CAR_Public/080912.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, September 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 182

                            Headlines

230 FIFTH: Workers Sue Over Withheld Tips and Unpaid Wages
ALLIED CAPITAL: Awaits Columbia Court's Dismissal of "Ross" Suit
AMGEN INC: No Hearing Yet for Securities Suit Certification Bid
AMGEN INC: Parties in ERISA Lawsuit Agree to Stay Proceedings
BELL EXPRESSVU: Judge Reserves Judgment in Late Fee Levies Suit

BURGER KING: Violates Disabilities Act, Man Claims in Lawsuit
CHICAGO PARK: Taxpayers File Suit Over Costly Contracts
DEERE & CO: Retirees Sue Over Reduced Health Insurance Benefits
DRS TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Lawsuit Over Finmeccanica Deal Dismissed
EDDIE KINGSTON: Sued for Negligent Prescription of Medications

FANNIE MAE: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in D.C.
FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
FANNIE MAE: Texas Court Yet to Certify Class in Borrowers' Suit
FANNIE MAE: Awaits Court's Dismissal of G-Fees Antitrust Lawsuit
FOOT LOCKER: Faces N.J. Suit Over Illegal Dormancy Fees Charges

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles 17 Canadian Suits Over Defective Gaskets
KEY ENERGY: Labor-Related Lawsuit Remains Pending in California
KINETIC CONCEPTS: Settles N.J. Suit Over LifeCell Corp. Merger
LONG DRUGS: Settles Lawsuits Related to Pending Acquisition
PARK CITIES: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Yield Spread Premiums

PEOPLESUPPORT: Faces $250MM Shareholders' Suit Over Cheap Sale
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Judge Refuses to Certify ERISA Lawsuit
QUEST ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Retained to File Securities Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: William McGuire Settles Securities Lawsuit

USAGENCIES: Potential Class Members in "Marsh" to Get Notice
WESTERN REFINING: Hot Fuel Suit v. Units Still Pending in Kansas
WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Enters MoU w/ Plaintiff in NWJ Merger Suit
ZINCORE METALS: Major Shareholder Settles Class Action Lawsuits


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
NVIDIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
PENN NATIONAL: Braude Margulies Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit
QUEST ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Oklahoma Securities Fraud Suit
REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit

SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Files N.J. Securities Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Hartford, Conn., in Singh Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Murray Dismissal Bid in Wilson Case Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langlands School Cleanup to Cost GBP117,482
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SWRHA to Probe Alleged Handling Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Swindon Local Receives GBP46T Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Scunthorpe Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frontier El Dorado Fined for OSHA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seavoy Suit Filed v. 41 Firms Last Sept. 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Greer's Suit Filed in Tex. v. 13 Companies
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9-Count Suit Filed v. Chesterton & 66 Firms

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 49 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro at July 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Reverses Board Ruling in Deschenes Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Ct. Ruling Upheld in Mid-Valley
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Koonce Action v. John Crane Ongoing in Va.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MesotheliomaHelp.net Bares Study Results
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Legislators Call For School Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: White Files Suit v. 29 Firms in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Knotts Widow Sues 69 Corporations in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyneside Council to Pay GBP20T to Caretaker

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips' Suit v. Exxon Mobil Filed in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Testing in Minneapolis Starts Sept. 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Local Sues 100 Companies in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hackethal Files Suit v. 65 Firms in Madison
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pettibone Couple Sue 72 Firms in Madison

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Williams Suit Filed v. 53 Cos. in Jefferson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Hardie Case to Start on Sept. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA & DEQ Issue Post-Hurricane Guidelines
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MAAC Calls for More Cancer Research Funding
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Carriageworks Worker Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Lobby Group Dismayed of Hardie Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Trustee Lawyers Oppose Quigley's Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Plan Hearing to Commence on Nov. 17
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco, AMC Seek OK to Disclosure Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Case v. Meadows Filed in Federal Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Evacuation Cost Doncaster Council GBP201T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Gov't. to Oppose Action on Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Claims Deadline Set for Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leicestershire Designer Settles w/ Employer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Repairs in Galesburg School to Cost $1.8Mil

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Rules v. Alcoa in Satterfield
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Southwyck Shopping Mall
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coleman Widow Seeks Help in Payout Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Proposed Olympic Village Site Has Asbestos



                           *********


230 FIFTH: Workers Sue Over Withheld Tips and Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
A group of restaurant workers allege that restaurant and
nightlife entrepreneur Steven Greenberg's posh hot spot, 230
Fifth, misappropriated tips and paid workers less than the
minimum wage in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York state labor laws.

According to the Complaint, Mr. Greenberg and 230 Fifth, New
York City's largest rooftop bar, have "enjoyed great success at
the expense of their hourly service workers."

The four workers who brought the suit allege that the defendants
broke various labor laws by "refusing to pay them the proper
minimum wage, refusing to pay them proper overtime compensation,
and compelling them to participate in a mandatory tip pool."

They also allege that the defendants have "misappropriate[d]
'service charges' and/or mandatory gratuities paid by customers"
and have "led customers . . . to reasonably believe that such
'service charges' and/or mandatory gratuities were for the
workers."

Justin M. Swartz, an attorney at Outten & Golden LLP, stated,
"Keeping workers' tips and failing to pay them minimum wages may
reduce restaurant overhead, but blatant labor law violations can
generate tremendous legal liability.  We and our clients hope
that this case and others like it will put the New York
restaurant industry on notice that cheating workers costs more
than it saves.  I am surprised that New York City restaurant
owners have not yet cleaned up their acts."

One of the lead plaintiffs in the case, Christopher Schiffer, a
barback from Brooklyn, said, "I filed this lawsuit not just for
me but also for all of the other people who are too afraid to
speak up.  I don't think I am the only person who worked private
parties but didn't get a share of service charges or mandatory
gratuities, and I don't think I am the only one who worked off-
the-clock for free."

Linda A. Neilan, Esq., an attorney at Outten & Golden LLP,
added, "The New York state labor law means what it says: tips
belong to the servers who worked for them, not to their
employers.  Our clients' goal is simple -- they want to be paid
the wages they and their co-corkers worked so hard to earn.
They join thousands of other restaurant workers city-wide who
are speaking up against what they see as time theft and tip
theft."

Mr. Greenberg, who is named as an individual defendant in this
case, reportedly once owned the Palladium, the Roxy, and the
Cobalt Club in the Gramercy Park Hotel, and is a "consultant"
for the Hotel Gansevoort.

The case is "Sand et al. v. Greenberg et al., Case No.
08-cv-7840," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


ALLIED CAPITAL: Awaits Columbia Court's Dismissal of "Ross" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of an amended securities
fraud class action lawsuit filed against Allied Capital Corp.

The class action complaint, captioned "Dana Ross v. Walton, et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-0402-EGS," was filed by Dana Ross on
Feb. 26, 2007, alleging that the company and certain members of
its management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint claims that between March 1, 2006, and Jan. 10,
2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented
information concerning the loan origination practices of
Business Loan Express, LLC, an Allied Capital portfolio company.

The court had appointed new lead counsel and approved new lead
plaintiffs later.  On July 30, 2007, the plaintiffs served an
amended complaint.

The plaintiffs claim that, between Nov. 7, 2005, and Jan. 22,
2007, Allied Capital either failed to disclose or misrepresented
information about its portfolio company, Business Loan Express,
LLC.  The are seeking unspecified compensatory and other
damages, as well as other relief.

On Sept. 13, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The motion is pending.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Ross v. Walton, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00402-
EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steven Richard Freeman, Esq. (srf@fwglaw.com)
          Freeman, Wolfe & Greenbaum, P.A.
          409 Washington Avenue, Suite 300
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: 410-321-8400
          Fax: 410-321-8407

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas F. Connell, Esq.
          (thomas.connell@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


AMGEN INC: No Hearing Yet for Securities Suit Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has yet to set a hearing date in connection with a motion for
class certification in the consolidated securities fraud class-
action suit, "Connecticut Retirement v. Amgen Inc et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02536-PSG-PLA."

In 2007, several securities class-action suits were filed
against Amgen, Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Willard H. Dere, Richard
D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton, Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M.
McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V. Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn
and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The suits are:

       -- "Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc. et. al.," and

       -- "Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado
          v. Amgen Inc., et. al."

       -- "Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al.,"

       -- "Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.," and

       -- "Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al."

The complaints allege that Amgen and the Individual Defendants
made false statements that resulted in a fraudulent scheme and
course of business operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers
of Amgen publicly traded securities in that:

       -- they temporarily deceived the investing public
          regarding Amgen's prospects and business;

       -- they artificially inflated the prices of Amgen's
          publicly traded securities; and

       -- they caused plaintiffs and other members of the class
          to purchase Amgen publicly traded securities at
          inflated prices.

The complaints also make off-label marketing allegations and
allegations as to a failure to disclose negative results of
clinical studies.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
legal fees and other relief deemed proper.

All of the individual securities class action suits were filed
with the California court.

The suits were later consolidated into one action captioned,
"Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen Inc. et
al." in the U.S District Court for the Central District of
California.  The amended complaint was filed on Oct. 2, 2007.

Parties in the case are currently conducting class certification
discovery.  The plaintiff's motion for class certification is
due before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in February 2009.  The court has not yet set a date
for the hearing on the motion for class certification, 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 is "Connecticut Retirement v. Amgen Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02536-PSG-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Louis Gottlieb, Esq. (lgottlieb@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0872

          Laura Killian, Esq.
          Goldman Scarlato & Karon
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 212-907-0884

          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          (rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com)
          Susman Godrey
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-789-3100

Representing the defendants is:

          Mack Anderson, Esq. (maanderson@mayerbrown.com)
          Mayer Brown
          350 S. Grand Ave., 25th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500


AMGEN INC: Parties in ERISA Lawsuit Agree to Stay Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
against Amgen, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, have agreed to stay the
matter, according to Amgen'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, entitled "Dennis F. Ramos v. Amgen, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:08-cv-03316-PSG-PLA," was filed on May 19, 2008.  Aside
from Amgen, other defendants named in the case are, Amgen
Manufacturing Limited, Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton, and the
Fiduciary Committee.

On Aug. 20, 2007, another ERISA class action suit, captioned
"Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against Amgen and
certain members of its board of directors.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Ramos matter has been
stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the litigation,
"Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
05442-PSG-PLA."

The suit is "Dennis F. Ramos v. Amgen, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-03316-PSG-PLA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

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

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. (Rifkin@whafh.com)
          Law Offices of Mark C. Rifkin
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600

Representing the defendants is:

          Steven O. Kramer, Esq. (skramer@mayerbrown.com)
          Mayer Brown LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Phone: 213-229-9500


BELL EXPRESSVU: Judge Reserves Judgment in Late Fee Levies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bell ExpressVu subscribers will have to wait to learn if a
class-action lawsuit brought against the company over late fee
levies will go ahead, Canada.com reports.

According to Canada.com, on Sept. 10, 2008, Ontario Superior
Court Justice Paul Perell reserved his decision on whether to
throw out the suit or allow it to proceed.

The suit was filed by Bell ExpressVu subscriber Peter De Wolf on
behalf of Bell ExpressVu's 1.7 million customers nationwide.

According to a Class Action Reporter story published on Feb. 18,
2008, the lawsuit relates that Mr. De Wolf was charged a
$19 administrative fee after he failed to pay his satellite TV
bill on time and alleges that the fee, coupled with interest
charges, is illegal.  Court filings indicate that about 33,000
ExpressVu customers are charged the administrative fee, which
has then been raised to $25, each month.

Mr. De Wolf argued that a $25 fee charged by the company for
late payment does not comply with Canada's Criminal Code because
it amounts to an annual interest rate greater than the 60%
allowed under anti-usury provisions.

However, Bell ExpressVu lawyer Hugh DesBrisay argued that the
lawsuit should be dismissed because the $25 fee is not an
interest charge as defined by the Criminal Code.  Mr. DesBrisay
said the charge is an "administration fee" for "real costs"
associated with a delinquent accounts.

Mr. De Wolf's lawyer, Kirk Baert, countered that there is no
distinction between the administration fee for late payment and
the interest fee the company levies earlier in the billing
cycle.  "There is no reason to treat it different just because
Bell ExpressVu calls it something different," Mr. Baert told
Justice Perell.

Justice Perell had earlier certified the lawsuit as a class
action, the CAR said.


BURGER KING: Violates Disabilities Act, Man Claims in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Pittsburg man, who is quadriplegic and has limited use of his
arms and upper body, filed a complaint in federal court claiming
that Burger King violates the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act and state disability laws, San Jose Mercury
News reports.

The plaintiff, identified by Mercury News as Mr. Castaneda,
claims that the fast food giant makes it a chore to get his
order his way, from rolling his wheelchair through the drive-
thru lane at the Burger King store on Contra Costa Boulevard, in
Pleasant Hill, to narrowly steering it between bushes and
garbage bins along the entryway, to struggling with heavy doors
he cannot open.

According to the report, disability lawyers hope to make Mr.
Castaneda's lawsuit a large class action, targeting 90
restaurants in California that lawyers say Burger King leases or
subleases to franchises.  But, the report notes, the suit's aim
is wider, to the 500 or so Burger King restaurants throughout
California, since many of them follow the same design to create
that uniform orange-and-yellow experience.

The lawsuit claims the restaurant chain offers a wide menu of
barriers for those using wheelchairs or scooters:

   -- inaccessible parking lots;

   -- entry and restroom doors too heavy for many disabled
      people; and

   -- inaccessible dining and condiment areas.

The suit follows an investigation by disability groups into
access at Burger King and failed attempts to work out the issues
with the Florida-based company, Linda Kilb, Esq., a lawyer with
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, in Berkeley, told
Mercury News.

The complaint asks the court to order Burger King to correct the
problems and pay damages that could add up to $5,000 per
violation.

The report recounts that in 1997, the company settled a similar
lawsuit, agreeing to survey its restaurants and remedy ADA
violations.  Ms. Kilb said the settlement makes it "absolutely
crystal clear that Burger King had opportunity upon opportunity
to know about these problems and to address them."

In an e-mail to Mercury News, Burger King spokeswoman Denise
Wilson declined to comment, saying that the company does not
discuss impending litigation.


CHICAGO PARK: Taxpayers File Suit Over Costly Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Park District is facing a class-action complaint
before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging it
has a pattern of paying off big contracts that are not executed,
such as SMG's contract for managing Soldier Field, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

SMG, a Pennsylvania General Partnership, is another named
defendant in the suit.

The report notes that the district has then rejected requests
for documents -- because the projects are not completed yet.

The plaintiff, Yvonne McGinnis, requests for judgment by
temporary and permanent injunction as follows:

     -- prohibiting the Chicago Park District from paying out
        any funds on a contract in excess of $10, 000 which has
        not been executed within a 28 day period after board
        approval;

     -- prohibiting the Park District from delaying the
        execution of any contract which requires payment in
        excess of $10,000;

     -- prohibiting the Park District from failing to provide
        Freedom of Information Act information or documents on
        contracts the Chicago Park District has failed to
        execute within a reasonable time after board approval;

     -- for an order requiring the Chicago Park District to
        release copies of the SMG contract and all documents
        related to SMG and the Soldier Field Complex contract,
        or in the alternative, require the contract to be
        immediately executed to fall within the purview of the
        Freedom Information Act;

     -- for judgment for attorneys fees in the bringing of this
        action and for her costs; and

     -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
        proper based upon the premises.

The suit is "Yvonne McGinnis, et al. v. The Chicago Park
District et al., Case No. 08CH33293," filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Louis S. Elovitz, Esq.
          Rotman & Elovitz, Ltd.
          180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2101
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: 312-236-2202


DEERE & CO: Retirees Sue Over Reduced Health Insurance Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Flex Retiree Organization, a group of retired salaried
employees of Deere & Company, filed a class-action lawsuit
against the company before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, Davenport Division, Dubuque Telegraph
Herald reports.  The suit cites "significant hardships and
damage" inflicted by the company's reduced health, dental and
vision insurance benefits for the FRO retirees.

According to Quad-City Times, the lawsuit, which comes a year
after Deere & Co. rolled out new health benefits for the FRO
retirees, hopes to restore the original benefits.

Quad-City Times notes that at a news conference, FRO President
Bill Gabbard said that by its action, Deere & Company "violated
its promises to salaried employees who qualified for retirement
benefits or who took early retirement options that they would be
entitled to receive the same health benefits throughout
retirement that they had as active employees."

The named plaintiffs in the suit are retirees Dora Brubaker, of
Johnston, Iowa; Thomas Blosch, of Dubuque, Iowa; and Michael
Stohlmeyer, of East Moline, who also is a FRO leader.

Although the suit names three individual retirees as the
plaintiffs, the class action represents "all those similarly
situated," Daniel Bonnett, Esq., FRO's attorney, told Quad-City
Times.  The class includes former salaried and non-union wage
Deere employees who retired on or after July 1, 1993, and were
eligible to receive medical and health benefits.  Also included
are the retirees' eligible spouses and dependents.

According to Des Moines Register, documents estimate that
roughly 5,000 people who retired on or after July 1, 1993, have
received lesser health care as a result of the 2008 changes.

Quad-City Times notes that the suit asserts "Deere implemented
radically inferior healthcare benefits and coverage in
comparison to the benefits and coverage provided to plaintiffs
while working."  Among the changes the suit alleges are:

   -- significantly higher deductibles for both in- and out-of-
      network benefits as well as a significant increase in the
      maximum out-of-pocket expenses (co-payments); and

   -- elimination of any maximum on the amount of out-of-pocket
      expenses.

"As a result, many providers including hospitals such as the
Mayo Clinic are now prohibitively expensive and completely out
of reach for Class members," the suit adds.  It also says
prescription drug benefits were dramatically reduced.

Deere first announced the new health plan in September 2007,
indicating that it would allow retirees to be more involved in
their health care decisions, Quad-City Times recounts.  Deere
also said the new plan was designed to leverage changes made in
the federal laws.

"Deere has not had the opportunity to review the lawsuit.
However, Deere does plan to vigorously defend its actions in
court," Telegraph Herald cites Deere spokesman Ken Golden as
having said in a press release.  "The innovative health care
program was reviewed carefully before Deere introduced it and we
are confident that the changes are appropriate and beneficial."


DRS TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Lawsuit Over Finmeccanica Deal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
DRS Technologies, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class-action lawsuit that challenges the company's proposed
transaction with Finmeccanica, S.p.A.

In May 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class-action lawsuit
against the company and each of its directors in the Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey.

The complaint, captioned "Scheidt v. DRS Technologies, Inc., et
al.," alleges, among other things, that the proposed transaction
between the two companies arises out of a flawed process, that
the individual defendants are engaged in self-dealing in
connection with the transaction, and that the company's
stockholders will be divested of a large portion of the
company's assets for inadequate consideration if the transaction
is consummated.  It asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary
duties against the individual defendants and a claim for aiding
and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against the company.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the
defendants from consummating the transaction and directing the
individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the
company's stockholders.

On July 25, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint,
as amended, in its entirety for failure to state a claim,
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.

DRS Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.drs.com/-- is a supplier
of defense electronic products and systems and military support
services.  It provides technology products and services to all
branches of the U.S. military, aerospace and defense prime
contractors, government intelligence agencies, international
military forces and industrial markets.  DRS focuses on several
areas of importance to the U.S. Department of Defense, such as
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, power management,
advanced communications and network systems.  It is also a
provider of thermal imaging devices, combat display
workstations, electronic sensor systems, power systems,
battlefield digitization systems, air combat training systems,
mission recorders, deployable flight incident recorders,
environmental and telecommunication systems, aircraft loaders,
military trailers and shelters, and integrated logistics support
services.


EDDIE KINGSTON: Sued for Negligent Prescription of Medications
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2008, the law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a
class proceeding against Dr. Eddie Kingstone, a Toronto
psychiatrist.

The claim alleges that between 1996 and 2006, Dr. Kingstone
negligently prescribed his patients medications including
narcotics, benzodiazepines, and anti-psychotics in combinations
and dosages which he knew or ought to have known would lead to
drug dependency and addiction.

The claim has been filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto.

The proposed representative plaintiff, Dianne Moore, was a
successful account executive for a major corporation prior to
becoming a patient of Dr. Kingstone.  Ms. Moore alleges that
after she became a patient of Dr. Kingstone, he treated her with
medications, including narcotics, benzodiazepines, and anti-
psychotics.  As a result of Dr. Kingstone's treatment, Ms. Moore
alleges that she developed a serious and life-threatening drug
dependency and addiction to those medications.

Ms. Moore brings this action on her behalf and on behalf of all
other patients of Dr. Kingstone for whom he prescribed various
medications, including narcotics between 1996 and 2006.

Ms. Moore said, "This lawsuit will hopefully help several
hundred patients regain some part of their lives which they lost
to drug dependency and addiction.  I hope this will be a message
to Dr. Kingstone and other doctors about the dangers of over-
prescribing these medications and the harmful effects on their
patients."

Susan M. Vella and Patricia A. LeFebour of Rochon Genova LLP are
lead counsel for the Plaintiff in this proposed class
proceeding.  Ms. Vella stated, "Through the courage of Ms.
Moore, we are hopeful that other patients of Dr. Kingstone will
come forward to be a part of this class proceeding.  Addiction
and drug dependency are terrible hurdles for these patients to
overcome.  A class action is the most effective way for these
patients to obtain access to justice in reclaiming their lives
and to alter the behavior of physicians who prescribe these
medications."

In 2006, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found
that Dr. Kingstone committed acts of professional misconduct in
relation to his prescribing of narcotics, and controlled drugs
and substances to 23 patients.

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court.  The plaintiff and the prospective class members are
represented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.

For more information, contact:

          Rochon Genova LLP
          121 Richmond St. W, Suite 900
          Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2K1
          Phone: 416-363-1867
          Toll-free: 1-866-881-2292
          Web site: http://www.rochongenova.com/


FANNIE MAE: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association -- also known as Fannie
Mae -- continues to face a consolidated class action lawsuit
that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, under the caption "In Re:Fannie Mae Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01639."

Initially, 13 separate complaints were filed beginning on
Sept. 23, 2004, by holders of Fannie Mae's securities against
the company, as well as certain of its former officers, in three
federal district courts.

All of the cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.  The court entered
an order naming the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 4,
2005, against the company, and certain of its former officers.
That complaint was subsequently amended on April 17, 2006, and
then once again on Aug. 14, 2006.  The lead plaintiffs' second
amended complaint added KPMG LLP and Goldman, Sachs & Co. as
additional defendants.

The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, largely with respect to
accounting statements that were inconsistent with the GAAP
requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization
of premiums and discounts.

They contend that the alleged fraud resulted in artificially
inflated prices for the company's common stock and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other
fees and costs.

On Jan. 7, 2008, the court issued an order that certified the
suit as a class action and appointed the lead plaintiffs as
class representatives and their counsel as lead counsel.

The court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae
common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded
Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001,
through Dec. 22, 2004.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 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: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, Judge Richard J. Leon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          James R. Cummins, Esq. (jcummins@wsbclaw.com)
          Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley CO., L.P.A.
          One West Fourth Street
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-0267
          Fax: 513-381-2375

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. (dsommers@cmht.com)
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq. (frankj@johnsonbottini.com)
          Law Office of Frank J. Johnson
          402 West Broadway, 27th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-230-0063
          Fax: 619-230-1839

Representing the defendants is:

          David W. DeBruin, Esq. (ddebruin@jenner.com)
          Jenner & Block
          601 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-639-6015
          Fax: 202-637-6375


FANNIE MAE: D.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a
motion by Federal Mortgage National Association -- a.k.a. Fannie
Mae -- that seeks the dismissal of a consolidated lawsuit filed
against it over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Initially, on Oct. 15, 2004, David Gwyer filed a proposed class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.  Two additional proposed class-action suits were filed
by other plaintiffs in May 2005.  These cases are based on the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and names the
company, its Board of Directors' Compensation Committee and
certain of its former and current officers and directors, as
defendants.

The three cases were consolidated on May 24, 2005, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and a consolidated
complaint was filed on June 15, 2005.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA-based lawsuit purport
to represent a class of participants in the company's Employee
Stock Ownership Plan between Jan. 1, 2001, and the present.
Their claims are based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
relating to accounting matters.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, and other fees and costs, and other
injunctive and equitable relief.

On July 23, 2007, the Compensation Committee of the company's
Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss, which the court
recently denied, 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 is "In re Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:04-
cv-01784-RJL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, Judge Richard J. Leon, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@whesq.com)
          Wechsler Harwood LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10022-5726
          Phone: 212-935-7400
          Fax: 212-753-3630

               - and -

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq. (jisbister@tydingslaw.com)
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: 410-752-9714
          Fax: 410-727-5460

Representing the defendants are:

          Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. (sbarrett@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
          1625 I Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-383-5308
          Fax: 202-383-5414

               - and -

          James Hamilton, Esq. (james.hamilton@bingham.com)
          Bingham Mccutchen LLP
          2020 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Phone: 202-373-6026
          Fax: 202-373-6473


FANNIE MAE: Texas Court Yet to Certify Class in Borrowers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has
yet to rule on a motion that seeks the certification of a class
in the matter, "Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., et al. v. Federal
National Mortgage Association f/k/a Medlock Southwest Management
Corp., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No.
5:04-cv-00129-DF."

The complaint was filed against Federal National Mortgage
Association, a.k.a. Fannie Mae, before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas on June 2, 2004.

In the litigation, the plaintiffs purport to represent a class
of multifamily borrowers whose mortgages are insured under
Sections 221(d)(3), 236 and other sections of the National
Housing Act and are held or serviced by the company.

The complaint identified as a proposed class low- and moderate-
income apartment building developers who maintained uninvested
escrow accounts with the company or its servicer.

The plaintiffs, Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., Jasper Housing
Development Co., and the Porkolab Family Trust No. 1, allege
that the company violated fiduciary obligations that they
contend it owed to borrowers with respect to certain escrow
accounts and that the company was unjustly enriched.  In
particular, the plaintiffs contend that, starting in 1969, the
company misused these escrow funds and are therefore liable for
any economic benefit the company received from the use of these
funds.  They seek a return of any profits, with accrued
interest, earned by the company related to the escrow accounts
at issue, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Fannie Mae's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment with
respect to the statute of limitations were denied.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Dec. 16, 2005.  On
Jan. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which remains pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., et al. v. Federal
National Mortgage Association f/k/a Medlock Southwest Management
Corp., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No.
5:04-cv-00129-DF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Judge David Folsom, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nicholas H. Patton, Esq. (nickpatton@texarkanalaw.com)
          Patton Tidwell & Schroeder, LLP
          4605 Texas Blvd.
          PO Box 5398
          Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
          Phone: 903-792-7080
          Fax: 903-792-8233

               - and -

          Evan M. Janush, Esq. (emj@lanierlawfirm.com)
          The Lanier Firm
          126 E. 56th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-421-2800
          Fax: 212-421-2878

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Damon Michael Young, Esq. (dyoung@youngpickettlaw.com)
          Young Pickett & Lee
          4122 Texas Blvd.
          PO Box 1897
          Texarkana, TX 75504-1897
          Phone: 903-794-1303
          Fax: 903-792-5098

               - and -

          John H Beisner, Esq. (jbeisner@omm.com)
          O'Melveny & Myers
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-383-5300
          Fax: 202-282-5414


FANNIE MAE: Awaits Court's Dismissal of G-Fees Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has yet to
rule on a motion by Federal Mortgage National Association --
a.k.a. Fannie Mae -- that seeks the dismissal of a consolidated
lawsuit, captioned "In re G-Fees Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-00114-RWR."

Since January 18, 2005, Fannie Mae has been served with 11
proposed class-action complaints filed by single-family
borrowers that allege that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac violated
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes by
agreeing to artificially fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
price of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's guaranty fees.

Two of these cases were filed in state courts.  The remaining
cases were filed in federal court.  The two state court actions
were voluntarily dismissed, while the federal court actions were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Aug. 5,
2005.  The plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek to
represent a class of consumers whose loans allegedly "contain a
guarantee fee set by" Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac between Jan. 1,
2001, and the present.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, treble damages,
punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss the suit on
Oct. 11, 2005.  This dismissal motion remains pending in court.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 8, 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 G-Fees Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-
cv-00114-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, Judge Richard W. Roberts, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Reuben A. Guttman, Esq. (guttman@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
          1920 L Street, NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-783-6091
          Fax: 202-350-5908

               - and -

          Keith T. Vernon, Esq. (ktvern@climacolaw.com)
          Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Co. LPA
          888 16th Street, NW Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-349-9864
          Fax: 202-349-9867

Representing the defendants are:

          Adam J. Coates, Esq. (acoates@omm.com)
          O'Melveney & Meyers, LLP
          1625 I Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-383-5300

               - and -

          Megan Kathleen Greene, Esq. (mkgreene@kslaw.com)
          King & Spalding
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-737-0500
          Fax: 202-626-3737


FOOT LOCKER: Faces N.J. Suit Over Illegal Dormancy Fees Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker is facing a class-action complaint before the
Superior Court of New Jersey over allegations it charges
dormancy fees for its gift cards, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a consumer class action related to the defendant's
practice of selling gift cards in the State of New Jersey which
contain provisions that violate New Jersey's Gift Card statute
(NJSA 56:8-110), the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act (NJSA 56:23-14 et seq.) and the Consumer Fraud Act
(NJSA 56:8-1 et seq).

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all New Jersey
resident consumers who purchased a Foot Locker gift card from a
retail store located in New Jersey at any time on or after
April 4, 2006, where the gift card:

     (1) contained a notice that a dormancy fee will be charged
         within 24 months of non-use;

     (2) did or would have a dormancy fee charged on its balance
         within 24 months of non-use; and

     (3) contained a provision that it is or may be void in some
         jurisdictions without specifying whether that provision
         is void within the State of New Jersey.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant's sale to plaintiff and those
         similarly situated of a Foot Locker gift card which
         contained a provision announcing that a fee will be
         charged after 12 months of non-use violates New
         Jersey's Gift Card Statute, the Consumer Fraud Act,
         and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
         Notice Act;

     (b) whether the dormancy fee provision described on the
         Foot Locker gift card sold to plaintiff and those
         similarly situated violates New Jersey's Gift Card
         statute and the CFA and whether that provision is
         enforceable on gift cards sold in New Jersey since
         April 4, 2006;

     (c) whether defendant's sale of a Foot Locker gift card on
         or after Jan. 4, 2007, to plaintiff and those similarly
         situated which contained a dormancy fee provision
         without having notice of that provision printed in at
         least 10 point font on the gift card, the sales receipt
         for the gift card, or the package for the gift card
         violates New Jersey's Gift Card statute and TCCWNA;

     (d) whether defendant's sale of a Foot Locker gift card on
         or after Jan. 4, 2007, to plaintiff and those similarly
         situated which contained a dormancy fee provision
         without providing in at least 10 point font the
         telephone number which the consumer may call for
         information concerning the dormancy on the gift card,
         sales receipt, or the package for the gift card
         violates New Jersey's Gift card statute and TCCWNA;

     (e) whether the sale to plaintiff and those similarly
         situated of a Foot Locker gift card that contains a
         provision which states that it is or may be void in
         some jurisdictions without specifying whether that
         provision is void within the State of New Jersey
         violates TCCWNA;

     (f) whether the announcement that a fee will be charged
         after 12 months of non-use on the Foot Locker gift card
         sold to plaintiff and those similarly situated has
         diminished the value of those gift cards and whether
         that diminishment constitutes an ascertainable loss
         under the CFA; and

     (g) whether the future sale in New Jersey of defendant's
         gift cards which contain a provision announcing that a
         fee will be charged after 12 months of non-use violates
         New Jersey's Gift Card statute, the CFA or TCCWNA and
         should be enjoined pursuant to the CFA's injunctive
         remedies.

The plaintiff seeks damages for himself and the class and
injunctive relief requiring defendant to discontinue the sale of
violative gift cards in New Jersey.

The suit is "Joseph Vona, et al. v. Foot Locker Inc., Docket No.
L-7045-08," filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          Galex Wolf LLC
          1520 U.S. Hwy 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08920
          Phone: 732-257-0550
          Fax: 732-257-5654


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles 17 Canadian Suits Over Defective Gaskets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford Class Action Services reports a proposed class action
settlement has been reached between the plaintiffs and General
Motors relating to 17 class action suits that were commenced
across Canada in 2006.

The lawsuits alleged that the nylon intake manifold gaskets
installed in certain General Motors Corporation and General
Motors of Canada Limited vehicles were defective.  The proposed
Settlement does not constitute any admission of liability by GM
who denies the allegations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice will decide whether it
will certify the class action for settlement purposes and
approve the Settlement, including class counsel fees, at a
hearing on October 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. eastern daylight
savings time, at 361 University Avenue, Toronto.


General Motors of Canada Limited Settlement on the net:
http://www.gmcanadiansettlement.ca/


KEY ENERGY: Labor-Related Lawsuit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc., still faces a purported class-action
lawsuit in Ventura County, California Superior Court alleging
labor laws-related violations.

The suit was filed back in September 2005 under the caption,
"Gonzales v. Key Energy Services, Inc."  It generally alleges
that the company did not pay its hourly employees for travel
time between the yard and the wellhead and that certain
employees were denied meal and rest periods between shifts.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Key Energy Services, Inc. -- http://www.keyenergy.com/-- is an
onshore, rig-based well servicing contractor in the U.S. That
provides a range of of well services to major oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies, including
rig-based well maintenance, workover, well completion and
recompletion services, oilfield transportation services, cased-
hole electric wireline services and ancillary oilfield services,
fishing and rental services and pressure pumping services.


KINETIC CONCEPTS: Settles N.J. Suit Over LifeCell Corp. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinetic Concepts, Inc., reached a settlement in a purported
class-action lawsuit over a merger agreement between the company
and LifeCell Corp., 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 April 14, 2008, a purported stockholders' class-action
complaint was filed by a stockholder of LifeCell in the Chancery
Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Somerset County,
naming LifeCell, its directors and KCI as defendants.

The complaint alleged causes of action against the defendants
for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition of LifeCell by KCI.  The complaint sought an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of this transaction.

On May 9, 2008, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which the case will be resolved.  The
MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs against the
defendants in connection with the proposed acquisition, and
includes no admission of wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the MOU, LifeCell filed amended disclosures
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008,
regarding the Offer and the Merger.

The settlement outlined in the MOU is subject to, among other
things, final court approval and a final judgment by the court
dismissing the action with prejudice on the merits.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.kci1.com/-- is a global
medical technology company that manages advanced wound care and
therapeutic surfaces.  The company designs, manufactures,
markets and services a range of products, which include advanced
wound healing and tissue repair; pulmonary care and post cardiac
arrest complications in the intensive care unit (ICU); bariatric
care, and wound treatment and prevention.  The advanced wound
care systems incorporate the V.A.C. Therapy technology.  Its
therapeutic surfaces, including specialty hospital beds,
mattress replacement systems and overlays, are designed to
address pulmonary complications associated with immobility.  KCI
has an infrastructure designed to meet the specific needs of
medical professionals and patients across all healthcare
settings, including acute care hospitals, extended care
organizations and patients' homes, both in the U.S. and abroad.


LONG DRUGS: Settles Lawsuits Related to Pending Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Longs Drug Stores Corporation and CVS Caremark Corporation have
agreed in principle with the shareholder plaintiffs to settle
purported class action lawsuits filed in California relating to
CVS Caremark's pending tender offer for all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Longs.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the claims of the
named plaintiffs and the proposed class of public shareholders
relating to the tender offer and the related merger agreement
and the transactions contemplated thereby will be dismissed on
behalf of the settlement class.  Finalization of the proposed
settlement remains subject to several conditions, including
court approval and completion of the tender offer and the other
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement in accordance
with its terms.

                     About Longs Drug Stores

Headquartered in Walnut Creek, California, Longs Drug Stores is
one of the most recognized retail drug store chains on the West
Coast and in Hawaii.  The Company operates 521 retail pharmacies
and offers a wide assortment of merchandise focusing on health,
wellness, beauty and convenience.  Longs also provides pharmacy
benefit management services and Medicare beneficiary
prescription drug plans through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
RxAmerica, LLC.


PARK CITIES: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over Yield Spread Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Park Cities Funding Inc. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, alleging it
failed to disclose yield spread premiums on residential
mortgages, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges that in order to compensate the broker for
services, the borrowers agree to pay a fee that is either paid
out of pocket or taken directly from the proceeds of the loan at
the time the loan is funded.  This fee is variously entitled but
most commonly referred to as an "origination fee" or "broker
fee."  The fee is computed as a percentage of the loan amount.
Typically, a broker collects one percent of the loan amount as
compensation for brokering the loan.  On occasion, a borrower
may agree to pay a larger amount in exchange for additional work
the broker performs.

The complaint further alleges that defendant obtains a
substantial percentage of its revenue from yield spread
premiums.

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure 42 on behalf of:

     (1) the person entered into a residential mortgage
         transaction or refinance mortgage, secured by
         residential property located in Texas, from Sept. 1,
         2006, through the entry of the judgment, which
         transaction was secured by Park Cities Funding;

     (2) in connection with that transaction, Park Cities
         Funding, received a yield spread premium;

     (3) in connection with the transaction, the borrower paid
         the mortgage broker fee, either directly or from the
         proceeds of the loan, that is in addition to the yield
         spread premium; and

     (4) in connection with the transaction, Park Cities Funding
         failed to disclose to the borrower the amount of the
         yield spread premium in writing before the borrower
         received the closing documents.

The plaintiffs request that judgment be awarded for:

     -- actual damages, including but not limited to the amount
        of fees paid in closing the loans of plaintiffs and the
        interest plaintiffs were to have earned thereon;

     -- excess amounts that plaintiffs and the class have paid
        in interest to date and the interest that they would
        have earned on that amount; and

     -- treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
        Act, including attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest
        thereon, and any other relief the court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Manuel G. Green, et al. v. Park Cities Funding,
Inc., Cause No. 08-10297," filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daryoush Toofanian, Esq.
          Rad Law Firm
          12900 Preston Road, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Phone: 972-661-1111
          Fax: 972-661-3537


PEOPLESUPPORT: Faces $250MM Shareholders' Suit Over Cheap Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of PeopleSupport Inc., a customer service
outsourcing company, filed a $250-million class action lawsuit
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles charging company insiders
of selling the company cheap at shareholders' expense,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say PeopleSupport's board of directors sold the
company to the Indian company Essar Services and its subsidiary
Easter Merger Sub at a rock bottom $12.25 per share.

The plaintiffs cite a PeopleSupport press release stating that
the share price represents "a premium of approximately 42% over
the weighted average trading price of the Company's shares
during the previous 30 trading days."

The plaintiffs say PeopleSupport filed a deficient preliminary
proxy with the Securities Exchange Commission that paints too
vague a picture of the sale process.

But one thing is clear, the lawsuit claims: the deal will work
out nicely for PeopleSupport's senior management.  For instance,
CEO Lance Rosenzweig will keep his salary and score a $1 million
cash bonus.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop the sale, plus
damages, accounting and costs.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James Lo, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky
          39 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-363-7500
                 800-835-4950 (Toll Free)
          Fax: 212-363-7171


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Judge Refuses to Certify ERISA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has rejected attempts to certify a class action
lawsuit against Principal Financial Group that could have
involved as many as 57,000 401k plans, the Chicago Tribune
reports.

The report recounts that the lawsuit was filed in December 2006
by Joseph Ruppert, a trustee of the retirement plan of Fairmount
Park Inc., a Collinsville, Ill.-based racetrack.

According to a Class Action Reporter story published on Aug. 27,
2008, the suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8, 2006.  However,
it was later transferred before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.

The CAR report said that the suit alleges, among other things,
that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while
performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or
adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact
that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual
funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and
allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of
the services provided to the plans.  The plaintiff further
alleges that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans
to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.  The plaintiff also sought declaratory, injunctive
and monetary relief.

The Chicago Tribune notes that Judge John Jarvey ruled that
determining Principal's fiduciary status would be so fact
specific and individualized that litigating cases as a class
would be unmanageable.

The suit is "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:07-cv-00344-HDV-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa, under Senior Judge Harold D.
Vietor, Judge John A. Jarvey, and Senior Judge Ronald E.
Longstaff, with Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Shields as the
referring judge.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Klint L. Bruno, Esq. (kbruno@koreintillery.com)
         Korein Tillery
         209 South LaSalle, Suite 701
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Phone: 312-759-7510

Representing the defendant is:

         Joel S. Feldman, Esq. (jfeldman@sidley.com)
         Sidley, Austin et al.
         10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Pone: 312-853-7000
         Fax: 312-853-7036


QUEST ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Retained to File Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, has been retained to file a
class action law suit arising out of the initial public offering
of Quest Energy Partners LP on behalf of purchasers of common
units from the date of the IPO on or about November 7, 2007,
through August 25, 2008.

Quest Energy's IPO of 9,100,000 shares at $18.00 per share on
November 7, 2007, raised proceeds of approximately $150 million.

On August 25, 2008, Quest Energy announced the resignation of
CEO Jerry Cash after the Oklahoma Department of Securities'
inquiry concerning, among other issues, questionable transfers
of Quest Energy funds to an entity Mr. Cash controlled.

A complaint already filed charges Quest Energy, certain of its
officers, and a controlling entity with including, or allowing
the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that the statements made in
connection with the IPO were materially false and misleading
because of the failure to properly disclose related party
transactions between its former CEO and an entity he controlled.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 4,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
TomoTherapy, Inc., is facing two purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008.

In 2008, two related class-action lawsuits were filed in
Wisconsin federal court against the company and certain
officers.  These suits are:

    * "Schultz v. Tomotherapy Incorporated et al., Case No.
      3:08-cv-00314-slc;" and

    * "Scala v. Tomotherapy Incorporated et al., Case No.
      3:08-cv-00342-slc.

The two actions, which the plaintiffs have recently moved to
consolidate, collectively allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting the projected
financial outlook during the period from Oct. 10, 2007, to
April 17, 2008.

The lawsuits seek to represent persons who purchased the
company's securities between those dates and were damaged as a
result of the decline in the price of the company's stock,
allegedly attributable to the financial misrepresentations.  The
action seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

TomoTherapy, Inc. -- http://www.tomotherapy.com/--develops,
manufactures and sells the Hi-Art system, a radiation therapy
system commercially available for the treatment of a variety of
cancers.  The company manufactures each Hi Art system in a
64,000 square foot facility in Madison, Wisconsin.  It markets
the Hi Art system to hospitals and cancer treatment centers in
North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, and
offer customer support services in each region.  TomoTherapy
also has a collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories with regard to acceleration technology.  North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific accounted for 56%, 26% and 18%,
respectively, of the company's revenue during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.  Service revenue comprises a small portion of its
total revenue.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: William McGuire Settles Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former CEO and Chairman of UnitedHealth Group Corporation,
William McGuire, M.D., has reached an agreement to settle the
federal securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court in Minnesota led by the California Public Employee
Retirement System (CalPERS).

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to court
approval, Dr. McGuire has agreed to pay $30 million into a fund
for the benefit of the class.  That sum will be added to the
$895 million to be paid by UnitedHealth Group pursuant to the
settlement agreement previously reached by the company and 16
other individual defendants. Dr. McGuire will also return to
UnitedHealth a total of 3.675 million shares of stock options.
The agreement recognizes that Dr. McGuire continues to deny the
allegations in the class action complaint.

"I am pleased to be able to help bring the stock option dating
issues closer to complete resolution," Dr. McGuire said.  "As
CEO, I consistently took responsibility to help address
important issues facing UnitedHealth Group, and I have continued
to do my part to resolve stock option dating issues since
leaving the company.  I remain extremely proud of the
outstanding group of men and women at UnitedHealth who helped
improve the health and well-being of people while building a
highly innovative and successful company."

This settlement is the third significant agreement Dr. McGuire
has reached to resolve options dating issues.  In December 2007,
Dr. McGuire reached settlements with both the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the UnitedHealth Group Special
Litigation Committee which remain subject to court approval.
The latest settlement follows an agreement reached last month by
UnitedHealth Group under which it agreed to pay $895 million to
settle federal securities claims on behalf of the company and
six current or former officers and ten current or former
directors, not including Dr. McGuire.

The 3.675 million shares of stock options that Dr. McGuire
agreed to release today consist of a total of four grants, one
each in 2003 (February 12) and 2004 (February 11), and two in
2005 (February 3 and May 2).

During his 17-year tenure at UnitedHealth Group, Dr. McGuire
oversaw the transformation of the Company from a $600 million
regional health plan and insurance business to a $70 billion,
Fortune 25 global health services company.  When Dr. McGuire
became CEO in 1991, UnitedHealth Group served just over 1
million people.  By 2006, that number had reached 50 million
individuals.  The performance of UnitedHealth Group on behalf of
shareholders during his tenure ranked among the very best on
Wall Street.  The Company grew at a cumulative rate 30 times
greater than the S&P average, and shareholders of UnitedHealth
Group saw an 8,453 percent return on their investment under Dr.
McGuire's leadership.

While Dr. McGuire was CEO, UnitedHealth Group was honored by
Fortune as one of America's "Most Admired Companies" and was
repeatedly recognized for its continuing innovation in the
delivery of health care.  These included expanded uses of data
in health care decision-making; technology applications to
improve efficiency and advance quality; development of unique
and dedicated programs to address access, quality and cost
issues surrounding areas like prescription drugs, behavioral
health, organ transplantation, and complex illness; the
elimination of "gatekeeper" systems in favor of open access to
appropriate doctors and related caregivers; and new approaches
to meeting the unique health care needs of older people, those
living with chronic illness and disadvantaged populations.

In recent months, Dr. McGuire has continued his work in the
health care sector, focusing on ways to expand access to and
improve both the affordability and quality of our current health
care system.  He has also continued his various philanthropic
endeavors, focusing in particular on expanding educational
opportunities for socioeconomically disadvantaged students and
addressing issues surrounding our environment and biodiversity.

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


USAGENCIES: Potential Class Members in "Marsh" to Get Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Judicial District Court of Louisiana ordered the
issuance of an appropriate notice to potential class members of
a class action lawsuit against USAgencies Insurance Co., a
subsidiary of Affirmative Insurance Holdings Inc.

In October 2002, plaintiff Nickey Marsh filed the suit before
the Fourth Judicial District Court of Louisiana against
USAgencies alleging that certain adjustments to the actual cash
value of his total loss automobile claim were improper.

An amended petition, filed in October 2003, made class action
allegations, and sought class-wide compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and punitive damages of $5,000 per claimant.

After a class certification discovery and a hearing in February
2006, an order was rendered in August 2006 certifying the
proposed class in the case.

The defendants appealed the ruling and the Louisiana Second
Circuit Court of Appeal subsequently affirmed the trial court's
certification of the class in May 2007.

In October 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied USAgencies'
writ for certiorari.

In April 2008, the trial court issued an order that appropriate
notice of the existence and certification of the class action be
provided as soon as practicable to the class members.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Addison, Texas-based Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.affirmativeholdings.com/-- is a distributor and
producer of non-standard personal automobile insurance policies
for individual consumers in targeted geographic markets.  The
company's subsidiaries include five insurance companies licensed
to write insurance policies in 40 states, four underwriting
agencies, six retail agencies with 221 owned stores and 35
operating franchise retail store locations in Florida as of Dec.
31, 2007.  Affirmative Insurance Holdings, formerly known as
Instant Insurance Holdings, Inc., offers insurance directly to
individual consumers through retail stores in 10 states
(Louisiana, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina,
Florida, Kansas, Wisconsin and Alabama), including franchised
stores in Florida and distributing its own insurance policies
through 7,900 independent agents in nine states (Illinois,
California, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Florida,
Michigan and New Mexico).


WESTERN REFINING: Hot Fuel Suit v. Units Still Pending in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Western Refining, Inc., continue to face a
consolidated class action lawsuit entitled "In re Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840,"
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.

Initially, in March 2007, a class-action lawsuit was filed in
New Mexico naming numerous retail suppliers of motor fuel as
defendants, including subsidiaries of the company (Class Action
Reporter, March 28, 2008).

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that, by consciously
selling gasoline at a temperature greater than 60 Fahrenheit,
the defendants are depriving consumers of the full amount of
energy that should be delivered when gasoline is delivered at a
cooler temperature.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and also
seek to require the defendants to install temperature-adjustment
devices at the pumps.

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in several other
jurisdictions.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the actions and assigned them under the title "In
re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket
No 1840," to Judge Kathryn Vratil of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2007).

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2008.

Western Refining, Inc. -- http://www.westernrefining.com/-- is
an independent crude oil refiner and marketer of refined
products based in El Paso, Texas, and operates in the Southwest
region of the U.S., including Arizona, New Mexico and West
Texas.


WILSHIRE ENTERPRISES: Enters MoU w/ Plaintiff in NWJ Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilshire Enterprises, Inc., and the other named defendants in a
purported class action complaint filed in connection with the
proposed merger of the Company with a wholly owned subsidiary of
NWJ Apartment Holdings Corp. -- an affiliate of NWJ Companies,
Inc., a privately owned real estate development company -- have
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff's
counsel to settle and dismiss the lawsuit in connection with the
proposed merger, subject to court approval.

On August 8, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Chancery Court
of New Jersey, General Equity, in Essex County, by Pennsylvania
Avenue Funds as plaintiff individually and on behalf of the
public stockholders of Wilshire in connection with the proposed
merger.

Wilshire, its directors, NWJ Apartment Holdings Corp. and NWJ
Acquisition Corp. are named as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, three causes of
action:

     (i) breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result
         of their alleged failure to maximize shareholder value,

    (ii) breach of fiduciary duty by the directors as a result
         of their alleged failure to disclose to Wilshire's
         stockholders all information material to the
         stockholders' decision about the merger; and

   (iii) aiding and abetting by the NWJ entities of the
         directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the
litigation as a class action, for plaintiff to be appointed
class representative, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against the proposed transaction, an accounting, costs,
disbursements and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
Court determines appropriate.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and to allow stockholders to vote on the proposal to
adopt the merger agreement at the scheduled meeting, Wilshire
and the other defendants have entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff's counsel pursuant to which
Wilshire, the other named defendants and the plaintiff have
agreed to settle the lawsuit subject to court approval.

If the court approves the settlement, the lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice.

In connection with the settlement and as provided in the
memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that the
plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount of up to $215,000.00 as part of the
settlement, which amount is also subject to court approval.  The
settlement will not affect the merger consideration of $3.88 per
share in cash for each of the approximately 7.9 million Wilshire
common shares outstanding.

The Company continues to vigorously deny all of the allegations
in the complaint, but has agreed to settle the matter to avoid
the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the proposed merger
and to minimize the expense of defending the complaint.

Wilshire Enterprises, Inc.'s principal activity is to acquire,
own and operate real estate property.  It operates in two
segments namely Residential and Commercial.  The Group owns
multi family properties, office space, retail space and land
located in the states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey
and Texas.  Its properties consist of apartments, complexes as
well as commercial and retail properties.


ZINCORE METALS: Major Shareholder Settles Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zincore Metals Inc. notes that its major shareholder,
Southwestern Resources Corp., has announced the settlement of
class action suits brought against Southwestern in 2007.  The
settlement places no conditions on Southwestern's 48%
shareholding in Zincore.

Zincore President and CEO Timo Jauristo said: "We are pleased to
see our significant shareholder settle their class actions while
maintaining a strong financial position.  The settlement removes
the uncertainty that existed around Southwestern's shareholding
in Zincore.  It enables us to continue to advance our projects
with the support of a stable shareholder base and focus on re-
building the market recognition of the value of Zincore."

Since the Company's inception in late 2006, Zincore has made
significant progress toward developing its 100%-owned Accha-
Yanque belt which now contains over 2.3 billion pounds of zinc
resources and 1.3 billion pounds of lead resources including:

     * At Accha, 5.1 million tonnes of indicated mineral
       resources grading 8.2% zinc and 0.9% lead and 1.4 million
       tonnes of inferred mineral resources grading 5.9% zinc
       and 0.7% lead. With the completion of a positive pre-
       feasibility study which confirmed the technical and
       economic viability of the project, a probable mineral
       reserve of 4.2 million tonnes grading 7.9% zinc and 0.8%
       lead was defined from the indicated resources (see press
       release dated May 1, 2008). The deposit remains
       prospective for further reserve growth through conversion
       of inferred resources and exploration to the west and
       down dip where the deposit remains open.

     * At Yanque, inferred mineral resources of 10.3 million
       tonnes grading 5.3% zinc and 5.3% lead were defined
       earlier this year (see press release dated March 3,
       2008). Subsequent to this resource estimate the Company
       has completed a 25 drill hole program on the deposit
       which has expanded mineralization principally to the
       South.

     * Exploration of the 45,000 hectare Accha-Yanque belt which
       has defined 15 earlier stage exploration targets that are
       being advanced and prioritized in advance of drill
       testing.

Mr. Jauristo added: "Zincore welcomes the sustained support of
Southwestern as the Company builds on its success at Accha-
Yanque and continues exploration at its properties in Peru,
Chile and Mexico."

Zincore is a Vancouver-based mineral exploration and development
company focused on zinc and base metal opportunities in Latin
America.  The Company's strategy is to become a leading, low-
cost zinc producer by rapidly advancing its 100%-owned Accha-
Yanque belt toward a development decision.  Zincore holds 62,000
hectares of concessions in southern Peru and intends to pursue
additional zinc opportunities elsewhere in Latin America.  The
Company's shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the
symbol ZNC.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, has filed a shareholder class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of CarMax
Inc. common stock during the period between April 2, 2008, and
June 17, 2008, inclusive.

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

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA  30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)


NVIDIA CORP: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of NVIDIA Corp. between
November 8, 2007, and July 2, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of misrepresentations
and omissions that actively concealed and failed to disclose the
unusually high failure rates of NVIDIA's mobile video adapters
and the impact of these defects on the company's financial
condition and results and future business prospects.  When the
defendants belatedly revealed this information on July 2, 2008,
NVIDIA's stock plummeted, and the company's market
capitalization was promptly reduced by over $3 billion.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 10,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
                 415-981-4800


PENN NATIONAL: Braude Margulies Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Braude & Margulies, P.C., filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Penn National Gaming Inc.'s common stock during the
period April 1, 2008, to July 3, 2008.

Penn is a diversified, multi-jurisdictional owner and operator
of gaming properties, as well as horse racetracks and associated
off-track wagering facilities.  Penn owns or operates 19 gaming
properties located in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Canada (Ontario).

The July 3, 2008, complaint alleges that Penn violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Penn issued false and materially misleading statements that
misrepresented and failed to disclose one or more material
facts.

On or about June 15, 2007, Penn agreed to a merger agreement
buyout from funds affiliated with Fortress Investment Group and
Centerbridge Partners, L.P. at $67.00 per share.  Penn publicly
announced via national press releases that it had entered into a
definitive agreement by PNG Acquisition Company, Inc., an entity
indirectly owned by certain funds managed by affiliates of
Fortress Investment Group and Centerbridge Partners, L.P.
Furthermore, Penn represented said merger was targeted for
completion by June 15, 2008, after which the take-out would
begin to increase by a fractional amount daily.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Penn announced, if the
merger was completed by June 15, 2008, Penn's shareholders would
be entitled to receive $67.00 in cash, without interest, for
each share of Penn common stock they own.

If the merger was not completed by June 15, 2008, the proposed
merger agreement filed with the SEC indicated that the $67.00
per share merger consideration would be increased by $0.0149 per
day until it closes, approximately 8 percent per year.  Under
the proposed merger agreement, the financing for the transaction
was announced to be in place where Deutsche Bank and Wachovia
Bank supplied the debt financing to Fortress Investment Group
and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., the acquiring firms.  There was
to be no changes or modifications to the financing commitments
unless agreed to by Penn or if debt financing was available
under better terms.  Upon Penn's merger and target date
announcement and aforesaid representations, Penn's stock, which
had been trading in the mid to low $50s, jumped to over $63 per
share.

In April, May, and June of 2008, through press releases and
other communications, Penn issued various announcements related
to the planned merger -- all of them relating to approval of the
proposed merger by various state regulatory agencies having
jurisdiction over gaming where Penn had gaming properties.

The Complaint further alleges that throughout the first half of
2008, Penn never informed the public that the proposed merger
was in jeopardy or that it was negotiating with the purchaser
and the banks.  Instead, in a June 6, 2008 press release, Penn
announced that the end date of the merger agreement was being
extended to October 2008, in order to secure the approval of the
remaining states.  Upon information and belief, without any
disclosure to the public, Penn was negotiating complicated
bilateral agreements for months with the banks, acquiring firms,
attorneys and management committees to cancel the proposed
merger agreement and negotiating the payment of a termination
fee and loans from the banks.

On July 3, 2008, Penn announced that its planned $5.82 billion
takeover by Fortress Investment Group and Centerbridge Partners,
L.P. had been terminated. Penn also announced that as a result
of the termination, it would be receiving $1.475 billion, which
would consist of a $225 million cash termination fee and the
purchase of $1.25 billion of Penn's redeemable preferred equity
due in 2015.

Upon information and belief, sometime in the Spring of 2008, the
family members and other associated with insiders began selling
Penn's stock.  Such sales rapidly escalated the two weeks before
the July 3, 2008 announcement.  Consequently, the price of
Penn's stock began to deteriorate.  In April, May, and June of
2008, Penn was publicly announcing status of approval by the
various states in order to fraudulently bolster its stock price
by instilling shareholders of the belief that a merger was still
going to take place.

For more information, contact:

          Braude & Margulies, P.C.
          1200 Potomac St., NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-471-5400
          e-mail: hbraude@braudemargulies.com


QUEST ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Oklahoma Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of the
common units of Quest Energy Partners LP pursuant or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering on or about November 7,
2007, through August 25, 2008.

The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former and
present officers, and controlling entities including Quest
Resource Corporation with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 by virtue of Quest Energy's issuance of materially
inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection
with Quest Energy's IPO.

Interested parties may move the court no later than November 5,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, has filed a shareholder class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Reddy
Ice Holdings Inc. common stock during the period between
Aug. 10, 2005 and March 6, 2008.

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

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

For more information, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free)


SYNCHRONOS TECHNOLOGIES: Brower Piven Files N.J. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., during the period between
February 4, 2008, and June 9, 2008, inclusive.

Synchronoss is a provider of on-demand multi-channel transaction
software management platforms that enable communications service
providers to automate new subscriber activation, order
management and service provisioning.

The complaint charges Synchronoss and certain of its officers
and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  During the class period, the complaint alleges that
defendants made fraudulent material misrepresentations and
omissions regarding Synchronoss' business and operations.
Specifically, Synchronoss materially misrepresented the
Company's financial condition and future prospects to the
Company's shareholders and the investing public.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Hartford, Conn., in Singh Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut favored the City of Hartford,
Conn., in a lawsuit involving asbestos filed by Harbajan Singh.

The case is styled Harbajan Singh v. City of Hartford.

Judge Robert F. Stengel entered judgment in CV030829026S on
July 28, 2008.

Mr. Singh filed a two-count amended complaint dated June 10,
2008 against the City of Hartford. He alleged in the first count
that he bought property located at 233 Capen Street, Hartford,
Conn., from the City of Hartford under a contract dated June 13,
2002.

That under the contract there was an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing which the City breached by its failure to
disclose the existence of hazardous material which the City knew
or should have known was present on the subject property,
including but not limited to, asbestos.

Mr. Singh further alleged that the City has breached its express
warranty. Mr. Singh claimed damages and other relief as the
Court deemed appropriate.

The City has filed an answer and special defense to Mr. Singh's
Amended Complaint dated June 16, 2008. A trial was held on
June 17, 2008.

In the first count, the Court found that Mr. Singh had not
established facts to support his allegation that the City of
Hartford breached the covenant of fair dealing.

In the Second Count, Mr. Singh alleged that the City breached an
express warranty in the Tax Collector's Deed. Mr. Singh had not
sustained his burden of proof on this issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court found the issues for the
City of Hartford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Murray Dismissal Bid in Wilson Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
Jackson Division, denied Stephen B. Murray's motion to dismiss
and abstain, and also his motion to transfer, in a lawsuit filed
by William Roberts Wilson, Jr., P.A.

The case is styled William Roberts Wilson, Jr., P.A., Plaintiff,
v. Stephen B. Murray d/b/a Murray Law Firm, Defendant.

District Judge Tom S. Lee entered judgment in Civil Action No.
308CV229TSL-JCS on Aug. 19, 2008.

In 1991, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Murray reached an agreement to
associate with each other in the prosecution of asbestos claims
in Louisiana.

Mr. Wilson, a Mississippi attorney, associated Mr. Murray, a
Louisiana attorney, to work on cases and claims pending in
Louisiana, and to pay Mr. Murray one-third of all fees recovered
in suits against all but one identified asbestos manufacturer.

According to Mr. Murray, in July 1995, the agreement was
modified by the execution of an Association Agreement which
created a joint venture between Mr. Murray and Mr. Wilson (and
other attorneys) for handling Louisiana cases.

Mr. Murray claimed that under the 1995 agreement, he undertook
additional responsibilities in exchange for a higher percentage
of fees received from clients and cases covered by the
agreement.

Under both agreements, Mr. Wilson was responsible for collecting
fees and depositing them in an escrow account and, according to
Mr. Murray, was to present an accounting and proposed
distribution of fees to Mr. Murray.

In early 2008, Mr. Wilson proposed renegotiating the terms of
the parties' agreement, and on March 13, 2008, in the course of
the parties' discussions, Mr. Murray demanded that Mr. Wilson
provide an accounting of the fees associated with the asbestos
litigation.

After Mr. Wilson provided the requested accounting, Mr. Murray
responded by letter, claiming Mr. Wilson had failed to make the
proper payments required by the parties' agreement and was in
violation of the agreement, demanding immediate payment of all
sums due and demanding copies of all pertinent bank statements.

On April 8, 2008, Mr. Wilson filed the present lawsuit against
Mr. Murray alleging claims and seeking damages for breach of
contract, and also seeking a declaratory judgment allowing
reformation and termination of the 1991 agreement under the
doctrines of supervening impracticability or impossibility or
frustration of purpose, based on allegations that the unexpected
bankruptcy of several of the asbestos defendants and Mr.
Murray's unreasonable demands made performance impossible or
impracticable.

On April 18, 2008, one day after Mr. Murray was served with the
summons and complaint for this action, he filed a separate
lawsuit in state court in Louisiana, which was timely removed by
Mr. Wilson to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana.

On Mr. Wilson's motion, the Louisiana district court transferred
the Murray action to this court.

In his opinion entered Aug. 7, 2008, Judge Lance Africk found
that transfer was proper as there was a substantial overlap of
issues between Mr. Wilson's lawsuit in this court and Mr.
Murray's lawsuit in Louisiana.

In the meantime, Mr. Murray filed in this action the present
motion to dismiss and abstain, and his separate s 1404(a) motion
to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

John G. Corlew, Esq., John L. Low, IV, Esq., of Watkins & Eager
in Jackson, Miss., represented William Roberts Wilson, Jr.

J. Wyatt Hazard, Esq., of Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell in
Jackson, Miss., represented Stephen B. Murray.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langlands School Cleanup to Cost GBP117,482
----------------------------------------------------------------
Removing asbestos from Langlands Primary School in Forfar,
Angus, Scotland, is estimated to cost the Angus Council
GBP117,482, the Forfar Dispatch reports.

An update on progress being made on the GBP50 million
Forfar/Carnoustie Schools project was given to members when they
met last Thursday in Forfar.

Jim Anderson, director of education, detailed the additional
work which had to be undertaken. The report stated the costs of
physically removing the Type Three asbestos amounted to
GBP56,485.

In addition, the delay to the progression of the construction
works, which entitled the building contractor to an extension
time, was four weeks at a cost of GBP60,997 to the Council.

Mr. Anderson stated, "The overall total additional cost to the
Council is therefore GBP117,482 (i.e. works plus four week delay
costs) and the council is contractually bound to pay this lump
sum in accordance with the terms of the contract."

Phase one of the Forfar/Carnoustie schools project, which
included the redevelopment of Kirkriggs into Strathmore Primary
and the building of Whitehills Primary, is now complete.

Referring to phase 2, which involves Langlands Primary School in
Forfar and Carlogie Primary in Carnoustie, Mr. Anderson
continued, "In terms of the construction program, despite
commencing around two months later than expected (due to the
timing of completion of phase 1), the works are now progressing
well at both sites."

Mr. Anderson stated Langlands Primary School may be ready for
hand over around mid-May 2009 (original target completion date
was March 26, 2009).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SWRHA to Probe Alleged Handling Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad & Tobago's Health Minister, Jerry Narace, has ordered
Bridgelal Goberdhan to probe reports of an asbestos-lined roof
being improperly removed at the San Fernando General Hospital,
Trinidad & Tobago's Newsday reports.

Mr. Goberdhan is the chairman of the South-West Regional Health
Authority.

Mr. Narace, who toured the hospital together with members of the
new SWRHA board was told of the incident by reporters on
Sept. 3, 2008, who said a contractor removed the roof while
staff members were still on the compound.

Mr. Narace immediately told Mr. Goberdhan to conduct an
investigation into the incident saying the board was responsible
for governance of the south-west region.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Swindon Local Receives GBP46T Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Clark, of Swindon, England, has received GBP46,000 in
damages after her father William Evans died from mesothelioma
stemming from workplace exposure, This Is Wiltshire.co.uk
reports.

Mr. Evans died in 2005.

Mrs. Clark sued BRB Residuary Limited, the successors of British
Rail and British Motor Holdings Limited, the former owners of
the Rover Car Factory in Swindon.

Mr. Evans worked for British Rail in Swindon from 1934 to 1954
as a fitter, turner and erector, working in the A Shop where
large quantities of asbestos were used on boilers, pipes and
cylinders on the old locomotive engines.

From 1954 to 1980, Mr. Evans worked as a millwright for British
Motor Holdings, the old Rover factory, where he was also exposed
to asbestos which was used in the brakes and clutches on the
presses and also on the tie rods. He was never given any masks
or protective clothing or warnings about the dangers.

Mrs. Clark's lawyer, Brigitte Chandler, said, "Fortunately the
case was settled out of court which was a great relief for Mrs
Clark. Unfortunately claims against British Rail for asbestos
exposure have been running for over 30 years and are still
arising because it can take up to 60 years for the illness to
develop after exposure."

Mr. Evans was 88 at the time of his death, a widower and had
suffered from other infirmities for many years. His frail
condition meant he suffered from mesothelioma for a period of
five months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Scunthorpe Worker's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Norman Lee, a Scunthorpe,
England, steel worker died of industrial disease following
exposure to asbestos, redOrbit reports.

Mr. Lee, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma on December 2007,
was found dead by a neighbor at his home in Dovedale Close,
Winterton, in March 2008.

Coroner Paul Kelly ruled that Mr. Lee worked with and around
asbestos dust at Scunthorpe's steel works.

Speaking after the ruling on Aug. 26, 2008, Heather Leedham
said her father had not been an old man before he died.

Mr. Lee, who was 79, recorded a statement before he died
describing his working conditions. His statement was read in to
the coroners court as evidence. Mr. Lee described how his work
had led to constant exposure to asbestos dust, which was used as
lagging in many areas of the steel works. He worked for a number
of companies during his career including British Steel and
Appleby Group Ltd.

Mr. Kelly said, "My conclusion is that he died as a result of
industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frontier El Dorado Fined for OSHA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has penalized the Frontier El Dorado Refining Co.
of El Dorado, Kans., for two willful violations of federal
health and safety standards, Asbestos.com reports.

OSHA has proposed fines totaling US$140,000 as penalty for the
violations.

OSHA inspected the premises of the Frontier El Dorado on
March 25, 2008, after the agency received several complaints
that employees at the refinery were in danger of asbestos
exposure.

About 100 employees working for subcontractors were exposed to
airborne asbestos that was being emitted from thermal
insulation.

The Frontier El Dorado owns the facility where the work was
carried out and acted as the general contractor for the project.

Charles E. Adkins, the OSHA's regional administrator in Kansas
City, said, "Our inspection revealed Frontier El Dorado Refining
Co. did not require subcontractors at its facility to comply
with OSHA regulations while handling asbestos-containing
material. Employers must remain dedicated to keeping the
workplace safe and healthful for all employees at its facility."

The violations committed by the refining company include failure
to comply with an OSHA asbestos standard for construction and
failing to notify employees about the presence, location, and
quantity of asbestos they were working with.

Now that the citation has been issued, the Frontier El Dorado
has 15 business days to comply and pay the penalties for
violations.

They may also request an informal conference with OSHA
representatives to discuss the violations, or contest the
penalties and citations before an independent OSHA review
commission.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seavoy Suit Filed v. 41 Firms Last Sept. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldine Seavoy, on Sept. 3, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 41 defendant corporations on behalf of her late
husband Daniel L. Seavoy, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Seavoy claims her husband died from mesothelioma on
Jan. 13, 2008.

Mrs. Seavoy says Mr. Seavoy worked from 1960 until 1995 as a
millwright and maintenance supervisor at Celotex Corporation in
L'Anse, Mich., according to the lawsuit.

She also claims Daniel worked from 1957 until 1959 as a deckhand
at Wilson Trust in Great Lakes, Ill., and from 1960 until 1999
as an assembly line worker, freight car unloading, maintenance,
plant mechanic and maintenance supervisor at Calotex Corporation
in L'Anse.

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

Mrs. Seavoy alleges the asbestos-related disease caused Mr.
Seavoy to spend large amounts on medical care. She also says Mr.
Seavoy experienced great physical pain and mental anguish as a
result of the disease, Mrs. Seavoy claims in the lawsuit.

According to the suit, Mesothelioma hindered and prevented Mr.
Seavoy from pursuing his normal course of employment. As a
result, he lost large sums of money, Mrs. Seavoy claims.

Mr. Seavoy's family has spent large amounts of money on funeral
and burial expenses, has been deprived of his means of support
and has lost his society, the suit states. Mrs. Seavoy claims
she has also been deprived of the companionship, society and
services of Mr. Seavoy.

In the six-count lawsuit, Mrs. Seavoy seeks sums in excess of
US$150,000, economic damages which will reasonably compensate
for Mr. Seavoy's injuries, punitive and exemplary damages in
excess of US$50,000 and compensatory damages in excess of
US$100,000.

Mrs. Seavoy also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient
to punish Sprinkmann Insulation, Inc., and Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated
parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future.

Mrs. Seavoy is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori,
Julian & Associates in East Alton, Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Greer's Suit Filed in Tex. v. 13 Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosia Greer, on behalf of George Greer, Sr., on Aug. 28, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
and 12 other companies in Jefferson County District Court, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

At the age of 75, Mr. Greer allegedly died from mesothelioma.

Court documents show that Mr. Greer was employed by various
defendant companies from 1960 through the 1980s. He also worked
as a seaman during that time span, allowing his family to sue
under the Jones Act.

The suit continues by accusing the defendant of having
subjective awareness of the severe health risks associated with
exposure to asbestos, "but nevertheless proceeded with conscious
indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of Mr. Greer."

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages, plus Mr. Greer's
past and future mental anguish, medical expenses, impairment and
disfigurement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steven Kherkher, Esq., of the
Williams Kherkher Hart & Boundas law firm.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th Judicial District, has been
assigned to Case No. D182-337.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9-Count Suit Filed v. Chesterton & 66 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Copeland and her husband, Marvin, on Aug. 28, 2008,
filed a nine-count asbestos-related lawsuit against A. W.
Chesterton Company and 66 other companies in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Court papers say the defendants conspired to mine, process and
sell asbestos products, suppress the information pertaining to
the fiber's hazardous influence on human health and purposely
inflict workers with an asbestos disease.

According to the plaintiff's original petition, companies like
Union Carbide Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, and Zurn
Industries knew that the asbestos products they manufactured
would hit the market without inspection for defects.

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical
and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for
decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the
information.

The suit does not give specifics on the location or time of Mrs.
Copeland's employment, or how she was exposed.

The plaintiffs are suing for her physical pain and suffering in
the past and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost
wages, loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and
future, physical impairment in the past and future, and past and
future medical expenses, including home care costs. They also
seek punitive and exemplary damages.

Brent Coon & Associates attorney Lou Thompson Black, Esq.,
represents the plaintiffs.

Judge Bob Wortham of the 58th Judicial District will preside
over Case No. A182-316.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Joy Global Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
matters that arise in the normal course of operations, the most
prevalent of which relate to product liability (including
asbestos-related and silicosis liability), employment and
commercial matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 5, 2008.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Joy Global Inc. manufactures and
services mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other
minerals and ores. The Company operates in three business
segments: underground mining machinery (Joy Mining Machinery);
surface mining equipment (P&H Mining Equipment) and Crushing &
Conveying.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 49 Lawsuits Pending v. Met-Pro at July 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
A total of 49 asbestos cases were pending against Met-Pro
Corporation as of July 31, 2008, compared with 38 cases as of
Jan. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 4, 2008.

A total of 45 asbestos-related lawsuits were pending against the
Company as of April 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 6,
2008)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its divisions began to
be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits
filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by large
numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of industrial
companies including in particular those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

More recently, the Company and this division have been named as
one of many pump and fluid handling defendants in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed in New York and Maryland by individual
plaintiffs, sometimes husband and wife.

To a lesser extent, the Company and this division have also been
named together with many other pump and fluid handling
defendants in these type of cases in other states as well.

The complaints filed against the Company and this division have
been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the Company,
and/or the division, along with the numerous other defendants,
sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in
other related actions which caused injuries and loss to the
plaintiffs.

The Company and the division have been dismissed from or settled
a number of these cases.

The sum total of all payments through July 31, 2008 to settle
these cases was US$355,000, all of which has been paid by the
Company's insurers, with an average cost per settled claim of
about US$24,000.

For the six-month period ended July 31, 2008, 15 new cases were
filed against the Company and four dismissals.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although several cases are on schedules
leading to trial.

Headquartered in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation's
product recovery and pollution-control segment makes products
like particle collectors (used in food preparation) and fans and
blowers (used in semiconductor manufacturing plants). The fluid-
handling equipment segment makes products for handling
corrosive, abrasive, and high-temperature liquids.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Reverses Board Ruling in Deschenes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the ruling of the
Compensation Review Board, to favor Reed and Greenwood
Insulation Company and AC & S, Inc. in an asbestos-related
action filed by George Deschenes.

The case is styled George Deschenes v. Transco, Inc., et al.

Judges Rogers, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella, and
Sullivan entered judgment in Case Nos. 17852, 17853 on Aug. 12,
2008.

Mr. Deschenes, who was born in 1945, joined Local 33 of the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and
Asbestos Workers in 1967. After he joined the union, he worked
until 1985 as an insulator on numerous commercial construction
sites for multiple employers, including Reed and AC & S.

During that time, Mr. Deschenes was exposed to significant
amounts of asbestos, with his last exposure occurring in 1985,
while he was employed by Transco, Inc. Mr. Deschenes has not
been able to work full-time since 1994, when he was diagnosed
with asbestos related pleural lung disease.

Mr. Deschenes filed a claim for compensation with the workers'
compensation commission in 1994. After a hearing held in 2003,
the commissioner for the eighth district, Amado Vargas, found
that Mr. Deschenes had suffered a lung injury as a result of his
asbestos exposure at work, and "another lung injury" that
resulted from his "long history of cigarette smoking...."

The defendants petitioned the board for review of commissioner
Stephen Delaney's decision. The board agreed with Mr. Delaney
that Mr. Deschenes' entire disability was compensable.

Accordingly, the board affirmed the decision of Mr. Delaney. The
defendants appealed.

The sole issue in this appeal was whether the workers'
compensation benefits payable to Mr. Deschenes with a 25 percent
permanent partial disability in each lung, caused in part by
work-related asbestos exposure, should be apportioned or reduced
by the amount of that disability attributable to a concurrently
developing nonoccupational disease, specifically cigarette
smoking related emphysema.

Reed and AC & S appealed from the decision of the compensation
review board affirming the decision of the workers' compensation
commissioner for the second district, Mr. Delaney, awarding
compensation for a 25 percent permanent partial disability in
each lung to Mr. Deschenes.

The Supreme Court concluded that further findings of fact were
required because apportionment of permanent partial disability
benefits is appropriate when a respondent employer is able to
prove that:

     -- A disability has resulted from the combination of two
        concurrently developing disease processes, one that is
        nonoccupational, and the other that is work related;
        and

     -- The conditions of the claimant's occupation have no
        influence on the development of the nonoccupational
        disease.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
board and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Lucas D. Strunk, Esq., with whom was John W. Greiner, Esq.,
represented the appellants in each case (Reed and Greenwood
Insulation Company et al.).

Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., represented Mr. Deschenes in
both cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy Ct. Ruling Upheld in Mid-Valley
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, which upheld the ruling of a Bankruptcy Court that
had denied Illinois Central Railroad Co.'s request to obtain
documents in a case involving Mid-Valley, Inc.

Circuit Judges Fisher and Jordan and District Judge William H.
Yohn entered judgment in Case No. 07-2044 on Aug. 6, 2008.

In December 2003, a number of debtors, including Mid-Valley and
Dresser Industries, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and
reorganization ("Mid-Valley"). In May 2004, the law firm of Guy
& Brock filed a Verified Statement in which it averred that
several hundred creditors had executed Representation Agreements
authorizing Guy & Brock to represent them in the Mid-Valley
bankruptcy proceedings. The Agreements themselves were not filed
with the Court.

These creditors were also plaintiffs in a separate, asbestos-
related Mississippi state tort case, McNeil v. Dresser Indus.
("Dresser"). The Mid-Valley debtors were defendants in Dresser.

The Chapter 11 plan of reorganization in Mid-Valley was
confirmed and approved in July 2004 and a final decree was
entered in November 2005.

Meanwhile, Guy & Brock, on behalf of its clients, initiated
claims against Illinois Central in Mississippi state court,
alleging injuries due to asbestos exposure at railroad
facilities.

In this litigation, hundreds of the plaintiffs represented by
Guy & Brock submitted sworn statements in which they represented
that they had disclosed all of their asbestos claims against
other parties. However, 248 of the plaintiffs did not disclose
their involvement in Dresser.

In March 2006, Illinois Central moved to intervene in the
previously closed Mid-Valley matter, arguing that it had common
law and statutory rights to access the Agreements.

The Bankruptcy Court denied Illinois Central's motion on the
ground that the Agreements it sought were not "judicial records"
subject to public access.

The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of
Illinois Central's motion. Illinois Central timely appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the ruling of the District Court.

Paul A. Cunningham, Esq., Harkins Cunningham, Esq., in
Washington, D.C., Neill C. Kling, Esq., Harkins Cunningham,
Esq., in Philadelphia, represented Illinois Central Railroad Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Koonce Action v. John Crane Ongoing in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed by shipyard worker John O.
Koonce against John Crane Inc. is ongoing in Newport News, Va.,
dailypress.com reports.

When he began working as a boilermaker 40 years ago, Mr. Koonce
did not know the dangers of asbestos fibers.

In April 2006, Mr. Koonce was diagnosed with mesothelioma. His
lawyers say that came while working in the boiler rooms on
Liberty ships being repaired at Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock
Corp. between 1968 and 1971.

Now the legal question is who should be blamed for Mr. Koonce's
pain, suffering, deterioration of his quality of life.

In closing arguments in a jury trial at Newport News Circuit
Court, Mr. Koonce's attorneys put much of the blame on John
Crane, a Morton Grove, Ill.-based company that made asbestos-
laden parts, including gaskets and packing material, used at the
shipyard.

There were textbooks and industry studies citing problems with
asbestos leading to serious health problems, and John Crane and
other asbestos manufacturers turned a blind eye to them, said
Bobby Hatten, Esq., Mr. Koonce's lead attorney from the firm of
Patten, Wornom, Hatten and Diamonstein.

"There was no information implicating" the kinds of parts the
company made, said Arch Wallace, Esq., a Richmond attorney
representing John Crane.

The jury, which has heard the detailed case over the past two
and a half weeks, must now decide whether to make the company
pay.

Mr. Koonce, now 59, originally sued both John Crane and another
company that made asbestos parts, Garlock Sealing Technologies.
However, Garlock is no longer part of case.

Mr. Hatten asked the jury to decide the case in Mr. Koonce's
favor to the tune of US$14 million. However, a verdict against
John Crane would be offset by any amount the jury says Garlock
would have had to pay if its portion of the case had gone to
trial.

Tom Burns, an attorney for John Crane, acknowledged some
problems with asbestos were being discovered between the 1930s
and the 1960s. But those discoveries were not clear-cut, he
said.

Mr. Burns pointed to an Environmental Protection Agency proposal
in 1989 that said that gaskets and packing were still allowed
because their use led to "no unreasonable risk of injury to
human health."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MesotheliomaHelp.net Bares Study Results
-------------------------------------------------------------
MesotheliomaHelp.net has updated its blog with a report on a
chemotherapy study that investigated the efficacy of combination
chemotherapy using pemetrexed and gemcitabine for the treatment
of peritoneal mesothelioma, according to a MesotheliomaHelp.net
press release dated Sept. 4, 2008.

Previous studies have shown that pemetrexed is among the most
active chemotherapy agents for the treatment of mesothelioma and
its use in combination therapy with cisplatin represents the
chemotherapy standard of care for pleural mesothelioma.

Gemcitabine is a commonly-used chemotherapy agent for a number
of other forms of cancer.

20 patients with unresectable, histologically-confirmed
peritoneal mesothelioma were enrolled in the study, although not
all patients were able to complete the full treatment plan.

The study concluded that pemetrexed and gemcitabine were active
in the treatment of the disease, with the patient cohort under
investigation demonstrating an overall survival figure of 26.8
months.

However, the chemotherapy regimen also caused a high number of
treatment effects in patients, so the authors of the study
suggested that future trials should investigate the treatment at
lower dosage levels.

For a full report on the study, please view the article on:
http://www.mesotheliomahelp.net/


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Legislators Call For School Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four legislators who represent the town of Belchertown, Mass.,
urge Gov. Deval L. Patrick to act on providing US$10 million to
remove asbestos from the former Belchertown State School
property, The Republican reports.

Rep. Stephen Kulik, D-Worthington, said, "Belchertown's economy
is very much tied to what goes on there in terms of producing
jobs and tax revenue."

The four legislators, Mr. Kulik, state Sens. Gale D. Candaras,
D-Wilbraham, and Stanely C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, and state Rep.
Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow, sent a letter to Gov. Patrick,
urging his administration to give high priority to making the
US$10 million available.

Money for the asbestos remediation was authorized by Gov.
Patrick and the Legislature in the general bond bill enacted
last August 2008.

More than 30 old brick buildings have sat vacant since
Belchertown State School was shut down in 1994, and the cost of
removing asbestos from them and razing them have been seen as
major obstacles to commercial redevelopment of the large campus.

In their letter to the governor, the four legislators urged that
the state's quasi-governmental development agency,
MassDevelopment, has oversight over the remediation and
demolition process.

After years of struggling to bring about development of the
property, the town's Economic Development Industrial Corp. and
the Board of Selectmen have expressed a desire to work with
MassDevelopment on the redevelopment project.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: White Files Suit v. 21 Firms in Tex. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura White, on behalf of her late ex-husband Julian Booker,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 21 companies in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on Aug. 27, 2008, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Some of the defendants listed in the suit include Ametek Inc.,
Owens-Illinois, Inc., General Electric Company, and Exxon Mobil
Corporation.

Between 1944 and 1984, Mr. Booker worked at various industrial
sites. In September 2006, he allegedly died of pulmonary
asbestosis.

Court papers show that during Mr. Booker's industrial work life
as a painter, he worked for various employers at industrial
sites between 1944 and 1984.

The suit says, "Each Defendant bears responsibility in causing
Mr. Booker's injuries in the individual capacities in which they
have been sued."

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages, plus Mr.
Booker's past and future mental anguish, medical expenses,
impairment and disfigurement.

They are represented by Troy Chandler, Esq., for the Williams
Kherkher Hart & Boundas law firm.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th Judicial District, has been assigned
to Case No. B182-305.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Knotts Widow Sues 69 Corporations in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Knotts, David Knotts' widow, filed an asbestos lawsuit on
his behalf against 69 companies in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
on July 30, 2008, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Knotts' mesothelioma was diagnosed
May 5, 2008. Mr. Knotts, who was 79, died on May 10, 2008, from
malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Knotts was employed by Weirton Steel from 1940 to 1993.
During his tenure, he had various job titles, including fuel
engineer. While working at Weirton Steel, he was exposed to dust
and asbestos fibers, which caused his mesothelioma.

Mrs. Knotts claims the defendants knew of the dangers associated
with asbestos but failed to warn their employees and instruct
them in the proper protective precautions to take.

Mrs. Knotts claims she has suffered loss of general services,
companionship and society from her husband for the rest of her
life.

In the nine-count suit, Mrs. Knotts seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.

Brian Alan Prim, Esq., represents Mrs. Knotts.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-1468 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyneside Council to Pay GBP20T to Caretaker
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Tyneside Magistrates' Court, on Sept. 5, 2008, ordered
the North Tyneside Council to pay more than GBP20,000 after it
was found that a school caretaker had been exposed to 100 times
the safe level of asbestos, the Journal Live reports.

The Council pleaded guilty to five breaches of asbestos
regulations.

Health and Safety Executive inspectors brought the case against
the Council following incidents at Wallsend Jubilee School in
March 2006.

In February 2007, The Journal revealed contractors working at
the school had been exposed to asbestos in 2002. However, the
public was not informed until five years later. The Council
reassured parents that asbestos no longer posed at risk at
Jubilee or any of their schools.

During the hearing, it was revealed the school's boilerhouse had
been quarantined for asbestos six months before caretaker
Richard Brand realized he had been exposed, but no warning signs
were put up. There was also no asbestos risk management plan in
place.

HSE Inspector Dr. Stephen Britton said employers had a duty to
ensure that any asbestos in premises was managed properly and to
warn anybody likely to come into contact with it.

Dr. Britton said, "The school caretaker swept the school boiler
house on two separate occasions on March 13 and March 20 2006,
unaware that it was contaminated with asbestos. In fact, there
were 10 fibers per millimeter, which is 100 times the permitted
level.

The boiler house had been quarantined, and although the previous
caretaker and head teacher were aware of the contamination, the
replacement staff were not informed."

The Court fined the council GBP17,005 and ordered them to pay
GBP3,911 in costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips' Suit v. Exxon Mobil Filed in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Phillips' surviving children, Curtis Blake Phillips of Port
Neches, Tex., and Beverly Babin of Bevil Oaks, Tex., on Sept. 4,
2008, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation
in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

According to the plaintiffs' original complaint, Omar Phillips
was employed by Mobil Oil as a pipe-fitter and welder and was
exposed to toxic materials including asbestos dust and fibers.

The complaint states, "As a result of such exposure, Omar
Phillips developed an asbestos-related disease, lung cancer,
from which he died a painful and terrible death on July 24,
2007."

The suit alleges that Exxon Mobil knew for decades that
asbestos-containing products could cause the disease of
asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer and still allowed their
employees to work with the products. The suit also alleges the
defendant acted with malice and gross neglect.

According to the suit, the Irving, Tex.-based Exxon Mobil failed
to warn of the dangers of asbestos in the workplace, failed to
take safety precautions and failed to provide training to ensure
that the deceased was not exposed.

The Phillips family seeks all elements of damages allowable
under the law including exemplary damages.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., of Provost Umphrey in Beaumont, Tex.,
represents the Phillips family.

Case No. D182-349 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield of
the 136th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Testing in Minneapolis Starts Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 will begin an
indoor air assessment involving 30 to 50 homes in northeast
Minneapolis on Sept. 24, 2008, according to an EPA press release
dated Sept. 9, 2008.

The homes selected are a sample of the more than 260 residences
where outdoor areas were cleaned of "Libby asbestos"
contamination from the long-closed Western Mineral Products/W.R.
Grace plant at 1720 Madison St.

EPA conducted a series of cleanups starting in 2000 in the
Holland, Logan Park and Sheridan neighborhoods. EPA will now
assess indoor dust and air to confirm that "Libby asbestos"
fibers from the Western Mineral plant have not gotten into
homes.

Mailings to the 30 to 50 homes will arrive in the next few days.
EPA outreach staff will then contact residents and owners for
voluntary access permission. Generally, EPA technicians will
collect samples of air and dust from two locations in each home
using environmental monitoring equipment.

A public meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, Sept. 16,
2008 at the Logan Recreation Center, 690 13th Ave. N.E.

EPA staff will be joined by representatives from Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Health and the
city of Minneapolis.

Laboratory analysis of the samples collected may take up to four
months to process and evaluate, with the results provided to
residents and owners of the tested homes. If necessary, based on
the data generated in September 2008, EPA may schedule a second
round of tests on an additional group of homes in early 2009.

The Western Mineral Products/W.R. Grace plant operated from the
late 1930s until the late 1980s.

The facility processed vermiculite ore from a mine in Libby,
Mont., that was contaminated with asbestos. Locally this
material is sometimes called "Libby asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Local Sues 100 Companies in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Mortenson of Oregon, on Sept. 3, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 100 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Mortenson claims he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
Dec. 5, 2007, according to the suit. He says he worked from 1945
until 1948 as a laborer at Southern Pacific Railroad.

Mr. Mortenson also claims he worked in 1946 as a laborer in the
U.S. Navy, from 1949 until 1984 as a laborer in the construction
industry and from 1948 until 1962 as a laborer at Northrop
Grumman Corporation.

Mr. Mortenson states his exposure was foreseeable and should
have been anticipated by the defendants, according to the suit.
He claims his disease was caused after he was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

Mr. Mortenson alleges the asbestos-related disease disabled and
disfigured him and has caused him substantial medical costs. He
claims in the suit that he also has and will continue to
experience physical pain and mental anguish.

In the 13-count lawsuit, Mr. Mortenson seeks sums in excess of
US$200,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, economic damages in excess of US$150,000,
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, and for other
relief the Court deems appropriate.

Mr. Mortenson also 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 in the
future.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian & Associates in Alton,
Ill., represents Mr. Mortenson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hackethal Files Suit v. 65 Firms in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hackethal, on Sept. 4, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuits against 65 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hackethal says he worked from 1946 until 1995 as a mechanic,
timekeeper, laboratory tech and millwright at various locations
throughout Illinois and Missouri. According to the suit, he
states his exposure was foreseeable and should have been
anticipated by the defendants.

Mr. Hackethal claims his disease was caused after he was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.
He alleges the asbestos-related disease disabled and disfigured
him and has caused him substantial medical costs.

According to the suit, mesothelioma hindered and prevented Mr.
Hackethal from pursuing his normal course of employment. As a
result, he lost large sums of money, he claims.

In the 11-count lawsuit, Mr. Hackethal seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$350,000, and
for other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Mr. Hackethal 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.

Perry J. Browder, Esq., John A. Barnerd, Esq., Christopher R.
Guinn, Esq., and Christopher Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCoooper in
East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Hackethal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pettibone Couple Sue 72 Firms in Madison
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Iowa couple, Leona and Jerry Pettibone, on Sept. 4, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 72 defendant
corporations in Illinois, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The Pettibones claim Mrs. Pettibone was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on March 26, 2008. They say Mrs. Pettibone has
worked from 1954 until now as a cashier, clerk, laborer and
operator at various companies.

The Pettibones claim Mr. Pettibone worked from 1965 until 1986
as an operator and supervisor at Union Carbide Corporation.

The plaintiffs state Mr. Pettibone would wear clothes home that
carried dust created by working around asbestos. Mrs. Pettibone
would repeatedly be exposed to the dust from Mr. Pettibone's
clothes, according to the suit.

According to the suit, the Pettibones state Mrs. Pettibone's
exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the
defendants. They claim her disease was caused after she was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

The Pettibones allege the asbestos-related disease disabled and
disfigured Mrs. Pettibone and has caused substantial medical
costs. Leona also has and will continue to experience physical
pain and mental anguish, they claim in the lawsuit.

According to the suit, mesothelioma hindered and prevented Mrs.
Pettibone from pursuing her normal course of employment. As a
result, she lost large sums of money, the Pettibones claim.

Because of the disease, Mr. Pettibone claims he has been
deprived of the support, consortium and society of Mrs.
Pettibone.

In the eight-count lawsuit, the Pettibones seek sums in excess
of US$150,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, and
for other relief the Court deems appropriate.

The Pettibones also seek 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.

Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
Ill., represents the Pettibones.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Williams Suit Filed v. 53 Cos. in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Thompson Black, Esq., on Sept. 8, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit on Harvey Williams' behalf in Jefferson County
District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit styled Harvey Williams vs. A.W. Chesterton claims the
defendants maliciously inflicted Mr. Williams with an asbestos-
related disease by manufacturing, selling and using asbestos
products.

The suit does not give specifics on Mr. Williams' employment or
how asbestos products injured him.

According to the plaintiff's original petition, companies such
as Viacom Inc., General Electric Company, and Zurn Industries
knew that the asbestos products they manufactured would hit the
market without inspection for defects.

The suit says the defendants have been in possession of medical
and scientific data exposing the health risks of asbestos for
decades, but conspired among themselves to suppress the
information.

Mr. Williams sues for physical pain and suffering in the past
and future, mental anguish in the past and future, lost wages,
loss of earning capacity, disfigurement in the past and future,
physical impairment in the past and future, and past and future
medical expenses, including home care costs. He also seeks
punitive and exemplary damages.

Ms. Black, of Brent Coon & Associates, represents the plaintiff.

Case No. E182-251 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd of the
172nd Judicial District.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hearing in Hardie Case to Start on Sept. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing in the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission's lawsuit against several employees of James Hardie
Industries N.V. is scheduled to begin on Sept. 29, 2008,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 8, 2008.

ASIC, on Sept. 8, 2008, has agreed to drop one of its three
claims against Hardie in civil proceedings. The claim involved
an allegation that Hardie had contravened its duty of care and
diligence as an alleged shadow director of ABN 60 Pty Limited
(ABN 60) (a former subsidiary) in allowing it to cancel in March
2003, partly paid shares that ABN 60 had issued to Hardie in
2001.

ASIC has also agreed not to seek a related order that Hardie
provide an indemnity to ABN 60 for up to AUD1.9 billion, being
the unpaid value of the partly paid shares (Indemnity Claim).

Hardie is pleased that this aspect of the Proceedings is now
resolved.

Hardie will actively defend the remaining claims made against it
by ASIC in the Proceedings for:

     -- Declarations that aspects of announcements made in
        connection with investor roadshows in 2002 were false
        or misleading; and

     -- A monetary penalty (up to AUD200,000) in respect of an
        alleged contravention of continuous disclosure
        requirements in March 2003 following the cancellation
        by ABN 60 of the partly paid shares issued to the
        Company in 2001.

On Feb. 14, 2007, ASIC commenced civil proceedings in the
Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSW) against the Company, ABN
60 and 10 then present or former officers of the James Hardie
Group.

The Proceedings, which included the Indemnity Claim, concerned
alleged contraventions of certain provisions of Corporations law
during the period February 2001 to June 2003 relating to the
establishment of a foundation to deal with asbestos claims
involving certain former subsidiaries and the level of funding
available to the foundation.

ASIC stated in mid-February 2007 that it would not pursue the
Indemnity Claim in the Proceedings if the conditions precedent
to the original Final Funding Agreement (FFA) (as announced on
Dec. 1, 2005) in respect of asbestos claims, were satisfied.

The Company and the other parties to the agreement including the
NSW Government, provided certification to ASIC shortly
afterwards, in March 2007, that all of the conditions precedent
to the Amended FFA (dated Nov. 21, 2006) had been satisfied.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V., a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced fiber cement,
uses the material to create products for residential and
commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank), external
cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA & DEQ Issue Post-Hurricane Guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality issued guidelines to
residents returning home after Hurricane Gustav, Asbestos.com
reports.

The EPA and DEQ say people returning to homes damaged by the
hurricane should be cautious, particularly when entering
properties for the first time, to prevent possible injury or
exposure to harmful toxins like asbestos.

Since asbestos can be found in numerous older, and even newer,
construction materials, many homes and buildings damaged by the
hurricane may contain newly disturbed asbestos-contaminated
materials.

To prevent accidents and injuries, the EPA and DEQ recommend
that people take the following precautions with all household
and other chemicals:

     -- Be on the lookout for leaking containers, and household
        chemicals which might be dangerous. Examples include
        chlorine bleach and caustic drain cleaners. These items
        should be clearly marked as hazardous chemicals, and
        set aside in a safe place until they can be safely
        disposed of. If chemical containers are unlabeled or
        broken they should be left undisturbed if possible.

     -- Be sure to keep children and pets well away from any
        chemicals, whether spilled, leaking from containers, or
        safely stored away.

     -- Do not combine any chemicals, such as those in
        containers which are damaged or leaking. Dangerous or
        violent chemical reactions may result if two different
        types of chemicals are mixed.

     -- Do not dispose of chemicals down household trainers,
        toilets, or storm sewers, and do not attempt to burn
        chemicals to dispose of them.

Residents should also be aware that homes, commercial and
industrial sites, and public buildings that have sustained
damage may contain asbestos and other potentially hazardous
construction materials.

If any exposed asbestos products are discovered they should be
left completely undisturbed and local officials should be
contacted and warned of the potential threat.

A professional asbestos abatement contractor should then be
hired to safely remove the hazardous materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MAAC Calls for More Cancer Research Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center continues to call
for more funding for cancer research and for focus on new
treatment methods, TransWorldNews reports.

According to an article in the most recent issue of Newsweek
magazine, more than 1,500 Americans will die each day from some
form of cancer, a staggering number equivalent to "three jumbo
jets crashing and killing everyone aboard" on each of the 365
days of 2008.

Many doctors prefer to take an "upbeat" approach to fighting
cancer, said Oncologist Therese Mulvey. This concern bothers
Mulvey because "some people are just not going to be cured."

For patients with malignant mesothelioma, death is very much a
part of their reality. The survival rate for mesothelioma
sufferers is less than one percent, and the majority of patients
lose their battle in less than two years after their diagnosis.

The number of Americans losing their battle with lung-related
cancers was roughly 53 out of every 100,000 individuals in 2005,
and as the rates of mesothelioma as a result of second-hand
asbestos exposure increase, the number of lives lost to lung
cancers is expected to go up.

The federal government and private foundations and businesses
have spent an estimated US$200 billion on cancer research since
the 1970s.

Roy Herbst, an Oncologist specializing in lung cancer, said,
"The hope is to match tumor type to drug. We need to make the
next leap, getting the right drug to the right patient."

Researchers are also focusing on how "outside" cells (cells of
the immune system and inflammatory cells, for example)
communicate with the cancer cells inside a tumor.

For doctors specializing in the treatment of mesothelioma
cancer, figuring out why this particular cancer is so aggressive
could be a crucial discovery that would bring them one step
closer to finding a cure.

The Mesothelioma & Asbestos Center is a resource for information
related to asbestos exposure, mesothelioma cancer, mesothelioma
treatment, and more.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Carriageworks Worker Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest linked the death of Keith Wright, a York
Carriageworks employee, to exposure to asbestos, The Press
reports.

The inquest heard how Mr. Wright was a teenager when he joined
York Carriageworks as an apprentice, and he spent more than 30
years as a coach builder, during which time he was exposed to
asbestos dust.

Born in York, North Yorkshire, England, in 1949, Mr. Wright died
at the home he shared with his wife, Ruth Wright, on April 24,
2008.

Mrs. Wright, a school bursar, said in a statement that her
husband stayed at the works until it closed, before joining a
Wakefield firm until 2005.

Mr. Wright was fit and healthy until December 2005 when he
developed chest problems. He was diagnosed with asbestos-related
malignant mesothelioma in 2005.

Surgery was considered. However, Mr. Wright chose to have
chemotherapy. His condition remained quite stable until 2007,
said Mrs. Wright, but he grew weaker towards the end of that
year and his condition rapidly deteriorated from Easter 2008.

Reading from medical statements, deputy coroner Jonathan Leach
told the inquest at Sentinel House, Peasholme Green, in York,
that his death was a result of the malignant mesothelioma.

York-based Corries Solicitors, which dealt with and settled Mr.
Wright's claim for compensation from his employers, provided the
inquest with a witness statement signed by Mr. Wright in April
2006 following his diagnosis.

Mr. Leach recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease, as
a result of asbestos-related malignant mesothelioma which was
caused by exposure to asbestos.

Speaking after the inquest, campaigner Paul Cooper, a former
union leader at the Carriageworks, paid tribute to Mr Wright.

Mr. Cooper said he believed about 110 former workers at York
Carriageworks had now died from asbestos-related illnesses such
as mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Lobby Group Dismayed of Hardie Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lobby group of Australian asbestos diseases victims says the
sufferers are "desperately disappointed" that no criminal
charges will be filed over the James Hardie Industries N.V.
asbestos compensation scandal, The Sydney Morning Herald
reports.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, on
Sept. 5, 2008, said it had referred criminal briefs "in respect
of certain individuals" to the Commonwealth Director of Public
Prosecutions in July 2007.

ASIC said the DPP had now decided there were insufficient
grounds to prosecute and it agreed with the decision.

The president of the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia,
Barry Robson, called for an independent inquiry to review the
decision. "Otherwise it's just a case of the big end of town
winning again," he said. "Our members are desperately
disappointed."

Jeff Lawrence, Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary,
said the most important thing was that funding had been secured
to compensate victims.

In 2007, Hardie set up a compensation scheme to meet all valid
future claims regardless of its legal liability.

ASIC said in a statement, "Whilst there may be a concern in some
sectors of the broader community about this outcome, because of
the nature of asbestos and what transpired, a careful and
independent review has concluded that there was insufficient
basis to commence any criminal proceedings."

It said the decision would have no effect on its civil case
against the entire Hardie board of 2001 and two other
executives.

In that case, ASIC is asking the New South Wales Supreme Court
to ban those 10 from managing companies, and to impose fines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Trustee Lawyers Oppose Quigley's Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the U.S. Trustee, an arm of the U.S. Justice
Department overseeing bankruptcy, filed objections to The
Quigley Corporation's reorganization, in court documents filed
Sept. 4, 2008, Bloomberg News reports.

Quigley is a Pfizer Inc. subsidiary.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the government said that Quigley cannot
reorganize as planned because the drug maker orchestrated the
bankruptcy to shield itself from asbestos liability.

The lawyers said Pfizer made a joint-defense agreement with
Quigley in September 2003, a year before the bankruptcy, and
failed to disclose it in the proposal.

The plan does not meet the bankruptcy law's requirement for
"good faith," or loyalty to creditors without self-dealing,
because of Pfizer and Quigley's relationship, the lawyers said.
They plan to ask the bankruptcy court to appoint an examiner to
investigate the tie.

Michael Cook, an attorney for Quigley, said that the objections
are "without merit and reflect a misunderstanding of the facts."
Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder said the assertions are without
merit and the company will file a response.

Insurers of Pfizer and Quigley's asbestos risks, including
Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Co. and The Hartford
Financial Services Group Inc., have called the plan an
"elaborate construct" to shield New York-based Pfizer, the
world's largest drug maker, from asbestos liability.

On July 25, 2008, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein ruled
that insurers can participate in a hearing to confirm the plan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Plan Hearing to Commence on Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
The confirmation hearing for ASARCO LLC's Plan of Reorganization
will commence on Nov. 17, 2008.

The Debtors propose to provide to all holders of Claims and
Interests, simultaneously with the distribution of the
Solicitation Packages, a copy of the Confirmation Hearing Notice
setting forth:

     -- The time, date, and place for the Confirmation Hearing;

     -- The Voting Record Date;

     -- The Voting Deadline;

     -- The time fixed for filing objections to Confirmation of
        either of the Plans and the manner in which objections
        will be filed; and

     -- The procedures for temporary allowance of Claims and
        Interests.

The Debtors will publish the Confirmation Hearing Notice once in
a national publication, the Wall Street Journal, and once in
several local publications around the United States, especially
in the Texas, Arizona, Kansas, and Utah areas.

The Debtors will also publish another notice tailored to holders
of Asbestos PI Claims to be published once in a weekday edition
of the Wall Street Journal.

Objections to confirmation of the Debtors' Plan must be
submitted on or before Oct. 27, 2008, and must be in writing,
identify the nature of the Claims or Interests, and state the
basis for the objection.

The Debtors also propose to provide the Tohono O'odham Nation
and the San Xavier District Allottees with copies of the Plan,
the Disclosure Statement, and a tailored version of the
Confirmation Hearing Notice that also contains a brief
description of the Mission Mine Settlement Agreement.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 83; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asarco, AMC Seek OK to Disclosure Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation ask the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court to find that their Disclosure Statement
explaining the Plan of Reorganization they proposed for ASARCO
LLC and its debtor affiliates contain "adequate information" as
defined in Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Asarco Inc. and AMC also ask the Court to approve procedures
concerning the election by the holders of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claims and the Future Claims Representative concerning
the proposed Section 524(g) Treatment under their Plan.

The Plan Sponsors are not seeking to use their Disclosure
Statement for solicitation of votes in the traditional sense,
but, Luc A. Despins, in Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, in
New York, says Asarco Inc. and AMC intend to seek from holders
of Asbestos PI Claims and the FCR an election to agree to accept
the Section 524(g) Treatment described in their Disclosure
Statement.

To facilitate that election, Asarco Inc. and AMC propose to
utilize the same solicitation procedures proposed by the Debtors
only to the extent applicable to the Asbestos PI Claims.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 83; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Case v. Meadows Filed in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Inc. has filed a case in the U.S. District
Court against Terry Jo Meadows, in which the Company alleged Ms.
Meadows has filed a second asbestos suit against the Company,
The West Virginia Record reports.

CSX claims Ms. Meadows filed an asbestos lawsuit on behalf of
her deceased husband, Danny Joe Brown, after Mr. Brown already
had received damages from the Company.

In the suit, CSX claims it settled a case with Mr. Brown for
US$58,000 before he died. As part of the settlement, Mr. Brown
signed a release agreement, the suit states.

According to the complaint (Case No. 2:08-1034), in the
agreement, Mr. Brown agreed to not hold the Company responsible
for any asbestos-related diseases or illnesses. He also agreed
to hold it harmless from any claims brought against it by
another person.

The complaint states, "This Release Agreement released CSXT from
liability for any future known or unknown disease or condition
that might stem from any exposures Mr. Brown allegedly had while
employed by CSXT."

Mr. Brown, who had worked from 1955 until 1991 at the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company, died of lung cancer, according to a
June 3, 2008 suit filed by Ms. Meadows.

After Mr. Brown died, Ms. Meadows filed her own seven-count suit
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., against 29 defendant companies,
claiming Mr. Brown suffered great pain and mental anguish.

Ms. Meadows also claims she has been forced to pay medical costs
and funeral expenses. She seeks compensatory damages in an
amount in excess of jurisdictional amounts, punitive damages and
other relief the Court deems just and proper.

CSX seeks a judgment that declares the provisions of the release
agreement valid and binding, that claims made in Mr. Brown's
lawsuit are precluded by the release, that the Company be safe
from any costs brought by Ms. Meadows and any other relief the
Court deems appropriate.

Luke A. Lafferre, Esq., and Jarrett D. Gerlach, Esq., of
Huddleston Bolen in Huntington, W.Va., represent CSX.

Meadows is represented by Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq., of James F.
Humphreys & Associates in Charleston, W.Va., and Victoria
Antion, Esq., of Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., represent
Ms. Meadows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Evacuation Cost Doncaster Council GBP201T
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Doncaster Council has spent GBP201,766 of taxpayers' cash to
tackle an asbestos scare, when asbestos fibers were disturbed by
workmen during the Decent Homes program early in 2008, the
Doncaster Free Press reports.

Dozens of residents, many of whom were elderly, were forced to
evacuate flats at The Crescent in Woodlands and St James Street
in the town center when asbestos fibers were discovered inside
their homes.

The information, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,
shows Doncaster Council spent GBP39,617 on providing hotel and
alternative accommodation for affected residents.

The new figures also reveal almost GBP100,000 has been spent on
replacement items for residents whose possessions were destroyed
after becoming contaminated by the fibers.

By Aug. 26, 2008, the overall cost of decontamination and of
asbestos testing, was listed as GBP30,235.

Other expenses occurred by the authority include GBP18,000 paid
to residents as a disturbance allowance, staff overtime totaling
GBP10,662 and office equipment costing GBP7,315.

The cost of transporting evacuated residents around the borough
has so far cost GBP471.

Doncaster Council's director of finance, Julie Wright, said it
was possible further costs would be incurred in the coming
months. She added that the council would be taking legal steps
to recover the costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Gov't. to Oppose Action on Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian government may continue blocking international
efforts to place chrysotile asbestos on the United Nation's list
of the world's worst substances, at a high-level international
meeting in October 2008, globeandmail.com reports.

Chrysotile is the type of asbestos mined in the Canadian
province of Quebec.

A group of public-health and environmental activists tried
before the election call to have the Harper government announce
whether it would change its position to supporting action
against chrysotile, but was rebuffed.

The group says the Liberals also declined to support the
listing. That suggests that regardless of which of the two major
parties wins the election, Canada's position at the UN body,
known as the Rotterdam Convention, is unlikely to change.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the group released letters signed by Canadian
and foreign public-health experts appealing to both Liberal
Leader Stephane Dion and Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to
reconsider Canada's efforts to promote chrysotile.

At the last meeting of the convention in 2006, Canada led a
group of countries including Iran, Zimbabwe and Kyrgyzstan in
blocking the listing.

About 95 percent of Canadian asbestos is exported. The federal
government opposed listing, arguing that with appropriate
safeguards, the Third World countries that buy nearly all of the
country's output can minimize health risks.

Kathleen Ruff, coordinator of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance
and a former director of the B.C. Human Rights Commission, said
that both the NDP and the Green back listing. Her group did not
canvas the Bloc Quebecois.

The decision by Canada and its allies to block action on
chrysotile has caused the UN to circulate proposals for revising
the way the convention operates.

One proposal up for discussion at the meeting would be for the
UN body to create a second list of substances on which the
countries can't agree.

The meeting in late October 2008 is to be held in Rome.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Claims Deadline Set for Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has set a
deadline of Oct. 31, 2008 to file an asbestos claims against W.
R. Grace & Co., or lose the right to ever do so, The Associated
Press reports.

In Washington state, Darrell Scott, Esq., the lawyer who in 2000
filed the nation's first Zonolite insulation suit on behalf more
than 100,000 homeowners, has asked the court to allow his suit
to go forward. The insulation came from vermiculite ore mined at
Zonolite Mountain near Libby, Mont.

Efforts by Mr. Scott and scores of other lawyers suing on behalf
of those harmed by Zonolite exposure were derailed in April 2001
when Grace filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Grace's then-president, Paul Norris, said the Company had no
choice because more than 325,000 asbestos personal-injury claims
had been brought against it, and more plaintiffs were waiting to
file.

In Ontario, the Canadian version of a bankruptcy court - the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act - is proposing that Grace
pay CDN6.5 million to settle all present and future claims by
Canadian homeowners.

Of the money, half would be paid to the Canadian lawyers who put
the deal together. A lawyer in Delaware would get CDN360,000 for
filing the papers with the bankruptcy court.

Health Canada estimates that as many as 400,000 Canadian homes
may be insulated with Zonolite, and if they all apply for the
Grace settlement, they could end up with US$8.125 each. If only
a few apply, the settlement states that depending on the proof
they offer, they could get either nothing, US$300 or US$600.

Typically, the cost of asbestos-contamination removals from
attics and walls in the U.S. ranges from US$11,000 to well over
US$40,000.

Nevertheless, the settlement makes it clear that Grace would not
be asked to pay more, and, there is no mention that the lawyers
would kick in anything.

Asked about the large lawyers' fees, Mr. Scott would say only,
"The first obligation must always be to fairly compensate the
client and this (settlement) does not appear to offer any
meaningful relief."

When Mr. Scott filed the first suit against Grace for Washington
homeowners nine years ago, it asked that Grace be forced to
notify homeowners in Washington and elsewhere of the hazard of
exposure to the insulation. It did not happen.

"People still don't know," Mr. Scott said. "There are probably
120,00 to 140,000 homeowners in Washington alone with Zonolite
in their homes, and most don't know it."

Mr. Scott is concerned that the court-approved Oct. 31, 2008
deadline will pass unknown to millions.

Reminding Jidge Judith Fitzgerald of the class action filed in
2000, Mr. Scott asked the judge to allow him to file on behalf
of tens of thousands of Washington homeowners who own or occupy
property containing the Zonolite insulation.

Judge Fitzgerald has yet to rule on his motion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leicestershire Designer Settles w/ Employer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Plowman, a 61-year-old designer, gets to receive an
undisclosed six-figure sum from his former employer, Carter
Design Group, over his exposure to asbestos, the Leicester
Mercury reports.

Mr. Plowman claimed he was exposed to deadly asbestos dust and
fibers during the 1970s. Now, insurers for the Foxton, England-
based Carter Design have agreed to a "substantial" pay-out.

Mr. Plowman was given two years to live in autumn 2006 after
being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. He has had to have
four operations, chemotherapy and regular medical check-ups.

In a writ issued in March 2007, Mr. Plowman alleged he was
exposed to fibers while cutting asbestos sheets on a circular
saw between 1974 and 1977, when he worked as a designer and
technician.

In August 2008, lawyers acting for the company's insurers agreed
to the payout, weeks before a scheduled hearing at the High
Court in London. The issues of the claim were never resolved in
court as the deal was reached.

Mr. Plowman said, "The settlement would not have been possible
without the total support of my wife and the sensitivity and
highly professional approach of my solicitor, David Cass.

Mr. Plowman had already survived kidney cancer when he went to
his doctor in 2006 complaining of pains in his lungs. Tests
found he had the fatal cancer.

Company managing director Wilf Leek said, "Carter Design Group
would like to express their sympathy toward the ex-employee
concerned and his family at this tragic turn of events."

Mr. Leek said the claim was handled by the firm's insurers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Repairs in Galesburg School to Cost $1.8Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Woehlke, assistant superintendent for finance, estimates
US$1.8 million as the cost to repair parts of Galesburg High
School in Galesburg, Ill., the Journal Star reports.

The Galesburg School Board building committee heard a report on
Sept. 5, 2008 that the asbestos ceiling tiles in the learning
center wing of the high school are deteriorating from water
damage. If they fall, it could force the immediate closing of
the building.

Mr. Woehlke said state health inspectors are watching the
district because of past asbestos violations.

The wing is about 40,000 square feet and includes the learning
center, three lecture halls and classrooms.

Mr. Woehlke told the committee, "We have this on the long-term
project list for two or three years out in the future, and we
had it grossly understated in terms of cost. It is my belief
that we have to move it forward, and therefore I've put that
project into this budget."

Life safety tax funds of US$600,000 have been approved, and the
remaining cost will come from the operations and maintenance
budget. Mr. Woehlke said he can move the corporate personal
property replacement tax revenue from the education fund to the
O&M fund to pay for it.

The building committee recommended spending the money to fix the
tiles.

Mr. Woehlke told the committee a state asbestos inspector saw a
hole cut in a tile at Churchill Junior High School. The
inspector maintained the cut was recent, Mr. Woehlke said.

Mr. Woehlke said, "We did an investigation and determined the
cut was not recent and the most recent activity that occurred in
that room was in the 2000-2001 time frame."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Rules v. Alcoa in Satterfield
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled against Alcoa Inc. in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Amanda Satterfield, the
daughter of a former employer, the Associated Press reports.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the Court ruled that the employer had a duty
to prevent others from being exposed to the asbestos-
contaminated clothes of its workers.

The Company has argued that it should not be held responsible
for Ms. Satterfield's mesothelioma. She died in 2005 at the age
of 25.

Ms. Satterfield originally sued the company in 2003, claiming
that the asbestos dust her father brought home on his clothes
had caused her cancer. Doug Satterfield has continued the
lawsuit as the representative of his daughter's estate. He
hauled asbestos for the Company in the 1970s.

The lawsuit seeks US$10 million in compensatory damages and
US$10 million in punitive damages.

The case was initially dismissed in Blount County, but the
Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that decision and reinstated
the lawsuit. The Company appealed that decision to the state
Supreme Court.

Greg Coleman, the attorney representing Mr. Satterfield, said
the Supreme Court's ruling is a broad one that goes beyond the
previous appeals court ruling.

Justice William Koch wrote in the opinion, "In light of the
magnitude of the potential harm from exposure to asbestos and
the means available to prevent or reduce this harm, we see no
reason to prevent carpool members, baby sitters, or the domestic
help from pursuing negligence claims against an employer should
they develop mesothelioma after being repeatedly and regularly
in close contact with an employee's asbestos-contaminated work
clothes over an extended period of time."

Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery said that Company officials were
disappointed by the ruling, but that they still have confidence
in their ability to argue the case in trial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Southwyck Shopping Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several documents reported the contamination of asbestos and
black mold within the Southwyck Shopping Mall in Toledo, Ohio,
that is scheduled for demolition in the coming months,
Asbestos.com reports.

The Environmental Protection Agency may provide funding to
ensure the work is carried out safely.

Most state laws prohibit buildings containing asbestos to be
demolished until the asbestos is completely removed. In
addition, all asbestos must be removed using techniques like wet
removal to prevent the dispersal of large amounts of airborne
asbestos fibers.

The mall's problems became known in April 2008 when a city
inspector said the condition of the mall was a health hazard for
employees and the public. The inspector also suggested the
building might have to be closed because of the contamination.

At the time, mall management was given 72 hours to clean up the
mold and contain the asbestos before being shut down.
Inspections following cleanup operations found no evidence of
uncontained asbestos or mold, and as a result, the mall was
allowed to remain open.

However, the city had other plans for the mall and has long
wanted to gain control of the property. Even with the asbestos
and mold problems resolved, mall management was forced to close
the mall and follow city instructions.

City Mayor Carty Finkbeiner says the mall's owner is willing to
cooperate with the city's plans, and that the Southwyck Shopping
Mall will be demolished by the end of December 2008.

The city plans to use the US$1.5 million federal loan from the
EPA to remove the asbestos from the property and demolish the
remains. However, the city may only take the loan if it agrees
to complete demolition by the end of the year.

Local developer Larry Dillon hopes to complete the construction
of a new mall by 2010.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Rail Worker Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of John Garbett, a 62-year-old
former employee of British Rail, was linked to asbestos, the
Evening Telegraph reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Garbett always wondered if his work
would make him sick. He made a statement about his working life
seven months before his death from malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Garbett became a British Rail apprentice in 1961, working at
the Carriage and Wagon Works, in Litchurch Lane, Derby, England.
He spent many years in George Shop, building railway carriages
which he believed were insulated with asbestos.

In the statement to a solicitor in November 2007, after being
diagnosed with the illness, Mr. Garbett recalled health checks
were carried out one day.

The statement, which was read out at the inquest into his death,
said, "An official-looking gentleman came into one of the
carriages with a machine which looked like a generator. Someone
asked what it was and was told he was there to check air
quality. I did wonder whether work was going on in a harmful
area but I did think British Rail would look after us."

Mr. Garbett said the firm provided him with overalls and gloves,
but not masks or breathing equipment. In later years, he said
British Rail paid triple time to other workers who stripped blue
asbestos from carriages, operating in sealed areas and using
breathing apparatus.

Mr. Garbett, who went on to become a school caretaker in Etwall,
left the Railway Works in 1988 and never again worked close to
asbestos.

Mr. Garbett died at home in Oakland Avenue, Littleover, on
June 9.

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner Dr. Robert Hunter recorded a
verdict of death by industrial disease and passed his
condolences to the family.

Pathologist Dr. David Semararo said a postmortem examination
identified "occasional asbestos fibers" around a lung.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coleman Widow Seeks Help in Payout Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Coleman's widow Ruth Coleman, of Intake, Doncaster,
England, is calling for her husband's former colleagues in her
asbestos compensation case, The Star reports.

Lawyers are checking into a suspected link between the death of
Mr. Coleman and asbestos in the former Doncaster Plant Works
factory more than 50 years ago.

Mr. Coleman died in March 2007 at the age of 70 after suffering
from mesothelioma. As a young man, he had worked as a clerk in
the accounts office of the Doncaster factory.

Mrs. Coleman is appealing for other former workers at what was
then a nationalized industry to come forward with evidence of
the use of asbestos at the Hexthorpe site between 1953 and 1955.

A major employer in Doncaster, the plant employed thousands and
produced locomotives and carriages for railways.

Mr Coleman, along with other members of staff from the accounts
offices, regularly walked through the workshops, and other areas
where asbestos was used, to give out pay packets and discuss
issues.

Denis O'Gorman, an industrial disease specialist at Irwin
Mitchell who is representing Mrs Coleman, said: "In the 1950s
when Mr Coleman worked at the plant, steam locomotives were
being serviced and repaired. The locomotives were dismantled and
rebuilt and asbestos blankets, asbestos rope and asbestos cement
removed and replaced on locomotive boilers and other parts of
the locomotives.

Mrs. Coleman said, "Brian was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
April 2006 and died almost a year later. He had no idea the work
he was doing at the plant could have such a devastating effect
on his health later in life."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Proposed Olympic Village Site Has Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
A potential site in Chicago, considered for the Olympic Village,
is riddled with asbestos, Asbestos.com reports.

Chicago is currently bidding to be the host of the 2016 Summer
Olympics.

Chicago's leaders are already beginning to plan the building of
the Olympic Village when that city takes its turn as host in
2016. However, there is one problem, the site that Chicago Mayor
Richard Daley wants to use to build the village is riddled with
asbestos.

Unfortunately, the same properties that make asbestos ideal for
use in construction also contribute to it being a health hazard.

The presence of asbestos in the buildings Chicago wants to
purchase and put to use in constructing the Olympic Village is
causing some serious issues.

Mayor Daley hopes to borrow US$85 million to buy the campus of
local Michael Reese Hospital and use the land to construct a
US$1.1 billion Olympic Village.

However, some sources had noted that estimates for demolition
and environmental cleanup of the site have been estimated at 60
percent higher than originally anticipated. Demolishing the old
hospital and cleaning up asbestos and other toxins may cost in
excess of US$32 million instead of the US$20 million, which was
the original estimate.

The 27 buildings that make up the Reese campus are riddled with
asbestos and lead paint, and there are a number of potentially
hazardous storage tanks below ground.

Originally, Mayor Daley hoped the owner of the Reese campus,
Medline Industries, would make a US$20 million donation to cover
the costs of environmental cleanup and demolition to pave the
way for new construction on the site.

Reluctantly, the higher estimate for the site preparation has
turned the plans upside down. As a result, the Olympic Committee
is now trying to renegotiate the purchase price.





                            *********

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  * * *