure claims, as of
June 30, 2008, totaled 848, of which 842 were filed in West
Virginia and four were filed in Pennsylvania.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced 838 claims alleging
exposure to asbestos in West Virginia. The Company also faced
three claims in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, May 16,
2008)

The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging
bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture,
sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the
Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities.

The Company's historical operations were insured by various
foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.
Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers,
and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient
insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits.

Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is involved in three asbestos and environmental
insurance-related actions:

     -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v.
        Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733
        (Washington County, Md.),

     -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain
        Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market
        Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia
        County, W.Va.) and

     -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual
        Insurance Insurance Company, Civil Action No.
        07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior Court, Mass.).

The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage
under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental
claims.

Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an
integrated energy business that owns and operates electric
generation facilities and delivers electric services to
customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.
The Company's two business segments are the Delivery and
Services segment and the Generation and Marketing segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 8, 2008.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been
found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in
any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Roseland, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation
designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and
systems and provides highly engineered products and services to
the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing,
oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power
generation, security, and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s utilities still face asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York State and federal courts,
wherein plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.

The Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$10
million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers' compensation claims.

At June 30, 2008, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$114 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$38 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos
suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$116 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$41 million.

At June 30, 2008, ConEd of New York's accrued liability for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$108 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation were US$38 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, ConEd of New York's accrued liability for
asbestos suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$10 million, its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$111 million, and its regulatory
assets for workers' compensation were US$41 million.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Enters Joint Proposal with N.Y. PSC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., in August 2008,
entered into a Joint Proposal with the staff of the New York
Public State Commission (PSC) and the New York State Consumer
Protection Board over the PSC's ongoing proceeding relating to
the steam main rupture.

Con Edison of New York is a Consolidated Edison, Inc.
subsidiary.

In July 2007, a Con Edison of New York steam main located in
midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person
died and others were injured as a result of the incident.
Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos.

The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.

As of June 30, 2008, with respect to the incident, the Company
incurred estimated operating costs of US$35 million for property
damage, clean up and other response costs, recorded US$21
million in actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested
US$12 million in capital, retirement and other costs.

Over 50 suits are pending against the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.

The Company has notified its insurers of the incident and
believes that the policies currently in force will cover most of
the Company's costs to satisfy its liability to others in
connection with the incident.

Under the Joint Proposal, which is subject to PSC approval, the
Company:

     -- Will not recover from customers the operating, capital
        and retirement costs it incurred as a result of the
        steam main rupture;

     -- Will, in general, effectively be limited in its
        recovery from customers of premiums for its excess
        liability insurance policies for each of the policy
        years beginning April 2008 through April 2011 to amounts
        designed to prevent recovery of any premium increase
        resulting from the steam main rupture; and

     -- Will be released from all prudence-related claims that
        were or could have been asserted in any PSC proceeding
        relating to the steam main rupture other than with
        respect to any damage to company facilities, or
        incremental costs, that are neither known nor
        reasonably foreseeable.

The Joint Proposal does not preclude the PSC from pursuing a
penalty action for any violations of the Public Service Law or
the PSC's regulations or orders.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to
about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 29 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. says that 29 asbestos personal injury cases are
scheduled for trial in 2008, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

At July 28, 2008, the Company was aware of 136 asbestos cases,
in which it was one of many defendants.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of
those products more than 20 years ago.

Through July 28, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in about 235 similar cases
without any going to trial, and with 22 of these involving any
payment to the claimant.

The Company has insurance that it believes should cover a
significant portion of any defense or settlement costs borne by
the Company in these types of cases.

The Company cited 40 asbestos-related actions scheduled for
trial in 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)

Headquartered in St. Louis, Belden Inc. We designs,
manufactures, and markets signal transmission solutions,
including cable, connectivity and active components for mission-
critical applications in markets ranging from industrial
automation to data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. IDEX, Units Ongoing in 30 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries still face
lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries in
30 states.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

These cases were filed stemming from exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos. Those
components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance have been settled for various insignificant
amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., IDEX Corporation is an
applied solutions company specializing in fluid and metering
technologies, health and science technologies, dispensing
equipment, and fire, safety and other diversified products. The
Company has four segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health
& Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment and Fire &
Safety/Diversified Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,292 Claims Pending v. Harsco at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of June 30, 2008, faced about 26,292
pending asbestos personal injury claims, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Of these cases, 25,751 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims,
totaling 541, are filed in various counties in a number of state
courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New
York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 17,770
cases.

As of March 31, 2008, the Company faced 26,275 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
May 23, 2008)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against about 90 defendants.

The Company expects to continue to receive additional claims.
However, there have been developments during the past several
years, both by certain state legislatures and by certain state
courts, which could favorably affect the Company's ability to
defend these asbestos claims in those jurisdictions.

An example is the action taken by the New York Supreme Court (a
trial court), which is responsible for managing all asbestos
cases pending within New York County in the State of New York.
This Court issued an order in December 2002 that created a
Deferred or Inactive Docket for all pending and future asbestos
claims filed by plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have
a malignant condition or discernable physical impairment, and an
Active or In Extremis Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show
such medical condition.

As a result of this order, the majority of the asbestos cases
filed against the Company in New York County have been moved to
the Inactive Docket until such time as the plaintiff can show
that they have incurred a physical impairment.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 396 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.
The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs.

Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation's mill
services unit, MultiServ, offers metal reclamation, slag
processing, scrap management, and other services for steel and
nonferrous metals producers. The Company's Access Services
businesses, SGB Group, Hunnebeck Group, and Patent Construction
Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment, scaffolding,
and bridge-decking products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 192 Claims at June 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced 192 pending asbestos-related claims as
of June 29, 2008, compared with 185 pending claims at March 30,
2008 and 175 pending claims at Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. The Company did not
mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos. Rather, it made some
limited products, which contained encapsulated asbestos. Those
products were provided to industrial users. The Company stopped
manufacturing these products in 1987.

Of 192 claims pending as of June 29, 2008, 53 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 134 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and five claims (or about 2.6 percent of
the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these five claims, one claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages, each of US$20 million; two claims allege
compensatory and punitive damages, each of US$1 million, and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and
two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and
punitive damages of US$60 million. These five claims name
between nine and 76 defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.

In the six month period ended June 29, 2008, the Company was
able to have about 26 claims dismissed and did not have to
settle any claims. For the full year 2007, about 59 claims were
dismissed and 12 were settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about
US$2 million in 2007.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
makes high performance, specialty-material-based products for
applications in diverse markets including: portable
communications, communications infrastructure, computer and
office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation,
aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l. Still Facing Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Essex Inc.'s affiliate, Essex International Inc., and
certain subsidiaries have been facing asbestos-related product
liability lawsuits since about 1990.

These suits were brought by electricians, other skilled
tradesmen and others claiming injury, in a substantial majority
of cases, from exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire
products produced many years ago.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999.

Under the settlement, Essex International was reimbursed for
substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should
become necessary, will indemnify Essex International against
those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the
respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in
these actions will be able to assert claims against the insurers
under applicable insurance coverage and related arrangements.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Superior Essex Inc. manufactures and
supplies wire and cable products for the communications, energy,
automotive, industrial, and commercial/residential end-markets.
The Company also distributes magnet wire, insulation, and
related products sold to smaller original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and motor repair facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Suits Pending v. RBS at June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. faces 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (about
6,950 claimants) pertaining to its Stearns division or its
predecessor owners as of June 28, 2008.

These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by Stearns division or the predecessor
owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits.

The Company said that certain subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in about 690 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about
6,850 claimants) relating to its Stearns division. (Class Action
Reporter, June 6, 2008)

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global,
diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two
strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Prager Unit Still Facing 2 Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary continues to face two
multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.

About 3,700 claimants are in the Prager lawsuits. To date, the
Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the costs
related to the Prager lawsuits.

The Company said it believes that the combination of its
insurance coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these suits.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global,
diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two
strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 150 Actions Pending v. Falk Unit at June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global Inc.'s Falk unit face about 150 lawsuits pending in
state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of
asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured
by Falk.

About 2,230 claimants are in these suits.

Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies
Corporation, is defending Falk in these lawsuits under its
indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to
date.

Falk faced about 130 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action
Reporter, June 6, 2006)

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global,
diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two
strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases v. Zurn Drop to 6T at June 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of RBS Global, Inc.'s Water Management (WM) subsidiaries,
Zurn Industries, LLC, faces about 6,000 asbestos-related cases
representing about 45,000 claims as of June 28, 2008.

Zurn faced about 6,900 asbestos-related cases representing about
45,000 claims. (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2008)

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$14.2
billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims allege
personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily
in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of
Zurn.

Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled under a defense strategy funded by insurers.

The Company estimates the potential liability for asbestos-
related claims pending against Zurn as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next 10 years is about US$134
million, of which Zurn expects to pay about US$116 million in
the next 10 years on those claims, with the balance of the
estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of June 28, 2008, is about
US$280.5 million, and believes that all current claims are
covered by this insurance.

However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of
certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage
gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have
paid the first US$204.5 million of aggregate liabilities.

In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would
need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims.

Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$280.5
million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims.

As of June 28, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$280.5 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$280.5
million.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is a global,
diversified, multi-platform industrial company comprised of two
strategic segments, Power Transmission and Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. BJ Services in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits are still ongoing against BJ Services
Company in Mississippi Courts, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In August 2004, certain predecessors of the Company, along with
numerous other defendants were named in four lawsuits filed in
the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi.

These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging
that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and
seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness,
negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of
the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, about 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer.

Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the
Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were
dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the
Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos containing
products so it was thereby dismissed.

Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought
his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is
named as an employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits.

It is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified
the Company or its predecessors as their employer could file
suit against the Company, but they have not done so at this
time.

Minimal medical information regarding the alleged asbestos-
related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two lawsuits
has been provided. Accordingly, the Company has been unable to
estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits.

The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained
insurance, which may be available to respond to these claims. In
addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a
small number of additional asbestos cases.

The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include
claims that the Company provided some unspecified product or
service which contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee
was exposed to asbestos at one of its facilities or customer job
sites.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Company.

To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of those cases without any payment in settlements or judgments,
although some remain pending at the present time.

Headquartered in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure
pumping, well completion, production enhancement and pipeline
services to the petroleum industry. Services are provided
through four business segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping,
Canada Pressure Pumping, International Pressure Pumping and the
Oilfield Services Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Ongoing v. Transocean Units
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of Transocean Inc. continue to face
asbestos-related claims in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, these subsidiaries were named in 21 complaints
involving about 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal injury
arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their
employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of
TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the
Company may owe indemnity. The complaints also named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos.

The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos-
containing products in connection with drilling operations and
included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The
plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases
required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint
and then he dismissed the original 21 complaints.

The Company said it believes that it may have a direct or
indirect interest in 44 of the resulting complaints.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in
all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to
asbestos, their medical condition or the vessels potentially
involved in the claims.

The Company historically has maintained broad liability
insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will
cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims.

Headquartered in Houston, Transocean Inc. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30,
2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. The Company's fleet
consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters, 29 Midwater
Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and
four Other Rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Facing 976 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed subsidiary of Transocean Inc., as of June 30, 2008,
was a defendant in about 976 asbestos lawsuits, of which 102
were filed during 2007.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are about 3,219 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits.

As of March 31, 2008, the subsidiary faced about 1,006 lawsuits,
of which 102 were filed during 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
May 16, 2008)

The subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes. The operating
assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations
discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets
other than the insurance policies involved in its litigation,
fundings from settlements with the primary insurers and funds
received from the cancellation of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of those claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries.

The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against
this subsidiary in 1990.

Through June 30, 2008, the amounts expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement
costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect
to the primary insurance have been satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits and the Company cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can
the Company predict the potential costs to resolve such
additional cases or to resolve the pending cases.

However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in
insurance limits.

Headquartered in Houston, Transocean Inc. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30,
2008, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 137 mobile offshore drilling units. The Company's fleet
consisted of 39 High-Specification Floaters, 29 Midwater
Floaters, 10 High-Specification Jackups, 55 Standard Jackups and
four Other Rigs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wabtec, Units Still Facing Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec)
and certain of its affiliates continue to face claims filed in
various jurisdictions across the United States by persons
alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products.

Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the
resolution of these claims may take a significant period of
time.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, and
are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation provides products and services for the
global rail industry. Its products are found on virtually all
U.S. locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles,
as well as in more than 100 countries. The Company has
operations in 12 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Facing Suits in Miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Pride International, Inc., since 2004,
have been facing several asbestos-related complaints, according
to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

These complaints have been filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi by several hundred individuals that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
about 1965 and 1986.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Headquartered in Houston, Pride International, Inc. provides
offshore contract drilling services. The Company provides these
services to oil and natural gas exploration and production
companies through the operation and management of 47 offshore
rigs. The Company also has three ultra-deepwater drillships
under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2008, is still a co-
defendant in about 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about
8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

At March 31, 2008, the Company was a co-defendant in about 365
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount
of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on
a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to
identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

The Company's cost of defending these lawsuits has not been
material to date.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is an
industrial Total Supply Management(TM) and diversified
manufacturing business, operating in three segments: Supply
Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kraton Still Indemnified by Shell Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals continues to indemnify Kraton Polymers LLC on
workplace asbestos exposure claims at the Company's Belpre, Ohio
facility, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 12, 2008.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell
Chemicals relating to the separation from Shell Chemicals in
2001, Shell Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for
certain liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims
against the Company by a third party relating to matters arising
prior to the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In
particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio
facility.

The Company is indemnified by Shell Chemicals with respect to
these claims. In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have
entered into a consent order relating to certain environmental
remediation at the Belpre facility.

Headquartered in Houston, Kraton Polymers LLC produces styrenic
block copolymers ("SBCs"), specialty chemical products whose
chemistry the Company pioneered over 40 years ago. The Company
operates in the United States, Germany, France, The Netherlands,
Brazil and Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IntriCon Still Facing 122 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is still a co-defendant in about 122
asbestos lawsuits as of June 30, 2008, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company faced about 122 asbestos-related lawsuits as of
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

Due to the noninformative nature of the complaints, the Company
does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims
against it.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies. The Company has requested that the
carriers substantiate this situation.

The Company said it believes it has additional policies
available for other years, which have been ignored by the
carriers.

Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation (f/k/a
Selas Corporation of America) designs, develops, engineers and
manufactures body-worn devices. The Company has one operating
segment, its precision miniature medical and electronics
products segment. The Company focuses on four markets within
this segment: medical, hearing health, professional audio and
electronics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Ongoing v. Imperial Ind. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Imperial Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries (DFH, Inc.;
Just-Rite Supply, Inc.; and Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co.)
face legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of
its business, including asbestos-related claims.

Those claims include five claims against Premix (one of which
includes the Company as a defendant) and non-affiliated parties,
which allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained
in products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers that have provided product liability coverage to the
Company, including potential coverage for alleged injuries
relating to asbestos exposure.

The majority of these insurance carriers are providing a defense
to Premix and the Company under a reservation of rights in all
of these asbestos cases.

Further, although a few of these underlying insurance carriers
have denied coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that
certain exclusions preclude coverage under the subject insurance
policies, the Company said it believes that Premix and the
Company have more than adequate insurance coverage for these
asbestos claims and those policies are not subject to S.I.R.
Requirements.

Further, the Company and Premix have substantial umbrella or
excess coverage for these claims in addition to the underlying
insurance.

None of Premix's or the Company's currently manufactured
products contain asbestos.

Headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla., Imperial Industries, Inc.
manufactures and sells exterior and interior finishing wall
coatings and mortar products for the construction industry. The
Company also purchases and resells building materials from other
manufacturers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Locker Facing 45 Lawsuits at May 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated, as of May 9, 2008, faces
about 45 unresolved asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 18, 2008.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through Aug. 18,
2008, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in
about 165 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts.

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

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

Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's
insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.

Settlement agreements have been entered in about 20 cases with
funds authorized and provided by the Company's insurance
carrier.

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

Headquartered in Grapevine, Tex., American Locker Group
Incorporated sells and rents coin-, key-, and electronically
controlled lockers used by the recreation and transportation
industries, bookstores, and libraries. The Company also makes a
coin- and credit card-operated baggage cart system for use in
airports.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Worker's Suit Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharleen Craig of Virginia, on Aug. 14, 2008, filed an asbestos
complaint against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Craig claims she was employed from 1944 to 1993 as a
janitor, waitress, cook and garment inspector at various
locations. She was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 6, 2008.

Ms. Craig claims the defendants failed to exercise ordinary care
and caution for her safety by including asbestos in their
products when adequate substitutes were available.

Ms. Craig alleges her disease has disabled and disfigured her,
causes great physical pain and mental anguish and has caused and
will continue to cause medical expenses.

Ms. Craig, who seeks a judgment in excess of US$100,000, is
represented by Robert Phillips, Esq., Nicholas Angelides, Esq.,
John Barnerd, Esq., and Perry Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack handles all asbestos
cases in the county, including Case No. 08 L 719.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glenn's Suit Filed v. 66 Firms in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seals Glenn, Jr. of Georgia, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 66 defendant corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Some of the defendants include, Bondex International Inc, CBS
Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company,
General Motors Corporation, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois,
Inc., and Pfizer Inc.

Mr. Glenn claims he was employed from 1949 to 1994 as a
carpenter's apprentice, deck hand, truck driver, laborer,
fabricator and instructor at various locations throughout
Illinois and Georgia.

Mr. Glenn claims during the course of his employment, he
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from products he was working with and around.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Glenn was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on April 28, 2008.

Mr. Glenn seeks damages in excess of US$550,000 for negligence,
willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of
evidence among other allegations.

John Barnerd, Esq., and Randy Cohn, Esq., from SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Glenn.

Case No. 08 L 723 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodman's Action Filed v. CSX in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Edgar Goodman has filed a Federal Employers'
Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court,
Ill., against CSX Transportation Inc., Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Goodman worked as a signalman for CSX Transportation between
1947 and 1951, and was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma
several decades later, in July 2005.

The complaint states Mr. Goodman worked with and around
asbestos-containing materials, which included block and pipe
insulation, joint compounds, cement products, gaskets, and brake
shoes.

Mr. Goodman's family is claiming compensation under FELA, which
was designed and implemented with the purpose of providing
compensation for railroad employees who are injured during the
course of their employment.

Mr. Goodman's family believes CSX Transportation either knew or
should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos
exposure and claims Mr. Goodman's exposure was foreseeable and
should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Mr. Goodman's family also claims that CSX violated FELA because
the Company was negligent in failing to provide Mr. Goodman a
safe place to work, proper safety equipment, and failing to warn
Mr. Goodman of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

In addition, the Goodman family is stating the Company failed to
test asbestos-containing products before employees used them,
failed to provide adequate ventilation in repair facilities, and
failed to require employees to handle asbestos safely.

Mr. Goodman's estate claims at least US$250,000 in damages and
legal costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kirk's Suit Filed v. 89 Firms in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Kirk, a laborer and truck driver from Ohio, on Aug. 11,
2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 89 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

Represented by Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Drew Sealey, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper of East Alton, Ill., Mr. Kirk alleges that he
first became aware of his disease on June 2, 2008.

Mr. Kirk worked from 1960 until this year, the complaint states.

Mr. Kirk claims the defendants, which include CBS Corporation,
Chrysler LLC, DuPont Chemical, Ford Motor Company, Honeywell
International Inc. and General Electric Company knew or should
have known that the asbestos fibers contained in their products
had a toxic, poisonous and "highly deleterious" effect upon
people who absorbed them.

Mr. Kirk claims forum is appropriate in Madison County because
defendants John Crane, Inc. and Sprinkmann Sons Corp. are
Illinois corporations.

In the suit's third count, Mr. Kirk alleges Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co. conspired with defendants to suppress and
misrepresent the hazards of asbestos exposure.

The complaint states, "Plaintiff remained ignorant and
uninformed of the hazards of asbestos, failed to take
precautions and was thereby exposed to...asbestos fibers,
causing him to develop the asbestos disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LA County Jury Awards $14.876M to Engineer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles County jury has awarded Amanollah Shahabi, an
Iranian-American engineer, US$14.876 million for asbestos
exposure that caused his malignant mesothelioma, according to a
Waters & Kraus, LLP press release dated Aug. 13, 2008.

Mr. Shahabi spent nearly four decades working at oil refineries,
including more than 30 years at oil complexes in Iran. Trained
as an engineer, Mr. Shahabi's expertise was in pre-commissioning
and commissioning major oil refineries for the state-run
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).

During his long-standing tenure with NIOC, Mr. Shahabi brought
at least three major oil refining complexes online, and was
heavily involved in both operations and management.

After moving to the United States in the 1980s, Mr. Shahabi
worked as a consultant while attaining American citizenship. He
later worked for the Chevron oil refinery in El Segundo, Calif.

Beginning in 1951 in Tehran, Iran, Mr. Shahabi's work exposed
him daily over a period of nearly four decades to asbestos-
coated- and asbestos-containing parts. He was diagnosed with
malignant pleural mesothelioma in June 2007.

The jury needed three days to determine that Fluor Corporation
and a host of Fluor-affiliated entities were negligent in their
engineering procurement and construction on of several oil
refineries which contained various asbestos products and
components.

In considering the liability of manufacturers John Crane Inc.
and Fisher, the jury found that Mr. Shahabi was a "sophisticated
user" of their equipment by nature of his education and
training. The judge ruled this an absolute defense to product
liability causes of action; thus those issues were never reached
by the jury.

Mike Armitage, Esq., Waters & Kraus partner and the lead
attorney who filed the case, said, "This case is remarkable on
several counts. It may well be the first-known asbestos exposure
liability case where the construction contractor was held
responsible for the effects of defective products that it
installed but did not manufacture."

Mr. Shahabi was too ill to appear in court. The family received
word of the verdict while at his hospital bedside.

The US$14.876 million verdict included US$13.2 million for pain
and suffering, and US$1.676 million in economic damages.

Fluor was assessed 45 percent liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korando Estate Sues Boeing, et al. in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Wilfred Korando, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against various defendants in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Defendants in the case include: The Boeing Company, Chrysler
LLC, C.P. Hall, Ford Motor Company, General Electric Company,
General Motors Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited,
International Paper Company, John Crane Inc., Maytag
Corporation, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, MetLife Inc.,
Philips Electronics, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and Whirlpool
Corporation.

According to the complaint, Mr. Korando was employed from 1954
through 2004 as a mechanic, washer and dryer maintenance man,
and commercial window installer at various locations throughout
Illinois.

During the course of his employment and during home and
automotive repairs, Mr. Korando's estate claims he was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and around.

Mr. Korando's estate, which seeks damages in excess of
US$250,000, states he died from his illness on Jan. 21, 2007,
after a seven-month battle.

John Barnerd, Esq., and Amy Garrett, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Korando's estate.

Case No. 08 L 724 has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kelley Estate Sues 13 Firms in Ill. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Richard Kelley of Indiana, on Aug. 15, 2008, filed
an asbestos lawsuit against 13 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Kelley's estate claims he was employed from 1958 to 1991 as
personnel manager and plant manager at various locations. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 15, 2005, the same day of
his death.

Mr. Kelley's estate claims the defendants failed to exercise
ordinary care and caution for his safety by including asbestos
in their products when adequate substitutes were available.

The estate alleges that prior to his death, Mr. Kelley's disease
disabled and disfigured him, suffered great physical pain and
mental anguish and caused large sums of medical expenses.

Mr. Kelley's daughter, Florence Kelley, is the administrator of
his estate. She seeks a judgment in excess of US$100,000.

Mr. Kelley's estate is represented by Robert Phillips, Esq.,
Nicholas Angelides, Esq., John Barnerd, Esq., and Perry Browder,
Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.

Madison County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Stack handles all
asbestos cases, including Case No. 08 L 726, in the county.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Erie County to Collect $1.2M in Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie County, N.Y., Attorney Cheryl A. Green, Esq., said that the
County will collect about US$1.2 million as its share of a
lawsuit against makers of asbestos, The Buffalo News reports.

Erie County joined the lawsuit years ago, when Dennis T. Gorski
was county executive. An army of plaintiffs around the country
were filing claims against Celotex Corp. and Carey Canada.

Celotex was a major manufacturer and nationwide distributor of
building materials containing asbestos. Carey Canada, a Celotex
subsidiary, mined and distributed asbestos fiber until it halted
operations in 1986.

Celotex and Carey Canada sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in October 1990 after being named in thousands of lawsuits filed
by people claiming personal injury from asbestos, and by
property owners with asbestos materials in their buildings.

Erie County was one of those "property damage" plaintiffs, along
with dozens of other governments and public institutions.

Ms. Green said a class-action settlement was recently cleared
and Erie County will collect about US$1.2 million with interest.

The amount is not enough to clear county-owned buildings of all
of their asbestos. Removing asbestos from one floor of the 16-
floor Rath County Office Building two years ago required about
US$400,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-BNFL Employee's Widow Gets Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Rumney, the widow of 71-year-old Ronald Rumney, who worked
at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), received an undisclosed six-
figure compensation, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

Mr. Rumney worked for BNFL for 40 years after training to be an
electrician with the Company between 1952 and 1957. He returned
to work at the Sellafield site in Cumbria, England, in 1960
until he retired in 1994.

Mr. Rumney was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2007. He
died three weeks later.

Mr. Rumney felt strongly about claiming compensation for his
condition. Mrs. Rumney instructed asbestos claims experts
Thompsons Solicitors to take up the claim following his death.

Mrs. Rumney, who also worked at Sellafield and was married to
Ronald for 50 years, said he would be satisfied the case has now
been settled.

Joanne Candlish, client representative at Thompsons Solicitors,
added, "It was very important for Mrs. Rumney to bring this case
to a successful conclusion."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marine Atlantic Crew Claims to be Expedited
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers who were exposed to asbestos on a Marine Atlantic ferry
will have their claims with the Workers' Compensation Board
fast-tracked in the event they become sick due to the exposure,
globeandmail.com reports.

Sue Irvine, president of Local 4285 of the Canadian Auto Workers
union, says this will enable employees who have worked on the
Atlantic Freighter to open a claim immediately.

The issue surfaced in October 2007 when asbestos was discovered
in some areas of the 30-year-old ferry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial For Whisnant Case Set for Feb. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new trial in the asbestos-related case filed by Willis
Whisnant, Jr. against E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company is
scheduled for Feb. 9, 2009, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Early in 2008, attorneys for DuPont convinced a Jefferson County
jury that the Company was not responsible for Mr. Whisnant's
mesothelioma. However, after the judge granted Mr. Whisnant's
motion for a new trial, the defendants are back to gathering
evidence.

A six week trial was held in February 2008 and March 2008 in the
court of Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District. The plaintiffs
claimed that Mr. Whisnant contracted mesothelioma and died
because of his exposure to asbestos at DuPont's Sabine River
Works.

Mr. Whisnant was a former B.F. Shaw pipe fitter who worked at
DuPont back in 1966 as an independent contractor. However,
jurors found no negligence on the part of DuPont and awarded
nothing to Mr. Whisnant's family.

In May 2008, plaintiffs' attorney Glen Morgan, Esq., partner at
Beaumont's Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, said during the trial there
had been indisputable evidence that DuPont knew of the hazards
of asbestos for decades, but failed to provide a reasonably safe
place to work or properly warn workers of the danger.

Mr. Morgan contended that the jury verdict was completely
contradictory to the preponderance of the evidence. He submitted
a motion for a new trial.

Without giving a reason for his decision, Judge Floyd granted
Morgan's motion May 28, 2008. Mr. Morgan has asked Judge Floyd's
court coordinator to schedule the new trial for February 2009.

After Judge Floyd agreed to the new trial, DuPont's counsel
asked the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals for a writ of
mandamus, arguing that harmless newspaper reports are not
improper communications to a jury, nor should a judge grant a
new trial on the "speculative inference that jurors read news
articles about the case during the trial."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Renfrew Gets GBP130,375 Payout in Scotland
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Renfrew, a shipyard worker and a mesothelioma sufferer,
won GBP130,375 in damages on Aug. 19, 2008, NEWS.scotsman.com
reports.

Part of the compensation to Mr. Renfrew is to recognize the care
given to him by his wife Margaret since he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

The 63-year-old Mr Renfrew, of Ardrossan, Ayrshire, Scotland,
sued two companies, Lithgows and Scotts' Shipbuilding, over his
exposure to asbestos while working as a painter in Clydeside
yards between 1959 and 1973.

The firms admitted liability but disputed the level of damages
Mr. Renfrew should receive.

The Court of Session was told that Mr. Renfrew began feeling
breathless about New Year 2007, and by the summer he had been
diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma.

An issue in the case was Mr. Renfrew's life expectancy had he
not developed mesothelioma. The longer he could have been
expected to live, the greater the award of damages.

Mr. Renfrew's lawyers argued he could have lived for another 13
years, while the firms said it would have been about three
years.

The judge, Lord Woolman, said medical evidence persuaded him 10
years was correct. He set the payment at GBP130,375, of which
GBP16,672 was for care given by Mrs. Renfrew.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hospital Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Lancashire, England, heard that the death of 75-
year-old hospital employee Walther Thomas Brimelow was linked to
asbestos, the Burnley Express reports.

Mr. Brimelow started legal proceedings against East Lancashire
Hospitals NHS Trust in 2007 after he developed malignant
mesothelioma, which he said developed over years working in
maintenance for the Trust's predecessor.

From the late 1960s, Mr. Brimelow worked at Burnley General,
Victoria, Bank Hall, Hartley and Marsden hospitals, often in the
boiler rooms where he would strip boiler doors and pipework of
asbestos lagging.

Mr. Brimelow moved to Burnley in the 1960s and worked as a
bricklayer before getting the hospital maintenance job. His
wife, Margaret, told the inquest he had told her he had to
remove the lagging with his bare hands and dust would be
released into the air.

Mr. Brimelow had accused his employers of exposing him to risk
of injury, failing to warn him of the risks, failed to damp down
dry asbestos, and of not giving him effective protective
equipment.

Speaking after the inquest, Mrs. Brimelow said since her
husband's death the legal action against the Trust had been
resolved and the family had received compensation.

Dr. Walid Salman, consultant pathologist at Burnley General
Hospital, carried out the post-mortem examination, and told the
inquest a tumor in the right lung had spread to the chest wall,
heart and liver.

East Lancashire Coroner Mr. Richard Taylor said, "I have no
hesitation in this case that my finding is this is a death
caused by industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disabled Woman Awarded GBP160T in Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doreen Brown, an 84-year-old disabled woman, who has fought for
compensation after the death of her daughter five years ago, has
been awarded GBP160,000 by the High Court in London, the
NorwichEveningNews24 reports.

Mrs. Brown, who lives off Old Palace Road, lost her 56-year-old
daughter Linda Pyke to mesothelioma in September 2003. Mrs. Pyke
died after inhaling asbestos dust when working as a seamstress
for Harmer's clothing factory in Havers Road.

Mrs. Pyke had sewn firemen's jackets which were lined with
asbestos while working at the factory for seven years. The dust
had been dormant in her lungs ever since before she developed
mesothelioma in 2003.

Godfrey Morgan, Mrs. Brown's solicitor, said mesothelioma was a
tragic and horrific way to die.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Huddersfield Plumber Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, England, heard that
the death of 81-year-old plumber and heating engineer Maynard
Ineson was linked to exposure to asbestos, The Huddersfield
Daily Examiner reports.

Mr. Ineson died on Feb. 25, 2008 at Kirkwood Hospice in Dalton.

The Huddersfield inquest heard that Mr. Ineson had left school
to work as a plumber in his family’s business. He held this role
until he was in his 50s, when he became a civil servant.

During his earlier career, Mr. Ineson's work involved removing
and replacing boilers and pipes with asbestos linings. This
caused him to breathe in the lethal fibers.

Mr. Ineson had good health until 18 months before his death,
when he got a persistent cough. A biopsy showed he was suffering
from mesothelioma.

Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Urged to Clean Up Abandoned Mine
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Diseases Foundation has urged the New South Wales
Government to clean up an abandoned white asbestos mine at
Barraba, New South Wales, Australia, ABC News reports.

The site was abandoned in the 1980s, leaving a mountain of
tailings containing about 25 million tons of asbestos waste.

The Department of Primary Industries says it does not believe
the tailings pose any risk to the community. However, Barry
Robson from the Asbestos Diseases Foundation says the Government
owes it to the community to clean up the site.

Mr. Robson said, "It's only been 20 years, roughly 20 odd years
since that mine closed. It takes 20, 30, 40 years to come out,
the disease. So for people to say it's not dangerous or there's
been no health problems associated with this mine, well let's
see down the track."

The state MP for Tamworth, Peter Draper, says the Government
should take urgent action to render the mine safe. He says
earlier attempts, over 25 years, have taken a band-aid approach.

Meanwhile, the company hoping to develop the Woodsreef asbestos
mine near Barraba says it is back on track after years of delay.

The chairman of the International Minerals Corporation, Chris
Sylvester, says the company's plans to mine for magnesium and
silica have been held up because of State Government delays and
investor resistance to new technology.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Ruling to Affect Workers Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Supreme Court's new ruling may affect more
people than the laborer who attempted to claim workers'
compensation for developing asbestos-related problems,
TransWorldNews reports.

The court has ruled if a claimant has lung damage that can
partially be attributed to cigarette smoking, that damage can be
separated from any damaged caused by asbestos exposure.

For the claimant George Deschenes, the ruling means a reduced
ability to claim compensation for respiratory diseases like
mesothelioma and asbestosis. According to workers' compensation
lawyers, these so-called "blended" injuries have resulted in
full compensation in the past.

The Connecticut Supreme Court reached its ruling after a lengthy
reconsideration of a decision issued in Mr. Deschenes' case in
2007. This time round, the justices considered more briefs from
lawyers representing injured workers, and have changed the
wording of the original ruling to arrive at their new decision.

In making the decision, the Court had to consider two important
workers' compensation principles: first, the injury must arise
in the course of a workers' employment, and second, that an
employer takes an employee in the state in which the employer
finds him.

Essentially, this means all plaintiffs must be treated equally
in their right to compensation, regardless of any circumstances
that may make them more vulnerable to injury.

Mr. Deschenes' case, however, was ruled to be different because
he had a history of smoking, which is a known risk factor for
many respiratory ailments.

The Supreme Court agreed that if Mr. Deschenes had not been a
smoker, he would have been entitled to full workers'
compensation benefits. The Court also decided that the emphysema
Mr. Deschenes developed was not work-related, but was instead
related to smoking, and therefore he was not entitled to full
compensation.

Nathan J. Shafner, who filed a brief on behalf of the New
England Health Care Employees Union, said, "For the court to
judicially create this apportionment where none had been before
really caught the attention of a lot of people. We saw this as a
runaway train."

Lucas D. Strunk, a representative of Mr. Deschenes' employer,
Transco Inc., said of the decision, "I think what the court has
done is refresh everyone on what the rules are, in adding on a
non-occupational permanent partial disability."

Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr., who wrote the Court's decision,
said the question under consideration had never really been
asked before.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie's Profits Fall 96% in 1st Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s first quarter profits fell by 96
percent on asbestos liabilities and the U.S. Housing downturn,
The Australian reports.

Net operating profit for the three months to June 30, 2008
plunged to US$1.4 million (AUD1.61 million), from US$39.1
million in the same quarter a year ago, the Company said.

Excluding asbestos liabilities, earnings before interest and tax
(EBIT) totaled US$64 million, down 39 percent from the last
corresponding period.

Including asbestos, earnings came in at US$22.9 million, down 69
percent, the building materials supplier said. The Company said,
"Results were significantly affected by further declines in the
U.S. housing market, where housing starts fell 35 percent in the
first quarter, compared to the same period last year."

Net sales of its building products fell 14 percent to US$365
million.

Chief Executive Officer Louis Gries said, "Our main businesses
operated in markets that were affected by downturns,
particularly in the U.S., where the downturn was the most
severe."

Discounting asbestos, market analysts are forecasting the
Company to report operating profit from continuing operations in
fiscal 2009 of between US$97 million and US$130 million.





                            *********

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  * * *