CAR_Public/081010.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 202

                            Headlines

BILL HEARD: Laid-Off Workers Sile Suit Over WARN Act Violations
BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls Game Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
CROWN LIFE: Company Cheated Consumers, Ohio Lawsuit Alleges
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Mass Effect" Video Game
EUGENE WATER: Settles with Employees on Retirement Health Costs

HANN FINANCIAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Bogus "Excess Wear and Tear"
HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Objection Deadline Is Nov. 14
HOME DEPOT: Appeals Court Dismisses Ga. Securities Lawsuits
INDYMAC BANCORP: 401k ERISA Class Suit in Calif. Consolidated
JDS UNIPHASE: California Court Dismisses SDL Investor Lawsuit

JDS UNIPHASE: Mediation to Begin in ERISA Lawsuit on October 10
JDS UNIPHASE: California Securities Suit Dismissal Becomes Final
JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Stipulate Dismissal of "Zelman" Lawsuit
JDS UNIPHASE: Settlement Reached in "Central States" Lawsuit
LONGS DRUG: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Proposed CVS Transaction

LONGS DRUG: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Rankin" Lawsuit
MCCORMICK: Recalls Sauce Mix Due To Unlabeled Milk Ingredients
MCGLADREY: Accountants Missed Petters' Alleged $3 Billion Scam
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Derivative Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
NATIONAL CITY: Sued in Ill. Over Changed Credit Collection Terms

NATURAL GAS: Final Approval Hearing Set in Price Indexing Deals
NORTHERN TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Auction Rate Securities
OASIS LEGAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misrepresented Practices
ORBITZ LLC: Taxes and Fees Assessment Lawsuit Still Pending
ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes Suit Appeals Unfavorable Ruling

ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Subsidiaries Face Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
REGIONAL TITLE: Faces Md. Suit for Acting as Settlement Agent
SUNNY MAID: Recalls Mr. Brown Coffee Mixes Due To Health Risk
TNUVA FOODS: Faces Suit for Adding Excessive Silicone to Milk
TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Kids Stuff Violating Lead Paint Standards

U.S. STEELMAKERS: Fourth Antitrust Suit Commenced in Illinois
UNDERWRITERS: Face Securities Fraud Suit Related to Fannie Mae
WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Faces Suit Over Fannie Mae Preferred Stock
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class Period Excludes 2008 Mkt Decline Losses
WELLS FARGO: Faces Wash. Suit for Cheating Customers of Millions

XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Grants Final OK to $2.8MM Securities Deal
ZUMIEZ INC: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
ZUMIEZ INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Wash.


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life Deal Entered on Sept. 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beese Suit Filed v. 78 Companies on Oct. 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goetzmann Suit v. 79 Firms Filed on Oct. 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smiths Sue 136 Companies in Kanawha County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defee Suit v. 37 Firms Filed in Tex. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in OneBeacon v. Kramig
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJ Court Favors Contractor in Analuisa Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Viad
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Accrues $4.9Mil for Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guthrie Claim Remanded by Appeals Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board Ruling in Hale Case Vacated, Remanded
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oct. 27 Set for Hearing on Grace Statement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to OK W. R. Grace Solicitation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks Appointment of Sanders as FCR
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FCR Files Hanly Withdrawal Notice on Oct. 2

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Permitted to Settle Jameson Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Mull Issuance of Grace Order
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Accused of Blocking Libby Declaration
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bilray to Pay $256T for CAA, NESHAP Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Semtner Suit Filed v. 65 Firms in Illinois

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,700 Buildings in Japan Set To be Tested
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston to Pay CDN60T for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Elite to Pay GBP1,499 for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victoria Gov't. Says Payout Will be Fairer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Fitter's Death Linked to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyne's Widow Campaigning for Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Earl's Family Wins Lawsuit v. County Garage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Director Asserts Hardie Can Meet Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Warszawski Action Filed v. 58 Firms in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ward Stephenson's Achievement Recognized

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Ruling Reversed v. CSR In Taylor Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lelek's Action v. Verizon & Others Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Whitby Hospital to Cost GBP80T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wondra Case Filed v. 153 Companies in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dobler Case Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Farrar Suit Filed v. 105 Companies in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Developer Guilty for Mishandling, Fraud
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Pickering Seeks Help in Sue Walsh Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Auto Workers Strike Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tweed Shire Calls for Help in Disposal Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Playland Park Cleanup Estimated at $200,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Officials Call for Cleanup at Gemini School




                           *********


BILL HEARD: Laid-Off Workers Sile Suit Over WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2008 -- Auto dealer giant Bill Heard
Enterprises, Inc., allegedly violated federal labor law when
thousands of employees throughout the nation were terminated
just before the company sought bankruptcy protection on
Sept. 28, according to lawyers for a former company worker who
sued in Alabama federal bankruptcy court.

     The defendants are:

     -- Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Company,
     -- Tom Jumper Chevrolet, Inc.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Huntsville,
     -- Landmark Chevrolet, Ltd.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd.,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation Nashville,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - Orlando,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Inc. - Union City,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet at Town Center, LLC,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Collierville,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Scottsdale,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc. - Plant City,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - Las Vegas,
     -- Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation - N.W. Las Vegas,
     -- Twentieth Century Land Corp.,
     -- Enterprise Aviation, Inc.,
     -- Century Land Corporation,
     -- Century Land Company - Tennessee,
     -- Bill Heard Management, LLC,
     -- Landmark Vehicle Mgt., LLC,
     -- Georgia Service Group, LLC, and
     -- Columbus Transportation, LLC.

     According to the Complaint, Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc.,
and about two dozen affiliated companies, were required by the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act
to give at least 60 days advance written notice of the employee
terminations and continue paying certain wages, salary, and
benefits during the notice period in accordance with federal
law.

     Former Bill Heard employee Edward Kratzel, who worked at a
Bill Heard facility in Las Vegas until Sept. 24, filed suit in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court District in Decatur, Alabama.

     The suit seeks WARN Act-required wages, salary,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions, and other benefits that would
have been paid or covered during the notice period, and
attorneys' fees and litigation-related costs.

     The workers' legal team has sought to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action that includes all persons who were
terminated without cause at Bill Heard-owned facilities in
Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas
on or about Sept. 24.

     The companies, which sold the Chevrolet, Cadillac and Saab
brands, are headquartered in Columbus, Georgia and included the
largest Chevrolet dealership in the nation.

     Attorney Jack A. Raisner, Esq., of Outten & Golden LLP,
stated, "We allege that the Bill Heard employees are entitled to
the protections of the WARN Act. Employers bound by the WARN Act
and other labor laws cannot be allowed to compound the
difficulties of abruptly laid-off employees.  It's time for 'Mr.
Big Volume,' as Mr. Heard called himself, to ensure that his
employees survive this transition in accordance with the law."

     Mr. Kratzel stated, "Employees of the Bill Heard companies
around the nation should have been given more time to prepare
for the closing of company facilities.  Because of the WARN Act,
we hope that this lawsuit will prevent employers like Bill Heard
from avoiding their obligations to the workers who helped him
generate billions of dollars of revenue through the years."

The case is "Edward Kratzel on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 08-80154-JAC," filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District for the Northern District of Alabama, Northern
Division.

Representing Mr. Katzel are:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-245-1000
          Fax: 212-977-4005

               - and -

          Mark P. Williams, Esq.
          Norman, Wood, Kendrick & Turner
          Financial Center, Suite 1600
          505-20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203


BRUNSWICK BOWLING: Recalls Game Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Brunswick Bowling & Billiards Corp., of
Lake Forest, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,700 "Colonial" Folding
Game Chairs.

     The company said the retaining washers on the legs can
loosen, causing the chair to become unstable.  This poses a fall
hazard to consumers.

     Brunswick has received four reports of loose chair leg
hardware.  No injuries have been reported.

     This recall involves the "Colonial" model, folding wooden
chairs for use with game tables.  They were sold in sets of two.
The chairs have a black seat cushion and either a cherry or
chestnut finish.

     These recalled chairs were manufactured in China and were
being sold by authorized Brunswick dealers nationwide from March
2007 through March 2008 for about $400 per set.

     A picture of the recalled chair is found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09704.jpg

     Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the folding
game chairs and contact the dealer where the chairs were
purchased to schedule a free repair.

     For additional information, contact Brunswick at
800-336-8771 ext.2 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday.


CROWN LIFE: Company Cheated Consumers, Ohio Lawsuit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Life Insurance and Canada Life Assurance are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas in
Butler County, Ohio, alleging the companies cheated customers by
understating their payments, overstating their benefits and
falsifying reports, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This action arises from Crown Life's announcement that
plaintiffs and members of the class would be required to pay
additional premiums to maintain life insurance coverage Crown
Life previously guaranteed.  To induce consumers to maintain
their life insurance products, Crown Life provided customers
with guarantees of coverage based upon the payment of planned
premiums.

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who
owned life insurance policies with rider coverage from
defendants between Oct. 1, 2000, through Oct. 1, 2005, and to
whom defendants made misrepresentations and/or failed to
disclose material information concerning guarantees of coverage.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants misrepresented the date through
         which life insurance would be provided and the cost of
         such insurance;

     (b) whether defendants omitted a material fact relative to
         the date through which life insurance would be provided
         and the cost of such insurance;

     (c) whether defendants failed to exercise reasonable care
         in communicating the misrepresentations;

     (d) whether defendants had knowledge of the
         misrepresentations and showed an utter disregard for
         their truth;

     (e) whether the life insurance policy contract, with the
         Annual Reports, constitute a valid, enforceable
         contract;

     (f) whether defendants breached the contracts with
         plaintiff and members of the class;

     (g) whether defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
         plaintiff and members of the class; and

     (h) whether the class is entitled to damages and injunctive
         relief as a result of defendant's conduct.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that this action be certified as a class action under
        Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure;

     -- judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, for
        compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial, plus interest at the statutory rate until paid in
        full;

     -- judgment against defendants for punitive damages;

     -- declaratory relief and an injunction enjoining
        defendants from terminating the life insurance contracts
        prematurely;

    -- reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with the
       collection of this amount; and

    -- such additional relief, legal or equitable, to which
       plaintiffs may be entitled.

The suit is "H. Keith Combs, et al. v. Crown Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2008 10 4370," filed in the Court of Common
Pleas in Butler County, Ohio.

Representing the plaintiff are:

           Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
           Thomas P. Glass, Esq. (tpglass@strausstroy.com)
           Strauss & Troy LPA
           The Federal Reserve Building
           150 East Fourth Street
           Cincinnatti, OH 45202
           Phone: 513-629-9472
           Fax: 513-629-9426


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif. Suit Over "Mass Effect" Video Game
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
over allegations that it failed to inform consumers that the
video game "Mass Effect" installs a second program, SecuROM,
onto their computers without their knowledge or consent,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

This consumer class action arises from EA's engaging in
deceptive and unlawful conduct in designing, marketing,
distributing, and selling a computer game disk that contains
undisclosed and unconsented to Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technology.

This action is brought on behalf of a class of all consumers
globally who have purchased the Mass Effect computer game.  The
suit says that EA intentionally did not disclose to any such
purchasers that the Mass Effect game disk also possessed a
second, hidden program which secretly installed to the command
and control center of the computer, and surreptitiously
operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer,
preventing the computer from operating under certain
circumstances and disrupting hardware operations.

The suit constitutes violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. and California's
Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq., and further constitute a trespass to chattels.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether EA fails to disclose the presence of an
         additional program on the Mass effect gamedisk;

     (b) whether EA should have separately disclosed the
         presence of an additional DRM program on the Mass
         Effect gamedisk, and the extent and nature of that
         program;

     (c) whether defendant should have disclosed, and is liable
         for its failure to disclose the SecuROM program, the
         precise details and nature of the program, where and
         how it would install, and how it would operate, prior
         to any purchase of the program;

     (d) whether defendant should have disclosed, and is liable
         for its failure to disclose, the SecuROM program, the
         precise details and nature of the program, where and
         how it would install, and how it would operate, prior
         to any installation of the program;

     (e) whether defendant should have obtained informed consent
         from the user, prior to the installation of the SecuROM
         program;

     (f) whether defendant concealed crucial details concerning
         the presence operation, function, and unremovability of
         the SecuROM DRM program to the class and the public;

     (g) whether defendant's actions in concealing crucial
         details concerning the presence, operation, function,
         and unremovability of the SecuROM DRM program were
         likely to deceive the public;

     (h) whether defendant made representations that the Mass
         Effect computer game was of a particular standard or
         quality, which it did not have;

     (i) whether defendant made representations that the Mass
         Effect computer game had characteristics, uses,
         benefits, or qualities which it did not have;

     (j) whether, by its conduct, defendant has engaged in
         unfair or unlawful business practices with respect to
         the advertising, marketing, and sale of the Mas Effect
         computer game;

     (k) whether, but its conduct, defendant has engaged in
         unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising of
         the Mass Effect computer game;

     (l) whether defendant violated consumer protection statutes
         and state deceptive business practice statutes;

     (m) whether, by its conduct, defendant has trespasses on
         the computers of all persons who installed the Mass
         Effect computer game;

     (n) whether defendant's use of the SecuROM program
         unlawfully interferes with purchasers' rights to sell,
         transfer, or otherwise convey to another their lawful
         copy of the Mass Effect game under the first sale
         doctrine;

     (o) whether California law applies to all claims and
         claimants in this action; and

     (p) the nature and extent of damages and other remedies to
         which the conduct of defendant entitles the class
         members.

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- certification of the action as a class action pursuant
        to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        with respect to plaintiff's claims for injunctive
        relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure with respect to the claims for damages, and
        appointment of plaintiff as class representative and his
        counsel of record as class counsel;

     -- damages in the amount of monies paid for Mass Effect
        games (for purposes of clarity, plaintiff expressly
        disclaims damages pursuant to the CLRA at this time);

     -- actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble
        damages, and such other relief as provided by the
        statutes cited (for purposes of clarity, plaintiff
        expressly disclaims damages pursuant to the CLRA at this
        time);

     -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest according to
        proof;

     -- equitable relief in the form of restitution and/or
        disgorgement of all unlawful or illegal profits received
        by defendant as a result of the unfair, unlawful and/or
        deceptive conduct alleged;

     -- other appropriate injunctive relief;

     -- the costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees; and

     -- all other relief to which plaintiff and members of the
        proposed class may be entitled at law or in equity.

The suit is "Brandon Gardner et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,
Case No. C08 04629," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Vernon, CA 90058-2304
          Phone: 323-585-8696


EUGENE WATER: Settles with Employees on Retirement Health Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Eugene Water & Electric Board -- The Lane County Circuit
Court gave final approval to a settlement of litigation between
the Eugene Water & Electric Board and its active and retired
employees over retirement health insurance costs.

     The retirees and employees claimed that EWEB was required
to provide them certain continuing health care benefits after
retirement, and that EWEB had reduced those benefits improperly.
The settlement clarifies EWEB's post-retirement health care
insurance benefits.

     EWEB General Manager Randy Berggren said the settlement is
a fair resolution of the ongoing legal dispute resulting from
changes in post-retirement health care benefits the utility's
elected commissioners approved in 1990 and 2003.

     "The settlement reflects hard work and compromise on both
sides," said Mr. Berggren.  "It provides EWEB retirees and their
dependents with generous and affordable heath insurance. It also
provides the utility with more certainty around future insurance
costs and it allows EWEB to make changes going forward to
respond to the unpredictable nature of those costs."

     Specifically, the retirees and employees claimed that early
promises required EWEB to provide health care insurance after
retirement at no cost or low cost, and that EWEB had increased
the costs in 2003 and 2004 contrary to a common understanding.
After a trial in late 2004 involving six retirees and one
employee, Circuit Judge Charles Carlson rolled the retirees'
costs back to 1990 levels.

     In late 2005, other retirees and employees filed a class
action lawsuit, which was put on hold awaiting appeal of the
first case, which is known as the Lauderdale case.  In early
2008, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, but it
remained subject to review by the Oregon Supreme Court.  The
circuit court’s approval of the settlement on Tuesday resolves
both lawsuits.

     The settlement approved by the court also provides retirees
hired before and during the early 1990s with retirement health
care benefits at the costs set in 1990.  Retirees agreed to move
out of the EWEB’s private group plan at age 65 and accept
Medicare and group supplemental coverage, considered comparable
to the benefits of employees.  In return, the settlement
provides cash payments to retirees to compensate them for added
premiums in the 2003-04 change.  The settlement also provides
current employees hired through 2002 with payments into
individual health savings accounts for use with current and
future medical expenses.  The payments vary in amount, according
to when an employee retired, was hired or is eligible to retire.

     The settlement reserves to EWEB the power to make changes,
for more recently hired employees, as EWEB decides is necessary.

     The settlement will cost EWEB $3,080,000. However, the
settlement will greatly reduce EWEB's unfunded liability for
future retiree medical insurance costs, from about $80 million
to $35 million.  The settlement covers 414 retirees and 313
current employees.

     The Honorable Michael R. Hogan, U.S. District Court judge
for the District of Oregon, mediated the parties' dispute,
leading to the settlement.


HANN FINANCIAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Bogus "Excess Wear and Tear"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hann Financial Services Corporation is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Kings, over allegations that it defrauds consumers by
charging exorbitant amounts for bogus "excess wear and tear" on
leased vehicles, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a consumer class action brought on behalf of consumers
who were subject to unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of New York Personal Property Law Section 330 et seq.
and New York General Business Law Section 349.

Named plaintiff says Hann charged her $1,536 for a car she
returned in "superb condition."

The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons to
whom, beginning two years prior to filing of this complaint and
continuing through the date of the resolution of this suit,
defendants sent the letter or other communications substantially
in the form of the letter in an attempt to collect excess wear
and damage relating to a retail lease, which letters were not
returned as undeliverable by the postal service.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that an order be entered certifying the proposed class
        under CPLR Rule 902 and appointing plaintiff and his
        putative counsel to represent the class;

     -- that an order be entered declaring that defendants'
        actions as described above are in violation of the MVRLA
        and enjoining their offensive conduct;

     -- that an order be entered enjoining defendants from
        communicating with the class members in a prescribed
        manner;

     -- actual damages;

     -- statutory damages;

     -- punitive damages;

     -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be necessary, just
        and proper.

The suit is "Jean M. Joyce, et al. v. Hann Financial Services
Corporation," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Kings.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Michael B. Newman, Esq. (michaelbnewmanesq@yahoo.com)
          63 West 85th Street, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10024
          Phone: 212-547-3118
          Fax: 212-547-2039


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Objection Deadline Is Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 8, 2008 -- The deadline to file an objection
to 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, is set on November 14, 2008.

     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 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

     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


HOME DEPOT: Appeals Court Dismisses Ga. Securities Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a securities
fraud class-action lawsuit accusing Home Depot and six corporate
executives of improperly inflating financial results, Bill
Rankin of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

In the second fiscal quarter of 2006, the company reported that
six purported, but as yet uncertified, class actions were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.

The suit alleges certain misrepresentations in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with the company's
return-to-vendor practices.

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss without leave to amend and entered a judgment in favor
of the defendants.

On Aug. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2007).

Recently, the federal appeals court in Atlanta, in a unanimous
ruling, said the lawsuit failed to clear the legal hurdles set
by Congress in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

The 11th Circuit ruling, written by Judge Stanley Marcus, noted
that Congress opened the courthouse doors to securities
litigation only for suits raising a "strong inference" companies
acted with bad intent. The allegations in this litigation, Judge
Marcus said, "do not pass Congress's stringent test."

"We're pleased," Home Depot spokesman Ron DeFeo said.  "We're
happy to have this matter behind us."

The first identified complaint is "John Mizzaro, et al. v. Home
Depot, Inc., et al. Case No. 06-CV-01151," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge
J. Owen Forrester.

Counsel for the plaintiffs are:

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

         Charles T. Caliendo, Esq. (ccaliendo@gelaw.com)
         Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. (jeisenhofer@gelaw.com)
         Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
         45 Rockerfeller Center, 15th Floor, 630 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10111
         Phone: 646-722-8500

              - and -

         Alan R. Perry, Jr., Esq. (aperry@pageperry.com)
         Page Perry, LLC
         Suite 1050, 1040 Crown Pointe Parkway
         Atlanta, GA 30338
         Phone: 770-673-0047

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael R. Smith, Esq. (mrsmith@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding
         191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
         Phone: 404-572-4600


INDYMAC BANCORP: 401k ERISA Class Suit in Calif. Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Oct. 8, 2008 -- The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson
recently consolidated the IndyMac ERISA cases filed on behalf of
the participants and beneficiaries of the IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
401k Plan (the "Plan").

     The Court also appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. as Interim Co-Lead
Counsel and Braun Law Group, P.C. as Interim Liaison Counsel for
the proposed Class.

     "In re IndyMac ERISA Litigation" is currently pending in
the United States District Court Central District of California.

     The litigation is on behalf of a Class of all persons who
were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan between
December 31, 2006 and the present and whose accounts included
investments in IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (Pink Sheets:IDMC) common
stock.

     Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants and
beneficiaries by failing to:

     (1) prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in
         IndyMac stock;

     (2) properly monitor the performance of their fiduciary
         appointees and remove and replace those whose
         performance was inadequate;

     (3) disclose necessary information to co-fiduciaries;

     (4) provide complete and accurate information to the Class
         regarding the soundness of IndyMac stock and the
         prudence of investing and holding retirement
         contributions in IndyMac equity; and

     (5) prevent breaches by other fiduciaries of their duties
         of prudent and loyal management, complete and accurate
         communications, and adequate monitoring.

For more information, contact:

          Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal
          Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
          Phone: 800-776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com
          Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com


JDS UNIPHASE: California Court Dismisses SDL Investor Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sonoma Superior Court in California dismissed a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by individuals purporting to
represent the former shareholders of SDL, Ltd.

The suit is asserting that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the events alleged in a
securities litigation against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The plaintiffs in the SDL action, entitled "Cook v. Scifres,
Master File No. CV814824," purport to represent a class of
former shareholders of SDL who exchanged their SDL shares for
JDS Uniphase shares when the company acquired SDL.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Nov. 20, 2006.

The complaint names the former directors of SDL as defendants,
asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seeks unspecified damages.

On March 6, 2007, the court overruled the defendants' demurrer
to that complaint.  The defendants answered the complaint on
April 6, 2007.

On May 14, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a request to dismiss the
action.  The court dismissed the action the same day, according
to JDS Uniphase's Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 28, 2008.

JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsuniphase.com/-- is a
provider of broadband and optical products and solutions.  Its
products are used in communications, commercial and consumer
applications, including broadband and optical networks, brand
protection, biotechnology, semiconductor, aerospace and defense.


JDS UNIPHASE: Mediation to Begin in ERISA Lawsuit on October 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation session is set to begin today, Oct. 10, 2008, for
the matter "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No.
C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," which was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against JDS Uniphase
Corp.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit which was filed against
JDS Uniphase Corp. is alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  It was filed against the
company, certain of its former and current officers and
directors, and certain other current and former company
employees.  It was brought on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the 401(k) Plans of the company and Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc., and the Plans.

On Oct. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges that defendants violated the ERISA by breaching their
fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants.  The
amended complaint also alleges a purported class period from
Feb. 4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable
remedies.

Certain individual defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the
amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30,
2006.  The defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006,
and JDSU asserted counterclaims for breach of contract.  The
court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006.

On Dec. 15, 2006, the defendants moved for summary judgment on
the ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing.  On the
same day, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On April 24, 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling
on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey,
and deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Both sides have taken discovery.  Following the verdict for the
defendants in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," the court in the ERISA action vacated all existing
deadlines, set a schedule for briefing a summary judgment motion
based on collateral estoppel issues, and stayed discovery
pending resolution of that motion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on collateral estoppel
issues on May 2, 2008.  Further briefing on the motion has been
stayed pending the conclusion of the mediation, which is
scheduled for Oct. 10, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 26,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Pettit v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
3:03-cv-04743-WWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge William W. Schwarzer,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
         Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birhaeuser, LLP
         2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
         Walnut Creek, CA 94598
         Phone: 925-945-0200
         Fax: 925-945-8792

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. (jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

         Paul Flum, Esq. (paulflum@mofo.com)
         Terri Garland, Esq. (tgarland@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522


JDS UNIPHASE: California Securities Suit Dismissal Becomes Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal has been made in connection with the verdict by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
concerning all claims in a consolidated securities fraud class-
action filed against JDS Uniphase Corp.

                       Case Background

On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated all the securities lawsuits
then filed in or transferred to that court as "In re JDS
Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," and appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds as lead plaintiff.

The complaint in the consolidated case purports to be brought on
behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the company's
securities from Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as
on behalf of subclasses consisting of those who acquired the
company's common stock pursuant to its acquisitions of The
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., and SDL
Ltd.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions concerning demand for the company's
products, improperly recognized revenue, overstated the value of
inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

In January 2005, the court denied a motion to dismiss claims
against the company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and
Charles Abbe, and granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.

The defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for
the claims asserted against them.  On Dec. 21, 2005, the court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete.  Each
party has noticed and taken depositions of both party and non-
party witnesses.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling
on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

A jury trial in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," began on Oct. 23, 2007.  At trial, plaintiffs
sought more than $20 billion in alleged damages.

On Nov. 27, 2007, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor
of the defendants on all claims.  On March 28, 2008, the Court
entered a corrected final judgment in favor of the defendants.

Pursuant to that judgment, the plaintiffs will recover no
damages or any other form of relief and the action is dismissed
on the merits.  No appeal from the judgment has been filed and
the period for appeal has expired, according to the company's
Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reedk@lerachlaw.com)
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@lerachlaw.com)
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         Phone:  415-288-4545
                 619-231-1058
         Fax: 415-288-4534
              619-231-7423

              - and -

         John Frith Stewart, Esq.
         Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
         1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
         Louisville, KY 40202-4251
         Phone: 502-568-5600

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (PBesirof@mofo.com)
         Jordan David Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market St.
         San Francisco, CA
         Phone: 94105-2482
         Fax: 415-268-7000
              415-268-7522


JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Stipulate Dismissal of "Zelman" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the purported securities fraud class-action suit,
entitled "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., Case No. 02-4656" have
stipulated and agreed on the dismissal of the action, which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of debt securities that were allegedly linked to the
price of the company's common stock.

The Zelman complaint states that an investment bank issued the
debt securities during the period from March 6, 2001, through
July 26, 2001.  It names the company and several of its former
officers and directors as defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5, and seeks unspecified damages.

On Nov. 16, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which the defendants had not opposed.

Fact discovery in the Zelman litigation is substantially
complete.   A case management conference is scheduled for May
13, 2008.

The plaintiffs have advised the defendants that, given the
outcome of "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation," they intend to dismiss their action with no payment
to the class or to the class representatives.  The parties have
exchanged a draft stipulation reflecting the proposed dismissal.

On May 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulated
dismissal of the action.  No payment was made in connection with
the dismissal, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2008 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04656," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Susan G. Kupfer, Esq. (skupfer@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         455 Market Street, Suite 1810
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-972-8160
         Fax: 415-972-8166

              - and -

         Ira M. Press, Esq. (ipress@kmslaw.com)
         Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP
         830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-371-6600
         Fax: 212-751-2540

Representing the defendants is:

         Holly H. Tambling, Esq. (Htambling@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster, LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Phone: 415 268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522


JDS UNIPHASE: Settlement Reached in "Central States" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Central States Southeast and
Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-
0584," have reached a confidential settlement for the case,
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against JDS Uniphase Corp.

The suit, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension
Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584," was filed on Jan. 29,
2007.  It is based on allegations similar to those made in "In
re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation" and asserts
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933.

The Central State complaint, which was filed against the company
and certain of its officials, seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a pension fund that purportedly purchased company
securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and July 26, 2001, and elected
to opt-out of participation in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Securities Litigation."

On Feb. 14, 2007, the Central States action was deemed related
to "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," and
was assigned Judge Claudia Wilken.

A case management conference in the Central States action is
scheduled for May 13, 2008, and trial is set to begin on Nov. 9,
2009.

Pursuant to the court's order, the parties participated in
mediation on Aug. 7, 2008, and reached an agreement in principle
to resolve all claims on confidential terms, according to the
company's Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 28, 2008.

The suit is "Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corporation et al., Case No. 4:07-
cv-00584-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Claudia Wilken presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone:  619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         e-mail: e_file_sf@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
         Morrison & Foerster
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Phone: 415-268-7000
         Fax: 415-268-7522


LONGS DRUG: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Proposed CVS Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Longs Drug Stores Corp. is facing a purported class-action suit
in California over a proposed transaction with CVS Caremark
Corp., according to the company's Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2008.

On Aug. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Steamfitters Local 449 v. Longs Drug Stores Corporation, et
al.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Contra Costa.

The complaint in the action names the company and its directors,
and CVS Caremark Corp., as defendants, asserting that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take
steps to achieve a higher price in the proposed transaction with
CVS.  It also alleges that the directors suffer from certain
conflicts of interest, and that the company and CVS have aided
and abetted in the directors' alleged breach of duty.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, including an order
prohibiting the company from proceeding with the CVS transaction
until it adopts and implements procedures to obtain the highest
possible price.

Longs Drug Stores Corp. -- http://www.longs.com/-- operates in
two business segments: retail drug stores, and through its
RxAmerica subsidiary, pharmacy benefit services.  Through the
Company’s retail drug store segment, it is a retail drug store
chain on the West Coast of the U.S. and in Hawaii, with 510
stores as of Jan. 31, 2008.  Longs Drug Stores Corp.'s retail
drug store segment also operates a mail order pharmacy business.
The company's pharmacy benefit services segment provides a range
of services related to pharmacy benefit management, including
plan design and implementation, claims administration and
formulary management to third-party health plans and other
organizations.


LONGS DRUG: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Rankin" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action lawsuit entitled
"Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.," which names
Longs Drug Stores Corp., are appealing the dismissal of the
matter.

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County on Oct. 13, 2004.  It was certified
as a class action on July 19, 2005.

The suit alleges that the company's employment application
violates California Labor Code Section 432.8 by inquiring about
criminal convictions within the last seven years, without
providing an exception for misdemeanor marijuana convictions
more than two years old.

The plaintiff sought to recover statutory damages and attorneys'
fees for him and all similarly situated individuals who applied
for employment with the company during the class period.

Trial commenced on Aug. 20, 2007, and concluded with a dismissal
of plaintiff's case by the court on Sept. 26, 2007.  The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on Dec. 4, 2007, according to
the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2008.

Longs Drug Stores Corp. -- http://www.longs.com/-- operates in
two business segments: retail drug stores, and through its
RxAmerica subsidiary, pharmacy benefit services.  Through the
Company’s retail drug store segment, it is a retail drug store
chain on the West Coast of the U.S. and in Hawaii, with 510
stores as of Jan. 31, 2008.  Longs Drug Stores Corp.'s retail
drug store segment also operates a mail order pharmacy business.
The company's pharmacy benefit services segment provides a range
of services related to pharmacy benefit management, including
plan design and implementation, claims administration and
formulary management to third-party health plans and other
organizations.


MCCORMICK: Recalls Sauce Mix Due To Unlabeled Milk Ingredients
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Sparks, MD, September 30, 2008 – McCormick & Company,
Incorporated has announced a voluntary recall of McCormick
Enchilada Sauce Mix with UPC Code 52100091600 sold under the
McCormick brand.

     The McCormick Enchilada Sauce Mix contains undeclared milk
ingredients.  People who have allergies to milk run the risk of
serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product.

     The McCormick Enchilada Sauce Mix was distributed to
grocery stores nationally beginning on September 17, 2008.  The
product comes in 1.5 oz. pouches with an expiration date of
"best by" AUG2910CH.  The date is found printed in black on the
back, bottom left of the pouch.

     The recall was initiated after it was discovered that
product containing the milk ingredient was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk as an
ingredient.

     No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to
date.  No other McCormick products are involved in this recall.

     All grocery outlets that sell McCormick Enchilada Sauce Mix
(UPC Code 52100091600 with expiration date "best by" AUG2910CH)
have been notified to remove the product from their shelves
immediately, and consumers who have purchased this product
should return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact McCormick at 1-800-632-
5847.

     This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food
and Drug Administration.


MCGLADREY: Accountants Missed Petters' Alleged $3 Billion Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, is facing a class-action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accusing it of
failing to properly audit Lancelot Investor Fund and Colossus
Capital Fund, which loaned money to or invested in an alleged
$3 billion Ponzi scheme run by Thomas Petters, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Mr. Petters' scheme allegedly involved "completely fictitious"
HDTVs that Petters claimed to have sold to Sam's and Costco.

The plaintiffs say McGladrey should have detected Petters'
blatant fraud.  They claim Petters prepared "phony purchase
orders and invoices" for "persons who loaned money to the
Petters Group, including numerous investment funds, which had in
turn obtained money from private investors" such as the
plaintiffs.

"In the federal investigation, FBI agents took the phony
purchase orders and invoices directly to Sam's Club and Costco
Wholesale to obtain confirmation of their legitimacy, and were
immediately informed that they were completely bogus.  The
Petters conspirators knew this could happen and discussed it
among themselves: '(I)f investors send auditors out to visit
warehouses where the merchandise is located, . . . the scheme
would implode,'" the complaint states.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons who
invested in Lancelot and Colossus from the inception of each
fund to the present, and who relief on the financial reporting
and audist of M&P/AMG and were damaged, thereby.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendant negligently audited the financial
         statements of Lancelot and Colossus; and

     (b) the extent to which the members of the class have been
         damaged, and the proper measure of damages.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting
        of all investors who became limited partners in Lancelot
        Investors Fund, LP and Colossus Capital Fund, LP from
        their inception until the funds ceased accepting limited
        partners, but expressly excluding Gregory Bell and all
        persons directly or indirectly involved in or affiliated
        with the persons or entities that managed the funds;

     -- following a trial on the merits, plaintiff and the
        members of the class be awarded damages greater than
        $5 million in an amount to be proven at trial;

     -- plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded their
        costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees to the
        greatest extent permitted by law; and

     -- the court order such further or additional relief as it
        deems just, proper and equitable.

The suit is "Ellerbrock Family Trust, LLC et al. v. McGladrey &
Pullen, LLP, Case Number:  0:2008cv05370," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Robert R. Weinstine, Esq.
          Geoffrey P. Jarpe, Esq.
          William A. McNab, Esq.
          Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-604-6400


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Derivative Suit Settlement Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, has issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement of the state and federal court
derivative lawsuits arising out of Monster Worldwide, Inc.'s
historic stock option grant practices.

     In addition, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has granted preliminary approval
of the previously announced settlement of the shareholder class
action arising out of those practices.

     A hearing with respect to final approval of the settlement
of the federal shareholder class action is scheduled for
November 21, 2008.

     Monster Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.monster.com/--
parent company of Monster, the premier global online employment
solution for more than a decade, strives to inspire people to
improve their lives. With a local presence in key markets in
North America, Europe, and Asia, Monster works for everyone by
connecting employers with quality job seekers at all levels and
by providing personalized career advice to consumers globally.
Through online media sites and services, Monster delivers vast,
highly targeted audiences to advertisers. Monster Worldwide is a
member of the S&P 500 index and the NASDAQ 100.


NATIONAL CITY: Sued in Ill. Over Changed Credit Collection Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
National City Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County,
Illinois, alleging it changed terms of credit to collect more
fees and threatened to call in loans immediately to borrowers
who wouldn't pay up at once, CourtHouse News Service reports.

Reger Development brings this claim pursuant to Section 2-801 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS 5/2-801, on behalf of all
natural persons who either had the terms of their contracts for
their lines of credits changed as a result of demands made upon
them by National City while their lines of credit upon demands
of National City when such demands were inconsistent with the
terms of their contracts and while their lines of credit were in
good standing.

Reger Development asks the court:

     -- for damages in an amount to be established at trial,
        believed to be in excess of hundreds of thousands of
        dollars; and

     -- for such other or further relief that the court deems
        appropriate.

The suit is "Reger Development, LLC, et al. v. National City
Bank, Case No. 08 L 792," filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Peter G. Hallam, Esq.
          Law Office of Peter G. Hallam
          2117 Hutchison Road
          Flossmoor, IL 60422
          Phone: 815-806-8820
          Fax: 815-806-8868


NATURAL GAS: Final Approval Hearing Set in Price Indexing Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Oct. 7, 2008 -- A proposed class action
settlement between plaintiffs representing California business
and residential consumers of natural gas and defendant AEP
Energy Services, Inc., and its respective affiliates is pending
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego.

     The class action is "Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV,
Price Indexing Cases, JCCP No. 4221, et al."

     The Proposed Settlement includes all individuals and
businesses in California who purchased natural gas for use (and
excluding purchases they may have made for resale or to generate
electricity for resale) at any time from January 1, 1999 through
December 31, 2002.

     The lawsuit alleges that the defendant caused the price of
natural gas to increase by conducting prearranged "wash trades"
(the contemporaneous purchase and sale of the same amount of
natural gas at the same price) and by reporting false price and
volume information to trade publications that compile natural
gas price indices, in violation of California antitrust and
unfair competition laws, and that California business and
residential consumers paid more for natural gas as a result.
The defendant denies these allegations.

     The benefits of the settlement will be passed through to
California natural gas ratepayers in the form of rate
reductions, credits, and rebates, subject to the approval of the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).  If the
settlement is approved, "non-core" gas customers will be invited
to submit claims for their share of the settlement, based on a
formula. The two groups of class members will share the benefits
of the settlement in approximately the following percentages:
natural gas ratepayers -- 44.3%; non-core gas customers --
55.7%.

     Class Members who do not wish to be included in the
Settlement Class or bound by the terms of the settlement must
exclude themselves in writing on or before October 20, 2008.

     The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for November 14,
2008, at 8:30 am, in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald S.
Prager, Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, Department
71, located at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, to
determine whether the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and should be given final approval.

For more details regarding the Price Indexing Settlement, visit
http://www.PriceIndexingSettlements.com/


NORTHERN TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Auction Rate Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Oct. 8, 2008 (PowerRating) -- A proposed class-action
lawsuit involving auction-rate securities claims that Northern
Trust Corp. misrepresented the risks of such investments.

     On Feb. 13, 87% of the securities auctions failed when
major broker-dealers, including Lehman Brothers and Merrill
Lynch, refused to support the auctions, said the suit filed in a
New York federal court.  As a result, holders of more than $300
billion of securities couldn't liquidate them, the suit alleged.

     The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on
Sept. 17, on behalf of buyers of such securities from Northern
from Sept. 16, 2003, through Feb. 13, 2008.  Auction-rate
securities include municipal or corporate securities paying
interest at rates set at periodic auctions.

     On Sept. 29, Northern said it would take a pretax
$525 million third-quarter charge to provide financial support
to certain investment funds, of which $85 million would cover
costs to buy certain auction-rate securities.

     "The auction-rate securities market used to be a liquid,
high-quality market, but with the credit crisis that market
dried up," Northern Chief Financial Officer Steven Fradkin said
in an interview, not speaking specifically about the suit.

     Northern provided clients low-interest bank loans so they
had liquidity.  Last week it announced the program to buy
certain auction-rate securities.

     "We're going to make an offer to these clients to buy the
securities out at par, so they'll get 100 cents on the dollar,
we'll get the security, we'll immediately mark that security
down, which is why you'll see an $85 million charge," Mr.
Fradkin said.  "We may hold them and they may mature at par, and
we might earn that $85 million back."

     In a statement, Northern said investment banks and
underwriters issued the securities and were responsible for the
auctions.  "Our role was to purchase these securities for client
accounts in accordance with investment guidelines," Northern
said.  The securities were never classified as cash-equivalent
investments, it added.

     Defendants also named included Northern Trust Securities
Inc.  NTSI clients who bought auction-rate securities through
NTSI and held them in NTSI accounts are eligible for the
program.

     Northern itself feels wronged by some investment banks and
other offerers of the securities.

     "We might have a claim against the offerers because
arguably we were as deceived as anyone else," Mr. Fradkin said.

Northern Trust Corporation operates as the holding company for
The Northern Trust Company that provides a range of banking and
financial services to large and mid-sized corporations and
financial institutions in the United States and internationally.

Northern Trust Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


OASIS LEGAL: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Misrepresented Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Legal Finance LLC, is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging it
gives cash advances to people who assign their expected benefits
from workers compensation injury cases to the company - which is
illegal in 44 states, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a class action brought on behalf of a proposed class of
nationwide residents against Oasis to redress Oasis' unlawful
practice taking assignment of workers' compensation benefits
when, in fact, such assignments are illegal.

The plaintiffs say the Northbrook-based company misrepresents
its practice as legal in its nationwide ads.

The plaintiffs request that this action be certified as a class
action, that the acts and practices of defendant be judged as
unlawful, and that the court award plaintiffs and the class
damages, attorneys' fees, their cost of suit, prejudgment
interest and such other and further relief the court deems just
and proper.

The suit is "Stanley Melton, et al. v. Oasis Legal Finance,
LLC," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Jeffrey M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Goldberg Law Offices
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-236-4146
          Fax: 312-236-5913


ORBITZ LLC: Taxes and Fees Assessment Lawsuit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz, LLC, is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit,
entitled "Ronald Bush, et al. v. CheapTickets, Inc., et al.,"
which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

The suit was filed on Feb. 17, 2005, on behalf of all
Californians who were assessed a "Taxes/Fees" charge when paying
for a hotel, motel, or resort room through the defendants.

Specifically, the defendants are a number of Internet travel
companies, including Trip Network, Inc. (d/b/a
Cheaptickets.com); Cendant Corp.; Orbitz, Inc.; and Orbitz.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the California
Business and Professions Code, conversion, and imposition of a
constructive trust.  Their claims are based on allegations that
the defendants charged for taxes that were not legitimate in
that they were not required by the taxing authorities to be
collected.  They also allege that the defendants failed to
disclose this improper practice.

The suit seeks an order certifying the action as a class action,
actual damages, punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement,
attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the California Business and Professions
Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. reported no development regarding the
matter in its Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ LLC: Plaintiff in Taxes Suit Appeals Unfavorable Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees
Litigation," are appealing the summary judgment by an Illinois
court, which favored the defendants.

On May 24, 2005, a consolidated class action complaint,
entitled, "In re Orbitz Taxes and Fees Litigation," was filed
with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Orbitz,
LLC; Orbitz, Inc.; and Cendant, Inc.

This case purports to be a national class action brought by
persons who paid a fee in connection with paying for a hotel
room through the Orbitz Web site from March 19, 2003, to the
present.

The plaintiff also seeks actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest and penalties on behalf of the purported class.

On May 31, 2006, the court dismissed Cendant from the case, and
dismissed all of the claims except for the plaintiff's Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim.

On May 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.  This most
recent complaint only asserts a claim under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and names
only one class representative, an Illinois resident.

The plaintiff alleges that Orbitz failed to provide proper
disclosures to consumers relating to fees charged by Orbitz when
the consumer is booking a hotel room through the Orbitz website.

Orbitz is also alleged to have misled consumers by failing to
break out the exact amount of the service fee in the taxes and
fees line displayed to consumers before the booking is complete.

On June 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order
certifying the action as a nationwide class action.  On that
same date, Orbitz filed a motion for summary judgment.

At the close of the Dec. 19, 2007, hearing on both motions, the
Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and
granted summary judgment in favor of Orbitz.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. reported no further development regarding
the matter in its Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Subsidiaries Face Hotel Occupancy Taxes Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of the Orbitz Worldwide Inc. subsidiaries and
affiliates, including Orbitz, Inc., Orbitz, LLC, Trip Network,
Inc. (d/b/a CheapTickets), Travelport Americas, LLC (f/k/a
Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.), and
Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), are parties
to various cases brought by municipalities and other
governmental entities involving hotel occupancy taxes and our
merchant hotel business model, according to the company's Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Some of the cases are purported class-action lawsuits and most
of the cases were brought simultaneously against other Internet
travel companies, including Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline.
The cases allege, among other things, that the company violated
the jurisdictions' hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to
the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under the
ordinance.

While not identical in their allegations, the cases generally
assert similar claims, including violations of local or state
occupancy tax ordinances, violations of consumer protection
ordinances, conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a
constructive trust, demand for a legal or equitable accounting,
injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and in some cases,
civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs seek relief in a variety of forms, including:
declaratory judgment, full accounting of monies owed, imposition
of a constructive trust, compensatory and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, interest, penalties and costs,
attorneys' fees, and where a class action has been claimed, an
order certifying the action as a class action.

Some the cases pending against the company and its affiliates
were filed by:

       -- City of Los Angeles. Filed on Dec. 30, 2004 in
          Superior Court for the State of California, County of
          Los Angeles;

       -- City of Rome, et al.  Filed on Nov. 18, 2005 in U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;

       -- Pitt County, North Carolina.  Filed on Dec. 1, 2005 in
          U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

       -- City of San Antonio, Texas, et al.  Filed on May 8,
          2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
          District of Texas;

       -- Lake County Convention and Visitor Bureau and Marshall
          County, Indiana.  Filed on June 12, 2006 in the U.S.
          District Court for the Northern District of Indiana;

       -- Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government.  Filed
          on Sept 21, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
          Western District of Kentucky (Lexington-Fayette Urban
          County has moved to intervene in this case.);

       -- County of Nassau, New York.  Filed on Oct 24, 2006 in
          the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit;

       -- City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.  Filed on Feb. 28,
          2007 in the Circuit Court of Washington County,
          Arkansas;

       -- City of Jefferson, Missouri.  Filed on June 27, 2007
          in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, Cole County,
          Missouri; and

       -- City of Gallup, New Mexico. Filed on July 6, 2007 in
          the U.S. District Court for the District of New
          Mexico.

Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. -- http://www.orbitz.com/-- is a global
online travel company that uses technology to enable leisure and
business travelers to research, plan and book a range of travel
products.  The company owns and operates a portfolio of consumer
brands that includes Orbitz, CheapTickets, ebookers, HotelClub,
RatesToGo and the Away Network and corporate travel brands,
Orbitz for Business and Travelport for Business.  It provides
customers with access to a set of travel products, including
air, hotels, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, travel
insurance and destination services from over 80,000 suppliers
worldwide.


REGIONAL TITLE: Faces Md. Suit for Acting as Settlement Agent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Title & Escrow LLC, is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
for acting as settlement agent in the "largest mortgage scam in
Mid-Atlantic history," CourtHouse News Service reports.

This matter involves the actions of the Defendant, RTE as
settlement agent and its role in the single largest mortgage
scam in the Mid-Atlantic history which has bilked homeowners of
millions of dollars of lost equity and threatens these families
with imminent foreclosure.

The participants in the scam included, among others,
Metropolitan Money Store, Inc., Money Tree Funding, LLC., Joy
Jackson, Kurt Fordham, Jennifer McCall, Clifford McCall, Fordham
& Fordham and others hereinafter referred to collectively as
"Metropolitan."

Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 on behalf o
all homeowners in the State of Maryland or the District of
Columbia who entered into an agreement with Metropolitan, and
the transaction resulted in a transfer of the title to their
principal residence to a third person with whom Metropolitan had
an agreement to have an interest in the transferred property,
and where the property transfer was settled by RTE.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether RTE breached duties to the Plaintiff and
         members of the Class, causing them damages;

     (b) whether the acts or omissions of the Defendant RTE
         caused damages to the Plaintiff and members of the
         Class.

Plaintiffs request:

     -- certification of a class of persons as defined herein;

     -- appointment of Plaintiff as the class representative;

     -- appointment of Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel;

     -- an Award of compensatory damages against RTE for its
        negligence, in an amount to be determined at trial, but
        in no event less than $5,000,000.00 exclusive of costs
        and interest for the class;

     -- such other and further relief as the nature of this case
        may require.

The suit is "Sharon Winston et al. v. Regional Title & Escrow,
LLC, Case Number: 8:2008cv02633," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Scott C. Borrison, Esq. (borison@legglaw.com)
          Legg Law Firm, LLC
          5500 Buckeystown Pike
          Frederick, MD 21703
          Phone: 301-620-1016
          Fax: 301-620-1018


SUNNY MAID: Recalls Mr. Brown Coffee Mixes Due To Health Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
     October 1, 2008 -- Sunny Maid Corp. of Monterey Park,
California is voluntarily recalling Mr. Brown 3-in-1 and 2-in-1
POWDERED PACKETS IN BAG COFFEE MIXES, because they are
potentially contaminated with melamine.

     The Mr. Brown 3-in-1 and 2-in-1 POWDERED PACKETS IN BAG
COFFEE MIXES are sold in PLASTIC BAGS, each containing 30
individual packets.  Although seven flavors are available in
Asia, ONLY THREE FLAVORS ARE IMPORTED INTO THE U.S.  The three
flavors being recalled are:

     1. Mr. Brown 3-in-1 POWDERED PACKETS IN BAG COFFEE MIX –
        Mandheling;

     2. Mr. Brown 3-in-1 POWDERED PACKETS IN BAG COFFEE MIX –
        Arabica;

     3. Mr. Brown 2-in-1 POWDERED PACKETS IN BAG COFFEE MIX –
        Mandheling.

** CANNED MR. BROWN COFFEE PRODUCTS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE
RECALL. **

     The recall was initiated after the manufacturer notified
Sunny Maid that these 3-in-1 and 2-in-1 Coffee Mix products may
contain melamine.  Although only certain lots are potentially
contaminated, Sunny Maid is recalling all lots.  No illnesses
associated with this product have been reported to date.

     Product was distributed to the states of CA, FL, GA, IA,
IN, KS, KY, MA, MI, MN, NC, NM, NV, OH, PA, RI, TN, TX, VA, WA,
and WI to wholesale distributors and retail stores.

     Consumers who purchased the product are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a refund.  Consumers with questions
may email the company at smc88@att.net.


TNUVA FOODS: Faces Suit for Adding Excessive Silicone to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tnuva Food Industries Ltd. is facing a class-action complaint
filed in Tel Aviv District Court, finding that Israel's largest
dairy manufacturer, whose sales account for a major portion of
Israeli dairy market, added 10 times more silicone than the
maximum allowed to its ultra-high-temperature milk from January
1994 to September 1995, People's Daily reports.

Recently, the dairy giant was fined nearly $16 million for
adding excessive silicone to its milk in mid-1990s, the report
states.

"It was not a mistake, but a planned deception bordering on
fraud and a serious breach of trust toward consumers and
regulatory authorities," the court said before announcing the
fine of some $15.7 million.

The ruling said that except for a small amount of the fine that
will go to the plaintiffs, the remaining will not be delivered
to the victims, but rather be used for price reduction, research
and scholarships in food and nutrition, and supply of free milk
for the needy.

The court also blamed the Health Ministry for its lack of
supervision of Tnuva.

In response, Tnuva protested the ruling, saying that multiple
measures have been carried out to compensate for the mistake
"that today we find difficult to fathom."

"The incident occurred 13 years ago.  Following the case, the
entire management connected with the case was replaced," said
the company in a statement, adding that its production practices
have since undergone significant changes.

The company said it is considering its next steps.

Tnuva Food Industries supplies the milk in the land of milk and
honey, and, as Israel's largest food company, it has no trouble
keeping its dairy and meat divisions separate. Tnuva's dairy
division supplies fluid and cultured milk products, butter, soy-
based drinks, and cheeses throughout Israel. It markets the
Yoplait brand in that country as well. The company's other food
divisions are major processors and suppliers of chicken, eggs,
fish, meats, frozen pizza, and deli items. Tnuva's subsidiary,
Sunfrost, makes frozen vegetables. Tnuva is owned by the
original kibbutzim and moshavim (farming collectives and
cooperatives) that founded the company.


TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls Kids Stuff Violating Lead Paint Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Tween Brands Inc., of New Albany, Ohio,
in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
is recalling about 12,000 children's ball and heart necklaces,
portable CD and MP3 players.

     Surface coatings on these products could contain excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.  No
injuries have been reported.

     This recall involves a Ball and Heart Necklace with pink
beads of varying sizes and a pink heart located in the center; a
Portable CD Player with flowers and dots available in blue and
pink; a pink MP3 Player with purple, green, blue, yellow, and
red hearts; and a light blue MP3 Player with a picture of a
monkey's face on the front.

     These recalled children’s ball and heart necklaces,
portable CD and MP3 players were manufactured in China and were
being sold  at Limited Too and Justice retail stores nationwide,
the Limited Too catazine (catalog), and at
http://www.limitedtoo.com/from May 2007 through August 2008.

     The Ball and Heart Necklace sold for about $8, the Portable
CD Players sold for about $25, and the MP3 Players sold for
about $55.

     Pictures of the recalled children's ball and heart
necklaces, portable CD and MP3 players are found at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09003.jpg

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09003b.jpg

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09003c.jpg

     Consumers are advised to immediately take these recalled
products away from children and return them to any Limited Too
or Justice store for a full refund and a coupon for a 15%
discount off a future purchase.

     For additional information, call Tween Brands at 800-934-
4497 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web sites at http://www.limitedtoo.com/and
http://www.shopjustice.com/


U.S. STEELMAKERS: Fourth Antitrust Suit Commenced in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth class-action lawsuit against U.S. steelmakers was filed
on Oct. 2, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois as three previous complaints filed in
September against the same eight steel producers, the SteelGuru
reports.

The named defendants are:

     -- Arcelormittal USA, Inc.,
     -- United States Steel Corporation,
     -- Nucor Corporation,
     -- Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation,
     -- Steel Dynamics, Inc.,
     -- AK Steel Holding Corporation,
     -- SSAB Swedish Steel Corporation and
     -- Commercial Metals, Inc.

Like the other filed suits, the recent suit seeks damages under
US antitrust laws on behalf of named plaintiff, Capow Inc.,
doing business as Eastern States Steel located at Norristown in
Pennsylvania.

The suit is "Capow, Inc. v. Arcelormittal et al., Case Number:
1:2008cv05633," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Jugde Amy J. St. Eve, presiding.


UNDERWRITERS: Face Securities Fraud Suit Related to Fannie Mae
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 7, 2008 -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman &
Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Lehman Brothers, Inc. (Pink Sheets:LEHMQ); Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated  J. P. Morgan Securities,
Inc.; and Goldman Sachs & Co. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"); and certain officers of Fannie Mae.

     The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

     The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae's
Association a/k/a Fannie Mae's ("Fannie Mae" or the "Company")
8.25% Fixed-To-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock
Series S (the "Preferred Stock"), which were first offered to
the public on or about December 11, 2007 (the "Offering").

     The Class Period extends from December 11, 2007, until
September 5, 2008.

     The Offering involved the sale of approximately 280 million
shares of the Preferred Stock at a price of $25 per share.
Thus, Fannie Mae raised about $7 billion in this Offering, less
underwriting fees.  The new capital was to help shore up the
Company's balance sheet so that capital requirements could
continue to be satisfied, enhance shareholder value and provide
stability to the secondary mortgage market.  Fannie Mae's senior
officers, defendants here, repeatedly assured the marketplace
that this round of capital-raising would put the company on a
sound financial footing and that they believed that additional
infusions of cash would not be necessary for the foreseeable
future.

     The four Underwriter Defendants were the lead underwriters
for the Offering.  As such, they participated in the review and
drafting of the Offering Circular, which was the official sales
document for the Offering, solicited sales of the Offer, and
identified themselves, on the cover of the Offering Circular, as
the lead underwriters for the Offering.  As co-book-running
managers, Lehman Brothers Inc. and Merrill Lynch each purchased,
for resale, 100,800,000 shares of the Preferred Stock; and as
senior co-managers of the offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and J.P.
Morgan Securities, Inc., each purchased, for resale, 22.4
million shares.  The underwriters delivered the Offering
Circular to prospective investors, and resold to investors the
shares they had bought in the Offering.

     The complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants'
statements made in connection with the Offering were materially
false and misleading because:

     (a) they grossly overstated Fannie Mae's capitalization,
         claiming that the Company had a substantial capital
         surplus when, in fact, it was including on its balance
         sheet, at full value, billions of dollars in deferred
         tax assets that were valueless;

     (b) they failed to disclose the serious risk that current
         account changes under consideration by the FASB could
         force the Company to bring over $2 trillion of
         currently off-balance-sheet obligations onto its
         financial statements, depleting its capital surplus
         even further;

     (c) they misrepresented the value of Alt-A and subprime
         mortgages on their books; and

     (d) the individual defendants falsely asserted that
         management believed that the current securities
         offerings of the company would be adequate for the
         foreseeable future.

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

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529


WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Faces Suit Over Fannie Mae Preferred Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Oct 08, 2008 -- The law firm of Milberg LLP
filed a class action lawsuit on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities that were offered or
sold Series T Preferred shares of Federal National Mortgage
Association (NYSE: FNM-T) by Wachovia Securities, LLC or
Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (collectively, "Wachovia") during
Fannie Mae's initial offering of those shares.

     The lawsuit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

     The class action, Civil Action No. 08-CV-8551, is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Related actions are pending before the Honorable
Gerard E. Lynch in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 12(a)2 of the Securities Act by
offering or selling shares of stock pursuant to a materially
false or misleading prospectus.

     Fannie Mae is a government sponsored enterprise created by
Congress with the mandate to provide liquidity and stability to
the secondary mortgage market and to help make home ownership
affordable for low- and middle-income citizens.

     On May 13, 2008, Fannie Mae offered to the public
89,000,000 shares of Series T Preferred stock.  The stock was
sold by various underwriters, including Wachovia.

     The complaint alleges that the stock was sold to the public
pursuant to an offering circular which was materially false and
misleading.  Specifically, the offering circular failed to warn
investors that because of new accounting rules, there was a risk
that Fannie Mae would not be able to meet certain minimum
capital requirements imposed on it by its regulator, the Office
of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO").

     If Fannie Mae was not able to meet OFHEO's minimum capital
requirements, its ability to carry on its normal business
operations would be in serious jeopardy.  When this fact was
revealed to investors on July 7, 2008, the price of Fannie Mae
Series T Preferred shares plummeted.  The shares were originally
offered to the public at $25.00 per share, and have dropped to
as low as $2.00 per share.

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

For more information, contact:

          Kent Bronson, Esq.
          Roland Riggs, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 800-320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Class Period Excludes 2008 Mkt Decline Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
     CORAL GABLES, FL, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The Securities
Arbitration Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA (TGN) makes
an announcement to Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM) shareholders
concerning the class action period.

     The Washington Mutual class action lawsuit (Case No. 07 CV
09801) class period, which runs from July 19, 2006, to
October 31, 2007, does not include losses during the 2008 market
decline.  Since the filing of the class action lawsuit,
Washington Mutual stock has continued to decline and [today] is
practically worthless.  As a result of these developments,
shareholders who held Washington Mutual stock through the advice
of a financial advisor with a full service brokerage firm might
recover a greater portion of their losses in an individual
arbitration claim, through pleading a sales practice violation.

     Sales practice violations, such as investment concentration
in a particular security or sector and the failure to implement
risk management strategies, are both violations which qualify
for damages from a security arbitration claim filed with the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, (FINRA).  Investors
that relied on a financial advisor may be able to pursue a
securities arbitration claim with FINRA when their case facts
and investment losses justify such a claim.  In some cases,
shareholders must "opt-out" as a class member in order to pursue
a securities arbitration claim, otherwise this legal option is
not available.

For more information, contact:

          David Chacin, Esq.
          Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA
          2100 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: 800-578-0137
          http://www.stockmarketlosslawyer.com/securities-concentration.htm


WELLS FARGO: Faces Wash. Suit for Cheating Customers of Millions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
alleging it cheated customers of "millions of dollars" in bogus
overdraft fees by rearranging their withdrawals from highest
amount to lowest, rather than chronologically, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Plaintiffs bring this class action under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, RCW Section 19 86.010 et seq., and common law
principles of contract law.

Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief and other relief for
the harm caused by Wells Fargo's systematic practice of re-
sequencing electronic debit transactions from highest to lowest
dollar amount instead of posting them in the order in which the
electric transactions were actually received, so as to put its
customers' accounts into a negative balnce as quickly as
possible and artificially increase the number of overdraft fees
it charges its customers.

Plaintiffs bring this class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all Wells Fargo customers who
have or had a checking account with Wells Fargo in the State of
Washington from Oct. 3, 2002 to the present, who incurred
overdraft fees on electronic debit transactions when they had
sufficient funds in their accounts to cover those electronic
debits when Wells Fargo received them, but who were assessed an
overdraft fee as a result of Wells Fargo's practice of re-
sequencing electronic debits from highest to lowest dollar
amount before assessing overdraft fees.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Wells Fargo's practice of re-sequencing
         electronic debits from highest to lowest dollar amount
         so as to put its customers' accounts into a negative
         balance as quickly as possible and artificially
         increase the number of overdraft fees for electronic
         debit transactions constitutes an unfair or deceptive
         act or practice under the Consumer Protection Act;

     (b) whether Wells Fargo's practice of charging overdraft
         fees for electronic debit transactions when customers
         have sufficient funds in their accounts to cover those
         electronic debits when Wells Fargo received them
         constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice
         under the Consumer Protection Act;

     (c) whether Wells Fargo's practice of re-sequencing
         electronic debits from highest to lowest dollar amount
         so as to put its customers' accounts into a negative
         balance as quickly as possible and artificially
         increase the number of overdraft fees for electronic
         debit transactions violates Wells Fargo's contractual
         obligations to its customers, including its contractual
         duty of good faith and fair dealing;

     (d) whether Wells Fargo's unfair or deceptive acts
         described caused damages to plaintiffs and the class
         under the Consumer Protection Act, and the proper
         measure and amount of those damages;

     (e) whether Wells Fargo's violation of its contractual
         obligations owed to its customers, including its
         contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing, caused
         damages to plaintiffs and the class, and the proper
         measure and amount of those damages; and

     (f) whether Wells Fargo should be enjoined from continuing
         to engage in the unfair, deceptive, unreasonable and
         unlawful practices alleged.

Plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying this case as a class action
        under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and
        appointing plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the
        class;

     -- an order entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs
        and the class against Wells Fargo;

     -- an order enjoining Wells Fargo from continuing to
        engage in these unlawful, deceptive, unreasonable and
        unlawful practices as alleged;

     -- actual and consequential damages against Wells Fargo
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class in an amount to be
        determined at trial;

     -- statutory and treble damages as provided by the
        Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.56.010 et seq.;

     -- costs, including attorneys' fees and prejudgment
        interest, as provided in RCW 19.86.010 et seq.; and

     -- such additional or further relief as the court finds
        just and appropriate.

The suit is "Alex Zankich, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ,
Case No. C 08-1476," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.


XETHANOL: N.Y. Court Grants Final OK to $2.8MM Securities Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Oct. 8, 2008 -- The United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York has granted final approval
of a proposed settlement affecting people who purchased the
publicly-traded common stock of Xethanol between January 31,
2006, and August 8, 2006.

     On Oct. 23, 2006, a purported class action suit was filed
by Milton Ariail against Xethanol, Lawrence S. Bellone,
Christopher d'Arnaud- Taylor and Jeffery S. Langberg (Civil
Action No. 06-10234).

     The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
and the individual defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's operations,
management and internal controls in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

     The plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period between Jan. 31, 2006, and April 8, 2006.

     Six nearly identical class action complaints were then
filed in the same court, all of which have been consolidated
into one action captioned, "In re Xethanol Corporation
Securities Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.)."

     The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint
on March 23, 2007.

     The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 23, 2007, which dismissal request was later
denied by the District Court.

     Subsequently, on Nov. 28, 2007, the defendants, including
the company, reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs' lead counsel to settle the case.

     The tentative settlement agreement, which was reached
during a mediation overseen by a retired U.S. District Court
judge, calls for the payment of $2.8 million to the plaintiffs,
of which the company will pay $400,000 and the company's
insurance carriers will pay $2.4 million.  In addition, the
company's insurance carriers will pay the plaintiffs $300,000 in
legal costs (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008).

     The Final Approval Order also dismisses the action, which
is now concluded.

     David Ames, President and CEO of Xethanol stated, "We are
very pleased that the court has approved the settlement and that
this matter is now behind us."

The suit is "In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:06-cv-10234-HB," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. (kimmiller225@yahoo.com)
         Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
         12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-696-3730
         Fax: 504-455-1498

Representing the defendant is:

         Katherine Blackwood Harrison, Esq. (kh@pwlawyers.com)
         Paduano & Weintraub LLP
         1251 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Phone: 212-785-9100
         Fax: 212-785-9099


ZUMIEZ INC: No Trial Date Yet for Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for the purported class action lawsuit
entitled, "Evan Johnson v. Zumiez, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG08374968," which was filed in the Alameda County Superior
Court.

The suit was filed on March 5, 2008, by a former Zumiez
employee, alleging that the company failed to pay all overtime
wages owing to him and other employees, failed to provide meal
breaks as required by California law, failed to provide
employees with proper itemized wage statements (pay stubs) as
required by California law, and failed to pay terminated
employees waiting time penalties under California Labor Code
section 203.

The plaintiff recently filed a first amended complaint which
adds an additional claim that employees under age 18 worked more
hours than permitted by the Labor Code.  The first amended
complaint also seeks to recover penalties under the Private
Attorney General Act for alleged violation of various Labor Code
sections.

The suit was filed as a putative class action, but no motion
requesting certification of the case as a class action has been
filed.  No trial date has been set.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008.

Zumiez, Inc. -- http://www.zumiez.com/-- is a mall-based
specialty retailer of action sports related apparel, footwear,
equipment and accessories operating under the Zumiez brand name.


ZUMIEZ INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zumiez, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

On Dec. 10, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

A substantially similar complaint was filed before the same
court on Dec. 14, 2007.

These cases, which were subsequently consolidated, purport to be
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period March 14, 2007, to Nov. 7, 2007.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 5,
2008, extending the class period to Jan. 4, 2008, and alleging
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during
this period of time by, among other things, making
misrepresentations about the company's projected financial
results in order to artificially inflate the company's stock
price.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

On May 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, extending the class period to Jan. 4, 2008, and
alleging that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws during this period of time by, among other things, making
misrepresentations about the company's projected financial
results in order to artificially inflate the company's stock
price.

On July 21, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs have until Sept. 19, 2008, to
oppose that motion, and the defendants reply is due on or before
Oct. 20, 2008, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Richards v. Zumiez Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01980-JCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Sayed Ashar Ahmed, Esq. (aahmed@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
          100 Pine St., Ste. 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545

               - and -

          Juli E. Farris, Esq (jfarris@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384

Representing the defendants are:

          James E. Fosler, Esq (jfosler@foslerlawgroup.com)
          Fosler Law Group, Inc.
          1200 112th Ave. NE, Ste. C-110
          Bellevue, WA 98004
          Phone: 426-990-8626

               - and -

          Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life Deal Entered on Sept. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), on Sept. 29, 2008, entered into an asbestos-related
endorsement and a Termination Agreement and Release, according
to a Company press release dated Oct. 2, 2008.

The Termination Agreements were entered with respect to each of:

     -- Restatement of the Excess Asbestos Indemnity Insurance
        Policy, dated as of Dec. 31, 1998, between Stockwood
        Reinsurance Company, Ltd., an affiliate of Swiss Re,
        and MLIC (Stockwood Policy),

     -- Restatement of the Excess Asbestos Indemnity Insurance
        Policy, dated as of Dec. 31, 1998, between European
        Reinsurance Corporation of America, an affiliate of
        Swiss Re, and MLIC (ERC Policy), and

     -- Restatement of the Excess Asbestos Indemnity Insurance
        Policy, dated as of Dec. 31, 1998, between Granite
        State Insurance Company, an affiliate of American
        International Group, Inc., and MLIC (Granite State
        Policy, and, collectively, the "Policies").

The Termination Agreements were effective as of Sept. 30, 2008.

In connection with the commutation, MLIC received securities
with a market value of about US$115 million on Sept. 26, 2008.
MLIC will receive the remainder of about US$600 million
recoverable in cash on or before Jan. 30, 2009. MLIC will
recognize a loss of US$22.9 million, net of income tax, during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The Policies provided for recovery of losses for asbestos-
related claims of up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400
million self-insured retention. The Policies were also subject
to annual and per claim sublimits.

Amounts were recoverable under the Policies annually with
respect to claims paid during the preceding calendar year. Each
Policy contained an experience fund and a reference fund that
provided for payments to MLIC at the commutation date if the
reference fund was greater than zero at commutation or pro rata
reductions from time to time in the loss reimbursements to MLIC
if the cumulative return on the reference fund was less than the
return specified in the experience fund.

The return in the reference fund was tied to performance of the
Standard & Poor's 500 Index and the Lehman Brothers Aggregate
Bond Index.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc.'s flagship insurance
company is the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The Company
offers life and disability insurance, retirement products, and
prepaid legal plans. The Company has three segments: Individual,
Institutional, and International.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beese Suit Filed v. 78 Companies on Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest and Shirley Beese, on Oct. 1, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 78 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Beese was diagnosed with lung cancer
on May 22, 2008.

The suit states that Mr. Beese worked from 1950 until 1955 as a
carpenter at various commercial and residential construction
sites and from 1956 until 1994 as a tile worker at Abbott
Laboratories, Great Lakes Naval Training, Kentile Floors, O'Hare
Airport, The Sherwin-Williams Company, Johnson and Johnson and
various hospitals in Chicago.

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

In the 11-count lawsuit, the Beese couple 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,
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, and for other
relief the Court deems appropriate.

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

Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli, Rowland & Short in Edwardsville,
Ill., represent the Beeses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goetzmann Suit v. 79 Firms Filed on Oct. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Goetzmann of Missouri filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 79 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., on Oct. 1, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Filed on behalf of Mrs. Goetzmann's late husband, Steven J.
Goetzmann, the suit says that Mr. Goetzmann was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Oct. 4, 2006 and died on Jan. 29, 2007.

In the suit, Mrs. Goetzmann says her husband worked in 1970 as a
laborer at John Deer Plant in Moline, Ill., from 1971 until 1982
as an electrician at International Harvester Company in East
Moline and from 1979 until 1980 as an electrician at Ottumwa.

Mr. Goetzmann also worked from 1984 until 1996 as an electrician
at General Motors Corporation in the Guide Division and from
1996 until the time of his death at General Motors Corporation
in Missouri.

According to the suit, Mrs. Goetzmann states Mr. Goetzmann'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.

In the 11-count lawsuit, Mrs. Goetzmann seeks sums in excess of
US$200,000, economic damages in excess of US$150,000 and
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, plus the cost of
the suit.

Mrs. Goetzmann also seeks punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish Ferris Kimball Company, Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation, Sprinkmann 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.

Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli, Rowland and Short in
Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Goetzmann.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smiths Sue 136 Companies in Kanawha County
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Smith and his wife, Judy Smith, both of Pittsburgh,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 136 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on Aug. 26, 2008,
The West Virginia Record reports.

Pittsburgh attorney David Chervenick, Esq., filed the suit on
the Smiths' behalf.

According to the suit, the 70-year-old Mr. Smith worked at
various job sites in West Virginia as an asbestos insulation
work for Asbestos Workers Local 2. He now has asbestosis and
mesothelioma, lung diseases contracted from asbestos exposure.

Mr. Smith claims he was exposed to asbestos at job sites and
locales around West Virginia.

In the 14-count suit, The Smiths seek compensatory and punitive
damages, for themselves and other similarly situated.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 08-C-1640 will be assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defee Suit v. 37 Firms Filed in Tex. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luther and Wille Mae Defee, on Sept. 26, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit in Jefferson District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit, the Defees claim Mr. Defee worked as a
laborer and an operator. They claim his disease came about
because he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed asbestos fibers.

The Defees claim the products were unreasonably dangerous and
defective and that the companies were negligent because they
failed to warn or adequately test their products.

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

The Defees seek unspecified actual and exemplary damages, costs
of the suit and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

Bryan O. Blevins, Jr., Esq., of Provost, Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., represents the Defees.

Case No. A182-456 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham, 58th
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in OneBeacon v. Kramig
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, issued split rulings in an asbestos case filed by
OneBeacon America Insurance Co. against R.E. Kramig & Co., Inc.

The case is styled OneBeacon America Insurance Co., et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Safeco Insurance Co., et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge Herman J. Weber entered judgment in Case
No. C-1-07-358 on Aug. 25, 2008.

This matter arose out of an insurance coverage dispute between
OneBeacon and affiliated companies, and Kramig, an insulation
contractor which OneBeacon insured under liability policies
issued from about 1962 through 1985.

Beginning about 1994, OneBeacon engaged the Thompson Hine law
firm to represent Kramig, as well as other parties insured by
OneBeacon, in defense of asbestos personal injury liability
claims. Christopher Bechhold, Esq., a partner in the firm's
Cincinnati office, was the attorney to whom such representation
was assigned.

By complaint dated May 7, 2007, OneBeacon filed this action
against Kramig and other insurance carriers providing excess
coverage to Kramig, seeking a declaratory judgment that
OneBeacon has exhausted its coverage limits under the subject
insurance polices, and was not liable for any future asbestos
claims against Kramig.

Mr. Bechhold and the Thompson Hine firm thereafter filed an
answer and counterclaim on behalf of Kramig, asserting that
OneBeacon's attempt to terminate its coverage obligations under
the subject policies is premised upon an unintended and
unreasonable interpretation of the policies' "single occurrence"
provisions.

On June 29, 2007, OneBeacon filed its motion to disqualify Mr.
Bechhold and the Thompson Hine firm from representing Kramig in
this matter.

Accordingly, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part OneBeacon's motion to disqualify the Thompson Hine law
firm.

The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to
disqualify Mr. Bechhold from further representation of Kramig in
this matter, and was denied to the extent that it sought to
disqualify the Thompson Hine law firm from being considered by
Kramig for its counsel.

Accordingly, Mr. Bechhold was ordered to refrain from hereafter
representing Kramig in this matter.

This case is was stayed for a period of 60 days to permit Kramig
to retain new counsel of its choice to represent it in this
case. Kramig shall notify this Court and cause its new counsel
to enter his or her appearance in this case as soon as possible
but no later than 60 days from Aug. 26, 2008.

David W. Walulik, Esq., and Scott R. Brown, Esq., of Frost Brown
Todd LLC in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented Plaintiffs.

James Joseph Montgomery, Esq., Montgomery Rennie & Johnson,
Robert P. Johnson, Esq., of Thompson Hine LLP, and Christopher
Mark Bechhold, Esq., of Thompson Hine & Flory in Cincinnati,
Ohio, represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NJ Court Favors Contractor in Analuisa Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, ruled in
favor of contractor J. Michael Richards, in a suit involving
asbestos filed by Luis Analuisa and Norma Analuisa.

The case is styled Luis Analuisa and Norma Analuisa, his wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. David Gratton Weir, David G. Weir, Jr.,
Sea Structure, LLC., Bisa Klemco, Inc., and Klemco, Inc.,
Defendants, and J. Michael Richards, Defendant-Respondent.

Judges Skillman, Winkelstein, and LeWinn entered judgment of the
case on Aug. 28, 2008.

Mr. Analuisa was an employee of Klemco, Inc., an asbestos
removal company. On Oct. 10, 2000, Mr. Analuisa was injured when
he fell from a ladder while removing asbestos siding from a
house owned by Sea Structure, LLC.

Sea Structure had contracted with Mr. Richards to demolish the
house and build a new one. Mr. Richards subcontracted with
Klemco to remove the siding.

As of the time of trial, Mr. Analuisa testified that he was in
constant pain, could not use his left hand, and suffered from
depression. He stated he took 14 different medications each day,
which made him tired, dizzy and nauseous. His injury left him
unable to return to the work force.

Mr. Analuisa's liability theory against Mr. Richards was that,
as the general contractor, Mr. Richards had breached his non-
delegable duty to provide a safe work environment.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Hudson County, Docket No. L-2066-02.

The Analuisas appealed from a Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, ruling that found Mr. Richards not
liable for injuries sustained by Mr. Analuisa in an accident on
a construction job site for which Mr. Richards was the general
contractor.

All other defendants were dismissed by summary judgment. The
Analuisas had not appealed those orders.

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.

James C. Mescall, Esq., argued the cause for appellants (Mescall
& Acosta, attorneys; Mr. Mescall, on the brief).

John P. Gillespie, Esq., argued the cause for respondent J.
Michael Richards (Romando, Tucker, Zirulnik & Sherlock,
attorneys; Mr. Gillespie, on the brief).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Viad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed a King
County Superior Court's ruling in favor of Viad Corporation, in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Harold Payne and Elizabeth
Payne.

Judges C. Kenneth Grosse, Ann Schindler, and H. Joseph Coleman
entered judgment in Case No. 58638-6-I on Aug. 18, 2008. Judge
Schindler filed a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Payne alleged he was exposed to asbestos used in conjunction
with evaporators and fuel oil heaters manufactured by Griscom-
Russell Corporation while serving in the U.S. Navy as a boiler
operator and technician from 1952 to 1981.

In August 2005, Mr. Payne was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The
Paynes filed a personal injury suit in King County Superior
Court on Nov. 1, 2005 against numerous defendants, including
Viad.

Mr. Payne sued Viad as the corporate successor-in-interest to
Griscom-Russell. Viad is incorporated in Delaware and its
business transactions are widespread.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, Griscom-Russell manufactured
marine engineering products including fuel oil heaters and
evaporators used for desalinization of seawater onboard naval
vessels. These Griscom-Russell products were in use on about
half of U.S. Navy vessels at one point while Mr. Payne served.

While not dangerous or defective as sold, proper usage of these
Griscom-Russell products required insulation and the U.S. Navy
used asbestos to this end.

Mr. Payne contended he was exposed to asbestos during routine
maintenance on Griscom-Russell equipment onboard naval vessels
at sea and did not assign his exposure to any specific
incident(s), leaving the location of the purported injury
unknown.

Viad denied that it was Griscom-Russell's corporate successor
and thus not responsible for any of Griscom-Russell's asbestos-
related liabilities.

Viad alternatively defended arguing that Griscom-Russell neither
owed nor breached a duty to warn Mr. Payne and denied that
asbestos, used in conjunction with Griscom-Russell products,
substantially contributed to Mr. Payne's mesothelioma.

The first issue of Viad's liability as corporate successor to
Griscom-Russell was severed for trial and was the only issue the
Appeals Court addressed on appeal.

Prior to trial, Viad moved to apply the law of Delaware to the
issue of Viad's successor liability. Mr. Payne objected and the
trial court reserved its decision regarding the applicable law
pending the conclusion of trial. At trial, the parties presented
competing evidence, much of it circumstantial, regarding the
disputed events of 1962 and 1965. Two witnesses testified: one
in-person and the other through videotaped perpetuation
deposition testimony.

After a four day bench trial, the trial court ruled against
Viad, finding it responsible for any Griscom-Russell asbestos-
related liabilities as Griscom-Russell's corporate successor or
through its continuation of the pertinent Griscom-Russell
product lines.

The trial court entered partial final judgment against Viad on
successor liability on July 31, 2006. Viad appealed.

The Paynes had failed to present evidence of continuity of
ownership of the merged company, required for finding a de facto
merger, and failed to present evidence of sales made after the
purchase, indicating the continuation of the same product lines.

The Appeals Court reversed the ruling.

David S. Frockt, Esq., of Bergman & Frockt PLLC, in Seattle,
represented the Respondents.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Esq., Talmadge Fitzpatrick, Esq., and
Emmelyn Hart-Biberfeld, Esq., of Talmadge Law Group PLLC in
Tukwila, Wash., Ronald Clayton Gardner, Esq., of Gardner Bond
Trabolsi PLLC in Seattle, represented the Appellant.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Accrues $4.9Mil for Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company, as of Aug. 30, 2008, had US$4.9 million
accrued for probable asbestos-related liabilities, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 3, 2008.

As of Aug. 30, 2008, the Company accrued US$2.6 million for
insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims.

As of May 31, 2008, the Company had recorded US$4,759,000 for
probable liabilities and US$2,093,000 for insurance recoveries
related to asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, July 11,
2008)

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
products containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years
ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these suits against multiple
defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very
large amounts.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries
suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by
the company or its subsidiaries. The Company is typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.

During the first nine months of 2008, the Company settled four
asbestos-related lawsuits for US$700,000. The Company's insurers
have paid or are expected to pay US$500,000 of that amount.

In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and
a group of other defendants entered into negotiations with
certain law firms to settle a number of asbestos-related
lawsuits and claims.

Subject to finalization of the terms and conditions of the
settlement, the Company expects to contribute up to US$4.6
million towards the settlement amount to be paid to the
claimants in exchange for a full release of claims.

Of this amount, the Company's insurers have committed to pay
US$2.2 million based on a probable liability of US$4.6 million.

Given that the payouts will occur on certain dates over a four-
year period, the Company applied a present value approach and
has accrued US$4.4 million and recorded a receivable of US$2.1
million.

Headquartered in Vadnais Heights, Minn., H.B. Fuller Company
makes adhesive, sealants, powder coatings for metals (office
furniture, appliances), and liquid paints.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Guthrie Claim Remanded by Appeals Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a ruling
by the Board of Veterans Affairs, in a claim involving asbestos
filed by William R. Guthrie. The matter was remanded for further
proceedings.

The case is styled William R. Guthrie, Appellant v. James B.
Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. entered judgment in Case No. 06-3126 on
Sept. 2, 2008.

Mr. Guthrie served on active duty from October 1972 to October
1974. He filed a claim for service connection for a "hernia" in
January 2002. He also indicated that he was exposed to asbestos
during service.

The regional office (RO) denied Mr. Guthrie's claims in an April
2002 rating decision. Mr. Guthrie filed a Notice of Disagreement
(NOD) in August 2002. He perfected his appeal in July 2003.

Mr. Guthrie submitted statements from his spouse and parents in
November 2003. His spouse indicated that he had undergone a
hernia operation while serving in Korea, that she was in Korea
at that time and spent one year helping him recover from the
operation, and that she stayed in Korea for the remainder of the
appellant's tour. Since the hernia surgery, Mr. Guthrie's spouse
reported that he has had back problems and problems with his
right leg and foot.

In a July 2004 letter, the NPRC informed Mr. Guthrie that his
personnel records would be forwarded to him. However, the letter
stated that the medical records requested were not at NPRC, but
suggested that Mr. Guthrie contact the nearest VA regional
office to obtain copies of the medical records.

Mr. Guthrie submitted correspondence in February 2006, informing
VA of his concerns regarding the manner in which his claims had
been handled.

The Board issued the decision on appeal in May 2006. This appeal
followed. Mr. Guthrie appealed the ruling, which denied his
claims for service connection for a hernia and asbestos-related
lung disease.

The Court vacated the May 23, 2006, decision and remanded the
matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board Ruling in Hale Case Vacated, Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a ruling
by the Board of Veterans Affairs, in a claim involving asbestos
filed by Gene R. Hale. The matter was remanded for further
proceedings.

The case is styled Gene R. Hale, Appellant v. James B. Peake,
M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge William R. Moorman entered judgment in Case No. 06-3043 on
Aug. 11, 2008.

Mr. Hale served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from December
1951 to July 1954, including service on the U.S.S. Staten Island
from May 1952 to June 1953. His service medical records did not
reveal any lung abnormalities. In May 1997, he submitted a claim
for service connection for asbestosis.

In conjunction with this claim, Mr. Hale submitted a letter from
Dr. Gaziano, a physician who is "Board Certified [in] Lung
Diseases and Internal Medicine." Dr. Gaziano's letter opined
that Mr. Hale had asbestosis with a mild degree of pulmonary
functional impairment.

In June 1997, Mr. Hale notified the VA regional office (RO) that
he was exposed to asbestos while stationed aboard the U.S.S.
Staten Island. During an October 1997 VA examination, he
reported that he may have been exposed to asbestos associated
with pipes in the engine room aboard his ship. He also reported
that he was exposed to asbestos for 28 years, after military
service, when he worked at the Radford Arsenal as a heavy
equipment operator. He reported that he had received
compensation for his asbestos exposure while working at Radford
Arsenal.

Mr. Hale appealed a Sept. 26, 2006 Board decision denying
entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. Both parties
filed briefs.

Mr. Hale argued that the Board failed to provide an adequate
statement of reasons or basis for its finding that he did not
have a current asbestos-related disease or disability and failed
to ensure compliance with the duty to assist and a prior remand
order in relation to obtaining records.

The Secretary contended that the Board's decision should be
affirmed because the most recent examination found no evidence
of asbestosis, that there was no failure in the duty to assist
because VA attempted to obtain the records at issue regarding
in-service exposure to asbestos, and that any failure in the
duty to assist was not prejudicial to Mr. Hale because he lacked
a current disability.

This appeal was timely. The Court vacated the Board decision and
remanded the matter for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oct. 27 Set for Hearing on Grace Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court will convene a hearing on Oct. 27,
2008, to consider approval of W. R. Grace & Co.'s Disclosure
Statement.

The Debtors ask the Court to approve the Disclosure Statement
describing the Joint Plan of Reorganization they filed together
with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, the Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative, and
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders on Sept. 19,
2008.

Section 1125(b) of the Bankruptcy Code requires that a plan
proponent provide "adequate information" regarding a debtor's
proposed plan of reorganization.

According to Section 1125(b), the primary purpose of a
disclosure statement is to provide all material information
which creditors and interest holders affected by a proposed plan
need in order to make an informed decision whether to vote for
or against the plan.

In behalf of the Debtors, David M. Bernick, Esq., at Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, in New York, asserts that the Disclosure Statement is
the product of the Debtors' extensive review and analysis of the
circumstances leading to the Chapter 11 cases and a thorough
analysis of the Plan.  The Disclosure Statement, he adds,
contains the pertinent information necessary for holders of
claims or equity interests who are eligible to vote to make an
informed decision about whether to accept or reject the Plan.

Mr. Bernick submits that the Disclosure Statement complies with
all aspects of Section 1125 and addresses the information in a
manner that provides holders of impaired claims or equity
interests who are entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan
with adequate information and should, therefore, be approved.

Objections are due Oct. 17, 2008. Any replies to the Disclosure
Statement Objections will be filed with the Court by the Plan
Proponents on or before Oct. 23, 2008.

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court entered an
order approving the Disclosure Statement and the solicitation
procedures. However, the Clerk noted that the Order was entered
in error.

An individual, Charles K.S., filed, in a hand-written letter, a
response to the Debtors' request to approve the disclosure
statement. Several claimants injured by exposure to asbestos
from the Debtors' operations in Libby, Mont., asked the Court to
reconsider the October 1 Order and schedule a deadline for
submission of objections to the Disclosure Statement by no
earlier than Nov. 7, 2008, and the Disclosure Statement Hearing
no earlier than Nov. 24, 2008.

According to the Libby Claimants, the Plan Proponents filed an
incomplete reorganization plan and a similarly incomplete
disclosure statement. The Libby Claimants complained that the
Plan and related documents do not reflect an agreement with the
Libby Claimants on how their claims should be treated.

Arguing for the Libby Claimants, Adam G. Landis, Esq., at Landis
Rath & Cobb, LLP, in Wilmington, Del., said the Libby Claimants'
interests and concerns have not been fairly addressed in the
Plan. To the contrary, the other members of the PI Committee
have joined with the Debtors in proposing a Plan and related
trust agreement that have been crafted so as to satisfy other
asbestos claimants while leaving the Libby Claimants with no
assurance of fair distribution.

Mr. Landis told the Court that the Libby Claimants were not
permitted to review advance drafts of the Plan or the Disclosure
Statement, thus the Libby Claimants will not have a meaningful
opportunity to review the Plan documents and prepare any
appropriate objections to the approval of the Disclosure
Statement if the deadline for objections remains set for Oct.
17, 2008.

Mr. Landis also pointed out that numerous exhibits are missing,
including an exhibit listing parties that will be protected by
the proposed channeling injunction. Moreover, he noted that
there has been an indication that other significant agreements
have been reached that are not reflected in the Plan and
Disclosure Statement as filed.

Judge Fitzgerald dismissed the Libby Claimants' motion for
reconsideration because it was not filed in compliance with the
Case Management Order or the Delaware Local Rules of Procedure.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to OK W. R. Grace Solicitation
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve
uniform noticing, soliciting, balloting, voting, and tabulation
procedures with respect to the confirmation of their Joint Plan
of Reorganization.

Under the Plan, holders of Class 6 asbestos-related personal
injury claims, Class 8 Canadian ZAI property damage claims, and
Class 10 equity interests in the parent are within impaired
classes and are entitled to vote on the Plan. While holders of
Class 7 asbestos PD claims are unimpaired because their claims
will be paid in full, the Debtors have agreed to solicit the
acceptances of Class 7 solely to the extent required by Section
524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Debtors, acting through their voting agent BMC Group, Inc.,
will solicit acceptances of the Plan by mailing solicitation
material to holders of impaired claims and to the representative
counsel in the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The plan and disclosure statement will be mailed with the notice
of the hearing only to the debtor, any trustee or committee
appointed, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and any
party-in-interest who requests in writing a copy of the
statement or plan.

Mr. Bernick notes that the Disclosure Statement Hearing Notice
identifies the date, time and place of the Disclosure Statement
Hearing and procedures for asserting objections, if any, to the
approval of the Disclosure Statement.

The Debtors and the Plan Proponents are authorized by the Court
to file an omnibus reply to any timely filed objections or
supplemental briefs in support of Plan confirmation before seven
calendar days before the Confirmation Hearing.

Holders of claims in unimpaired classes are deemed to accept the
Plan and are not entitled to vote except holders of asbestos PD
claims to the extent required by Section 524(g). As a result,
the Debtors will send a notice of non-voting class status to the
unimpaired claimants except Class 7 claimants in lieu of a
Solicitation Package. The Notice of Non-Voting Class Status will
contain instructions on how to obtain copies of the Plan and
Disclosure Statement from the Voting Agent if claimants so
desire.

As previously reported, all asbestos PI claims will be channeled
to an asbestos PI trust for payment. The PI Trust will be funded
from, among others, a warrant to acquire 10 million shares of
W.R. Grace & Co. common stock at an exercise price of US$17.00
per share, expiring one year from the effective date of a plan
of reorganization.

The Debtors have determined to provide the registrars of Parent
Common Stock advance notice of approximately two business days
to enable those responsible for assembling ownership lists of
the Parent Common Stock to compile a list of holders as of a
date certain.

The Debtors will give entities advance notice of the date of the
hearing on the proposed Disclosure Statement, the hearing could
be continued by the Court, or the Disclosure Statement Order
might not be entered on the date of a hearing.

The Debtors ask the Court to set the date that is two business
days after the date of entry of a Disclosure Statement order as
the Voting Record Date for purposes of determining creditors and
interest holders entitled to vote on the Plan.

The Debtors ask the Court to establish four weeks before the
Confirmation Hearing as the Voting Deadline. They also ask the
Court to schedule the Confirmation Hearing, subject to the
Court's availability and calendar, to begin during the last week
of January 2009.

The Debtors submit that the proposed timing for the Confirmation
Hearing complies with the Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Local Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure for the District of Delaware, and will enable the
Debtors to pursue confirmation of the Plan in a timely manner.

Under Rule 3020(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, objections to confirmation of a plan must be filed
and served within a time fixed by the court.

The Debtors contend that the proposed procedures and timing for
filing and service of objections and proposed modifications, if
any, to the Plan will afford the Court, and the Plan Proponents
and other parties-in-interest enough time to consider the
objections and proposed modifications before the Confirmation
Hearing while providing more than 25 days notice of the Plan
Objection Deadline given that the Debtors intend to provide
notice of the deadline in connection with the solicitation of
the Plan, which the Debtors anticipate will be completed well in
advance of the date that is 25 days before the Plan Objection
Deadline.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks Appointment of Sanders as FCR
--------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, W. R. Grace & Co., along with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders, filed a Joint Plan of
reorganization and a disclosure statement explaining the Plan.

The Plan provides that all holders of future property damage
claims and demands, if any, are in a separate class. The Plan
further provides that each holder of an asbestos property damage
claim that is allowed as of the Plan's effective date under a
settlement agreement, stipulation, order or other agreement will
be paid the allowed amount in cash, in full under an asbestos
property damage trust that will be created.

In order to implement the treatment of Asbestos PD Claims under
the Plan, the Debtors ask the Court to appoint Alexander M.
Sanders, Jr., as the Asbestos PD Future Claimants'
Representative.

The Debtors tell the Court that since the Plan provides for a
channeling injunction for Asbestos PD Claims and future
asbestos-related property damage demands, the Debtors need an
Asbestos PD Future Claimants' Representative to represent future
asbestos-related property damage claimants.

The Debtors submit that Mr. Sanders is well qualified to serve
as the Asbestos PD Future Claimants' Representative. Mr. Sanders
is the former chief judge on the South Carolina Court of Appeals
and a former acting associate justice on the South Carolina
Supreme Court.

Before his service on the bench, Mr. Sanders was a member of the
South Carolina House of Representatives and a Member of the
South Carolina Senate. In addition, Mr. Sanders was also a
candidate for the United States Senate in the State of South
Carolina.

Mr. Sanders currently serves on the boards of directors of
various entities, including Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
Other entities where Mr. Sanders serves or has served on the
board of directors include the National Judicial College, the
National Center for Courts and the Media, The Nature
Conservancy, The Huntington Society, the American Bar
Association Judicial Division, the Spoleto Festival, the
National Bank of South Carolina and the South Carolina Board of
Advisors on Consumer Credit.

Mr. Sanders will be compensated, including professional fees and
reimbursement of expenses, from the Debtors' estates, in
accordance with the terms and conditions negotiated by the
appointed Asbestos PD Future Claimants' Representative and the
Debtors, subject to the Court's approval.

Mr. Sanders may employ attorneys, and other professionals,
consistent with Sections 327 and 1103 of the Bankruptcy Code.

As the Asbestos PD Future Claimants' Representative, Mr. Sanders
will not be liable for any damages, or have any obligations
other than as prescribed by the Court except for damages caused
by his willful misconduct or gross negligence.

The Debtors will indemnify, defend and hold the Asbestos PD
Future Claimants' Representative and his agents and
professionals harmless from any claims by any party arising out
of or relating to the performance of his duties as Asbestos PD
Future Claimants' Representative.

Mr. Sanders and his agents will have no indemnification rights
if a court of competent jurisdiction determines pursuant to a
non-appealable order that the Asbestos PD Future Claimants'
Representative is liable upon a claim as a result of willful
misconduct or gross negligence.

Mr. Sanders assures the Court that to the best of his knowledge,
he is a "disinterested person" within the meaning of Section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and holds no interest adverse to
the Debtors or their estates for the matters for which he would
be employed. He also notes that he has no connections with the
Debtors, their creditors, or other related parties.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FCR Files Hanly Withdrawal Notice on Oct. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the W. R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy, David T. Austern, the
Asbestos PI Future Claims Representative, filed on Oct. 2, 2008,
a notice of withdrawal of his application to retain Hanly Conroy
Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, as special asbestos
property damage settlement counsel.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WR Grace Permitted to Settle Jameson Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has authorized W. R. Grace & Co. to
enter into a settlement agreement with Jameson Memorial Hospital
in settlement of the hospital's asbestos property damage claim
for US$172,500.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Urged to Mull Issuance of Grace Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, Judge Judith Fitzgerald granted the
State of California Department of General Services leave to file
the expert report of Dr. William E. Longo of Materials
Analytical Services, Inc., in connection with the adjudication
of W. R. Grace & Co.'s objection to the Department's property
damage claims.

Accordingly, the Department filed with the Court Dr. Longo's
expert report, a full-text copy of which is available for free
at http://bankrupt.com/misc/Grace_LongoExpertReport.pdf

In his expert report, Dr. Longo stated that MVA Scientific
Consultants has established that each of the Department's 12
buildings contained asbestos-containing surface treatment
products produced by W.R. Grace & Co. The materials were either
the Monokote-3 fireproofing or the Zonolite Acoustical Plastic.

Dr. Longo said surface dust samples collected by another company
and analyzed in accordance with ASTM D5755-03 demonstrated that
all 11 buildings, at some levels, contained significant amounts
of asbestos surface contamination. One building, the Fairfield
Development Center, which contained Grace's Zonolite Acoustical
Plastic on the ceiling, was essentially encapsulated with
multiple layers of paint. The encapsulation on the ceiling
reduced the amount of asbestos surface contamination usually
found on the surfaces in buildings that contain this material.

The finding of vermiculite in each dust sample analyzed, and
Libby amphibole asbestos in 10 of 11 dust sample sets taken in
the buildings, shows that the source of the asbestos surface
contamination found in the buildings was from the in-place Grace
surface treatment products, the report revealed.

In a declaration filed with the Court, the Department's counsel,
Tobey M. Daluz, Esq., at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, in
Wilmington, Del., informed the Court that from April 2007, the
Debtors and the Department have been in a "holding pattern,"
without any further meaningful progress made toward resolution
of the Department's claims.

Mr. Daluz asserted that the Court should favorably consider
issuing a new case management order vacating the automatic stay
and scheduling various deadlines like the completion of expert
witness dispositions and filing of dispositive motions.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Accused of Blocking Libby Declaration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Montana Senator Max Baucus released a 50-page report accusing
the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency of
blocking a decision to declare a public health emergency in
Libby, Mont., in 2002.

The report, compiled by Sen. Baucus and his staff, showed that
the EPA was on the verge of declaring a public health emergency
in Libby in 2002 but abruptly halted that plan after
interference by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

From 1963 to 1990, W.R. Grace & Co., owned and operated a
vermiculite mine in Libby.  Vermiculite is a lightweight
micaceous mineral, which has excellent insulation properties.
During the course of Grace's operation, the Libby mine may have
produced as much as 80% of the world's vermiculite, the report
said. The vermiculite produced in Libby contained amphibole
asbestos fibers, a particularly toxic form of naturally
occurring asbestos.

The report related that when the Office of the Inspector General
for the Environmental Protection Agency issued its first report
on EPA's response in Libby in 2001, it was noted that a number
of Libby residents had been diagnosed with asbestos-related
diseases even though the mining facilities had ceased operations
more than 10 years earlier. In February 2002, the EPA was ready
to release a statement to the public declaring a health
emergency in Libby.

However, according to the report, in early April 2002, there was
a reversal of the EPA's decision. The report said that e-mails
indicated that a high-level meeting was set up between EPA
official and OMB. The EPA decided to remove insulation in Libby
homes without declaring a public health emergency.

A full-text copy of Sen. Baucus' report is available for free
at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?335b

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 166; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bilray to Pay $256T for CAA, NESHAP Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Johnston, R.I., demolition company faces a penalty of
US$256,320 for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP), according to an EPA press release
dated Oct. 6, 2008.

In 2004 to 2005, the Bilray Demolition Company, Inc. demolished
the former Seaboard Foundry in Johnston, following a fire that
occurred at the facility. When the Rhode Island Department of
Health inspected the facility during the demolition, it found
asbestos-containing materials in the facility.

EPA alleges that Bilray failed to thoroughly inspect for
asbestos prior to demolishing the facility, failed to provide
EPA with prior written notification of its intent to demolish,
failed to adequately wet asbestos during its stripping
operations, failed to keep asbestos adequately wet until it was
collected and contained for disposal, and failed to properly
dispose of asbestos waste.

The CAA and Asbestos NESHAP require owners and operators of
demolition and renovation operations to follow certain
inspection and notification requirements before beginning such
operations, and to abide by specific work practice and waste
disposal requirements when the owners and operators will disturb
regulated asbestos-containing material.

Violations of these requirements can pose significant health
risks to the communities where demolitions or renovations occur,
as well as to employees conducting these operations, who could
have been exposed to asbestos fibers during these activities.

In September 2005, Bilray conducted asbestos abatement at the
facility. Bilray removed eighty-one cubic feet of regulated
asbestos-containing material from the facility at that time.

For more information:

- Enforcement of the Clean Air Act in New England
(epa.gov/ne/enforcement/air/index.html)

- Asbestos Information (http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Semtner Suit Filed v. 65 Firms in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evaline Semtner, of Idaho, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 65 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., on Oct. 2, 2008, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Semtner claims she was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on April 18, 2008. She claims she was a homemaker
from 1966 until 1977. From 1977 until now, she has worked at
various locations throughout Washington and Idaho.

The suit states that Ms. Semtner's father worked from 1948 until
1968 as a maintenance man at Milwaukee Railroad and her ex-
husband worked from 1966 until 1980 as a laborer for various
employers throughout Idaho and Washington.

According to the suit, Ms. Semtner claims she was exposed to
asbestos fibers through the clothing her father and ex-husband
would wear home from work. She states her exposure was
foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Ms. Semtner claims her disease was caused after he was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

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

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

Stephanie A. Lyons, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
represents Ms. Semtner in Madison County Circuit Court Case No.
08-L-909.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,700 Buildings in Japan Set To be Tested
---------------------------------------------------------------
At least 54 local Japanese governments are set to conduct
asbestos tests in about 10,700 buildings this fiscal year, The
Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

According to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey, local government
inspections of at least 53 buildings did not detect the presence
of asbestos. Most inspections were commissioned to outside
firms.

Local governments have been probing public buildings since
February 2008 over a demand from the Internal Affairs and
Communications Ministry and the Education, Science and
Technology Ministry.

The ministries demanded local authorities conduct inspections
specifically aimed at testing for three types of asbestos,
previously thought to never to have been used in Japan.

The Yomiuri survey asked 120 local governments, including
prefectural governments, municipal governments of major cities
and prefectural capitals and Tokyo's 23 ward offices, about the
results of their asbestos detection test. One hundred and
fourteen respondents provided valid responses.

Nationwide asbestos tests were previously conducted around
fiscal 2005, when it was learned that people living near a plant
of major machinery maker Kubota Corporation were suffering from
asbestos-related health problems.

As of July 2008, the inspections have found asbestos in 110
buildings that in 2005 reported having no trace of the
substance.

Among the 110 buildings, 19 had one of the three types of
asbestos previously thought not to have been used in the
country.

Ninety-one buildings were found to contain one of three more
familiar types of asbestos: chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite.
Among those 91, 24 were found to contain less than one percent
of any one of the three familiar varieties, 53 were found to
contain more than one percent of any of the three, and the
concentration levels of asbestos in the other 14 were not
measured.

The 2005 tests used a method that could only detect asbestos at
concentration of 1 percent or higher. Therefore, the asbestos
levels in the 53 buildings found this year to contain more than
one percent should have been detected in the 2005 survey. Among
the 53 buildings in question, 13 had asbestos at levels greater
than five percent.

In Tokyo's Nerima and Suginami wards, and in Kobe and Fukuoka
Prefecture, asbestos was detected in ceilings and boiler rooms
in primary and high schools at concentration levels of between
nine percent and 24 percent.

The inspections being conducted by local governments have not
all been completed. Therefore, the number of buildings suspected
to have had their asbestos levels incorrectly assessed will
likely increase.

The number of asbestos-ridden buildings to be demolished will
peak around 2020.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston to Pay CDN60T for Exposing Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Kingston, Ontario, pleaded guilty and was fined
CDN60,000 in the Ontario Court of Justice on Oct. 2, 2008, after
construction workers were exposed to asbestos during renovation
of the city's public utilities building, according to an Ontario
Ministry of Labour press release dated Oct. 3, 2008.

Justice of the Peace Lorraine Watson heard that, in May 2007,
the city hired David J. Cupido Construction Ltd. to complete
renovations on the building at 1211 John Counter Blvd.

The city informed this contractor that in 2003 there had been
some asbestos testing in the building. The tests showed negative
results. However, not all surfaces had been tested, and nothing
had been tested since.

When renovations began, a worker noticed asbestos-like material,
but it was not tested until three weeks later. On June 13, 2007,
tests revealed chrysotile asbestos in the building and the
project was shut down. Three of 24 air samples tested showed
asbestos contamination.

The court heard that workers had been on the job for three weeks
and their personal protective equipment would not have met
safety requirements for asbestos.

By failing to determine the presence of asbestos in the building
and to advise prospective constructors before requesting tenders
for a project in the building, the City of Kingston violated
section 10 of Ontario Regulation 278 and section 30 of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In addition, the court imposed a 25 percent victim fine
surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act.

The surcharge is credited to a special provincial government
fund to assist victims of crime.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Elite to Pay GBP1,499 for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elite Environmental (UK) Limited, a specialist asbestos removal
company, has been ordered to pay GBP1,499 in fines and costs for
depositing asbestos waste at an unlicensed site, according to an
Environment Agency press release dated Oct. 6, 2008.

The case was brought by the Environment Agency.

In December 2007, Elite Environmental was called in to remove
bonded asbestos sheeting from a house in Beach Avenue, Severn
Beach, Bristol, England. The asbestos was removed from the
premises and transported nearly 300 miles to a site in
Washington, Tyne & Wear.

When asked why it had not taken the asbestos sheeting to a
licensed waste transfer site in Bristol, a director of Elite
Environmental claimed that when they rang the site on Dec. 21,
2007, there was no reply. However, checks by the Agency showed
the site was operating normally on that day.

The company was unable to provide documentary evidence that the
waste had been taken to Washington site and subsequently removed
for safe disposal. It said it did not want to leave the waste in
the back of a van over the Christmas holiday and that some of
its staff worked in Sunderland so the journey to Washington
wasn't as out of the way as it might appear.

Chris Barnes for the Environment Agency said, "As a specialist
asbestos removal company this firm is fully aware of the law
relating to the transport and disposal of asbestos waste. There
was no excuse for it not filling out a consignment note.

"In addition, the house at Severn Beach should have been
registered with the Environment Agency as a hazardous waste
producer before any asbestos sheeting was removed from the
site."

Elite Environmental of Unit 3, Advantage Park, 75 Whitchurch
Lane, Bishopsworth, Bristol was fined a total of GBP200 and
ordered to pay GBP1,299.50 costs by Bristol magistrates after
pleading guilty to two offenses under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 including depositing a quantity of waste
asbestos sheeting on land at Patterson Industrial Estate,
Washington, Tyne & Wear and failing to comply with a duty of
care to ensure the waste was transferred to an authorized
person.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victoria Gov't. Says Payout Will be Fairer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state government of Victoria, Australia, says that
compensation for Victorians with asbestos-related diseases will
be fairer under legislation recorded in the parliament on Oct.
7, 2008, the state government says.

The Asbestos Diseases Compensation Bill would allow people to
seek damages for the full extent of asbestos-related diseases
like lung cancer or mesothelioma.

WorkCover Minister Tim Holding said the laws were fairer,
allowing a sufferer to make a claim for damages if their
condition deteriorated.

Mr. Holding said, "A person exposed to asbestos may not
experience any signs or symptoms of disease for many years and,
once diagnosed, it may be too late for medical or surgical
intervention.

"These laws will also allow people at imminent risk of death
from an asbestos-related disease to have greater access to
justice by having their case heard quickly."

The legislation would also shed light on the law relating to
damages where a person has started proceedings, but dies before
the claim is resolved.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Fitter's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Glynn Watt, a 70-year-old
retired regional manager who once worked as a fitter, was linked
to exposure to asbestos, Evening Gazette reports.

Mr. Watt, of Cresswell Court, Hartlepool, England, died at the
University Hospital of North Tees on May 19, 2008.

A consultant pathologist told the inquest that he found a
malignant tumor "related to exposure to asbestos."

Teesside Coroner Michael Sheffield recorded an industrial
disease verdict.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lyne's Widow Campaigning for Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Lyne, the widow of Jerry Lyne (an engineer of the Royal
Navy of the United Kingdom who died of mesothelioma), is
campaigning for asbestos-related compensation, The News reports.

Mrs. Lyne is to meet the Royal Naval Association before she
lobbies the Ministry of Defence for a change in the current
laws.

Mr. Lyne was 64 years old when he died in December 2007. He
spent nine years in the Royal Navy, from 1961 to 1970, as a
mechanical engineer on three ships where asbestos was widely
used to lag pipes.

Mr. Lyne went to a doctor in the summer of 2007 with pain in his
back, which he suspected was a pulled muscle.

Mrs Lyne, from Swindon, England, said that an autopsy showed Mr.
Lyne had asbestos fibers on a lung which, she said, could only
have resulted from his Navy service.

Had Mr. Lyne worked in the railway, engineering, shipping or
construction industries, where asbestos was widely used, Mrs.
Lyne would have been able to sue his former employers for a six-
figure sum. However, the MoD is immune from such action, which
Mrs. Lyne wants to challenge.

The 62-year-old Mrs. Lyne said that forming a support group
would also help other people in her situation. She said, "It
would enable people like myself to come into contact, help and
support each other."

At the time Mr. Lyne served in the Royal Navy, aboard HMS Virgo,
Londonderry and Albion, he and his comrades were unaware of the
dangers of asbestos.

An MoD spokesman said, "Members of the Armed Forces exposed to
asbestos dust and fiber during service before May 1987 are
prevented by law from receiving any other compensation from the
MoD."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Earl's Family Wins Lawsuit v. County Garage
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Robert Earl, who died of mesothelioma in 2005, won
their case against Mr. Earl's former employer, County Garage
Limited, Legal & Medical reports.

In 1969, Mr Earl was exposed to asbestos in the brake linings of
the Company's commercial vehicles.

This successful claim for a relatively minor exposure to
asbestos could set a precedent for those seeking compensation
for the same disease, developed through exposure to asbestos on
a less intensive scale.

Roger Maddocks, partner at Irwin Mitchell believes the case will
present new opportunities for claimants with asbestos-related
cancer. He said, "It's not unheard of for cases to be brought
forward by people who have had high exposure to asbestos,
particularly those in heavier industries. However, Robert Earl
was one of the many whose exposure was fairly minor in
comparison as it was ruled the claimant's exposure was made at
work fixing and changing asbestos break linings."

The news may come as extra fuel for the Association of Personal
Injury Lawyers (APIL), in its fight to persuade the Government
to overturn an "inherently unfair" House of Lords' decision on
compensation for pleural plaques victims.

The Lords have recently decided not to compensate those in
England and Wales diagnosed with the asbestos-related, lung
scarring condition as it was not deemed harmful.

Industry representatives said U.K. Government figures have
suggested an annual cost to defendants of between GBP76 million
and GBP607 million.

MSP minister for community safety, Fergus Ewing, dismissed the
"embroidered" figures and added, "We really do think some of the
figures being quoted are close to alarmist and therefore we
don't recognize that they're likely to be valid or accurate."

The Scottish Parliament has already drafted legislation to
overturn the Lords' decision.

The Government had suggested two schemes to aid those diagnosed
with pleural plaques, although APIL claimed both "posed
potential problems" for victims who may wish to claim should
their condition worsen, and for those facing a time limit on a
claim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Director Asserts Hardie Can Meet Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sir Llew Edwards, a former James Hardie Industries N.V.
Director, told a Supreme Court hearing in Sydney he believed the
Company could afford to pay all asbestos victims' compensation
claims, ABC News reports.

In the civil action case filed by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC), Hardie is accused of lying to
investors about its capacity to meet compensation claims.

Sir Llew, who was once the deputy premier of Queensland, was a
director of James Hardie for 10 years before becoming the
chairman of the Company's trust handling compensation for
asbestos victims.

Sir Llew said he believed the Company could afford the payouts
because he had been told so specifically by the then chief
executive, Peter MacDonald. Sir Llew said that in a 2001 meeting
he was assured the AUD220 million would be enough to cover all
claims.

Sir Llew said he was told that if there was not enough money,
they would go back to the board and ask for more.

Under cross-examination, Brett Walker SC accused Sir Llew of
being uncooperative. Mr Walker suggested Sir Llew knew there was
a great uncertainty in the funds. However, the witness said that
they hoped they could afford it.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Warszawski Action Filed v. 58 Firms in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Warszawski, on Sept. 26, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit on behalf of her late husband, John Warszawski, against
58 defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the suit, Mrs. Warszawski, of Rhode Island, says
that Mr. Warszawski was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 28,
2005 and died on Sept. 26, 2006.

According to the suit, Mrs. Warszawski said Mr. Warszawski
worked from 1945 until 1989 as a fireman, laborer and assembly
line laborer at various locations throughout Illinois, Rhode
Island and Massachusetts.

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

In the 11-count lawsuit, Mrs. Warszawski seeks sums in excess of
US$300,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$250,000.

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

John A. Barnerd, Esq., and W. Brent Copple, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper LLC in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
Warszawski.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ward Stephenson's Achievement Recognized
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar University and the Beaumont Foundation of America have
honored Ward Stephenson, Esq., who is credited for inventing and
engineering asbestos litigation, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

The announcement was made on Oct. 2, 2008, by Lamar President
Jimmy Simmons at the University Reception Center of the Mary and
John Gray Library.

According to an LU press release, the Southeast Texas Legends
scholarships, each an endowment of US$100,000, are made possible
by a gift of from the Beaumont Foundation, a non-profit
corporation "that grew out of the historic US$2.1 billion
settlement of a nationwide...defective computer class-action
suit..."

During the announcement, Mr. Simmons said LU was "delighted" to
add Mr. Stephenson's name to their Legends roster, calling the
attorney "a crusader against corporations." He said, "He
(Stephenson) has been called innovate, creative and ahead of his
time...and is largely credited with inventing asbestos
litigation."

In 1966, Mr. Stephenson filed his lawsuit in Southeast Texas on
behalf of asbestos insulation worker Claude Tomplait,
subsequently spawning a multi-billion dollar industry.

The suit faulted 11 manufacturers, including Johns-Manville
Corporation and Owens Corning, for inflicting his client with
asbestosis.

According to the Manhattan Institute, 20 years after Mr.
Stephenson filed his suit, asbestos litigation had expanded into
a billion-dollar industry.

More than 200 companies had been sued, most notably,
manufacturer Johns-Manville, which filed for bankruptcy
protection in 1982 despite its ranking in the top 200 American
companies by Fortune magazine in 1981.

Mr. Stephenson lost Tomplait's case on appeal, but, "undeterred"
soon filed a second case on behalf of Clarence Borel, an
asbestos insulation installer who had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the press release states.

Mr. Stephenson won the initial case, Borel vs. Fiberboard, and
the verdict was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in
1973, "opening a floodgate of litigation because it (the
decision) allowed employees to sue their employers for product
liability," the press release states.

Mr. Simmons said, "Borel vs. Fiberboard is one of the most
significant legal decisions of the millennium."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Ruling Reversed v. CSR In Taylor Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed an asbestos
ruling, which had favored CSR Limited (d/b/a Colonial Sugar
Refining Co., Ltd.), in an asbestos suit filed by Andrea Taylor
(on behalf of Alfred B. Smith) and Mary Fuchsluger (on behalf of
Joseph Anzulis.

The case is styled Andrea Taylor, et al. v. CSR Limited, et al.

Judges Ellen L. Hollander, Paul E. Alpert, and Sally D. Adkins
entered judgment in the case on Sept. 9, 2008.

The estates sued several corporate entities including CSR,
alleging that Mr. Smith and Mr. Anzulis, while working as
stevedores at the Port of Baltimore, were exposed to asbestos
fibers exported by CSR while offloading bags containing
asbestos.

The estates maintained that as a result of this off-loading, Mr.
Smith and Mr. Anzulis contracted mesothelioma. The estates
allege multiple causes of action, including strict liability,
breach of warranty, negligence, and fraud.

The estates allege that CSR operated an asbestos mine through a
wholly owned subsidiary, Australia Blue Asbestos Pty. Limited
("ABA"), and CSR, as the mine's exclusive distributor, exported
asbestos fiber for sale to customers in the United States,
particularly Johns-Manville International.

CSR was alleged to have made such exports from 1943 to 1966,
with some of the shipments passing through the Port of
Baltimore.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Anzulis worked at the Port unloading cargo
from about 1942 through 1983 and 1937 through 1973,
respectively.

From 1943 to 1966, CSR owned a subsidiary, ABA, that mined and
packaged crocidolite asbestos in Western Australia. During that
time, CSR functioned as ABA's agent for asbestos fiber sales to
customers in the United States. In addition to its asbestos
export activities, CSR was involved in the sugar refining and
export business.

On Oct. 10, 2005, CSR filed a motion to dismiss the estates'
complaint against CSR on the ground that Maryland does not have
personal jurisdiction.

On Nov. 2, 2006, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City held a
hearing on CSR's motion to dismiss and concluded that CSR lacked
substantial meaningful contacts with Maryland and that
subjecting CSR to the court's jurisdiction would be
constitutionally unfair.

The court also concluded that CSR was not subject to Maryland's
jurisdiction under the long-arm statute. The court issued an
order granting CSR's motion to dismiss on Jan. 8, 2007.

The Appeals Court concluded that the estates made a prima facie
case that CSR has sufficient contacts in Maryland to support
personal jurisdiction for these causes of action.

The Appeals Court reversed the ruling and the case was remanded
for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lelek's Action v. Verizon & Others Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Antoni Lelek against Verizon New York, Inc.
and other defendants is ongoing in the Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department, New York.

The case is styled Antoni Lelek, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent
v. Verizon New York, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents-
Appellants. Verizon New York, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-
Respondent-Appellant v. LVI Services, Inc., Third-Party
Defendant-Respondent.

Judges Peter Tom, David B. Saxe, David Friedman, John T.
Buckley, and James M. Catterson entered judgment in the case on
Sept. 9, 2008.

In connection with the demolition of an overpass, Mr. Lelek, an
asbestos handler, was instructed to descend from the overpass's
partially demolished roadway onto a wooden deck about three feet
below, where he was to erect a decontamination chamber for the
removal of asbestos from a pipe traversing the overpass.

Mr. Lelek was required to step from the roadway, from which a
rebar was protruding, onto a foot-wide I-beam about nine inches
below the roadway and from the I-beam to the decking about a
foot and a half below the top of the beam. The decking was
placed to catch debris falling from the roadway.

While attempting to make this descent, Mr. Lelek lost his
footing, fell from the roadway onto the I-beam, and landed on
one foot in the concrete debris on the deck.

Mr. Lelek was entitled to a trial on his cause of action against
the Joint Venture defendants, the project's general contractors,
and Verizon New York, Inc., the owner of the pipe from which
asbestos was to be abated.

These Joint Venture Defendants are Slattery Skanska, Inc. and
Air Rail Construction Joint Venture, a Joint Venture composed of
Slattery Skanska, Inc., Perini Corporation, Koch Skanska, Inc.
and Skanska (USA) Inc.

The cross motions by the Joint Venture defendants and Verizon
were correctly denied to the extent they sought summary judgment
dismissing Mr. Lelek's cause of action.

The Joint Venture defendants' motion to dismiss third-party
defendant LVI Services, Inc.'s cross claim against them for
common-law indemnification or contribution was correctly denied,
given the existence of issues of fact as to whether negligence
of the Joint Venture defendants was a cause of Mr. Lelek's
injuries.

However, because the record did not establish as a matter of law
that negligence of the Joint Venture defendants was a cause of
Mr. Lelek's injuries, the grant of summary judgment to Verizon
on its cross claim against the Joint Venture defendants for
common-law indemnification was erroneous.

The Appeals Court had considered the parties' remaining claims
for affirmative relief and found them unavailing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Whitby Hospital to Cost GBP80T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the Whitby Hospital in North Yorkshire,
England, will cost about GBP80,000 (about US$140,000) and will
take up to three months to be completed, Mesothelioma reports.

Workers will begin removing asbestos from the ceiling corridors
of the hospital.

In May 2005, asbestos was discovered in the ceiling corridors of
the 82-bed facility and was also found at hospitals in Malton,
Scarborough, and Bridlington.

After asbestos was discovered, the staff of all four facilities
received health screenings and information on the risks of
asbestos exposure.

The asbestos removal is part of an overall renovation project
that will install new equipment and upgrade the hospital's
infrastructure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wondra Case Filed v. 153 Companies in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Wondra and Betty Wondra, on Sept. 26, 2008, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 153 defendant corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

A Kansas man and his wife have filed an asbestos suit against
153 defendant corporations, claiming the mesothelioma with which
the man was diagnosed was wrongfully caused.

In the suit, the Wondras, who came from Kansas, claim Mr. Wondra
was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Aug. 5, 2008. They say Mr.
Wondra worked from 1961 until 1963 as a laborer at Kansas
Natural Gas & Pipeline and from 1963 until 1994 as a maintenance
worker at Arthur Mulligan Power Plant. He was also a member of
Boilermakers union from 1974 until 1994.

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

In the 11-count lawsuit, the Wondras seek sums in excess of
US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, economic damages in excess of US$150,000,
compensatory damages in excess of US$150,000, and for other
relief the Court deems appropriate.

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

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Wondras in Madison
County Circuit Court Case No. 08-L-878.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dobler Case Filed v. 13 Firms in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruno Dobler, on Sept. 29, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 13 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In the suit, Mr. Dobler claims he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Oct. 31, 2007. He says he worked from 1959 until
2000 as an electrician, engineer and owner and manager of an
electric motor repair business at various locations.

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

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

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

Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
SimmonsCooper LLC in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Dobler.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Farrar Suit Filed v. 105 Companies in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Earl Farrar, on Sept. 26, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 105 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Farrar, who hails from Missouri, was
diagnosed with lung cancer on June 17, 2008. He says he worked
from 1951 until 1991 as a boilermaker at various locations
including Amoco/Standard Refinery in Wood River, Ill.

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

In the nine-count lawsuit, Mr. Farrar seeks sums in excess of
US$300,000, compensatory damages in excess of US$225,000, plus
costs and other relief the court deems just.

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

Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
Fitzgerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm represent Mr. Farrar in
Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 08-L-877.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Developer Guilty for Mishandling, Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis developer Matthew E. Burghoff, on Oct. 1, 2008,
pleaded guilty to asbestos-related environmental charges and
bank fraud, Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Burghoff faces a prison sentence of up to two and a half
years. He admitted to the fraud saying he had taken out a loan
to renovate a commercial building, but instead used the money to
buy a home in Mexico and pay personal bills. He also admitted to
improperly removing asbestos from the Ford building in downtown
St. Louis.

According to one of Mr. Burghoff's attorneys, the Ford building
is on the National Register of Historic Places and was planned
to be developed into a luxury condo building with a deadline of
fall 2008. However, the windows are still boarded up and the
building has now been sold.

Mr. Burghoff's problems began in 2007, when an anonymous letter
tipped off the St. Louis Air Pollution Control Division that
asbestos was being improperly removed from the building.

When investigators checked the site, they found asbestos-
containing debris had been left in piles throughout most of the
building's 13 floors. The inspectors also found about 60 bags of
asbestos waste.

After the asbestos discoveries were made, suspicion fell upon
the financing Mr. Burghoff was using for the project. The
investigation subsequently found that Mr. Burghoff had taken
several loans in a short period of time, including one for
development of the property, and another for US$237,000 to pay
off personal debts.

Mr. Burghoff also tried to take out another loan using false
documentation to inflate his income.

For the asbestos violations and bank fraud, Mr. Burghoff faces
between 24 and 30 months in prison.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Pickering Seeks Help in Sue Walsh Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool, U.K.-based insurance firm John Pickering and Partners
LLP is urging locals of Halton, Cheshire, England, to help in
the asbestos claim of Sue Walsh, a former Halton Borough Council
worker, Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News reports.

John Pickering is dealing with the claim of Mrs. Walsh, who may
have contracted mesothelioma by being exposed to asbestos in
Widnes and Runcorn in the 1980s.

Mrs. Walsh, known at the time as Mrs. Chamberlain, liaised with
tenants on the Fairfield and Bankfield estates in Widnes and in
Runcorn at Palacefields and Murdishaw. Due to the nature of her
job she was frequently present when building work was being
carried out on tenants' homes.

Colette Jennings at John Pickering and Partners, said, "We need
to speak to any tenants who recall this work being undertaken on
these estates or any builders involved in the improvement works
undertaken by the council on these estates."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Auto Workers Strike Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since Oct. 2, 2008, about 500 airplane mechanics, tradesmen, and
technicians have been involved in a strike over health and
safety issues, including asbestos matters, AHN reports.

These individuals, who work for IMP Aerospace, belong to the
Canadian Auto Workers Local 2215.

The technical workers walked off their jobs after they
discovered asbestos was being removed from one of the hangars
where they work.

According to Scott Beaver, Local 2215 union president, 78 safety
orders are hanging in the air for the past two years after the
transfer of jurisdiction of their facility from the provincial
government to the federal Labor Department.

Mr. Beaver said, "It's more or less the wild west out here when
it comes to health and safety... We've had people exposed to
radiation levels above safe limits. We've had people exposed to
polyurethane paint, air quality issues, asbestos issues."

IMP Aerospace has existing contracts with the Canadian military
to repair and service its Sea King helicopters and long-range
Aurora patrol craft. It also has contracts with the U.S. and
Norway military to service their military planes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tweed Shire Calls for Help in Disposal Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tweed Shire Council in New South Wales, Australia, is urging
the public to help find those responsible for disposing asbestos
on Scenic Drive, ABC News reports.

The council's Robert Noakes says sheets of asbestos roofing were
found on a road reserve and had to be removed by the New South
Wales Fire Brigade.

Mr. Noakes says it was not a simple procedure to clean up
something of this nature. He says help from the public could
lead to a conviction.

Mr. Noakes said, "This material's been dumped on the road
reserve and it's always a worry where we don't have any evidence
as to who has actually dumped the material."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Playland Park Cleanup Estimated at $200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The cost for asbestos and lead abatement of the defunct Playland
Park in San Antonio, Tex., is estimated at US$200,000, The
Ranger reports.

John Strybos, associate vice chancellor of facilities operations
and construction management, said work on the property is still
in the assessment phase. He said cost estimates cannot be known
for sure because a company has not been hired to do the cleanup.

Mr. Strybos' rough estimate of US$200,000 for asbestos and lead
abatement and cleanup of contaminated soil was included in the
estimated US$116 million for the entire Playland Park project.

When Playland Park closed in 1980, the wooden roller coaster
that consisted of 3,200 feet of track was moved to Knoebels
Amusement Resort in Elysburg, Pa.

The Rocket is believed to have been painted using lead-based
paint, Mr. Strybos said, which caused the soil in the area of
the roller coaster to become contaminated.

Bruce Haby, manager of corporate real estate for San Antonio
Water System, said SAWS went through two phases of environmental
assessments for the property before the district acquired it in
April.

The first phase involved inspecting records and examining
photographic evidence to see if there is any evidence or
possible environmental hazards, Mr. Haby said. He added that the
second phase involved testing of the facility for such hazards
as asbestos and lead.

Although no request for proposals have been issued, Mr. Strybos
said there are only a few specialty companies that do that kind
of work. Bexar Environmental Inc. is a company the district has
used before for these projects, he said.

John Brown, vice president of Bexar Environmental said asbestos
abatement could be an in-and-out process taking just one day or
it could take months depending on the size of the area and how
much material is being cleared.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Officials Call for Cleanup at Gemini School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of the East Maine School District 63, on Oct. 1, 2008,
voted to abate asbestos found under the first-floor carpeting of
the Gemini Junior High School in Niles, Ill., the Niles Herald-
Spectator reports.

According to the district, the asbestos-removal project is
expected to cost about US$259,000.

District official David Bein said some cash for the US$259,000
project could come from the district contingency fund, which has
slated US$100,000 for "unexpected emergencies."

Mr. Bein also said the school district had US$175,000 in
infrastructure funds that could be diverted to the project. The
district could also issue bonds.

The asbestos-removal project is expected to take about four
weeks, and District 63 official Dan Barrie said he anticipated
having Gemini open for students on Nov. 10, 2008.

Gemini was closed during September 2007's heavy storms, and
remained so after cleanup crews on Sept. 17, 2008 found traces
of asbestos in the adhesive beneath the school's first-floor
carpeting.

Meanwhile 775 Gemini students have been grouped by team and sent
to other schools in the district, where some are learning in
makeshift gymnasium classrooms.

Originally it was thought that District 63 could use a less-
expensive method of removal that involved pouring a solvent on
the carpet adhesive to dissolve it along with the asbestos.

Scott Clay, a District 63 official, wrote, "It was discovered
through testing that the first method, which would have been the
fastest and least costly method, would not work. The adhesive
that had been used on the carpet would not allow the solution to
dissolve the asbestos laden mastic. For this reason, the board
had no option but to approve the full containment method."

The full-containment method requires sealing off 30,000 square
feet of the first floor of Gemini and installing an air-
filtration system for workers in special protection suits who
will remove the asbestos.

Ideally, Mr. Bein said, the federal government will free up
funding by declaring Cook County a disaster area, in which case
District 63 could get as much as 75 percent of the project paid
for.





                            *********

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, 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  * * *