CAR_Public/080926.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Friday, September 26, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 192

                            Headlines

AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Scams Members, California Lawsuit Alleges
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Gift Cards
CALIFORNIA: UCSF Violated Medical Privacy, Lawsuit Alleges
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks High Court Review of "Tawney" Award
CHEVY CHASE: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in Mortgage Loan Suit

CKX INC: Parties Tentatively Settle Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger
DEPT. OF HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Postpone Dix Closure
DRUG COS: Violate Prescribing Doctors' Orders, Ala. Suit Claims
DYNEX CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
GALVESTON CITY: Sued for Denying People to Go Home After Typhoon

GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Lawsuit Over Delinquency Fees Remains Stayed
GRETNA POLICE: Katrina Victims Want Blockade Lawsuit Certified
HUGHES COMMS: Misrepresented Broadband Service, $75M Suit Claims
ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Suit Over Sale of NEGI Still Pending in Del.
INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others

KOREAN BANKS: Companies Plan to Sue Over KIKO Options
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Del. Lawsuits Over Merger Agreement
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated
MEL HARRIS: Faces Debt Collection Lawsuits in California

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Oklahoma Suit Over Medical Expenses
NEVADA CHEMICALS: $94MM Sale Fought by Shareholder in Utah Suit
PRINCETON REVIEW: Sued Over Data Breach of Student Information
RADIAN GROUP: Wants Pennsylvania Securities Complaint Dismissed
RADIAN GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. ERISA Violations Lawsuit

SECURITY PLAN: Policyholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana
SECURITY PLAN: Dismissed From Hurricane Katrine-Related Lawsuit
SECURITY PLAN: Insurance Coverage Suit Ongoing in Louisiana
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court

WACHOVIA CORP: Faces "Lipetz" Securities Fraud Suit in New York
WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in New York
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Mulls Motions in Home Loans Lawsuit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Discovery Ongoing in Interchange Fee Lawsuit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Washington
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Yet to OK $336-Mln. Antitrust Suit Deal

* Government Health Care Denies Choice to Patients
* Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Suit
RESERVE PRIMARY: Girard Gibbs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SPECTRANICS CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Halts Demolition in Chester, W.Va. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laurel City Council OKs $92,000 for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Crane Moves to Set Aside $4Mil Verdict
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of W.Va. Post Office
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Wales Policeman's Death Due to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Navy Officer's Daughter to Get Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOAST Asbestos Cleanup Estimated at $3.8Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in Moeller Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Expends JPY1.090B at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Desnoyers Indicted for Clean Air Act Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Plan, Disclosure Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brookshiers File Suit in Ill. v. 124 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: E-MOSAIC Seen as Possible Cancer Treatment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Support Team Seeking Out Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Exposed in Wolverhampton Infirmary

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Peabody, Mass., Holiday Inn
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Crown Cork in Braley Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zerkle Files Suit in Madison v. 62 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Couple Sue 92 Firms in Madison County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyon Suit Filed v. 13 Firms on Sept. 16

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Superior Court Rules v. Georgia-Pacific
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer for Hardie to Testify in Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cal Max Charged GBP10T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Conman to Pay Fine for Botched Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to Ellesmere Port Man's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glatfelter's Motion Denied in Olin Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ike Advisory Released on Sept. 22 in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local to Pay $2T for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Nursing Home Settles w/ Gruzs for $100T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt OKs Asarco's Plan in Sept. 23

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Raises Concern in Wonthaggi Plant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Glace Bay, Canada School Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Urges Canadian Gov't. to Ban Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weitz & Luxenberg Informs Public on Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derelict Building in Basildon Has Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling to Diaz Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Asarco LLC Estimation Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.7B Deposit Request in ASARCO Case Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Moves to Create Solicitation Measure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pacific Freeholds

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pa. Hospital
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles Univ. of California Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Awaits Decision on Jameson Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paddock Family to Get Compensation in 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Uses $715T for Reforms

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois School Board to Pursue Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Tex. School Raises Health Concern



                           *********


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Scams Members, California Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
The Automobile Club of Southern California is facing a class-
action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
the company made millions of dollars by rewarding its tow-truck
drivers for selling batteries that stranded drivers did not
need, CourtHouse News Service reports.

According to the report, Automobile Club headquarters allegedly
ordered drivers to sell a new battery to at least 26% of
customers who called with battery-related problems, whether the
customers needed it or not.

Automobile Club enforced its plan by stripping non-compliant
drivers of their towing territory, the suit says.  Automobile
Club also based an incentive program on whether drivers met the
quota, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiff Paul Davis-Miller claims that after an
Automobile Club driver persuaded him to buy a new battery, he
had his old one tested.  He says that contrary to the truck-
driver's claims, the battery could still hold a charge.

The class claims that Automobile Club forced about 300 tow-truck
drivers to comply with strict quotas demanding they talk
customers into replacing their batteries "well before [the end
of] their expected useful life."

The class wants statutory and punitive damages, interest, costs
and attorney fees.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas Ferlauto, Esq. (kingferlauto.com)
          King, William - King & Ferlauto
          1880 Century Park E
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-3366


BLOCKBUSTER INC: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Gift Cards
------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court alleging it cheats customers by failing
to redeem gift cards when the value sinks below $10, CourtHouse
News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report on any further detail or development
regarding the case.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI,
BBI.B) -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a leading global
provider of in-home movie and game entertainment, with over
7,800 stores throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and
Australia.  The company maintains operations in Brazil, Mexico,
Denmark, Italy, Taiwan, and Australia.


CALIFORNIA: UCSF Violated Medical Privacy, Lawsuit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
The University of California, San Francisco, is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda, over allegations that it gave
confidential medical information about 30,000 UCSF medical
school patients to Target America, a fund raiser, which
published 6,000 people's confidential medical records on the
Internet, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
confidential medical information was disclosed by the defendant
to Target America.

The plaintiff says the UCSF did not inform its patients of the
security breach until six months after it found out about it.

The complaint claims that UCSF paid Target America $12,000 a
year to use its list to solicit donations from rich people.

"Target America maintains a database of '7+ million wealthy
individuals' and advertises on its Web site that it allows
health care organizations to screen their patients against
Target America's database as well as the client's donor database
on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis," the complaint states.

The complaint further claims UCSF paid Target $12,000 a year
"between 2004 and 2007" and supplied it "with information about
approximately 30,000 UCSF patients including, but not limited
to, patients' names, addresses, medical record numbers, dates of
treatment, and the specific clinics and physicians from whom the
patients received treatment."

"In 2007, Target America exposed and published on the Internet
confidential medical information for approximately 6,000 of the
30,000 patients whose info Defendants had disclosed to Target
America.  The confidential medical information made available on
the Internet included patients' names, addresses, medical record
numbers, dates of treatment, and the specific clinics and
physicians from whom the patients received treatment," the
complaint adds.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants unlawfully disclosed plaintiff's and
         class members' confidential medical information;

     (b) whether defendants used plaintiff's and class members'
         confidential medical information for unlawful purposes;

     (c) whether defendants violated plaintiff's and class
         members' constitutional rights of privacy;

     (d) whether defendants failed to notify plaintiff and class
         members that their confidential medical information was
         disclosed to Target America;

     (e) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         nominal damages in the amount of $1000; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to
         equitable relief, including but not limited to
         injunctive relief and declaratory relief.

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class pursuant to Code of Civil
        Procedure Section 382 and appointing plaintiff and his
        counsel to represent the class;

     -- statutory nominal damages in the amount of $1,000 per
        person;

     -- injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from
        disclosing confidential medical information and
        prohibiting defendants from using confidential medical
        information for unlawful purposes;

     -- declaratory relief;

     -- attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of suit, including
        expert witness fees; and

     -- such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.

The suit is "Thomas W. Smith, et al. v. The Regents of the
University of California, et al., Case No. RG0940004," filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of
Alameda.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: 415-981-4800
          Fax: 415-981-4846


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks High Court Review of "Tawney" Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., a unit of Chesapeake Energy
Corp., intends to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court in August 2008 in connection with the
$404.3-million judgment handed down by a West Virginia Circuit
Court for Roane County jury in the matter "Tawney, et al. v.
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," which named the company as a
defendant, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The class-action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of
Roane County, West Virginia, in 2003 by royalty owners who
allege that Chesapeake Appalachia, formerly known as Columbia
Natural Resources LLC, underpaid royalties by improperly
deducting post-production costs, failing to pay royalty on total
volumes of natural gas produced and not paying a fair value for
the natural gas produced from their leases.

The plaintiff class consists of West Virginia royalty owners
receiving royalties after July 31, 1990, from Columbia Natural.
Chesapeake Energy acquired Columbia Natural in November 2005,
and the seller acquired Columbia Natural in 2003 from NiSource,
Inc.

NiSource, a co-defendant in the case, has managed the litigation
and indemnified Chesapeake against underpayment claims based on
the use of fixed prices for natural gas production sold under
certain forward sale contracts and other claims with respect to
Columbia Natural's operations prior to September 2003.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the Circuit Court jury returned a verdict
against the defendants of $404 million, consisting of $134
million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive
damages, against the defendants.

Most of the damages awarded by the jury relate to issues not yet
addressed by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
although in June 2006 that Court ruled against the defendants on
two certified questions regarding the deductibility of post-
production expenses.

The jury found fraudulent conduct by the defendants with respect
to the sales prices used to calculate royalty payments and with
respect to the failure of CNR to disclose post-production
deductions.

On June 28, 2007, the Circuit Court sustained the jury verdict
for punitive damages, and in September 2007, it denied all post-
trial motions, including the defendants' motion for judgment as
a matter of law, or in the alternative, for a new trial.

On Dec. 5, 2007, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal
conditioned upon filing an irrevocable letter of credit in the
amount of $50 million.  The irrevocable letter of credit was
filed on Jan. 4, 2008.

On Jan. 24, 2008, the defendants filed their initial Petition
for Appeal in the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and in
April 2008, the plaintiffs filed a response, a cross petition
and other motions.  On May 22, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals refused to hear the appeal.

NiSource and Chesapeake intend to file a petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2008, asserting
among other things that their constitutional rights were
violated by the manner in which punitive damages were awarded,
the amount of punitive damages, and the lack of meaningful state
court appellate review of the punitive damages award.  The U.S.
Supreme Court may or may not decide to accept the appeal.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, WV 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


CHEVY CHASE: 7th Circuit Decertifies Class in Mortgage Loan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit brought by Wisconsin couple Susan and Bryan Andrews,
who accused Chevy Chase Bank FSB of deceptive lending practices
and wanted to cancel their home loan, has been stripped of
class-action status by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit, Martha Graybow writes for Reuters.

According to the report, in a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the
7th Circuit overturned a lower court ruling that had allowed
other borrowers to join the Andrews as plaintiffs against Chevy
Chase.

Reuters relates that the case had been seen as having far-
reaching implications for other banks if the appeals court had
agreed that borrowers could join together in the lawsuit and get
their loans rescinded under the federal Truth in Lending Act.

                        Case Background

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24, 3008, the
case was brought as a class action on behalf of borrowers of
five-year option ARMs (Adjustable-Rate Mortgages) for the period
April 20, 2004, to the date of class certification, who had
received the same disclosure documents as the Andrews.

Reuters says that the Andrews claimed in their 2005 lawsuit that
Chevy Chase had hidden the true terms of their loan, which they
obtained in June 2004 to refinance their home in Cedarburg,
Wisconsin.  They said the loan's interest rate had more than
doubled by their second monthly payment from the 1.95% rate they
thought was locked in for five years.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who sits in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, had said the
Andrews could rescind their loan and have their attorneys' fees
paid by the bank, Reuters recounts.  In a key decision, Judge
Adelman also allowed about 8,000 other borrowers who had
obtained adjustable-rate mortgages from Chevy Chase to join the
case.

With respect to a remedy, no actual damages were alleged and the
court concluded that the violations did not give rise to
statutory damages.

According to the CAR report, the court, however, said that the
affected borrowers were entitled to be given the option under
the TIL Act to rescind their loans.  The court clarified that
the rescission remedy is available only for certain loans that
are secured by a principal residence but were not used to
purchase the residence, principally refinancings.

The court further excluded borrowers who had received a
different version of the TIL disclosure document than had been
received by the Andrews.  The precise parameters and members of
the class will depend upon further court proceedings.

          Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification

The defendant appealed the ruling.  Industry groups, including
the American Bankers Association and Mortgage Bankers
Association, had earlier argued that allowing the case to
proceed as a class-action could have dire consequences for
financial services firms, Reuters says.

Allowing the plaintiffs to sue collectively "would saddle the
mortgage lending industry and secondary market with billions of
dollars of class-action exposure," the groups said in an amicus
brief.

Thus, subsequently, the appeals court reversed Judge Adelman's
decision, saying that while the Andrews' loan was complex and "a
potential trap for the unwary," that didn't mean other borrowers
could undo their mortgages en masse.

According to Reuters, the 7th Circuit said that such class-
actions were not spelled out through the Truth in Lending Act, a
1968 federal statute designed to protect consumers against fraud
by requiring clear disclosure of loan terms and costs.

As a result of the ruling, the claims of the Andrews and those
filed by any other individual borrowers would now proceed as
individual lawsuits, Reuters says.

"We're obviously very pleased" with the ruling, said Jeffrey
Sarles, Esq., a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, who
represented the bank in the appeal.

               Request for Supreme Court Review

"This decision is a gift to certain members of the banking
industry at the expense of the consumers who were misled," the
Andrews' attorneys, from law firm Demet & Demet in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, said in a statement, adding they would ask for a
rehearing by the full appeals court and for a U.S. Supreme Court
review.

The suit is "Andrews, et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank FSB, Case No.
2:05-cv-00454-LA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Michael J. Aprahamian, Esq. (maprahamian@foley.com)
         Foley & Lardner LLP
         777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
         Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
         Phone: 414-297-5516
         Fax: 414-297-4900

Representing the defendants is:

         Kevin J. Demet, Esq. (KDemet@Sprintmail.com)
         Demet & Demet SC
         815 N. Cass St.,
         Milwaukee, WI 53202
         Phone: 414-291-0800
         Fax: 414-291-9560


CKX INC: Parties Tentatively Settle Del. Lawsuit Over 19X Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated lawsuit against CKX, Inc., over a
merger agreement with 19X Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp. have
reached a tentative settlement in the matter, according to CKX's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, a lawsuit was filed on Dec. 14, 2007, with the
Delaware Chancery Court against the company, its directors, 19X
Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp.  It was filed by a purported
stockholder of the company, and it seeks class-action status to
represent all of the company's public stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the sale price is too low and that
the company's directors have therefore breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction.  It also seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants
from consummating the merger.  Alternatively, if the merger is
consummated, the complaint seeks rescission or recessionary
damages in an unspecified amount.

In addition, the complaint seeks "Class compensatory damages" in
an unspecified amount, as well as the costs and disbursements of
the action, experts' fees and the fees of plaintiff's attorneys.

On Feb. 1, 2008, another summons and complaint was filed with
the Delaware Chancery Court against the defendants by another
purported shareholder of the company.  The complaint is
identical to the complaint filed on Dec. 14, 2007.

The two cases have been consolidated and, on April 18, 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

In order to resolve the litigation and avoid further cost and
delay, CKX and the individual defendants, without admitting any
wrongdoing, signed a memorandum of understanding on May 27,
2008, reflecting a tentative settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and memorializing the amended terms to the Merger
Agreement and the related management cooperation agreement, as
requested by counsel for the plaintiffs in the litigation.  It
is anticipated that once the terms of the settlement agreement
are finalized, all parties will cooperate in seeking dismissal
of the litigation.  Such dismissal, including an anticipated
request by plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees, will be
subject to court approval.

CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- is a company founded on Feb.
7, 2005, that owns and develops entertainment content and
intellectual property.  CKX holds, among other assets, the
rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the
operations of Graceland; and an 80% interest in the name,
likeness, trademarks, and licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali
including Ali's "Greatest Of All Time" (or G.O.A.T.) slogan.


DEPT. OF HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Seeking to Postpone Dix Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit was filed seeking to postpone the closure
of Dorothea Dix Hospital, Michael Biesecker writes for The News
& Observer.

In the lawsuit, filed earlier this week, lawyers for Disability
Rights North Carolina detailed 15 safety issues at Central
Regional Hospital, the new Butner facility where the bulk of
Dix's patients are scheduled to be transferred in about two
weeks.

Vicki Smith, the executive director of Disability Rights North
Carolina, said a hearing was held yesterday at the Wake County
Courthouse by Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour regarding the
advocacy group's request for a temporary restraining order
against the state Department of Health and Human Services.

The report explains that Disability Rights is a nonprofit group
that has a federal mandate to investigate conditions
independently in state hospitals.


DRUG COS: Violate Prescribing Doctors' Orders, Ala. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark, Rite Aid, Wal-Mart and Walgreen, are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson
County, Alabama, for filling prescriptions with generic
medicine, in violation of the prescribing doctors' orders,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the
plaintiff brings this action on behalf of:

     (1) each and every resident of the State of Alabama who has
         had a "Dispense as Written" prescription for a brand
         name medication filled by one or more of the defendants
         in the State of Alabama with a generic drug without the
         express permission of the prescribing physician in the
         four years leading up to the date of filing of this
         action; and

     (2) each District Attorney in the State of Alabama who has
         one or more residents in his circuit who has had a
         "Dispense as Written" prescription for a brand name
         medication filled by one of the defendants in the State
         of Alabama with a generic drug without the express
         permission of the prescribing physician in the four
         years leading up to the date of filing of this action.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants sold and dispensed generic drugs to
         members of the plaintiff class in lieu of "Dispense as
         Written" brand name medications prescribed by the
         plaintiff class members' physicians without the
         prescribing physicians' express permission in the four
         years leading up to the date of filing of this action;

     (b) whether defendants violated the pharmacy statute, Code
         of Alabama Section 34-23-8, as alleged;

     (c) whether defendants violated the ADTPA, Code of Alabama
         Sections 8-19-1, et seq. as alleged;

     (d) whether defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive
         conduct harmed members of the plaintiff class as
         alleged;

     (e) whether plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff
         class are entitled to compensatory, equitable,
         statutory and injunctive relief under the Pharmacy
         Statute; and

     (f) whether plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff
         class are entitled to compensatory, equitable,
         statutory and injunctive relief under the ADTPA.

The plaintiff asks the court to:

   -- determine that this case may be maintained as a
      statewide class action with respect to the class of
      individual Alabama residents identified and all other
      similarly situated District Attorneys in the State of
      Alabama pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 23;

   -- designate and appoint plaintiff to serve as a class
      representative of the plaintiff class and plaintiff's
      counsel to serve as class counsel for the plaintiff
      class;

   -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as
      alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section 34-23-8;

   -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as
      alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section
      8-19-5(2);

   -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as
      alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section
      8-19-5(5);

   -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as
      alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section
      8-19-5(7);

   -- declare, adjudge and decree that defendants' conduct as
      alleged is unlawful pursuant to Ala. Code Section
      8-19-5(27);

   -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class
      awards of actual, compensatory, punitive, and
      exemplary damages in such amount as a jury may assess
      and as provided by applicable law;

   -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class
      awards of statutory penalties, attorneys fees, and costs
      pursuant to Ala. Code Sections 34-23-1 et seq. and
      8-19-7-1, et seq.;

   -- grant plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class
      their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys fees
      and expenses as provided by law;

   -- enjoin defendants from further violating Ala. Code
      Section 34-23-8 as set forth;

   -- enjoin defendants from further violating the ADTPA as
      set forth;

   -- suspend or revoke defendants' license to engage in
      business in this state and enjoin defendants from
      engaging in business in this state pursuant to Ala. Code
      Section 8-19-8(c);

   -- enter an Order perfecting the plaintiff's right to
      commence a Quo Warranto action against defendants
      pursuant to Ala. Code Section 6-6-590;

   -- enter an Order vacating defendants' character to conduct
      business in this state pursuant to Ala. Code Section
      6-6-590, provided that defendants do not comply with the
      injunctive relief and the equitable relief ordered by
      the court; and

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

The suit is "Arthur Green, et al. v. CVS Caremark Corporation,
et al.," filed in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County,
Alabama.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          W. Lee Gresham, III, Esq.
          Clay Hornsby
          Henninger Garrison Davis, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-326-3336
          Fax: 205-326-3332


DYNEX CAPITAL: Amended Complaint Filed in N.Y. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit pending against Dynex Capital Inc. and its
subsidiary, MERIT Securities Corp., in  the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, according to Dynex
Capital, Inc.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

On Feb. 11, 2005, a putative class-action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws and various state
common law claims was filed against:

     -- Dynex Capital, Inc.,

     -- subsidiary MERIT Securities Corp.,

     -- Stephen J. Benedetti, the company's executive vice
        president, and

     -- Thomas H. Potts, the company's former president and a
        former director.

The Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund filed the
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds,
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.

On May 31, 2005, Teamsters filed an amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint dropped all state common law
claims but added federal securities claims related to the MERIT
Series 12 securitization financing bonds.  On July 15, 2005, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims
against the company's former president and its current chief
operating officer, but did not dismiss the claims against the
company or MERIT.

The company and MERIT petitioned for an interlocutory appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The
Second Circuit granted the company's petition on Sept. 15, 2006,
and heard oral argument on the appeal on Jan. 30, 2008.  On
June 27, 2008, the Second Circuit ruled in the company's favor
ordering the District Court to dismiss the litigation against
the company and MERIT but with leave for Teamsters to amend and
replead.  Teamsters filed an amended complaint on Aug. 6, 2008,
with the District Court.

The suit is "Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund,
et al. v. Dynex Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01897-
HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joel P. Laitman, Esq. (joel@spornlaw.com)
          Christopher Lometti, Eqs. (chris@spornlaw.com)
          Samuel P. Sporn, Esq. (samuel@spornlaw.com)
          Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., Esq.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-964-0046
          Fax: 212-267-8137

Representing the company are:

          Monica Shelton Call, Esq. (mcall@hunton.com)
          Eric Harrison Feiler, Esq. (efeiler@hunton.com)
          Edward Joseph Fuhr, Esq. (efuhr@hunton.com)
          Terence James Rasmussen, Esq. (trasmussen@hunton.com)
          Joseph John Saltarelli, Esq. (jsaltarelli@hunton.com)
          Hunton & Williams, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: 804-788-8632
          Fax: 804-788-8218


GALVESTON CITY: Sued for Denying People to Go Home After Typhoon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Galveston city officials are facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas alleging they are unconstitutionally allowing wealthy and
connected people to return to their hurricane-damaged homes, but
denying that privilege to average citizens, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

According to the report, Mayor Lyda Thomas allegedly announced
that "citizens with resources" could return -- without defining
that -- and put "people with influence" on a secret list that
lets them stay and work, but won't allow average Joes to secure
and clean up their houses.

Named plaintiff Anthony Griffin is an attorney.  He says the
city has prohibited him from entering his home to retrieve his
docket book, computer and other material he needs to continue
his practice from outside the drowned city.

Mr. Griffin says private contractors, including swimming pool
companies, are allowed to stay and work, but he and others
without influence cannot.  Mr. Griffin also says he has seen
"prominent Galvestonians" being allowed to return while he and
others are barred.  He claims police prohibited him from
entering because his name was not on a "list for essential
personnel".

Mr. Griffin claims a police officer told him that if he wants to
return "that he should try to get on a special list that was
maintained by the City for those who did not fall under the
essential emergency personnel but should be allowed entry."  He
claims the city refuses to provide information about who is on
the list, or why, or how anyone else can get on it.

Mr. Griffin prays for a temporary restraining order and that the
City's policies be declared illegal and contrary to Texas law.

The suit is "Anthony Griffin, et al. v. Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas et
al., Civil Action No. 08-2801," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Anthony P. Griffin, Esq.
          (agriffin@agriffinlawyers.com)
          A Griffin Lawyers
          1115 Moody
          Galveston, TX 11550
          Phone: 409-763-0386
                 1-800-750-5034
          Fax: 409-763-4102


GLS CAPITAL: Pa. Lawsuit Over Delinquency Fees Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, against GLS Capital, Inc., a
subsidiary of Dynex Capital Inc., remains stayed.

The plaintiffs allege that GLS illegally charged the taxpayers
of Allegheny County certain attorney fees, costs and expenses
and interest, in the collection of delinquent property tax
receivables owned by GLS which were purchased from Allegheny
County.

In 2007, the Court of Common Pleas stayed this action pending
the outcome of another lawsuit, which was filed before the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in which GLS is not directly
involved but has filed an Amicus brief in support of the
defendants.

Several of the allegations in that lawsuit are similar to those
being made against GLS in this litigation.  The plaintiffs have
not enumerated their damages in this matter, according to Dynex
Capital, Inc.'s Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Dynex Capital, Inc. -- http://www.dynexcapital.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, is a specialty finance company organized
as a real estate investment trust that invests in loans and
securities consisting principally of single-family residential
and commercial mortgage loans.


GRETNA POLICE: Katrina Victims Want Blockade Lawsuit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge must decide whether a lawsuit over a police
blockade after Hurricane Katrina will become a class action,
Biloxi Sun Herald reports.  This police blockade had stopped
hundreds of people from crossing a bridge out of flooded New
Orleans after Katrina.

According to Sun Herald, proposed class representative plaintiff
Cathey Golden told the judge that she was in a crowd of more
than 300 people trying to cross the Crescent City Connection
into suburban Jefferson Parish when police from the city of
Gretna blocked their path.  Ms. Golden, a Boston resident who
was visiting relatives in New Orleans when Katrina struck in
August 2005, said one of the officers on the bridge fired a
shotgun blast in the air.

The report says that Ms. Golden's lawyers, who sued Gretna, its
police department and Police Chief Arthur Lawson, claim racial
bias figured into the decision to stop people from walking
across the bridge because most of the people in the crowd were
black.  They are seeking class action status, which U.S.
District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon did not immediately rule
upon.

Sun Herald recounts that in the months after Katrina, the
blockade episode spurred two protest marches across the bridge
by national civil rights organizations.  In October 2007,
however, an Orleans Parish grand jury declined to indict a
Gretna police officer on a criminal charge over his actions on
the bridge.

Police Chief Lawson had explained that one of his officers, whom
he declined to name, fired a warning shot after some of the
people in the crowd threatened to throw him off the bridge, the
report notes.  Meanwhile, Gretna's lawyers said that restricting
bridge traffic to cars protected the safety of pedestrians.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, however, argued that people had a
right to walk across because it was one of the few escape routes
after Katrina flooded most of New Orleans.  "In fact," they
added, "the safety issue is but a ruse to hide a more insidious
plot which was primarily to keep African-Americans from New
Orleans from coming into Gretna and Jefferson Parish."

Franz Zibilich, Esq., a lawyer for Gretna, asked Judge Lemmon to
dismiss the part of the lawsuit that claims the bridge blockade
violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to interstate
travel.

"Whether we like it or not, us citizens have less rights during
a catastrophe," Mr. Zibilich reasoned, noting that the bridge
wasn't the only way out of New Orleans after Katrina.  "We do
have a right to travel.  We don't have a right to travel in the
mode we want to, whenever we want to."


HUGHES COMMS: Misrepresented Broadband Service, $75M Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications and HughesNet are facing a a $75-million
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania over allegations that they
misrepresented the speed and capabilities of their broadband
service, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff David L. Scasta, M.D., brings this class action
for breach of contract, breach of express and implied
warranties, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff brings this case as a class action, under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all consumers,
subscribers, businesses, users, recipients and customers of
HughesNet satellite, broadband and Internet equipment and
services.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant HughesNet breached its contract with
         its members, including its HughesNet broadband Internet
         users, consumers, subscribers, recipients and
         customers, by selling and offering, reliable,
         consistent, high-speed and accessible HughesNet
         Internet broadband satellite service and providing
         unreliable, inconsistent, significantly slow and
         delayed inaccessible HughesNet Internet broadband
         satellite service;

     (b) whether defendant HughesNet misrepresented to its
         broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers,
         recipients, and customers, the maximum upload and
         download speeds of its HughesNet service, plan,
         satellite and broadband connections;

     (c) whether HughesNet misrepresented to its HughesNet
         broadband Internet users, consumers, subscribers,
         recipients, and customers, the download threshold --
         i.e. the volume of data that can be downloaded
         continuously, of its HughesNet service, plan, satellite
         and broadband connections;

     (d) whether defendant misrepresented to its broadband
         Internet users, consumers, subscribers, recipients, and
         customers, the maximum upload and download capability
         of its satellite and broadband service subscriber
         equipment and hardware, including but not limited to
         modems, network, and wireless cards;

     (e) whether defendant oversold its bandwidth to third-
         parties thereby adversely affecting satellite,
         broadband and Internet access of consumers,
         subscribers, recipients, customers and businesses;

     (f) whether defendant, interfered with consumers,
         subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users
         ability to access lawful Internet content and to use
         the applications of their choice, including but not
         limited to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connections, by deploying
         equipment throughout its network to monitor the content
         of Internet connections and selectively block specific
         type of connections;

     (g) whether defendant fraudulently induced consumers,
         subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users,
         to subscribe and otherwise purchase its broadband
         satellite services by misrepresenting the speed,
         accessibility, functionality and connectivity of its
         broadband satellite services;

     (h) whether defendant fraudulently induced consumers,
         subscribers, recipients, customers, and Internet users,
         to upgrade and incur additional fees, early termination
         and costs by misrepresenting the speed, accessibility,
         functionality and connectivity of its broadband
         satellite services; and

     (i) whether defendant acted deliberately, willfully,
         intentionally, and fraudulently, in the contracting
         with its consumers, subscribers, recipients, customers,
         and Internet users as described.

The plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages in an
amount in excess of $75 million, exclusive of interest and
allowable costs of suit.

The suit is "David L. Scasta, M.D., et al. v. HughesNet, Inc.,
Case Number: 2:2008cv04596," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          Derek T. Branslow, Esq.
          Tobias L. Millrood, Esq.
          Robert N. Wilkey, Esq.
          Pogust, Braslow, & Millrood, LLC
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1520
          Conshohocken, PA 19428


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Suit Over Sale of NEGI Still Pending in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises, L.P., is still facing a purported stockholder
derivative and class-action lawsuit, styled "Andrew T. Berger v.
Icahn Enterprises LP, et al., Case No. 3522-VCS."

The suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
National Energy Group, Inc., as a nominal defendant, as well as
against Icahn Enterprises L.P., and various individuals,
including one of Icahn Enterprises' current directors.  Icahn
Enterprises indirectly beneficially own 50.1% of NEGI's
outstanding common stock.

The suit alleges, among other things, that certain of NEGI's
current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to NEGI and its stockholders in connection with
NEGI's previously announced Nov. 21, 2006 sale to NEG Oil & Gas,
LLC, or NEG Oil & Gas, of NEGI's former unconsolidated non-
controlling 50% limited liability company interest in NEG
Holding, LLC, as a result of the exercise by NEG Oil & Gas of
its contractual redemption option under the operating agreement
governing NEG Holding.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Icahn Enterprises L.P. -- http://www.icahnenterprises.com/--
formerly American Real Estate Partners, L.P. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in the operating businesses,
which includes Investment Management, Metals, Real Estate and
Home Fashion.


INTEGRATED SILICON: Settles SRAM Antitrust Suits & Faces Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., settled several lawsuits in
the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of static random
access memory products.  However, the company continues to face
three similar cases.

Initially, 33 purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. Federal
courts, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of
state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trail proceedings.

The suits seek treble damages for the alleged damages sustained
by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs
and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
29 of the 33 pending lawsuits pursuant to a Tolling Agreement
between the company and the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is
terminated according to terms specified in that agreement.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one more lawsuit, which was brought by the U.S.
Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.  However, it remains a defendant in
three remaining suits brought by the U.S. Direct-Purchaser
Plaintiffs.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is
a fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-
and medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also
designs and markets electrically erasable programmable ready
only memory, SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory
sticks and card reader- writers, and wireless chipsets.


KOREAN BANKS: Companies Plan to Sue Over KIKO Options
-----------------------------------------------------
More than 130 companies will file class action lawsuits for
billions of won against banks that sold "knock-in, knock-out
(KIKO)" currency options, with the options reportedly incurring
losses exceeding KRW1 trillion (US$866 million) this year alone,
The Dong-A Ilbo reports.

"Banks did not properly explain the risks of KIKO.  We plan to
file both a lawsuit and take other legal action invalidating
liability," the Joint Countermeasure Committee of KIKO Victims
told Dong-A Ilbo yesterday.  The committee said banks forced
companies to purchase KIKO options under unfair provisions.

The report says that on behalf of 136 companies that say they
suffered from KIKO options, the committee is working with
DeRyook International Law Firm, Logos Attorneys at Law, Ahnse
Law Office and Prime Law to sue about a dozen banks, including
Shinhan, Korea Exchange and Citibank.

The Financial Supervisory Service pointed out that 39
conglomerates lost KRW270 billion and 480 small and medium
companies KRW800 billion from the currency options, the report
notes.  As losses are expected to keep snowballing unless the
dollar weakens, the amount of compensation companies will seek
through lawsuits will likely reach hundreds of billions of won.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Del. Lawsuits Over Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., is facing two purported class-action
lawsuits in Delaware following the announcement of the company's
entering into a merger agreement with Fertitta Holdings, Inc.,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

These lawsuits are:

       -- "James F. Stuart, Individually and on behalf of all
          others similarly situated v. Landry's Restaurants,
          Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 3856-VCL," filed in the
          Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 26,
          2008; and

       -- "David Barfield v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et al.,
          Civil Action No. 3860-VCN," filed in the Court of
          Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 27, 2008.

The suits are pled as putative class-action lawsuits in which
the company and the members of its Board of Directors are named
as defendants, along with Fertitta Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta
Acquisition Co.

On July 29, 2008, both of these cases were consolidated into one
action and the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the merger agreement has several
terms that unduly hinder shareholders from obtaining the best
and highest value for their shares and that the proposed
transaction is grossly unfair to shareholders and that Fertitta
Holdings, Inc., is not paying a fair or adequate price.

The plaintiffs also allege multiple material misrepresentations
and omissions in the Preliminary Proxy which fail to provide
shareholders with the information they require to make an
informed decision regarding the proposed transaction.

The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants have
breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by entering into
the transaction and also by failing to make proper disclosures
in the Preliminary Proxy.  They also allege that Fertitta
Holdings, Inc., and Fertitta Acquisition Co. assisted the
individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction and damages.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's
Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart
House.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over
179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28
states.  It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and
seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants.  The
company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select
hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that
provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including
the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  The company operates its restaurants through
three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and
Saltgrass Steak House.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Wage & Hour Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., settled a purported class-action
suit filed against certain of its restaurants in the Superior
Court of California in San Diego, according to the company's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The lawsuit, filed by Kyle Pietrzak, alleges that Joe's Crab
Shack - San Diego Inc. violated wage and hour laws, including
the failure to pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods and rest periods, failing to provide minimum
reporting time pay, failing to compensate employee for required
expenses, including the expense to maintain uniforms, and
violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

In June 2006, the lawsuit was amended to include Kristina Brask
as a named plaintiff and named Crab Addison, Inc. and Landry's
Seafood House - Arlington, Inc. as additional defendants.  The
company denies plaintiffs' claims.

The company has reached a settlement agreement, which has been
approved by the Court and fully accrued the amount.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's
Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart
House.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over
179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28
states.  It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and
seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants.  The
company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select
hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that
provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including
the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  The company operates its restaurants through
three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and
Saltgrass Steak House.


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Suits Over CEO's Purchase Bid Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Restaurants, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-
action lawsuit in connection with a proposal to acquire all of
the company's outstanding common stock.

On Jan. 27, 2008, the company's board of directors received a
letter from Tilman J. Fertitta, chairman, president and CEO of
the company, proposing to acquire all of the company's
outstanding common stock for $23.50 per share in cash,
representing a 41% premium over the closing price of the
company's common stock on Jan. 25, 2008.

On April 4, 2008, Mr. Fertitta revised his offer to acquire all
of the outstanding common stock to a cash purchase price of
$21.00 per share, representing a 37% premium over the closing
price of the company's common stock on April 3, 2008.

Immediately following the announcement of Mr. Fertitta's offer
to acquire the company's outstanding common stock, the following
lawsuits were filed:

       -- "Dennis Rice, on Behalf of Himself and all Others
          Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et
          al., Cause No. 2008-05211," filed in the 157th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Jan. 28, 2008;

       -- "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund, Individually and
          on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Landry's
          Restaurants, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-07100,"
          filed in the 11th Judicial District Court of Harris
          County, Texas, on Feb. 1, 2008;

       -- "Robert Reynolds v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et
          al., Cause No. 2008-07484," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Feb. 5, 2008;

       -- "Robert Caryer, on Behalf of Himself and all Others
          Similarly Situated v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc., et
          al., Cause No. 2008-007677," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on
          Feb. 6, 2008.

       -- "Matthew and Wendy Maschler, on Behalf of Themselves
          and all Others Similarly Situated v. Tilman J.
          Fertitta, et al., Cause No. 2008-09042," filed in
          the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County,
          Texas, on Feb. 13, 2008.

The suits each seek to be classified as a putative class action
in which the company and the members of its Board are named as
defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that the company and the individual
defendants have breached or will breach fiduciary duties to its
shareholders with regard to the presentation or consideration of
Mr. Fertitta's proposal to acquire all of its outstanding common
stock.

The Caryer suit purports to assert an additional claim of
alleged aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the
company.  The Maschler case purports to assert an additional
claim for indemnification.

The plaintiffs seek to enjoin in some form the consideration or
acceptance of Mr. Fertitta's proposal.  The amount of damages
initially sought is not indicated by any plaintiff.

On March 26, 2008, all of these cases were consolidated into one
action.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Landry's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.landrysrestaurants.com/
-- is a diversified restaurant hospitality and entertainment
company principally engaged in the ownership and operation of
full-service, casual dining restaurants, primarily under the
names of Rainforest Cafe, Saltgrass Steak House, Landry's
Seafood House, The Crab House, Charley's Crab and The Chart
House.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, the company owned and operated over
179 full-service and certain limited-service restaurants in 28
states.  It offers concepts ranging from upscale steak and
seafood restaurants to casual theme-based restaurants.  The
company is also engaged in the ownership and operation of select
hospitality businesses, including hotel and casino resorts that
provide dining, leisure and entertainment experiences, including
the Golden Nugget Hotels and Casinos in downtown Las Vegas and
Laughlin, Nevada.  The company operates its restaurants through
three divisions: Landry's Division, Rainforest Cafe, and
Saltgrass Steak House.


MEL HARRIS: Faces Debt Collection Lawsuits in California
--------------------------------------------------------
     La Crescenta, CA, September 24, 2008 -- On behalf of its
client, David Youssefyeh, Southern California's Premiere
Consumer Protection law firm, Brennan, Wiener & Associates, has
filed a class action lawsuit against the large New York debt
collector Mel Harris & Associates, alleging fraud in service of
debt collection complaints upon California consumers.

     David Youssefyeh, a Los Angeles attorney, was
understandably shocked and upset when his bank, Washington
Mutual, levied his accounts in January 2008.  As someone who
minded his debts and had no outstanding judgments against him,
he was mystified as to where this came from or how it happened.
So, he began to pull the string back and found a lot more than
he expected to find.

     Mr. Youssefyeh learned that the judgment came from the
State of New York. T his was strange to him: other than perhaps
a few short visits over the years, Mr. Youssefyeh had no
business there, no property there, no family there--in other
words, beyond stopping over there a few times, he had nothing
whatsoever to do with the State of New York.  And he certainly
had never been served with a lawsuit there.

     Being an attorney, Mr. Youssefyeh knew that creditors and
debt collectors could enforce "sister state" judgments against a
person in their home state.  In other words, if a creditor or a
debt collector had a valid judgment against a person in a court
in, say, Virginia, that judgment could be enforced against the
debtor in the state where he or she lives.

     However, Mr. Youssefyeh also knew that the judgment had to
be a valid judgment--served upon a defendant with valid service
of the complaint and not with false or fraudulent service
designed to hide, not reveal, the lawsuit to the consumer.

     Mr. Youssefyeh dug further into the mystery and discovered
that the plaintiff who had taken out the judgment against him
was Mel Harris & Associates, a very large debt collection
company operating in the New York metropolitan area.

     A bit of research by Mr. Youssefyeh confirmed for him what
he has stated in his class action complaint: that Mel Harris &
Associates allegedly has a business practice of somehow
"serving" debt collection complaints on consumers who live
outside of New York, within New York.

     This practice is as old as litigation itself, and is known
widely in legal circles as "sewer service," after the practice
by some process servers of throwing the summons and complaint
into the sewer outside of the defendant's home and then claiming
to have served them with the complaint.  The effect, of course,
is to deprive the consumer of any notice of the lawsuit.  The
first notice many consumers have of such lawsuits is a levy on
their outside-of-New York bank accounts, as happened with Mr.
Youssefyeh.

     As many debt collection lawsuits involve small sums of
money, most consumers have neither the time nor the resources to
hire a New York attorney to fight or otherwise straighten out
bogus lawsuits or false attempts to serve debt collection
complaints.  Mr. Youssefyeh knew, however, that a class action
in California against Mel Harris & Associates could, if
successful, put a stop this alleged practice, at least for
California consumers.  Each California consumer would have
remedies through the class action which he or she would not have
on an individual basis because of cost.

     "I'm pursuing this lawsuit to teach Mel Harris & Associates
a lesson: consumers deserve proper service of complaints and due
process just like large corporations do.  Just because my name
isn't Microsoft is no reason that I don't deserve protections
under the laws of the United States and California.  In my
opinion, Mel Harris & Associates seems to think that consumer
debtors are second-class citizens who can be tricked in fooled,
and I intend with this lawsuit to teach Mel Harris & Associates
that this is definitely not the case in California."

     Mr. Youssefyeh has hired the La Crescenta, California firm
of Brennan, Wiener & Associates to prosecute the class action in
a California court.

     "My clients are understandably outraged," commented Robert
F. Brennan, lead counsel for the plaintiff class.  So far,
Brennan has collected much anecdotal evidence with which he
intends to prove in court that what Mel Harris & Associates
allegedly did to Mr. Youssefyeh has been done to many California
consumers, as well as consumers from other states.

     The suit is "Afshin David Youssefyeh and Liza Youssefyeh v.
Mel Harris & Associates, et al., Case No. BC 398 315, filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Oklahoma Suit Over Medical Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma alleging it cheats policyholders of
medical expenses after auto wrecks, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This class-action complaint seeks to remedy the unfair,
unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent conduct of Metropolitan in
connection with its business practices of not properly
reimbursing medical expenses under medical payment provisions
appearing in automobile insurance policies issued by
Metropolitan.

The plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure No. 23 on behalf of all persons in the United
States who submitted a claim for benefits under the "Automobile
Medical Expenses" (Med-Pay) coverage of a Metropolitan
automobile insurance policy who received an explanation of
benefits under this coverage in which Metropolitan paid its
insured an amount less than their Med-Pay claim that was usual,
customary, and reasonable for necessary medical treatment.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Metropolitan utilized unfair, unlawful and
         deceptive business practices by paying less than the
         amount of an insured's Med-Pay claim based on a "First
         Health owned contract" or based on a "Preferred
         Provider Network" discount (Payment Code 340 and 341);

     (b) whether Metropolitan's conduct constitutes a violation
         of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act;

     (c) whether Metropolitan omitted and misrepresented
         material facts in connection with handling of first
         party Med-Pay claims; and

     (d) whether Metropolitan failed to clearly and
         conspicuously disclose to the consumer that it has a
         systematic business practice of paying less than the
         amount of an insured's Med-Pay claim based on, among
         other things, a "First Health owned contract" or based
         on a "Preferred Provider Network" discount (Payment
         Code 340 and 341).

The plaintiff asks the court for:

     -- restitution and disgorgement;

     -- compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
        others similarly situated;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- injunctive relief;

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

     -- reasonable attorney fees;

     -- costs of suit;

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

The suit is "John Robert Simon, et al. v. Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Insurance Company, Case Number:  5:2008cv01008,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Derek K. Burch, Esq.
          Kelly A. George, Esq.
          Burch & George PC
          1500 City Place Building
          204 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405-239-7711
          Fax: 405-239-7795


NEVADA CHEMICALS: $94MM Sale Fought by Shareholder in Utah Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     PowerRating -- Sept. 24, 2008 -- A shareholder of Sandy-
based Nevada Chemicals Inc. is trying to block a proposed
$94 million buyout of the company that produces sodium cyanide
for the gold mining industry.

     Nevada Chemicals earlier this month announced it had signed
an acquisition agreement with Calypso Acquisition Corp. and a
fund managed by the U.S. private equity firm Oaktree Capital
Management that want to buy the company through a $13.37 per
share tender offer.

     However, shareholder Irving S. Braun, in a proposed class
action lawsuit filed in Utah's 3rd District Court, contends the
offering price is inadequate and argues several of the company's
top executives failed to disclose all the information necessary
for shareholders to make an informed decision.

     Mr. Braun is demanding Nevada Chemicals retain "truly"
independent advisers or appoint an independent special committee
to ensure shareholders receive a "fair process and fair price in
connection with any transaction" involving the company. He is
represented by the Salt Lake City law firm of Anderson &
Karrenberg.

     Nevada Chemicals was founded in 1979. It owns a 50%
interest in a plant near Winnemucca, Nev., that produces sodium
cyanide.  The chemical is used in a gold recovery process known
as heap leaching.

     In the process, ground ore is placed upon an impermeable
pad and a diluted solution of sodium cyanide, which attaches
itself to gold molecules, is allowed to percolate down through
the ground rock.  The solution is collected and the gold
removed.

     Nevada Chemicals Chief Executive John Day takes exception
to the allegations in the lawsuit, which he argues was filed
before the details of the tender offer were filed Monday with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Com- mission.

     "All the details of the transaction, its history and how it
evolved are now on file with the SEC," Mr. Day said.  "We also
hired an independent outside examiner to give us a fairness
opinion on the transaction."

     He also noted the $13.37 price offered for each of the
company's 7 million outstanding shares represented a 36% premium
over the closing stock market price of Nevada Chemical's stock
on the day the buyout was announced.

     Nevada Chemical's shares have not traded as high as $13.37
for at least the past 15 years, according to data from Bloomberg
News.

     Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah Nevada Chemicals --
http://www.nevadachemicals.com/-- is the premier producer of
strategic chemicals for the gold mining industry of the United
States.


PRINCETON REVIEW: Sued Over Data Breach of Student Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Sarasota attorney, Bill Partridge, Esq., has filed a lawsuit
against the Princeton Review, which was hired by the Sarasota
County School District to make tests and do analysis of
student's performance, WWSB.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of students involved in a security
breach.

The report recounts that this summer, the names, dates of birth
and in some cases Social Security numbers of 34,000 Sarasota
County students were on a Web site that was not password
protected.

According to WWSB.com, if a judge certifies the lawsuit as a
class action, students involved will automatically be part of
the suit.  The suit seeks monetary damages and an injunction to
keep another breach from happening.

For more info on the lawsuit, contact:

          Law Offices of Grossman, Roth and Partridge
          1800 Second Street, Suite 777
          Sarasota, FL 34236
          Phone: 365-6666


RADIAN GROUP: Wants Pennsylvania Securities Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of an amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against the company that is pending before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class
action complaints were filed against Radian Group and certain
individuals.  The suits are:

       * "Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.," and

       * "Maslar v. Radian Group Inc."

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that
Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual
financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group's
declaration of a material impairment to its investment in
C-BASS.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the Court ordered that the cases be
consolidated into "In re Radian Securities Litigation," and
appointed the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25
Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiffs in the case.

On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was
filed, adding one additional defendant.  On June 6, 2008, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request the
plaintiffs have opposed through a memorandum of law filed with
the court on July 25, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-03375," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. (rpf@bernardmgross.com)
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross
          450 John Wanamaker Bldg.
          Juniper & Market Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          Fax: 215-561-3000

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

               - and -

          David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. (skaskela@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Leslie J. Abrams, Esq. (labrams@skadden.com)
          Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
          1440 New York Avenue
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-371-7977


RADIAN GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Pa. ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania over alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The purported class-action suit was filed on April 29, 2008,
against Radian Group, the Compensation and Human Resources
Committee of the company's board of directors, and certain
individuals.  The suit alleges violations of the ERISA as it
relates to the company's Savings Incentive Plan.  The named
plaintiff is a former Radian employee.

On July 25, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Johnson, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:2008cv02007," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq. (dsg@weiserlawfirm.com)
          The Weiser Law Firm
          121 N. Wayne Avenue
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-225-0273
          Fax: 610-225-2678

Representing the defendants is:

          David Smith, Esq. (dsmith@schnader.com)
          Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-751-2190
          Fax: 215-972-7409


SECURITY PLAN: Policyholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Security Plan Fire Insurance Co. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of
Citizens, Inc. -- is still facing a purported class-action
lawsuit styled "Lilac Todd vs. Security Plan Life Insurance
Company."

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2005, on behalf of Lilac Todd,
alleging that SPFIC failed to pay Ms. Todd's claim for medical
expenses arising out of the amputation of one of her limbs.

On Dec. 20, 2007, a Supplemental and Amended Petition for
Damages was filed pursuant to which the plaintiff has asserted
class action allegations.

The purported class is defined as all Louisiana insureds of
SPFIC whose policies contained an incontestability provision
identical or similar to Ms. Todd's policy, and whose claims were
denied within 10 years of the petition filing on the basis of
illnesses, injuries or diseases diagnosed or which occurred at
any time preceding the incontestability.

SPFIC has responded by filing Exceptions of Vagueness and of
Improper Use of the Class Action Procedure, as well as an Answer
to the Supplemental and Amended Petition for Damages.  SPFIC has
also recently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home
Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


SECURITY PLAN: Dismissed From Hurricane Katrine-Related Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Security Plan Fire Insurance Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Citizens, Inc., was dismissed as a defendant from the matter
captioned "In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated
Litigation."

Initially, SPFIC was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
asserting allegations on behalf of a purported class.

The suit was filed on Aug. 28, 2006, and was initially styled,
"Connie Abadie, et al. v. Aegis Security Insurance Co., et al."
Most of the property and casualty insurers in Louisiana were
also named in this lawsuit.  It sought payments for claims
denied by SPFIC and other declaratory relief related to
Hurricane Katrina.  It is presently unclear how many plaintiffs
are insureds of SPFIC.

In order to expedite the handling of all the litigation related
to Hurricane Katrina, the court consolidated "Connie Abadie"
into an action styled "In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches
Consolidated Litigation," or the "Katrina Consolidated
Litigation."

On March 15, 2007, a Master Class Action Insurance Complaint was
filed in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation.

On March 27, 2007, "Connie Abadie" was administratively closed
by the Court and superseded by the Master Class Action Insurance
Complaint.

One of the defenses that certain defendants in the Katrina
Consolidated Litigation have asserted is that their insurance
policies excluded claims for flood damage, even though the
floods resulting from Hurricane Katrina may have been caused by
negligence.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ruled in the Katrina Consolidated Litigation that the flood
exclusion language in certain property insurance policies was
effective to preclude claims for flood damage by policyholders
whose policies include such an exclusion.

Although SPFIC was not a party to that lawsuit, its policies do
exclude flood damage claims.

On Sept. 30, 2007, the judge presiding over the Katrina
Consolidated Litigation issued a ruling holding that specific
named peril policies that do not list flooding as one of the
named perils, do not provide coverage for flooding.

SPFIC's policies are named peril policies that do not list
flooding as one of the named perils.  SPFIC intends to continue
to vigorously defend any claims resulting from flood damage on
the grounds, among others, that its policies do not cover such
damage.

In May 2008, SPFIC was dismissed as a defendant from these
lawsuits by order of the court, according to Citizen's Aug. 11,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home
Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


SECURITY PLAN: Insurance Coverage Suit Ongoing in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans has yet to
rule on the Exceptions of No Cause of Action, No Right of
Action, Vagueness, Prescription and Failure to Meet Class Action
Requirements filing by Security Plan Fire Insurance Co., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Citizens, Inc., in relation to a
purported class-action lawsuit over insurance coverage.

The suit was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans on behalf of Karen Cheneau in August 2006.  It stems
from damages Ms. Cheneau sustained during Hurricane Katrina.

In November 2007, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
First Amended Petition to Assert Class Allegations Against
SPFIC.

The purported class consists of Louisiana citizens who purchased
homeowner's insurance coverage and contents insurance coverage
from SPFIC, whose homes and property covered by these policies
were damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina and who timely
submitted claims to SPFIC for their losses, and who either
received no recovery or received less than the proper value of
their valued policies as a result of their claims.

SPFIC has responded to the Amended Petition by filing Exceptions
of No Cause of Action, No Right of Action, Vagueness,
Prescription and Failure to Meet Class Action Requirements.

In April 2008, the plaintiff's local counsel in Louisiana filed
an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw from the case.  Currently, the
plaintiffs are without local counsel to file pleadings and
attend hearings on their behalf.  The Exceptions have not yet
been set for hearing, according to Citizen's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is an insurance
holding company serving the life insurance needs of individuals
in the U.S. and in more than 35 countries.  The company's core
operations include issuing and servicing, which intern include
ordinary whole life insurance policies predominantly to high net
worth, high income foreign residents, principally in Latin
America and the Pacific Rim, through approximately 2,600
independent marketing consultants; ordinary whole life insurance
policies to middle income households in the Midwest and the
southern U.S. through approximately 600 independent marketing
consultants; and final expense and limited liability property
policies to middle to lower income households in Louisiana
through approximately 300 employee agents in its home service
distribution channel.  The Company's business consists of three
primary operating business segments: Life Insurance, Home
Service Insurance, and Other Non-insurance Enterprises.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's
Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, on March 13, 2008, a purported shareholder class-
action lawsuit, captioned "Waterford Township Police Fire
Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al.," was filed, naming the company and certain of its officers
as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the company made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in its
disclosures leading up to its Nov. 2, 2007 press release
immediately preceding the American Association for the Study of
Liver Diseases meeting, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5).

On April 18, 2008, a further class action complaint based on the
same factual allegations and naming the same defendants, but
including further allegations of insider trading violations
during the class period by three of the company's officers, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

These complaints were consolidated into a single lawsuit on
May 29, 2008.  A consolidated and amended complaint was filed on
July 21, 2008, and seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.

The suit is "Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
10414-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Richard G. Stearns, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

          John C. Blessington, Esq.
          (john.blessington@klgates.com)
          K & L Gates LLP
          One Lincoln Street
          State Street Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-261-3108
          Fax: 617 261-3175


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to Wachovia's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The purported class-action lawsuit, entitled "Miller, et al. v.
Wachovia Corporation, et al.," was specifically filed against
Wachovia and its board of directors and certain senior officers
before the New York Supreme Court for the County of Nassau.  The
suit was later removed by Wachovia to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

The suit is in relation to Wachovia's May 2007 issuance of trust
preferred securities.  The plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 as a
result of allegedly misleading disclosures relating to the
Golden West Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio.

The suit is "Miller v. Wachovia Corporation et al., Case No.
2:2008cv00879," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge Joanna Seybert, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. (jfruchter@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2850
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Israel David, Esq. (israel.david@friedfrank.com)
          Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, LLP
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-859-8000
          Fax: 212-859-4000

               - and -

          Patrick M. McGuirk, Esq. (pmcguirk@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-5300
          Fax: 212-839-5599


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces "Lipetz" Securities Fraud Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit, captioned "Lipetz v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.,"
was filed by purported Wachovia shareholders on July 7, 2008,
alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs allege Wachovia's common
stock price was artificially inflated as a result of allegedly
misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West Financial
Corp. mortgage portfolio, Wachovia's exposure to other mortgage
related products such as collateralized debt obligations,
control issues and auction rate securities.

The suit is "Lipetz, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:2008cv06171," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
          Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C.
          240 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Phone: 516-741-4977

Representing the defendants is:

          Israel David, Esq. (israel.david@friedfrank.com)
          Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
          One New York Plaza
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-859-8000
          Fax: 212-859-4000


WACHOVIA CORP: Faces Seven ERISA Violations Lawsuits in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp., its board of directors and certain senior
officers are facing seven purported class-action suits filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of Wachovia employees who held shares of Wachovia common
stock in their Wachovia Savings Plan accounts, according to
Wachovia's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty under the mployee
Retirement Income Security Act, among other things, claiming
that the defendants should not have permitted Wachovia common
stock to remain an investment option in the Savings Plan because
alleged misleading disclosures relating to the Golden West
Financial Corp. mortgage portfolio, exposure to collateralized
debt obligations and other problem loans, and other alleged
misstatements made its stock a risky and imprudent investment
for employee retirement accounts.

Wachovia Corp. -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is a financial
holding company and a bank holding company.  It provides
commercial and retail banking, and trust services through full-
service banking offices in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Washington, D.C.  It also provides various other
financial services, including mortgage banking, investment
banking, investment advisory, home equity lending, asset-based
lending, leasing, insurance, international and securities
brokerage services, through other subsidiaries.  The company's
retail securities brokerage business is conducted through
Wachovia Securities, LLC, and operates in 49 states.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Mulls Motions in Home Loans Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on several motions filed in a purported class
action lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Inc., over home loans.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 8, 2008, against the
company and other defendants on behalf of a putative class of
persons in the U.S. who obtained home loans from the company and
"received an appraisal performed by" appraisal management
companies eAppraiseIT and Lender's Service, Inc.

The suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  It asserts that an alleged
conspiracy to inflate appraisals by the company, eAppraiseIT and
Lender's Service Inc. violated Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, Section 17200 of California's Business and Professions
Code, and California's Consumer's Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs also bring various common law claims.  They seek,
among other things, the recovery of actual and treble damages,
restitution, an injunction, and costs and attorneys' fees.

An amended complaint was filed in the action on March 28, 2008.
Motions to dismiss the amended complaint are pending, as is the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Spears v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
C08-00868-HRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Howard R. Lloyd,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group, P.C.
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. (jnk@ssem.com)
          Specter Specter Evans & Manogue, P.C.
          The 26th Floor
          Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-642-2300
          Fax: 412-642-2309

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert J. Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-407-7500
          Fax: 310-407-7502

               - and -

          Martin L. Fineman, Esq. (martinfineman@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6533
          Phone: 415-276-6500
          Fax: 415-276-6599


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Discovery Ongoing in Interchange Fee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit captioned "In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee Litigation, MDL 1720," which names Washington
Mutual, Inc., and Washington Mutual Bank as defendants,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on June 22, 2005,
by a group of retail merchants against the MasterCard and Visa
Associations and several member-banks alleging, among other
things, that the defendants conspired in violation of the
antitrust laws to fix the level of interchange fees.

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

The suit is entitled, "Photos Etc. Corporation, et al. v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc., et al., Case No. 305-CV-1007, which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Since then, approximately 48 similar complaints have been filed
on behalf of merchants against the Associations and, in some
cases, against member banks, including Washington Mutual Bank.

On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order coordinating the cases for pretrial proceedings,
under the caption "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
Litigation, MDL 1720," which is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On April 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed
a First Amended Class Action Complaint.  The case is now in
discovery.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its regulatory filing.

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb, as well as numerous non-bank
subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the Retail
Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257
stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington,
Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado,
Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group,
which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the
Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial
real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home
Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

Initially, on Nov. 5, 2007, two securities class-action suits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its officers.
The suits are:

       -- "Koesterer v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case
          No. 07-CIV-9801," (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007);

       -- "Abrams v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          07-CIV-9806," (S.D.N.Y. Filed Nov. 5, 2007).

A third suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on Nov. 7, 2007, under the
caption "Nelson v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., No. C07-
1809."

The Koesterer case sought relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between
July 19, 2006, and Oct. 31, 2007.  The Abrams case sought relief
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between Oct. 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.
The Nelson case sought relief on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock
between April 18, 2006, and Nov. 1, 2007.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omissions concerning, among other things, the conspiracy
with eAppraiseIT as alleged by the Attorney General as well as
various aspects of the Company's performance and accounting in
light of that alleged conspiracy and of changing conditions in
the home lending and credit markets.

A fourth lawsuit, entitled "Garber v. Washington Mutual, Inc.,
et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Dec. 20, 2007.  It made nearly identical
allegations on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of
Washington Mutual, Inc., from April 18, 2006, through Dec. 10,
2007.

On May 13, 2008, plaintiff Brockton Contributory Retirement
System filed a fifth securities complaint, which it termed "a
placeholder complaint to preserve" various rights and claims for
potential inclusion in a forthcoming consolidated, amended
complaint.

On allegations similar to those in the previously-filed
securities action, the case asserts that the company and various
co-defendants violated the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 with
respect to the company's public offerings of debt in August 2006
and October 2007 and of depositary shares in September 2006.

The Nelson case has been dismissed.  The Koesterer, Abrams,
Garber, and Brockton cases remain pending.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the company moved before the Federal Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation for an order that those of
cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  The MDL Panel granted the company's
motion on Feb. 21, 2008.

All of the federally filed cases have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
which on May 7, 2008.  The suits were consolidated into a single
case, entitled "In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C08-387 MJP."

The Court held an initial status conference on June 9, 2008, and
issued a comprehensive scheduling order on July 25, 2008,
settling the first trial for May 2, 2011.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 5, 2008.  The
complaint purports to set out claims under the U.S. Exchange Act
and the U.S. Securities Act, with a defined class period of
Oct. 19, 2005, through July 23, 2008.

In addition to the company, the defendants in the consolidated
amended complaint include certain current and former officers
and directors, and various other co-defendants.  The company
intends to move to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint by
Oct. 6, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 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 Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C08-387 MJP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J.
Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert Craig Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Ave
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-759-4600

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Grant, Esq. (jeffrey@aoki-sakamoto.com)
          Aoki Sakamoto Grant
          701 Pike St., Ste. 1525
          Seattle, WA 98101-1001
          Phone: 206-624-1900

Representing the defendants are:

          Robert Jerrod Pfister, Esq. (rpfister@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 29th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-407-7500
          Fax: 310-407-7502

               - and -

          Steven P. Caplow, Esq. (stevencaplow@dwt.com)
          Davis Wright Tremaine
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Phone: 206-757-8018
          Fax: 206-757-7700


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual, Inc., is facing a consolidated class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Beginning on Nov. 20, 2007, nine ERISA class-action suits were
filed against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and, in some cases, the Washington Mutual, Inc.,
Human Resources Committee, and the Plan Administration and Plan
Investment Committees of the WaMu Savings Plan.  The suits are:

       1. "Bushansky v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case
          No. C07-1874," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 20, 2007);

       2. "Bussey v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C07-1879," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 21, 2007);

       3. "Alexander v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case
          No. C07-1906," (W.D. Wa. Filed Nov. 29, 2007);

       4. "Mitchell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C07-1938," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 5, 2007);

       5. "Ware v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C07-1997," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 13, 2007);

       6. "Rosenblatt v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case
          No. C07-2025," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 18, 2007);

       7. "McDonald v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C07-2055," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 21, 2007);

       8. "Marra v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C07-2076," (W.D. Wa. Filed Dec. 27, 2007);

       9. "Sloan v. Washington Mutual, Inc., et al., Case No.
          C08-471," (W.D. Wa. Filed Mar. 24, 2008).

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants were fiduciaries of
the WaMu Savings Plan and breached their duties to Plan
participants by, among other things:

       -- failing to manage the Plan for the exclusive benefit
          of its participants or to use the care, skill,
          diligence, and prudence necessary to manage the Plan;

       -- continuing to offer company stock as an investment
          option in the plan despite that they knew or should
          have known that the stock no longer was a suitable and
          appropriate investment for the Plan;

       -- failing to conduct an appropriate investigation of the
          merits of continued investment in company stock; and

       -- failing to provide complete and accurate information
          regarding the Plan to the Plan's participants.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the company asked the Federal Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation to transfer the actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The JPML
granted the Company's motion on Feb. 21, 2008.  All of the
federally filed cases have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, which on May 7,
2008, consolidated the actions into a single case, entitled "In
re Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. C07-1874 MJP."

The Court held an initial status conference on June 9, 2008, and
then issued a comprehensive scheduling order setting the first
trial for May 2, 2011.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the consolidated
suit on Aug. 5, 2008.  The complaint purports to set out six
claims for breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, with a
defined class period of Oct. 19, 2005, to the present.  In
addition to the company, the defendants in the consolidated
amended complaint include certain current and former members of
the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors and
members of the Plan Investment Committee and Plan Administration
Committee of the WaMu Savings Plan.  The company intends to move
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, according to the
company's Aug. 11, 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 Washington Mutual, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No.
C07-1874 MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. (eciolko@sbtklaw.com)
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz Kessler LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706

               - and -

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq. (rharwood@hfesq.com)
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          488 Madison Ave.
          8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-935-7400

Representing the defendants are:

          Barry Robert Ostrager, Esq. (bostrager@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3909
          Phone: 212-455-2655

               - and -

          Ronald L. Berenstain, Esq.
          (rberenstain@perkinscoie.com)
          Perkins Coie
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4800
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: 206-359-8477


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Court Yet to OK $336-Mln. Antitrust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to approve a $336-million settlement reached by
Washington Mutual, Inc., and several other defendants in the
matter "In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1409 (S.D.N.Y.)."

In and around February 2001, a number of cardholder class
actions were filed against the MasterCard and Visa Associations,
and several member-banks alleging, among other things, that they
had conspired, in violation of antitrust laws, to fix the price
of currency conversion services for credit card purchases made
in a foreign currency by U.S. cardholders.

Providian Financial Corp. and Providian National Bank were named
as defendants; after Washington Mutual acquired Providian in
Oct. 1, 2005, the company was added as a defendant.

Pursuant to orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the cases were consolidated or coordinated for
pretrial purposes, under the caption "In re Currency Conversion
Fee Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1409 (S.D.N.Y.)."

In July 2006, the parties agreed to settle the case for
$336 million.  The Company's share of the settlement, which has
been paid into an escrow account, was covered by existing
reserves.

The Court has set the hearing on the entry of Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal for March 31, 2008.  The Court has not yet
issued its ruling.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

A Web site -- http://www.ccfsettlement.com/-- has been created
to provide information about the lawsuit and settlement, and to
allow class members to file their claims on-line.  This Web site
contains Court Orders and other important documents concerning
the settled litigation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2008).

Washington Mutual, Inc. -- http://www.wamu.com/-- is a consumer
and small business banking company with operations in U.S.
markets.  The company is a savings and loan holding company.  It
owns two banking subsidiaries, Washington Mutual Bank (WMB) and
Washington Mutual Bank fsb, as well as numerous non-bank
subsidiaries.  The Company operates in four segments: the Retail
Banking Group, which operates a retail bank network of 2,257
stores in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Washington,
Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado,
Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Connecticut; the Card Services Group,
which operates a nationwide credit card lending business; the
Commercial Group, which conducts a multi-family and commercial
real estate lending business in selected markets, and the Home
Loans Group, which engages in nationwide single-family
residential real estate lending, servicing and capital markets
activities.


* Government Health Care Denies Choice to Patients
--------------------------------------------------
     Fort Worth, Texas, Sept. 24, 2008 -- When examples of the
failure of socialized medicine in the United Kingdom and Canada
are not enough to dissuade the advocates of nationalized health
care, just ask Florida Medicaid recipients who are forced to
live in nursing homes instead of living at home with home health
aides.

     According to a September 21, 2008, Associated Press article
by Matt Sedensky that appeared on Yahoo.com's news page,
politicians in the sunshine state have succumb to pressure by
nursing homes to put disabled or elderly patients in their
facilities instead of allowing them the option of home health
care.  The nursing homes, according to the article, don't want
to lose tax dollars to community health care businesses that
visit patients in their own homes.

     The issue sparked a federal class action lawsuit on behalf
of over 8,000 Florida Medicaid recipients, who are forced to
live in nursing homes instead of being able to have home health
aides care for them in their own homes, according to the
article.

     The suit aims to break the special-interest stranglehold of
the nursing home industry that forces people into institutions
instead of getting community health care services.  The article
cited a 1999 Supreme Court decision that allows Medicaid
recipients the option of choosing community health services over
nursing homes.  Known as the 'Olmstead decision,' the ruling
went in favor of two women who wanted community, instead of
institutionalized, health care, according to the article.

     Since the landmark court decision, states have been
allocating more of their funds toward community health care
services, according to the article, but not fast enough to keep
up with the demand of Medicaid recipients who want the home
health care option.


* Shareholder Lawsuits Certain to Follow Financial Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 24, 2008 -- An attorney who represents
pension funds, unions, individuals and others in class-action
securities cases says shareholder lawsuits against investment
banks and other failed financial institutions are almost certain
to follow the financial meltdown on Wall Street.

     Jeffrey Zwerling, Esq., of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP, in New York says such lawsuits would seek recoveries for
smaller investors who are facing millions of dollars in losses
based on the financial institutions' claims that their
underlying investments were sound.

     "The people who invested in these stocks or mortgage-backed
securities weren't high-stakes gamblers," Mr. Zwerling says.
"They're like you and me.  They invested a dollar and expected
to receive a dollar's worth of value in return."

     "But because the executives at some of these financial
institutions, investment banks and mortgage houses were treating
their businesses as if they were their own personal casinos, the
investors didn't receive the value they thought they paid for,"
he says.  "All they received was an illusion."

     Mr. Zwerling represents the lead plaintiff in the
securities class-action case involving auction rate securities
underwritten or sold by Citigroup in auctions it managed. After
the market for auction rate securities shut down early this
year, investors were left with no access to their money.  Since
then, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has forced
Citigroup and other institutions to make good on the auction
rate securities, but still unknown is whether pension funds and
the individual workers they represent will receive any money.

     In Michigan, Mr. Zwerling represents the Wayne County
Employees Association in a class-action securities lawsuit
against the MGIC Investment Corporation, a provider of private
mortgage insurance.  The lawsuit claims MGIC failed to warn
investors of large financial losses it was experiencing as a
result of the worsening credit crisis and problems in the home
mortgage industry.

     Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP http://www.zsz.com/
-- successfully represents pension funds, unions, individuals
and others in legal battles against those accused of corporate
malfeasance.  The firm handles high-profile and ground breaking
class actions involving securities fraud, antitrust violations,
and far-reaching consumer fraud.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Sept. 24, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Preferred Series "J" stock of Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHJQ or LEHMQ) from the date of
the Company's public offering on February 5, 2008, and all
purchasers traceable thereto against certain officers and
directors of Lehman and certain Underwriters of the Offering,
pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15
U.S.C. 77k, 77l and 77o.

     The Underwriters include:

     -- Bank of America SecuritiesLLC,
     -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
     -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
     -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
     -- UBS Securities LLC, and
     -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC.

     The Complaint asserts that Lehman's Prospectus contained
both material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and
the Class relied upon to their detriment.  The representations
made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and
misleading because at the time of the Offering, Lehman was
already suffering from several adverse factors that were not
revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document; including
the failure to set aside adequate allowances to cover the
Company's ever increasing portfolio of underperforming sup-prime
related products and to adequately write-down commercial and
residential mortgage and real estate assets.

     These factors were already causing a material adverse
affect on Lehman's business and directly led to Lehman's
September 15, 2008 announcement that it was seeking protection
under the Federal Bankruptcy Code in the largest bankruptcy
filing in U.S. history.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants could have -- and
should have -- discovered the material misstatements and
omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with
the SEC and distribution to the investing public.  Instead, they
failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly
inadequate due diligence investigation.

     On September 15, 2008, Lehman filed a voluntary petition to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
in the largest bankruptcy filing in history and largely wiping
out the investment interests of the Class.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of Lehman Preferred J was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading nature
of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the
other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of Lehman Preferred J.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth,
they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Martin Restituyo, Esq.
          Derek Behnke, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Calif. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Sept. 24, 2008 The law offices of
Brodsky & Smith, LLC, commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Novatel
Wireless, Inc., between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Novatel.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Toll Free: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


RESERVE PRIMARY: Girard Gibbs Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 19, 2008 -- The law firm of Girard
Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or reinvested in any class of
shares of the Reserve Primary Fund between September 28, 2007,
and September 16, 2008, inclusive.

     The action is brought against the Reserve Fund, the Primary
Fund, The Reserve, Reserve Management Company, Inc., the Board
of Trustees of the funds, and certain officers of the companies.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making untrue statements and omissions of material fact in
the Primary Fund's Prospectus and elsewhere about the fund's
business, operations, investments, internal controls and
redemption practices, which artificially inflated asset values
of shares of the Primary Fund.

     The Complaint also alleges that Defendants violated the
Investment Company Act of 1940 by causing the Primary Fund to
deviate from its fundamental investment policy of preserving
capital and liquidity by investing in securities that provided
higher rates of return, but exposed investors to increased
risks.

     Investors who purchased shares of the Primary Fund expected
that, when they sold their shares, they would receive their
principal in full, plus any accrued interest or dividends.  On
September 16, 2008, Defendants announced that the Primary Fund
had "broken the buck" and that its net asset value ("NAV") had
fallen to $0.97 per share due to huge losses in Lehman Brothers
Holdings' debt securities.  Contrary to the Prospectus,
Defendants had allowed certain investors to redeem $40 billion
of their shares at the previous day's NAV of $1.00 per share,
rather than $0.97.  As a result of these redemptions, the losses
suffered by investors with assets remaining in the Primary Fund
were severely magnified.

     The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Defendants had abandoned their fundamental investment
         policy of preserving capital and liquidity to boost the
         yields on the Primary Fund;

     (2) Defendants lacked adequate internal controls to
         research and monitor the investments made by the
         Primary Fund and continued to invest in securities that
         were at risk for default; and

     (3) Defendants would allow certain investors to redeem
         their shares of the Primary Fund at the previous day's
         NAV, rather than the next determined NAV, contrary to
         the Prospectus.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 18, 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


SPECTRANICS CORP: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Sept. 24, 2008 -- The Denver-based law firm of Dyer
& Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
purchasers of The Spectranetics Corporation publicly traded
securities between April 19, 2007, and September 4, 2008,
inclusive.

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

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements to the market
about the Company's business operations and financial
performance.  For instance, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (a) the Company was improperly promoting its own products
         and the products of third parties;

     (b) the Company was improperly compensating personnel,
         including personnel involved in two post-market studies
         of Spectranetics' products from 2002-2005; and

     (c) the Company was receiving parts from an international
         source in violation of customs laws.

     As a result, on September 4, 2008, Spectranetics disclosed
that the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement had served search warrants on the Company,
and confirmed that the NASDAQ had halted trading of the
Company's common stock pending the announcement.  On this news,
Spectranetics' closing stock price plummeted from $9.00 per
share on September 3, 2008, to $4.73 the next day.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Spectranetics securities during the Class Period.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 888-300-3362
                 303-861-1764


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Halts Demolition in Chester, W.Va. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued two orders
to Rock Springs Enterprises Inc. to stop demolition work at the
site of a former pottery-manufacturing facility in Chester,
Hancock County, W. Va., according to an EPA press release dated
Sept. 18, 2008.

EPA halted the demolition because of potential health hazards
from asbestos and damage to a previously-constructed soil cap at
the site.

The former owners of the site, Newell Holdings Delaware, Inc.,
installed an 11-acre soil cap earlier in 2008 at the site to
cover more than 117,000 cubic yards of ceramic pottery waste and
soils contaminated with lead, PCBs, and other hazardous
substances. The property, located at 8th and Plutus streets, is
now owned by Rock Springs Enterprises, a West Virginia company.

In August 2008, inspectors from the EPA and the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection determined that Rock
Springs Enterprises had begun demolition work on the abandoned
factory building located adjacent to the capped site.

According to inspectors, this work could create an environmental
and health hazard by disturbing suspect asbestos materials and
also damaging the recently completed cap.

Under one of EPA's orders, filed under the Clean Air Act, Rock
Springs must halt its demolition activities. According to the
order, asbestos has been found in the building, and there is a
risk of airborne releases of asbestos fibers.

The order alleges that Rock Springs failed to notify officials
prior to beginning demolition. It also requires Rock Springs to
have a certified asbestos inspector determine the extent of
asbestos in the building prior to further demolition.

EPA's other order, filed under the Superfund program,
specifically requires Rock Springs to refrain from disturbing
the cap at the site.

According to this order, during the last two weeks of August
2008, EPA discovered that Rock Springs was conducting demolition
and metal-scrapping activities at the site that were damaging
the cap and subjecting it to erosion.

Under the order, Rock Springs must refrain from disturbing the
cap and maintain a fence around the site and vegetation on the
cap.

Rock Springs can resume demolition work when it complies with
EPA's orders.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Laurel City Council OKs $92,000 for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Council members of the City of Laurel, Md., approved a US$92,000
contract to fund the removal of asbestos at the former First
Baptist Church building on Fifth Street, which is the future
home of the Laurel Police Department, the Laurel Leader.com
reports.

The asbestos will be removed from the ceiling and floor tiles,
and in the heating and air conditioning system of the church.

Public Works Director Paul McCullagh told Council members at a
Sept. 10, 2008 meeting, "As long as the asbestos fibers are not
disturbed, they are not hazardous, but when they are moved, they
get in the air and can be hazardous. The removal will be handled
in a safe and appropriate manner."

According to Mr. McCullagh, the asbestos removal will take 60
days to complete. He said design plans for the police station
are almost done and he hopes to have a contract awarded for the
construction work by January 2009.

The renovations for the new police station are expected to be
completed by December 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Crane Moves to Set Aside $4Mil Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Crane Inc., which was hit with a US$4.39 million jury
verdict in September 2008, urged Circuit Judge David F. Pugh to
set aside the judgment, the Daily Press reports.

John Crane said in a 54-page motion that the jury was wrong to
assign one company with full blame for shipyard worker John
Koonce's asbestos-related cancer even though he also used
asbestos products made by other companies.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, which previously settled its
portion of the case out of court, also made many asbestos
products used by Mr. Koonce, who contracted mesothelioma while
repairing ships at Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp.

Though Garlock was on the verdict form along with John Crane,
the jury did not assign any damages to that company.

Two previous Newport News Circuit Court juries assigned some of
the blame to Garlock in similar cases, one to the tune of 40
percent of the final verdict.

John Crane's attorney, Archibald Wallace III, Esq., of Richmond,
Va., said, "The jury's utter disregard of the evidence regarding
Mr. Koonce's exposure to Garlock products resulted in John Crane
being apportioned 100 percent fault and being left to bear the
entire (US$4.39 million) verdict alone."

The motion said that because the jury's verdict went "against
the evidence" at trial, a new trial should be granted. Or, the
motion argued, Judge Pugh should reapportion the verdict between
the companies.

John Crane argued that Judge Pugh erred by allowing plaintiffs'
evidence into trial that should have been barred, even while
excluding defense evidence that should have been permitted.

Regarding the apportionment of the verdict, Mr. Koonce's
attorney, Bobby Hatten, Esq., said the jury made a legitimate
finding that the blame for the mesothelioma cannot be sliced
between the defendants.

Mr. Hatten said, "Two juries thought it could be apportioned,
and this one said we don't think so. It's a finding of fact that
the jury was entitled to make."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of W.Va. Post Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos found in the crumbling ceiling tile prompted the
temporary closure of a post office in Davis, W.Va., the
Charleston Gazette reports.

U.S. Postal Service officials do not yet know when the Tucker
County site will reopen. The Thomas Post Office is now serving
about 550 of Davis' post office box customers.

USPS spokesman Dave Walton says the four employees of the Davis
Post Office will work from the Thomas Post Office.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Wales Policeman's Death Due to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 17, 2008 inquest at Prestatyn, North Wales, Wales, heard
that the death of former policeman Douglas Kempton was linked to
exposure to asbestos, the Leighton Buzzard Observer reports.

Mr. Kempton's partner Neil Owen said that Mr. Kempton breathed
in asbestos fibers while he worked as a volunteer on the
Leighton Buzzard Railway.

Mr. Owen told the hearing that he and Mr. Kempton decided to get
married knowing that he was dying and to protect Mr. Owen's
financial rights.

The 67-year-old Mr. Kempton died on May 17, 2008. Consultant
pathologist Dr. Mark Atkinson said a postmortem revealed that
Mr. Kempton had suffered a deep vein thrombosis linked to
immobility which was due in part to his mesothelioma.

Dr. Atkinson said the level of asbestos in Mr. Kempton's body
was relatively low.

In a statement made in the weeks before his death, Mr. Kempton
tried to work out where and when he had been exposed to asbestos
fibers. During his naval service as a radio operator on the
aircraft carrier Ark Royal, he disposed of confidential waste in
the boiler once a week, and in his 16 years as a police officer
he sometimes entered buildings where asbestos may have been
exposed.

Mr. Kempton said that the most likely source was the boilers of
the LBR locomotives where he was a volunteer for many years. He
had said, "I occasionally traveled on the footplate and
vibrations may have caused some of the fibers lining the boiler
and pipes to break away."

Mr. Kempton said he also visited the workshops where the boilers
were repaired.

Mr. Owen, who became Mr. Kempton's partner in 2005, told the
hearing that until his diagnosis he had led a very active life,
enjoying mountain-biking, walking and scuba-diving.

Recording an open verdict, John Gittins, Deputy Coroner for
North Wales Central, said he could not earmark it as an
industrial disease because Mr. Kempton's work on the railway had
been a hobby.

Leighton Buzzard Railway spokesman Mervyn Leah later told the
LBO that Mr. Kempton's many friends at the railway had been
sorry to hear of his death as he had been an enthusiast helping
to build it up for nearly 40 years.

However, Mr. Leah did not believe this would have brought him
into contact with dangerous asbestos. He assured the public that
there was no danger from visiting the railway.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Navy Officer's Daughter to Get Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Dawson, the daughter of Arthur Webster, a former Royal
Navy officer, has been offered compensation for Mr. Webster's
exposure to asbestos in Norwich Power Station, the Norwich
Evening News 24 reports.

In August 2008, Mr. Webster's family was desperate for former
employees of the Power Station on Thorpe Road to come forward to
confirm that asbestos was in the building.

Solicitor Godfrey Morgan has praised the Evening News for
reporting the case which has brought the new evidence to light
and Mrs. Dawson has said she is pleased the fight looked like
being won.

While waiting for a job in the Post Office, Mr. Webster worked
for the Power Station (n/k/a npower) in Norwich, England,
lagging pipes with asbestos.

Mr. Morgan, who is fighting the case for the Webster family,
said, "You can see the asbestos move and crack on the footage as
the building heats up. It's fantastic evidence in this case. We
are so thankful to the Evening News for the story which helped
bring the two people forward and npower, which is now
responsible for the building, has made us an offer."

Alexandra Pritchett, npower spokeswoman, said, "We feel it would
be inappropriate to comment on the case until it is concluded."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOAST Asbestos Cleanup Estimated at $3.8Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the Thomas O'Brien Academy of Science and
Technology (TOAST) in Albany, N.Y., is estimated at US$3.8
million, CBS 6 News reports.

The US$3.8 million is in addition to the US$8 million to US$9
million allocated by the district to renovate the 53-year old
school building, bringing the entire rehabilitation cost to
nearly US$13 million.

Parents learned in July 2008 that the renovation project already
underway at TOAST had uncovered the presence of large amounts of
asbestos, which was supposed to have been removed during a
district-wide project in the 1980s.

Asked if the students who attended TOAST since the 1980s might
have been inadvertently exposed to asbestos in some way, Albany
school district spokesperson Ron Lesko said the asbestos was
encapsulated and that air quality tests taken at the school came
back meeting federal standards.

Five hundred TOAST students were forced to relocate to a so-
called "swing" school building for the new school year, sharing
the former Phillip Schuyler School on Lake and Western with 350
students from the Arbor Hill Elementary School, which is also
undergoing renovation.

Asked on the US$13 million price tag, school board member
Melissa Mackey said the district could have built a brand new
school for US$13 million. She added, "I would like to know how
we managed to miss these things -- that we were not able to
foresee these difficulties."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in Moeller Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a
motion to vacate filed by Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC,
Anchor Packaging Co., and John Crane, Inc. in the asbestos
litigation filed by Robert L. Moeller.

The case is styled In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation
(No. VI) Robert L. Moeller, et al. v. Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, et al., W.D. Kentucky, 3:07-65.

The panel (comprised of Acting Chairman D. Lowell Jensen,
Chairman John G. Heyburn, II, Judges Frederick Motz, Robert L.
Miller, Jr., Kathryn H. Vratil, David R. Hansen, and Anthony J.
Scirica) entered judgment in MDL No. 875 on June 5, 2008.

Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packaging, and John Crane, in the action
pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had moved to
vacate that portion of the Panel's order, entered at the
suggestion of the transferee court.

The transferee court conditionally remanded the Moeller case to
the Western District of Kentucky, with the exception of any
claims for punitive or exemplary damages that had previously
been severed by the transferee court. Responding plaintiffs
opposed the motion to vacate.

The Panel found that remand of the non-punitive/exemplary damage
claims in Moeller was appropriate at this time.

The Panel ordered all claims by plaintiffs in the Moeller case,
except the severed claims for punitive or exemplary damages,
were separated and remanded to the Western District of Kentucky.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kubota Corp. Expends JPY1.090B at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation's asbestos-related expenses were JPY1.090
billion (US$10.9 million) during the year ended March 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Sept. 18, 2008.

Of the JPY1.090 billion, JPY769 million (US$7.69 million)
represented expenses related to the payment for the relief
payment system established in April 2006.

During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company recorded about
JPY4.035 billion (US$34,195,000) as expenses and payments for
asbestos-related matters. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 5, 2007)

Until 1995, the Company's plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture,
which is now a company office, had made products containing
asbestos.

In April 2005, the Company was advised that some residents who
lived near the former plant suffered from mesothelioma. The
Company announced its intention in June 2005 to act seriously
and faithfully concerning various issues of the health hazard of
asbestos from the viewpoint of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) as a company that had once manufactured products
containing asbestos for a long time.

According to the Company's basic policy, the Company started the
program of consolation payments to patients with mesothelioma
who lived near the former plant and to the families of residents
who died from mesothelioma.

In April 2006, the Company decided to establish the relief
payment system in place of the consolation payment system and
make additional payment to the residents to whom consolation
payment were eligible to be paid or payable.

After the Company established its internal policies and
procedures of relief payment system, the Company has received
claims for relief payments from 174 residents and paid or
accrued relief payments to 152 of those residents after
carefully reviewing those claims as of March 31, 2008.

With regard to the procedures for making claims to the Company
for relief payments, the Company has asked the residents or the
bereaved family of the residents who lived close to its former
plant to communicate with the Company through Amagasaki
Occupational Safety and Health Center with the documents
requested by the Company.

The cumulative number of current and former employees who are
eligible for compensation in accordance with the Company's
internal policies that are not required by law is 132 as of
March 2006, 152 as of March 2007, and 160 as of March 2008.

In August 2006, the Company announced that the Company would
provide a total donation of JPY1.2 billion to Hyogo College of
Medicine made over 10 years and JPY500 million to Osaka Medical
Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases over five years.
The Company donated JPY200 million (US$2 million) as a
contribution for the year ended March 31, 2008.

As a result of the asbestos issue becoming an object of public
concern, the Japanese government newly established the Law for
the Relief of Patients Suffering from Asbestos-Related Diseases
in March 2006.

This law was enacted for the purpose of promptly providing
relief to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases who
are not eligible for relief by compensation from the Insurance
in accordance with the Workers' Accident Compensation Insurance
Law. The relief aid payments are contributed by the national
government, municipal governments, and business entities.

The contribution includes a special contribution by companies
which operated a business closely related to asbestos, and is to
be made by business entities commencing from the year ended
March 31, 2008.

During the year ended March 31, 2007, the Company accounted for
JPY735 million (US$7.35 million) of the special contribution as
a lump sum expense, which is imposed based on the New Asbestos
Law during the four-year period commencing on April 1, 2007.

Headquartered in Osaka, Japan, Kubota Corporation (Kabushiki
Kaisha Kubota) manufactures farm equipment, pipes for water
supply and sewage systems, environmental control plants, and
industrial castings. The Company also provides credit services,
which finance sales of equipment by dealers, for the purpose of
enhancing sales of equipment to individual customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Desnoyers Indicted for Clean Air Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Utica, N.Y., has convicted 53-year-old Mark
Desnoyers for falsifying monitoring results of asbestos removal
companies, the North Country Gazette reports.

Mr. Desnoyers was convicted of a conspiracy to violate the Clean
Air Act and to commit mail fraud; aiding and abetting
substantive Clean Air Act violations; mail fraud; and multiple
counts of making false statements to Special Agents of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Desnoyers, owner of Adirondack Environmental Associates,
Inc., was an air monitor who took samples required to document
the purported full and safe removal of asbestos from numerous
commercial buildings and private homes.

However, it was found that Mr. Desnoyers secretly entered into
agreements with the owners of asbestos removal companies to
falsify his results. The abatement companies in and around the
Plattsburgh, N.Y., area were able to ignore significant
environmental safeguards mandated by law and disturb the
asbestos in a manner that spread the asbestos throughout the
areas purportedly being cleaned.

The conspiracy between Mr. Desnoyers and the abatement
contractors left facilities massively contaminated and exposed
clients/victims to this substance.

One week before the start of the trial, 57-year-old John Wood,
owner of J & W Construction, Inc. (an asbestos removal company),
pleaded guilty to the Clean Air Act and mail fraud conspiracy
involving Mr. Desnoyers.

Mr. Wood admitted his role in directing the illegal removal of
asbestos from numerous commercial facilities and private homes
and in utilizing Mr. Desnoyer's false air reports to fool
clients into believing all the asbestos had been safely removed.
He also pleaded guilty to contempt of court for violating
numerous conditions of pretrial release, including committing
additional illegal asbestos abatements after he had already been
indicted for such conduct.

Mr. Wood testified against Mr. Desnoyers at trial.

Curtis Collins, 50 years old, owner of Adirondack Asbestos, also
pleaded guilty to conspiring with Mr. Desnoyers and Mr. Wood,
and testified against Mr. Desnoyers. Mr. Collins acknowledged
his role in the illegal removal of asbestos.

Sentencing as been scheduled in Utica, N.Y. before the Hon.
David N. Hurd on Feb. 13, 2008.

Mr. Desnoyers faces a maximum possible term of incarceration of
25 years and a fine of US$1.25 million plus restitution to
victims; Mr. Wood faces a maximum possible term of incarceration
of 5.5 years and a fine of US$250,000, plus restitution to
victims; Mr. Collins faces a maximum of incarceration of 5 years
and a fine of US$250,000, plus restitution to victims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Plan, Disclosure Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., on Sept. 19, 2008, announced that it has
filed a Plan of Reorganization and an accompanying Disclosure
Statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, according
to a Company press release dated Sept. 19, 2008.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
the Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders
are co-proponents of the Plan. The documents are consistent with
the terms of the previously announced asbestos personal injury
settlement.

Fred Festa, Grace's Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, said, "T[his] filing brings Grace an important step
closer to resolving its asbestos-related liabilities and exiting
Chapter 11. It's an equitable plan that enjoys wide-spread
support. People who have been injured by asbestos exposure will
be fairly compensated while employees and shareholders retain
control of a financially strong company that is poised to
succeed in today's challenging global marketplace."

A hearing on the Disclosure Statement is scheduled to begin on
Oct. 27, 2008.

The Plan of Reorganization and the Disclosure Statement, with
certain exhibits, will be available on the Company's Web site at
http://www.grace.com/ Subsequent Plan related documents will be
made available at this site as they are filed.

Grace and most of its domestic subsidiaries filed petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code on
April 2, 2001. This action was taken to determine Grace's
asbestos-related liabilities and protect the long-term value of
its businesses.

On April 7, 2007, Grace announced that it reached an agreement
in principle to resolve all present and future asbestos-related
personal injury claims, the terms of which are reflected in the
Plan.

The Plan supersedes plans of reorganization previously filed by
Grace, and jointly by the asbestos personal injury committee and
future claimants' representative, respectively.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brookshiers File Suit in Ill. v. 124 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde and Doris Brookshier, both of Missouri, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 124 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., on Sept. 12, 2008, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Brookshier was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on July 8, 2008.

The Brookshiers say Mr. Brookshier worked from 1957 until 1960
as a lineman at Missouri Light & Power and was a member of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, from 1960 until
1962 as a laborer in the U.S. Army, from 1962 until 1965 as a
laborer at his father-in-law's farm, and from 1965 until 1983 as
an installer/repairman at Sprint.

Mr. Brookshier also has done some home remodeling work including
building a barn and helping with roofing jobs.

In addition to his first-hand exposure, Mr. Brookshier claims he
has been exposed to asbestos fibers through his father who was a
lineman at Missouri Light & Power until 1949.

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

The Brookshiers allege the asbestos-related disease disabled and
disfigured Mr. Brookshier and has caused substantial medical
costs. He also has and will continue to experience physical pain
and mental anguish, they claim in the lawsuit.

In the 11-count lawsuit, the Brookshiers seek sums in excess of
US$100,000, 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.

The Brookshiers also seek 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., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Brookshiers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: E-MOSAIC Seen as Possible Cancer Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
LegalView informed its mesothelioma blog readers of a Swiss
Group study for Clinical Cancer Research that will test an
electronic device as a possible treatment for mesothelioma,
TransWorldNews reports.

The electronic device, known as the Monitoring Symptoms and
Syndromes Associated with Advanced Cancer (E-MOSAIC), is a hand
held tool that can be "used to record and monitor symptoms"
while also assessing a mesothelioma cancer patient's quality of
life.

The treatment is described as a palliative treatment, rather
than a curative treatment.

Palliative methods are considered partial treatments rather than
complete attempts to cure a condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derbyshire Support Team Seeking Out Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team in Derbyshire, England, now
offers personalized welfare advice for sufferers of asbestos-
related illnesses, the Evening Telegraph reports.

The Team has employed an advisor to visit patients and their
families to help them claim the financial support to which they
are entitled.

The project has been funded for three years by a GBP150,000
grant from Macmillan Cancer Support. With this money, the team
has been able to expand.

Welfare adviser Natalie Woodward will be visiting sufferers in
Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Burton,
and Derbyshire.

Steve Gillingham, of Allenton, who was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in July 2008, said, "I remember after my diagnosis
coming home with my wife Sue and just sitting in silence. We
were shell-shocked and certainly not in the right frame of mind
to have to seek the right benefits to make sure we'd be
financially OK.

"I just didn't know where to start. It was all so overwhelming
my brain wasn't processing anything. And that's where Derbyshire
Asbestos Support Team came in. "They were truly amazing. If it
wasn't for them we would be lost. They knew exactly what to say
and exactly what to do."

Derbyshire is considered a hot spot for cases of mesothelioma
because of its history of heavy engineering. At least 300 people
in the county have died from it in the past 30 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Exposed in Wolverhampton Infirmary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metal thieves exposed asbestos after they ransacked the site of
a former eye infirmary in Wolverhampton, England,
expressandstar.com reports.

The thieves left the asbestos lying on the ground outside the
building on Compton Road when they fled after tearing through
walls and the roof.

The break-in was discovered when workers arrived to remove the
asbestos. On Sept. 19, 2008, health officials said there was no
danger to the public unless they enter the grounds in Chapel
Ash.

The site has been derelict for 18 months since eye services
transferred to New Cross Hospital.

Claudine Weeks, from the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS
Trust, said, "The vandalism caused extensive damage and exposed
asbestos that was also left in the grounds of the site. It is
expected that the contractors will soon clear the grounds and
will then continue with their work."

The trust is trying to find a buyer for the site after an
original plan to build 100 flats fell through amid the downturn
in the housing market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Peabody, Mass., Holiday Inn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
found asbestos during renovations in the Holiday Hotel, along
Route 1, Peabody, Mass., The Salem News reports.

None of the employees have been allowed to work or guests to
stay at the 183-room hotel. Health Department Director Sharon
Cameron said, "It's currently closed. Right now, nobody is
allowed in the building."

On Sept. 10, 2008, MassDEP received a complaint of asbestos and
state workers took lab samples from the tiles and glue being
removed, MassDEP spokesman Joe Ferson said.

The samples returned on Sept. 12, 2008 showed asbestos was in
the building. Since then, no one has been permitted in the
135,358-square-foot hotel.

Mr. Ferson said the hotel was also told it needed to hire a
licensed asbestos contractor, secure the work area and submit
plans to properly remove the asbestos.

As of Sept. 18, 2008, contractors had provided the asbestos-
removal plan for its lobby and function area, which has been
approved by the DEP and the state's Division of Occupational
Safety Asbestos program, Ms. Cameron said.

Ms. Cameron said workers started cleanup on Sept. 18, 2008.

Building Commissioner Kevin Goggin said the company pulled
permits in July 2008 to renovate the 40-year-old building. The
permits estimated the cost of improvements at US$400,000, he
said.

An investigation by the DEP is also underway, Mr. Ferson said.
MassDEP was still gathering evidence about the incident.

Mr. Ferson said hotel management had not sought or obtained a
permit to do any kind of asbestos abatement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Crown Cork in Braley Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, reversed an asbestos-
related ruling to favor Rosemarie Satterfield in an asbestos-
related lawsuit the decedent, Jerrold Braley, filed against
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and other defendants.

The case is style Rosemarie Satterfield, as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley, Deceased, Appellant v. Crown Cork
& Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet
Cork Corporation, Appellee.

Justices Jan P. Patterson and Diane Henson entered judgment in
Case No. 03-04-00518-CV on Aug. 29, 2008.

After receiving an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in
1956, Mr. Braley returned home to Wyoming but then moved his
family to Texas to work as an industrial laborer at an oil
refinery near Monahans.

Over the next several years, Mr. Braley worked at refineries,
chemical plants, gas plants, and at other industrial job sites
in Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Florida, and
Louisiana.

These jobs involved working with pipes, boilers, compressors,
and other machinery requiring insulation, which routinely
involved asbestos insulation, including asbestos-containing
insulation products manufactured by Crown Cork's predecessor,
Mundet Cork Corporation. Mr. Braley worked until he retired in
1996.

In July 2002, Mr. Braley was diagnosed with mesothelioma. On
Oct. 1, 2002, he sued Crown Cork and others for damages caused
by his exposure to asbestos-containing products. His petition
also sought to impose liability against Crown Cork as successor
to Mundet.

In November 2002, Mr. Braley moved for partial summary judgment
to establish Crown Cork's liability for Mundet's asbestos-
containing products as a result of Crown Cork's acquisition and
merger.

On May 29, 2003, the District Court of Travis County, 98th
Judicial District, granted Mr. Braley's motion for partial
summary judgment on the successor liability issue.

In June 2003, Mr. Braley died. The representative of his estate,
Ms. Satterfield, was substituted as plaintiff.

Crown Cork then filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted the motion and severed Mr. Braley's claims against
Crown Cork from those against the other defendants. This appeal
followed.

In three issues, Ms. Satterfield contended that Crown Cork was
not entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court sustained Ms. Satterfield's first
issue, and the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's summary
judgment granted in favor of Crown Cork and remanded for further
proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zerkle Files Suit in Madison v. 62 Firms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Zerkle, on Sept. 17, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 62 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Zerkle was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 12, 2008,
according to the suit. She says she has worked since 1988 as a
legal secretary or bookkeeper at various locations throughout
Illinois.

Ms. Zerkle claims her father, who worked from 1950 until 1984 as
a union machinist at Pabst Brewery in Peoria, Ill., would bring
asbestos fibers home with him on his clothing. She claims her
disease was caused after she was exposed to and inhaled those
fibers.

In the eight-count lawsuit, Ms. Zerkle seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$200,000.

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

Timothy F. Thompson, Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper LLC in East
Alton, Ill., represents Ms. Zerkle.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Couple Sue 92 Firms in Madison County
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Missouri couple, Kristy M. and Robert Ritz, on Sept. 17, 2008,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 92 defendant
corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

In the suit, Mrs. Ritz claims that she was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2007. The couple says Mrs. Ritz was
exposed to asbestos through clothing her father and grandfather
wore home from work.

Mrs. Ritz's father worked in various home construction projects
beginning in 1968 and her grandfather worked on a farm and did
engine work on various farm machinery, the suit states.

Because of the disease, Mr. Ritz claims he and other family
members have been deprived of the companionship, society and
services of Mrs. Ritz.

In the seven-count lawsuit, the couple seeks sums in excess of
US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000.

The Ritzes also seek 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., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Ritzes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyon Suit Filed v. 13 Firms on Sept. 16
------------------------------------------------------------
Lindy Lyon, on Sept. 16, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Lyon claims she was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 16,
2002, according to the suit. She says she worked from 1978 until
2006 as an assembly line worker, dashboard hanger and packager
at various locations.

Ms. Lyon claims a family member, Williams Rommel, Jr., worked
from 1966 until 1994 as an iron worker at various locations and
would bring the asbestos fibers home on his clothing, where Ms.
Lyon was exposed to them.

In the two-count lawsuit, Ms. Lyon seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$50,000.

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

Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
Simmonscooper LLC in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Lyon.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Superior Court Rules v. Georgia-Pacific
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. says that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court reversed a ruling, which had favored Georgia-
Pacific Corporation, in an asbestos lawsuit filed an unnamed
Pennsylvania construction worker, according to a Baron & Budd
press release dated Sept. 22, 2008.

Even after exposure to its asbestos-containing joint compound
caused the construction worker to contract and die of
mesothelioma, Georgia-Pacific thought it could avoid
compensating the victim's family by requiring them to provide
documentation of the precise days and times when the man worked
around the product.

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County initially ruled
in favor of Georgia-Pacific. However, the Superior Court
reversed the decision and returned the case to be tried on its
merits.

Baron & Budd attorney Sharon Bautista, Esq., was appellate
counsel for the family. In the trial court below, the plaintiff
was represented by Ben DuBose, Esq., Kevin McHargue, Esq., and
Misty Farris, Esq., also of Baron & Budd, P.C., and Steven J.
Cooperstein, Esq., with the Philadelphia firm of Brookman,
Rosenberg, Brown and Sandler.

Russell W. Budd, Esq., managing shareholder of Baron & Budd,
said, "Georgia-Pacific cannot evade liability for harm caused by
a worker's exposure to the company's asbestos-containing joint
compound simply by suggesting that we have to present proof of
every individual time this worker was exposed to Georgia
Pacific's product. And the Superior Court of Pennsylvania saw
through Georgia-Pacific's attempts to shirk its responsibility
in that manner."

The Superior Court reversed the Court of Common Pleas' decision
that the plaintiff had insufficient evidence that he had been
exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos spackling compound on a
regular basis.

The court was persuaded both by the evidence of the plaintiff's
sons who testified that their father had himself worked with the
product numerous times and by another coworker who, though he
could not recall a specific occasion on a specific construction
site, was able to testify that the plaintiff had worked in close
proximity to Georgia-Pacific's product on a regular basis.

The dangers of asbestos exposure were widely known in industry
circles for decades before the plaintiff's exposure to Georgia-
Pacific's joint compound in the 1970s.

Even so, said Ms. Bautista, "Georgia-Pacific did not see fit to
warn workers about the hazards created when asbestos-containing
joint compound is mixed or sanded, or tell them about
appropriate safety precautions, even though basic prevention
methods have been known since the 1930s."

The plaintiff worked for a construction company in Pennsylvania
in a variety of trades throughout the 1970s and 1980s. He died
of mesothelioma in 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Lawyer for Hardie to Testify in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Attrill, a former in-house solicitor involved in James
Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos litigation, will be the first
witness for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
in its landmark civil penalty suit against the 2001 Hardie board
and three former executives, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Mr. Attrill will take the stand in the New South Wales Supreme
Court on Sept. 29, 2008.

The asbestos trust, which Hardie said in 2001 had sufficient
assets to meet all legitimate future compensation claims for
asbestos-related diseases, was found by a 2004 special
commission of inquiry to be underfunded by AUD1.5 billion. After
a public outcry about its initial refusal to fund the shortfall,
the Company set up a replacement scheme in 2007.

ASIC alleges that the 10 directors and executives breached their
duties by not preventing company statements that the 2001 trust
was "fully funded."

The case will also focus on Hardie's disclosure of plans to
restructure and move its headquarters to the Netherlands, which
it said at the time would have no impact on asbestos
compensation in Australia.

The defendants, who include Hardie's former chief executive
Peter Macdonald and former chairman Meredith Hellicar, deny
liability. ASIC wants Justice Ian Gzell to ban the 10 defendants
from company directorships or management, and to impose fines.

Mr. Attrill will be followed by a director of the now-defunct
trust, Peter Jollie, and its former managing director, Dennis
Cooper.

Of the 56 witnesses to be called by ASIC, the others named at
the Sept. 22, 2008 directions hearing were four solicitors from
Allens Arthur Robinson, the firm whose predecessor, Allen, Allen
and Hemsley, advised Hardie on the trust and the restructure.

ASIC's barrister Tony Bannon, SC, said he expected cross-
examination of his 56 witnesses by lawyers for the 10 individual
and two corporate defendants would be finished by Christmas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cal Max Charged GBP10T for Disposal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Lewis, Scotland-based building company, Cal Max Construction,
was fined GBP10,000 for the disposal and burning of 10 tons of
asbestos waste near a development in Newmarket, Scotland,
ContractJournal.com reports.

Cal Max was also charged with two offenses related to the
dumping.

Stornoway Sheriff Court heard the rubble came from a house
demolished by Cal Max employees in Perceval Road North on the
edge of Stornoway.

Rubble, including plastic pipes, cables and sheeting, was dumped
with other rubbish from a new housing development the firm is
building at Blackwater River, Newmarket.

According to a report in the Press and Journal, Prosecutor David
Teale said the asbestos pipes could have risked human health if
they caught fire.

Solicitor Angus Macdonald said Cal Max owner Calum Maclean fell
seriously ill in 2007, which had put pressure on co-owner Calum
Mackay.

Jamie Hepburn, the Environmental Protection Agency's
investigating officer said, "The burning of plastic is
recognized as causing noxious fumes, and it is possible that
people in close proximity may have inhaled some of these."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Conman to Pay Fine for Botched Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Magistrates' Court in Cambridge, England, ordered 23-year-
old "con artist" Moses Mead, of Rochester, Kent, England, to pay
more than GBP7,500 after an elderly man was left with pieces of
asbestos in his garden, the Cambridge News Online reports.

Mr. Mead faces three counts of not telling residents their
rights, including that they had seven days to cancel work from
the time the contract was agreed.

The incident came to light after an off-duty police officer, PC
Andy Badcock, of Cambridgeshire Constabulary, spotted Mr. Mead's
workmen.

An investigation was carried out by Cambridgeshire County
Council Trading Standards and Mr. Mead was arrested and
convicted.

Mr. Mead told the a 75-year-old, who he had approached outside
his home on July 15, 2008, that he would change the asbestos
guttering outside his property for UPVC.

Mr. Mead also claimed to be one of only two people in Cambridge
who could dispose of the asbestos. He gave the resident no
notice of cancellation, charged him GBP900 and demanded cash,
while his workmen left fragments of asbestos in his garden.

In court, Mr. Mead admitted he did not know where asbestos could
be legally dealt with in Cambridgeshire.

Another Cambridge resident who was approached by Mr. Mead on
July 20, 2008 agreed to pay GBP750 for work to be carried out.
However, the next day the resident said he did not want to go
ahead with the works.

Mr. Mead said he had already hired a tower and a lorry and would
charge for them and his men's wages. He did not tell the
resident he had the right to cancel and the man reluctantly
agreed for the work to continue.

Another Cambridge resident was not told his rights on July 25,
2008 when Mr. Mead suggested works on his guttering.

Mr. Mead pleaded guilty to all three charges and was fined a
total of GBP7,519 in relation to the offenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to Ellesmere Port Man's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Chester, England, heard that the death of retired
foreman William Bryan Cresswell, of Ellesmere Port, England, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Leader reports.

The 80-year-old Mr. Cresswell died on April 11, 2008, after
suffering from ill health for several years.

Mr. Cresswell was a navy veteran but had spent most of his
working life at Van Leer, formerly Metal Containers, on Oil
Sites Road, Ellesmere Port.

Sitting in Chester, coroner Nicholas Rheinberg heard that Mr.
Cresswell spent several years in the Merchant Navy in the 1940s
and had returned to work at Metal Containers in 1947 until he
was made redundant in 1989.

The inquest heard Mr. Cresswell was a former light smoker and in
later years suffered from mesothelioma, bowel and prostate
problems.

Mr. Cresswell received short periods of respite care at the
Hospice of the Good Shepherd from December 2007, but his health
was deteriorating by the start of April 2008.

The inquest heard Mr. Cresswell was never exposed to asbestos
outside work. A post-mortem examination revealed asbestos fibers
in lung tissue.

Mr. Rheinberg said Mr. Cresswell died from the industrial
disease, mesothelioma and recorded the cause of death as
malignant pleural mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Rheinberg heard the family would be taking legal proceedings
against the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glatfelter's Motion Denied in Olin Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, denied P.H. Glatfelter Company's motion for
a discovery conference in a lawsuit filed by Olin Corporation.

The case is styled Olin Corporation, Plaintiff v. P.H.
Glatfelter Company, a/k/a "Glatfelter" and d/b/a "Glatfelter
Company, Defendant.

District Judge Lacy H. Thornburg entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 1:06CV367 on Aug. 25, 2008.

On November 2006, Olin filed a complaint against Glatfelter,
alleging breach of contract. The complaint alleged that
Glatfelter wrongfully refused to indemnify Olin for
environmental liabilities resulting from mercury contamination
in and around a paper mill formerly owned by Olin and later
owned for a period of time by Glatfelter.

The mill in question is located in Pisgah Forest, N.C. Its
property, which includes several hundred acres and at least 75
buildings, has been slowly falling into ruin since 2002, when
financial problems caused its operations to shut down.

According to the instant motion, "[s]nakes, spiders, owls, bats,
and rodents occupy many of the buildings at the Mill. Some
documents are located in buildings where there is visible
asbestos, where ceiling tiles are on the floor, and where there
are large holes in the floor[.]"

On June 6, 2008, Davidson River Village notified Olin and
Glatfelter that it planned to demolish the buildings on the mill
property. Representatives from Glatlfelter visited the site on
June 16, 17, 18, and 24.

Olin had not visited the mill site since its receipt of DRV's
letter in June 2008. According to Glatfelter, Olin "has refused
to come to the Mill before demolition begins or to request that
particular documents be preserved. Rather, [Plaintiff] insists
that 'all of the documents currently located at the Mill are
potentially relevant' and must be preserved."

The Court found that a discovery conference was not warranted at
this time. The Court ordered that Glatfelter's motion for a
discovery conference was hereby denied.

Craig C. Martin, Esq., Amanda S. Amert, Esq., J.H. Jennifer Lee,
Esq., of Jenner & Block, LLC, Chris C. Gair, Esq., in Chicago,
Philip Scott Anderson, Esq., of Long, Parker, Warren & Jones,
P.A., in Asheville, N.C., represented Olin Corporation.

Betsy Cooke, Esq., John Michael Moye, Esq., of Kilpatrick
Stockton LLP, in Raleigh, N.C., Stephen R. Berlin, Esq., of
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, in Winston-Salem, N.C., represented
P.H. Glatfelter Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ike Advisory Released on Sept. 22 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Cancer Center, on Sept. 22, 2008, sent a public
advisory on Hurricane Ike to Southeast Texas emergency
management for distribution to the local media, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The group is warning residents of another danger ahead, the
"eminent threat of asbestos exposure" in the wake of the storm.

The press release, from www.asbestos.com, instructed its
recipients on how to deal with asbestos exposure and to contact
them with questions.

The press release states, "In an effort to provide the public
with valuable information on how to prepare homes and safely
deal with the threat of asbestos exposure, the Mesothelioma
Cancer Center has created an informative section on their Web
site that specifically addresses asbestos exposure and
hurricanes."

According to the Web site, asbestos.com's mission is to raise
asbestos awareness "and to assist people who have already been
diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases."

However, some are suspicious of the organization's true
intentions, believing asbestos.com is a front for plaintiffs'
lawyers who are "trolling for clients" and "hoping for big
payoffs."

When contacted for more information, an asbestos.com employee
said the organization was only trying to make people in the area
aware that homes and buildings built prior to 1980 may contain
hazardous asbestos products.

The unnamed employee also said the organization works with top
mesothelioma law firms and can refer people stricken with an
asbestos infliction to a lawyer.

Asbestos.com has been operating since 1995, and "is staffed
entirely by individuals who have, in one way or another, been
affected by cancer," the organization's Web site says.

The press release includes a list of common construction
materials that may contain asbestos, such as roofing and ceiling
materials, insulation, plumbing, pipe covering, some flooring,
caulking and spackle, paneling and paint.

The press release also urges residents not to disturb any
potentially contaminated materials and to use precautionary
measures like wearing protective gear, wetting down the
materials to keep fibers from becoming airborne and to contact a
professional for abatement or repair.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Local to Pay $2T for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Ely, of Pittsfield, Mass., is to pay US$2,000 for
illegally removing asbestos from a North Street apartment
building, The Berkshire Eagle reports.

Mr. Ely, who manages and maintains 1223-1230 North St., was
charged in July 2008 with violating the Massachusetts Clean Air
Act.

Inspectors found deteriorating asbestos insulation in the
basement of the building in March 2006 and ordered that it be
removed. A year later, local and state inspectors determined
that asbestos had not been properly removed.

A stop-work order was issued until cleanup requirements were
met, but an anonymous tip to city code enforcement officials
revealed that site work continued even after the order was
issued, prompting further action by local and state officials.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha M. Coakley said the 68-
year-old Mr. Ely did not follow proper protocol and notify the
state Department of Environmental Protection.

The state had recommended a 90-day suspended sentence at the
Berkshire County Jail & House of Correction and a US$10,000
fine, but a judge instead ordered Mr. Ely to pay US$2,000.

The case was investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental
Crimes Strike Force, an inter agency unit that includes
prosecutors from Ms. Coakley's office, Massachusetts
Environmental Police officers and DEP investigators and
engineers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Nursing Home Settles w/ Gruzs for $100T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pleasant Acres Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and York
County, Pa., has reached a US$100,000 settlement with Mary Ann
Gruzs, a former beautician who claimed she was fired for
speaking out about asbestos, The Evening Sun reports.

On Sept. 17, 2008, county commissioners agreed to pay Ms. Gruzs
US$100,000.

Ms. Gruzs had filed a federal lawsuit in the Fall of 2007,
seeking compensatory damages in excess of US$350,000, with
interest, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Gruzs said she noticed in May 2005 that the
salon's floor tiles were breaking and becoming discolored. She
said she asked to have the floor repaired but that those
requests went unanswered for nearly a year.

In the suit, Ms. Gruzs believed the tiles contained asbestos
after speaking with a maintenance worker at the Springettsbury
Township facility.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Schmidt OKs Asarco's Plan on Sept. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus
Christi, Tex., on Sept. 23, 2008, approved a plan filed by
Asarco LLC and a competing plan from its Mexican parent company
Grupo Mexico, Reuters reports.

Asarco's plan was sponsored by a US$2.6 billion bid from
Sterlite Industries Ltd.

Asarco said its plan will include a US$1.6 billion cash
settlement, including interest, to federal and state governments
for the pollution and asbestos claims.

The creditors will receive a ballot to vote for or against one
or both plans and then Judge Schmidt will make a final ruling on
the case taking into account the creditors' opinion, a Grupo
Mexico representative told Reuters.

Asarco said that bankruptcy court hearings to officially confirm
the bankruptcy plan will begin the week of Nov. 17, 2008.

Asarco, which owns three copper mines in Arizona, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2005 after it was sued for
more than a US$1 billion in environmental clean-up costs.

Grupo Mexico, which lost control of Asarco's board due to the
bankruptcy, is trying to stop Sterlite's bid for the U.S. miner.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Raises Concern in Wonthaggi Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Locals in Wonthaggi, Victoria, Australia, raised concerns that
asbestos had not been safely removed from a planned desalination
plant site, ABC News reports.

The AUD3 billion sea water sampling plant will be built behind
Williamsons Beach, between Wonthaggi and Kilcunda, in the
state's east.

Gravel and other materials have been removed from a plant site
and dumped an unused pit in Wonthaggi. The waste has not yet
been removed and project opponents fear asbestos dust is blowing
through the town.

Community members say that they have been told by the
Environment Protection Authority that asbestos was found at the
site. They are calling for an investigation into why the
material was not safely removed.

A spokesman from the Department of Environment and
Sustainability says asbestos was found at the site, but has been
properly secured by the drilling contractor. He says WorkSafe
Victoria has inspected the site and no breaches have been found.

The Bass Coast Shire council, however, says the asbestos was
driven through town in uncovered trucks, past hospitals and
schools.

Councilor Gareth Barlow says asbestos has been sitting in an
uncovered quarry at the edge of town for more than a week. He
says it poses a risk to children who could be playing in the
area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Glace Bay, Canada School Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup of asbestos is ongoing at the St. Michael's Junior High
School in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, Canada, The Chronicle Herald
reports.

Paul Oldford, coordinator of facilities for the Cape Breton-
Victoria Regional School Board, said parents of students at the
school should have been told of work involving asbestos at the
school over the weekend.

Several parents were upset when they spotted warning notices
posted on doors of the school.

The notices said the building was closed on Sept. 20, 2008 and
Sept. 21, 2008 as asbestos work was being carried out.

Mr. Oldford said there was a plumbing problem at the school and
asbestos had to be removed from some pipes inside a wall on the
school's second floor.

Mr. Oldford said notes were sent home to parents on Sept. 22,
2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bradley Urges Canadian Gov't. to Ban Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, is urging
Canada's federal and provincial politicians to ban the export of
asbestos, The Observer reports.

Canada still allows firms to ship asbestos to Third World
countries. Mr. Bradley said the issue has been largely ignored
since council passed a resolution in September 2001 urging
senior government to ban the practice.

The issue was first raised by the Occupational Health Clinic for
Ontario Workers, which saw hundreds of local victims of asbestos
exposure.

In a letter to council, Mr. Bradley urges a re-endorsement of
the resolution passed seven years ago. He's copied the letter to
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and all the federal party leaders,
as well as the premiers of Ontario and Quebec.

Mr. Bradley said the practice is allowed to continue because
3,000 to 4,000 jobs in Quebec depend on asbestos mining.

Barb Millitt, chairperson of the Victims of Chemical Valley,
said Canada is taking advantage of Third World workers who are
not protected by regulations that ban asbestos in their own
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Weitz & Luxenberg Informs Public of Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg says that the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that from
1995 to 2005, about 632 people in New York State died due to
asbestosis health problems, according to a Weitz & Luxenberg
press release dated Sept. 18, 2008.

New York had the seventh highest number of asbestosis-related
deaths in America for that time period, with Suffolk County hard
hit by the disease with 74 mortalities; in the New York City
boroughs, asbestosis claimed the lives of 75.

Joseph Patrick Williams, Esq., a trial attorney in the firm's
Asbestos Litigation unit, says, "Weitz & Luxenberg is committed
to helping families whose lives have been ravaged by asbestosis
from New York exposure. These statistics reveal that an alarming
number of people were needlessly exposed to the lethal asbestos
fibers when it could easily have been prevented."

Weitz & Luxenberg is known for spearheading asbestos cases, most
recently achieving a US$16.25 million verdict in June 2008 in an
asbestos lawsuit involving a former dental student who developed
mesothelioma.

The firm's client had been exposed to asbestos dust while making
castings by carving wax replicas of teeth using asbestos-
containing dental tape. The litigation is believed to be the
first successful asbestos verdict against a dental supply
company.

The firm secured a US$37 million asbestos verdict in 2007 in two
lung cancer cases in a reverse bifurcated trial. The firm also
won a US$25 million jury verdict in 2006 in a trial against
DaimlerChrysler AG for a New York City brake reliner who lost
his right lung to mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derelict Building in Basildon Has Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
A derelict building in Basildon, England, had corrugated
asbestos roofing, which was involved in a Sept. 20, 2008 fire,
this is total essex.co.uk reports.

Firefighters were tackling the blaze at a detached outbuilding
on Green Acres Farm, Cranfield Park Road, Burnt Mills, Basildon.
The building was used to store waste fiber glass car moldings.

Control operators received a high number of calls to the fire
and smoke could be seen as far away as the A127.

Crews from Basildon and Hadleigh, wearing breathing apparatus
and using two hose reel jets, took more than an hour and a half
to extinguish the fire.

The cause of the fire has been recorded as accidental.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling to Diaz Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Stanislaus County Superior Court, which favored
John Lee in a case filed by Antonio Alcaraz Diaz.

The case is styled Antonio Alcaraz Diaz, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. John Lee, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Brad R. Hill, Steven M. Vartabedian, and Betty L. Dawson
entered judgment in Case No. F054053 on Aug. 28, 2008.

Mr. Lee is the controlling shareholder and president of Valley
Plaza, Inc., the owner of the Valley Plaza Shopping Center on
Kansas Avenue in Modesto.

On Feb. 21, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a contract complaint. He named
respondent Mr. Lee as defendant and sought US$60,950 in damages,
interest, and attorney fees according to proof. Although the
complaint did not set forth formal causes of action, the
accompanying civil case cover sheet identified causes of action
for auto tort, asbestos property damage, unfair business
practices, breach of contract, inverse condemnation, and
commercial unlawful detainer.

On May 2, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a first amended contract
complaint and again sought US$60,950 in damages, interest, and
attorney fees according to proof. On May 18, 2006, Mr. Lee filed
a motion to dismiss the action for Mr. Diaz's failure to amend
the complaint within the time allowed by the court.

On Aug. 18, 2006, the court filed a formal order granting Mr.
Lee's motion to strike first amended complaint. On Aug. 31,
2006, the court denied Mr. Diaz's motion for change of venue to
San Mateo County.

On Oct. 25, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a second amended complaint
alleging one cause of action for general negligence and praying
for loss of income of about US$60,950 or according to proof.

On Oct. 26, 2006, Mr. Diaz filed a substitution of attorney-
civil to act in propria persona in place and stead of David F.
Anderson, Esq.

On Nov. 13, 2006, Mr. Lee filed an answer generally denying the
allegations of Mr. Diaz's second amended complaint and setting
forth six affirmative defenses. On May 11, 2007, Mr. Diaz filed
a settlement conference statement seeking US$180,000.

On July 9, 2007, Mr. Lee filed a motion for summary judgment
alleging he could not be held personally liable for the conduct
of Valley Plaza and that an underlying fire was caused by arson
and not by Mr. Lee's alleged negligence.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the court granted Mr. Lee's unopposed motion
for summary judgment. On Oct. 15, 2007, the court filed formal
orders granting Mr. Lee's motion to compel responses to
interrogatories and request for sanctions and motion for summary
judgment.

On the same date, the court filed a separate judgment following
order granting summary judgment.

On Oct. 24, 2007, Mr. Diaz filed a timely notice of appeal from
the formal summary judgment.

On Jan. 31, 2008, this court granted Mr. Lee's motion to augment
the record with a supplemental clerk's transcript to include
numerous pleadings in the case that were not included in the
clerk's transcript on appeal.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

Antonio Alcaraz Diaz, represented himself.

Caulfield, Davies & Donahue, James R. Donahue, Esq., and John C.
Adams, Esq., represented John Lee.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Asarco LLC Estimation Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Courtroom Minutes of the Sept. 23, 2008
Hearing, Judge Richard Schmidt has ruled that "estimation issues
can await plan confirmation."

Judge Schmidt, according to Bloomberg News, refused to set up a
court process to determine the size of ASARCO LLC's liabilities
to asbestos victims and government agencies for environmental
clean-up and damages. The request was filed by Asarco
Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation, owner of 100
percent of ASARCO LLC's equity.

ASARCO LLC and its debtor affiliates have requested an
adjournment of the hearing on the Parent's estimation motion to
Sept. 23, 2008, instead of Sept. 19, 2008, to coincide with the
Sept. 23, 2008 hearing on Disclosure Statements explaining the
competing plans of reorganization separately filed by the
Debtors and the Parent.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for ASARCO LLC;
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors; the Future Claimants Representative; the
U.S. Department of Justice; the state of Washington; the state
of Missouri; the state of Arizona; the United Steel Workers
Union; and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company supported the
Debtors' request.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $2.7B Deposit Request in ASARCO Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Schmidt did not approve the request of the
Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants for Asarco Incorporated
and Americas Mining Corporation to post a US$2.7 billion bond
necessary to consummate the Plan of Reorganization they proposed
for ASARCO LLC, Southern Peru Holdings, LLC, and AR Sacaton,
LLC, a Courtroom Minutes of the Sept. 23, 2008 hearing on the
request stated.

Prior to the hearing on the Committee's bond request, the Parent
objected arguing that the bond request was prematurely filed and
is without factual or legal support. The Parent argued that the
Bond Request should be denied because it would be patently
unfair for the Court to apply the Committee's demands solely to
the Parent's Plan and not to the Debtors' Plan.

The glaring unfairness of the Deposit Motion exposes the
Committee's agenda, which is not to protect the Debtors'
estates, but to drive away the Parent, Luc A Despins, Esq., at
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, in New York, told the
Court. The motivation of the Committee, he said, might be driven
by the fact that it has negotiated a recovery for its
constituents under the Debtors' Plan that allows them to receive
an outrageous windfall in the form of uncapped recovery from
certain litigation proceeds.

That windfall, Mr. Despins pointed out, is jeopardized by the
Parent's Plan and therefore the true motive for the filing of
the Deposit Motion is clear.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Moves to Create Solicitation Measure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under an amended proposed solicitation procedures order filed by
ASARCO LLC on Sept. 23, 2008, asbestos counsel who represents
holders of settled asbestos personal injury claims must indicate
the (i) acceptances of the Debtors' Plan or the rejections of
the Debtors' Plan, and (ii) preferences for the Debtors' or the
Parent's Plan.

The amended proposed order also indicates that holder of a claim
or interest may not split his vote for a particular Claim or
Interest. Accordingly, (i) each holder will receive a separate
Ballot for each Claim or Interest held, regardless of whether or
not those Claims or Interests are within the same Class, (ii)
each holder will have a single vote for the Debtors' Plan for
each Claim or Interest held, (iii) the full amount of each Claim
have been deemed to have voted to either to accept or reject the
Debtors' Plan, and (iv) any Ballot that partially rejects and
partially accepts the Debtors' Plan will not be counted.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pacific Freeholds
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the Court to approve a settlement they
negotiated with with Pacific Freeholds allowing Pacific's
asbestos-related property damage claim for US$9,043,375. In
turn, Pacific releases all asbestos-related property damage
claims against the Debtors.

The Debtors intend to pay Pacific in full, in cash without any
deduction or offset of any nature. Payment will be made not
later than 30 days after the Effective Date by:

     -- The Debtors or the reorganized Debtors;

     -- An asbestos trust established under a confirmed plan of
        reorganization for the benefit or treatment of asbestos
        property damage claims; or

     -- Any other person or entity established or designated
        under the Chapter 11 plan to make payments of allowed
        asbestos property damage claims.

Any payment made will be paid to Pacific's counsel at its
address of record and solely in its capacity as Pacific's
counsel. The Counsel will be solely responsible to allocate and
disburse the amount received between the amount due to the
Claimant and the amount.

All pending objections asserted by the Debtors against Pacific's
Claim and any responses made by Pacific will be deemed inactive
and held in suspense without prejudice.

The Debtors will assume full responsibility for any injuries,
damages or losses Pacific may incur as a result of its execution
of the Settlement Agreement.

Except for rights and obligations created by the Settlement
Agreement available to the Debtors, the Debtors jointly release
all claims they may have against Pacific.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Seeks to Settle w/ Pa. Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve a
settlement with the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, which
will resolve the Hospital's asbestos-related property damage
claim for US$113,750.

The Amount will be paid to the Hospital in full and in cash
without any deduction or offset of any nature. It will be paid
not later than 30 days after the effective date of a Chapter 11
plan. All pending objections asserted by the Debtors and any
responses filed by the Hospital will be deemed inactive and held
in suspense, without prejudice.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Settles Univ. of California Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve a
settlement with the University of California in settlement of
the school's asbestos-related property damage claims for US$1
million.

California will be paid in full and in cash without any
deduction, proration, or offset of any nature. Payment will be
made not later than 30 days after the Effective Date by:

     -- The Debtors or the reorganized Debtors;

     -- An asbestos trust established pursuant to a confirmed
        plan of reorganization for the benefit or treatment of
        asbestos property damage claims; or

     -- Any other person or entity established or designated
        under the Chapter 11 plan to make payments of allowed
        asbestos property damage claims.

A schedule of the Settled Claims is available for free at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/CaliforniaClaims.pdf

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Awaits Decision on Jameson Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, W. R. Grace & Co. asked the Court to
approve a settlement agreement with Jameson Memorial Hospital,
which settled the hospital's asbestos property damage claim for
US$172,500.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP,
in Wilmington, Del., relates that as of Sept. 22, 2008, there
are no responses to the Debtors' request.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 165; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paddock Family to Get Compensation in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Ellen Paddock, who died in 2007 after being
exposed to asbestos from a 1983 fire at an Army Depot in
Donnington, Shropshire, England, will get their compensation
from the Ministry of Defence in 2009, BBC News reports.

The family's compensation case is not scheduled for the High
Court until the summer of 2009, two years after Ms. Paddock's
death.

Since Ms. Paddock's death in November 2007 from mesothelioma at
the age of 31, it has emerged that the Army did not do enough to
prevent the fire because changes to their massive storage depot
were ruled out as expensive and inconvenient.

In 1983, Ms. Paddock was seven years old when the blaze covered
her home in Telford in ash. In an interview with BBC's Midlands
Today in July 2007, she was seriously ill and was being treated
for an asbestos-related disease. Ms. Paddock recalled the day
she played for hours in the garden as what she described as
"snowflakes" rained down from the sky.

Ms. Paddock's sister, Sharon Bush, is angry that, despite an
inquest which found that Ms. Paddock's death was a result of the
fire, it could be another year before the family receive
compensation from the MoD.

But if, as the inquest into Ms. Paddock's death concluded,
exposure to asbestos did indeed kill her, others living and
working near the depot at the time of the fire wonder if they
might be affected too.

Medical experts have said it is unlikely a small exposure would
have an effect 25 years later. However, the verdict on asbestos
is not so clear.

Peter Irvine, an asbestos expert for health and safety firm
Tetra Consulting, said, "Everybody is subjected to asbestos
pollution and asbestos products for much of their lives, so we
mustn't take this out of context.

In a statement, the MoD told the BBC it had learned lessons from
the "tragic accident" and that its sympathies remained with Ms.
Paddock's family and friends.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Occidental Petroleum Uses $715T for Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recent disclosure report, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, in the second quarter of 2008, spent US$715,978 to
lobby on trade deals and other issues, including asbestos, The
Associated Press reports.

The Company also lobbied the federal government on legislation
involving railroad antitrust rules, toxic material disclosures,
renewable energies, asbestos and mercury bans, and climate
change.

In the April 2008 to June 2008 period, Occidental lobbied
Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, the departments
of State, Commerce and Energy, and other agencies, according to
the disclosure report filed July 17, 2008 with the House clerk's
office.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Occidental Petroleum Corporation
explores for oil and gas; and produces and makes basic
chemicals, plastics, and petrochemicals. In 2007, the Company
reported proved reserves of 2.9 billion barrels of oil
equivalent in the U.S., the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin
America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois School Board to Pursue Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------
At a Sept. 23, 2008 emergency meeting, the East Maine District
63 School Board took steps to remove asbestos found beneath the
carpeting at Gemini Junior High School in Niles, Ill., the
DesPlaines Times reports.

Trace amounts of asbestos were found in Gemini's carpet glue and
became exposed when cleanup crews on the first floor were
tearing up flood-damaged carpet, District officials said.

District Superintendent Kathleen Williams recommended the school
board vote to end the problem once and for all, as future floods
are likely to re-expose the substance.

Ms. Williams said, "We need to take the time now and take care
of the problem permanently. I think the school will inevitably
flood again. This is the second time since I've been at this
district that Gemini has flooded. If we don't remove it
(asbestos), I think the general public will really question how
safe we want that floor to be."

The board voted unanimously to give Ms. Williams the authority
to meet with experts and draw up a plan to remove the asbestos.

The project's cost is not yet known, but district operations
manager Dan Barrie said state officials have already given the
district verbal approval for financial assistance to pay for the
asbestos removal.

Meanwhile, Gemini students and teachers are scattered at schools
across the district and have had to set up makeshift classrooms
in gymnasiums.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard in Tex. School Raises Health Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos found in Norman Elementary School in Austin, Tex., has
some parents worried that their kids could get sick, CBS 42 News
reports.

However, the school district tells CBS 42 News that parents have
nothing to worry about. Norman Elementary was built almost 40
years ago, when asbestos used as a building material was common.

The Austin Independent School District told CBS 42, as long as
the asbestos is not floating in the air, there is nothing to
worry about.

Norman Elementary campus is not scheduled for asbestos clean up
and parents tell CBS 42 that is alarming.

To comply with the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act,
schools are inspected every three years for health hazards.






                            *********

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  * * *