---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 24, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 212

                            Headlines

AETNA INSURANCE: Court OKs $300T Deal in Eating Disorders Suit
BARRY CALLEBAUT: Recalls Choco Chips Over Undeclared Allergen
CITIBANK: Faces California Lawsuit Over Undisclosed ATM Charges
ELI LILLY: Anticipates Appeal in Dismissed N.Y. Securities Suit
ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Still Pending in U.S. and Canada

ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Suit Still Pending in Indiana
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Certification Order in N.Y. Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Auction Rate Securities
GOLDMAN SACHS: Illinois Court Denies Class Certification Motion
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Exodus Matter

HARRY AND DAVID: Recalls Chocolates Containing Undeclared Pecans
HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Wants Discovery Done by Jan. 2009
HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Bankruptcy Proceedings Fees
INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Sued Over Debt Relief Waiver Addenda
KNOTT'S BERRY: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cheated Overtime Pay

MERITAGE HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Houses
MICROSOFT CORP: Californians Sue Over Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
NONA'S REAL: Undeclared Allergens in Artichokes Prompt Recall
PR PHARMA: $1.5M Judgment Entered for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

TOMMY HILFIGER: N.Y. Judge To Okay $16M Deal in Tax Evasion Case
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE: Faces $300-Million Discrimination Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
FORTIS SA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Subject to Hazard Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life, John Crane Sued in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.455B Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $880M Receivable for NARCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Engaged in Travelers Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 51,890 Claims Pending v. Bendix at Sept. 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.705B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $615M Settlement at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Upheld to Favor Cincinnati, Wechter
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Junks Tigner's Remand Motion

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Favors Galarraga in N.Y. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reference Withdrawn in Burns and Roe Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Junks Despres Motion to Remand
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Issues Split Order in Ham Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Remand Scheurich Suit Granted

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watterson Pursues Payout Case in Australia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Notes 4T Deaths Annually Due to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Mont. Courthouse to Begin Soon
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Buffalo, N.Y. Auditorium Set for Demolition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingman's Sheriff's Office

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Encounters Setback in Hardie Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CMAJ Criticizes Canada Gov't. Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Parties Enter Confidentiality Pacts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FCR Urges Asarco to Deposit $2.7B for Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Archer, Hartwig Actions Ongoing v. ASARCO

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kazan Represents Parties in ASARCO LLC Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crotty Grants Dana Plea to Dismiss Appeals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland to Include $10M Losses Fiscal 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Cites No Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.24B for Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CertainTeed Faces 70,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $46Mil Increase to Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Urges Dismissal of Brust Action in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Says 1,300 Schools Have Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Not to Blame for U.K. Welder's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Utica Locals Charged for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cuyahoga County Judges Dismiss 30T Claims



                           *********


AETNA INSURANCE: Court OKs $300T Deal in Eating Disorders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg gave final approval to a
class action settlement that requires Aetna Insurance Co. to
provide about $300,000 in back payments to 119 insureds whose
benefits for eating disorders were limited, Henry Gottlieb
writes for the New Jersey Law Journal.

According to the report, the company also promised to treat
future claims more liberally and make internal reforms to
resolve disputes over benefits for eating disorders.

Judge Hochberg also approved a $350,000 payment to the
plaintiffs' class counsel, Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J.  All of
the fee comes from Aetna, not out of a percentage of the class
members' recovery.

"It makes perfect sense to me," Judge Hochberg said after ruling
that the settlement in "De Vito v. Aetna, 07-418," was fair,
reasonable and adequate.

NJ Law Journal relates that the settlement requires the company
to treat some claims for anorexia and bulimia as it does claims
for biologically based mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.
That makes a class of eating-disorder patients eligible for
eight months of treatment, compared with 20 outpatient visits
per calendar year and 30 days of inpatient benefits.

The 119 insureds who will receive checks were those who had at
least one claim limited by Aetna's practices during the past
seven years, according to the report.  And in the future, Aetna
will treat anorexia and bulimia the same way it does BBMIs.

In addition, anyone Aetna determines to have no medical
necessity for enhanced eating-disorder treatment during the next
four years would have the right to elect binding review by an
independent eating-disorder specialist selected with input from
the plaintiffs' lawyers.

At the same time, though, the settlement affects only patients
in "fully insured" plans -- those funded by employers, the
report notes.  Enrollees in self-funded plans, such as employee
welfare and state worker health benefits programs, are not
covered by the settlement and would not automatically benefit
from the more liberal process.

NJ Law Journal relates that Mr. Rice estimates that about
530,000 of Aetna's 1.2 million insureds are eligible for the new
claims procedures and that the process could be worth up to
$2 million in recoveries by the insureds.

The report states that the recent hearing was left unclear how
the value of the settlement would be affected, if at all, by
enactment this month of the U.S. Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008, which seems to require all
insurers to do what Aetna has promised.

The law, included by Congress in the Oct. 6 financial bailout
package, requires insurers to give equal treatment to claims for
mental and physical treatments after Jan. 1, 2001, to insureds
in plans covered by ERISA, the federal benefits law.  That
means, theoretically, that in 15 months the rights to coverage
for eating disorders that Aetna insureds obtained in Tuesday's
settlement will be a federal right for all Americans in ERISA
plans.

The details of the law have not been promulgated and Mr. Rice
told Judge Hochberg he did not know how it would affect the
value of the settlement, the report notes.  Mr. Rice informed
her that the parity law had been stuck into the bailout
legislation.  But she was not inclined to wait for the details
that would enable the parties to determine whether the law
required a re-evaluation of the estimate that the settlement
would generate $2 million in increased recoveries.

No members of the class opted out and no objections to the
settlement or Mr. Rice's firm's fee were filed with the court.


BARRY CALLEBAUT: Recalls Choco Chips Over Undeclared Allergen
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Chicago, IL -- October 10, 2008 – Barry Callebaut USA LLC
is conducting a voluntary recall on its product sold by Kroger
Stores under the brand "Kroger Value Semi Sweet Chocolate
Chips," 12 oz., UPC Code is 11110–86603 and "sell by" date
May 30, 2010, as the product may contain undeclared milk
protein.

     The "sell by" date is found printed in black on the end of
the bag.  People with allergies or severe sensitivity to milk
protein may be at risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

     The Kroger Value Semi Sweet Chocolate Chips subject to this
recall were sold in Kroger stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

     This recall was determined necessary after it was
identified by 3 consumers that packages of Kroger Value Semi
Sweet Chocolate Chips may also contain chocolate chips with
undeclared milk protein.  The package ingredient label does not
identify that the product may contain milk protein.

     Consumers who have purchased Kroger Value Semi Sweet
Chocolate Chips with the above indicated code date may return
the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with any questions may contact Barry Callebaut at 1-
866-678-5221.


CITIBANK: Faces California Lawsuit Over Undisclosed ATM Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank and others are facing a class-action complaint filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court for failing to disclose that they
charge customers for checking their balance at an ATM machine,
CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not disclose any other updates or details
regarding the case.


ELI LILLY: Anticipates Appeal in Dismissed N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. anticipates that plaintiffs will appeal the
dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, according to the company's Oct. 21, 2008
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

Initially, two cases were filed against the company and various
current and former directors, officers and employees.  The suits
are:

       -- "Smith et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed
          on March 28, 2007, and

       -- "Valentine v. Eli Lilly and Company et al.," filed on
          April 5, 2007.

The suits have been consolidated under the caption, "In re Eli
Lilly and Company Securities Litigation."

In August 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, seeking certification of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's stock from Aug. 1, 2002, through
Dec. 22, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding Zyprexa in violation of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.

In October 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  That motion has been converted
in part to a motion for summary judgment, and a hearing on the
motion was scheduled in March 2008.

In April 2008, the court granted summary judgment in favor of
all defendants, dismissing the action.  The company anticipates
that plaintiffs will appeal the decision.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  Its principal products include Neurosciences
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other
pharmaceuticals.


ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Still Pending in U.S. and Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. is still facing several purported class-action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and
marketing of Zyprexa.

                         U.S. Lawsuits

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party
payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund
of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of
New York in 2006 on similar grounds.

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately
tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  Its principal products include Neurosciences
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other
pharmaceuticals.


ELI LILLY: Racial Discrimination Suit Still Pending in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face a purported class-action
suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana for alleged racial discrimination.

The suit was filed in April 2006 by several workers of the drug
company who allegedly experienced racial discrimination.  Three
former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged that the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee; and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs amended their original
complaint to add 50 new plaintiffs, as well as the national and
local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People.

Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their
class certification motion in April 2009.

The company reported no development regarding the matter in its
Oct. 21, 2008 Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008.

The suit is "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joshua Rose, Esq. (daver@roselawyers.com)
          Terri N. Marcus, Esq.
          David L. Rose, Esq.
          Rose & Rose, P.C.
          1320 19th St., N.W., Suite 601
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-331-8555
          Fax: 202-331-0996

Representing the defendants is:

          Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esq. (ellen.boshkoff@bakerd.com)
          Baker & Daniels
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-237-1266
          Fax: 317-237-1000


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Certification Order in N.Y. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M.
Paulson, Jr. is appealing a class certification order in a
purported class-action lawsuit, alleging that defendants
violated the federal securities laws in connection with the
firm's research activities.

The New York district court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification by a decision dated Sept. 15, 2008.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Goldman Sachs defendants filed a petition
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking
review of the district court's class certification order,
according to the company's Oct. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 29, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Auction Rate Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is facing a purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York over auction rate securities,
according to the company's Oct. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 29, 2008.

On Sept. 4, 2008, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was named as a
defendant, together with numerous other financial services
firms, in two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities
market in violation of federal antitrust laws.

The actions were filed, respectively, on behalf of putative
classes of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities
and seek, among other things, treble damages.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the parties to the putative securities class-
action suit brought on behalf of Goldman Sachs customers who
purchased auction rate securities, alleging violation of the
federal securities laws, stipulated to dismiss the action with
prejudice, and the stipulation was approved by the district
court on Sept. 30, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Illinois Court Denies Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
denied a motion that sought for class certification of a
purported class-action lawsuit against Goldman, Sachs & Co. that
was filed on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year
U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of Oct. 31,
2001.

The suit alleges that the firm purchased 30-year bonds and
futures prior to the Treasury's refunding announcement that
morning based on non-public information about that announcement,
and that such purchases increased the costs of covering such
short positions (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2008).

The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.-
based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the
information, a former Goldman Sachs economist who allegedly
received the information, and another company and one of its
employees who also allegedly received and traded on the
information prior to its public announcement.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and
antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law,
and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including
treble damages under the antitrust laws.

The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state
law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to
proceed.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the plaintiff moved for class certification.

On May 7, 2008, Goldman Sachs moved for summary judgment in the
purported class action pending with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

By a decision dated July 30, 2008, the federal district court
granted Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion for summary judgment
insofar as the remaining claims relate to trading of treasury
bonds, but denied the motion without prejudice to the extent the
claims relate to trading of treasury futures.

By a decision dated Aug. 22, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification, according to the company's Oct.
7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2008.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of N.Y. Exodus Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action complaint against The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., over research coverage of Exodus
Communications, Inc., are appealing the dismissal of their case
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Oct. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 29, 2008.

Goldman Sachs is one of several investment firms named as
defendants in substantively identical purported class actions
suits that allege violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with research coverage of certain issuers and that
seek compensatory damages.  The suits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Initially, Goldman Sachs was named as a defendant in several
actions that commenced beginning in May 2003 and relate to a
research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc.

These actions were consolidated, Goldman Sachs' motion to
dismiss the case was granted with leave to replead, and the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
was granted by order dated Dec. 4, 2007.  The plaintiff moved
for reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2007.

By an order dated June 3, 2008, the district court denied the
plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the complaint's
dismissal.

On July 7, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed from the federal
district court's order dismissing the complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
-- is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a
client base that includes corporations, financial institutions,
governments and high-net- worth individuals.  Its activities are
divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and
Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities
Services.


HARRY AND DAVID: Recalls Chocolates Containing Undeclared Pecans
----------------------------------------------------------------
     October 22, 2008 -- Harry and David, of Medford, Oregon, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 400 1 lb. 4 oz. boxes
labeled Harry & David Moose Munch Confection, Milk Chocolate
Gingerbread because the package may contain a different Moose
Munch product which contains pecans not declared on the
ingredient statement.

     People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

     Affected product was distributed throughout the United
States under the Harry & David brand only in Harry and David
stores.

     Harry and David is recalling 1 lb. 4 oz. boxes of Harry &
David Moose Munch Confection, Milk Chocolate with a "Best if
used by" date of 06/28/09.  The "Best if used by" date is
located on a sticker on the bottom of the box.  The bottom of
the box also has the stock identifying number RSD142014 printed
on it.  This lot of product was sold beginning 10/09/08.  The
popcorn-based confection is packaged in 1 lb. 4 oz. brown and
white paperboard boxes.  The boxes have a slight wedge shape and
feature a large white moose image on the front.  Inside the
boxes are clear plastic bags of the confection.

     There have been no illnesses or injuries reported to date.
Anyone concerned about an illness/injury should contact a
physician immediately.

     This problem, which was discovered on October 21st, 2008,
occurred because Dark Chocolate Butter Pecan Moose Munch(R)
Confection was inadvertently packed in a Milk Chocolate
Gingerbread outer box.  It is estimated that fewer than 60 such
boxes were produced.

     Consumers with product may return it to any Harry and David
retail store for a full refund.  Consumers with questions about
the recalled product may phone the Harry and David Customer
Service division at 800-233-1101, 24 hours a day.


HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Wants Discovery Done by Jan. 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
lifted the stay placed on a consolidated securities fraud suit
against Herley Industries, Inc., and certain other defendants.

In June and July 2006, the company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in and served with several class-action
complaints before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuits assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss in April 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying Herley
Industries' and former Herley Chairman Lee N. Blatt's dismissal
motions and granted, in part, the other defendants' request.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 20(a) claim against them.

On July 18, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
stay the actions.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court issued an order allowing for certain
document discovery to commence.  On May 9, 2008, the Court
lifted the stay.  A  Scheduling Order has then been entered
requiring the parties to complete discovery by January 2009.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Oct. 21, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 3, 2008.

The suit is "In re Herley Industries Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02596-JS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Juan R. Sanchez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Stanley P. Kops, Esq. (Stankops@aol.com)
          102 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 610-949-9999

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants are:

          Joel L. Frank, Esq. (jfrank@chescolaw.com)
          Thomas P. Hogan, Jr., Esq. (thogan@chescolaw.com)
          Lamb McErlane PC
          24 East Market Street, P.O. Box 565
          West Chester, PA 19381-0565
          Phone: 610-430-8000
          Fax: 610-692-6210

               - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq. (katsiff@blankrome.com)
          Blank Rome LLP
          One Logan Square, 18th & Cherry Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Phone: 215-569-5500
          Fax: 215-569-5555


HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Bankruptcy Proceedings Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Homecomings Financial, LLC is facing a class-action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin alleging it charges fees in bankruptcy proceedings and
does not disclose them to the filers, the bankruptcy judge or
bankruptcy trustees, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This lawsuit seeks class-wide relief for persons who have filed
for bankruptcy relief and have been wrongfully charged fees that
were never disclosed to them, their bankruptcy judge, and their
bankruptcy trustee.

This case focuses on what plaintiffs contend is the improper
practice by defendant of imposing charges after debtors file for
bankruptcy without getting court permission to impose these
charges.  The practice violates the automatic stay conferred by
11 USC Section 362.

Plaintiffs bring this class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),
(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who filed a petition
for relief funder Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code in
circumstances in which Homecomings imposed charged that were
incurred during the pending of the bankruptcy (in other words,
either pre-confirmation or post-confirmation) without first
getting approval from the presiding bankruptcy judge to impose
such charges.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Homecomings is permitted to charge plaintiffs
         and the class without seeking approval from the
         presiding bankruptcy judges;

     (b) whether Homecoming's failure to get approval for its
         charges renders them per se unreasonable;

     (c) what the extent and measure of damages sustained by
         plaintiffs and the class are;

     (d) whether there is a need for an accounting of funds
         collected pursuant to Homecoming's practices; and

     (e) whether the acts of Homecomings applies to the class as
         a while, entitling the class to injunctive relief as
         well as damages.

Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and each member of the class:

     -- certifying the class as described and designating the
        plaintiffs as its representatives;

     -- declaring that the practice by Homecomings of charging
        debtors for expenses without first disclosing and
        getting approval for imposing those charged from
        presiding bankruptcy judges violates the Bankruptcy
        code;

     -- enjoining defendant from engaging in practices as
        described;

     -- requiring defendant to account for all charges
        improperly collected from plaintiff and class members;

     -- awarding to plaintiffs and class members compensatory
        damages attributable to the practices as described in
        the complaint;

     -- awarding to plaintiffs and class members prejudgment and
        post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys'
        fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of
        litigation; and

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

The suit is "Don E. Patterson, et al. v. Homecomings Financial,
LLC, Case No. 08-C-0889," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA
          1300 Washington Square
          100 Washington Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-1131


INNOVATIVE AFTERMARKET: Sued Over Debt Relief Waiver Addenda
------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Aftermarket Systems is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oklahoma alleging it cheats policyholders who buy Debt Relief
Waiver Addenda in financing autos, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This action is instituted on behalf of all persons residing in
and citizens of the State of Oklahoma who have purchased, in the
State of Oklahoma, a DRWA for a new or used automobile.

Plaintiffs request that the case be certified and maintained as
a class action and for judgment:

     -- as to breach of contract, ordering defendants to pay
        actual damages to the plaintiffs, cost of investigation,
        cost of this action and reasonable attorneys' fees as
        well as all costs associated with the notification and
        administration of benefits to all qualifying class
        members;

     -- as to bad faith, ordering defendants to pay actual,
        consequential, and punitive damages to the plaintiffs,
        cost of investigation, cost of this action and
        reasonable attorneys' fees as well as all costs
        associated with the notification and administration of
        benefits to all qualifying class members;

     -- as to negligence, ordering defendants to pay actual
        damages to the plaintiffs, cost of investigation, cost
        of this action and reasonable attorneys' fees as well as
        costs associated with the notification and
        administration of benefits to all qualifying class
        members; and

     -- grant such other and further relief as the court deems
        just and proper to which the plaintiffs may be entitled.

The suit is "Miya Polin et al. v. Innovative AfterMarket Systems
et al., Case No. CJ-2008-9481," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oklahoma.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Bernstein, Esq.
          Bernstein Law Building
          P.O. Box 1692
          104 W. Gray St.
          Norman, OK 73070
          Phone: 405-329-1484
          Fax: 405-329-5949


KNOTT'S BERRY: Faces Calif. Suit Over Cheated Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, LP, doing business as Knotts Berry Farm, is facing a
class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange alleging it cheats workers of
overtime by calling them "supervisors" and "assistant managers"
though they do the same work as other employees in food services
at the popular amusement park, CourtHouse News Service reports.

This is a civil action seeking recovery for defendants'
violations of California Labor Code Section 1194, et seq., Labor
Code Section 200, et seq., Labor Code Section 500, et seq.,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
the applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission and related common law principles.

Named plaintiff Mark St. Croix sued Cedar Fair and Magnum
Management Corp. both of which do business as Knott's Berry
Farm.  He says the defendants call him a supervisor and
assistant manager in food services to duck their obligations to
pay him overtime.  But he says, "Any differences in job
activities between the different individuals in these positions
were and are legally insignificant".

The plaintiff brings this suit as a class action pursuant to CCP
Section 382, on behalf of:

     (1) all of defendants' California-based employees during
         the relevant time period with the title "Supervisor" in
         the Food Service Division at Knotts Berry Farm who were
         classified as salaried exempt employees by defendants;
         and

     (2) all of defendants' California-based employees during
         the relevant time period with the title "Assistant
         Manager" in the Food Service Division at Knotts Berry
         Farm who were classified as salaried exempt employees
         by defendants.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the members of the classes were expected to
         and mandated to regularly work overtime;

     (b) whether the members of the classes were uniformly
         classified as exempt in violation of the Labor Code and
         the IWC Wage Orders;

     (c) whether defendants failed to pay overtime compensation
         to the members of the classes by virtue of defendants'
         uniform designation of employees as exempt in violation
         of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders;

     (d) whether defendants' purportedly exempt positions
         realistically required members of the classes to be
         primarily engaged in non-management work;

     (e) the correct method of calculating back overtime pay;

     (f) whether defendants failed and continue to fail to
         provide meal periods to the members of the classes in
         violation of Section 11 of the IWC Wage Orders;

     (g) whether defendants failed and continue to fail to
         authorize and permit members of the classes to take
         rest periods in violation of Section 12 of the IWC Wage
         Orders;

     (h) whether defendants failed to keep adequate records for
         the members of the classes pursuant to Labor Code
         226(a) (and the consequence for such statutory
         violations if defendants did not);

     (i) whether the members of the classes that are no longer
         employed by defendant are entitled to penalties
         pursuant to Labor Code Section 203;

     (j) the correct statute of limitations for the claims of
         the members of the classes;

     (k) whether defendants' conduct constitutes unfair
         competition within the meaning of B&PC Section 17200
         and 17203;

     (l) whether defendants' conduct constitutes unfair business
         practices within the meaning of B&PC Section 17200 and
         17203;

     (m) whether the members of the classes are entitled to
         compensatory damages, and if so, the means of measuring
         such damages;

     (n) whether the members of the classes are entitled to
         injunctive relief;

     (o) whether the members of the classes are entitled to
         restitution;

     (p) whether defendants are liable for punitive damages;

     (q) whether defendants are liable for pre-judgment
         interest; and

     (r) whether defendants are liable for attorneys' fees and
         costs.

The plaintiff requests:

     -- that the court issue an order certifying the classes,
        appointing the named plaintiffs as representative of all
        others similarly situated, and appointing the law firm
        representing the named plaintiffs as counsel for the
        members of the classes;

     -- for damages, as set forth in Labor Code Section 1194(a)
        and the IWC Wage Orders regarding wages due and owing,
        according to proof;

     -- for liquidated damages on the straight-time portion of
        uncompensated hours of work (not including the overtime
        portion), as authorized by Labor Code Section 1194.2(a);

     -- for pre-judgment interest as allowed by Labor Code
        Section 1194(a) and CC Section 3287(b) and Section 3289;

     -- for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
        pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194(a);

     -- for one hour of pay at each employee's regular rate of
        compensation for each workday that a meal period was not
        provided;

     -- for interest as authorized by Labor Code Section 1194(a)
        and CC Section 3287(b) and Section 3289;

     -- for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
        pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194(a);

     -- for one hour of pay at each employee's regular rate of
        compensation for each workday that a rest period was not
        provided;

     -- for interest as authorized by Labor Code Section 1194(a)
        and CC Section 3287(b) and Section 3289;

     -- for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
        pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194(a);

     -- for penalties as authorized by Labor Code Section
        226(e);

     -- for an award of costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
        pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(g);

     -- for penalties as authorized by Labor Code Section 203;

     -- for an accounting, under administration of plaintiffs
        and the receiver and subject to court review, to
        determine the amount to be returned by defendants, and
        the amounts to be refunded to members of the classes who
        are owed monies by defendants;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to identify each of
        the members of the classes by name, home address, and
        home telephone number;

     -- for an order requiring defendants to make full
        restitution and payment pursuant to Labor Code Section
        200, et seq., Section 500, et seq. and Section 1194;

     -- for the creation of an administrative process wherein
        each injured member of the classes may submit a claim in
        order to receive money;

     -- for all other appropriate declaratory and equitable
        relief;

     -- for interest to the extent permitted by law;

     -- for an award of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
        the investigation, filing and prosecution of this action
        pursuant to CCP Section 1021.5, B&PC Section 17200, et
        seq., Labor Code Section 1194 and any other applicable
        provision of law;

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

     -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred.

The suit is "Mark St. Croix et al. v. Cedar Fair, LP, Case No.
00214500," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Orange.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          James M. Trush, Esq. (jtrush@earthlink.net)
          Trush Law Office
          695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: 714-384-6390
          Fax: 714-384-6391


MERITAGE HOMES: Faces Calif. Suit Over Alleged Defective Houses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritage Homes of Northern California is facing a class-action
complaint filed in  Stanlslaus County Court alleging it built
defective houses, CourtHouse News Service reports.

CourtHouse did not report on any other updates or details
regarding the case.


MICROSOFT CORP: Californians Sue Over Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed under California's
consumer protection statutes before the Sacramento County
Superior Court, Eric Blair writes for eFluxMedia.

According to Computerworld, plaintiff Reshelle Cable of Folsom,
Calif., filed the suit on October 20, 2008, accusing Microsoft
of deceiving consumers by concealing the high failure rate of
its Xbox 360 game machine.  The suit alleges that the company
violated multiple state consumer-protection and unfair-
competition laws.  Ms. Cable further alleges that the company
continued to sell the Xbox 360 even though it knew that the
console's hardware was likely to fail.

eFluxMedia notes that the suit contends that Microsoft concealed
the issue even if it was aware of it in order to better compete
with rival Sony Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii.

Computerworld explains the Xbox 360's hardware problems –
labeled as the "red ring of death" for the flashing red lights
that signal a general failure of the machine -- have dogged
Microsoft since the game system's first year.  In July 2007,
Microsoft finally acknowledged that an "unacceptable number of
repairs" had had to be authorized on returned units, and said
that it was taking a $1-billion charge against earnings to pay
for the fixes.  At the time, Microsoft also extended the Xbox
360's warranty to three years for any Xbox 360 that displayed
the error signal.

eFluxMedia says that the plaintiff cited a number of popular
gaming news Web sites, such as dailygamesnews.com, VentureBeat,
Digital Media and Yahoo! according to which, Microsoft knew
about the defective consoles as far back as November 2005, and
that their rate of incidence was over 50%.  The report points
out that that figure is obscenely high in an industry which
considers 3% a maximum accepted hardware failure rate.

According to Computerworld, the lawsuit asks that Microsoft be
required to hand over profit it made by deceiving consumers and
that Xbox 360 owners be refunded their money.  The case sought
class-action status so that other Californians could
participate.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the company's Oct. 9, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 24, 2008, a purported class-action complaint, "Fogel
Capital Management, Inc. v. Richard S. Fuld, Jr., et al.," was
filed in the U.S. District court for the Southern District of
New York, asserting claims against the company and others.

The claims asserted against the company relate to the company's
involvement in the syndicate that underwrote a public offering
of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. preferred stock on Feb. 5,
2008.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents for this
offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
asserts claims against the company under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The suit is "Fogel Capital Management, Inc. v. Fuld et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-08225-LAK," filed in the U.S. District court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Gustavo Fabian Bruckner, Esq. (Bruckner@whafh.com)
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-545-4600
          Fax: 212-545-4653

Representing the defendants is:

          Mitchell A. Lowenthal, Esq. (maofiling@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2000
          Fax: 212-225-3499

               - and -

          Michael Joseph Chepiga, Esq. (mchepiga@stblaw.com)
          Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (NY)
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-455-2598
          Fax: 212-455-2502


NONA'S REAL: Undeclared Allergens in Artichokes Prompt Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
     October 22, 2008 -- Nonna's Real Italiana Cuccine of
Slidell, LA, is recalling the following Nonna's Real Italiana
Cuccine brand products:

     * Stuffed Artichokes, Net Wt. 15 oz.

     This product is being recalled because it contains milk,
soy, and wheat that was distributed in packaging that does not
reveal the presence of these ingredients.  People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, soy, or wheat run the
risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

     This product is distributed through retailers in the
Greater New Orleans area including the Northshore from Oct. 8,
2008, to October 17, 2008.  The product is individually wrapped
in clear plastic wrap bearing the label: "STUFFED ARTICHOKE, Net
Wt. 15 oz., NONNA'S REAL ITALIANA CUCCINE".

     There have been no reported illnesses to date.

     The above omission was found during a routine FDA
inspection.  Distribution of these products has been suspended
while we correct the labels to include all ingredients.

     Consumers who have questions or purchased the product may
contact Ruby Lovecchio at 214-253-7630 for information and
return instructions.


PR PHARMA: $1.5M Judgment Entered for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct. 22, 2008 -- The Arapahoe County
District Court confirmed a jury verdict and entered final
judgment for more than $1.5 million in both compensatory and
punitive damages, jointly and severally against a Fort Collins-
based private company, PR Pharmaceuticals and its President,
Steven Howe, and CEO, Dr. Patrick Bols.

     This is a significant class action victory for all
investors in the state of Colorado, including all minority
shareholders, as it re-affirms the fiduciary duties that a
majority shareholder and controlling officers and directors of a
company owe to the minority shareholders not to run the company
for the majority shareholders own benefit, to the detriment of
the minority shareholders whose investment is at their mercy.
By special verdict, after a full trial on the merits, an
Arapahoe County jury found that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Englewood-based Verex Laboratories, Inc. and
a certified class of its minority shareholders by running the
company for their own benefit and to the Plaintiffs' detriment.

     Judge J. Mark Hannen of Colorado's 18th Judicial District,
presided over the trial and entered judgment against all of the
Defendants in the amount of $1,569,462, and allowing the
Plaintiffs to file a motion requesting the costs and attorneys
fees incurred in the case.

     CASE FACTS: Verex is an Englewood based publicly traded
company that has specialized in the research and development of
important drugs and drug technologies in the fight against
diseases such as Cancer and AIDS.  In March 2000, PRP purchased
a majority of the stock in Verex and took control of the
company, installing Patrick Bols and Steven Howe, PRP's
President and CEO respectively, as the President and CEO of
Verex.  At the time PRP took control, one of the promises they
made to gain control was that PRP would make a Tender Offer to
buy out all of the shares owned by the remaining (minority)
shareholders at $.50/share within one year.

     However, PRP made the Tender Offer conditional on timely
completion of an audit of the books and records of Verex. Once
PRP took control of Verex, through various actions, and despite
written notification from the auditors that they the audits were
complete and simply awaiting confirmation from PRP of certain
information before the audits would be signed, PRP failed to
timely complete the audits.  For many months even after the
deadline for completing the audits had passed, PRP continued to
represent that they were still intending to make the tender
offer. But instead they were planning how to close down Verex
and walk away from the company all together.

     In the fall of 2001, without any prior notice to the
minority shareholders, PRP, Bols and Howe fired the employees of
Verex, gave the employees minutes to gather their things and
leave, closed and deadlocked the Verex doors, and sold off the
Verex assets in a sale for substantially less than fair market
value.  PRP then tendered back its Verex stock, and Bols and
Howe, who were in control of Verex while all of this took place,
resigned their positions from Verex and walked away from the
company.  PRP never made the tender offer to the minority
shareholders, and as a result of PRP, Bols and Howe's actions,
the value of the company stock became virtually worthless.

     PRP argued at trial that it technically was not obligated
to pay the Tender Offer because the audits were not completed.
However, it was PRP, Bols and Howe, as those in control of
Verex, who had fiduciary obligations to the minority
shareholders to insure that they did everything reasonably
necessary to complete the audits to protect the minority
shareholders' rights.  When PRP Bols and Howe tortiously failed
to complete the audits, and then used their own failure as a
basis to avoid their obligations to the minority shareholders,
they breached their fiduciary obligations under Colorado law.

     PR Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company located
in Ft. Collins Colorado.  Steve Howe is the president of PR
Pharmaceuticals and at the time PRP purchased control of Verex,
he became the president of Verex.  Dr. Partick Bols is the CEO
of PR Pharmaceuticals and at the time PRP purchased control of
Verex, he became the CEO of Verex.

     The class of minority Verex shareholders is comprised of
1185 shareholders holding 1,195,470 shares for a total value of
$597,735.  The class was represented by Richard Schaps and James
Fleming.  The class was awarded $1.06 million.  Richard Schaps
was awarded $123,227 and James Fleming $94,784; Verex was
awarded $284,609.

     All awards included prejudgment interest compounded both
annually and daily; total interest exceeded $300,000 and post
judgment interest may continue to accrue, compounded annually.
Costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys fees, are
yet to be awarded but will be significant.

     "It was particularly gratifying that punitive damages were
awarded in this case since the Defendants willfully and wantonly
breached their fiduciary duties," said Plaintiffs' lead trial
counsel David P. Hersh of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh Jardine,
P.C. Hersh added, "our clients are, of course, delighted that
after all of these years, this matter has been favorably
resolved."

     "It's good to win vindication for the little guys -- this
is what we practice law for -- to fight injustice, even against
big companies at great odds.  Verex and its 1185 minority
shareholders have finally, after several years of a long hard
fight, received justice in this case," said Plaintiff's co-lead
trial counsel David K. TeSelle.

For more information, contact:

          Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
          40 Inverness Drive East
          Denver, CO 80112
          Phone: 303-792-5595
          Fax: 303-708-0527
          Web site: http://www.burgsimpson.com/


TOMMY HILFIGER: N.Y. Judge To Okay $16M Deal in Tax Evasion Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York is expected to give final approval
to a $16 million deal in a securities class action against Tommy
Hilfiger Corp., the Standford Law School Securities Class Action
ClearingHouse reports.

In 2004, approximately eleven purported shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed.  The complaints alleged that, unbeknownst
to investors, the Company's United States subsidiary padded
commissions paid to non-U.S. subsidiaries for the improper
purpose of shifting millions of dollars in reportable revenue
from high to low tax rate jurisdictions.

Consequently, throughout the Class Period, the Company's
liability and provision for income taxes was materially
understated, its net income was materially overstated, and the
risk that the Company would be forced to pay material fines and
penalties was concealed from the investing public.  Moreover,
all statements made by defendants with respect to the Company's
operating performance, including the Company's financial
statements, were materially false and misleading, and inherently
unreliable, because defendants failed to disclose that tax
evasion was a key element of the Company's business model.
Defendants' scheme enabled insiders, including defendants, to
sell thousand of their shares of Tommy Hilfiger at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds in excess of $100 million.

The Court has consolidated the purported shareholder class
action lawsuits, and has appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated, amended
complaint on May 13, 2005.  On August 1, 2005, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On September 30, 2005, the Company and lead plaintiffs agreed to
a new schedule, which the Company expects to be so ordered by
the Court, pursuant to which lead plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 31, 2005.  The Company
expected to file a new motion to dismiss by December 5, 2005
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006).

Judge Scheindlin is expected to rubber-stamp the agreement soon,
bringing an end to a four-year-old case in which plaintiffs
accused the sportswear designer of evading taxes and making
false and misleading statements to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Under the settlement, Tommy Hilfiger will pay the class members
$16 million in exchange for dismissing and releasing all their
claims against it.  The sum would cover all administrative
expenses and attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs, as well as
their awards for the case.  The percentage that each plaintiff
receives will depend on the relationship each one's claim bears
to the total of all claims.  "Lead counsel respectfully submits
that this settlement is an excellent recovery for the class
under the circumstances, given the serious obstacles to
recovery," the plaintiffs said in their motion for settlement
filed on Sept. 24.  "When viewed in light of the risks that
defendants could prevail at summary judgment or at trial, based
on their defenses to loss causation, scienter and damages, the
settlement is a substantial result for the class," the
plaintiffs added.

Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., incorporated in Delaware, is a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Tommy Hilfiger Corporation,
which is owned by funds advised by Apax Partners.  Tommy
Hilfiger Corporation, through its subsidiaries, designs, sources
and markets men's and women's sportswear, jeanswear and
childrenswear. Tommy Hilfiger Corporation's brands include Tommy
Hilfiger and Karl Lagerfeld.  Through a range of strategic
licensing agreements, Tommy Hilfiger Corporation also offers a
broad array of related apparel, accessories, footwear,
fragrance, and home furnishings.  Tommy Hilfiger Corporation's
products can be found in leading department and specialty stores
throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, Mexico, Central
and South America, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia and other
countries in the Far East, as well as the Tommy Hilfiger
Corporation's own network of outlet and specialty stores in the
United States, Canada and Europe.


U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE: Faces $300-Million Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two U.S. Deputy Marshals have filed a $300-million class action
lawsuit against the service, accusing the marshals of routinely
discriminating against African American deputies, The Blog of
Legal Times says.

According to BLT, Deputy U.S. Marshal David Grogan and Chief
Deputy Marshal James Brooks say in their complaint that African
American deputies face different standards for promotions,
awards, special assignments, and training opportunities than
their white counterparts.  The suit, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, says that the subjective
nature of the standards used to allocate promotions allows the
service to keep qualified black deputies from advancing.

The plaintiffs' attorney, David Sanford, Esq., of Sanford,
Wittels and Heisler, told BLT that the recently filed suit is a
continuation of an earlier effort to change discriminatory
policies within the Marshals Service.

The report recounts Matthew Fogg, an African-American chief
deputy marshal, successfully sued the service for discrimination
in 1998.  Mr. Fogg won a $4-million judgment for his individual
complaint, but the class action portion of his suit was
dismissed before it went to trial.

Mr. Sanford said the new lawsuit is designed to address the
discrimination black deputy marshals have faced since the late
1990s.  "When you have an agency that has been sued and has been
hit several times in federal court and has been told by a judge
that they have a practice of racial discrimination, you would
think you would look at your practices and change them.  They
haven't done that, for whatever reason," he said.

According to the complaint, Mr. Grogan was allegedly passed over
for several promotions and awards despite "his demonstrably
excellent job performance."  The jobs he applied for later went
to white marshals.  Mr. Brooks' portion of the complaint alleges
similar mistreatment based on his race.

The suit is about "determining whether the agency's practices
comport with the law.  These are good people trying to do the
right thing, but for whatever reason they come up short.  The
result is that African Americans are not promoted at the same
rate," Mr. Sanford adds.

Mr. Sanford further explains that the $300 million for damages
was determined because there could be as many as 1,000 current
and former black deputy marshals who have worked with the
service since the mid-1990s.  "It's hard to come up with
accurate amount of damages because we don't know how many people
are in the class," he said.  "It's a thorny legal issue, and it
will be up to the judge to determine whether we'll be allowed to
go back that far."

Dave Turner, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said the
agency does not comment on pending litigation.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Brower Piven Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A
Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. publicly traded securities
during the period between January 30, 2008, and September 16,
2008, inclusive.

     The complaint charges Constellation and certain of its
officers and directors and its underwriters with violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act
of 1933.

     The complaint alleges that due to defendants' positive, but
false, statements, Constellation's stock closed at about $88.25
per share on June 9, 2008.  The complaint further alleges that
on June 27, 2008, defendants consummated the sale of
Constellation's Preferred Securities pursuant to the false and
misleading Registration Statement, selling 18 million shares at
$25.00 per share for proceeds of approximately $435.8 million.

     The pleading states that in July 2008, the Company reported
favorable financial results and reaffirmed EPS guidance of
$5.25-$5.75 per share for 2008, but that in August 2008,
analysts questioned Constellation's accounting and the
implications of a credit downgrade.

     The complaint goes on to state that, on September 15, 2008,
investors and the market became aware of Constellation's
exposure to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s bankruptcy, which
affected the Company's ability to engage in energy-related
trades, which news caused the value of Constellation's shares to
decline approximately 50% from the Company's Class Period high
of $97.34 per share.

     According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose,
including in the Registration Statement/Prospectus, that
Constellation's characterization of depreciation expense
inflated the Company's reported cash flows; that the Company's
exposure to credit problems of trading partners was much greater
than represented; and that the Company was not on track to
report 2008 EPS of $5.25+ per share.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 21, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: 410-332-0030


FORTIS SA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 22, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP today filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Fortis, Fortis
S.A./N.V., Fortis NV [OTC: FORSF; FORSY]; [Brussels: FORB BB];
[EURONEXT: FORA]; [EURONEXT: FORB]; or [LUXSE: FOR] between
January 28, 2008, and October 6, 2008, inclusive.

     Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  As a result of the dissemination of the
false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the
market price of Fortis securities was artificially inflated
during the Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and
misleading nature of the statements described above, and the
deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by
said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of Fortis securities.  Had plaintiff and the other members of
the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Company and the individual defendants falsely portrayed the
Company as relatively immune from the effects of the global
credit crisis and stated that the Company's capital position
remained strong and loan portfolio was solid.  In actuality, the
Company was practically insolvent at all relevant times and
needed to sell assets at fire-sale prices and raise capital at
extraordinarily high rates to remain viable.  Moreover, the
Company's balance sheet was impaired by billions of dollars of
poorly performing assets the Company acquired when it purchased
ABN AMRO in October 2007.

     The magnitude of the Company's severe liquidity crisis
first became apparent on September 29, 2008, when the
governments of three separate countries (Netherlands, Belgium,
and Luxembourg), agreed to bail-out the Company so long as it
would sell its troubled stake in ABN AMRO.  Published reports
indicated that Fortis's sale of ABN AMRO would net considerably
less than Fortis had paid for it just months ago.  The deal
would have given the three European nations a 49% stake in the
Company.  The emergency infusion was in the form of 11.2 billion
euros ($16.9 billion).  This unprecedented move, however, was
not enough to stem Fortis' continued decline.

     On Saturday, October 4, 2008, it was reported that the
Dutch government took over Fortis' operations for 16.8 billion
euros ($23 billion) in a deal that came less than a week after
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg had agreed to invest
EUR11.2 billion in Fortis.  News that the famed financial giant
was in ruins and required nationalization further punished
Fortis' already bruised stakeholders.

     On October 14, 2008, Fortis traded on the Brussels exchange
at the lowest levels that it had ever seen since it was formed
18 years ago, after selling most of its operations to three
governments and BNP Paribas SA. Fortis, which resumed trading
after a six-day suspension, declined 78 percent to EUR1.22,
valuing the Company at EUR2.86 billion ($3.91 billion).

For more information, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Subject to Hazard Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation is still subject to occupational claims,
including asbestos-related, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Oct. 15, 2008.

Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposure to
certain materials in the workplace like asbestos, solvents and
diesel fuels or allegations of chronic physical injuries
resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss.

An analysis is performed semi-annually. The methodology used
includes an estimate of future anticipated claims based on the
Company's trends in average historical claim filing rates,
future anticipated dismissal rates and settlement rates.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation's rail-based
transportation services include traditional rail service and the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers. The Company's
principal operating company, CSX Transportation, Inc., provides
a link to the transportation supply chain through about 21,000
route mile rail network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metropolitan Life, John Crane Sued in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of 150 claimants, Edwardsville, Ill., asbestos
attorneys Randy Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., on Oct. 14,
2008, filed a one-count conspiracy class action suit against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and John Crane Inc. in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The plaintiffs claim that the publication of "false and
misleading reports" was done to "maintain a favorable atmosphere
for the continued sale and distribution and use of asbestos."

Metropolitan Life is named in the suit as the general medical,
disability and life insurance carrier for the "conspirators
Johns-Manville in the U.S. and Canada, and Raybestos-Manhattan,
as well as others in the industry."

The plaintiffs say that misinformation helped influence
legislation, in the defendants' favor, to regulate asbestos
exposure and limit medical and disability claims and to provide
a defense in asbestos lawsuits.

The suit claims that the alleged conspirators suppressed
information concerning asbestosis in "Asbestos Magazine," a
trade magazine generally read by sales and marketing personnel.

The complaint does not make specific allegations against gasket
maker John Crane, an international manufacturer headquartered in
the Chicago area.

Asbestos defense attorneys have said that John Crane is added to
the litany of named defendants in typical Madison County
asbestos lawsuits in order to secure venue.

In June 2005, John Fitzpatrick of Leclair Ryan in Richmond, Va.,
told Madison County Circuit Judge Dan Stack that conduct between
a plaintiff's attorney and a John Crane attorney during an
asbestos trial bordered on fraud.

Mr. Fitzpatrick made the comment after John Crane was granted a
directed verdict and was dismissed from the case brought by
plaintiff Jane Gudmundson of Cook County.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.455B Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.455 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 17, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.430 billion as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
July 25, 2008)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$960 million as of Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$998 million as of June 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008)

Asbestos-related litigation charges (net of insurance) were
US$43 million in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$28 million in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Asbestos-related litigation charges (net of insurance) were
US$105 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$73 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
US$38 billion diversified technology and manufacturing company
that serves customers with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $880M Receivable for NARCO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded an insurance receivable
corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and
future asbestos claims of North American Refractories Company of
US$880 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$939
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2008, a significant portion of this coverage is
with insurance companies with whom the Company has agreements to
pay full policy limits based on corresponding Honeywell claims
costs.

The Company, as of June 30, 2008, recorded a US$925 million
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future asbestos claims of NARCO.
(Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008)

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest.
Less than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims.

On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy
filing, all of the claims pending against NARCO are
automatically stayed pending the reorganization of NARCO. The
stay has remained in effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed
to pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing
of a plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company
(which amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of
NARCO's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay
NARCO's parent company US$40 million, and to forgive any
outstanding NARCO indebtedness to the Company, upon the
effective date of the plan of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. No assurances can be given as to the
time frame or outcome of this appeal.

The Company expects that the stay enjoining litigation against
NARCO and the Company will remain in effect during the pendency
of these proceedings.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007
of US$1.1 billion.

About US$100 million of payments due under settlements is due
upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
US$38 billion diversified technology and manufacturing company
that serves customers with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Engaged in Travelers Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is still involved in litigation
with Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company over insurance
claims related to the Company's former subsidiary North American
Refractories Company (NARCO).

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers filed a lawsuit against
the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of
New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-
related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage
issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
September 30, 2008.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed in the New
York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the
appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos
liabilities to triggered policies. The Court's ruling is subject
to appeal.

The Company expects to prevail in this matter based upon (i) its
understanding of relevant facts and applicable law, (ii) the
terms of insurance policies at issue, (iii) its experience on
matters of this nature, and (iv) the advice of counsel, and thus
the Company said it believes that the amount due from Travelers
and other insurance carriers (US$340 million at Sept. 30, 2008)
is probable of recovery.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
US$38 billion diversified technology and manufacturing company
that serves customers with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 51,890 Claims Pending v. Bendix at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business faced 51,890 asbestos-related claims in the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008 and 51,658 claims in the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 17, 2008.

Bendix had 52,487 unresolved asbestos claims for the six months
ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008)

Of the 51,890 claims as of Sept. 30, 2008, about 5,494 were
mesothelioma and other cancer claims and 46,396 were other
claims. Of the 51,658 claims as of Dec. 31, 2007, about 5,011
were mesothelioma and other cancer claims and 46,647 were other
claims.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, Bendix had 2,999 claims
filed and 2,767 claims resolved. In the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, Bendix had 2,771 claims filed and 8,221 claims resolved.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. There is a group of
existing and potential claimants consisting of individuals who
allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing
or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake
replacements.

From 1981 through Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has resolved about
116,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. Trials covering 128
plaintiffs resulted in 127 favorable verdicts and one mistrial.
Trials covering 12 individuals resulted in adverse verdicts.
However, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal, three
claims were settled and the remaining have or will be appealed.

About 45 percent of about 52,000 pending claims at Sept. 30,
2008 are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets
established in some jurisdictions for claimants who allege
minimal or no impairment. The average of 52,000 pending claims
also include claims filed in jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia,
and Mississippi that historically allowed for consolidated
filings.

During 2006, about 16,000 cases were dismissed. More than 85
percent of these dismissals occurred in Mississippi as a result
of judicial rulings relating to non-resident filings and venue.

The average resolution costs for malignant claims were US$33,000
in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, compared with US$33,000 in the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The average resolution costs for non-
malignant claims were US$500 in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
compared with Us$250 in the year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$572 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and
US$517 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company currently has US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix
related asbestos claims, of which US$130 million are reflected
as receivables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet at
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$197 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
US$38 billion diversified technology and manufacturing company
that serves customers with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.705B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s total asbestos liabilities for
its Bendix friction materials business and North American
Refractories Company, during the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2008, were US$1.705 billion.

Of the US$1.705 billion, US$572 million was related to Bendix
and US$1.133 billion was related to NARCO.

The Company's total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.010 billion, during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Of the US$1.010 billion, US$130 million was related to Bendix
and US$880 million was related to NARCO.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
US$38 billion diversified technology and manufacturing company
that serves customers with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $615M Settlement at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current
liabilities) was US$615 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$600 million as of Sept. 30, 2007, according to a Company
press release, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 16, 2008.

The Company recorded US$613 million as asbestos settlement
(under current liabilities) as of June 30, 2008 and US$601
million as of June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, July 25,
2008)

Net charge for asbestos settlement was US$3 million during the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, the same as for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos settlement was US$5 million during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the same as for the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos settlement was US$9 million during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$22
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Reported third quarter 2008 net income includes after-tax
charges of US$110 million, or 67 cents per share, for business
restructuring and US$3 million, or two cents per share, to
reflect the net increase in the current value of the Company's
obligation under its proposed asbestos settlement agreement
reported in May 2002, which is pending court proceedings.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints, coatings,
chemicals, optical products, specialty materials, glass and
fiber glass. The Company has more than 150 manufacturing
facilities and equity affiliates and operates in more than 60
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Upheld to Favor Cincinnati, Wechter
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Gallia County,
upheld a trial court's ruling to favor Cincinnati Insurance
Company and Kevin Wechter, an insurance adjustor for Cincinnati,
in an action involving asbestos filed by Phyllis Loveday.

The case is styled Phyllis Loveday, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Essential Heating Cooling & Refrigeration, Inc., Defendants-
Appellees.

Judges William H. Harsha, Peter B. Abele, and Roger L. Kline
entered judgment in Case No. 08CA4 on Sept. 15, 2008.

Ms. Loveday owns a very old Victorian home that is insured by
Cincinnati. In December 2002, she presented a loss claim for
water damage to her home after an outside spigot froze and burst
causing her basement to flood.

Mr. Wechter handled the claim. Ms. Loveday hired David Smith,
who owns Essential Heating, Cooling, & Refrigeration, Inc., to
repair the damages, including repairing and replacing the
boiler, boiler burner, and the hot water tank.

At the time, Mr. Smith was Ms. Loveday's boyfriend and was also
acting under a power of attorney for her. According to Mr.
Wechter, he issued checks to Ms. Loveday totaling US$12,896.44
for this claim.

The next month, Mr. Smith reported another loss after a pipe in
the upstairs bathroom burst causing water to leak through the
floor and resulting in some flooding in the basement. For this
claim, Mr. Wechter paid out a total of US$28,000.21 to Ms.
Loveday. She again hired Mr. Smith, who still had her power of
attorney, to do the work.

In December 2003, Ms. Loveday requested Mr. Wechter to reopen
her claim because Mr. Smith "disturbed" asbestos insulation when
he installed a new boiler. Cincinnati denied Ms. Loveday's
request because there was no evidence that flooding had caused
the damage to the pipes and because Cincinnati was not
responsible for the workmanship of the person she chose to do
the work.

Ms. Loveday filed this action against Mr. Smith, Essential
Heating and Cooling, Cincinnati, and Mr. Wechter.

Specifically, Ms. Loveday alleged that both "individual
Defendants" assured her that the boiler could be replaced
without disturbing the asbestos casing around her furnace and
that "she relied upon the Defendants to her detriment." She
claimed that after returning to her home in 2004, she discovered
that Mr. Smith's repair work was inadequate; the furnace boiler
was improperly replaced, and the asbestos casing around the
surrounding pipes was "disturbed" causing her to suffer from
exposure to the asbestos.

Ms. Loveday later voluntarily dismissed Mr. Smith and Essential
Heating and Cooling with prejudice.

Cincinnati and Mr. Wechter filed a joint motion for summary
judgment and supported the motion with the deposition testimony
of Ms. Loveday and Mr. Smith, as well as the affidavits of
Wechter and Anthony F. Baumgard, an engineer who inspected
Loveday's basement.

Ms. Loveday filed a response and presented her own affidavit and
the affidavit of Winston Saunders, an "expert" in the filed of
asbestos contamination and removal.

In its decision, the trial court ordered Mr. Saunders' affidavit
stricken and granted judgment in favor of Cincinnati and Mr.
Wechter. Ms. Loveday appealed.

Because Cincinnati's properly supported motion showed the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact concerning as
essential element of Ms. Loveday's promissory claim, and because
Ms. Loveday failed to meet her reciprocal evidentiary burden,
summary judgment in Cincinnati's favor was proper. Accordingly,
the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

James R. Henry, Esq., in Gallipolis, Ohio, represented Phyllis
Loveday.

Gerald A. Mollica, Esq., of Mollica, Gall, Sloan & Sillery Co.,
L.P.A. in Athens, Ohio, represented Cincinnati Insurance
Companies and Kevin Wechter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Junks Tigner's Remand Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, Delta
Division, denied Patricia Tigner's motion to remand, in an
asbestos case filed against State Beauty Supply of Northeast
Mississippi, Inc. and other defendants.

The case is styled Patricia Tigner, Plaintiff v. Bondex
International, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge W. Allen Pepper, Jr. entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 2:08CV166-P-A on Sept. 15, 2008.

Jamie W. Howell, Jr., Esq., of Gilder, Howell & Associates, P.A.
in Southaven, Miss., represented Patricia Tigner.

Ms. Tigner filed the instant action in the Circuit Court of
Panola County, Miss., on March 12, 2008. The defendants argued
that since one of the co-defendants was a Mississippi resident
corporation, State Beauty, they did not believe they had the
right to remove the case to federal court at that time.

State Beauty filed its Answer on June 13, 2008 wherein they set
forth the affirmative offense that it did not exist until July
14, 1989 and that Ms. Tigner's lawsuit is based on her
allegations that she was exposed to asbestos from 1958 until
1987.

It was on the receipt of State Beauty's Answer, the defendants
argued, that they received notice that they had the right to
remove because of the improper joinder of State Beauty, the sole
Mississippi defendant.

The defendants removed this action on July 14, 2008 on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction and improper joinder.

Ms. Tigner filed her motion to remand on Aug. 6, 2008 wherein
she argued that removal was improper because it was untimely.

That is, while Ms. Tigner did not deny that there is no
reasonable possibility of recovery against State Beauty given
their argument in their Answer that they did not exist until
about two years after Ms. Tigner claimed she was last exposed to
asbestos, she argued that the removal was untimely since (a) the
notice of removal should have been filed no later than 30 days
after the defendants were served with the Complaint; and/or (b)
the notice of removal should have been filed within 30 days of
the defendants' receipt of State Beauty's Answer on June 13,
2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Favors Galarraga in N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New
York, upheld the ruling of the Supreme Court, Queens County,
which favored Manuel Galarraga, in a case involving asbestos
removal filed against the City of New York.

The case is styled Manuel Galarraga, a/k/a Miguel Galarraga,
respondent, et al., plaintiff v. City of New York, appellant, et
al., defendants.

Judges Robert A. Lifson, David S. Ritter, Anita R. Florio, and
Edward D. Carni entered judgment in the case on Aug. 5, 2008.

Mr. Galarraga sued the City of New York, seeking to recover
damages for injury he allegedly sustained while removing
asbestos from a school when he struck his head on an overhanging
pipe as he was attempting to leave his basement work area after
lighting and ventilation failed.

The Supreme Court, Queens County, upon a jury verdict finding
that city was 55 percent at fault in the happening of the
accident, and Mr. Galarraga was 45 percent at fault, entered
judgment in favor of worker and against the City in principal
sum of US$412,500.

The City of New York appealed.

The Supreme Court held that Mr. Galarraga was entitled to leave
to amend bill of particulars on claim under statute requiring
that owners, contractors, and their agents provide safe jobsite
for workers to specify Industrial Code section allegedly
violated.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, (Francis F.
Caputo, Esq., Dona B. Morris, Esq., and Ralph Janzen, Esq., of
counsel) represented Manual Galarraga.

The Pagan Law Firm, P.C., New York, (Tania M. Pagan, Esq., of
counsel) represented Manuel Galarraga.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reference Withdrawn in Burns and Roe Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. New Jersey, granted Burns and Roe
Enterprises, Inc. and Burns and Roe Construction Group Inc.'s
Motion to Withdraw a Reference, in Burns and Roe's bankruptcy
case.

The case is styled In re Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Debtors.

Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-4191 (GEB) on Sept. 15, 2008.

Burns and Roe, which provides engineering and construction
services, filed a petition for relief on Dec. 4, 2000, under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court due to a high number of
asbestos-related personal injury suits filed against them.

The bankruptcies of Debtors have been jointly administered due
to their joint issues relating to the asbestos litigation. They
continue to operate their businesses under sections 1107(a) and
1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

This matter came before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw
the Reference of the Debtors. The Court has reviewed the
parties' submissions and heard oral argument in support of the
motion from the Debtors and opposition to the motion from the
Debtor's Insurers, the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and TIG
Insurance Company.

The Court granted Debtors' Motion to Withdraw the Reference in
part, for the purposes of the confirmation hearing, and the
Bankruptcy Judge who is presiding over the remaining parts of
the case will sit with the District Court at the confirmation
hearing due to the Bankruptcy Judge's prior experience and
knowledge of this matter.

Jack Michael Zackin, Esq., of Sills, Cummis, Epstein & Gross, PC
in Newark, N.J., represented Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc., et
al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Junks Despres Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied the
Motion to Remand filed by Lionel J. Despres and Gladys Despres
in an asbestos-related action filed against Viad Corporation and
Griscom-Russell Company.

The case is styled Lionel J. Despres and Gladys Despres,
Plaintiffs v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., et al. Defendants.

District Judge Janet Bond Aterton entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 3:07cv1359 (JBA) on Sept. 22, 2008.

The Despreses brought this action, originally filed in
Connecticut Superior Court, seeking damages for injuries
suffered by Mr. Despres arising out of his occupational exposure
to asbestos materials. Viad, allegedly the successor of Griscom-
Russell, removed the case to federal court.

The Despreses moved to remand the case back to state court,
arguing that Viad lacked a proper basis for asserting the
federal-officer-removal statute, that the notice of removal was
untimely filed, and that their complaint disclaims all federal
claims and grounds for proper removal.

The Despres couple alleged that Mr. Despres "was exposed to
various asbestos containing products while in the Navy, as a
fire control technician during the years 1955-1984." They
alleged that Mr. Despres' exposure was the result of his contact
with materials manufactured or supplied by each of the several
Defendants (including Viad), thus giving rise to their liability
under Connecticut law.

Viad was served with the complaint and summons on Aug. 9, 2007.
It then removed the case on Sept. 10, 2007.

In summary, because Viad has provided a sufficient factual basis
to support removal and because it timely removed the case, the
case will remain in federal court.

Accordingly, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand.

Brian P. Kenney, Esq., Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., of Early,
Ludwick & Sweeney in New Haven, Conn., represented Lionel J.
Despres and Gladys Despres.

Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Esq., of Maher & Murtha in Bridgeport,
Conn., James R. Oswald, Esq., of Adler, Pollock & Sheehan in
Providence, R.I., Dan E. Labelle, Esq., Joshua M. Auxier, Esq.,
of Halloran & Sage in Westport, Conn., Christopher J. Lynch,
Esq., of Halloran & Sage in Hartford, Conn., Bryna Rosen
Misiura, Esq., Michael D. Simons, Esq., of The Governo Law Firm
LLC in Boston, represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Issues Split Order in Ham Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
split rulings in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Franklin
and Dana Ham, a married couple residing in Nevada, against
Continental Insurance Company.

The case is styled Franklin Ham and Dana Ham, Plaintiffs v. The
Continental Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 50,
Defendants.

District Judge Samuel Conti entered judgment in Case No. 08-1551
SC on Sept. 17, 2008.

In July 2006, Mr. Ham was diagnosed with malignant pleural
mesothelioma and was given six to 18 months to live. On Aug. 11,
2006, the Hams filed a complaint in the Superior Court of San
Francisco against Ecklund Insulation, Inc., hereinafter referred
to as the "Underlying Action."

According to the Hams, Ecklund sold asbestos-containing products
and performed work as a contractor using asbestos-containing
products that exposed Mr. Ham to asbestos dust. Mr. Ham had
worked with Ecklund's employees on multiple work sites from the
early 1960s through the early 1970s.

Although Ecklund is an inactive Nevada corporation, it was never
dissolved and the Hams served the corporation by personally
serving its president, Jerry Ecklund, at his home in Washington
state.

In August 2006 or September 2006, Ecklund tendered its defense
in the Underlying Action to Continental. The Hams alleged that
Continental is the successor in interest to Glens Falls
Insurance Company and that Glens Falls had insured Ecklund in
the 1960s.

The Hams alleged that Glens Falls, in June 1964, issued to
Ecklund, in Reno, Nev., a Comprehensive General Liability
Insurance policy, number PCL 50-09-99, with a policy limit for
bodily injury of US$100,000 per person and US$300,000 per
accident. Although this policy expired in November 1966, the
Hams alleged that additional policies exist that were issued by
Glens Falls to Ecklund in the years subsequent to 1966.

After Ecklund tendered its defense to Continental, Continental
informed Ecklund that it would search for any insurance policies
issued to Ecklund during the relevant times.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the Hams obtained an assignment from Ecklund of
all causes of action it had against Continental in exchange for
a covenant not to execute.

On Dec. 26, 2007, the Hams sent Continental a settlement offer
whereby the Hams offered to resolve their claims against
Continental for the insurance policy limits. The letter further
stated that the offer to settle would remain open for 30 days
from Continental's receipt of the letter.

Although Continental received the letter on Jan. 2, 2008, it did
not respond to the settlement letter. The Hams then filed the
present action in the Superior Court of San Francisco and
Continental removed the action to this Court based on diversity
jurisdiction.

The District Court granted in part and denied in part
Continental's motion. Continental's Motion to Strike the Hams'
Claims for Conspiracy and Punitive Damages was granted.
Continental's Motion to Dismiss was denied with respect to the
Hams' third and seventh causes of action and granted with
respect to the Hams' fourth cause of action.

Steven J. Patti, sq., Christine Ann Renken, Esq., Jack K.
Clapper, Esq., of Clapper, Patti, Schweizer & Mason in
Sausalito, Calif., represented Plaintiffs.

Geoffrey David Godwin, Esq., Raymond Joseph Tittmann, Esq., of
Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP in San Francisco, represented
Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Remand Scheurich Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, granted
Agrico Chemical Co.'s motion to remand, in an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by James Joseph Scheurich, Jr.

The case is styled James Joseph Scheurich, Jr. v. Agrico
Chemical Co., et al.

Chief District Judge Ralph E. Tyson entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-151-C on Sept. 16, 2008.

On April 5, 2007, Mr. Scheurich filed suit in state court
against several defendants for damages sustained as a result of
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused by the defendants.

This state court action is entitled, James Joseph Scheurich, Jr.
v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., Case No. 554,036, Ad Hoc Section
22, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
State of Louisiana.

In addition to Agrico, 27 other defendants were named in the
state court suit. Based on a settlement between Mr. Scheurich
and Agrico, on Jan. 28, 2008, Agrico filed a third-party demand
against Continental Insurance Co. for insurance coverage for any
and all amounts paid in settlement and compromise to Mr.
Scheurich and for all costs and attorneys' fees.

On March 12, 2008, Continental removed the third-party demand to
the District Court based on diversity jurisdiction. At the time
Continental removed the third-party demand, the settlement
between Mr. Scheurich and Agrico had not been perfected and
Agrico had not been dismissed from the state court suit.

On April 11, 2008, Agrico filed a motion to remand and for
attorneys' fees and costs.

The District Court granted Agrico's motion to remand and denied
its request for attorneys' fees and costs.

Cameron Ray Waddell, Esq., Jena Leblanc Duncan, Esq., Jody E.
Anderman, Esq., for Leblanc & Waddell, LLP in Baton Rouge, La.,
represented James Joseph Scheurich, Jr.

Vance A. Gibbs, Esq., Alan James Berteau, Esq., Mark Andrew
Marionneaux, Esq., of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond in Baton
Rouge, La., represented Agrico Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watterson Pursues Payout Case in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Watterson, who belongs to a younger generation of asbestos
victims, is pursuing her asbestos claim against unknown
defendants, the Sunday Mail reports.

This younger generation victims are the children of those who
worked with fibro and brought home asbestos fibers on clothing
who renovated fibro homes.

The 44-year-old Ms. Watterson remembers playing with bits of
fibro brought home by her carpenter father when she was a young
child growing up in Southport, Queensland, Australia. She now
realizes that it was most likely this contact with asbestos-
laden fibro in the 1960s that caused her to contract
mesothelioma.

Lawyer Thady Blundell of Turner Freeman, who is representing Ms
Ms. Watterson in a compensation claim, said more people in their
30s, 40s and 50s were now being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Blundell said, "This is just the start of another wave of
victims. The first wave was the miners, people working with
these products in the building industry was the second wave, and
the third wave are the wives and children inadvertently exposed
in the domestic setting."

Lawyer Carl Hughes, of Slater and Gordon, said about 10 per cent
of asbestos cases he dealt with involved women who contracted
asbestosis or mesothelioma after handling their husbands' work
clothes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Notes 4T Deaths Annually Due to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive says that about 4,000 people
yearly are dying from asbestos' effects and that figure is
likely to increase, BBC News reports.

The HSE says 1,000 of the victims are former tradesmen. However,
the HSE fears today's plumbers, electricians and joiners are
underestimating the ongoing risk.

The HSE says exposure to asbestos remains the biggest single
cause of work-related deaths, likely to peak at around 5,000 per
year in the next five years.

A 65-year-old former carpenter, Tom King, from south east
London, was diagnosed with mesothelioma two years ago. He had
cut and fitted asbestos boards as a trainee, before its dangers
were known, and the illness forced him to retire.

However, Mr. King said young tradesmen were failing to heed the
warnings. He said, "My son took over my business and the
laborers who work for him are half-hearted about wearing a mask,
even though they know what happened to me."

HSE disease reduction program director Steve Coldrick said, "We
have a legacy of 500,000 commercial or industrial buildings in
this country which still contain asbestos and the it is
tradesmen who are at risk from it now.

"Unless we make them really understand the problems it can
cause, in 20 or 50 years time we will have even more people
dying."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Mont. Courthouse to Begin Soon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Civic center manager Bill Melvin says that it costs more than
US$9,000 to remove asbestos from the Butte Silver Bow Courthouse
in Butte, Mont., Montana's News Station reports.

The asbestos has always been in the basement, according to Mr.
Melvin. In the past it was used as insulation on pipes for the
courthouse heating system. He added that the basement was used
as a shooting range and, two years ago, lead had been removed
from it.

Now the county wants to use the basement as storage space. But
with health hazards associated with exposure to asbestos, plans
are underway to remove it safely.

Mr. Melvin said the asbestos was not removed earlier because the
space was not used. He said, "Because, it was in an area of the
courthouse that was never used by the public. It was confined
and it wasn't used. What we want to do is make this area into
storage for records."

Mr. Melvin says with council's approval on Oct. 22, 2008, the
asbestos is expected to be removed and safely disposed of within
a week.

After that removal, an air quality check will also be done to
ensure the public's health is not compromised.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Buffalo, N.Y. Auditorium Set for Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo Memorial Auditorium in Buffalo, N.Y., is set to be
demolished over the next few months, the Associated Press
reports.

Built in the 1940s, the building has been vacant since its main
tenants, the Buffalo Sabres, along with the traveling circuses
and concerts that played there, moved to the nearby HSBC Arena
12 years ago.

On Oct. 21, 2008, city leaders stood in the lobby and
acknowledged it is time to move on.

Fans will have a chance to buy about 1,800 of the upper-level
blue seats at an auction on November 2008. What had been the
pricier, cushioned seats are being junked because of mold and
asbestos.

Buffalo, N.Y.-based Ontario Specialty Contracting was awarded
the contract to raze the concrete structure for US$1.49 million.
An additional US$4 million has been spent on asbestos removal.

The total demolition cost is less than half of what the Erie
Canal Harbor Development Corp. initially expected when it set
out to redevelop the five-acre site near the Lake Erie shore.

A Bass Pro store, Great Lakes-themed museum, shops and other
attractions are planned.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Kingman's Sheriff's Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been discovered in the old Mohave County Sheriff's
Office in Kingman, Ariz., The Kingman Daily Miner reports.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Mohave County Public Works Department
asked the Board of Supervisors to approve up to US$150,000 in
additional funding for asbestos abatement in the historic
building.

The department may not use all of the funding and will bring a
final change order for a complete amount before the Board for
approval.

The idea behind Oct. 20, 2008's agenda item was to prevent
delays in the demolition work and possible additional costs due
to the delays, said County Public Works Director Mike Hendrix.

Early in 2008, the county contracted a firm to test for asbestos
in the building before the demolition began, Mr. Hendrix said.
The firm was able to establish that there was at least 30,000
square feet of the hazardous material in the building.

In July 2008, Breinholt Contracting, Co. was hired to remove the
asbestos and demolish the building. As the Company started to
work, an additional 18,000 square feet of asbestos was found,
Mr. Hendrix said.

The building was built around 1900 and has been remodeled and
added onto a number of times since. As the demolition started,
workers found more asbestos behind hidden walls, under floors
and in ceilings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Encounters Setback in Hardie Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has
encountered a procedural setback in its civil penalty lawsuit
against 10 former directors and executives of James Hardie
Industries N.V. over asbestos compensation, The Sydney Morning
Herald reports.

ASIC is suing the 10 former directors and executives for
misleading the public about the sufficiency of funds set aside
in 2001.

On Oct. 20, 2008, Justice Ian Gzell rejected an attempt by ASIC
to use a 2006 document in its case that the law was broken
between 2001 and 2003.

ASIC wanted to use a 328-page explanatory memorandum that Hardie
sent to its shareholders in December 2006 to help them decide
whether to approve an asbestos compensation scheme designed to
last at least 40 years.

The board recommended the 2006 scheme to shareholders as a way
to resolve the public furor over the underfunding of a trust
Hardie set up in 2001.

ASIC alleges the motive was to avoid government intervention in
a corporate restructure, of which a key objective was to protect
most of the Company's assets from asbestos compensation claims.
ASIC wanted to use the 2006 document for two reasons.

The first relates to its allegation that the defendants knew in
February 2001 that there was a risk of an adverse public
reaction if there was any equivocation about the funding of the
trust.

In his opening address, ASIC's barrister, Tony Bannon, SC, said
the pressure generated by a special commission of inquiry in
2004 and the risk of government intervention led to Hardie's
2006 agreement to honor the asbestos liabilities.

ASIC wanted to use the explanatory memorandum as admissions by
three defendants who signed it, former directors Michael Brown,
Michael Gillfillan and Meredith Hellicar.

Justice Gzell said cases cited by Mr. Bannon to support using
the 2006 explanatory memorandum as evidence in the trial were
all cases in which "the task of the court was to conjure the
future."

Any admission by Mr. Brown, Mr. Gillfillan or Ms. Hellicar was
equally irrelevant, Justice Gzell added.

ASIC also wanted to use the explanatory memorandum to help it
prove that a board meeting on Feb. 15, 2001, considered a draft
press release about the new asbestos trust and passed a
resolution approving it.

A central plank of ASIC's case is that the press release, by
referring to certainty and describing the trust as "fully
funded," was inaccurate, misleading and deficient.

Barristers for several defendants have foreshadowed their
clients will deny that the resolution was passed. Justice Gzell
also rejected ASIC's attempt to use the explanatory memorandum
to help this part of its case.

The explanatory memorandum referred readers to Hardie's
submissions to the 2004 inquiry, which ASIC said confirmed that
the board had considered and approved the press release in 2001.

Mr. Bannon said early in October 2007, "We didn't understand
that the public company directors were going to assert that
their own minutes, which they confirmed, are incorrect."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CMAJ Criticizes Canada Gov't. Over Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Medical Association Journal criticizes the Canadian
federal government for what it expects to be the country's
ongoing efforts to stop international controls on asbestos, The
Globe and Mail reports.

An editorial, which appeared on the Oct. 14, 2008 issue of the
journal, says the government, "knows what it is doing is
shameful and wrong" and compared Ottawa's moral stature in
continuing to promote the use of asbestos to that of arms
traders.

The negotiations, known as the Rotterdam Convention, are to
start Oct. 27, 2008 in Rome. The focus of the talks will be on
whether to add the chrysotile variety of asbestos to the world's
list of most dangerous substances.

In 2006, at the last round of the talks, Canada led a group of
countries including Iran, Zimbabwe and Kyrgyzstan in stopping
the action. Canada was the only advanced Western country to take
such a position.

Quebec is a major asbestos miner, and the industry provides
about 700 jobs in the province. Because of litigation risk and
health concerns, Canada no longer uses much asbestos.

About 95 percent of domestic output is exported, mainly to
developing countries, where it is added to cement building
materials. Ottawa has spent about US$20 million since the mid-
1980s to promote asbestos use.

The province has contended that the chrysotile type mined in
Quebec is less harmful than other varieties and that with proper
safeguards, cancer risk can be minimized.

The editorial says Canada's view that its asbestos is a less
potent carcinogen is scientifically dubious and is "redolent of
the tobacco industry's playbook on light cigarettes."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASARCO Parties Enter Confidentiality Pacts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved confidentiality agreements
entered into separately by ASARCO LLC, Asarco Incorporated, and
Americas Mining Corporation with:

     * Mt. McKinley Insurance Company,

     * Owens-Illinois, Inc.,

     * Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the Future
       Claims Representative,

     * ASM Capital, L.P., and Contrarian Funds, L.L.C.,

     * Asbestos Claimants represented by Roger Lucas, Esq., and
       Martin Berks, Esq.,

     * Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of ASARCO LLC,
       and

     * Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

The Confidentiality Agreements govern the disclosure of
confidential documents in relation to the Plan confirmation
process. The Agreements provide that confidential information
disclosed for the Plan confirmation process will not be
distributed to parties that are not parties to the confirmation
process.

In a separate filing, ASARCO LLC sought and obtained the Court's
permission to access materials produced in response to the
document requests of Asarco Inc. and AMC served on the United
Steelworkers. Asarco Inc. and AMC informed the Court that it has
served to the Asbestos Committee and the FCR several documents
related to the Plan confirmation process.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 89; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FCR Urges Asarco to Deposit $2.7B for Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Future Claims Representative joins in the Official Committee
of Asbestos Claimants' request to require Asarco Incorporated to
deposit funds necessary to consummate the Plan of Reorganization
it filed for ASARCO LLC.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 89; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Archer, Hartwig Actions Ongoing v. ASARCO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles R. Archer and Henry D. Hartwig each hold claims against
ASARCO LLC units Lac d' Amiante du Quebec du Ltee and Capco Pipe
Company, Inc., for asbestos-related injuries.

Mr. Archer worked as a machinist for Capco from January 1965
though April 1976 and for Ragland Cement as a machinist from
April 1976 through December 2002. Mr. Archer was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2003. Mr. Hartwig worked as a trainman for CSX
Railroad from 1965 to 1985, and was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in 2002.

The date by which parties may file proofs of claim for asbestos-
related injuries was until Sept. 30, 2006. State court counsel
for the Claimants and a number of other claimants submitted the
names and the claims to be electronically filed to bankruptcy
counsel for filing. However, because the Claimants were not part
of the settlement group, their names were inadvertently
overlooked and were not submitted for electronic submission by
bankruptcy counsel.

The Claimants acknowledge that through the inadvertence and
excusable neglect of their counsel, they failed to file proofs
of claim prior to the Bar Date.

Accordingly, the Claimants ask the Court to allow them to file
late proofs of claim and deemed the proofs of claim timely
filed.

Lindsey D. Graham, Esq., at Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated, in
San Antonio, Tex., tells the Court that allowing the Claimants
to file late proofs of claim and deeming Claims timely filed
will not unduly prejudice the Debtors because they are still in
the process of reorganization. "The disclosure statements filed
in the case have not yet been approved and no plan of
reorganization has been confirmed," Ms. Graham points out.

Furthermore, the Claimants assert that allowing them to file
their claims late will not disrupt any economic model upon which
a plan of reorganization is based. They note that the amounts
they seek through the claims are de minimis in the scope in the
Debtors' businesses.

On the contrary, Ms. Graham argues, a denial of the Claimants'
request would severely prejudice the Claimants because they will
not have any other avenue to pursue their claims, Ms. Graham
maintains.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 89; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kazan Represents Parties in ASARCO LLC Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
Matthew Thiel, Esq., at Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Lyons, Greenwood
& Harley, in Oakland, Calif., informs the Court that his firm
represents certain undisclosed parties-in-interest in ASARCO
LLC's bankruptcy cases.

Mr. Thiel relates that the creditors hold claims in varying
amounts for monetary damages due to asbestos-related personal
injury claims. He notes that all of the relevant information
identifying the creditors and the nature and amount of their
claim is contained in an exhibit, which has not been scanned,
but is available upon request and Court order.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 89; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crotty Grants Dana Plea to Dismiss Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted Dana Corporation's request to
dismiss the consolidated appeals of the Ad Hoc Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and Jose Angel Valdez from
Judge Burton R. Lifland's order confirming the Debtors' Plan of
Reorganization.

According to Judge Crotty, the Appeals may not be resolved by a
simple interlineation as the Appellants have proposed. Rather,
the Appeal would reopen the entire bankrupt estate and would
substantially change the Bankruptcy Court's Order, which
approved the reorganization set forth in the Third Amended Plan.
This strongly suggests that the appeal should be dismissed as
equitably, Judge Crotty held.

The presumption of equitable mootness, however, may be overcome
if the five factor Chateaugay test is satisfied that (i) the
Court can still order some effective relief; (ii) the relief
will not affect the reemergence of the debtor as a revitalized
entity; (iii) the relief will not "knock the props" out from
under the authorization of the transactions that have taken
place; (iv) the parties adversely affected have notice and an
opportunity to participate; and (v) Appellants diligently
pursued a stay of execution of the objectionable Order. Judge
Crotty determined that none of these factors are present in the
appeal.

Furthermore, Judge Crotty said that the Appellants have not
shown that any of the asbestos personal injury claims have been
impaired by the Plan. He found that the Appellants' arguments
proceed on the fallacious assumption that their claims could
have proceeded against the entire Dana structure of
corporations. In fact and in law, he said, claimants can recover
only from the assets of a particular entity against which they
had or could assert the claim. If the Court were to grant
Appellants' request, it would give them rights they did not
possess prepetition, Judge Crotty held. There is no reason in
law or logic to expand the PI claimants' rights beyond what they
had when the claims first accrued, he said.

With respect to the Appellants' challenge of whether the Plan is
feasible under Bankruptcy Code, Judge Crotty noted that
guaranteed feasibility of the Plan is not the standard. The Plan
must offer only a reasonable prospect for success, he
emphasized.

With respect to the Appellants' argument -- that the Bankruptcy
Court had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction in the
Confirmation Order based on the Johns-Mansville decision where
the Second Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Court may not enjoin
creditors seeking recovery from non-debtors where the claim
against the non-debtors were never part of the bankrupt estate?
Judge Crotty ruled that that holding has no application to an
injunction that is related directly to claims arising out of the
administration of the estate property.

The appeal is equitably moot, Judge Crotty held. Accordingly,
the Ad Hoc Committee's appeal is dismissed and the case closed.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland to Include $10M Losses Fiscal 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s September 2008 quarter is expected to include a
loss from discontinued operations of nearly US$10 million,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 21, 2008.

Theses losses are due to various adjustments to asbestos-related
insurance receivables resulting from the Company's ongoing
assessment of these matters.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. is a diversified, global
chemical company, which provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Cites No Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company, at Sept. 30, 2008, had not recorded any
liability associated with asbestos- and silica-related
indemnifications, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 21,
2008.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
and its other affected subsidiaries that had previously been
named as defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-
related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

Houston-based Halliburton Company provides products and services
to the energy industry. The Company serves the upstream oil and
gas industry. Activity levels within the Company's operations
are significantly impacted by spending on upstream exploration,
development, and production programs by major, national, and
independent oil and natural gas companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.24B for Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos claims
were US$1.24 billion at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$1.30
billion at Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company press release
dated Oct. 22, 2008.

The Company's asbestos reserves, net of insurance recoverables,
were US$709 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$752
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos claims reserves were US$1.25 billion (net
of insurance recoverables of US$724 million) at June 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008)

Reserve additions for asbestos claims totaling US$8 million in
the third quarter of 2008 were primarily for products-related
coverage.

Underwriting losses of US$8 million in the third quarter of 2008
were primarily related to a US$8 million unfavorable reestimate
of asbestos reserves and a US$13 million unfavorable reestimate
of other reserves, partially offset by a US$16 million reduction
of the Company's bad debt allowance.

In the third quarter of 2007, unfavorable asbestos reserve
reestimates totaled US$6 million and unfavorable environmental
reserve reestimates totaled US$63 million.

Incurred but not reported claims represent 65 percent of total
net asbestos reserves, the same as at Dec. 31, 2007.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company's review resulted in
reserve additions totaling US$6 million primarily for products-
related coverage.

Northbrook, Ill.-based The Allstate Corporation sells auto,
homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in
Canada and the United States. The Company's life insurance
subsidiaries include Allstate Life, American Heritage Life, and
Lincoln Benefit Life. Allstate Financial provides life insurance
and investment products, targeting affluent and middle-income
consumers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CertainTeed Faces 70,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain's subsidiary in the United States,
CertainTeed Corporation, faced 70,000 asbestos-related claims at
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 73,000 claims at June 30, 2008 and
74,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2007.

Some 4,000 claims were filed against CertainTeed in the first
nine months of 2008, compared with 5,000 in the nine months to
Sept. 30, 2007, according to a Company press release dated Oct.
22, 2008.

Some 3,000 asbestos-related claims were filed against
CertainTeed in the first half of 2008, compared with 4,000
claims in first-half 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

Courbevoie, France-based Compagnie de Saint-Gobain controls more
than 1,000 companies in three sectors: Building Distribution
(plumbing, windows, and other building materials, anchored by
Dahl International and Norandex in the U.S.), Construction
Products (insulation, gypsum, pipe, and other products), and
Innovative Materials (flat glass and high-performance materials,
including ceramics, polymers, and glass textiles).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $46Mil Increase to Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The completion of The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s asbestos
reserve review resulted in a US$46 million after-tax (US$70
million pre-tax) increase to asbestos reserves in third quarter
of 2008, according to a Company press release dated Oct. 22,
2008.

During the third quarter of 2008, the Company completed its
annual in-depth asbestos claim review. As in prior years, the
annual claim review considered active policyholders and
litigation cases for potential product and "non-product"
liability.

The Company also analyzed developing payment trends among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed and
International categories. The Home Office and Field Office
categories, which account for the vast majority of policyholders
with active asbestos related claims, continued to experience an
overall reduction in new claim filings.

In 2008, the number of policyholders tendering asbestos claims
for the first time was consistent with the prior year period.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., The Travelers Companies, Inc. offers
personal auto and homeowners insurance, and commercial
property/casualty insurance. The Company also offers workers'
compensation, marine, and general and financial liability
coverage to companies in North America and the United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Urges Dismissal of Brust Action in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation is urging Madison County Circuit Court Judge
Daniel Stack to dismiss Ronald Brust's asbestos complaint, as
the case fails to identify specific products he was exposed to,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

CBS is represented by Daniel Donahue, Esq., of St. Louis.

On Aug. 26, 2008, Mr. Brust filed suit in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., alleging his lung cancer, with which he was
diagnosed on June 24, 2008, was caused through exposure to
asbestos and asbestos containing products.

According to Mr. Brust, he worked from 1961 until 2003 as a
plasterer, jet engine mechanic, and dry waller at various
locations throughout Illinois and Missouri.

Mr. Brust states his exposure was foreseeable and should have
been anticipated by the defendants, according to the lawsuit.
However, CBS argues the statute of repose relating to products
liability cases has expired.

CBS also argues Mr. Brust's complaint fails to allege that any
exposure is a substantial factor in the proximate causation of
his injuries. CBS further argues the counts seeking punitive
damages should be dismissed because a 735 ILCS 5/2-604.1 hearing
has not been held.

In addition, the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to
support caused of action against CBS based upon negligent or
willful and wanton spoliation of evidence, the motion argues.

Besides CBS, Mr. Brust's complaint seeks damages from 73 other
defendants.

In the five-count lawsuit, Mr. Brust seeks sums in excess of
US$50,000; punitive and exemplary damage in excess of
US$100,000; and compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000.

Mr. Brust 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 Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Brust.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Gov't. Says 1,300 Schools Have Hazards
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Government says that more than 1,300 public
primary and secondary schools contain asbestos, The Australian
reports.

Families across New South Wales, for the first time, will be
told the nature and location of the asbestos found in classrooms
and other buildings of their children's schools. A register
identifying asbestos and showing its presence "room by room"
will be made available to parents and visitors.

Education Director-General Michael Coutts-Trotter has told a
parliamentary estimates committee up to 70 percent of the
State's public schools contain asbestos fibers. He said
"Asbestos becomes dangerous when someone drives a drill into it
without knowing it is there."

Mr. Coutts-Trotter added, "The purpose of this register is
largely to inform tradespeople coming on to school sites -
before you put a drill into that wall, know that it probably
contains asbestos."

The Government has spent AUD3 million surveying 22,000
classrooms and "tens of thousands of other spaces" in schools to
locate the asbestos, which is usually not dangerous if
undisturbed.

Opposition education spokesman Andrew Stoner accused the
Government of refusing to publish data on asbestos in schools.

Young mother Paula Kimberley, who was collecting her five-year-
old son Rhys from school in Sydney's inner west on Oct. 16,
2008, was shocked by the figures. She said parents had a right
to know if children might be exposed to hazardous materials.

Ms. Kimberley said an asbestos registry would help inform her
decision about where to send her son to high school.

Education Minister Verity Firth said parents would be able to
access information about asbestos at their children's schools.
She said, "This information is completely openly and
transparently available."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Not to Blame for U.K. Welder's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Cumbria, England, coroner Ian Smith said that the death of
a certain Mr. Burns, who was a welder, was not due to asbestos
even if he had been exposed to asbestos his working life,
nwemail.co.uk reports.

Mr. Smith said that the inquest had been opened because there
was a suggestion that asbestos might have been the reason that
Mr. Burns became ill and died. Mr. Burns had worked for
different companies up and down the country, including at
Barrow's shipyard.

In a post mortem examination, Dr. Margaret Stewart, consultant
pathologist for the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS
Trust, found fluid in the lungs caused by bronchial pneumonia
and adeno-carcinoma in the pancreas.

Mr. Smith told the inquest in Barrow Town Hall on Oct. 14, 2008,
"She says in her statement that although other signs proved that
Mr. Burns was exposed to asbestos, this cancer wasn't caused by
asbestos. Lung cancer can be and other cancers but pancreatic
cancer is one that just occurs."

Mr. Smith recorded a verdict of death by natural causes, and in
summing up said, "He was exposed to asbestos and that is proved
by the places he worked, in heavy industry, and I have no doubt
he was exposed.

"The pathologist tells me she could see signs of exposure to
asbestos in the lungs but said it was clear pancreatic cancer
took his life."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Utica Locals Charged for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mancuso, a 45-year-old businessman from Utica, N.Y., faces
asbestos-related Clean Air Act charges, along with his 70-year
old father, Lester Mancuso, and his 37-year-old brother, Steven
Mancuso, the Associated Press reports.

Paul Mancuso, who was previously convicted of illegal asbestos
removal, faces up to 55 years in federal prison after being
indicted on Oct. 16, 2008 for a second time on charges he
violated the CAA.

U.S. Attorney Andrew Baxter, Esq., says that the Mancusos were
also charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States,
violate the federal Superfund Act and commit mail fraud.

The charges involve illegal asbestos removal at numerous
locations throughout upstate New York, Mr. Baxter said.

Another brother, Ronald Mancuso, pleaded guilty earlier in
October 2008 in federal court to conspiracy to violate the
Superfund Act. He also admitted illegally dumping asbestos on
the sides of roads.

Paul Mancuso was convicted in 2003 of illegal asbestos removal
and disposal. In 2004, he was convicted of insurance fraud
related to his prior asbestos business.

As a result of Paul Mancuso's earlier convictions, he was
prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, in any
asbestos abatement work and associating with anyone who was
engaged in any violations of law, Mr. Baxter said.

The indictment charged that Paul Mancuso set up companies in the
names of relatives and associates to hide his continued
involvement. He and his father then engaged in numerous asbestos
projects that contaminated various businesses and homes, and, on
multiple occasions, dumped asbestos from removal jobs by the
sides of roads.

Steven Mancuso, a lawyer, was charged with helping his family
engage in illegal activity by preparing false and fraudulent
documents to make it appear that their work was legal and they
were entitled to payment, Mr. Baxter said.

If convicted, Paul Mancuso faces a maximum penalty of 55 years
and a fine up to US$2.75 million. Lester Mancuso could be
sentenced to 23 years in jail and fined as much as US$1.25
million. Steven Mancuso faces up to five years in prison and a
fine up to US$250,000. Ronald Mancuso faces up to three years in
jail and a fine up to US$250,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cuyahoga County Judges Dismiss 30T Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three judges, on Oct. 20, 2008, tossed 30,000 asbestos injury
claims out of Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court following an
Ohio Supreme Court ruling that upheld limits on such cases, The
Plain Dealer reports.

Judge Harry Hanna, one of the judges handling thousands of
asbestos claims for the court, called the move "more or less a
bookkeeping entry" and said that the dismissal of the cases is
not as harsh as it sounds.

Judge Hanna said the cases were all low priorities for the
county court because plaintiffs were not seriously sick. If
plaintiffs start showing symptoms of asbestos damage to their
lungs, he said, the cases can be reinstated.

Both the court and a state law passed in 2004 restrict the
ability of people to pursue claims unless they show demonstrable
evidence of health problems caused by asbestos.

Judge Hanna said the court, dealing with thousands of cases,
decided several years ago to set priorities on serious cases and
put the others aside.

In 2004, the state legislature passed a law requiring
documentation of prolonged exposure to asbestos and medical
evidence that a plaintiff had significant asbestos-related
health problems in order to pursue a case.

Judge Hanna said the cases dismissed did not meet the
requirements of that law.

Judge Hanna said a defense lawyer in asbestos cases in Cuyahoga
County asked the local judges to dismiss cases not meeting those
requirements. Judge Hanna said that since the court had already
determined that about 30,000 did not, the judges did not need a
separate hearing and could dismiss them all at once.





                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Leah R.
Felisilda, Stephanie Tolentino-Umacob, Freya Natasha F. Dy,
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *