CAR_Public/080905.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 5, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 177

                            Headlines

AMCOMP INC: Settles Florida Suit Over Employers Holdings Merger
AUTO MANUFACTURERS: Misrepresented Extra Charges, Suit Alleges
BEHR AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Lawsuit Over Dayton Toxic Plume
CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Noteholders' Suit Allowed as Class Action
COMPUCREDIT: Pushes "Aspire Visa" with False Claims, Suit Says

CONAGRA FOODS: High-Fructose Corn Syrup Not Natural, Suit Says
DEDA ELEMENTI: Recalls Handlebar Stemmed-Bikes for Crash Hazard
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs & Counsel Named in N.Y. Suit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Motion in "Greenberg" Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York

EBAY INC: Coin Dealers File Antitrust Lawsuit in New York
EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles 2 Store Managers' Lawsuits in California
EMPRESS ARTS: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazards
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Cheap Sale to JDA Software
IRWIN MORTGAGE: "Culpepper" Suit Concluded; No Appeal Filed

IRWIN UNION: Wants Two Lawsuits Over CBNV Loans Thrown Out
MENARDS: Recalls Cordless Screwdrivers Due to Fire, Burn Hazards
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Class Certification in "Haddock"
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Amended "Beary" Complaint Filing
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Acquisition Offer Lawsuits

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Lawsuit on Appeal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Awaits Ruling on "Carr" Summary Judgment Motion
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Wash. ERISA Suit
OLD REPUBLIC: Several Title Insurance Lawsuits Still Pending
OLD REPUBLIC: Faces California Lawsuit by Hispanic Home Buyers

OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Several Consumer Lawsuits Over Premium Rates
OLD REPUBLIC: Washington Lawsuit Alleges RESPA Violations
PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in "Weissmann" Case
PHILLIPS SCREW: Tennessee Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Bum Screws
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Conn. Suit Over Defective Baby Bottles

RAPID REEL: Recalls Portable Hose Carts Due to Injury Hazard
SCOR HOLDING: Dec. 21 Hearing Set for $84MM Securities Suit Deal
SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
U.S. HOME: Faces California Lawsuit Over 386 Defective Houses
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settles "Zilhaver" ERISA Lawsuit for $17 Mln

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settles Minn. Securities Suit for $895 Mln.
WORLDWISE INC: Recalls Dog Leashes Posing Injuries to Dog Owners


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $5M Cleanup Coverage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Facing Suits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Reserves $1.056B for Carolinas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Funding Involved in Liability Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Reserves $871Mil for A&E at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Mueller Water Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Inc. Reserves $311T for Gradall
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 300 Injury Cases Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Facing Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Cases Still Ongoing v. Pepco at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $26.5M for Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Has 241 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Maintains $375,000 Settlement Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.4M for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo A&E Reserves Total $149.5M at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $19.8M A&E Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Still Pending v. Constellation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Facing Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Co. Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Still Facing 1,900 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $200T on Pa. Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Continues to Face Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $45.68M Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $12.84M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,339 Claims Pending v. American Biltrite
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Still Incurs $105T for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Corp. Still Facing Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs Continues to Face Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco, AMC Urge Court to OK Claim Process
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Opposes Motion Over $10Mil DIP Loan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pate Named as Representative in ASARCO Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Armstrong Action Set for Sept. 2
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere & Company Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Insurers Oppose ASARCO's Plan Schedule
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Free Screenings in Libby to End on Sept. 19

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Azizi Gets 10 Months for Handling Violation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Proposes Addition of Borit Site to NPL
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mesothelioma Claims U.K.'s Youngest Victim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichols Case v. 72 Firms Filed on Aug. 25
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Widow Sues 56 Companies in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow of Glass Blower Sues Owens in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ART & KRT Pay ZAR147.5M for African Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Martinez Sues 13 Firms in Madison County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Peterborough Hearing Rules on Whitney Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 13 Companies in Ill. Court


                           *********


AMCOMP INC: Settles Florida Suit Over Employers Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmCOMP, Inc., reached a tentative settlement for a purported
class-action lawsuit in Florida over a merger agreement with
Employers Holdings, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

On Jan. 10, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Employers Holdings, Inc., and Sapphire
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Employers,
providing for Employers' acquisition of AmCOMP.

On March 4, 2008, a purported class-action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for
Palm Beach County, Florida, on behalf of Broadbased Equities, an
alleged stockholder of the company, and all others similarly
situated.

The complaint, which names as defendants the company, the
company's directors Fred R. Lowe, Debra Cerre-Ruedisili, Sam A.
Stephens, Paul B. Queally, Donald C. Stewart and Spencer L.
Cullen, Jr., and Employers, asserts claims related to the
proposed transaction with Employers for breaches of fiduciary
duty and, in the case of Employers, aiding and abetting such
breaches, in connection with the directors' determination to
sell the company.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the
purported class members and, in the case of Employersaided and
abetted such breaches, compensatory and rescissory damages, as
well as pre and post-trial interest, as allowed by law, and the
costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees and other costs.

On May 8, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for a settlement of the case.  Under the
MOU, the parties will, subject to certain conditions, enter into
and seek court approval for a stipulation of settlement.

The company reporter no further development regarding the matter
in its regulatory filing.

AmCOMP, Inc. -- http://www.amcomp.com/-- is a holding company
engaged through its wholly owned subsidiaries, including AmCOMP
Preferred Insurance Co., and AmCOMP Corp., in the workers'
compensation insurance business.  The company offers insurance
coverage for the statutorily prescribed wage replacement and
medical care benefits that employers are required to provide to
their employees who are injured in the course of their
employment.  Its long-term source of consolidated earnings is
principally the income from its workers' compensation insurance
business and investment income from its investment portfolio.
The company is licensed as an insurance carrier in 25 states and
the District of Columbia, but as of December 31, 2007, focuses
its resources in 17 states.


AUTO MANUFACTURERS: Misrepresented Extra Charges, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against these auto
manufacturers:

     -- Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited,
     -- Chrysler Canada Inc.,
     -- Honda Canada Inc.,
     -- Toyota Canada Inc. and
     -- Nissan Canada Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the auto manufacturers have
misrepresented extra charges tacked on to the sale price of new
vehicles.

When a person buys or leases a new vehicle, the dealer adds on
several charges to the purchase or lease price.  These
additional charges include delivery, inspection and
administration fees.  The lawsuit alleges that these charges
exist only to boost and disguise the true sale price of a
vehicle.

The lawsuit objects to one of these fees in particular -- the
$100 federal excise tax on air conditioners.  Manufacturers and
dealers collect a $100 excise tax on every new vehicle sold and
leased in Canada with air conditioning.  However, there is no
such tax applicable on the sale of new vehicles by dealers to
consumers.  The manufacturers have to pay a $100 excise tax when
they produce or import a vehicle, but this tax is not payable by
consumers.

The lawsuit alleges that the $100 charge collected from
consumers is really just part of the sale price and is not
actually an obligatory tax payment.  The lawsuit claims
manufacturers and dealers have misrepresented these charges and
deceived vehicle buyers into believing that this is actually a
tax that they are obliged to pay on their purchase.

The lawsuit was filed by several people who purchased or leased
a new vehicle directly from a manufacturer authorized dealer.
The vehicle buyers are represented by lawyers Brian Osler, Esq.,
Glyn Hotz, Esq., and Darrel Hotz, Esq.

"They put down that it's a tax right on the face of the sales
contract," says Mr. Hotz.  "They also call it an applicable tax.
However, it's not something the consumer even has to pay."

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants have similar
advertising, websites and sales practices that deceive people
into believing they have to pay a $100 tax.  The plaintiffs are
seeking restitution of the charges they paid that were
represented as an excise tax.

"The manufacturers and dealers tell you that there is an excise
tax," says Mr. Osler.  "The reality is there is no $100 excise
tax on a retail sale and they know it.  They don't hand the
money over to the government.  It just ends up in their own
pocket."


BEHR AMERICA: Faces Pennsylvania Lawsuit Over Dayton Toxic Plume
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbus, Ohio law firm of Leeseberg & Valentine announced
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents
living near the Behr Dayton Thermal Plant.

The suit demands that defendants Behr America Inc., Behr Dayton
Thermal Products LLC, and Behr Dayton Thermal Plant LLC, current
owners of the facility and Chrysler LLC, former owner, make
financial restitution for damages to residents caused by the
Behr VOC Plume.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Montgomery County (Pennsylvania).  The class includes all
persons who live in, or who have spent significant time in,
neighborhoods near the plant, located at 1600 Webster Street in
Dayton.

The suit defines these neighborhoods as bounded roughly by
Stanley Ave., Deeds Ave., Herman Ave and Vermont Ave. to the
southwest; and by McCook Ave. and Kettering Field Park, to the
northwest.

At issue is a cloud of underground poisonous vapor, called a
plume, that is rising from contaminated ground water.

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency has
recognized the damage caused to residents living near the plant.
Those who caused the damage need to be held accountable for the
damages and injuries they caused.  The time is now to provide
these residents with relief and medical oversight, not tomorrow,
when it may be too late for many of them," attorney Anne
Valentine, a partner with Leeseberg & Valentine, said in
announcing the suit.

"Our clients are angry and they are scared.  This danger has
been known about since 1998, yet a decade later major questions
have yet to be answered.  Those who created the problem have yet
to assume full responsibility.  Our lawsuit begins the process
of holding the wrongdoers responsible for their disregard of the
health and safety of these residents," Ms. Valentine said.

The class action lawsuit seeks compensation for diminished
property values, establishment of a medical monitoring fund,
money to pay for installation and operation of air filtration
systems, and punitive damages.

The suit alleges trespass, nuisance, negligence, battery, and
unjust enrichment, along with other claims.  It seeks
unspecified amounts.

For more information, contact:

          Leeseberg & Valentine
          Penthouse One
          175 South Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Toll-free: 1-800-976-2226
          Local: 1-614-221-2223
          Fax: 1-614-221-3106


CAPITAL INVESTMENT: Noteholders' Suit Allowed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Edward W. Miller has ruled that a lawsuit against
Capital Investment Funding LLC and its manager, Arthur Field,
may proceed as a class-action case on behalf of 650 noteholders
who are owed an estimated $39.8 million as the company winds
down its business, David Dykes writes for GreenvilleOnline.com.

According to the report, Judge Miller issued an order certifying
the class action and appointing Surfside Beach attorney Gene M.
Connell Jr., Esq., as its temporary counsel.

Mr. Connell is representing a Horry County couple -- William F.
Tomz and his wife, Frances -- who sued Capital Investment and
its manager in an attempt to recover more than $337,000 for the
purchase of senior notes from the company, according to court
records.  The Tomzs alleged a breach of contract, demanded an
accounting of the company's assets and requested a court-ordered
receiver to take over those assets.  The suit also sought to
become a class-action case.

Court records indicate that the Tomzs alleged Capital Investment
bundled noteholders' funds to underwrite large-scale real estate
market loans to companies that were related to or controlled by
Mr. Field and his company.

However, the report relates, Mr. Field and his company reasoned
that an economic downtown limited their ability to collect on
Capital Investment's loans, and in January, Capital Investment
notified noteholders it was winding up its business and closing
the corporation.  In an interview in January 2008, Mr. Field
said Capital Investment was being dissolved and it could not
guarantee about 650 noteholders who were owed about
$39.8 million that they would get all of their money back.

Judge Miller's order said that both parties agreed to mediation
within 60 days in an attempt for noteholders to gain "an
acceptable level of input" and information regarding the
company's operations and to reach a settlement on behalf of all
noteholders in the suit, according to GreenvilleOnline.com.

All noteholders will be notified of the class-action lawsuit,
and they have 30 days "to opt out" if they do not wish to
participate, according to Judge Miller.

"Although every noteholder has the legal right to pursue its own
action, Capital Investment Funding LLC hopes all noteholders
will elect to remain in the class in order to achieve a uniform,
simple resolution of the legal matters, expedite the winding up,
and minimize the total legal costs to the company and its
noteholders," Mr. Field said in a statement.

Judge Miller also ordered Capital Investment and Mr. Field to
produce documents related to the company's assets and
liabilities as of July 25, 2008, to the court and to Mr.
Connell.  Those documents will be sealed from public review to
protect the company's business and financial information, the
judge wrote.

GreenvilleOnline.com further cites Judge Miller as directing
that a temporary restraining order prohibiting the company from
selling assets and closing the business remains in effect until
the mediation takes place.  He also withheld a ruling on a
court-appointed receiver to take charge of Capital Investment's
property during the company's winding down of its operations.

The report points out that other noteholders from Greenville and
Pickens counties have sued Capital Investment, Mr. Field, the
company's directors and others.  Attorneys for those noteholders
sought to intervene in the Tomz case and had requested a hearing
for their law firms to be appointed the class-action
representatives.  They also wanted the court to prevent release
of any financial information until the matter was resolved.

One of the attorneys, John A. Hagins Jr., Esq., of Greenville,
said he was disappointed with Judge Miller's ruling.  "We
assumed that the motion to intervene would be heard prior to a
decision being made," he said.  "We are frankly astounded and
bewildered."


COMPUCREDIT: Pushes "Aspire Visa" with False Claims, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Compucredit Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
alleging it pushes its "subprime credit card under the brand
name Aspire Visa" by falsely claiming that people with poor
credit can use it to "improve your credit rating," CourtHouse
News Service reports.

Compucredit promised there was "no deposit required" to get $300
in credit, but immediately took $185 from people who applied,
the class says.

Compucredit's massive marketing through the Internet and direct
mail falsely state that "there was 'no deposit required' . . .
and that consumers would immediately receive $300 in available
credit when they receive the Aspire Visa credit card," the
complaint states.

However, in fact, "When a consumer opened an Aspire Visa credit
card account, Compucredit uniformly assessed charges for an
'account opening fee finance charge' of $29, an 'account
maintenance fee' of $6.50, and an 'annual fee' of $150 to the
account. All of these fees were immediately assessed against the
$300 credit limit, resulting in an available credit limit to the
consumer of approximately $115," the complaint further says.

The plaintiffs bring this class action to redress violations of
the federal Credit Repair Organization Act, 15 USC Section 1679
et seq.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure, the plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all
natural persons in the United States who, within five years
prior to the commencement of this action, opened an Aspire Visa
credit card account with Compucredit and who:

     -- were charged money by Compucredit in advance for the
        repair of their credit before such service was fully
        performed;

     -- were charged money by Compucredit in advance for the
        extension of an immediate $300 credit limit before that
        service was fully performed;

     -- did not receive the disclosures required by 15 USC
        Section 1679c;

     -- did not receive a written contract in compliance with 15
        USC Section 1679d; and

     -- did not receive the cancellation form required by 15 USC
        Section 1679e.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Compucredit is a credit repair organization
         within the meaning of 15 USC Section 1679a(3)(A);

     (b) whether Compucredit's representations in its
         advertisements were untrue or misleading
         representations of its services in violation of 15 USC
         Section 1679(a)(3);

     (c) whether Compucredit charged money in advance for the
         performance of services which it had agreed to perform
         for the consumer before such services were fully
         performed;

     (d) whether Compucredit furnished disclosures required by
         15 USC Section 1679(c);

     (e) whether Compucredit provided written contracts in
         compliance with 15 USC Section 1679d; and

     (f) whether Compucredit furnished a cancellation form as
         required by 15 USC Section 1679e.

The plaintiffs demand judgment for:

     -- actual damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679g(a)(1);

     -- punitive damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679g(2)(B);
        and

     -- attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 15 USC Section
        1679g(3).

The plaintiffs further request that the court certify this
action as a class class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appoint plaintiffs as class
representatives and appoint their named attorneys as class
counsel.

The suit is "Wilma Moore, et al. v. Compucredit Corporation,
Civil Action No. CV-08-PWG-1586-S," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven A. Martino, Esq. (stevemartino@tmklegal.com)
          W. Lloyd Copeland, Esq. (lloyd@tmklegal.com)
          Kasie M. Braswell, Esq. (kasie@tmklegal.com)
          Taylor-Martino PC
          51 St. Joseph Street
          Post Office Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Phone: 251-433-3131
          Fax: 251-405-5090


CONAGRA FOODS: High-Fructose Corn Syrup Not Natural, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over
allegations that it falsely advertises its Healthy Choice pasta
sauce as "100% natural," though it contains high-fructose corn
syrup, an artificial ingredient, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff Margot Lockwood brings this action on behalf of
individuals similarly situated within the State of California
pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (UCL), California's False
Advertising Law Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et
seq. (FAL), and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act Civil Code
Section 17 et seq. (CLRA).

According to CourtHouse, the plaintiff brings this action to
redress the defendant's deceptive, misleading and untrue
advertising and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business acts
and practices related to the manufacture, marketing,
advertising, sale and distribution of the defendant's "all
natural" pasta sauce products.

The plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in
California who purchased any of defendant's pasta sauce products
containing high fructose corn syrup, yet marketed, advertised or
labeled as being "all natural", "natural" or "100% natural."

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant misrepresented the ingredients,
         characteristics or other aspects of their "all natural"
         pasta sauce products;

     (b) whether defendant mislabeled their "all natural" pasta
         sauce products;

     (c) whether defendant's misrepresentations are unfair,
         deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising as defined
         under California Business and Professions Code Section
         17500 et seq.;

     (d) whether defendant's mislabeling of their products
         constitutes unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading
         advertising as defined under California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.;

     (e) whether defendant's mislabeling of the products is
         unlawful, unfair or fraudulent under California
         Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (f) whether defendant's misrepresentations are unlawful,
         unfair or fraudulent under California Business and
         Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.;

     (g) whether defendant knew,or by the exercise of reasonable
         care should have known, that their misrepresentations
         and mislabeling of their products was untrue or would
         be misleading to a reasonable consumer;

     (h) whether defendant knowingly and intentionally concealed
         from plaintiff and members of the class that their "all
         natural" pasta sauce products were mislabeled and that
         the ingredients were misrepresented;

     (i) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in violation of California Civil Code Section
         1750 et seq.;

     (j) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in violation of California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(5);

     (k) whether defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive
         conduct in violation of California Civil Code Section
         1770(a)(7);

     (l) whether plaintiff and other members of the proposed
         class have been injured or suffered losses and, if so,
         the extent of their injury or loss;

     (m) whether defendant should be enjoined from engaging in
         the conduct complained of; and

     (n) whether defendant has been unjustly enriched through
         the wrongful conduct set forth.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying that the action be maintained as a
        class action, and that the plaintiff may serve as
        representative of the class;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
        defendant from advertising, representing, or otherwise
        holding out for sale within the State of California, any
        products which contain HFCS as being "all natural",
        "100% natural" or "natural";

     -- an order requiring defendant to provide a form of
        corrective advertising designed to correct the
        misrepresentations, misstatements and omissions made in
        the marketing, advertising, packaging and other
        promotional materials related to their "all natural"
        pasta sauce products;

     -- a judgment of the court to restore, by way of
        restitution, refund or reimbursement, to any person in
        interest, any money acquired by means of defendant's
        untrue, deceptive or misleading advertising and/or
        unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business acts and
        practices described;

     -- disgorgement of the excessive and ill-gotten monies
        obtained by defendant as a result of the untrue and
        misleading advertising and unlawful, unfair or
        fraudulent business acts and practices described;

     -- an award of attorney fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5 and 1032;

     -- an award of attorney fees pursuant to, inter alia,
        Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5 and1032;

     -- costs of suit incurred pursuant to Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 1033.5;

     -- pre and post-judgment interest; and

     -- such other and further relief as the court deems
        appropriate or which is allowed for in law or equity.

The suit is "margot Lockwood, et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., et
al., Case No. CV 08 4151," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Ronald B. Laba, Esq.
          Law Offices of Ronald B. Laba
          510 Escondido Ave., Ste. E
          Vista, CA 92008
          Phone: 760-439-8969


DEDA ELEMENTI: Recalls Handlebar Stemmed-Bikes for Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deda Elementi S.r.l., of Italy, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 400 Deda
Forza Bicycle Handlebar Stems.

The company said the top of the bicycle handlebar stem can crack
and cause the rider to lose control, posing a crash hazard.

Deda Elementi has received four reports of incidents involving
the handlebar stems.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves bicycles with Deda Forza black carbon fiber
handlebar stems in gloss finish.  "Deda Forza" is printed on the
handlebar stem.  Deda Forza black carbon fiber handlebar stems
in matte finish are not included in this recall.

These recalled Deda Forza Bicycle Handlebar Stems were
manufactured in Taiwan and Italy and were being sold at bicycle
retailers nationwide from January 2008 through June 2008 on
bicycles selling for between $4,300 and $8,700.  The handlebar
stems were also sold separately for about $400.

A picture of the recalled Deda Forza Bicycle Handlebar Stems can
be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08385.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the bicycles equipped with
the recalled Deda Forza handlebar stems and return them to the
place of purchase to receive a free replacement handlebar stem.

For additional information, contact Deda Elementi toll-free at
866-514-5522 any time, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.dedaelementi.com/or send an e-mail to:
dedusa@dedaelementi.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Lead Plaintiffs & Counsel Named in N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
appointed the "Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman as co-lead
plaintiffs, and the law firms of Brower Piven and Levi &
Kersinski, as the lead and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in a
consolidated lawsuit against E*Trade Financial Corp.

Initially, on Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company and its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By order dated July 17, 2008, the trial court appointed the
"Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman co-lead plaintiffs and
Brower Piven and Levi & Kersinski, respectively, as lead and co-
lead plaintiffs' counsel.

Based upon the court's previous orders, the plaintiffs now have
60 days from July 17, 2008, to file an amended consolidated
complaint, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

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

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants is:

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


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decertification Motion in "Greenberg" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California, County of Los Angeles, has yet to rule
on certain motions in a purported class-action suit against
E*Trade Financial Corp. over the company's practice of recording
telephone calls of customers or consumers without their
knowledge or consent.

On Oct. 11, 2006, a state class-action suit, entitled "Nikki
Greenberg, and all those similarly situated, plaintiffs, versus
E*Trade Financial Corporation, defendant," was filed on behalf
of all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received
telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their
knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the
plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006,
that was recorded during a brief period when the company's
automated notice system was out of order.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of:

       -- all persons in California who received telephone calls
          from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without
          their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

       -- all persons who made calls from California to the
          company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006.

In the interim, the company has filed motions seeking to de-
certify or further limit the defined class, and the plaintiffs
have filed competing motions seeking to expand it.  These
motions currently are scheduled to be heard by the court on
Sept. 19, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

E*Trade Financial Corp. -- https://www.etrade.com/ -- is a
global financial services company, offering a range of financial
solutions to customers under the brand E*TRADE FINANCIAL.  Its
financial solutions include a suite of trading, investing,
banking and lending products.  Its primary retail products and
services consist of trading and investing, banking and lending
products.  Trading and investing includes automated order
placement and execution of United States and international
equities, currencies, futures, options, exchange-traded funds,
mutual funds and bonds.  Banking includes checking, savings,
sweep, money market and certificates of deposit products that
offer online bill pay, quick transfer, unlimited automated
teller machines transactions on eligible accounts and wireless
account access.  Lending includes mortgage, home equity, margin
and credit card products that offer online loan status and quick
transfer.  The company's primary institutional product is market
making.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, filed on April 2, 2008, is entitled "John W. Oughtred,
Individually, and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities, LLC, Defendants."

The plaintiff contends, among other things, that the company
committed various sales practice violations in the sale of
certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2,
2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, by allegedly misrepresenting that these
securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short
term investing.

On April 17, 2008, the trial court entered an order relieving
the company of its obligation to move, answer or otherwise
respond to the complaint until such time as the court may deem
appropriate.

The suit is "Oughtred v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:08-cv-03295-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David R. Buchanan, Esq. (dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com)
          Seeger Weiss LLP
          One William Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-584-0700
          Fax: 212-584-0799

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP
          601 California St, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7112
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants are:

          Joshua Samuel Sohn, Esq. (joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: 212-335-4500
          Fax: 212-335-4501


EBAY INC: Coin Dealers File Antitrust Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. is facing a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging it
conspired with the American Numismatic Association and the
Professional Numismatists Guild to exclude small coin dealers
and grading services from the Internet coin market, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of
costs, interest and attorney's fees and for preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, based on activities constituting
violation of antitrust policies pursuant to 15 USC Sections 1 &
2 (the Sherman Act), and New York General Business Law Section
340 (Donnelly Act), and civil conspiracy and trade libel
pursuant to New York common law.

Universal Grading Service claims that the defendants, including
Barry Struppler & Co., conspired "to obstruct the ability of the
smaller coin grading services to participate in the coin
marketplace on eBay."

Led by the Professional Numismatists Guild, the defendants did
this by forming an "'Internet rules committee' made up of coin
industry insiders, including Barry Struppler, in his capacity as
then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection
Committee," the complaint states.

The suit continues to say that "(A) primary purpose of the PNG
'Internet rules committee' from 2001 through 2004 was to
interfere with and obstruct the ability of the smaller coin
grading services, including UGS, to participate in the then
burgeoning coin marketplace on eBay by, among other things,
formally and informally accusing Plaintiffs of selling
'counterfeit' coins and otherwise engaging in fraudulent conduct
with regard to purchasing and selling certified coins and/or
grading coins that were purchased and sold on the Internet via
eBay."

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants formed their "Coins
Community Watch group" for the purpose of defaming and excluding
smaller coin services from the marketplace.

The plaintiffs demand treble damages and an injunction.

The suit is "Universal Grading Service, et al. v. eBay, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV 08 3557," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq.
          Marina Trubitsky & Associates, PLLC
          11 Boradway, Suite 861
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-732-7707


EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles 2 Store Managers' Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group Inc. agreed to pay as much as
$2.5 million to settle two lawsuits filed by former employees
over the company's alleged failure to pay overtime wages to its
"salaried restaurant employees," the company reported in its
Sept. 3, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Initially, two purported class action suits were filed.  The
first was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
State of California, County of San Diego, on Sept. 18, 2007, by
former store manager Eric Mathistad.

Mr. Mathistad alleges that the defendant failed to pay overtime
wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California
stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees, and
that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and
rest breaks.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's actions were in
violation of the California Labor Code Sections 1194, et seq.,
500, et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, et seq., and applicable wage order(s) issued by the
Industrial Welfare Commission.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, restitution and an unspecified amount of
damages for unpaid overtime and for missed meal and rest
periods.

The second suit was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Bernadette Mejia,
another former store manager.

On April 10, 2008, the Mathistad and Meija cases were
consolidated into one case and, in May 2008, the plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint.

On Aug. 28, the Class Action Reporter said that the company --
according to its Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 1, 2008 -- filed a demurrer in June 2008, claiming
that, among other things:

   -- the plaintiff fails to state a claim against the company;

   -- the plaintiff does not state a claim for a joint venture,
      partnership, common enterprise, or aiding and abetting;

   -- the plaintiff's definition of the class is deficient; and

   -- the plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment regarding
      Labor Code violations ought to be dismissed.

On August 27, 2008, the company reached an agreement in
principle for the settlement of the litigation with the
plaintiffs.  The settlement provides for payment of up to an
aggregate of $2.5 million by the company.

The settlement is subject to completion of a settlement
agreement to be signed by the parties, preliminary and final
court approvals and the participation of a sufficient percentage
of each of the putative classes.  There can be no assurance that
these conditions will be satisfied.

Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. --
http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an
operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an
owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty
restaurants in the U.S.


EMPRESS ARTS: Recalls Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------
Empress Arts Ltd., of Monterey Park, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
130 children's Hooded Sweaters.

The company said the sweaters have drawstrings through the hood.
Children can get entangled in the drawstrings that can catch on
playground equipment, fences or tree branches.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstring
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.  From 1985
through June 2008, CPSC received reports of 27 deaths and 70
non-fatal incidents involving the entanglement of children�s
clothing drawstrings.  No injuries have been reported.

The cotton knit sweaters are cream colored with a blue stripe at
the wrists and waist, a blue ball on the hood, and blue buttons.
There is a drawstring through the hood with pom-poms at the
ends.  The sweaters were sold in children's size 2T under the
brand name "Empress Arts."  "Empress Baby" is sewn into the
sweaters tag.

These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being
sold at specialty children's stores nationwide from August 2006
through April 2008 for between $28 and $45.

A picture of the recalled hoodies is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08383.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweaters to eliminate the hazard.

For additional information, contact Empress Arts collect at
323-780-8181 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.empressarts.com/


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Cheap Sale to JDA Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders claim in a lawsuit before the Delaware Chancery
Court that directors of i2 Technologies are selling the company
too cheaply, through an unfair process, to JDA Software Group
and Iceberg Acquisition Corp., for $346 million, or $14.86 per
share, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all public
stockholders of i2 Technologies seeking equitable relief for
defendants' breach of fiduciary duty arising out of their
attempt to sell the company by unfair process and for an unfair
price.  The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $346
million.

The plaintiffs demands judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a class action and
        certifying plaintiff as the class representative and
        plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;

     -- enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, the proposed
        transaction;

     -- in the event that the transaction is consummated prior
        to the entry of the court's final judgment, rescinding
        it or awarding plaintiffs and the class rescissory
        damages;

     -- directing that defendants account to the plaintiffs and
        the class for all damages caused by them and account for
        all profits and any special benefits obtained as a
        result of their breaches of their fiduciary duties;

     -- awarding the plaintiffs the costs of this action,
        including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
        expenses of the plaintiffs' attorneys and experts; and

     -- granting the plaintiffs and the other members of the
        class such further relief as the court deems just and
        proper.

The suit is "Gopal Tadeparti, et al. v. Sanjiv S. Sidhu, et al.,
Case No. 4003," filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, PA
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          Citizens Bank Centre
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
          Phone: 302-656-4433


IRWIN MORTGAGE: "Culpepper" Suit Concluded; No Appeal Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action suit "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland
Mortgage Corp., Case No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," was concluded
in favor of Irwin Financial Corp.'s indirect subsidiary, Irwin
Mortgage Corp., since Irwin Mortgage prevailed on appeal and the
plaintiffs filed no further challenges.

The suit was filed in April 1996 before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  The plaintiffs later
obtained class-action status for their complaint, which
generally alleged that the company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act relating to its payment of
broker fees to mortgage brokers (Class Action Reporter, May 19,
2008).

In June 2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld
the district court's certification of the class after the
defendants appealed the ruling.  However, in October 2001, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a policy
statement that explicitly disagreed with the 11th Circuit's
interpretation of RESPA in upholding class certification.

Subsequent to the HUD policy statement, the 11th Circuit decided
on a RESPA case similar to the company's and concluded that the
trial court had abused its discretion in certifying the class.
The 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in effect,
overruling its previous decision upholding class certification
in the company's case.

On Feb. 7, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama dismissed the case by granting the company's
motions to decertify the class and for summary judgment, and by
denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal before the Court of
Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

On July 2, 2007, the 11th Circuit affirmed the decision of the
trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Irwin Mortgage
(formerly Inland Mortgage Corp.), and decertifying the
plaintiffs' class.  The appellate court affirmed summary
judgment for Irwin Mortgage because the plaintiffs failed to
show that the total compensation Irwin Mortgage paid to the
mortgage brokers was unreasonable in light of the services
provided.  The appellate court also held that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the plaintiffs'
class because the individualized assessment required in this
type of action made class certification inappropriate.

The plaintiffs had until May 29, 2008, to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari seeking discretionary review by the U.S.
Supreme Court.  The action was concluded, in favor of Irwin
Mortgage, because a petition for certiorari has not been filed.

The suit is "Culpepper, et al. v. Inland Mortgage Corp., Case
No. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David R. Donaldson, Esq. (DavidD@dglawfirm.com)
         David J. Guin, Esq. (davidg@dglawfirm.com)
         Tammy McClendon, Esq. (tstokes@dglawfirm.com)
         Stokes, Donaldson & Guin, LLC
         Two North Twentieth Building
         North 20th St., Ste. 1100
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 226-226-2282
         Fax: 226-226-2357

              - and -

         Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
         Kieron F. Quinn, Esq.
         Quinn Gordon & Wolf
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408
         Baltimore, MD 21204-4803
         Phone: 1-410-825-2300
         Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the company are:

         David S. Hay, Esq.
         Janel E. LaBoda, Esq.
         Alan Hall Maclin, Esq.
         J. Patrick McDavitt, Esq.
         Robert J. Pratte, Esq.
         Margaret K. Savage, Esq.
         Briggs & Morgan, 2200 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Phone: 1-612-977-8400
         Fax: 1-612-977-8650

              - and -

         Sarah Y. Larson, Esq. (slarson@mcglaw.com)
         Alexander J. Marshall III, Esq. (amarshall@mcglaw.com)
         Cathy S. Wright, Esq. (cwright@mcglaw.com)
         Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
         AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Ste. 2400
         1901 6th Avenue North
         Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
         Phone: 254-1000
         Fax: 254-1999


IRWIN UNION: Wants Two Lawsuits Over CBNV Loans Thrown Out
----------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a subsidiary of Irwin Financial
Corp., is seeking the dismissal of two purported class-action
lawsuits in connection with loans it purchased from Community
Bank of Northern Virginia, according to Irwin Union's Aug. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suits were filed against or named Irwin Union Bank as a
defendant in 2004 and later consolidated for pre-trial
procedures in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, claiming that Community Bank of Northern
Virginia was allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement
involving the use of its charter by certain third parties who
charged high fees that were not representative of the services
rendered and not properly disclosed as to the amount or
recipient of the fees.

The lawsuits, which are both seeking class-action status, are:

       -- "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company," and

       -- "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia."

Both lawsuits are still at a preliminary stage with motions to
dismiss pending in each case.

Irwin Financial Corp. -- http://www.irwinfinancial.com/--
provides financial services throughout the U.S. and Canada.  The
Company focuses primarily on the extension of credit to
consumers and small businesses, as well as providing the ongoing
servicing of those customer accounts.  Through its direct and
indirect subsidiaries, Irwin Financial operates three major
lines of business: commercial banking, commercial finance and
home equity lending.  Its direct and indirect major subsidiaries
include Irwin Union Bank and Trust Co., a commercial bank, which
together with Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., a federal savings bank,
which conducts the Company's commercial banking activities;
Irwin Commercial Finance Corp., a commercial finance subsidiary,
and Irwin Home Equity Corp., a consumer home equity lending
company.


MENARDS: Recalls Cordless Screwdrivers Due to Fire, Burn Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menards, of Eau Claire, Wisc., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 42,000
MasterForce 3.6-volt Cordless Screwdrivers.

The company said the battery can overheat and ignite during
charging, posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.  There is
no protective device on the lithium battery to prevent
overheating.

The firm and CPSC have received three reports of fires.  One
consumer suffered burns to the hand, and another experienced
temporary hearing loss.

The recalled cordless screwdrivers are green and gray in color.
"MASTERFORCE" is printed on the top of the tool.  "LITHIUM-ION
TECHNOLOGY" and "241-0717" are printed on the handle.

These recalled cordless screwdrivers were manufactured by Great
Star Industry Co., of China and were being sold at Menards
stores from April 2007 through May 2008 for about $30.

A picture of the recalled cordless screwdrivers is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08388.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the screwdrivers
and return them to any Menards store for a free replacement or
refund.

For additional information, call toll-free at 866-458-2472
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.menards.com/


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Class Certification in "Haddock"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its subsidiary,
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the matter
"Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No. 3:01-
cv-01552-SRU."

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
suit, entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die,
Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed on
March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified
retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities
from NLIC.  The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan
assets in their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS
breached ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service
payments from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.  To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs'
request for certification of the alleged class.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a motion by NFS' and NLIC's to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended their
counterclaims.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS'
and NLIC's amended counterclaims.  They later filed a motion for
class certification.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was
tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with
respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that they could recover any
"disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors.

On April 25, 2008, NFS and NLIC filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' request for class certification.

National Financial Services reported no further development in
the matter in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com)
          Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport
          CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421
          Fax: 203-368-3244

          Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com)
          603 S. Main, Suite 200
          Grapevine, TX 76051
          Phone: 871-424-9001
          Fax: 817-424-1665

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com)
          Stanley, Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214-443-4300
          Fax: 214-443-0358

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com)
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
          Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-293-3535
          Fax: 860-293-3555

               - and -

          Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq.
          (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Opposes Amended "Beary" Complaint Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc., National Life Insurance Co.,
and Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc. are opposing a motion
by the plaintiffs to vacate judgment and for leave to file an
amended complaint in the matter "Beary v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK."

The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class of all sponsors
of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had
variable annuity contracts with NFS, NLIC and NRS.  It was filed
on Nov. 15, 2006, by Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County,
Florida, in his official capacity, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

Sherrif Beary seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the
class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period.

The class period is from Jan. 1, 1996, until the class notice is
provided.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a
permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the
service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants,
including interest.

On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss
the case.  On Sept. 17, 2007, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint.  On Oct. 25, 2007,
NFS, NLIC and NRS filed their opposition to the plaintiff's
motion.

National Financial Services reported no further development
regarding the matter in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Edmund A. Sargus,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott E. Smith, Esq. (ses@smithphillipslaw.com)
          Smith Phillips & Associates
          1225 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-846-1700
          Fax: 614-486-4987

               - and -

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (acelaw@mcn.org)
          4800 North Federal Highway
          Suite 100D
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222
          Fax: 561-392-2123

Representing the defendants are:

          Quintin Franc Lindsmith, Esq. (qlindsmith@bricker.com)
          Bricker & Eckler LLP
          100 South Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-227-2300
          Fax: 614-227-2390

               - and -

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Hale
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Acquisition Offer Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in several purported class-action lawsuits brought
by Nationwide Financial Services Inc. shareholders against NFS;
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and the directors of NFS, have
reached a tentative settlement in the cases, according to NFS's
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuits arise out of the joint offer by Nationwide Mutual
Insurance, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance and Nationwide Corp.
to acquire all of the outstanding shares of NFS's Class A common
stock.

The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege
that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for
reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair, and that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders
of the NFS Class A common stock.

On Aug. 6, 2008, the defendants announced that they had entered
into a definitive agreement for the acquisition of all of the
outstanding shares of the NFS Class A common stock for $52.25
per share by Nationwide Corp., subject to the satisfaction of
specific closing conditions.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding for the settlement of these
lawsuits.

The memorandum of understanding provides, among other things,
for the settlement of the lawsuits and release of the defendants
and, in exchange for the release and without admitting any
wrongdoing, defendant NMIC will acknowledge that the pending
lawsuits were a factor, among others, that led it to offer an
increased share price in the transaction.  Pursuant to the deal,
NMIC will agree to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the
costs of notifying the class members of the settlement.

The memorandum of understanding is conditioned upon the
plaintiffs receiving satisfactory confirmatory discovery and
upon court approval of the proposed settlement.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America  and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal of Market Timing Lawsuit on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Mutual Funds Investment Litigation are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
the dismissal of their case, which names as one of the
defendants Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class action filed before
the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois,
entitled, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."  NLIC
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held (through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any
NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, or to
have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,
then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue
statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through
their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units
of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing activity.

The first amended complaint further alleges common law
negligence and seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000
per plaintiff or class member, including all compensatory
damages and costs.

On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  The plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision, and the issues have been fully
briefed.

National Financial Services reported no further development
regarding the matter in its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
         Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC
         2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Phone: 1-602-776-5903
         Fax: 1-602-274-1199

              - and -

         Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Esq. (ebarash@koreintillery.com)
         George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery 701 Market St., Ste. 300
         St. Louis, MO 63108
         Phone: 1-314-241-4844
         Fax: 1-314-241-3525

Representing the company are:

         Shoshana Leah Gillers, Esq.
         (shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com)
         Eric John Mogilnicki, Esq.
         (eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com)
         Charles Collier Platt, Esq.
         (charles.platt@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
         399 Park Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 1-212-230-8841
         Fax: 1-212-230-8888


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Awaits Ruling on "Carr" Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Common Pleas Court in Franklin County, Ohio, has yet to rule
on certain motions in the purported class-action suit "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co."

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services Inc., was named defendant in the class action suit.
The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.  It also seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, disgorgement of all amounts in excess of the guaranteed
maximum premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims.

The court certified a class consisting of all residents of the
U.S. and the Virgin Islands who, during the class period, paid
premiums on a modal basis to NLIC for term life insurance
policies issued by NLIC during the class period that provide for
guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding certain specified
products.  The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990, through
Feb. 2, 2006.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment, and in April 2007, NLIC filed its own summary judgment
motion.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the court entered its ruling on the parties'
summary judgment motions.  The court granted NLIC's motion for
summary judgment as it pertains to some of the plaintiffs'
causes of action, including breach of contract claims on all
decreasing term policies, plaintiff Carr's individual claims for
fraud by omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and all unjust enrichment claims.

However, several claims against NLIC remain, including plaintiff
Carr's individual claim for breach of contract and plaintiff
Class' claims for breach of contract for the term life policies
in 43 of 51 jurisdictions.

On May 16, 2008, the parties filed their briefs on NLIC's motion
for summary judgment on the voluntary payment doctrine or, in
the alternative, decertification.  Additional briefs were filed
on June 20, 2008, according to National Financial Services'
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America  and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Wash. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Daniels-Hall
et al. v. National Education Association et al., Case No.
3:2007cv05339," which was filed against Nationwide Life
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial Services
Inc., are appealing an order dismissing the case.

The lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.  It alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.

The suit was filed by Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against:

     -- NLIC,
     -- National Education Association,
     -- NEA Member Benefits Corporation,
     -- Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
     -- Security Benefit Group, Inc., and
     -- Security Distributors, Inc.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or
former National Education Association members who participated
in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between
Jan. 1, 1991, and the present (and their heirs and
beneficiaries).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the ERISA by
failing to provide complete and accurate information, by
engaging in prohibited transactions, and by breaching their
fiduciary duties when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries
from breaching their fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to
participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of
service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to
plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NLIC filed a motion to dismiss the case.  In
May 2008, the court granted the defendants' request.  On
June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
connection with the dismissal order, according to National
Financial Services's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Daniels-Hall, et al. v. National Education
Association et al., Case No. 3:2007cv05339," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge
Ronald B. Leighton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (ACELaw@mcn.org)
          Law Offices of Allen C. Engerman, P.A.
          Sanctuary Centre
          4800 N Federal Hwy., Ste. 100-d
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126

               - and -

          Abigail V. Carter, Esq. (acarter@bredhoff.com)
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          805 Fifteenth St. NW
          Ste. 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600


OLD REPUBLIC: Several Title Insurance Lawsuits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., still
faces several purported class-action suits over title insurance
in state and federal courts in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Texas.

The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers
reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.

The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

In none of the actions against ORNTIC has a class yet been
certified, according to Old Republic International Corp.'s
Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.


OLD REPUBLIC: Faces California Lawsuit by Hispanic Home Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., and a
title agency affiliate -- Old Republic Title Co. -- are facing a
purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to Old Republic
International Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The California suit is brought by and on behalf of Hispanic home
buyers in Monterey County against various real estate
developers, brokers, mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders,
mortgage loan servicers, as well as the company's title agency
subsidiary, and alleges that the title agency failed to provide
adequate disclosures to protect the buyers from the abusive
sales and predatory lending practices of the other defendants.

The suit seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.  No
class has yet been certified in the action.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title
Insurance Groups.  The General Insurance Group provides property
and liability insurance primarily to commercial clients. Private
mortgage insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group
protects mortgage lenders and investors from default-related
losses on residential mortgage loans.  The Mortgage Guaranty
Group insures only first mortgage loans, primarily on
residential properties having one- to four-family dwelling
units.  The Title insurance business consists primarily of the
issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors
based upon searches of the public records.


OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Several Consumer Lawsuits Over Premium Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corp.; its principal title insurance
subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co.; and its
second subsidiary, American Guaranty Title Insurance Co., are
facing several purported class-action lawsuits over premium
rates, according to Old Republic International's Aug. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Since early February 2008, more than 60 purported consumer
class-action lawsuits have been filed against the title
industry's principal title insurance companies, their
subsidiaries and affiliates, and title insurance rating bureaus
or associations in at least 10 states.

The suits are substantially identical in alleging that the
defendant title insurers engaged in illegal price-fixing
agreements to set artificially high premium rates and conspired
to create premium rates which the state insurance regulatory
authorities could not evaluate and therefore, could not
adequately regulate.  A number of the suits also allege
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The company and its principal title insurance subsidiary, Old
Republic National Title Insurance Co., are currently among the
named defendants in 35 of these actions, and are likely to be
included in others.  A second subsidiary, American Guaranty
Title Insurance Co., is also named in most but not all of the
same suits.

No class has yet been certified in any of the cases, the company
said in its regulatory filing.

Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company.  The company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty and Title
Insurance Groups.  The General Insurance Group provides property
and liability insurance primarily to commercial clients. Private
mortgage insurance produced by the Mortgage Guaranty Group
protects mortgage lenders and investors from default-related
losses on residential mortgage loans.  The Mortgage Guaranty
Group insures only first mortgage loans, primarily on
residential properties having one- to four-family dwelling
units.  The Title insurance business consists primarily of the
issuance of policies to real estate purchasers and investors
based upon searches of the public records.


OLD REPUBLIC: Washington Lawsuit Alleges RESPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp., and
title agency affiliate, Old Republic Title, Ltd., are facing a
purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington for allegedly violating the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit is captioned, "McFerrin et al v. Old Republic Title Ltd
et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-05309-FDB," and was filed on May 14,
2008.  It alleges that ORNTIC and its affiliate deceptively
charged fees for reconveyancing services they did not perform
and split the fees with settlement service providers in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.

No class has yet been certified in the action, according to Old
Republic International's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "McFerrin, et al. v. Old Republic Title Ltd, et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-05309-FDB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Franklin D.
Burgess, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594

Representing the defendants is:

          Gavin Williams Skok, Esq. (gskok@riddellwilliams.com)
          Riddell & Williams
          1001 4th Ave. Plaza, Ste. 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-624-3600
          Fax: 206-389-1731


PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in "Weissmann" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second consolidated amended complaint has been filed in the
matter, "Weissmann, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-03226," which names Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and certain of its executive
officers as defendants.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed following the company's
July 5, 2006 announcement that it will restate certain of its
financials and alleged that the company and certain members of
its management engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
condition and results.

The class action suits have been consolidated and are pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The court has appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel
in the case.

The co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 30, 2006, purporting to represent purchasers of common
stock of the company between July 23, 2001, and July 5, 2006.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on June 29, 2007.

On June 24, 2008, the court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice, with leave to re-file.

On July 24, 2008, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint, again purporting to be brought
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between
July 23, 2001, and July 5, 2006, according to the company's
August 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Weissmann, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-03226," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Ronald J. Hedges,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin Levine, Esq. (levine@ix.netcom.com)
          111 Dunnell Road
          Maplewood, NJ 07040
          Phone: 973-378-8850
          Fax: 973-378-8852

          Joseph J. DePalma (jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Phone: 973-623-3000

               - and -

          Danielle Disporto, Esq. (ddisporto@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper, LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9616

Representing the defendants is:

          Rric S. Aronson (aronsone@gtlaw.com)
          Greenbereg & Traurig, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-0677
          Phone: 973-360-7900


PHILLIPS SCREW: Tennessee Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Bum Screws
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips Screw Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Circuit Court for Summer County, Tennessee, alleging it
sells screws that are specially made, and advertised, for
pressure-treated wood, but that corrode quickly and fail under
normal conditions with some pressure-treated wood for which the
screws are specifically marketed, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

Named plaintiff James Pearson, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, files the class action on
behalf of all similarly-situated persons and entities throughout
the State of Tennessee who purchased screws manufactured by
defendants to be used with new pressure-treated wood on or after
Jan. 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that due to the design of the screws and
method of manufacture, the screws suffer accelerated corrosion
and prematurely fail when used with and exposed to certain types
of pressure-treated wood for which the screws were specifically
marketed.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant warranted to class members that its
         screws were compatible for the lifetime of a project
         using the New Pressure-Treated Wood and would not fail
         or rust;

     (b) whether defendants had in their possession test data
         indicating potential accelerated corrosive effects on
         its screws when used with the New Pressure-Treated
         Wood;

     (c) whether defendants failed to exercise reasonable care
         in designing and manufacturing screw for use with the
         New Pressure-Treated Wood;

     (d) whether defendants had in their possession test data or
         other information indicating that the accelerated
         corrosive effects of the chemicals found in the New
         Pressure-Treated Wood could be minimized or eliminated
         by the exclusive use of stainless-steel fasteners and
         connectors;

     (e) whether defendants omitted and failed to disclose
         test data or other information indicating that their
         screws suffered accelerated corrosion when used in the
         New Pressure-Treated Wood;

     (f) whether defendants had in their possession test data or
         other information indicating that the composition,
         thickness, density and uniformity of the coating
         used on its screws was inappropriate for use with the
         New Pressure-Treated Wood;

     (g) whether defendants knew or should have known that
         accelerated corrosion of their screws could cause
         premature failure resulting in property loss;

     (h) whether the screws conform to the express warranty of
         defendants;

     (i) whether the screws are defective and/or unreasonably
         dangerous;

     (j) whether the actions and omissions of the defendants
         proximately caused the damages sustained by the
         plaintiff and the class members;

         and merchantable for their ordinary use, were not
     (k) whether the screws were of merchantable quality, fit
         otherwise injurious to consumers and were adequately
         labeled; and

     (l) whether the substitution of other appropriate fasteners
         will rectify and minimize the harmful and injurious
         effects of accelerated corrosion and premature failure
         of defendants' screws.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- certification of the proposed class under Rule 23 of the
        Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure with the named
        plaintiff representing the interests of the class;

     -- appointment of plaintiff's undersigned counsel to
        represent the interests of the class;

     -- preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering
        defendants to replace all defective screws immediately
        with screws determined by the court to be appropriate
        for use with the New Pressure-Treated Wood;

     -- exercise by the court of its exclusive and continuing
        jurisdiction to enforce and supervise any replacement
        program undertaken by defendants or ordered by the
        court;

     -- a declaration that the screws are defective and
        unreasonably dangerous, that defendants are financially
        responsible for notifying all members of the class of
        the defective screws, and for payment of the costs and
        expenses associated with the replacement of the screws
        and damaged wood;

     -- an award to plaintiff and the class of $20 million for
        compensatory damages for the acts complained of, but
        specifically excluding any damages for personal injury
        as such damages for personal injury are not sought in
        the class action complaint;

     -- an award of post-judgment interest on the judgment at
        the rate provided by law from the date of judgment until
        paid;

     -- an order requiring defendant to provide visible and
        prominent warnings that the screws are not to be used
        with the New Pressure-Treated Wood;

     -- an order directing statewide consumer notice, at
        defendants' expense, regarding the proper screws and
        fastening devices to be used with  the New Pressure-
        Treated Wood and the dangers of corrosion and failure
        from the use of the screws with the New Pressure-Treated
        Wood; and

     -- such other and further judicial determinations and
        relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances
        under the court's exercise of its equitable jurisdiction
        and inherent authority in the proceeding.

The suit is "James Pearson, et al. v. Philips Screw Company et
al., Case No. 2008-CV-31925," filed in the Circuit Court for
Summer County, Tennessee.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Philip M. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          M. Reid Estes, Esq.
          Robert C. Bigelow, Esq.
          Stewart, Estes & Donnell, PLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 1401
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN
          Phone: 615-244-6583


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Faces Conn. Suit Over Defective Baby Bottles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Playtex Products Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before
the U.S. District Court for the District Connecticut over
allegations that its VentAire baby bottles are defective because
they leak from the vent caps on the bottom, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action both in an individual capacity
and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of Playtex
VentAire baby bottles or Playtex VentAire Advanced baby bottles
during the period Aug. 29, 2002, through the date of the filing
of this complaint.

The complaint alleges that despite the defendant's actual
knowledge of the design defect in the VentAire bottles since as
early as 2003, the defendant has failed to, inter alia, inform
the plaintiff and other members of the class of the existence of
the design defect -- a clearly material fact -- at the time of
sale or after purchase.  Furthermore, the defendant has failed
to recall the VentAire bottles and reimburse customers for the
cost of repairing or replacing the VentAire bottles.

As a result of the facts alleged, the defendant has breached the
implied warranty of merchantability, violated New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act codified under N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-1
et seq. and the laws governing unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the VentAire bottles are defective because
         liquid leaks out from the vents located on the bottoms
         of the VentAire bottles;

     (b) whether the VentAire bottles are merchantable as a
         result of the design defect;

     (c) whether defendant was unjustly enriched by the
         retention of the non-gratuitous benefits indirectly
         conferred by plaintiff and members of the class;

     (d) whether defendant violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud
         Act codified under N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1 et
         seq.;

     (e) whether defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing,
         that the VentAire bottles are defective; and

     (f) whether, as a result of defendant's misconduct,
         plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages,
         restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the
         amount and nature of such relief.

The plaintiff requests that the court:

     -- certify this action as a class under Rule 23;

     -- order defendant to pay plaintiff and members of the
        class an amount of actual damages and restitution to be
        determined at trial;

        manufacturing and selling the VentAire bottles;
     -- issue and injunction preventing defendant from

     -- issue an order granting plaintiff reasonable costs and
        attorney's fees; and

     -- grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

The suit is "Eli Mizrahi, et al. v. Playtex Products, Inc., Case
No. 308CV01322," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District Connecticut.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          Shepherd Finkelman MIller & Shah, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: 860-526-1100
          Fax: 860-526-1120


RAPID REEL: Recalls Portable Hose Carts Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Eley Corporation, d/b/a Rapid Reel of Lincoln, Neb., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 7,000 Portable Garden Hose Reel Carts and
Wagons.

The company said the tires on the portable garden hose reel can
explode while being inflated, posing an injury hazard to
consumers.

Rapid Reel has received five reports of tires exploding while
being inflated, resulting in lacerations to fingers, arms, and
legs from flying pieces of plastic.

This recall involves the Rapid Reel portable garden hose reel
carts and wagons.  The cart has two tires and the wagon has
four. The tires have a white plastic rim and a steel ball
bearing hub or a black plastic bearing hub.

These recalled portable garden hose reel carts and wagons were
manufactured in China and were being sold by home repair
retailers and distributors such as Ace Hardware, Amazon.com, and
True Value Hardware nationwide from April 2005 through March
2006 for between $190 and $250.

Pictures of the recalled portable garden hose reel carts and
wagons can be found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08384a.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08384b.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08384c.jpg

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08384d.jpg

Consumers are advised not to inflate tires on the portable hose
carts and contact Rapid Reel for free replacement tires.

For more information, contact Rapid Reel toll-free at
866-523-2363 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rapidreel.com/


SCOR HOLDING: Dec. 21 Hearing Set for $84MM Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 12, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., to
consider final approval of the proposed $84,600,000 settlement
in the matter, "In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-7897."

The hearing will be held before Judge Denise Cote, at the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, located at
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, in New York, New York.

Any objections or requests for exclusion to and from the
settlement must be made on or before Nov. 24, 2008.  Deadline
for the submission of a proof of claim is on Dec. 9, 2008.

                        Case Background

The consolidated suit alleged that the defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements that, among
other things, materially overstated the earnings and overall
financial condition of Converium Holding AG by concealing a
massive deficiency in Converium's loss reserves.

SCOR is the successor to Converium, which was at all relevant
times a global reinsurance company with headquarters in New York
City and Zurich, Switzerland.  As a reinsurer, Converium was
required to establish loss reserves to reflect its contractual
obligation to pay future claims on the policies of the ceding
insurers, which Converium, as a reinsurer, has contracted to
cover.

Loss reserves are established and periodically adjusted based on
actuarial estimates, and Converium employed teams of internal
actuaries to monitor loss reserves for each of its lines of
business.

Those business lines included property insurance, casualty
insurance, automobile liability and life insurance, and were
managed through Converium's three global divisions, each of
which established its own loss reserves for each line of
business: Converium Zurich, Converium Cologne and Converium
North America.

Loss reserves constituted the largest expense item on Converium
income statement and, because the establishment of loss reserves
offsets income, Converium's earnings were reduced commensurately
by any increase in loss reserves.

Accordingly, the suit alleged that, by failing to maintain
adequate loss reserves during the class period, Converium was
able to materially overstate its earnings and, thereby, mislead
investors.

As alleged in the consolidated amended class action complaint,
Converium was spun-off from its parent, Zurich Financial
Services, in a Dec. 11, 2001 initial public offering.

The Converium IPO was the largest initial public offering of a
reinsurance company in history, and yielded gross proceeds of
approximately $1.756 billion, of which ZFS received
approximately $1.67 billion.

Prior to the IPO, an independent actuarial consulting firm
identified a reserve deficiency at Converium's North American
division of approximately $350 million.  Despite being informed
of that deficiency, the company proceeded with the IPO without
sufficiently increasing its loss reserves.

Thereafter, and throughout the period from Jan. 7, 2002, to
Sept. 2, 2004 (Class Period), the complaint alleges that the
company and its senior officers touted Converium's continuously
improved financial condition while concealing a growing reserve
deficiency in North America.

After a second independent actuarial consultant determined that
the reserve deficiency had grown to approximately $437 million
as of year-end 2002, the company engaged in a scheme to conceal
that deficiency by "novating" or transferring millions of
dollars in poorly performing contracts from North America to
Converium's Zurich division and by reorganizing the company to
no longer report financial results by geographic division.

Ultimately, the company was unable to continue concealing its
reserve deficiency and, on July 20, 2004, announced that
Converium would take a charge of at least $400 million to
increase its reserves.  That disclosure caused the price of
Converium's American Depositary Shares, which traded on the New
York Stock Exchange, to collapse nearly 50%.  Subsequent
disclosures by the Company revealed that the charge would be
more than $500 million, and drove the price of Converium's ADSs
down further.

On Sept. 2, 2004, Standard & Poor's announced a downgrade of the
company's credit rating in response to the reserve increase.
Shortly thereafter, Converium put its North American business
into runoff.

In October 2004, the first of several securities class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Converium, ZFS, and
certain of Converium's officers and directors.

On July 14, 2005, Judge Mukasey of the District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiff in the
Converium securities fraud litigation, together with Avalon
Holdings, Inc., a private institutional investor.

The court also approved Mississippi's and Avalon's selection of
three law firms, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC and Cohen Milstein Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C. as Lead Counsel for the Class.  Lead Counsel
conducted an extensive investigation of the action, which
included interviews with the former Converium employees who had
been directly involved with the establishment of the Company's
loss reserves -- which are the focus of the litigation.

On Sept. 23, 2005, Mississippi and Avalon filed the complaint
based upon the detailed facts developed through Lead Counsel's
investigation.  The complaint alleges violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Converium, and its CEO Dirk
Lohmann, CFO Martin Kauer, and North America CEO Richard Smith,
as well as by Zurich Financial Services, Converium's parent
company prior to its IPO.

In addition to these Exchange Act claims, which had been
asserted in the complaints filed prior to the appointment of
Mississippi and Avalon as Lead Plaintiffs, the Complaint also
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against
Converium, Zurich, Lohmann, Kauer, Smith and the company's
current and former directors.  In addition, the Complaint
asserts claims under the Securities Act against UBS AG and
Merrill Lynch International, which served as co-lead
underwriters on Converium's IPO.

On Dec. 23, 2005, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
on a variety of substantive and procedural grounds.  On Feb. 17,
2006, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to those
motions, and contemporaneously moved to strike certain exhibits
the defendants had submitted in support of their motions.

On March 1, 2006, Converium restated its Dec. 31, 2000 financial
statements acknowledging that the company, at the time of the
IPO, overstated its pre-tax income by nearly $100 million.  In
response, Mississippi and Avalon, on April 21, 2006, filed a
motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint incorporating new allegations against the company
arising out of the restatement.  Judge Mukasey took no action on
that motion, or on the pending motions to dismiss.

In September 2006, the case was reassigned to Southern District
of New York Judge Denise Cote.  Judge Cote held a case status
conference on Nov. 16, 2006, and subsequently issued an order
allowing the Lead Plaintiffs to make several changes to the
proposed Second Amended Complaint.  The revisions made to the
proposed Second Amended Complaint include adding eight
additional underwriters of Converium's initial public offering
as defendants, adding as named plaintiff an individual whose
case was consolidated with Lead Plaintiffs' action, and dropping
claims against two defendants (who remain defendants under other
causes of action).

On Dec. 1, 2006, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to file the second amended complaint.  On Dec. 28, 2006,
Judge Cote issued an opinion which granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motions to dismiss the original Complaint.

In issuing his opinion, Judge Cote ruled that the Lead
Plaintiffs' motion to file the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint was moot.  In the motion to dismiss ruling, Judge Cote
sustained the Exchange Act claims asserted against Converium and
the Officer Defendants, with the exception of those claims
arising out of the statements made in connection with the IPO.
Judge Cote dismissed the claims arising under the Securities
Act, holding that all such claims were barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the Securities Act claims
and of the Exchange Act claims arising out of the statements
made in connection with the IPO.  On April 9, 2007, Judge Cote
entered an order granting in part the Lead Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.  Specifically, Judge Cote granted the
request to reconsider the dismissal of the Exchange Act claims,
but denied the motion as to the Securities Act claims.  With
regard to the Exchange Act claims, the Court noted that certain
additional arguments raised in Defendants' motions to dismiss
the Exchange Act claims, which the Court had not addressed in
its initial ruling on those motions, remain to be ruled upon.

On Sept. 14, 2007, Judge Cote ruled on the Lead Plaintiffs'
Exchange Act claims regarding the statements made in connection
with the IPO, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss with
regard to those statements.

Contemporaneous with the briefing on the Lead Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration, Lead Counsel conducted extensive discovery
relating to the claims and the underlying events and
transactions alleged in the Complaint, including the review of
nearly four million pages of documents produced by Defendants
and third parties and the deposing of approximately twenty-seven
fact witnesses.

On Sept. 4, 2007, Judge Cote preliminarily approved a
$30-million settlement between the Class and Converium's former
parent company ZFS.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs moved to certify the
plaintiff class.  On Oct. 19, 2007, the defendants opposed Lead
Plaintiffs' motion.

On March 6, 2008, Judge Cote issued an opinion and order which
partially granted Lead the Plaintiffs' motion, certifying a
plaintiff class that includes all domestic purchasers of
Converium shares on the SWX Swiss Exchange (SWX) and Converium
American Depositary Shares (ADS) on the New York Stock Exchange,
as well as foreign purchasers of ADSs on the NYSE.

Foreign purchasers who bought shares of Converium on the SWX
were excluded from the class on the basis that there was
insufficient evidence of subject matter jurisdiction over their
claims.

Judge Cote also certified Mississippi as Class Representative,
but found that Avalon could not serve as a class representative
or as co-Lead Plaintiff because it was a foreign purchaser on
the SWX.

Judge Cote also moved the starting date of the Class Period from
Dec. 11, 2001, to Jan. 7, 2002, on the grounds that the market
in Converium shares did not become fully capable of absorbing
and reflecting all available information about the company until
after the end of the "quiet period" that followed Converium's
December IPO.

On March 20, 2008, Mississippi and Avalon moved for
reconsideration of the Court's ruling as to the excluded foreign
purchasers in light of additional evidence, uncovered in
discovery, of subject matter jurisdiction over their claims.  On
March 26, 2008, Mississippi and Avalon moved the Court for leave
to file a second amended complaint.

                           Settlement

On July 28, 2008, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi and Avalon Holdings, Inc., announced that they had
reached agreements with SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG, the
successor to Converium, and ZFS, Converium's former parent, to
resolve the claims of investors who purchased Converium shares
and American Depositary Shares during the period from Jan. 7,
2002, through Sept. 2, 2004.

The settlement amounted to $84,600,000 in cash, consisting of
$75 million paid by SCOR Holding and $9.6 million paid by ZFS.

On July 2008, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlements.  On Aug. 11, 2008, Judge Cote
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and scheduled a
hearing for Dec. 21, 2008, to consider final approval of the
deal.

For more details, contact:

       In re SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG Securities Litigation
       c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
       P.O. Box 9205
       Dublin, OH 43017-4605
       United States of America
       Phone: 1-800-961-3319 (calls within the U.S. only)
              1-571-730-5429 (calls from outside the U.S.)
       e-mail: SCORquestions@gardencitygroup.com

       Robert M. Roseman, Esq. (rroseman@srk-law.com)
       Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
       1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Phone: 215-496-0300

       Mark S. Willis, Esq. (mwillis@cmht.com)
       Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
       1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
       Suite 500, West Tower
       Washington, D.C. 20005
       Phone: 202-408-4600

            - and -

       Steven Singer, Esq. (steven@blbglaw.com)
       Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
       1285 Avenue of the Americas
       New York, NY 10019
       Phone: 212-554-1400


SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit against Sealed Air Corp., which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to
the company's Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit, "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04372-DMC-MF," was
filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
the company from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the company and five of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The company and one of
these individuals remain as defendants after a partial grant of
the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs' principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the class period, they materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace.  They seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case for
failure to state a claim.  On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
court determined that the Complaint failed adequately to allege
scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J.
Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect
to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged
scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the company.  Mr. Dunphy is a
current director of the company and was formerly chairman of the
board and chief executive officer of the company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on
the defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006,
the court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact
prevent the court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the
company's arguments other than scienter.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of the company during the period from March 27, 2000,
through July 30, 2002.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for
class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class
representative and to substitute a new class representative, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System.

On March 26, 2007, the court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as lead plaintiff.  Consequently, the case is now
properly referred to as "MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et
al."

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27,
2000, through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were
damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class
certification.  On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy
also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in
"Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," and "Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly" require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an opinion and order dated March 12, 2008, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In another
Opinion and Order, dated March 14, 2008, the court denied the
defendants' motion of reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.  Discovery
is ongoing.

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North Lasalle Street, Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: 312-377-1181

              - and -

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: 856-797-4611
         Fax: 856-797-4612,

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


U.S. HOME: Faces California Lawsuit Over 386 Defective Houses
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court
accuses U.S. Home Corp. of building 386 defective houses,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that the original design, materials, and
workmanship is typical in that the homes have defects in the
stucco, plumbing, roofing, foundations, concrete, stucco,
windows, stucco, gutter systems, pavement, flatwork, the
structures as well as the problems and conditions discussed.

The suit further alleges that the resulting damages are typical
in that the homes have had water damage inside from, including
but not limited to, cracked stucco, leaking roofs, condensate
lines, leaking windows, pipes and shower assemblies.

The suit says that the causes are typical in that water damage
was caused by failure to build stucco systems, roofs, windows,
condensate lines and pipes in conformity with building codes and
industry standards, the complaint states.  The designs and
methods of repair are typical in that water damage caused by
faulty stucco systems, roofs, windows, stucco systems, and
drainage pipes can be repaired by properly repairing the
buildings, roofs, stucco systems, windows and cracked and
leaking drainage pipes.

The damages for costs of repair are typical in that each home
will require repairs to its buildings, stucco systems, roofs,
windows and plumbing pipes and replacement of cracked and
leaking drainage pipes and condensate lines, and many other
similar repairs, the suit adds.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- damages according to proof;

     -- attorney's fees and costs of suit;

     -- interest at the maximum legal rate;

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

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

The suit is "Luis Gomez, et al. v. U.S. Home Corporation, Case
No. 34-2008-00020505-CU-CD-GDS," filed in Sacramento Superior
Court.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settles "Zilhaver" ERISA Lawsuit for $17 Mln
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the
purported class-action lawsuit "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," which is pending
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On June 6, 2006, the purported class action was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (UnitedHealth Group
Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common
stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005, through May 24, 2006.

The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan
fiduciaries concealed from the Plan participants important
information concerning:

      -- long-standing, improper practices at the company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
         current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

      -- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

On May 1, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint.  That
amended complaint alleges that the fiduciaries to the company-
sponsored 401(k) plan violated ERISA by allowing the plan to
continue to hold company stock.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class consisting
of certain participants in the company's 401(k) plan.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007.  The
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and their motion
for partial summary judgment on June 30, 2008.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced it had reached an
agreement in principle to resolve this lawsuit.  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, the company has accrued $17 million
to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of class
members, most of which will be paid by the company's insurance
carriers.

The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against
the company and all of the individual defendants in the action.
It is subject to completion of final documentation and
preliminary and final court approval.

The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com)
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

              - and -

         James B. Hovland, Esq. (jhovland@krauserollins.com)
         David E. Krause, Esq. (dkrause@krauserollins.com)
         Krause & Rollins
         310 Groveland Ave.
         Minneapolis, MN 55403
         Phone: 612-874-8550
         Fax: 612-874-9362

Representing defendants are:

         Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
         Thomas P. Swigert, Esq. (swigert.tom@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868

              - and -

         David M. Brodsky, Esq. (david.brodsky@lw.com)
         Blair Connelly, Esq. (blair.connelly@lw.com)
         Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq.
         (alexandra.shapiro@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins
         885 3rd Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-906-1628
                212-906-1658
                212-906-1670
         Fax: 212-751-4864


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Settles Minn. Securities Suit for $895 Mln.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement has been reached in a consolidated
securities fraud class action suit pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group,
Inc., according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class action
complaints alleging a violation of the federal securities laws
was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006,
consolidating the seven actions into a single case.  The action
is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN."  The appointed lead plaintiff is
California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS).

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants,
in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified
in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations
and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and
May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that
artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning the
matters set forth in the complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  It seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.

On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class
representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension
Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to
settle the lawsuit.

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

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has
accrued $895 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the
benefit of class members in two installments.

An installment of $450 million will be deposited into the
settlement fund on the earlier of 10 days following preliminary
court approval of the settlement or Sept. 15, 2008.

The remaining $445 million settlement amount will be deposited
into the settlement fund on the earlier of:

        -- 10 days following final non-appealable court approval
           of the settlement of the claims,

        -- 10 days following execution by the plaintiffs and the
           non-settling defendants of an agreement in principle
           for the settlement of the claims against the non-
           settling defendants, or

        -- Jan. 1, 2009.

In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company
will also supplement the substantial changes it has already
implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional
changes and enhancements.

The proposed settlement, which has been approved by the boards
of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to
completion of final documentation, and preliminary and final
court approval.

The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              -and -

         Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
         Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
         651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
         Phone: 612-341-0400
         Fax: 612-341-0844

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com)
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856

             - and -

         Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: 212-408-2421


WORLDWISE INC: Recalls Dog Leashes Posing Injuries to Dog Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Worldwise Inc., of San Rafael, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
223,000 SlyDog Retractable Dog Leashes.

The company said the metal clasp connecting the leash to a dog's
collar can bend or break while in use, causing the leash to
recoil back unexpectedly.  This poses a serious risk of injury
to consumers.

Worldwise has received five reports of injuries, including
facial cuts, a broken tooth, displaced eye lens, and a bruised
collar bone.

Description: This recall involves the SlyDog Retractable Dog
Leash with a metal clasp.  The leash has a handle composed of a
blue plastic case with a black plastic grip.  The leash is made
of a black woven strap and measures approximately one-half inch
wide.  The end of the leash has a metal clasp which connects to
the dog's collar.  The SlyDog(TM) retractable leashes with a
plastic clasp are not included in this recall.

These recalled dog leashes were manufactured in China and were
being sold by Dollar General Stores nationwide from September
2007 through August 2008 for about $5.

A picture of the recalled dog leashes is found at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08387.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using these leashes immediately
and return them to Worldwise Inc. for a full refund, including
shipping costs.

For more information, contact Worldwise toll-free at
888-296-3807 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.squareonesystem.com/


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pennsylvania REIT Has $5M Cleanup Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain environmental claims, including asbestos, up to US$5
million per occurrence and up to US$5 million in the aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has
performed remediation of such environmental matters, and the
Company is not aware of any significant remaining potential
liability relating to these environmental matters.

The Company in the future may be required to perform testing
relating to these matters, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 11, 2008.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate
Investment Trust focuses on retail shopping malls and strip and
power centers located in the eastern half of the United States,
primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. As of June 30, 2008, the
Company's portfolio consisted of a total of 55 properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Facing Suits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named in several complaints by several
hundred persons that allege that they were employed by some of
the named defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with Company
subsidiaries.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none of the
plaintiff complaints naming the Company are included in the
first 60 (Group I). The initial discovery of Group I resulted in
certain dismissals with prejudice, two dismissals without
prejudice and two withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs
remaining in Group I.

Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21, 2008.
Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in one
suit.

No amounts were accrued at June 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company owns 28 land
rigs and 18 U.S.-based barge drilling and workover rigs. The
Company drills worldwide and has worked in 54 countries.
Subsidiary Quail Tools provides rental tools for oil and gas
drilling and workover activities, with operations in the Gulf
Coast, the Rocky Mountains, and West Texas regions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Reserves $1.056B for Carolinas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation has asbestos-related reserves of
US$1.056 billion for its Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary
as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$1.082 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants before 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million.

As of June 30, 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments
have exceeded the self insurance retention on its insurance
policy. Future payments will be reimbursed by the Company's
third party insurance carrier.

The insurance policy limit for potential insurance recoveries
for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.107
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of about US$1.040 billion related to this
policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in
Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of
both June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, respectively.

Company subsidiaries Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc. have also been named as defendants or co-defendants
in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating
stations.

As of both June 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has
recorded reserves, including reserves related to the
aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of
about US$1.1 billion for these proceedings and exposures.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation has
3.9 million electricity customers and about 500,000 gas
customers in the U.S. South and Midwest. The Company's US
Franchised Electric and Gas unit operates through its Duke
Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke
Energy Kentucky regional businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Funding Involved in Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, VWR Funding, Inc. faces cases as a result of
its distribution of laboratory supplies, including litigation
stemming from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or acquired
companies.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2008.

Headquartered in West Chester, Pa., VWR Funding, Inc.
distributes laboratory supplies, including chemicals, glassware,
equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies
and other assorted laboratory products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Reserves $871Mil for A&E at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims were US$871 million for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$637.9 million for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2007.

The Company's net reserves for A&E claims were US$820.5 million
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with
US$529 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007.

For the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded
a gross of US$901 million (net of US$843.2 million) as incurred
losses and outstanding loss reserves with respect to A&E
reserves. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

At June 30, 2008, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$147.4 million representing case reserves
reported by ceding companies, US$150.4 million representing
additional case reserves established by the Company on assumed
reinsurance claims, US$163.3 million representing case reserves
established by the Company on direct excess insurance claims,
including Mt. McKinley Insurance Company, and US$409.9 million
representing incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at June 30, 2008, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$816.4 million, or 93.7
percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$563.8 million was
for assumed business and US$252.6 million was for direct
business.

The increase in end of period A&E reserves at June 30, 2008
compared to June 30, 2007 was primarily the result of the
Company's reserve study in the fourth quarter of 2007, after
which it increased its gross reinsurance asbestos reserves by
US$250 million and increased its gross direct asbestos reserves
by US$75 million.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 3.1
years for direct business and 12.8 years for reinsurance
business at June 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd. is
the holding company for Everest Reinsurance Company (Everest
Re), an underwriter of property & casualty reinsurance and
insurance. Everest Re markets to U.S. and international
insurance companies directly and through independent brokers.
The Company offers specialized underwriting in several areas,
including property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as
well as medical malpractice, directors and officers liability,
and professional errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Ongoing v. Mueller Water Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several subsidiaries of Mueller Water Products, Inc. have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2008.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates
in three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.
Mueller Co. manufactures and sells fire hydrants and valves.
U.S. Pipe manufactures and sells ductile iron pipe, restrained
joint products, fittings and related products. Anvil makes and
sells pipe fittings, couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and
related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Group Inc. Reserves $311T for Gradall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$311,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at its Gradall facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 11,
2008.

The Company has an environmental reserve in the amount of
US$1,729,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's facility.
Three specific remediation projects that were identified before
the acquisition are in process with a current reserve balance of
US$230,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for
potential ground water contamination or remediation that was
identified before the acquisition and believed to have been
generated by a third party company located near the Gradall
facility.

Headquartered in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. makes tractor-
mounted mowing equipment (rotary, flail, and sickle-bar). The
Company's Alamo Industrial and Tiger hydraulically powered
tractor-mounted mowers are sold to government entities. Its
Rhino and M&W subsidiaries sell rotary cutters and other
equipment to farmers and ranchers for pasture maintenance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 300 Injury Cases Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. faces about 300 personal injury
liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and
other substances, involving about 580 plaintiffs, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 11, 2008.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question.

At the time a liability associated with a case becomes probable
and can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues for the
liability by a charge to earnings.

The Company has been named as a co-defendant in about 295
personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure
to asbestos and other substances. (Class Action Reporter, May
30, 2008)

Headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International,
Inc. designs, manufactures and markets high productivity mining
equipment for surface and underground mining. The Company
operates in two business segments: surface mining and
underground mining. Markets for the surface mining industry are
copper, coal, oil sands and iron ore.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United America Unit Facing Coverage Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of United America Indemnity, Ltd.'s insurance companies
faces a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated
insurance companies that involves issues with regard to about
4,500 asbestos-related bodily injury claims and others that
continue to be filed.

Management is continuing to gather information to enable it to
both evaluate the numerous factual and legal issues that are
presented by this lawsuit and to estimate the timing of any
payments that may be required.

One of the Company's insurance companies faced a lawsuit seeking
coverage from it and other unrelated insurance companies that
involves issues with regard to about 5,000 asbestos-related
bodily injury claims and others that continue to be filed.
(Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

Headquartered in George Town, Cayman Islands, United America
Indemnity, Ltd. provides specialty and surplus property/casualty
insurance, including insurance for social service agencies and
vacant properties. The Company operates through agents and
program managers throughout the U.S.  It also has operations in
Bermuda through its Wind River Reinsurance unit, which offers
treaty (group risk) and facultative (individual risk)
reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Cases Still Ongoing v. Pepco at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 180 asbestos-related cases, as of June 30, 2008, were
still pending against Pepco Holdings, Inc. in the State Courts
of Maryland, according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of these 180 cases, about 90 were filed after Dec. 19, 2000 and
were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the Company and Mirant under which the Company
sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints
filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County,
Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on Company property.

Initially, a total of 448 individual plaintiffs added the
Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not
entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of
cases have been dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has
had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with
prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc.
distributes electricity to about 1.9 million customers and
natural gas to 122,000 customers in Delaware, Maryland, New
Jersey, and Washington, D.C., through its utility subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $26.5M for Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's non-current reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$26.5 million as of June 30, 2008, compared with
US$29 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$6 million as of June 30, 2008, compared with US$7 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad,
which installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Has 241 Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faces 241 pending asbestos-related cases at
June 30, 2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 218 pending asbestos-related cases as of
March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

The number of asbestos-related cases, which have been initiated
naming the Company (primarily is subsidiary, Metalclad
Insulation Corporation) as a defendant, decreased from 232 in
2006 to 163 in 2007.

There were 86 new claims made in the first six months of 2008,
compared with 89 in the first six months of 2007.

The indemnity paid on 67 cases resolved in the six months ended
June 30, 2008 averaged US$70,919, as a result of one case in
which the plaintiff received a jury award of US$1,659,000 and
three other cases settling for about US$1 million each. The
Company estimated that the average indemnity paid on all claims
resolved in 2008 will increase to over US$30,000.

Direct defense costs per resolved claim have been about
US$13,500 per claim.

The Company expended US$39,000 during the three months ended
June 30, 2008 and US$104,000 during the six months ended
June 30, 2008 to administer the asbestos claims and defend an
ACE Lawsuit. The Company expended US$66,000 during the three
months ended June 30, 2007 and US$173,000 during the six months
ended June 30, 2007.

The Company has determined that the minimum probable insurance
coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury claims
exceeds the Company's estimated future liability for those
claims of US$32.5 million as of June 30, 2008, and US$36 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Accordingly, the Company has included US$32.5 million of such
insurance coverage receivable as an asset on its June 30, 2008
balance sheets, compared with US$36 million on its Dec. 31, 2007
balance sheets.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad,
which installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by certain related entities(ACE Property &
Casualty Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha
and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company) against Entrx
Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, is
ongoing.

On Feb. 23, 2005 ACE, Central National, and Industrial
Underwriters filed a declaratory relief lawsuit against
Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other liability insurers,
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding various coverage
issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving whether
historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought
against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of
liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in
the settlement agreement.

The Company said it does not believe that it has any legal
obligation to assume or pay for such defense, but has accrued
US$375,000 to cover potential indemnification obligations.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad,
which installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Maintains $375,000 Settlement Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation continues to record a reserve of US$375,000
for a settlement deal with Allstate Insurance Company reached in
June 2004, according to the Company's report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

In June 2004, Metalclad and the Company entered into a
Settlement Agreement and Full Policy Release releasing Allstate
Insurance Company from its policy obligations for claims arising
from injury or damage which may have occurred during the period
March 15, 1980 to March 15, 1981, under an umbrella liability
policy.

The Policy provided limits of US$5 million in the aggregate and
per occurrence. Allstate claimed that liability under the Policy
had not attached an exclusion in the Policy barred coverage for
virtually all claims of bodily injury from exposure to asbestos.

The parties to the Agreement reached a compromise, whereby
Metalclad received US$2.5 million in cash, and Metalclad and the
Company agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the insurer from
all claims which could be alleged against the insurer respecting
the policy, limited to US$2.5 million in amount.

While it is unable to estimate the exact amount of the loss, the
Company said it believes at this time the reasonable estimate of
the loss will not be less than US$375,000 or more than US$2.5
million.

The US$375,000 estimated loss contingency noted in the above
range represents 15 percent of the US$2.5 million the Company
received and is based upon its attorney's informal and general
inquiries to an insurance company of the cost for the Company to
purchase an insurance policy to cover the indemnification
provision the Company entered into.

The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in
connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate
under the Settlement Agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October, 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in
the Settlement Agreement.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation and asbestos abatement services through Metalclad,
which installs insulation on pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers,
and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Corp. Subject to Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is still subject to product liability
claims, including claims related to its current products and
asbestos-related claims concerning premises and historic
products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Middlebury, Conn., Chemtura Corporation
produces specialty chemicals and operates in various end-use
markets, including automotive, transportation, construction,
packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and
non-durable goods, industrial rubber and home pool and spa
chemicals. The Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500
products and formulations in more than 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.4M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2008, has accrued
a total of US$2.4 million for estimated future costs of asbestos
removal or abatement at City National Plaza (US$2.2 million) and
Brookhollow US$200,000).

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company accrued a total of US$2.8
million (US$2.6 million for City National Plaza and US$200,000
for Brookhollow) for estimated future costs of asbestos removal.
(Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2008)

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a
real estate operating company that owns, acquires, develops and
manages primarily office, and mixed-use and residential
properties on a nationwide basis. The Company conducts its
business through its Operating Partnership, of which the Company
owns 61 percent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo A&E Reserves Total $149.5M at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross asbestos- and
environmental-related loss reserves totaled US$149.5 million as
of June 30, 2008, compared with US$148.1 million as of June 30,
2007.

The Company's gross A&E reserves were US$154.1 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with US$155.7
million for the three months ended March 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, May 30, 2008)

The Company's net A&E reserves totaled US$134.4 million as of
June 30, 2008, compared with US$139.7 million as of June 30,
2007.

The Company's net reserves for A&E matters were US$138.5 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, compared with
US$145.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008)

Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International
Holdings, Ltd. provides specialty property/casualty insurance
and reinsurance products in the United States and Europe. The
Company operates seven subsidiaries: excess and surplus,
industry-specific insurance, and international catastrophe
reinsurance through its Peleus Re subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $19.8M A&E Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss
adjustment expense reserves for its asbestos and environmental
liability were a gross of US$19.8 million at June 30, 2008,
compared with US$19.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct
business written by its property and casualty companies related
to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability,
included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were US$19.9 million
at March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)

The Company's ending loss and LAE reserves for its A&E liability
were a net of US$8.4 million at June 30, 2008, compared with
US$11.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's ending net and LAE reserves for all direct
business written by its property and casualty companies related
to A&E matters were US$8.4 million, net of reinsurance at March
31, 2008, compared with US$11.1 million, net of reinsurance at
Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)

In addition, and not included in the numbers above, the Company
has established loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance
pool business with asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability of US$60.4 million at June 30, 2008 and US$56.9
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to
be subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
("ECRA") voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.

The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years. The
Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10
years.

Headquartered in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc. is an all-around property/casualty insurance holding
company. Through its Hanover Insurance Company, the Company
provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners,
workers' compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance
and professional liability coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 536 Claims Still Pending v. Constellation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. says that about 536
individuals, who were never its employees or its subsidiary
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's, have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims against the Company have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority
have been resolved for immaterial amounts.

The remaining claims are currently pending in state courts in
Maryland and Pennsylvania.

The Company and BGE faced about 536 asbestos-related claims.
(Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008)

Headquartered in Baltimore, Constellation Energy Group, Inc.'s
Baltimore Gas and Electric subsidiary distributes electricity
and natural gas in central Maryland. The Company also operates
independent power plants with more than 8,700 MW of generating
capacity through its Constellation Generation unit, and it
competes in retail energy supply through Constellation
NewEnergy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota.

The suits allege that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual
personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money
damages as the sole remedy.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a
result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties
from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that
any of the wire or cable that it distributed contained asbestos
which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages
associated with these claims that the Company said it believes
it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate. In
addition, the Company maintains general liability insurance that
has applied to these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been
covered by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of
these claims has been handled by the applicable insurance
companies.

Headquartered in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company, through
its wholly owned subsidiaries, HWC Wire & Cable Company,
Advantage Wire & Cable and Cable Management Services Inc.,
distributes specialty electrical wire and cable to the U.S.
electrical distribution market through 11 locations in 10
states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Co. Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to be involved in lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.

No further asbestos-related details were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc.
makes ice-making, beverage-dispensing, and refrigerating
products, cranes, and other material handling equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BMCA Still Facing 1,900 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 29, 2008, about 1,900 alleged asbestos-related bodily
injury claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber were
pending against Building Materials Corporation of America.

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities for asbestos-related bodily injury claims relating
to the inhalation of asbestos fiber of its indirect parent, G-I
Holdings.

As of March 30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed
liabilities for Asbestos Claims. G-I Holdings has agreed to
indemnify the Company against any other existing or future
claims related to asbestos-related liabilities if asserted
against the Company.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due
to Asbestos Claims.

On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order enjoining any
existing or future claimant from bringing or prosecuting an
Asbestos Claim against the Company. By oral opinion on June 22,
2001, and written order entered Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy
Court converted the temporary restraints into a preliminary
injunction, prohibiting the bringing or prosecution of any such
Asbestos Claims against the Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action).

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (the "creditors' committee"), subsequently
filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration
that BMCA has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-
I Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings.

On May 13, 2003 the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey overseeing the G-I Holdings' Bankruptcy Court withdrew
the reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court. By
order dated May 30, 2008, the District Court dismissed the BMCA
Action without ruling on the merits of BMCA's position that it
has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims.

On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a
complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
against G-I Holdings and the Company.

On March 21, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs'
application for interim relief. In November 2002, the creditors'
committee, joined in by the legal representative of future
demand holders, filed a motion for appointment of a trustee in
the G-I Holdings' bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy
Court denied the motion.

The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S.
District Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The
creditors' committee appealed the denial to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The
creditors' committee filed a petition with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors'
committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 26, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary
proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a
fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in
connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I
Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its
roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed
certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a
specified amount of asbestos liabilities (the "1994
transaction").

On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain
aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004
decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the
holders of the Company's bank and bond debt and BMCA cross-
appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21, 2006
affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy Court's
July 7, 2004 order.

In March 2007, the parties agreed to a stay of proceedings
pending the completion of their negotiations. The judges
presiding over the G-I Holdings bankruptcy proceeding and the
related litigations, including the BMCA action and the
fraudulent conveyance action, each entered stipulated orders
dated March 22, 2007, March 23, 2007 and April 4, 2007,
respectively, implementing the stay.

By notices dated Feb. 1, 2008, the creditors' committee and
legal representative of present and future holders of asbestos-
related demands elected to terminate the stay of proceedings in
the G-I Holdings bankruptcy and related litigation.

The Company has been advised by G-I Holdings that on Aug. 12,
2008, G-I Holdings reached an agreement with the creditors'
committee and the legal representative of present and future
holders of asbestos related claims to jointly file a plan of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court that will provide for
settlement of Asbestos Claims and all related litigation.

Headquartered in Wayne, N.J., Building Materials Corporation of
America (d/b/a GAF Materials) makes shingles and roofing
systems, flashing, vents, decorative stone for fireplaces, and
wrought iron balusters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $200T on Pa. Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC, as of June 30, 2008, has spent
US$200,000 on asbestos abatement in the 02 Carson Street Office
Building in Pittsburgh.

On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a lease with Carson
Properties Nevada LLC, a subsidiary of Barden Development, Inc.,
for office space. The Lease has an initial term of five years
and six months and allows for one five-year extension under
substantially similar terms as the Initial Term.

The Lease will commence upon receipt of a temporary certificate
of occupancy and abatement of asbestos to the area being
occupied by the Company.

The Company will perform asbestos abatement to the Premises and
be reimbursed by the landlord for all direct and indirect costs
not to exceed US$400,000.

The Company will be reimbursed for the asbestos abatement and
Tenant Improvements through rent offset.

Headquartered in Las Vegas, The Majestic Star Casino, LLC owns
and operates four casino properties. Its holdings include two
riverboat casinos in Gary, Ind.; one casino in Tunica County,
Miss.; one casino in Black Hawk, Colo.; another in Tunica,
Miss.; and one more in Las Vegas. Collectively, the Company
operates some 4,500 slot machines, 100 table games, 20 poker
tables, and 800 hotel rooms.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hexion Continues to Face Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in
actions that allege harm caused by products it has allegedly
made or used, containing asbestos, silica, and vinyl chloride
monomer.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 14, 2008.

Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a
producer of thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are
used in paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for
consumer or industrial uses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $45.68M Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$45,647,000 at June 30, 2008, compared with
US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$27,688,000 million at March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 23, 2008)

Current asbestos reserves were US$16,272,000 at June 30, 2008,
compared with US$24,744,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

Current asbestos receivables were US$1,322,000 at June 30, 2008,
compared with US$10,490,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as a means
to resolve claims asserted against it related to the use of
asbestos in its products decades ago.

On Aug. 12, 2008, the Company and its debtor affiliates became a
party to a term sheet, with its official committee of
bondholders, the asbestos creditors' committee, the future
claimants' representative, claimants' counsel and Arthur J.
Pergament, as collateral trustee, that contains the material
terms of a proposed plan of reorganization for Congoleum and
provides for the settlement of certain litigation, all of which
is subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court.

The Term Sheet also provides for the settlement of certain
litigation in connection with the Plan as more particularly
described in the Term Sheet.

Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation makes
flooring products for residential and commercial use, including
resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-
yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaanapali, D/C Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and subsidiary D/C Corporation still face personal injury
actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.

While there are a few such cases that name the Company, there
are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C
on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against
the Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations
in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on D/C's
prior distribution business operations primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and
Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco,
Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff
alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for
defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly
based on exposure to asbestos containing products.

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been
able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing
policy or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights,
and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was
not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that
the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been
incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment
and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation
of cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.

In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. That settlement amount
was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of a secured
indebtedness.

Headquartered in Chicago, Kaanapali Land, LLC's operations are
in two business segments: Agriculture and Property. The
Agriculture segment grows seed corn and soybeans under contract
and leases or provides harvesting rights to a third party on
certain lands cultivated in or used for the processing of
coffee. The Property segment develops land for sale and
negotiates bulk sales of undeveloped land.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liability Totals $12.84M
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$12,840,000 at June 30, 2008, compared with
US$12,600,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$12,270,000 at March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 23,
2008)

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$11,140,000 at both June 30, 2008 and
Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite
Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive
tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and
storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient
sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection amid asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,339 Claims Pending v. American Biltrite
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products
in 1,339 pending claims involving 1,894 individuals as of
June 30, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company faced 1,360 claims.

The Company faced about 1,344 pending claims involving about
1,899 individuals as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
May 23, 2008)

In the three months ended June 30, 2008, the Company noted 261
new claims, eight settlements, and 274 dismissals. In the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 523 claims, 20
settlements, and 475 dismissals.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were
US$600,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared
with US$2.2 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The
amounts were paid by the Company's insurance carriers under a
February 1996 coverage-in-place agreement with the Company's
applicable primary layer insurance carriers, as were the related
defense costs.

In June 2008, the Company's primary layer insurance carriers
advised the Company that coverage limits under the February 1996
coverage-in-place agreement had exhausted. The Company's first-
layer umbrella carriers provide defense and indemnity coverage
under an umbrella/first-layer excess policies arrangement
("Umbrella Coverage") between the Company and the applicable
insurance carriers.

In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage,
the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies
that should provide further coverage if and when limits of
certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the estimated range of liability for
settlement of current claims pending and claims anticipated to
be filed through 2013 was US$12.6 million to US$41.4 million.

Headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass., American Biltrite
Inc.'s tape division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive
tapes and films used to protect materials during handling and
storage. The Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient
sheet and tile flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection amid asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Still Incurs $105T for Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shelter Properties IV's investment property, Baymeadows
Apartments in Jacksonville, Fla., incurred about US$105,000 of
asbestos abatement during the six months ended June 30, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 14, 2008.

In October 2007, Baymeadows Apartments experienced damages from
a severe storm. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the
Partnership incurred about US$282,000 in damages and clean up
expenses of about US$176,000, including about US$105,000 of
asbestos abatement.

All of the asbestos related work was complete as of June 30,
2008.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, the
Partnership received insurance proceeds of about US$272,000,
about US$7,000 of which was held on deposit with the mortgage
lender at June 30, 2008, and wrote off undepreciated damaged
assets of about US$35,000, resulting in a casualty gain of about
US$237,000.

Headquartered in Greenville, S.C., Shelter Properties IV's
investment property consists of one apartment complex,
Baymeadows Apartments in Jacksonville, Fla.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairchild Corp. Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits are still pending
against The Fairchild Corporation, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 14, 2008.

On Jan. 21, 2003, the Company and one of its subsidiaries were
served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in New
York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The defendant, who is one of many defendants in the action,
purchased a pump business from the Company, and asserts the
right to be indemnified by the Company under its purchase
agreement. The aforementioned case was discontinued as to all
defendants, thereby extinguishing the indemnity claim against
the Company in the instant case.

However, the purchaser notified the Company of, and claimed a
right to indemnity from the Company in relation to thousands of
other asbestos-related claims filed against it.

During the last 58 months, the Company has been served directly
by plaintiffs' counsel in cases related to the same pump
business. Several of these cases were dismissed as to all
defendants based upon forum objections. The Company was
voluntarily dismissed from additional pump business cases during
the same period, without the payment of any consideration to
plaintiffs.

During the last 58 months, the Company, or its subsidiaries, has
been served with separate complaints in actions filed in various
venues by non-employee workers, alleging personal injury or
wrongful death as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products other than those related to the pump business. The
plaintiffs' complaints do not specify which, if any, of the
Company's former products are at issue, making it difficult to
assess the merit and value, if any, of the asserted claims.

During the same time period, the Company has resolved similar,
non-pump, asbestos-related lawsuits that were previously served
upon the Company. In most of the cases, the Company was
voluntarily dismissed, without the payment of any consideration
to plaintiffs. The remaining few cases were settled for nominal
amounts.

Certain of the asbestos suits filed in New York relate to a
product known as Patterson Pump. The Company has very little
knowledge concerning Patterson Pump and said it believes that
successorship liability followed the sale of the product line to
another entity.

The carriers defending those suits have taken the position that
the automatic stay in the Bankruptcy of Skinner Engine, one of
the Company's former product lines, prevents them from paying
any indemnity on the asbestos suits.

Because the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of most of the New York asbestos suits, the carriers'
reservation of rights as to indemnity has not been an issue
until recently.

One of the New York asbestos suits was scheduled for trial on
May 5, 2008. The carriers notified the Company that the
automatic stay in the Skinner Engine bankruptcy would prevent
them from satisfying any judgments in the event the plaintiff
received a verdict.

However, before trial, the Company's motion for summary judgment
was granted and the Company was dismissed from the suit.

Headquartered in McLean, Va., The Fairchild Corporation's
business consists of three segments: PoloExpress; Hein Gericke;
and Aerospace. PoloExpress and Hein Gericke design and sell
motorcycle apparel, protective clothing, helmets, and technical
accessories for motorcyclists in Europe. Aerospace stores
aircraft parts and distributes them to commercial airlines and
air cargo carriers, fixed-base operators, corporate aircraft
operators, and other aerospace companies worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation continues to be subject to legal
proceedings, which include asbestos exposure allegations.

These claims may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage
claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types
of relief.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 29, 2008.

Headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Ill., Sears Holdings
Corporation is a broadline retailer with about 2,300 full-line
and 1,200 specialty retail stores in the United States,
operating through Kmart and Sears, and about 380 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 70 percent-owned subsidiary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations it previously acquired, but
which it no longer owns.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products.

With respect to these claims, the Company is either
contractually indemnified against liability for asbestos-related
claims or believes that it has no liability for such claims.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement in May 2007 with
Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc.
(collectively, "Federal-Mogul") under which the Company is
entitled to receive amounts up to a maximum of US$5.5 million
from a settlement trust established under Federal-Mogul's
bankruptcy reorganization plan and funded by insurance proceeds.

In May 2007, several insurance carriers filed a declaratory
judgment action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, relating to insurance coverage for such
previously acquired businesses, seeking a determination that no
coverage is available under the policies.

Defendants Federal-Mogul, Cooper Industries LLC and the Company
filed responsive pleadings and motions relating to the action,
and the court recently granted the motions to stay that action.

Some of these insurers have appealed the ruling.

Headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides
digital power control systems that are used to control motion
and power primarily in material handling, elevator, and energy
delivery applications. Its products are sold directly or through
manufacturers' representatives to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs Continues to Face Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is still subject to various
unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product
liability actions that arise in the normal course of its
business, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 28, 2008.

From time to time, product and general liability claims arise
against the Company, which is generally self-insured for claims
up to US$2 million per claim. Accordingly, a reserve is
maintained for the estimated costs of such claims.

The reserve for product and general liability claims (including
asbestos-related liabilities) was US$6.3 million on June 29,
2008, compared with US$7.2 million on July 1, 2007.

Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation
produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power
equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and
services these products for original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco, AMC Urge Court to OK Claim Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation ask the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to approve procedures to determine the maximum
allowed amounts of certain unliquidated claims for plan
distribution purposes.

Luc A. Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP,
in New York, notes that the plan of reorganization filed by the
Debtors on July 31, 2008, does not contain a cap on
distributions for unliquidated asbestos and environmental claims
against the Debtors. He asserts that the Debtors' Plan cannot
possibly be confirmed because, as currently proposed, it
contains no limit on the amount of distributions that the
holders of the environmental and asbestos claims can receive and
it is not fair and equitable for these claimants to receive more
than 100 percent of the allowed amount of their claims.

Because the Debtors' Plan fails to limit the holders of asbestos
and enviromental claims' recovery to no more than 100% of their
allowed claims, Mr. Despins argues that the Court must determine
the maximum amount of their allowed claims prior to proceeding
to confirmation. This determination is crucial in light of the
fact that under the Parent's plan of reorganization, the holders
of these claims will be offered 100 percent cash recovery by the
Parent and to implement this Plan.

Rather than the Court trying to determine the impact of the
uncapped claims at the confirmation hearing, Asarco Inc.
suggests that it would be much more efficient to establish an
efficient procedure to address or liquidate the Asbestos and
Unresolved Environmental Claims.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 81; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco Opposes Motion Over $10Mil DIP Loan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation oppose
ASARCO LLC and its Asbestos Subsidiary Debtors' joint motion for
authority to obtain the US$10 million DIP Financing, saying that
the US$10 million financing is only given as a gift.

Asarco Inc. and AMC assert that the DIP Loan not only wastes
ASARCO LLC's resources, but is also not authorized by the
Bankruptcy Code and does not constitute a proper exercise of
ASARCO LLC's business judgment.

Luc A. Despins, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in
New York, tells the Court that the the motion itself admits that
the Asbestos Subsidiaries are a bad credit risk, having no
operation, generating no income, having depleted the asbestos
insurance settlement proceeds in excess of US$20 million and
having no assets to secure the loan. The proposed financing
constitutes an improper pre-confirmation advance against plan
distributions, which violates the Bankruptcy Code and the
Bankruptcy Rules, Mr. Despins adds.

Mr. Despins goes on further that there is no justification for
ASARCO LLC to gift the Asbestos Subsidiaries with US$10 million;
ASARCO LLC is under no obligation to fund the independent
obligations of the Asbestos Subsidiaries, which presumptively,
have separate estates.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 81; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pate Named as Representative in ASARCO Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved ASARCO LLC's and all of its
Chapter 11 affiliated Debtors' motion to name Robert C. Pate as
legal representative for future asbestos claimants.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 81; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Armstrong Action Set for Sept. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason M. Madron, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., in
Wilmington, Del., informs the Court that no parties-in-interest
filed objections to Armstrong World Industries, Inc.'s motion to
close its Chapter 11 case by the Aug. 18, 2008 objection
deadline.

Armstrong, however, received informal comments from the AWI
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Mr. Madron reveals.

Mr. Madron relates that Armstrong is in negotiations with the
AWI Trust and the U.S. Trustee to a form of order acceptable to
all parties. Armstrong will submit the revised form of order
prior to the hearing scheduled for Sept. 2, 2008.

(Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 127; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. Phone 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere & Company Subject to Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company continues to be subject to various unresolved
legal actions which arise in the normal course of its business,
the most prevalent of which relate to product liability
(including asbestos related liability).

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 2, 2008.

Headquartered in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company makes farm
equipment and produces industrial, forestry, and lawn care
equipment. The Company's other products include residential and
commercial lawn care products and equipment, and golf and turf
care products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Two Insurers Oppose ASARCO's Plan Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company
object to ASARCO LLC's proposed plan confirmation schedule
because it does not give them meaningful or adequate opportunity
to conduct discovery regarding the two competing plans of
reorganization.

Based on a review of the Plan filed by the Debtors, the
Insurance Companies note that the Debtors intend for the
Asbestos Trust to be funded, at least in part, through the
proceeds of insurance policies issued by the Insurance Companies
even though they have resolved all their obligations under those
insurance policies through prepetition settlement agreements.

The Insurance Companies complain that the Debtors intend for the
Plan and the confirmation process to (i) assign the MMIC
insurance policies to the Asbestos Trust, (ii) assign and grant
to the Asbestos Trust all rights afforded an insured under the
insurance policies, and (iii) generate rulings and findings that
will significantly prejudice the Insurance Companies' rights in
any subsequent coverage litigation.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 82; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Free Screenings in Libby to End on Sept. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Libby, Mont. residents have until Sept. 19, 2008, to receive
free asbestos screenings from the Montana Asbestos Screening and
Surveillance Activities program, Mesothelioma reports.

Since the spring of 2003, the federally funded MASSA has
provided 4,500 free lung tests for 3,100 of Libby's residents.
For many participants, the screenings provided the first
indications of a possible asbestos-related disease while
detecting other medical problems as well.

The MASSA program collected extensive medical data including
possible exposure to asbestos and performed x-rays and
respiratory function tests. The data was then analyzed by a
respiratory center in Denver and sent back to the facility.

MASSA did not make any diagnosis but informed patients whether
they had symptoms consistent with an asbestos-related disease
and advised them on further tests.

MASSA patients and people who have not been screened can receive
screening services through The Libby Asbestos Medical Plan.

The plan itself does not offer screening but provides health
care benefits that can be used for screening and follow-up
tests.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Azizi Gets 10 Months for Handling Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wassim Mohammad Azizi, of Tracy, Calif., who was convicted for
breaching the Federal Clean Air Act, has been sentenced to 10
months in prison for illegally demolishing a building that
contained asbestos, Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Azizi must begin serving his sentence on Dec. 31, 2008.

The conviction relates to a vacant, asbestos-contaminated two-
story building owned by Mr. Azizi that was demolished in
Hayward, Calif.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency triggered investigation
of the case. After hearing that illegal asbestos handling had
been carried out on the Hayward site, an inspection revealed a
number of Clean Air Act violations.

During the five-day trial, the jury heard Mr. Azizi failed to
notify the EPA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
that demolition of the Hayward building may result in an
asbestos hazard. Mr. Azizi, who renovates and sells commercial
properties, hired an unlicensed worker to demolish the Hayward
building. According to prosecutors, Mr. Azizi was already aware
that the building contained hazardous materials.

Mr. Azizi was convicted of three felony charges for Clean Air
Act violations. These violations include illegally demolishing a
building that contained asbestos, neglecting to remove the
hazardous material prior to demolition, and violating work
safety practices.

The jury also found that Mr. Azizi failed to use proper asbestos
handling and wet-removal techniques to keep the building safe
for employees and the public.

In a prepared statement issued during the trial, EPA Special
Agent Nick Torres said, "The defendant not only risked exposing
the public and any workers at the site to asbestos, a known
carcinogen, but also tried to cover up his crime by lying to the
local enforcement agency."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Proposes Addition of Borit Site to NPL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on Sept. 3, 2008,
proposed the addition of the Borit Asbestos Site in Ambler, Pa.
to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

The national priorities list is a national list of sites where
hazardous contaminants could impact public health and the
environment.

NPL sites undergo a thorough investigation to determine the full
nature and extent of contamination. EPA or the parties
responsible for the contamination then address whatever risks
the sites pose to human health and the environment.

Once a site has been proposed for inclusion to the NPL, there is
a 60-day comment period. A final decision on listing the sites
will be made after EPA has evaluated and responded to all the
public comments in writing. Nationwide, EPA is proposing to add
11 sites to the Superfund list.

The Borit asbestos site was used to dispose of asbestos-
containing material from the 1930s to the 1970s that came from a
nearby asbestos-manufacturing plant.

The site is divided into three parcels:

     -- An asbestos waste pile owned by Kane-Core Inc.,

     -- A reservoir owned by Wissahickon Valley Watershed
        Association, and

     -- A former park/playground owned by Whitpain Township.

The waste pile covers about two acres of the six-acre parcel,
and is about 20 feet above the ground surface. The berm of the
15-acre reservoir was constructed of asbestos shingles,
millboard and soil.

Asbestos product waste, such as piping and tiles, is visible
surrounding the reservoir and stream banks. The third disposal
area, which covers about 11 acres, was a depression that was
filled and leveled, and eventually used as a park/playground.

In the mid-1980s, the area was fenced due to asbestos
contamination.

The site is being considered for the NPL because of the
potential exposure of the nearby residential population to
airborne asbestos and asbestos contamination along the
Wissahickon Creek.

For Federal Register notices and supporting documents for this
and other proposed sites, please visit
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/current.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mesothelioma Claims U.K.'s Youngest Victim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leigh Carlisle, a 28-year-old phone company executive, died of
peritoneal mesothelioma on Aug. 27, 2008, making her the United
Kingdom's youngest victim to contract the disease, the
MailOnline reports.

Ms. Carlisle battled with the illness for 18 months but died at
North Manchester Hospital General Hospital. It is believed she
she must have been exposed to asbestos as a child.

Adrian Budgen from Irwin Mitchell, a law firm specializing in
industrial disease, said, "There is a big issue about asbestos
in schools built in the post-war period. When doors are slammed
by young children or chairs are pushed against pipes, it can
disturb the asbestos. This may have happened to Leigh."

The company is awaiting a response to a Freedom of Information
request about the buildings where Ms. Carlisle was taught as a
youngster.

The company is also looking at the possibility Ms. Carlisle
breathed in asbestos as she walked pass a factory yard, where
asbestos sheets were cut up, on her way to school. It is also
thought she could have breathed in asbestos from the clothes of
relatives who worked at the factory.

Ms. Carlisle's case has been turned into a medical mystery as
her liver and lungs were clear. She also explained in a 2007
interview, "Doctors said this is really, really rare - a one in
a million chance. It was the worst feeling in the world. I have
taken a positive approach and I'm just getting on with my life
as best I can."

Ms. Carlisle went to Propps Hall Primary School in Failsworth
until 1991 and walked through the Hubron rubber factory yard.
She began to suffer from growing stomach pains during her final
year at Derby University where she was studying a three year
marketing and Spanish degree.

Various hospitals gave her a range of diagnoses including
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, pelvic infection and Endometriosis
over three years. However, she was finally referred to North
Manchester General and in January 2007 was diagnosed with
Peritoneal.

About 2,000 people die from mesothelioma in Britain die each
year, a figure which has doubled since 1992. It is believed
90,000 more people in this country will die from the disease and
that a further 90,000 will die from other lung diseases related
to asbestos exposure.

About 200 schools workers have died or are suffering serious
illness because of asbestos in schools. It is estimated about
13,000 schools still contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichols Case v. 72 Firms Filed on Aug. 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary and Mary Jane Nichols, a Missouri couple, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 72 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court on Aug. 25, 2007, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The Nichols couple claims Mr. Nichols was diagnosed with
laryngeal cancer on Feb. 18, 2008.

Mr. Nichols says he has worked since 1959 as an assembler, tool
maker and supervisor for General Motors Corporation, according
to the lawsuit.

According to the suit, the Nichols couple state Mr. Nichols'
exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the
defendants. They claims his disease was caused after he was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

The Nichols couple allege the asbestos-causing disease has
disabled and disfigured Mr. Nichols and has and will continue to
compel him to expend and become liable for large sums of money
for hospital, medical, and other health and services necessary
for the treatment of the disease.

Mr. Nichols also has and will continue to experience great
physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the disease, he
claims in the lawsuit.

Mrs. Nichols says she and other family members have been
deprived of the companionship, society and services of Mr.
Nichols.

In the seven-count lawsuit, the Nichols couple seek sums in
excess of US$100,000; punitive and exemplary damage in excess of
US$100,000; compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000,
including the cost of the suit and any other relief the Court
deems just and equitable.

The Nichols couple seeks punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish Ferris Kimball Company, LLC, Sprinkmann
Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc., and Young
Insulation Group of St. Louis for their misconduct and to deter
similarly situated parties from committing like acts of
misconduct in the future.

Elizabeth Heller, Esq., Keith Short, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli, Rowland & Short in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Nichols.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Widow Sues 56 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Troy of Massachusetts, on Aug. 26, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
on behalf of her late husband, Robert Troy, Sr., The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Troy claims Mr. Troy was diagnosed with pleural
mesothelioma on May 7, 2008, according to the lawsuit.

Mrs. Troy says her husband served from 1942 until 1945 as a
chief electrician's mate in the U.S. Navy in Illinois and
Florida, according to the suit.

The complaint adds Mr. Troy also worked as a lineman and
supervisor from 1946 until 1990 as a lineman and supervisor,
general manager and owner/operator of hotels at various
locations throughout Massachusetts.

Mrs. Troy states her Mr. Troy's exposure was foreseeable and
should have been anticipated by the defendants, according to the
lawsuit. She claims his disease was caused after he was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

Mrs. Troy alleges the asbestos-related disease disabled and
disfigured her husband before his death and compelled him to
expend and become liable for large sums of money for hospital,
medical, and other health and services necessary for the
treatment of the disease.

Mrs. Troy said her husband had also continued to experience
great physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the
disease, she claims in the lawsuit.

Because of his death, Mr. Troy's family has been deprived of his
means of support and has lost the society of him, according to
the complaint. They also had to pay substantial sums of money
for his funeral and burial, Mrs. Troy claims in the suit.

In the five-count lawsuit, Mrs. Troy seeks sums in excess of
US$150,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000 and for
damages which will fairly and reasonably compensate for her
husband's injuries.

Mrs. Troy also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
punish the defendants for their misconduct and to deter
similarly situated parties from committing like acts of
misconduct in the future.

G. Michael Stewart, Esq., of SimmonCcooper LLC in East Alton,
Ill., represents Mrs. Troy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow of Glass Blower Sues Owens in W.Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Jean Preece, on July 18, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on behalf of her late
husband Joseph Preece, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Preece worked at Owens-Illinois Glass
plant in Huntington, W.Va., as a glass blower, from 1953 to
1988.

Mr. Preece was exposed to asbestos dust and other harmful dusts
as the result of the manufacture, sale, distribution and
installation of asbestos-containing products. He died on
July 19, 2006.

The suit says Mr. Preece suffered inconvenience, loss of quality
and enjoyment of life, shortening of his life expectancy and
lung cancer.

Mrs. Preece claims she and her children have suffered medical
expenses, great pain of body and mind and the loss of
consortium.

In the seven-count suit, Mrs. Preece seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

Cindy Kiblinger, Esq., represents Mrs. Preece.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-1392 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ART & KRT Pay ZAR147.5M for African Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Relief Trust and the Kgalagadi Relief Trust have
paid out a total of ZAR147.5 million to people suffering from
asbestos disease in South Africa since their inceptions, the
Mining Weekly Online reports.

The ART, since 2003, has paid out ZAR127.5 million while the
KRT, since 2006, has paid out ZAR20 million.

During its 2007-2008 financial year, the ART paid out ZAR30.2
million to 595 claimants, an increase of 11.3 percent, compared
with the figure for the previous financial year. A further 312
claims, totaling ZAR11.6 million, have been approved for
payment.

And during its 2007-2008 fiscal year, the KRT paid out ZAR13.6
million to to 266 claimants, this number representing an
increase of more that 50 percent on the number of claimants
compensated in the previous financial year.

At the end of February 2008, a further 114 claims, totaling
ZAR5.5 million, were approved for payment. However, this has not
been paid out as a result of a lack of banking details for the
claimants and the noncompletion of release and discharge forms.

Potential claimants are also being located in Lesotho, the
Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal the Free State, Malawi and Botswana.

ART chairperson Phiroshaw Camay tells Mining Weekly, "This is a
worrying factor and until we get a grip on it and actually
understand the exposure, we have to manage this risk."

While the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism has
been commended for conducting detailed research into
environmental asbestos contamination and for the recent
legislation banning the use of asbestos in South Africa, a
significant challenge is that too many communities remain at
risk from environmental exposure.

In some areas in South Africa, such as Penge, in Limpopo
province, Msauli and Burgers-fort, in Mpumalanga, and Pomfret,
in the North West, asbestos is found "everywhere," says KRT
chairperson Brian Gibson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Martinez Sues 13 Firms in Madison County
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dux, on Aug. 27, 2008, filed an asbestos suit on behalf
of his deceased father, Andres Martinez, against 13 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Dux claims Mr. Martinez was diagnosed with the disease March
14, 2007, and died Nov. 6, 2007, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Dux says his father worked from 1952 until 1990 as a laborer
and heavy equipment operator at various locations. He states his
father's exposure was foreseeable and should have been
anticipated by the defendants, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Dux claims his father's disease was caused after he was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

Mr. Dux alleges the asbestos-related disease forced his father
to pay large amounts for medical expenses. Mr. Martinez also
experienced great physical pain and mental anguish as a result
of the disease, Mr. Dux claims in the lawsuit.

In the two-count lawsuit, Mr. Dux seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$50,000. He
also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
the defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly
situated parties from committing like acts in the future.

Mr. Dux is represented by Robert Phillips, Esq., John A.
Barnerd, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Nicholas Angelides,
Esq., of Simmonscooper, LLC in East Alton, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Peterborough Hearing Rules on Whitney Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Peterborough, England, heard that the death of 60-
year old pensioner Malcolm Whitney was linked to exposure to
asbestos, The Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Whitney died more than 30 years after first being exposed to
asbestos fibers.

The inquest at Peterborough Town Hall heard how Mr. Whitney, of
Rosewood Close, Yaxley, near Peterborough, had been a mechanical
engineer for British Sugar in Brigg, near Scunthorpe, in a plant
described as being "riddled with asbestos," from 1969 until the
mid-1970s. His job at the time had led him to be exposed to
asbestos at a time when the hazard should have been known about.

Years later, Mr. Whitney was diagnosed with a virulent cancer of
the lung lining and strongly linked to asbestos exposure and
died on June 29, 2008, at Peterborough District Hospital.

Coroner Gordon Ryall recording a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 13 Companies in Ill. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Hester, a Minnesotan, on Aug. 27, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 13 defendant corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Hester claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 23,
2008, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Hester says he has worked since 1961 until now as a security
guard, electronic salesman, salesman and furniture buyer, new
accounts manager for collection agency, new accounts manager of
collection agency and branch manager of savings and loan at
various locations, according to the lawsuit.

In the suit, Mr. Hester states his exposure was foreseeable and
should have been anticipated by the defendants. He claims his
disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested
or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

Mr. Hester alleges the asbestos-related disease has disabled and
disfigured him and has and will continue to compel him to expend
and become liable for large sums of money for hospital, medical,
and other health and services necessary for the treatment of the
disease.

Mr. Hester also has and will continue to experience great
physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the disease, he
claims in the lawsuit.

In the two-count suit, Mr. Hester seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000. He
also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
the defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly
situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the
future.

Mr. Hester is represented by Robert Phillips, Esq., Nicholas J.
Angelides, Esq., John A. Barnerd, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
Esq., of Simmonscooper LLC in East Alton, Ill.






                            *********

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  * * *