CAR_Public/081003.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 197

                            Headlines

ALLIANCE PETROLEUM: Sneaky Charge At Pump, Calif. Suit Claims
ARAMARK CORP: Violated State Tipping Laws, Mass. Suit Alleges
FLORIDA: Complaint Filed on Behalf of Disabled Students
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Paxil Suit in Minn. Settled for $40 Million
HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Settles With Bankruptcy Trustee

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certified in PROPULSID-Related Lawsuit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Endo-Mechanical Devices Suits Still Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Several RISPERDAL-Related Suits Still Pending
LITTON LOAN: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Excessive Interest Charges
LUBY'S INC: Texas Judge Refuses to Drop 2007 Tip-Sharing Lawsuit

MERCK & CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicaid Expenditures for Vioxx
MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Class Lawsuit in California
MERCK & CO: New Jersey Court Denies Motion in ERISA Suits MDL
MERCK & CO: N.J. Supreme Court Dismisses "Sinclair" Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: Seeks Review of Certification Ruling in Mo. Lawsuit

MERCK & CO: Several Vioxx Product Liability Suits Still Pending
MF GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
MF GLOBAL LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
OPTIONABLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits in N.Y.
OSB LITIGATION: Settles Five OSB-Related Price-Fixing Lawsuits

PARK CREST: Unfinished Condominium Units Prompt Virgina Lawsuit
PZENA INVESTMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
SC JOHNSON: Windex Label Is 'Greenwash,' Wis. Lawsuit Alleges
WAUKESHA ENGINE: Racial Discrimination Alleged in Wis. Lawsuit


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
OSHKOSH CORP: Brower Piven Files Wisconsin Securities Fraud Suit
QUEST RESOURCE: Howard Smith Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Colo.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohrer Suit v. John Crane Filed on Sept. 22
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues Guidance to Galveston Residents
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flintkote Co. Employees Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Living Near Factories Ups Risks, Study Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 90 Percent of Bedfordshire Schools at Risk

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Junks Padilla Suit v. Pomona
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Appeals Court Rules Against Relators
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Silta Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Facing 161 Pending Cases at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salton Inc. Subsidiary Faces 3 Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kimble's Lawsuit v. 144 Firms Filed in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dibb Pleads Not Guilty in Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Philips Unit to Resolve Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whitby Hospital Cleanup to Cost GBP80,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio EPA to Clean General Industries Site

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Spillman in Exxon Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Johnson Action Filed v. 55 Firms in Madison
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brockovich to Work w/ Law Firm on Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCart to Pay GBP44T Fine for 7 Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Carrier for Dismantling in England

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18 People Exposed to McNeil Island Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Sees Surge of Complaints in Sept. 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blears Lauds "Save Spodden Valley" Campaign
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removed from Hegeman Hall in R.I.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT "Decries" Denial of Payout to Victims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued for Continental Casual
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Facing 31 Pending Claims at Aug. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LADWP Fined $9,030 for Clean Air Act Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Schools Fined $11T for AHERA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC's Second Plan Filed on Sept. 25

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt OKs ASARCO to Extend Loan to $10Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Affirms Approval of Dana Pacts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Klamath to Pay $8,299 for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N. Ireland Suffers to Get GBP10T in Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Cooper Ind. Asbestos Settlement

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hogg to Pay GBP6,500 for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial Against Ex-Hardie Directors Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Launch Awareness Campaign in October
ASBESTOS ALERT: Six Lawsuits Ongoing v. Jaguar Cars, Land Rover



                           *********


ALLIANCE PETROLEUM: Sneaky Charge At Pump, Calif. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Petroleum Corporation is facing a class-action
complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court over allegations
that it defrauded consumers at 1,200 ARCO stations by failing to
reveal that it charged 35 cents extra for debit-card purchases,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs say more than 5 million people have been affected
since 2004.

The plaintiffs demand punitive damages.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kingsley & Kingsley, A Professional Corporation
          City National Bank Building
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-990-8300
          Fax: 818-990-2903
          Web site: http://www.kingsleykingsleylaw.com/


ARAMARK CORP: Violated State Tipping Laws, Mass. Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aramark Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Suffolk County Superior Court alleging it violated the state's
tipping law by adding a 20% service charge to patrons' bills yet
not distributing those payments to the waitstaff, Boston Globe
reports.

According to Boston Globe, the lawsuit is filed by Shannon Liss-
Riordan, Esq., on behalf of banquet workers employed by Aramark
at the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority's two Boston
facilities.  The banquet workers are among the more than 300
food-service workers at the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial
Convention Center and the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center,
who have been at odds with Aramark over the union contract that
expired last October.

The lawsuit could cover hundreds of workers if it receives the
requested class-action certification, the report says.

James E. Rooney, the MCCA's executive director, told Boston
Globe that he had not seen the lawsuit but the authority doesn't
have anything to do with patrons' food service bills, which are
issued by Aramark.  He also said the unionized banquet workers
earn higher wage rates -- ranging from $16 per hour to $40 per
hour -- rather than the minimum wage typically paid to food-
service workers who do collect tips.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Aramark Corp.
(NYSE: RMK) -- http://www.aramark.com/-- is a professional
services organization, providing food services, facilities
management, hospitality services, and uniforms and career
apparel to health care institutions, universities and school
districts, stadiums and arenas, businesses, prisons, senior
living facilities, parks and resorts, correctional institutions,
conference centers, convention centers, and public safety
professionals around the world.  Aramark also has operations in
Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Chile, Germany, Ireland,
Japan, Korea, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom.


FLORIDA: Complaint Filed on Behalf of Disabled Students
-------------------------------------------------------
Three civil rights groups filed a class-action complaint with
the Florida Department of Education in Tallahassee on behalf of
students with mental and emotional disabilities in Hillsborough
County, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services reports.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, NAACP, and the Advocacy Center
for Persons with Disabilities claim the school system violated
the federal rights of disabled students.

The action is on behalf of "all students of the Hillsborough
County public school system with emotional/behavioral
disabilities, or who manifest such behavioral issues, and who
have been or are being, subjected to repeated disciplinary
removals totaling more than 10 school days."

The complaint alleges that six students did not receive services
such as counseling, social work or psychological help that they
were entitled to under federal law.  Instead, students were
subjected to repeated disciplinary measures including more than
10 days of in- and out-of-school suspensions, court referrals,
and undocumented, illegal removals from school, the suit says.

Marlene Sallo, Esq., attorney for the Advocacy Center for
Persons with Disabilities, told McClatchy-Tribune that such
students "are literally pushed out of school" and many end up in
prison.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Paxil Suit in Minn. Settled for $40 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc agreed to pay $40 million to reimburse
health plans that paid for children and adolescents to receive
the antidepressant drug Paxil, pursuant to a settlement approved
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
approved a settlement, Josephine Marcotty writes for the Star
Tribune.

The report states that although Paxil is not approved by the
Food and Drug Administration for use by children, doctors may
prescribe it for them.  Studies have shown that Paxil and other
antidepressants in some instances lead to increased thoughts of
suicide in adolescents.  Last year, the FDA ordered drugmakers
to add a "black box" warning of the drug's risks after parents
and other consumer advocates raised questions about the safety
of antidepressants for those under age 18.

Under the settlement, GSK will pay insurers who paid for a Paxil
prescription for use by a minor between January 1998 and
December 2004.  They may claim a refund of 40% of their actual
cost of the drug prescribed to children and adolescents
diagnosed with a major depression, or 15% of the cost if the
diagnosis was unknown.

According to Paul Dahlberg, Esq. -- an attorney with Meshbesher
& Spence, one of nine law firms involved in the case -- the
settlement resolves the case on behalf of some 42,000 health
plans across the country that paid for the drug.  A third of the
settlement will be paid to the law firms.

If the settlement account is not exhausted, the unclaimed
balance will be donated to nonprofits involved in mental health,
the report notes.

According to the report, the agreement brings to a close the
long-standing class-action litigation against Glaxo, which was
sued for allegedly withholding negative information about the
safety and efficacy of Paxil for teenagers and children.

Based in Middlesex, England, GlaxoSmithKline plc creates and
discovers, develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceutical
products, including vaccines, over-the-counter medicines and
health-related consumer products.


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Settles With Bankruptcy Trustee
------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 1, 2008 -- The Rosen Law Firm disclosed a
settlement with the chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee in connection
with a class action lawsuit pending against HiEnergy
Technologies, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HIET) in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California as case number CV 04-
01226-VBF.

     In October 2004, the suit was filed, on behalf of a class
of persons who acquired the stock of the Company during the
period from February 22, 2002, through July 8, 2004.

     In January 2005, the Company was officially served and has
retained legal counsel to defend it and assert all available
defenses.

     In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a First Amended
Complaint, alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws, generally asserting the same claims involving Philip
Gurian, Barry Alter, and the Company's failure to disclose their
various securities violations including, without limitation,
allegations of fraud (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2005).

     The First Amended Complaint seeks, among other things,
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory
relief.

     The proposed Settlement with HiEnergy's chapter 7
bankruptcy trustee calls for the trustee to assign to the lead
plaintiff the bankruptcy estate's contingent first party rights
against Navigators Insurance Company (Navigators) for that
insurance provider's alleged wrongful refusal to provide defense
and indemnity benefits to HiEnergy under an insuring agreement
with HiEnergy for liability insurance coverage. In return for
such assignment, the Class will release HiEnergy, its officers
and directors and related persons from any liability for claims
related to this action.  In addition, the Class will pay
HiEnergy's bankruptcy estate 25% of the net proceeds obtained by
prosecuting the lawsuit against Navigators to assert HiEnergy's
rights under its liability insurance policy with Navigators.

     Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and an Order of the above Court dated September 26, 2008, that a
hearing will be held on December 15, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. at the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
determine whether the Court should approve a settlement between
the Class and HiEnergy's Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee.

     The suit is "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC
(JTLx)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth Catanzarite, Esq.
          (kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com)
          Jim T. Tice, Esq. (jtice@catanzarite.com)
          Catanzarite Law Offices
          2331 W Lincoln Ave
          Anaheim, CA 92801
          Phone: 714-520-5544

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          Rosen Law Firm
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
          New York, NY 10118
          Phone: 212-686-1060


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Certified in PROPULSID-Related Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has been certified in a purported class-action lawsuit
pending in Canada against Johnson & Johnson in connection with
the heartburn drug PROPULSID.

The class is alleging adverse reactions to the drug, which was
withdrawn from general sale by the company's Janssen
Pharmaceutica, Inc. subsidiary in 2000.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company has more than 250
operating companies.  It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Endo-Mechanical Devices Suits Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson, along with its wholly owned Ethicon and
Ethicon Endo-Surgery subsidiaries, continues to face several
federal lawsuits in California relating to endo-mechanical
devices contracts, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

In late December 2005 and early 2006, three purported class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company and its
wholly-owned units, Ethicon Inc., Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. (Class Action
Reporter, May 19, 2008).  The suits were filed on behalf of
purchasers of endo-mechanical instruments.

The lawsuits challenge suture and endo-mechanical contracts with
Group Purchasing Organizations and hospitals, in which discounts
are predicated on a hospital achieving specified market share
targets for both categories of products.

The lawsuits filed in December 2005 are:

     -- "Delaware Valley Surgical Supply Co., Inc. v. Johnson &
         Johnson et al.;" and

     -- "Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center v. Johnson &
        Johnson, et al."

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company has more than 250
operating companies.  It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Several RISPERDAL-Related Suits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is still facing several purported class-action
lawsuits with regard to the drug RISPERDAL, which is used for
the treatment of schizophrenia.

Currently, there are six cases filed by union health plans
seeking damages for alleged overpayments for RISPERDAL, several
of which seek certification as class actions.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2008.

Johnson & Johnson -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is engaged in the
research and development, manufacture and sale of a range of
products in the healthcare field.  The company has more than 250
operating companies.  It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics.


LITTON LOAN: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Excessive Interest Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Litton Loan Servicing is facing a class-action complaint filed
in Queens County Court, New York, over allegations that it
charged hundreds or thousands of people excessive interest, late
fees and other penalties because it delayed mortgage payoff or
reinstatement reports, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The plaintiffs bring this action for breach of contract, fraud,
violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and violation of NYS
Real Property Law 274-A, on behalf of all present and former
mortgagors or persons with interest in a mortgaged premises, who
requested payoff and/or reinstatement mortgage figures and who
were damaged as a result of defendant's unlawful delay in
supplying the requested information so as to result in the
mortgagors or such persons with financial interest in the
mortgage, to incur additional daily per diem interest,
additional foreclosure attorney's fees, additional escrow
charges and other associated fees.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant breached it's agreement with the
         mortgagors by charging plaintiffs and the class
         unnecessary interest and fees as a result of its own
         failure to timely provide mortgage payoff and
         reinstatement figures;

     (b) whether defendants breached their duty of good faith
         and fair dealing by charging plaintiffs and the class
         unnecessary interest and fees as a result of its own
         failure to timely provide mortgage payoff and
         reinstatement figures;

     (c) whether defendant engaged in fraudulent or unfair and
         deceitful practices by charging plaintiffs and the
         class unnecessary interest and fees as a result of its
         failure to timely provide mortgage payoff and
         reinstatement figures;

     (d) whether the defendant violated New York State Real
         Property Law 274-A by charing plaintiffs and the class
         unnecessary interest and other fees as a result of its
         own failure to timely provide mortgage payoff and
         reinstatement figures;

     (e) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
         as a result of defendant's wrongful conduct;

     (f) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief;

     (g) whether defendants have been unjustly enriched by their
         scheme of charging the mortgagor's additional interest
         and fees stemming from its own failure to timely
         provide either payoff letter and reinstatement
         figures to the mortgagors; and

     (h) whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
         their unlawful practices.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this action as a class action
        pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the CPLR,
        with plaintiff certified as representatives of the
        class;

     -- compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the
        class;

     -- punitive damages on plaintiff's fraud claim, in an
        amount not less than three times the total damages as
        determined at trial;

     -- other damages as prescribed by law, including
        triable damages not in excess of the statutory minimum
        under General Business Law Section 349 and 350;

     -- actual damages incurred as a result of defendant's
        violation of Real Property Law 374-A;

     -- costs and disbursements incurred in connection with
        this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
        expenses;

     -- pre- and post-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Dwarka P. Prasad, et al. v. Litton Loan Servicing,
Index No. 23237-08," filed in Queens County Court, New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jonathan I. Edelstein, Esq.
          271 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-871-0571 x208
          Fax: 212-382-3610


LUBY'S INC: Texas Judge Refuses to Drop 2007 Tip-Sharing Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas denied a request from Luby's Inc. that a 2007
lawsuit over tip-sharing be dropped, Mary Flood reports for the
Houston Chronicle.

The lawsuit is over mandatory tip-sharing between the wait staff
- the folks who ask diners if you need anything like tea or
dessert - and the service attendants who clean off dishes after
the wait staff removes them from the tables.

According to the report, Robert "Bob" Debes, Esq., a Houston
attorney representing 10 wait staff from around the state, said
if they win the lawsuit, his clients could potentially collect,
on a sliding scale, up to $4.42 an hour for each hour they
worked in the last two to three years.  The amount will depend
in part on the prevailing minimum wage.

The report says that the key to the lawsuit will be the
definition of duties and how much the service attendants are
like bus boys, who can legally share in tips.

Ms. Flood writes that if the judge or a jury decides they are
more like kitchen staff, who can't share in tips, the wait staff
could have a big pay day.

Mr. Debes told Houston Chronicle that the next step is for
Luby's to provide a list of waiters and waitresses at Luby's
restaurants around the state in the last few years.  These
people will be contacted and can join this federal wage lawsuit
if they wish, Mr. Debes said.

Luby's lawyer Terrence Robinson, Esq., said the tips were
properly shared.  "This suit attempts to create something out of
nothing.  These guys are bussers, and the tips were properly
divided," he said.

     The suit is "Plewinski v. Luby's Inc., Case Number: 4:2007-
cv-03529," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Judge Samuel B. Kent, presiding.

The plaintiffs' lawyer is:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr.
          Debes Law Firm
          17 South Briar Hollow Ln, Suite 302
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-623-0900
          Fax: 713-623-0951

Representing Luby's is:

          Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
          Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C.
          1700 West Loop South, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: 713-629-1800
          Fax: 713-629-1812


MERCK & CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Medicaid Expenditures for Vioxx
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
containing similar allegations to suits filed by (or on behalf
of) governmental entities that were seeking the reimbursement of
alleged Medicaid expenditures for Vioxx or statutory penalties
tied to such expenditures.

The purported class action was filed by Santa Clara County,
California, on behalf of all similarly situated California
counties.  It has been transferred to the multidistrict
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon, and has not
experienced significant activity to date, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Class Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is facing a purported Vioxx-related class-
action lawsuit that was brought on behalf of California third-
party payors and end-users.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed in California state
court.  It is seeking class certification of California third-
party payors and end-users.

The parties are engaged in class certification discovery and
briefing, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: New Jersey Court Denies Motion in ERISA Suits MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a
Motion for Leave to Supplement the Amended Complaint in several
lawsuits consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
"Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA Litigation
(MDL No. 1658), Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB."

Initially, various putative class-action lawsuits were filed in
federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
against the company and certain current and former officers and
directors.

The suits have been transferred to the multidistrict litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under
the caption "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB," and consolidated
there for all purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of certain
of the company's current and former employees who are
participants in certain of its retirement plans for breach of
fiduciary duty.

On July 11, 2006, Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA
complaint.  In October 2007, the plaintiffs moved for
certification of a class of individuals who were participants in
and beneficiaries of the company's retirement savings plans at
any time between Oct. 1, 1998, and Sept. 30, 2004, and whose
plan accounts included investments in the Merck Common Stock
Fund and Merck common stock.  That motion is pending.

On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to
Supplement the Amended Complaint to add allegations relating to
Vytorin and seeking to add additional defendants, including
Richard T. Clark and additional members of the Board of
Directors.  The court denied the motion in May 2008, according
to the company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Merck & Co., Inc., Securities Derivative and ERISA
Litigation, (MDL No. 1658) Case No. 3:05-cv-01151-SRC-TJB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul B. Brickfield, Esq. (pbrickfield@bricdonlaw.com)
          Brickfield & Donahue
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Phone: 201-488-7707

               - and -

          Irma Lois Bradley-Klein, Esq.
          Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
          650 Poydras St. Suite 2335
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 985-783-6789
          Fax: 985-783-1333

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward Cerasia II, Esq. (ecerasia@proskauer.com)
          Proskauer Rose LLP
          One Newark Center, 18th floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5211
          Phone: 973-274-3200

               - and -

          John N. Poulous, Esq. (poulos@hugheshubbard.com)
          Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
          101 Hudson St. Suite 3601
          Jersey City, NJ 07302-3918
          Phone: 201-536-9220


MERCK & CO: N.J. Supreme Court Dismisses "Sinclair" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed the putative class-action
lawsuit captioned "Sinclair v. Merck," which was filed against
Merck & Co., Inc., claiming an entitlement to medical monitoring
for Vioxx users, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The case was originally filed in December 2004 and sought the
creation of a medical monitoring fund.  It is a purported class-
action suit against Merck & Co., the manufacturer of Vioxx, on
behalf of Vioxx users who had taken the drug for at least six
consecutive weeks (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2007).

The plaintiffs brought claims based on negligence, the New
Jersey Product Liability Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
and breach of warranty.  The plaintiffs did not claim that they
had been injured by taking Vioxx, but rather, alleged that as a
result of "direct and prolonged exposure to Vioxx," they "have
an enhanced risk of sustaining serious, undiagnosed and
unrecognized myocardial infarctions (UMIs) that . . . would
subject them to the risk of further, significant, long-term
cardiovascular harm."

As a remedy, the plaintiffs asked that Merck be ordered to pay
for a medical-screening program to detect UMIs and other "latent
or unrecognized injuries."

Judge Carol E. Higbee of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Atlantic County, dismissed the medical-monitoring claim, finding
that although claims had been recognized in the toxic tort
context, they were not sustainable in the products liability
context.

On Sept. 28, 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate
Division, heard arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal of Judge
Higbee's dismissal of the claim.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the Appellate Division reversed the decision
and remanded the case back to Judge Higbee for further factual
inquiry.

On April 4, 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the
company's petition for review of the Appellate Division's
decision.

The issue was later on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court,
which heard arguments on Oct. 22, 2007.

On June 4, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the
Appellate Division and dismissed the case on the grounds that
the plaintiffs had not alleged that they suffered any physical
injury.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Seeks Review of Certification Ruling in Mo. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is seeking a review of a decision that
certified a class in the lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf
of individual purchasers or users of Vioxx claiming
reimbursement of alleged economic loss.

On June 12, 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of
Missouri plaintiffs, seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket
costs relating to Vioxx.  The plaintiffs do not allege any
personal injuries from taking Vioxx.

The company filed a petition for interlocutory review on
June 23, 2008, according to the company's July 31, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MERCK & CO: Several Vioxx Product Liability Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is still facing several purported class-
action lawsuits, alleging personal injury and economic loss with
respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx, according to the
company's July 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Initially, several individual and putative class-action suits
were filed against the company in state and federal courts.
All such actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

A number of such actions filed in state court are coordinated in
separate coordinated proceedings in state courts in New Jersey,
California and Texas, and the counties of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada.

As of June 30, 2008, the company had been served or was aware
that it had been named as a defendant in approximately 13,750
lawsuits, which include approximately 31,750 plaintiff groups,
alleging personal injuries resulting from the use of Vioxx, and
in approximately 249 putative class actions alleging personal
injuries and economic loss.  All of these actions are
collectively referred to as the "Vioxx Product Liability
Lawsuits."

Of these lawsuits, approximately 9,225 lawsuits representing
approximately 24,000 plaintiff groups are or are slated to be in
the multidistrict litigation and approximately 2,675 lawsuits
representing approximately 2,675 plaintiff groups are included
in a coordinated proceeding in the New Jersey Superior Court
before Judge Carol E. Higbee.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global
research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health.  The company's operations are principally
managed on a products basis and comprises of two business
segments: the Pharmaceutical segment and the Vaccines segment.
The Pharmaceutical segment includes human health pharmaceutical
products marketed either directly or through joint ventures.
Merck sells these human health pharmaceutical products primarily
to drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals, government
agencies and managed health care providers, such as health
maintenance organizations, pharmacy benefit managers and other
institutions.  The Vaccines segment includes human health
vaccine products marketed either directly or through a joint
venture.  These products consist of preventative pediatric,
adolescent and adult vaccines, primarily administered at
physician offices.


MF GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the
IPO are facing a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit in New
York, according to the company's Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Section 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 for
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's risk management and monitoring practices and
procedures.

The five purported shareholder class-actions have been
consolidated for all purposes into a single action.

The consolidated suit is "Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case
No. 1:08-cv-02233-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          (racocelli@weisslurie.com)
          Weiss & Lurie
          The Fred French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10176
          Phone: 212-682-3025
          Fax: 212-682-3010

               - and -

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

Representing the defendants are:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000

               - and -

          David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com)
          Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
          333 Main St.
          New York, NY 10504
          Phone: 212-446-2310
          Fax: 212-446-2350


MF GLOBAL LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Ltd. and certain of the company's executive officers
and directors have been named as defendants in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

This action, which purports to be brought as a class-action suit
on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between March 17,
2008 and June 20, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under
Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the
company's financial results and projections and capital
structure.

MF Global Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a broker of
exchange-listed futures and options.  It provides execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded and over-the-counter
(OTC), derivative products, as well as for non-derivative
foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market.  It
provides its clients with access to many of the financial
markets worldwide.  MF Global provides its clients with three
primary types of products: exchange-traded derivatives, OTC
derivatives and cash products.  It provides these services
through dedicated broker teams focused on particular markets.


OPTIONABLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Lawsuits in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Optionable, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable Securities
Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," which is pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  They
are:

      -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
         Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
         Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

      -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
         and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some
of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

The directors and officers of the company that were named as
defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors;

   * Albert Helmig, a member of the Board of Directors during
     the relevant time period; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel,
Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV-
3753 (LAK)."

By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD
Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to
disclose certain information in public filings and statements,
made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading
at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares
of common stock of the company.

On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions
were opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants
to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the
plaintiffs' oppositions.  Thus, in April 2008, the company filed
its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss
the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint
reply memorandum of the same.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 13, 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 Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, 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 -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


OSB LITIGATION: Settles Five OSB-Related Price-Fixing Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BOSTON, Oct. 1, 2008 -- A federal District Court in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted preliminary
approval to five class action settlements on behalf of persons
and entities who, as end users, indirectly purchased for their
own use, and not for resale, new Oriented Strand Board ("OSB")
manufactured and sold by one or more of the following
manufacturers in the United States from June 1, 2002 through
August 4, 2008:

     -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. ("LP"),
     -- Weyerhaeuser Company ("Weyerhaeuser"),
     -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp. ("GP"),
     -- Potlatch Corp. ("Potlatch"),
     -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. ("Ainsworth"),
     -- Norbord Industries Inc. ("Norbord"),
     -- Tolko Industries, Ltd. ("Tolko"), and
     -- J.M. Huber Corp. and
     -- Huber Engineered Woods LLC ("Huber")

(collectively the "Defendant Manufacturers").

     Defendant Manufacturers LP, Weyerhaeuser, Potlatch, Norbord
and Tolko recently entered into settlements that were
preliminarily approved by the Court.  The Court had previously
granted final approval to settlements with GP, Ainsworth and
Huber. Each of the Defendant Manufacturers denies any wrongdoing
in the case.

     Further details regarding settlement can be found at:
http://www.OSBnotice.com/


PARK CREST: Unfinished Condominium Units Prompt Virgina Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park Crest Building 4 Associates is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia alleging it failed to complete condos and
refused to refund down payments, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

According to the complaint, Park Crest Building 4 Associates,
LLC, marketed the units in the Park Crest condominium complex
using many means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce
and the U.S. Mails and is therefore the project has always been
subject to the provisions of Interstate Land Sales Full
Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1701, et sec. (ILSA).

Park Crest Building 4 Associates, LLC, claims that the sales of
units in Park Crest condominium complex are exempt from certain
provisions of 1LSA, and for that reason this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, the complaint
states.

The lack of such an exemption, and therefore the existence of
jurisdiction in this Court, will therefore be set forth
here, to show jurisdiction.  Because documents are attached to
this Complaint, some provisions of which are not binding on
Plaintiffs, some explanation of those will be included.

The Contract for the purchase of the majority of the units in
Park Crest condominium complex provided for settlement within 24
months of a date later than the date of execution of the
contract by the purchaser.  The purchase contracts for all other
units in the project provided for settlement within 36 months of
a date described in those contracts.

Park Crest Building 4 Associates, LLC. claims exemption from the
Act for contracts referring to a settlement within 24 months
such as the contract of the plaintiffs, based upon a provision
in the Act that is called the "two year rule."

The plaintiffs request that the Court:

     a. take jurisdiction of this cause and make the Defendants
        and any other necessary persons parties defendant.

     b. enter its declaratory judgment declaring that the
        Contracts entered into by the named Plaintiffs and the
        remainder of the class were obtained in violation of
        ILSA and by reason of violation of the Virginia Property
        Owners Association Act and are void.

     c. enter its order requiring Defendant Park Crest Building
        4 Associates, LLC to pay Plaintiffs and the members of
        the class the amount of money .hat was deposited by each
        such purchaser, without deduction, together with all
        interest earned on each such deposit and requiring the
        Defendant to pay the costs and reasonable attorney fees
        of Plaintiffs and the class for bringing and prosecuting
        this action to a conclusion

     d. enjoining Defendant Park Crest Building 4 Associates,
        LLC from initiating or prosecuting any suit against any
        named Plaintiff or any member of the Class, except by
        way of a counterclaim in this case.

     e. award to Plaintiffs and the Class its judgment under
        Count One against Defendants Park Crest Building 4
        Associates, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of
        the compensatory and consequential damages proven at
        trial to have been proximately caused to Plaintiffs and
        the Class by the violations complained of herein, not
        less than $100,000.00 for each Plaintiff, together with
        the costs incurred and their attorney fees.

     f. award to Plaintiffs and the Class its judgment under
        Count Two against Defendants Park Crest Building 4
        Associates, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of
        the compensatory and consequential damages proven at
        trial to have been proximately caused to Plaintiffs and
        the Class by the violations complained of in Count Two
        together with the costs incurred in bringing this suit.

     g. award to Plaintiffs and the Class its judgment under
        Count Three against Defendants Park Crest Building 4
        Associates, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of
        the compensatory and consequential damages proven at
        trial to have been proximately caused to Plaintiffs and
        the Class by the violations complained of in Count two
        together with the costs incurred in bringing this suit
        and their reasonable attorney fees.

The suit is "Cook, et al. v. Park Crest Building 4 Associates,
LLC, Case Number: 1:2008cv01018," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie M.
Brinkema, presiding, with referral to Magistrate Judge Ivan D.
Davis.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry St. John Fitzgerald, Esq. (hstjfl@aol.com)
          2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 800
          Arlington, VA 2220
          Phone: 703-525-8753
          Fax: 703-525-2489


PZENA INVESTMENT: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pzena Investment Management, Inc., is still facing a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 21, 2007, and Jan. 16, 2008, substantively identical
putative class-action suits were commenced against the company
and Richard S. Pzena, its chief executive officer, seeking
remedies under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed co-lead
plaintiffs who filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the
company, Mr. Pzena, and two of the underwriters of the company's
initial public offering -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and UBS
Securities LLC.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Class A common stock issued
pursuant or traceable to the company's IPO.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus relating to the IPO of the company's
Class A common stock contained material misstatements and
omissions and wrongfully failed to disclose net redemptions in
the John Hancock Classic Value Fund for which the company acts
as sub-investment advisor.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount including rescission or rescissory damages.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Lowinger v. Pzena Investment Management, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10524-AKH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

               - and -

          Catherine A. Torell, Esq. (ctorell@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          150 East 52nd Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-838-7797
          Fax: 212-838-7745

Representing the defendants are:

          Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq. (bpolovoy@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4000
          Fax: 212-848-7179

               - and -

          Eric Foster Leon, Esq. (eleon@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          153 East 53rd Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-446-4731
          Fax: 212-446-4900


SC JOHNSON: Windex Label Is 'Greenwash,' Wis. Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SC Johnson & Son Inc., which makes Windex, is facing a class-
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging it deceptively labels it
with a "Greenlist" logo that touts its "environmentally
responsible ingredients," CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a proposed class action against SC Johnson for
misleading consumers about the environmental safety of its
leading household cleaning product Windex.

The plaintiffs say SC Johnson made up the "Greenlist" itself,
and the product is not friendly at all, but contains a chemical
that could kill children or animals if they drink it.

The plaintiffs say Windex contains ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether,
which is particularly dangerous to little kids and animals
because it's sweet.

"The type of deception engaged in by defendant here is become so
rampant that the term 'Greenwash' has been coined to describe
this type of conduct," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a nationwide class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of all persons who purchased any Windex product bearing
the Greenlist label during the period Jan. 16, 2008, to the
present.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the defendant labeled, marketed, advertised and
         sold its Windex products to plaintiff and those
         similarly situated using false, misleading and
         deceptive statements or representations, including
         statements or representations concerning the
         environmental soundness of Windex;

     (b) whether the defendant misrepresented material facts in
         connection with the sales of its Windex products;

     (c) whether the defendant participated in and pursued the
         common course of conduct complained of;

     (d) whether the defendant's labeling, marketing,
         advertising and selling of its Windex products with a
         Greenlist label constitutes an unfair or deceptive
         consumer sales practice; and

     (e) whether the defendant was unjustly enriched.

The plaintiffs request for judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to FRCP 23 of a class of all persons who
        purchased Windex products bearing the Greenlist label
        during the class period and appointing named plaintiff
        as representative of the class and his counsel as class
        counsel;

     -- awarding the members of the class compensatory damages
        in an amount in excess of $5 million and all monetary
        relief referenced in the complaint;

     -- ordering defendant to pay restitution to plaintiffs and
        members of the class an amount that is the equivalent of
        the amount acquired by means of any unfair, deceptive,
        fraudulent, unconscionable, or negligent act as
        referenced in the complaint;

     -- ordering defendant to disgorge any ill-gotten benefits
        received from plaintiff and members of the class as a
        result of defendant's false, deceptive or misleading
        labeling, marketing and advertising of its Windex
        Greenlist labeled products;

     -- awarding reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;

     -- awarding applicable pre-jdugment or post-judgment
        interest; and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Howard Petlack, et al. v. SC Johnson & Son, Inc.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00820-CNC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Reese Richman LLP
          875 Sixth Avenue, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212-579-4625
          Fax: 212-253-4272


WAUKESHA ENGINE: Racial Discrimination Alleged in Wis. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Oct. 1, 2008 -- Seven African-American plaintiffs filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin against a Waukesha Engines, alleging the
firm engaged in racial discrimination.

     The employees sued Waukesha Engine, which employs about
1,000 people, and its corporate parent, Texas-based Dresser
Inc., the lawsuit says.

     The lead plaintiff, Derrick Reed, alleges he was denied
employment last year because of his race. He first filed a
complaint with U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

     Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are current or former
employees who allege they were not treated the same as white
employees because of their race.

     They are Khaleelal Ali, Christopher Boyd, Corey Dainty,
Herman Davis, Valerie Langston and Gary Roundtree.

     The 31-page complaint alleges that only 1% to 2% of the
plant's work force is African-American, despite drawing from a
much more diverse work force pool.

     The plant operates several all-white departments, and no
African-American women have ever been assigned to the assembly
area.

     The company refuses to implement diversity and cultural
sensitivity training.

     Mr. Dainty was the first-ever African-American supervisor
at the plant but said he was denied promotion, management
support and pay increases based on his race.

The suit is "Reed et al. v. Waukesha Engines and Dresser Inc.,
Case Number: 2:2008cv00818," filed in the U.S. District Cort for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman,
presiding.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Maryland, Oct. 1, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce on the New York Stock Exchange, and
all U.S. purchasers of the securities of CIBC  during the period
between May 31, 2007, and May 28, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges CIBC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     The complaint alleges that the statements contained in
CIBC's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls and
presentations during the Class Period failed to disclose that
the Company did not make timely disclosure of material changes
affecting the valuation of its investments in collateralized
debt obligations consisting of U.S. subprime mortgages, in
violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"), that the Company's hedged subprime exposure was nearly
four times larger than its unhedged subprime exposure, and that
35% of the Company's hedged subprime exposure was entrusted with
a substantially undercapitalized financial guarantor.

     The complaint further alleges that on December 6, 2007,
CIBC released fourth quarter results revealing a large exposure
to the troubled U.S. housing market, that its write-downs had
already reached $1 billion, and that there was a risk of
significantly higher losses related to hedged exposure to the
subprime mortgage and CDO market.  The complaint also alleges
that this news caused the value of the Company's shares to
decline significantly.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Md., Oct. 1, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
NextWave Wireless Inc. during the period between March 30, 2007,
and August 7, 2008, inclusive.

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

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results.

     According to the complaint, the defendants concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period:

     -- that NextWave did not have adequate sources of liquidity
        to continue operations as it executed its growth
        strategy and continued making aggressive worldwide
        acquisitions;

     -- that defendants had no reasonable basis to make
        favorable statements that the Company's WiMAX
        semiconductor products would be available for commercial
        sale in the first half of 2008;

     -- that NextWave did not have the financial resources to
        continue to operate its world-wide operations through
        the end of 2008;

     -- that the Company had invested all of its marketable
        securities in extremely high-risk and illiquid auction
        rate securities; and

     -- that the Company's ability to continue as a going
        concern was seriously in question.

     The complaint further alleges that on August 7, 2008,
announced it only had $71.1 million in cash and similar
instruments available as of June 30, 2008, that would last only
until the beginning of October 2008.  As a result of the
foregoing announcement, the value of the Company's shares
declined significantly.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Maryland, Oct. 1, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation discloses that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Novatel Wireless, Inc., during the period
between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008, inclusive.

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

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was recognizing
revenue in violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the
Company's publicly reported financial results materially false.

     The complaint further alleges that defendants also
misrepresented the status of an internal accounting review by
the Company's Audit Committee and that on May 13, 2008,
defendants indicated that the Company was unable to file its
Form 10-Q with the SEC on time because of a review of a single
customer contract which they represented was substantially
completed when, in fact, on August 19, 2008, the defendants
admitted that the review was still ongoing, that it involved at
least six transactions representing $9.1 million in revenue, and
that when the review was completed a decision would be made as
to whether a restatement would be required.  The complaint goes
on to allege that as a result of the foregoing, the value of the
Company's shares declined substantially.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


OSHKOSH CORP: Brower Piven Files Wisconsin Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Maryland, Oct. 1, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Oshkosh
Corporation during the period between November 1, 2007, and
June 25, 2008, inclusive.

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

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby
inflating the price of Oshkosh's common stock, by publicly
issuing materially false and misleading statements and omitting
to disclose material facts necessary to make defendants'
statements not false and misleading.

     As alleged in the complaint, the Company failed to disclose
during the Class Period that synergies related to Oshkosh's
European facility rationalization program for its refuse
business, the Geesink Norba Group, were lower and the cost of
such rationalization was higher than represented; that the value
of Oshkosh's European refuse business was overstated and should
have been written down; that Oshkosh's JLG access-equipment
division was experiencing a dramatic decrease in demand; and
that Oshkosh lacked any reasonable basis to maintain its
financial guidance for fiscal 2008.

     The complaint further alleges that on June 26, 2008,
Oshkosh announced that it was revising downwards estimates for
its third quarter and full fiscal 2008 financial results after
which announcement the value of the Company's shares declined
significantly.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

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


QUEST RESOURCE: Howard Smith Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Oct. 1, 2008 -- Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, representing investors of Quest Resource Corporation and
Quest Energy Partners, L.P., has filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the common units
of Quest Energy Partners L.P. pursuant and traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering (the
"IPO") on November 7, 2007, through August 25, 2008, and on
behalf all persons who purchased the securities of Quest
Resource Corporation (Nasdaq:QRCP) between May 2, 2005, and
August 25, 2008.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

     The Complaint charges Quest Energy and its parent company,
Quest Resource, among others, with violations of federal
securities laws.  Quest Resource is engaged in the exploration,
development, production and transportation of natural gas.
Quest Energy is the gas and oil production operation arm of
Quest Resource and engages in the acquisition, exploitation and
development of oil and natural gas properties.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Quest Resource's and Quest Energy's
business and operations were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose that the related party transactions, which existed at
the time of Quest Energy's IPO, between Quest Energy and
Rockport Energy -- an entity controlled by Quest Energy's chief
executive officer -- in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and SEC regulations.  These failures by
defendants caused Quest Resource's disclosures on related party
transactions to be materially incomplete and false.

     On August 25, 2008, the Company announced, among other
things, the resignation of its CEO, Jerry Cash, the formation of
a Joint Special Committee to conduct an investigation of
improper transfers of Company funds by Cash to Rockport Energy,
and an inquiry launched by the Oklahoma Department of Securities
in connection with the improper transfers.

     This announcement shocked the market and caused the
Company's stock to fall $2.05 per share, or nearly 30%, to $4.88
per share on August 25, 2008.

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

For more information, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215-638-4847
          Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
          e-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in Colo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, Md., Oct. 1, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of The
Spectranetics Corporation during the period between April 19,
2007, and September 4, 2008, inclusive.

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

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was improperly
promoting its own products and the products of third parties,
was improperly compensating personnel and was receiving parts
from an international source in violation of customs laws.

     The complaint further alleges that on September 4, 2008,
the Company announced that it had been served by the Food and
Drug Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
with a search warrant issued by the United States District
Court, District of Colorado requesting information and
correspondence relating to the promotion, use, testing,
marketing and sales of certain of the Company's products, among
other things.  The complaint goes on to allege that as a result
of this disclosure, the value of the Company's shares declined
substantially.

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

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohrer Suit v. John Crane Filed on Sept. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Rohrer, on behalf of James B. Rohrer, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against John Crane Inc. in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., on Sept. 22, 2008, The Madison St. Clair
Record reports.

Mrs. Rohrer, of California, claims that her husband was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on Sept. 2, 2007 and died on Nov.
12, 2007, according to the lawsuit.

According to the suit, Mrs. Rohrer says her husband worked in a
naval shipyard for 30 years. She says Mr. Rohrer's exposure was
foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.
She claims his disease was caused after he was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

Mrs. Rohrer alleges the mesothelioma caused the couple to incur
substantial medical costs. Mr. Rohrer also experienced great
physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the disease,
Mrs. Rohrer claims in the suit.

In the seven-count lawsuit, Mrs. Rohrer seeks sums in excess of
US$200,000, unspecified economic damages and compensatory
damages in excess of US$150,000.

Mrs. Rohrer also seeks punitive damages in an amount sufficient
to punish John Crane for its misconduct and to deter similarly
situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the
future.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian & Associates in Alton,
Ill., represents Mrs. Rohrer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Issues Guidance to Galveston Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a press release dated Sept. 23, 2008, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency gave water precautions to residents returning
to Galveston, Tex.

Before drinking, cooking or brushing teeth, the EPA recommends
that:

     -- If possible, use bottled water that hasn't been exposed
        to floodwaters;

     -- If none is available, boil water. For cloudy water,
        filter with a cloth; draw off the clear water and boil
        for one minute. Then store in a clean container with a
        cover;

     -- If you can't boil water, add 1/8 of a teaspoon of
        household bleach for each gallon of water. Stir well,
        and let it stand 30 minutes before using.

     -- Pay attention to local authorities, who will announce
        when it is safe to use and drink water or flush
        toilets.

EPA has several recorded public service announcements (PSAs)
offering safety tips on how to safely operate a generator, how
to properly use household cleaners, how to handle and dispose of
hazardous materials, and how to safely deal with asbestos and
mold, among other useful information.

To listen to these PSAs or to learn more information on how to
respond to disasters, please visit http://www.epa.gov/hurricane.

For more information about EPA, go to
http://www.epa.gov/region6.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flintkote Co. Employees Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a report from the federal Agency for Toxic
Substance and Disease Registry, employees of Flintkote Co. in
Fremont, Calif., were exposed to low levels of asbestos between
1967 and 1979, The Argus reports.

The ATSDR urges these employees to inform them about potential
impacts they may have experienced from asbestos exposure. Former
workers and their family members may contact Maria Teran-
MacIver, the ATSDR's communication specialist, at 770-488-0720.

The report also said that those who lived with Flintkote workers
during those 12 years also were at risk because employees could
have carried asbestos fibers home in their hair or clothing.

The Company went bankrupt in 2004 because of asbestos-related
lawsuits. The former Flintkote site, at 27975 Shinn St., now is
owned by United States Gypsum as a reloading and distribution
center, according to the report.

It also is possible that between 1967 and 1979, dust and
asbestos fibers were released into the air within a few blocks
of the facility.

Cancer records and death certificate information for the
neighborhood reviewed by state health officials showed
"scattered evidence" that the number of deaths associated with
asbestos exposure is higher than expected.

However, these record reviews are an imperfect tool for
determining whether asbestos from the facility made people sick,
according to the report.

The 50-page report is available at the Fremont Main Library,
2400 Stevenson Blvd., and online at
www.ehib.org/cma/projects/FlintkoteATSDRRelease.pdf.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Living Near Factories Ups Risks, Study Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
An American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
study published on Sept. 15, 2008 suggests that people who have
ever lived near an asbestos-manufacturing facility may have an
elevated risk of mesothelioma, Reuters reports.

In the study, Japanese researchers found higher-than-expected
death rates from mesothelioma among people who had lived near a
now-closed asbestos cement pipe plant between 1957 and 1975.

The risk steadily declined as residents' distance from the plant
increased, with elevated mesothelioma rates seen among people
living up to roughly 1.5 miles downwind of the plant.

According to Dr. Norio Kurumatani and Dr. Shinji Kumagal,
residents who died of mesothelioma had developed symptoms of the
disease an average of 43 years after their first year living
near the plant.

The researchers based their findings on 35 men and 38 women who
had lived near the asbestos pipe plant between 1957 and 1975 and
died of mesothelioma sometime between 1995 and 2006. None had
any occupational exposure to asbestos.

The greatest risk was seen among men and women living within 300
meters of the plant. The death rate among women was 41 times the
expected rate, while the rate among men was 14 times the
expected figure.

According to Dr. Kurumatani and Dr. Kumagal, the findings
strongly support exposure to the asbestos plant as the cause of
these mesothelioma cases.

The researchers note that in 2006, Kubota Corporation, which ran
the plant before it closed, established a compensation fund for
people who developed asbestos-related diseases after having
lived within a kilometer (1.6 miles) of the site during the time
it used asbestos.

Dr. Kurumatani is at the Nara Medical University School of
Medicine in Kashihara, and Dr. Kumagal is affiliated with the
Osaka Prefecture Institute of Public Health in Osaka.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 90 Percent of Bedfordshire Schools at Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers say that asbestos fibers are still present in almost 90
percent of Bedfordshire, England's schools, Bedford Today
reports.

Asbestos was used in building materials until the late 1990s and
is still present in 192 of Bedfordshire's 220 schools.

Parents and teachers are now urging the all-party parliamentary
sub-committee on asbestos, and local authorities, to remove the
dangerous material.

A spokesman for The Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
said, "Putting a drawing pin into a classroom wall or slamming a
classroom door could be enough to sign a death warrant."

More than 100 teachers, nursery staff and education sector
workers in the United Kingdom died from mesothelioma between
2001 and 2005.

A report by the Government's Health and Safety Executive found a
further 179 teachers in the United Kingdom died of mesothelioma
between 1980 and 2000. The number of people dying from the
disease each year has almost doubled since 1992.

Tim Chapel, Bedfordshire County Council's head of property, said
the asbestos in Bedfordshire's schools was not at a dangerous
level, but admitted there have been recent cases of people dying
after having been exposed to asbestos as a child.

Richard Cooper, a spokesman for Bedford Hospital, confirmed
there was asbestos at Bedford Hospital. He said, "A number of
buildings at Bedford Hospital contain asbestos which is well
managed and closely monitored in line with the 'Control of
Asbestos Regulations' (Health & Safety Executive, 2006)."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Junks Padilla Suit v. Pomona
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California,
upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
which granted summary judgment in favor of Pomona College and
Gordon & Williams General Contractor, Inc., in a lawsuit filed
by Antonio Padilla.

The case is styled Antonio Padilla, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
Pomona College et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Justices Laurie D. Zelon, Dennis M. Perluss, and Frank Y.
Jackson entered judgment in Case No. B195724 on Sept. 3, 2008.

Pomona hired Gordon & Williams to remodel a dormitory on its
college campus. Their summary judgment motion asserted that
Gordon & Williams subcontracted with TEG/LVI, Mr. Padilla's
employer, for the demolition of water pipes in the basement of
the dormitory.

During the demolition, Mr. Padilla stood on a ladder to demolish
an unpressurized cast-iron metal pipe. A portion of that pipe
came loose and fell, striking a pressurized PVC pipe and
breaking it.

Mr. Padilla was knocked off his ladder by the gusher of water
erupting from the broken PVC pipe and sustained serious physical
injuries. The parties do not dispute that the PVC pipe was not
to be demolished.

Mr. Padilla's complaint asserted two theories, negligence and
premises liability. He alleged that defendants violated their
common law and statutory duties to ensure that there was no
water pressure in the pipes in the area Mr. Padilla was working.

Pomona and Gordon & Williams moved for summary judgment. They
also moved for summary adjudication of four issues.

Pomona and Gordon & Williams presented evidence that it was
TEG/LVI's contractual duty to demolish pipes, asbestos, lead,
and drywall, and TEG/LVI agreed to protect items that remained
in the employees' work area.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Padilla was using TEG/LVI tools
and equipment, and was directed in his work by his TEG/LVI
supervisor, Armando Takata, who according to defendant's
evidence, identified to Mr. Padilla that the PVC pipe was one of
the pipes that had been left pressurized.

Mr. Padilla was covered by workers' compensation insurance, and
has received benefits from TEG/LVI's insurance carrier. Mr.
Padilla opposed the motion.

The trial court granted defendants' motion on the basis that
defendants had fully delegated the task of providing a safe work
environment to TEG/LVI and they did not exercise any retained
control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to Mr.
Padilla's injuries.

The Appeals Court affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court.

Gordon, Edelstein, Krepack, Grant, Felton & Goldstein (Roger L.
Gordon, Esq., Vincent F. Bennett, Esq., and Noah Green, Esq.)
represented Anthony Padilla.

Horvitz & Levy (Stephen E. Norris, Esq., Curt C. Cutting, Esq.,
Peder K. Batalden, Esq.), Cozen O'Connor, Esq., and Huey P.
Cotton, Esq., represented Pomona College and Gordon & Williams
General Contractor, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Appeals Court Rules Against Relators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (First District) ruled
against the relators (Ardyce Hutson, Jeanne C. Poisson, Jesse
Reddick, Doylon Washington, and Gregory Hunter) in an asbestos-
related lawsuit.

Justices Tim Taft, Evelyn Keyes, and Jane Bland entered judgment
in Case No. 01-08-00476-CV on Aug. 27, 2008.

Relators' underlying cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes under the order of the Multi-District Litigation Panel
in Asbestos Litigation, Cause No.2004-03964, in the 11th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Tex.

By petition for writ of mandamus, Ms. Hutson, Ms. Poisson, Mr.
Reddick, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Hunter challenged the trial
court's April 18, 2008 multi-district litigation pre-trial order
that required separate trials before separate juries in certain
asbestos cases on the issue of statute of limitations.

The Appeals Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus as to
Ms. Hutson, Mr. Reddick, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Hunter.

The Appeals Court dismissed the petition of Ms. Poisson,
individually and as personal representative of the heirs and
estate of Sandra Mae Conrad, as moot, as the claims in that
cause have been resolved.

The Appeals Court lifted its stay order of June 12, 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Silta Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, issued split
rulings in a lawsuit filed by M.M. Silta, Inc. against
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries.

The case is styled M.M. Silta, Inc., Plaintiff v. Cleveland-
Cliffs, Inc., et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis entered judgment in Civil
No. 06-3268 on June 21, 2008.

This matter is before the Court upon Silta's motion to amend the
judgment and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., Cliffs Mining Company,
Cliffs Erie, L.L.C. and John Does 1 through 5's ("Cliffs")
motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial or
remittitur.

Silta sued Cliffs, alleging Cliffs breached two contracts
involving the reclamation of pellets and electrical breakers
located at the LTV taconite mine in Hoyt Lakes, Minn.

The jury found in Silta's favor as to its claim that Cliffs
breached the Breaker Sales Agreement and awarded Silta
US$6,820,000 in damages, US$27,500 per breaker.

At trial, Silta had presented evidence as to the fair market
resale value of the breakers, and the jury presumably accepted
Silta's valuation. Cliffs moves for judgment as a matter of law
or in the alternative for a new trial on the basis that the
value of the breakers had to be based on their salvage value,
not their resale value.

Cliffs also moves for a new trial arguing that the verdict is
against the great weight of the evidence.

Cliffs further argued that a new trial may be granted on the
grounds that the jury's verdict is excessive if the court finds
the verdict is a "plain injustice," "monstrous" or "shocking."

In the alternative, Cliffs asked the Court to order remittitur.
Cliffs requested the Court order conditional remittitur in the
amount of US$124,000. Such amount was supported by the testimony
of Mark Sutich, that the reasonable salvage value of the
breakers was a maximum of US$500 each.

Judge Davis held that:

     -- Cleveland-Cliffs any did not waive its right to move
        for judgment as a matter of law on basis that damages
        award was based on speculative evidence;

     -- Fair market value of asbestos-containing breakers in
        taconite mine was issue for jury;

     -- Breaker sales agreement was not unconscionable;

     -- Jury verdict 2,750 times the purchase price was not
        excessive;

     -- Jury verdict was not against the great weight of the
        evidence;

     -- New trial on issue of damages was not warranted; and

     -- District Court's error, if any, in instructing jury was
        harmless.

The District Court ordered that Silta's Motion to Amend the
Judgment [Doc. No. 107] was granted. The Court also ruled that
Cliffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the
Alternative a New Trial or Remittitur [Doc. No. 114] was granted
to the extent that the judgment be entered against Cliffs Erie,
LLC only, and denied in all other respects.

Kyle E. Hart, Esq., and Kristine Kroenke, Esq., of Fabyanske,
Westra, Hart and Thomson, P.A., represented M.M. Silta, Inc.

Robin C. Merritt, Esq., and Hanft Fride, a Professional
Association, represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Facing 161 Pending Cases at Aug. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 161 asbestos-related cases as of Aug. 31,
2008 and 160 cases as of Nov. 30, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 26, 2008.

The Company faced 167 pending asbestos-related claims in the six
months ended May 31, 2008, compared with 160 claims in the year
ended Nov. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2008)

The Company continues to be a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building
materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. Most of
these cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill., and San
Francisco.

During the nine months ended Aug. 31, 2008, the Company noted 28
claims filed, 22 claims dismissed, and five claims settled. The
aggregate settlement costs were US$246,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$49,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company noted 57 claims
filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled. The
aggregate settlement costs were US$72,000 and the average
settlement costs were US$9,000.

Headquartered in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc.
manufactures aerospace and defense products and systems with a
real estate segment that includes activities related to the re-
zoning, entitlement, sale, and leasing of the Company's excess
real estate assets. The Company's continuing operations are
organized into two segments: Aerospace and Defense and Real
Estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Salton Inc. Subsidiary Faces 3 Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc.'s subsidiary, Applica Incorporated, faces three
asbestos lawsuits in which the plaintiffs have alleged injury as
the result of exposure to asbestos in hair dryers distributed by
Applica over 20 years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers sold by it before 1979. There are
numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of whom
actually manufactured asbestos containing products.

On Dec. 28, 2007, the Company's stockholders approved all
matters necessary for the merger of SFP Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of the Company, with and into APN
Holding Company, Inc, the parent of Applica.

As a result of the merger, APN Holdco became a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company. The merger was consummated under an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of Oct. 1, 2007 by and
among the Company, Merger Sub and APN Holdco.

Headquartered in Miramar, Fla., Salton, Inc. markets and
distributes branded small kitchen and home appliances, pet and
pest products, water products and personal care products. Brand
names include Black & Decker, George Foreman, Russell Hobbs,
Toastmaster, LitterMaid, and Faberware.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kimble's Lawsuit v. 144 Firms Filed in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Lee Kimble, on Sept. 23, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 144 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In the suit, Ms. Kimble, a Michigan resident, claims she was
diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 21, 2008.

According to the suit, Ms. Kimble says she worked as a laborer
at Seward Luggage in 1973, as a laborer at Hush Puppies Shoe
Factory in 1976, as a laborer at various location in 1978 and
worked from 1978 until 2006 as an assembler at Electrolux.

Ms. Kimble says she was also exposed to asbestos fibers from
1966 until 1971 at her mother's house while various remodeling
work was done. In addition, her father worked on tractor
clutches and installed a roof while Ms. Kimble was living at
home, the suit states.

In the 10-count lawsuit, Ms. Kimble seeks 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 and
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, plus costs of the
suit.

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

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Kimble.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dibb Pleads Not Guilty in Exposure Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westonzoyland Primary School's head teacher, David Dibb, on
Sept. 24, 2008, pleaded not guilty to an asbestos-related charge
imposed by the Health and Safety Executive, the Bridgwater
Mercury reports.

Mr. Dibb has been charged with "failing to take reasonable care
for the health and safety of himself and others by inadvertently
exposing airborne asbestos fibers."

Mr. Dibb denied failing to take "reasonable care" for the safety
of himself and others over an asbestos leak at his primary
school.

Mr. Dibb appeared before Sedgemoor Magistrates in Bridgwater,
Somerset, England.

The primary school had to be closed for nearly a month in 2007
after asbestos was released during routine maintenance work in
the summer holidays.

After the hearing, Mr. Dibb's solicitor Tony Miles said, "My
client strenuously denies this allegation. He is a popular and
thoroughly honorable, hard working head teacher who has always
tried to do the very best for his school and the pupils. He is
looking forward to dealing with this allegation and maintaining
his good name and reputation.

"He is currently taking leave to deal with this case, a course
of action which has the full support of the governors. He is
looking forward to clearing his name and returning to his work."

Dave Lee, of Westonzoyland-based building contractors Dave Lee
Ltd, which carried out the work at the school, has pleaded
guilty to two charges under the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006.

Mr. Lee will be sentenced at Taunton Crown Court, where Mr.
Dibb's case is also due to be heard.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Philips Unit to Resolve Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Philips Electronics N.V., on Sept. 26, 2008, announced
that its U.S. Subsidiary, TH Agriculture and Nutrition LLC, has
taken steps, which, if confirmed by the U.S. courts, will
resolve all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury
claims against THAN and its affiliates, through a pre-packaged
plan of reorganization of THAN, according to a Philips press
release dated Sept. 26, 2008.

In connection with these matters, Philips will take a charge of
EUR241 million before-taxes (about EUR148 million after-tax) in
the third quarter to be booked under Group Management &
Services.

In addition, Philips is still expecting additional insurance
recoveries that have not yet been accounted for, in amounts
ranging from about EUR80 million to EUR105 million (net present
value).

The Company believes that the steps announced on Sept. 26, 2008
will, after approval by the courts, establish a responsible and
orderly process for the resolution of THAN's asbestos claims,
while at the same time minimizing the costs (administration
costs averaged EUR13 million per year over the last three
years), risks, and distractions of litigation that has spanned
almost a decade.

Without such resolution, asbestos-related personal injury claims
against THAN would be expected to continue well into the future.

Court confirmation of these planned steps depends on the outcome
of a vote, as THAN is required to obtain votes in favor of the
reorganization plan of at least 75 percent in number and two
thirds in amount of the present claimants.

In connection therewith, THAN has reached agreement with lawyers
representing a majority of the known claimants that they will
recommend to their clients to vote in favor of the
reorganization plan. The vote is expected to be completed in
November 2008.

In the third quarter of 2006, THAN had already increased its
reserve for asbestos with a net amount of EUR265 million to
account for claims expected to be asserted up to 2016. The steps
taken on Sept. 26, 2008, if successful, will deal with all
future asbestos liabilities.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Royal Philips
Electronics N.V. makes consumer electronics, including TVs,
VCRs, DVD players, and fax machines. The Company also makes
light bulbs, electric shavers and other personal care
appliances, picture tubes, medical systems, and silicon systems
solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Whitby Hospital Cleanup to Cost GBP80,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the Whitby Community Hospital in Whitby,
England, is estimated at GBP80,000, the Whitby Gazette reports.

North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust (PCT) has said it is
to invest the amount to remove any trace of asbestos from the
Whitby Community Hospital and therefore maintain the hospital
for the future.

The work was set to start on Sept. 29, 2008 and will take up to
12 weeks to complete.

In May 2005, the Whitby Gazette reported how asbestos had been
identified in ceiling voids along the corridors.

The PCT's director of community and mental health services,
Janet Probert said, "Every effort is being made by staff to
ensure that services will not be disrupted and signposts will be
in place to help the public with any necessary detours as the
work takes place.

"The investment in Whitby Community Hospital will help us to
ensure the hospital remains a central resource, providing
valuable health services which meet the needs of the local
community."

Asbestos was used as insulator until the 1980s and when it was
found in hospitals in Whitby, Scarborough, Malton and
Bridlington. Staff were given health screenings and counseling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio EPA to Clean General Industries Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency seeks the help of the
federal EPA in the cleanup of the former General Industries
site, which is contaminated with asbestos, The Chronicle-
Telegram reports.

Following a July 3, 2008 fire that tore through the complex and
burned for 16 hours, the debris site has remained untouched for
weeks as far as an Ohio EPA inspector can tell, Mike Settles,
Ohio EPA spokesman, said.

It appears that the property owner, John Peshek, has abandoned
efforts to remove asbestos-contaminated rubble from the site,
forcing the Ohio EPA to step up its actions.

A fence was erected around the property in July 2008 at the
urging of the Ohio EPA after field tests revealed high levels of
asbestos. At that time, Mr. Peshek said he would work with the
Ohio EPA to determine where asbestos was and how to dispose of
it.

Aside from a few telephone conversations in which Mr. Peshek has
offered suggestions that would not work within Ohio EPA
guidelines, Mr. Settles said, Mr. Peshek has failed to formally
respond to a request sent by the Ohio EPA on Aug. 20, 2008
asking for a detailed site maintenance and cleanup plan.

The Ohio EPA sent a letter on Sept. 25, 2008 to the federal EPA
asking for its assistance in conducting a critical cleanup of
the site. Mr. Settles said that if the federal EPA intervenes,
it has the option of cleaning up the site and going after Mr.
Peshek for payment.

Signed by Paul Koval, supervisor of the Division of Air
Pollution Control/Air Toxic Unit at the Ohio EPA, the letter
states that such an action is needed because the Elyria Fire
Department has stopped wetting down the site and city officials
have asked for some kind of solution.

Mayor William Grace said Mr. Peshek has verbally expressed to
city officials he plans to clean up the site and reorganize his
business on the property.

City officials are still waiting on the federal EPA to respond
to the Ohio EPA's request before it moves forward with any kind
of action.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Spillman in Exxon Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced on Sept. 29, 2008
that the Louisiana First Court of Appeal affirmed a trial
court's 2006 judgment awarding damages to the family of Bruce
Spillman, a former Exxon Mobil Corporation employee who died of
mesothelioma, according to a Baron & Budd press release dated
Sept. 29, 2008.

The Appeals Court ruled that although Company officials were
aware of the dangers of asbestos in their Louisiana riverboats,
chemical plants and oil refineries as early as 1937, Exxon
failed to implement any type of safety measures to protect their
workers.

Renee Melancon, Esq., the Baron & Budd attorney who represented
the family on appeal, said, "Exxon's own documents reveal that
the company knew that the use of asbestos insulation in the
petroleum industry was hazardous to workers like our client.

"Exxon even outlined a strategy for minimizing asbestos exposure
in its facilities in 1937, but just never bothered to follow
through on the plan to protect its workers."

Mr. Spillman, of Baton Rouge, La., worked on Exxon towboats from
1945 to 1949 and was exposed to asbestos when he spent time in
the boats' engine rooms. From 1949 until 1986, he worked as a
helper, then a welder, in Exxon's Baton Rouge oil refinery,
where he continued to be exposed to pipes insulated with
asbestos.

Despite the 1949 warnings of its own industrial hygienist about
asbestos, Exxon neither alerted its workers to any danger nor
instructed them to wear masks.

Mr. Spillman was diagnosed in 2005 with mesothelioma. He died
later the same year.

Exxon attempted to claim immunity from the lawsuit based on
workers compensation statutes, however, the First Circuit
reaffirmed its earlier ruling that Louisiana's 1952 Workers'
Compensation Act does not cover mesothelioma and so does not bar
suits by mesothelioma victims against their employers for claims
that accrued prior to 1975, when the law was amended to cover
that disease.

In addition, the court held that Mr. Spillman's evidence was
more than sufficient to establish that Exxon knew of the need to
protect its workers from exposure to asbestos.

At trial, the family was represented by Baron & Budd special
counsel Cameron Waddell, Esq., and attorney Jody Anderman, Esq.,
also of Baron & Budd, along with Rick Nemeroff, Esq., of the
Nemeroff Law Firm.

Mr. Waddell said, "We proved, first to the trial court and then
to the Court of Appeals, that Exxon was responsible for exposing
its own employees to dangerously high levels of asbestos without
adequate -- or, indeed, any -- respiratory protection. If Exxon
had spent a fraction of the resources attempting to protect this
man that it spent trying to evade responsibility in this
lawsuit, then our client and his family never would have
suffered this tragedy."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Johnson Action Filed v. 55 Firms in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvid and May Johnson, a Californian couple, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 55 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., on Sept. 25, 2008, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

The Johnsons claim that Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Sept. 15, 2008. They say Mr. Johnson worked from
1947 until 2004 for various companies, including the U.S. Navy,
Ace Hardware and various filling stations.

The Johnsons claim Mr. Johnson's disease was caused after he was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

In the four-count lawsuit, the Johnsons seek sums in excess of
US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$50,000.

Richard L. Saville, Jr., Esq., Robert J. Evola, Esq., Ethan A.
Flint, Esq., and David J. Page, Esq., of Saville, Evola & Flint
in Alton, Ill., represent the Johnsons.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brockovich to Work w/ Law Firm on Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. has chosen to partner
with consumer advocate Erin Brockovich to help victims of
asbestos, toxic dumping, dangerous drugs and other acts of
negligence the firm takes on in its practice, according to a
Weitz & Luxenberg press release dated Sept. 26, 2008.

Firm co-founder Arthur Luxenberg, Esq., said, "The public shares
a unique bond with Erin because they can relate to her real-life
battle against a corporation that effectively poisoned a
community's groundwater. We knew there was no better partner who
would add depth, value and passion to our work."

You may have seen Weitz & Luxenberg's television campaign
featuring Ms. Brockovich, which just began airing. It highlights
the firm's asbestos litigation, reaching out to those who have
received a diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer or
mesothelioma.

"I have worked with them and I trust them," says Ms. Brockovich,
staring intently into the eyes of TV viewers, explaining why she
believes Weitz & Luxenberg can help people file an asbestos-
related claim.

The firm, now 60 lawyers strong, has been practicing mass tort
litigation longer than any other firm in New York State, getting
at the forefront of asbestos litigation in the late 1980s.

Weitz & Luxenberg recently achieved a US$16.25 million verdict
in an asbestos lawsuit. The case is believed to be the first
successful asbestos verdict against a dental supply company.

The firm is known for spearheading such asbestos cases, among
others, securing a US$37 million asbestos verdict in 2007 in two
lung cancer cases in a reverse bifurcated trial.

Weitz & Luxenberg 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: McCart to Pay GBP44T Fine for 7 Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McCart, on Sept. 29, 2008, was fined a total of GBP44,000
for breaching seven regulations under The Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006, according to a Health and Safety Executive
press release dated Sept. 29, 2008.

At Eastbourne Magistrates' Court, Mr. McCart was fined GBP36,000
and GBP4,000 costs for the violations. He was also ordered to
pay GBP4,000 compensation to the shop owner.

Mr. McCart was a Director of two Eastbourne, East Sussex,
England-based companies, Sussex Asbestos Solutions (South East)
Ltd. and Sussex Asbestos Solutions Ltd.

The Court clearly accepted the gravity of the offense and also
disqualified Mr. McCart from being a Director for four years.

Mr. McCart was charged with health and safety offenses following
work he carried out to a shop in Gore Park Road, Eastbourne
between Nov. 17, 2007 and Nov. 19, 2007. He was employed by a
local businessman to remove asbestos insulation board from his
shop.

Mr. McCart undertook the removal of asbestos insulation board
without the required license for work with asbestos, and without
notifying the HSE.

Mr. McCart failed to carry out the appropriate precautions and
left a white sack containing broken pieces of asbestos
insulation board outside the shop, and asbestos debris inside
the property.

Mr. McCart's actions put members of the public at risk of
exposure to potentially lethal asbestos fibers.

HSE inspector, Amanda Huff, said, "Robert McCart deliberately
flouted ignored the law for financial gain. Mr. McCart was aware
of the dangers associated with asbestos and yet decided to risk
not only his own life but also members of the public.

"The HSE won't hesitate to take action against people who flout
breach Health and Safety Law and put others at risk."

The HSE urges people to ensure that they use licensed companies
to remove asbestos insulation board or asbestos lagging.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Carrier for Dismantling in England
----------------------------------------------------------------
The French aircraft carrier Clemenceau, which is riddled with
asbestos, will be dismantled at a dock in Hartlepool, England,
Telegraph.co.uk reports.

Jean Kennedy headed a campaign of Hartlepool residents who have
fought to keep the Clemenceau away from a dockyard because they
say it poses a health and safety risk.

Controversy has surrounded the Clemenceau, which sailed between
1961 and 1997, over her disposal.

In December 2004, Greenpeace protested over the scrapping the
ship laden with toxins such as asbestos in India. Two years
later, Egyptian authorities denied the 37,000 ton vessel access
to the Suez Canal.

Mrs. Kennedy launched a judicial review after UK courts said the
warship could be scrapped in the yards of Able UK Ltd in
Hartlepool, arguing that the Health and Safety Executive had not
thoroughly examined other alternatives.

Barrister David Wolfe, for Mrs. Kennedy, said alternative ports
in other countries should have been considered.

After listening to two hours of legal argument, Mr. Justice
Wilkie said that, although he had "much sympathy" for Mrs.
Kennedy's position, he would not be granting her permission to
seek a full judicial review.

Able's barrister, Gerard Clarke, insisted that the Clemenceau
would not pose a danger as strict rules and regulations would be
followed once it docked in Hartlepool.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 18 People Exposed to McNeil Island Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a case file of the Washington State's Department of
Labor and Industries, at least 18 people (eight offenders, eight
Department of Corrections employees, and a flooring contractor's
crew) were exposed to asbestos at the McNeil Island Corrections
Center, the news tribune.com reports.

State records say that supervisors ignored safety concerns
raised by inmates at McNeil Island state prison and made them
remove potentially deadly asbestos-laden tile with no protective
equipment and without taking common precautions.

In July 2008, L&I levied a US$28,400 fine and cited the prison
for two "willful" and seven "serious" violations related to
three projects done in late 2007.

Records say that prison officials told L&I they thought they
were doing the removal correctly and that they did not think the
Puget Sound Clean Air Act's asbestos regulations applied to the
work.

David Block, safety manager in the department's office of risk
management, said that the Department of Corrections does not
dispute the underlying facts of the case. However, the safety
shortcomings were "an irregular event and inconsistent with
current DOC procedures and past practice," he added.

The department has appealed the L&I ruling but only to ask the
agency to reduce the severity of the most serious violations,
Mr. Block said.

Corrections also has asked L&I to allow it to divert some of the
fine money to a training budget for DOC maintenance workers and
supervisors "to make sure something like this doesn't happen
again," Mr. Block said.

The L&I report states that in November 2007 and December 2007,
vinyl tile held in place by toxic cement was removed from
administrative areas at the prison without the required
precautions, such using a vacuum with an air filter or water to
keep the asbestos-laden dust from becoming airborne.

Two supervisors involved with the tile removal had been
certified by the state in asbestos removal, the report noted.
Gar Rodside, the construction maintenance supervisor, became a
certified asbestos supervisor in 2000 and had taken seven
refresher courses, though his certification had lapsed at the
time of the work. The other supervisor, Tom Hili, was certified
in 2004 and had taken three refresher courses.

Both Mr. Rodside and Mr. Hili remain employed at the Department
of Corrections and have not been disciplined as a result of L&I
findings, DOC spokesman Chad Lewis said.

According to the L&I report, Mr. Rodside told offenders who
raised concerns about their safety that there was asbestos in
the tile and cement, but assured them it was not dangerous. When
the offenders asked about using water to minimize the dust, Mr.
Rodside said it was not needed.

Meanwhile, the facility's plant manager and Mr. Rodside, the
construction maintenance supervisor, said "there was little dust
during the removal of the tile."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Sees Surge of Complaints in Sept. 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The month of September 2008 has brought more asbestos-related
reports and complaints from schools across New York State,
JusticeNewsFlash.com reports.

Parents at Heim Elementary School in Amherst, N.Y., began
expressing serious concern, with the discovery of asbestos found
in the floor tiles of the school.

Officials at Apollo Middle School also confirmed asbestos
products were found by plumbers, electricians, and other
construction workers preparing to renovate in the third floor
building. This project included a new roof and is now on hold.

Reports have now begun surfacing, of a bidding war in Oneida,
N.Y. Various asbestos-abatement companies are seeking to win the
asbestos products removal contract after asbestos-contaminated
materials were discovered, at a former school on Elizabeth
Street.

According to numerous asbestos articles and mesothelioma
organizations, there are many difficulties with renovations of
aged structures.

The number one complaint is the high cost induced, by the need
for asbestos workers trained in the proper handling and removal
of various types of asbestos products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blears Lauds "Save Spodden Valley" Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government, Hazel Anne Blears MP, hailed the Save Spodden
Valley campaigners as "community heroes" for their efforts
against asbestos-related disease, Rochdale Online reports.

SSV coordinator Jason Addy was one of six community heroes
invited to meet the Communities Secretary to discuss their
campaigning work.

Shown live on BBC Parliament, the debate saw Mr. Addy explain to
an audience at a Labour Party conference in Manchester why he
was campaigning to put an end to asbestos-related deaths and
ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.

Mr. Addy said, "I am nobody special and ours is a non-political
campaign, but too many people have died as a result of asbestos
related diseases.

"Too many families in Rochdale have been badly affected by
asbestos and that's what we're fighting for, to ensure that
history doesn't repeat itself. The decisions and products made
at the T&N site in Spodden Valley have killed far too many
people. As a town, we have been threatened, bullied, lied to,
poisoned and taken for granted. Our campaign is to safeguard our
community and raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos."

Afterwards, Mr. Addy said he was grateful to have been given the
opportunity to discuss issues that have affected many people in
Rochdale with Government ministers.

Rochdale's Labour Parliamentary Candidate, Simon Danczuk, added
that Mr. Addy's tireless efforts had been appreciated by all
political parties in Rochdale and that Mr. Addy was one of many
"community heroes" in the Borough.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Removed from Hegeman Hall in R.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the summer of 2008, asbestos was removed from the floors
of the Hegeman Hall of Brown University in Providence, R.I., The
Brown Daily Herald reports.

This fall, students in Hegeman returned to freshly painted
walls, redone floors and the air clear of asbestos.

In the summer, Hegeman renovations included the removal of
asbestos from the floors, though most residents interviewed by
The Herald were not even aware of the actions taken to combat
the hazard.

Asbestos removal was not originally part of the renovations for
Hegeman. The fibers were found after construction crews went in
to re-tile the floors.

According to Steven Morin, Brown's director of Environmental
Health and Safety, most buildings built before 1980 contain
materials with asbestos, so it wasn't surprising that they were
present.

However, Mr. Morin reiterated that the asbestos was harmless
until it was disturbed by construction crews, which was when
Brown made the decision to go forward with the heavily regulated
and effective asbestos removal process.

Mr. Morin, who oversaw the process, said that workers who were
trained in asbestos removal prepared the work area by following
a plan approved by the Rhode Island Department of Health to
ensure the safety of the workers and that no air escaped, which
would have exposed the asbestos.

Mr. Morin added that asbestos probably still remains in the non-
renovated sections of Hegeman but said that even if present it
is harmless when contained.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT "Decries" Denial of Payout to Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians'
(UCATT) General Secretary of Construction, Alan Ritchie,
condemned the insurance industry's attempts to deny payout to
asbestos victims.

During the summer of 2008, the insurance industry took a case to
the High Court, where they argued that the insurer at the time a
person was exposed to asbestos should no longer be responsible
for paying compensation. Instead the "trigger" for compensation
should be when the disease develops.

In the case of mesothelioma, the disease can take over 30 years
to develop after a victim has been exposed to asbestos. Many
people have retired by the time the disease develops and
therefore do not have a current insurer.

If the insurance industry is successful with their case,
hundreds of asbestos victims will no longer receive
compensation.

In his speech Mr. Ritchie, said, "Every week 40 people die of
mesothelioma. It is incurable. Victims die an agonizing death.
It is sickening that the insurance industry wants to block their
compensation."

The issue is set to be overwhelmingly passed by conference,
which will place pressure on the United Kingdom Government to
rein in the unregulated insurance industry.

In 2007, the insurance industry won a case in the Law Lords that
pleural plaque victims should no longer receive compensation.

The Government is now consulting on the issue following a wide
scale campaign by the unions led by UCATT to get the Law Lords
decision overturned.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued for Continental Casual
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
issued split rulings in an asbestos-related insurance case filed
by Continental Casual Co. against various defendants.

The case is styled Continental Casual Co., Plaintiff v. Peerless
Industries Inc., et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered judgment in Civil
No. 06-4621 on Aug. 29, 2008.

The underlying claims for which Continental sought contribution
and indemnification arose out of personal injury complaints made
by numerous individuals against Peerless Industries, Inc., a
heating company, as a result of exposure to asbestos contained
in Peerless produced boilers.

Continental was Peerless' primary insurer, and provided defense
and indemnity to Peerless in the litigation of these personal
injury actions.

Continental claimed that its primary policy limits had been
exhausted, and sought a declaration that it is no longer
obligated to provide defense and indemnification to Peerless.

Continental contended that Defendants California Union (now
Century Indemnity Company), International Insurance Company (now
TIG Insurance Company), and Adriatic Insurance Company (now
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company) (collectively "the Other
Insurers"), had all issued policies to Peerless, but that they
had refused to provide coverage for the asbestos-related claims.

Continental brought this action to declare the rights and
obligations of the Other Insurers to provide a defense and
indemnity in connection with the claims brought against
Peerless. Peerless had also cross-claimed against all Other
Insurers.

Century and TIG sought to add additional third party defendant
insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Peerless
during the applicable time period.

They also filed a motion to compel certain documents from
Continental regarding the previous claims resolved with
Peerless. Fireman's Fund did not join in these motions.

Continental had also filed a Motion to Compel, seeking documents
relating to successor liability of Defendants' predecessors.

The District Court dismissed without prejudice Continental's
Motion to Compel, granted in part and denied in part Defendants'
Motion to Compel, and denied Defendants' Motion for Leave to
File a Third Party Complaint.

Anthony Presta, Esq., James Adrian, Esq., of Ford Marrin
Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser LLP in New York, and David G. C.
Arnold, Esq., of Narberth, Pa., represented Continental Casual
Co.

Gregory L. Liacouras, Esq., of Liacouras & Smith, LLP, Lily E.
Koohdary, Esq. Of Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg in Philadelphia,
Frank A. Valverde, Esq., Richard S. Feldman, Esq., of Rivkin,
Radler, LLP in Uniondale, N.Y., and Victoria J. Airgood, Esq.,
of Siegal, Napierkowski & Park, in Mount Laurel, N.J.,
represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron Facing 31 Pending Claims at Aug. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in asbestos-
related cases involving 31 claimants as of Aug. 31, 2008,
compared with 29 claimants as of June 1, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 29, 2008.

The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek
unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company and others.

At this time the Company is generally not aware of the extent of
injuries allegedly suffered by the individuals or the facts
supporting the claim that injuries were caused by the Company's
products.

For the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008, there were new claims
involving five claimants, dismissals and settlements involving
three claimants and no judgments.

No net costs or expenses were incurred by the Company for the
quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008 in connection with asbestos-related
claims.

Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International
Corporation makes highly-engineered products and materials for
the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and
infrastructure markets. The Company produces water transmission
lines; fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals
and corrosive fluids and specialized materials and products used
in infrastructure and energy projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LADWP Fined $9,030 for Clean Air Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has fined the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power US$9,030 for demolishing
structures without notifying the EPA as required by federal
Clean Air Act asbestos regulations, according to an EPA press
release dated Sept. 30, 2008.

In August 2007, EPA and California Air Resources Board
inspectors determined that structures owned by LADWP at 9596 US
Highway 111 near Niland, Calif., were demolished by employees of
LADWP.

LADWP failed to notify EPA about the demolition before it
occurred, as required under the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations for asbestos.

Deborah Jordan, director of the Air Division for the EPA's
Pacific Southwest region, said, "When a building is demolished,
asbestos must be properly removed in order to protect the health
of workers and the community. We can avoid creating a public
health threat from airborne asbestos by following the safeguards
required by law."

For more information on asbestos, please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/help.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Schools Fined $11T for AHERA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined six Arizona
charter school operators a combined total of US$11,600 for
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act violations, according to
an EPA press release dated Sept. 30, 2008.

In April 2007, EPA inspectors discovered that all but one of the
school operators failed to conduct inspections to determine if
asbestos-containing material was present in school buildings and
all had failed to develop asbestos management plans.

The schools have since completed inspections or otherwise
obtained the appropriate documentation to establish that no
asbestos-containing material is present in their school
buildings. All of the schools have developed asbestos management
plans.

"All schools, including charter schools, need to conduct
asbestos inspections and have asbestos management plans," said
Katherine Taylor, associate director for the Communities and
Ecosystems Division in EPA's Pacific Southwest region. "Asbestos
in schools has the potential for endangering the health of
students, teachers, and others, including maintenance workers."

The schools are:

     -- Valley Academy: The operator Valley Academy, Inc. was
        fined US$2,400.

     -- Paradise Education Center: The operator, Paragon
        Management, Inc. was fined US$2,100.

     -- Horizon Community Learning Center: The operator Horizon
        Community Learning Center, Inc. was fined US$2,100.

     -- Happy Valley School: The operator Happy Valley School,
        Inc. was fined US$2,100.

     -- Edu-Prize Charter School: The operator Edu-Prize, Inc.
        was fined US$2,100.

     -- Challenge School: The operator Challenge School, Inc.
        was fined US$800.

Federal law requires schools to conduct an initial inspection
using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing
building material is present and develop a management plan to
address the asbestos materials found in the school buildings. In
certain circumstances, an inspection is not required if the
school has a signed statement from the architect or builder
stating that a new building was constructed with no asbestos-
containing materials.

All six schools established that no asbestos-containing
materials were used in their school buildings. Schools that do
not contain asbestos-containing material must still develop a
management plan that identifies a designated person and includes
the architect's statement or building inspection and the annual
notification to parents, teachers, and employees regarding the
availability of the plan.

The EPA's rules also require the school to appoint a designated
person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure
compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools must
conduct periodic surveillance and re-inspections, properly train
the maintenance and custodial staff, and maintain records in the
management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the
management plan in their administrative office and at the
school, which must be made available for inspection by parents,
teachers, and the general public.

For on asbestos in schools visit:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO LLC's Second Plan Filed on Sept. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC and its debtor affiliates delivered to the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court final copies of their Second Amended Joint Plan
of Reorganization and a Disclosure Statement explaining that
Plan on Sept. 25, 2008.

The Debtors' Second Amended Plan provides that sources of
payments to be made to Claimants under the Plan include:

     -- The Debtors' cash, which could total as much as US$1.4
        billion to US$1.5 billion; and

     -- The Available Plan Proceeds, which are expected to
        total US$2.5 billion, assuming a US$90 million
        Adjustment Payment Reserve, and a US$10 million Unpaid
        Cure Claims Reserve.

Under the global settlement agreement between the Debtors and
the asbestos parties, which is incorporated into the Second
Amended Plan, distributions to the Asbestos Trust are expected
to total at least US$750 million, excluding the Asbestos Trust's
right to 50 percent of the Litigation Trust Interests.

The FCR and the Asbestos Claimants' Committee reserve the right
to oppose Confirmation of the Plan if there appears to be a
significant risk that the level of distribution cannot be
realized.

At the Plans' confirmation hearing, the Second Amended Plan
indicates that the Debtors intend to present evidence as to the
reasonable range of Unsecured Asbestos Personal Injury Claims,
Miscellaneous Federal and State Environmental Claims, and Claims
relating to the Environmental Custodial Trust sites.

The Second Amended Plan discloses that Mitsui Co. (U.S.A.),
Inc., and its related entities, and the company formerly known
as ASARCO Incorporated -- now ASARCO LLC -- entered into certain
agreements pertaining to Silver Bell that are not listed as
assumed contracts in the Plan Sponsor PSA, or otherwise assigned
to the Plan Sponsor.

The agreements include:

     -- "Asarco Incorporated Guaranty" agreement, dated
        Feb. 5, 1996, in favor of Mitsui;

     -- A letter agreement, dated Feb. 5, 1996, supplementing
        the Silver Bell LLC Agreement;

     -- "Reimbursement Agreement," dated Dec. 12, 1997, which
        is ancillary to the Equipment Lease Agreement with The
        Copper Equipment Trust and certain related agreements;
        and

     -- "Commercial Agreement," dated Nov. 9, 2007, concerning
        the purchase of copper cathodes from Silver Bell.

Whether or not Mitsui grants consent to the transfer by ARSB of
its membership interests in Silver Bell, Mitsui has requested
that the agreements, including a "Management Services
Agreement," be assumed by and assigned to the Parent.

The Debtors note that they have not taken a formal position with
respect to the treatment of the agreements discussed, and
reserve all rights and remedies concerning the agreements.

Blacklined copies of the Debtors' Second Amended Plan and the
accompanying Disclosure Statement is available for free at:

http://bankrupt.com/misc/Debtors_Blacklined_2ndAmended_Plan.pdf

http://bankrupt.com/misc/Debtors_Blacklined_2ndAmended_DS.pdf

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 86; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt OKs ASARCO to Extend Loan to $10Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard S. Schmidt authorized ASARCO LLC to extend a one-
time intercompany loan of up to US$10 million to the Asbestos
Subsidiary Debtors on a secured basis.

The Asbestos Debtors require access to cash and working capital
through the availability of the new credit facility to preserve
value and maintain administrative solvency.

Asarco Incorporated and Americas Mining Corporation previously
opposed ASARCO LLC's extension of the DIP Loan arguing that the
Loan is only a "gift" and constitutes an improper pre-
confirmation advance, which violates the Bankruptcy Code.

In support of the DIP Facility request, Douglas E. McAllister,
executive vice president, general counsel, and secretary of
ASARCO LLC, testifies that ASARCO LLC's liquidity will not be
negatively impacted by funding the loan as the company has more
than a billion dollars of cash in a bank.

Mr. McAllister said the Asbestos Debtors are unlikely to obtain
a loan on terms more favorable to that offered by ASARCO, and
pursuing a third-party loan would be a waste of time, resources,
and would result in unnecessary expenses and lender fees.

ASARCO LLC, Mr. McAllister said, has an interest in ensuring
that the Court approves the Intercompany DIP Loan so that the
Asbestos Debtors may pay their professionals, on a current
basis, to help defend the Debtors' Joint Plan of Reorganization
against any challenges, obtain an injunction under Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code for the benefit of Sterlite
Industries (India), Ltd., and all the Debtors, and close the
Sterlite sale so that the Joint Plan can be confirmed.

Mr. McAllister disputed the Parent's argument that the
Intercompany DIP Loan is a gift asserting that ASARCO LLC's pre-
petition monetization of the insurance coverage for asbestos-
related liability resulted to ASARCO LLC incurring more than
US$10 million of debt from the Asbestos Debtors.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 86; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Affirms Approval of Dana Pacts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury previously
appealed from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York's order, dated Nov. 15, 2007, approving the
settlement agreements Dana Holding Corporation entered into with
certain asbestos personal injury attorneys on behalf of 7,500
asbestos personal injury claimants.

Dana has been named a defendant in roughly 133,000 asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, which stem from Dana's prior
sale of certain automotive gaskets which, because of their
encapsulated form, sealed in asbestos.

Under the settlement, Dana is expected to pay about US$2 million
to the asbestos claimants, resulting to an average of US$267 per
claim, and would resolve five percent of all pending claims
against Dana. The Plan provides that those asbestos personal
injury claims that have not been resolved through the settlement
agreements will pass through the bankruptcy and are reinstated
against Dana.

In support of its Appeal, the Committee argued that:

-- The Bankruptcy Court erred in approving the settlement
agreements because they were not filed as part of the public
record of the jointly administered bankruptcy cases;

-- The Bankruptcy Court erred in applying the factors summarized
by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Iridium
Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452, 462 n.13 (2d Cir. 2007), which
factors were to be considered in approving the settlement
agreements;

-- The Bankruptcy Court erred in approving the settlement
agreements because the agreements give differential treatment to
claims in the same class in violation of Section 1123(a)(4) of
the Bankruptcy Code;

-- The Bankruptcy Court erred in approving the settlement
agreements because the agreements provide for the treatment of
future asbestos claims without meeting the requirements of
Section 524(g); and

-- The Bankruptcy Court erred in approving the settlement
agreements because they may be interpreted to restrict a
lawyer's right to practice, and thus violate ethic rules.

After considering all of the arguments raised by parties-in-
interest, Judge Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York affirms the Bankruptcy Court's
order approving the Asbestos Settlement Agreements.

Judge Koeltl finds that the Committee wrongly attempts to argue
the merits of whether the settlement agreements were properly
sealed under Section 107(b)(1). He notes that the total amount
of the settlement and the per claim average settlement for 7,500
claims was in fact publicly disclosed. He holds that there were
sufficient facts in the public record for the Bankruptcy Court
to approve the settlement agreements even though the full
settlement agreements were filed under seal.

Judge Koeltl finds that the Committee's argument that the
Bankruptcy Court ignored the Iridium factors is without merit.
The Motion to approve the settlement and the Committee's
response both specifically referred to the Iridium factors, and
the Committee failed to make any reasonable argument that the
Iridium factors were not satisfied in this case, he points out.
In fact, he adds, at the argument of the appeal, the Committee's
counsel could not explain how the settlements could be found
deficient under the Iridium factors.

The District Court also rules that the Committee's Section
1123(a)(4) claim would fail on the merits. The Plan, Judge
Koeltl notes, provides that the Committee's claims will pass
through the bankruptcy and be reinstated against Dana. It can
hardly be said that this treatment prejudices the Committee
because the claimants represented by the Committee have the full
amount of their claims that they are asserting against Dana,
Judge Koeltl holds.

The fact that some claimants have settled while others have not
does not, by itself, indicate unequal treatment, Judge Koeltl
rules. The key inquiry under Section 1123(a)(4) is not whether
all of the claimants in a class obtain the same thing, but
whether they have the same opportunity, he adds.

With respect to the Committee's Section 524(g) claim, Judge
Koeltl holds that the claim is more properly addressed in the
appeal of the Confirmation Order. He also finds that the
Committee's Section 524(g) claim fails on the merits. He notes
that Section 524(g) simply does not bear on the settlement
agreements. Neither an injunction nor a trust was established or
even discussed by the bankruptcy court. The settlement
agreements do establish an administrative procedure for future
claims against Dana, whereby the attorneys representing the
settling claimants agree to bring those claims informally first,
with an eye toward resolving them without litigation, and to
file new lawsuits against Dana for claims that arise after the
date of the settlement agreements no sooner than two years after
that date, he points out. To the extent this provision
compromises any future claimant's right to litigate, it falls
far short of an injunction, Judge Koeltl holds.

"Nothing more serious than this modest limitation appears
anywhere on the record or in the settlement agreements.
Therefore, Section 524(g) has nothing to do with the Bankruptcy
Court's approval of the settlement agreements," Judge Koeltl
rules.

Judge Koeltl also finds that there was in fact no restriction on
the ability of the lawyers to represent their clients or take on
new clients.  At most, he notes that the agreements provide for
tolling agreements to allow the administrative resolution of
claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Klamath to Pay $8,299 for Cleanup Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has penalized
Klamath County US$8,229 for allowing an unlicensed person to
perform asbestos abatement on a county road project at the
corner of Crosby and Broadmore streets in Klamath Falls, Ore.,
News 10 reports.

Central Point, Ore.-based contractor Pilot Rock Excavation was
also issued a US$4,200 fine for conducting an asbestos abatement
without being licensed as an asbestos abatement contractor.

On May 1, 2008, DEQ staff visited a site at a storm drain
installation project on Crosby Street performed by Pilot Rock
under contract with the Klamath County Department of Public
Works. The county owns the project site and supervised or
controlled the storm drain project.

DEQ staff saw Pilot Rock had excavated about 825 linear feet of
buried asbestos-containing pipe from the area of the planned
storm drain trench in a manner that broke or shattered about 40
linear feet of the pipe. DEQ laboratory analysis of a sample of
the broken pipe revealed that the pipe contained 52 percent
asbestos.

Removing the asbestos-containing pipe caused about 40 linear
feet of the pipe to be friable, or capable of releasing asbestos
fibers into the air and exposing the public to asbestos.

A licensed asbestos abatement contractor would have wet the
material during removal, placed it in leak-tight containers,
clearly labeled the containers as asbestos-containing and
disposed of it in a timely manner at an authorized disposal site
to prevent emissions of asbestos fibers into the air.

Appeal procedures allow Klamath County and Pilot Rock 20 days to
appeal the penalty.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N. Ireland Suffers to Get GBP10T in Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Ritchie, Northern Ireland's Minister for Social
Development, has confirmed that an average of GBP10,000 will be
available to mesothelioma sufferers from Oct. 1, 2008, BBC News
reports.

Ms. Ritchie said the money will be given "within weeks" of
mesothelioma being diagnosed.

A Department of Social Development spokesman said the money
would be made available shortly after diagnosis, as patients may
not live to see a civil compensation case being resolved.

The money will be funded by recovery from successful civil
compensation pay-outs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Cooper Ind. Asbestos Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., on Oct. 1, 2008, announced that the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has not
approved the Plan A settlement whereby the Pneumo-Abex asbestos
claims would be settled through the Federal Mogul Corp. Asbestos
Trust, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 1, 2008.

The Court had previously approved Plan B whereby Cooper will
receive US$138 million from the Federal Mogul bankruptcy estate
and will continue to resolve through the tort system the
asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction Products
business that it had sold to FMC in 1998.

Additionally, under Plan B, Cooper has access to Abex insurance
policies with substantial remaining limits on policies with
solvent insurers.

Chairman and CEO Kirk S. Hachigian said: "The total cost of Plan
A increased over time and Cooper would have paid a significant
premium under Plan A. We have also gained experience in dealing
with the claims since this issue first emerged in 2001 and we
are well positioned to manage these claims similar to many other
companies. We are pleased that the decision has been made and
can now move forward."

Further details regarding the financial impact of this decision
will be reflected in Cooper's Third Quarterly report on form 10-
Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd. is a global
manufacturer with 2007 revenues of US$5.9 billion, about 87
percent of which are from electrical products. The Company has
eight operating divisions with products and brands including:
Bussmann electrical and electronic fuses; Crouse-Hinds and CEAG
explosion-proof electrical equipment; Halo and Metalux lighting
fixtures; and Kyle and McGraw-Edison power systems products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hogg to Pay GBP6,500 for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Osbourne Hogg, a builder, is to pay a total of GBP6,500
(GBP5,000 in fines and GBP1,500 in Environment Agency costs) for
asbestos-related disposal breaches, The Whitehaven News reports.

Magistrates decided that Mr. Hogg put asbestos sheeting into the
foundations of a house extension in Seascale, Cumbria, England.
He admitted putting bits of rubbish in the foundation of the
extension on Wasdale Park but not asbestos.

The 49-year-old Mr. Hogg pleaded guilty to disposing of
controlled waste without a license.

The extension was being built at the home of Gillan and Rebecca
Pooley at Wasdale Park.

Barrister Richard Bradley, prosecuting for the Environment
Agency, said that although Mr. Hogg pleaded guilty to the
general charge he maintained he was not to blame for disposing
of the asbestos.

The court heard that Kevin Temple, a scaffolder, lived next door
to the Pooleys and some time previously had removed asbestos
from his porch roof. However, Mr. Temple vehemently denied he
got rid of this by burying it in the foundations Mr. Hogg was
digging. He told the court he was trained in asbestos awareness,
adding that he had bagged up the material himself, made it safe
and took it to the tip where he declared it.

Mr. and Mrs. Pooley dismissed Mr. Hogg from the job after being
told by a building control inspector that the extension did not
conform to regulations. Mr. Hogg concreted the floor despite
being told not to do so by building inspector Leslie Finlay who
was not happy with the work.

Mr. Pooley dug up the concrete floor himself and found the
broken pieces of asbestos.

Mr. Hogg admitted to the Environment Agency that he had put
rubbish like an old carpet, timber and lino (from another job)
into the foundations before concreting over but denied any
knowledge of asbestos.

Mr. Hogg also said in an interview that "he recognized it as
asbestos sheeting he had seen on the driveway of Mr. Temple and
speculated that Mr. Temple may have deposited the broken
sheets."

Presiding magistrate Ian Killip said, "Mr. Hogg has admitted he
did not comply with building and environmental regulations. He
has displayed total disregard for the proper rules and standards
of a responsible builder. We do not believe his version of
events."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial Against Ex-Hardie Directors Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related civil trial has been ongoing in the New
South Wales Supreme Court against James Hardie Industries N.V.
and several of its officers and directors since Sept. 29, 2008,
the International Herald Tribune reports.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is suing 10
former Hardie officials, who each face maximum fines of
AUD200,000 (US$166,000) and a disqualification from managing a
corporation.

In 2007, Hardie agreed to pay AUD4 billion (US$3.3 billion) to
an asbestos compensation fund over the next 40 years, ending
months of negotiations with unions and asbestos support groups.

However, ASIC claims Hardie and its executives "failed to act
with requisite care and diligence" when they told investors that
the Company's asbestos compensation plan was fully funded when
it was actually short more than AUD1 billion (US$830 million).

ASIC's attorney, Tony Bannon, told the Court that the Company
issued a statement in 2001 to the Australian Securities Exchange
announcing the formation of its Medical Research and
Compensation Fund, in which it claimed the foundation had
"sufficient funds to meet all legitimate compensation claims."

Mr. Bannon said the "unequivocal statement" came despite advice
to the Company that estimating the cost of future compensation
liabilities was "fraught with difficulties."

Around 20 members of the Asbestos Disease Foundation of
Australia were in court for the trial's opening, including Karen
Banton, the widow of asbestos campaigner and former Hardie
employee Bernie Banton who died in 2007 at the age of 61 after a
long battle with asbestosis.

Mr. Banton launched his campaign against Hardie, once
Australia's largest asbestos maker, in 2001 after the Company
shifted its headquarters from Sydney to the Netherlands. The
Company said the move was for tax reasons; critics said it was
designed to avoid a slew of asbestos-related lawsuits.

The ASIC has called 58 witnesses for the trial, which is
expected to last several months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Launch Awareness Campaign in October
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive will launch an asbestos
awareness campaign in October 2008 to reduce the number of
people exposed to the deadly substance at work,
Personneltoday.com reports.

According to Peter Bennett, partner and head of the occupational
disease team at law firm Dolmans, says that public sector
organizations are increasingly shouldering the blame for
asbestos-related illnesses caused at private firms.

Mr. Bennett said state employers were often seen as a soft touch
by lawyers. He said he had seen a steady rise in the number of
asbestos-related claims against the public sector in recent
years.

Mr. Bennett said, "It is my impression that there is a belief
that the public sector is more likely to pay out in event of
such claims being made. It is therefore vulnerable to such
claims in circumstances where commercial bodies might not be."

Mr. Bennett said that someone found to have been exposed to
asbestos at an unspecified point during a 20-year career
spanning 10 employers, would often claim against the only public
sector employer they had.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Six Lawsuits Ongoing v. Jaguar Cars, Land Rover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tata Motors Limited's subsidiaries (Jaguar Cars Limited and Land
Rover and its subsidiaries) are facing six asbestos-related
cases.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Sept. 29, 2008.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Tata Motors Limited
Bombay House
24, Homi Mody Street
Mumbai 400 001
Maharashtra, India
Telephone # 91 22 5667 8282
Fax # 91 22 5665 7799

Description:
Tata Motors Limited makes buses, commercial trucks and tractor-
trailers, passenger cars (Indica, Indigo, Safari, Sumo, and the
ultra-cheap Nano), light commercial vehicles, and utility
vehicles. The Company sells its cars mainly in India, but about
10 percent of sales come from other Asian countries and Africa,
Australia, Europe, the Middle East, and South America.






                            *********

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  * * *