CAR_Public/081031.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, October 31, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 217
  
                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Fee Review" Software
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $97.5M
CENTEX HOMES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Defective Houses
CERADYNE INC: Nov. 13, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation
CHINA LIFE: Intends to Defend Lawsuit Over Its Audit Findings

CIBC WORLD: Faces Ontario Suit Over Employment Standards Breach
CNA FINANCIAL: Final Approval Order in "Shaffer" Deal Appealed
CONSUMER ADVOCATE: Faces CROA, CSOA Violations Suit in Illinois
DELL INC: Female Execs File Gender Discrimination Suit in Calif.
E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces PFOA Contamination Suits in W.Va., N.J.

E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces Teflon Lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada
E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Supreme Court Accepts Appeals in Spelter Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Gillespie" Litigation
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Harris" Litigation
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces California Suit Over Credit Accounts

FRESH DEL MONTE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation
FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Certification Sought in Calif. Litigation
FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Certification Sought in Fla. Litigation
FRESH DEL MONTE: Sept. 8, 2009 Trial Set for Nev. Consumer Suit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Seek Summary Judgment in Pineapples Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Court to Notify Investors of Suit Settlement
GETTY IMAGES: Photographers File $100M Royalties Lawsuit in N.Y.
LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion in Ohio Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Appeals Court Nixes Kenmore Dryer Drums Lawsuit
SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Suit Over $1.9B Sale to Banco Santander

U.S. STEEL: Faces Several Antitrust Lawsuits in Illinois


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
ELAN CORP: Berger & Montague Announces Securities Suit Filing
HARDINGE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers' $449M Fee Handed to ACandS Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.23B Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records $29Mil Obligations at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Third-Party Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Actions in Miss. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Cleared From Penrod Case on Sept. 18
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Co. Cites $904Mil Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Corp. Records $256M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Estate Pays Cooper Ind. $141M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Exposure Lawsuit in Effect

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,860 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Facing Suits in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing 50,000 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 572 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Still Facing 104,000 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Facing Insurance Cases in Calif., N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Cites $52M Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Int'l. Still Facing Lawsuits in La.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tidewater Inc. Involved in Exposure Matters
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety's Bid to Compel Discovery OK'd
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Corp. Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Has 26 Pending Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin Corp., Units Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Still Has 114T Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Objects to ASARCO Plan Confirmation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Grace Lawsuit to Start on Feb. 19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Mulls Disclosure Statement Objections

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Insurers Object to W. R. Grace Disclosure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Files Asbestos-Related Plan Exhibits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks Disclosure Statement's Approval
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Application for Sanders as FCR OK'd
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Fleming

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Contingencies Remain at $1.7Bil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on A.P. Green's Confirmation Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Keasbey Case in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Facing Burns & Roe Action in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Court Cases in Texas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Case in Mont. Still in Effect
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Cites $1.215B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Cites $12.723M Liability at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berry Couple Sue 17 Firms in Madison Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE's Campaign in Portsmouth Still Ongoing



                           *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Fee Review" Software
-------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance is facing a class-action complaint filed
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it uses "fee review"
software to cheat injured policyholders, the CourtHouse News
Service reports.

The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other updates
to the case.

Woodland Hills, California-based 21st Century Insurance Group --
http://www.21st.com-- is a direct-to-consumer provider of   
personal auto insurance.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settles N.Y. Securities Suit for $97.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 29, 2008 -- The Law Firm of Labaton Sucharow
LLP announced a proposed Class Action Settlement on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly-traded securities issued by American International
Group, Inc.

     The class includes all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities issued by American
International Group, Inc. during the period from Oct. 28, 1999
through April 1, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

     The class action has been certified as a class action for
purposes of a proposed settlement and that Lead Plaintiff and
one of the defendants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, have entered
into a proposed settlement that would create a Cash Settlement
Account of $97.5 million to resolve certain claims asserted in
the Action.

     The Action is continuing as to all defendants other than
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

     A hearing will be held before the Honorable John E.
Sprizzo, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, at 3:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009 to determine whether
the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate, to consider certification of the
proposed Settlement Class, to consider the application of Lead
Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses and to consider the application of Lead
Plaintiff for the reimbursement of costs and expenses.

     Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on December
30, 2008.

     Based in New York City, American International Group Inc.
-- http://www.aig.com/-- (NYSE: AIG) is an international  
insurance and financial services organization, with operations
in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  The company is
engaged through subsidiaries in General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.


CENTEX HOMES: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Defective Houses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centex Homes is facing a class-action complaint filed in Orange
County Court, Calif. alleging it built defective houses, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other update
to the case.

Centex Homes -- http://www.centexhomes.com-- is the the main  
homebuilding subsidiary of Centex Corp.  It builds in nearly 700
neighborhoods in some 80 markets in more than two dozen states,
operating most heavily in the South Central, Southeast, and Mid-
Atlantic regions.  It is one of the largest homebuilders in the
U.S., building some 27,000 homes annually.  The homebuilder's
houses range in price from about $65,000 to $3 million; its
homes average about $277,000. Brand names include Centex, Fox &
Jacobs, and CityHomes.


CERADYNE INC: Nov. 13, 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County set a Nov. 13,
2008 hearing for the purported class-action lawsuit against
Ceradyne, Inc., which alleged that the representative plaintiff,
a former Ceradyne employee, and the putative class members, were
not paid overtime at an appropriate overtime rate.

The suit, "Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Orange County
Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07CC01232," was filed on March
23, 2007.

The suit alleges that the purportedly affected employees should
have had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should
be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime
payment.  

Ceradyne has filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.  

A motion for class certification was filed on or about Aug. 11,
2008.  Ceradyne has filed an opposition claiming that there are
no common questions of fact that can be generalized across the
class.  It has also opposed the motion on the basis that the
Plaintiff has not established his suitability as a class
representative, particularly because he is a former employee
whose interests conflict with the current employees.  

A hearing is presently scheduled for Nov. 13, 2008, according to
the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Ceradyne, Inc. -- http://www.ceradyne.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets advanced technical ceramic products,
ceramic powders and components for defense, industrial,
automotive/diesel and commercial applications.  It operates
through six segments: Advanced Ceramic Operations, ESK Ceramics,
Semicon Associates, Thermo Materials, Ceradyne Canada and
Ceradyne Boron Products.  The company's products include
lightweight ceramic armor for soldiers and other military
applications; ceramic industrial components for erosion and
corrosion resistant applications; ceramic powders, including
boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium diboride, calcium
hexaboride, and zirconium diboride, which are used in
manufacture of armor and a range of industrial products;
BORONEIGE boron nitride powder for cosmetic products, and
evaporation boats for metallization of materials for food
packaging and other products.  Its products are sold into four
principal markets: defense, industrial, automotive/diesel and
commercial.


CHINA LIFE: Intends to Defend Lawsuit Over Its Audit Findings
-------------------------------------------------------------
     HONG KONG, Oct. 29, 2008 -- China Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
the largest Chinese life insurer, said it intends to continue
vigorously defending a lawsuit filed in the U.S. regarding the
audit findings of the National Audit Office of China.

     According to China Life, on Sept. 3, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class-action
lawsuit brought against China Life and certain individuals.

     The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims
asserted by purchasers who acquired the stock of China Life on
the New York Stock Exchange or any other exchange in the U.S.,
or Americans who purchased China Life's stock anywhere, finding
that there is no merit to any of these claims.

     Claims by non-U.S. purchasers who acquired China Life's
stock on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong were dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

     But on Oct. 14, plaintiffs filed a notice stating their
intention to appeal. No briefing schedule has been set.

     China Life said in an earlier statement that it is the
routine practice of the CNAO to conduct a yearly review and
audit of the affairs of state-owned enterprises, financial
institutions and government departments.

     In 2003, the CNAO selected China Life Insurance Co., China
Life's state-owned predecessor, as one of the companies that
would be subject to their yearly review. China Life said the
audit on CLIC covered a period up to 2002, prior to CLIC?s
restructuring and the forming of China Life in June 2003.

     The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by China Life and certain officers and
directors regarding the audit undertaken by the CNAO of CLIC.

     The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of China Life?s publicly traded securities between
Dec. 22, 2003, and Feb. 3, 2004, for alleged failure to make
adequate disclosures relating to the audit report.

     China Life said shortly after the lawsuit was filed that it
was not provided a copy of the CNAO audit report.


CIBC WORLD: Faces Ontario Suit Over Employment Standards Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
     TORONTO, Oct. 29, 2008 -- The law offices of Juroviesky and
Ricci LLP in conjunction with Ken Alexander of Ball & Alexander
Employment Lawyers, have filed a class action lawsuit in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against CIBC World Markets
Inc. alleging widespread violations of applicable Employment
Standards legislation including unpaid overtime in various
provinces across Canada.

     The suit claims relief for various types of employees of
CIBC World Markets including Investment Bankers, Financial
Analysts and Investment Advisors.

     The suit alleges that CIBC World Markets allegedly failed
to accurately record employees' hours of work, and allegedly
failed or refused to pay Overtime Pay in violation of applicable
Provincial legislation. The suit further alleges that CIBC World
Markets cultivates an environment where employees are expected
to work up to 80 hours per week in violation of Provincial
limits on hours of work.

     The suit further alleges that through its conduct and
practice not to record employees' hours of work, CIBC World
Markets led its employees to believe that they were not entitled
to Overtime Pay, and were outside the purview of the protections
of Provincial Safeguards limiting work hours.

     "It is important for employers to remember that salary is
not a listed exemption from overtime under applicable Ontario
legislation and that salaried workers are also protected by
Provincial limits on hours of work" said Henry Juroviesky.

     The suit requests that the court grant relief to all
persons that worked for CIBC World Markets at any time since
October 2002, that are owed overtime pay in accordance with
applicable Provincial legislation.

     Note that the detailed statement of claim filed with the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the result of an extensive
and independent investigation conducted by Juroviesky and Ricci
LLP. In respect of Canada, to the knowledge of Juroviesky and
Ricci LLP, no other statement of claim has been filed in this
matter against Defendants and no other law firms, as at the time
of filing its statement of claim, represent plaintiffs in this
litigation.

For more information, contact:

          Henry Juroviesky
          Juroviesky and Ricci LLP
          4950 Yonge Street, Suite 904
          Toronto, Ontario
          Canada, M2N 6K1
          Tel: (416) 481-0718 ext. 450
          Fax: (416) 352 1378
          e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com


CNA FINANCIAL: Final Approval Order in "Shaffer" Deal Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An order approving the settlement reached in the purported
class-action lawsuit "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., et
al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA Financial Corp. --
an 89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. -- and Continental
Casualty Co., as defendants, was appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, is a class action suit filed on
behalf of certain California long term health care
policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used
unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies,
which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate
premium increases (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007).

The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.

Both defendants have denied the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intended to vigorously contest the claims.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action suit.  The defendants have appealed the grant of
class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an
interlocutory basis.

In April 2007, the Court denied CCC's and CNAF's motions for
summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
the plaintiff's claim under the California Legal Remedies Act,
which was dismissed.  The claim under CLRA involved a provision
for claims of awards for attorneys' fees and enhanced damages.

In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the
denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim.  In July 2007,
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the case.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a binding agreement
settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms
potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint.

Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain
enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain
non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and
free health screenings.

Following a fairness hearing, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement.  This order was appealed to the Ninth
Circuit.  The appellants' brief is due to be filed on Dec. 22,
2008, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. (wkreger@maklawyers.com)
         Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
         2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
         Santa Monica, CA 90405
         Phone: 310-396-9600

              - and -

         Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. (rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com)
         Neblett Beard and Arsenault
         2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
         Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
         Phone: 318-487-9874

Representing the defendants are:

         Brent R. Austin, Esq. (austin@wildmanharrold.com)
         Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
         225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
         Chicago, IL 60606-1229
         Phone: 312-201-2848

              - and -

         Stan Karas, Esq. (stankaras@quinnemanuel.com)
         Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
         865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
         Phone: 213-443-3000


CONSUMER ADVOCATE: Faces CROA, CSOA Violations Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Advocate Foundation Service, the Credit Card
Defense Network, and Beacon Consulting Services are facing a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging the companies cheat
people in "credit repair" services, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This is a consumer class-action action brought for Defendants'
violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1679, et seq. (CROA) and Illinois Credit Services
Organizations Act, 81 ILCS Section 605/1, et seq. (CSOA).

The plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all
persons in the United States of America who, beginning five
years prior to the filing of the complaint and continuing
through the resolution of this action, paid money which was
received by the defendants and/or for whom defendants performed
any credit repair services.

The plaintiffs request the relief be granted as follows:

     -- that an order be entered certifying the proposed class
        under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
        and appointing plaintiff and their counsel to represent
        the class;

     -- that an order be entered declaring that defendants'
        actions as described are in violation of the CROA and
        the CSOA that the contracts shall be treated as void and
        may not be enforced by any court or any other person,
        pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679f(c);

     -- that an order be entered enjoining defendants from
        continuing to charge and receive amounts for services
        that have not been fully performed and from entering
        into contracts with plaintiffs and members of the class
        in violation of the CROA and CSOA;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants for actual
        damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679g(a)(1) and the
        CROA and CSOA;

     -- that judgment be entered against defendants for punitive
        damages pursuant to 15 USC Section 1679g(a)(2) and the
        CROA and CSOA;

     -- that the court award costs and reasonable attorney's
        fees under the CROA and CSOA; and

     -- that the court grants such other and further relief as
        may be just and proper.

The suit is "Timothy Greene et al v. Consumer Advocate
Foundation Service et al, Case No. 08CV6165," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Larry P. Smith, Esq. (lsmith@smithlaw.us)
          Larry P. Smith & Associates, Ltd.
          205 N. Michigan Ave., 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 222-9028


DELL INC: Female Execs File Gender Discrimination Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 29, 2008 -- Seeking to put a stop to
the spate of recent layoffs unfairly targeting women and
employees over 40, and gross pay and promotion inequities at
Dell, Inc., four former high-level female Human Resources
executives filed a class action discrimination suit against the
company in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California.

     The four senior HR women accuse the world's second largest
computer manufacturer of systemic discrimination in blocking
women across the company from breaking into the top ranks of
what a Dell male Vice President, Michael Summers, calls the "old
boy networks in Dell."

     The plaintiffs, who as HR specialists are intimately
familiar with the company's employment practices, seek to change
Dell's discriminatory policies regarding pay, job placement,
promotion, and termination. The lawsuit demands $500 million in
damages for a class of thousands of current and former Dell
female managers and executives, and older employees
disproportionately affected by the company's mass layoffs in
2007 and 2008.

     The four plaintiffs and the class are represented in this
matter by Steven L. Wittels, David W. Sanford, and Janette
Wipper, who head teams of lawyers from Sanford Wittels &
Heisler's San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and New York City
offices.

     "While Dell publicly proclaims a commitment to diversity as
'an essential element of our corporate values,' the reality
fails to live up to the rhetoric," said Mr. Wittels, Class
Counsel in the case. "At Dell, it is an understatement to say
that women face a glass ceiling; Dell's glass ceiling is made of
concrete."

     According to Dell's own website, the company is headed by
an exclusively male fourteen-member Executive Leadership Team.
This team recently engineered mass layoffs of more than 8000
employees, which the suit claims singled out women and older
employees. While recent statements by Michael Dell suggest the
layoffs are over, plaintiffs claim the damage is done as Dell's
upper-management ranks have swelled to approximately 80 percent
male.

     In an email to Bethany Riches, a former senior HR Manager
and plaintiff in this case, her VP supervisor Mr. Summers told
her not "to assume it's about you" if she had problems "breaking
into arguably one of the toughest old boy networks in Dell."
Later, the same executive informed Ms. Riches that she had no
further prospects of advancement at the company. Ms. Riches and
the other women routinely held the same positions and handled
the same responsibilities as higher-ranking and better-
compensated male executives, yet were repeatedly denied
promotions promised to them by Dell.

     Another plaintiff, former senior HR Manager Mildred "Jan"
Chapman, noted that at Dell's request she sold her family's home
in Houston, relocated to Austin, and turned down other good job
opportunities in order to secure her initial position with Dell.

     A year later, she was asked to manage compensation and
global benefits for over seventeen-thousand employees in nine-
countries, but even though her responsibilities equaled or
exceeded those of younger male Directors, she was repeatedly
denied a promotion to Director or any pay increase. Despite
Dell's assurances of job security, Ms. Chapman, age 59, was
included in Dell's April 2008 layoff.

     As a result of Dell's discriminatory treatment, each of the
plaintiffs lost more than a million dollars in projected salary-
increases, promotion grants, and short and long-term incentive
awards.

     "Dell well knew that its recent mass layoffs unfairly
impacted older people and women," said Ms. Wipper, a member of
the plaintiffs' legal team. "The effect of the firings on top of
denying these women fair compensation and promotional
opportunities has not only had an emotional toll and a negative
economic impact on their lives, but with each passing year
continues to act as a black mark on their future employment
prospects."

     The suit alleges that Michael Dell along with others on the
14-member Executive Leadership Team and other senior male
executives carried out and/or assisted the discriminatory acts
described in the complaint.

     "I have suffered from discrimination, and unfortunately I
am not alone," said Ms. Chapman. "It's my fervent hope that this
lawsuit will serve as the necessary catalyst for creating much
needed and long overdue change at Dell."

     Mr. Sanford, Class Counsel for the plaintiffs, added that
the case will be won on the statistical evidence the plaintiffs
offer at trial. "The numbers don't lie," Mr. Sanford said. "Once
Dell produces its pay, promotion, and layoff records and
statistics, we are confident the truth will come out and our
clients' claims of discrimination will be vindicated."


E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces PFOA Contamination Suits in W.Va., N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. is still facing several purported
class-action suits pending in West Virgina and New Jersey over
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) releases from certain of its
plants.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class-
action lawsuits in West Virginia and New Jersey over PFOA.

PFOA is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in
the environment.  PFOA is sometimes called "C8."  Companies use
PFOA to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties
that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial
applications.

The suits were filed in West Virgina and New Jersey on the
second quarter of 2006 as purported class-action lawsuits.  

                       West Virginia Case

One of these cases was filed with the West Virginia state court
on behalf of customers of the Parkersburg City Water District,
but was removed, on DuPont's request, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia.  

In September 2008, the court ruled that the case could not
proceed as a class action.  However, the ruling does not prevent
the plaintiffs from pursuing individual claims.  

The plaintiffs have filed a petition seeking leave from the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the ruling.

                        New Jersey Cases

Two other purported class-action suits were filed in New Jersey.
One was filed in the federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.  The second suit
was filed in New Jersey state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey on DuPont's motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of
discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that
drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04
ppb.

A ruling on whether the New Jersey cases can proceed as a class-
action suit is expected by the first half of 2009, according to
the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Still Faces Teflon Lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. is still facing several purported
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. and one in Canada over the
company's cookware with Teflon non-stick coating.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, twenty-two intrastate class-action
lawsuits are pending on behalf of consumers who have purchased
cookware with Teflon non-stick coating in federal district
courts against DuPont.  

The actions were filed on behalf of consumers in California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

One of the two actions originally filed in California was
dismissed in the second quarter 2008 for failure to prosecute.

By order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, all
of these actions have been combined for coordinated and
consolidated pre-trial proceedings in federal district court for
the Southern District of Iowa.

Under the court's latest case management order, a ruling on
whether these cases can proceed as class actions is expected by
the first half of 2009.

The actions allege that DuPont violated state laws by engaging
in deceptive and unfair trade practices by failing "to disclose
to consumers that products containing Teflon were or are
potentially harmful to consumers," and that DuPont has liability
based on state law theories of negligence and strict liability.

The actions allege that Teflon contained or released harmful and
dangerous substances; including a chemical perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) alleged to have been determined to be "likely" to
cause cancer in humans.  

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages for consumers who
purchased cooking products containing Teflon, as well as the
creation of funds for medical monitoring and independent
scientific research, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada seeking
authorization to institute a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
all Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon or
Zonyl non-stick coatings.  

A ruling on this motion is expected from the Court in 2009.

Damages are not quantified, but are alleged to include the cost
of replacement products as well as one hundred dollars per class
member as exemplary damages, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


E.I. DUPONT: W.Va. Supreme Court Accepts Appeals in Spelter Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court accepted parties' appeals in a
purported class-action lawsuit against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co. over zinc smelter in Spelter, West Virginia

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a
class-action lawsuit against DuPont that seeks relief including
the provision of remediation services and property value
diminution damages for 7,000 residential properties in the
vicinity of a closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West Virginia.

The action also seeks medical monitoring for an undetermined
number of residents in the class area.  

The smelter was owned and operated by at least three companies
between 1910 and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950.
DuPont performed remedial measures at the request of the EPA in
the late 1990s and in 2001 repurchased the site to facilitate
and complete the remediation.  The fall 2007 trial was conducted
in four phases: liability, medical monitoring, property and
punitive damages.

The jury found against DuPont in all four phases awarding $55.5
million for property remediation and $196.2 million in punitive
damages.

In post trial motions, the court adopted the plaintiffs' forty-
year medical monitoring plan estimated by plaintiffs to cost
$130 million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys legal fees of
$127 million plus $8 million in expenses.  

In June 2008, DuPont filed its petitions for appeal with the
West Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of a number of issues
associated with the trial court's decisions before, during and
after the trial.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the Court decided to accept the case and
consider the parties' appeal on the merits.  A decision on the
appeal is not expected until the second half of 2009.

Effective with DuPont posting a bond, the execution of judgment
against the company is stayed pending final disposition of
DuPont's appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com--  
operates and manufactures a range of products for distribution
and sale to many different markets, including the
transportation, safety and protection, construction, motor
vehicle, agriculture, home furnishings, medical, electronics,
communications, protective apparel, and the nutrition and health
markets.


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Gillespie" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action lawsuit,
"Heather Gillespie, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC,"
which was filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC, a
unit of Equifax, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The suit filed on Jan. 10, 2005 by Heather Gillespie and Angela
Cinson alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
against Equifax Information Services, LLC.  It generally accuses
Equifax of failing to "clearly and accurately" disclose
consumers' credit histories.

On March 9, 2006, the District Court granted Equifax's motion
for summary judgment on all claims, and denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as moot.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which in May 2007, reversed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of Equifax and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.  They also
filed a supplemental brief for class certification on July 16,
2007, and Equifax filed a motion for summary judgment.

On Sept. 17, 2008, the District Court denied Equifax's motion
for summary judgment and, on Oct. 15, 2008, granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a class-action lawsuit consisting of
certain consumers who resided in New Jersey or North Carolina
during the class period.  

The class seeks statutory and punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.  Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Gillespie, et al. v. Equifax Inc., Case No. 1:05-
cv-00138," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. (rand@horwitzlaw.com)
         Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates
         25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 372-8822

              - and -

         James McIntyre Pietz (jpietz@mdfpc.com)
         Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C.
         437 Grant Street, Suite 200
         Pittsburgh, PA 15219
         Phone: (412) 281-8400

Representing the plaintiffs are

         John Joseph Friedline, Esq.
         (jfriedline@kilpatrickstockton.com)
         Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
         1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: (404) 815-6500


              - and -

         David Luther Hartsell, Esq.
         (dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com)
         McGuireWoods LLP
         77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
         Chicago, IL 60601-7567
         Phone: (312) 849-8100


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Discovery Ongoing in "Harris" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit against
Equifax Information Services, LLC, a unit of Equifax, Inc.,
entitled, "William A. Harris, Sr., et al. v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, et al.," according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.


The suit was filed on June 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.  In it, the plaintiffs
asserted that Equifax, Experian and TransUnion violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by reporting tradeline information from
Capital One that did not contain credit limit information.

On May 30, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for certification of a nationwide class-action lawsuit, but
certified a class consisting of certain consumers residing in
five southeastern states.  

On Sept. 3, 2008, the District Court denied defendants' petition
for permission to appeal the class certification.  The regional
class seeks nominal and statutory damages and attorneys' fees.
Discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Harris v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case
No. 6:2006cv01810," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Judge G. Ross Anderson, Jr.,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Julie L. Fuchs, Esq. (jfuchs@jshwlaw.com)
          Julie L. Fuchs Law Firm
          1362 Bryant Court
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: 215-540-0440

               - and -  
          
          Suzanne Lafleur Klok, Esq. (sklok@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: 843-216-9219
          Fax: 843-216-9440

Representing the defendants are:

          Craig E. Bertschi, Esq.
          (cbertschi@kilpatrickstockton.com)
          Kilpatrick Stockton
          1100 Peachtree Street
          Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
          Phone: 404-815-6500

               - and -  

          Celeste Tiller Jones, Esq. (cjones@mcnair.net)
          McNair Law Firm-Cola
          P.O. Box 11390
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-799-9800
          Fax: 803-753-3278


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces California Suit Over Credit Accounts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated litigation against
Equifax Information Services, LLC, a unit of Equifax, Inc., in
California over procedures to determine whether credit accounts
are discharged in bankruptcy, according to the company's Oct.
28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, in a series of actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California between Oct. 14,
2005 and Nov. 2, 2005, which have now been consolidated,
captioned, "Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information
Services LLC," "Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services
LLC," "Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC," and
"Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC, et al.,"
plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law
(the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Credit Reporting
Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to
follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit
accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for
updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy
discharge.

The Pike plaintiff asserts only that Equifax's conduct violated
the California Credit Reporting Act.  

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs filed motions seeking to certify
a nationwide class of similarly situated consumers.  They seek
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs and defendants filed jointly a
Proposed Order approving a Settlement Agreement and Release
providing for certain changes in the procedures used by
defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit
files.

The settlement, which was approved by the District Court on Aug.
20, 2008, resolved claims for injunctive relief, but did not
affect plaintiffs' claims for damages.  Discovery is ongoing,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.


Equifax, Inc. -- http://www.equifax.com/-- is a global provider  
of information solutions for businesses and consumers.  The
company's products and services are based on databases of
consumer and business information derived from numerous types of
credit, financial, public record, demographic and marketing
data.  It uses analytical tools to analyze this data to create
customized insights, decision-making solutions and processing
services for businesses.  Upon its acquisition of TALX Corp.
(TALX), on May 15, 2007, it became a provider of payroll-related
and human resources business process outsourcing services in the
U.S.  The company operates in three global regions, which
include North America, Europe and Latin America.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Ariz. Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Arizona court dismissed without prejudice a complaint in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed filed against Subsidiaries
of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. in connection with the
company's pineapple products.

On April 29, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Arizona on behalf of
residents of Arizona who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del
Monte Gold pineapples between November 1997 and January 2003.

The suit alleges monopolization and attempted monopolization in
violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and unjust
enrichment in violation of common law.

On May 24, 2004, the company's subsidiaries removed this action
to federal court.  Thus the action, in October 2004, was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  

The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand, which request was
granted by the court on April 20, 2005.  The case now proceeds
in Arizona state court.

On July 25, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act, which dismissal motion was granted by the state court on
Feb. 18, 2006.

The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining
claims of the complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice due to inactivity after the parties had entered into
an agreement tolling the statue of limitations, according to the
company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Certification Sought in Calif. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit
against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. over its pineapple
products are seeking for the certification of a class in the
matter.  

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class-action
complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples
between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.

The complaints allege violations of the Cartwright Act, common
law monopolization, unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professional Code, unjust enrichment and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  

On April 19, 2004, the company removed these actions to federal
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to the state
court of California, which remand request was granted separately
by the court in July 2004.  These actions were allowed to
proceed in the state court of California.

In one of the three actions, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  This dismissal request was
granted in part and denied in part.  

On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this one remaining claim,
which was denied by the court on Jan. 6, 2006.  The appellate
court denied the request for an interlocutory appeal on March 2,
2006.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class-action suit, which the company and its subsidiaries intend
to oppose, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Class Certification Sought in Fla. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action suit filed in Florida
by a buyer of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.'s pineapple products
are seeking for the certification of a class in the matter.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class-action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.

The complaint alleges fraudulent concealment/tolling of statute
of limitations, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.  

On May 11, 2004, the subsidiaries removed this action to federal
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court
and the company's subsidiaries opposed that motion.  

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.  The case
now proceeds in the state court of Florida.  

On Oct. 27, 2004, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which motion was granted on
Jan. 23, 2006, with leave for plaintiffs to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2006.

On March 10, 2006, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in part.  On Sept. 27, 2006, the
state court granted this motion and dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and for violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating to
pineapples purchased before April 19, 2000.

The subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the
amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class-
action lawsuit, which the company's subsidiaries intend to
oppose, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Sept. 8, 2009 Trial Set for Nev. Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 8, 2009 trial date is scheduled for the purported class-
action lawsuit against subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce,
Inc. in connection with the company's pineapple products.

On July 2, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class-action complaint, which was served on Aug. 24, 2004,
against the company's subsidiaries in the state court of Nevada
on behalf of Nevada residents who purchased (other than for re-
sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples between November 1997 and
January 2003.

The complaint alleges restraint of trade in violation of Nevada
statutes, common law monopolization and unjust enrichment.  

On Sept. 13, 2004, the company's subsidiaries removed this
action to federal court.  Thus the action was later transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand, which was subsequently
granted by the court on April 20, 2005.  This action now
proceeds in Nevada state court.

On April 11, 2006, the court granted in part the company's
subsidiaries' motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing the
claims for common law monopolization, unjust enrichment and
violation of Nevada's Unfair Trade Practices Act in its
application prior to July 1, 2001.

The company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining
claims of the amended complaint on June 30, 2006.

A trial date of Sept. 8, 2009 has been set, according to the
company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
26, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Seek Summary Judgment in Pineapples Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. filed a motion
for summary judgment in a purported class-action lawsuit pending
in New York over Del Monte Gold pineapples.

The consolidated complaint was filed against the company's units
on Aug. 2, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

It is brought as a putative class-action lawsuit on behalf of
all direct and indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold pineapples
from March 1, 1996, through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by
individual consumers.

The complaint alleges claims for:

       -- monopolization and attempted monopolization;
    
       -- restraint of trade;

       -- unfair and deceptive trade practices; and

       -- unjust enrichment.

On May 27, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for unjust
enrichment.

On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class
certification.  

On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of the indirect purchasers and only granted
class certification of the direct purchasers' claims for
monopolization and attempted monopolization which were
uncontested by the company's subsidiaries.

Also, on Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted the motion of the
company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims
for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to dismiss
the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the basis of the
Court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
the indirect purchasers.

On Aug. 13, 2008, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims, which
plaintiffs opposed on Oct. 6, 2008, according to the company's
Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court to Notify Investors of Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
     DETROIT, Oct. 29, 2008  -- The U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan has preliminarily certified for
purposes of effectuating a settlement with all the Defendants a
Class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired certain publicly traded securities of General
Motors Corp. (GM) between April 13, 2000 and March 30, 2006,
inclusive, including GM Securities purchased or otherwise
acquired in any non-U.S. offering or on any non-U.S. exchange or
market, and who suffered damages thereby, including all persons
and entities who acquired shares of GM common stock and
preferred stock in the secondary market, all persons or entities
who acquired debt securities of GM in the secondary market or
pursuant to a registration statement or prospectus, and all
persons who purchased or wrote (sold) exchange-traded options on
GM common stock.

     The Court also preliminarily approved a Settlement
providing for a recovery of $303,000,000 to be paid by GM,
General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Peter R. Bible, Walter G.
Borst, John M. Devine, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., Alan G. Lafley,
Philip A. Laskawy, Eckhard Pfeiffer, and Deloitte & Touche LLP
(collectively, "Defendants").

     The Class will also receive interest on the Settlement
Amount.

     A hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, at 10:00 a.m., on December 22, 2008 to
determine whether:

     (1) the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court
         as fair, reasonable and adequate;

     (2) Co-Lead Counsels' application for an award of
         attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
         approved;

     (3) the claims against Defendants should be dismissed with
         prejudice; and

     (4) such other matters as the Court deems appropriate to
         rule upon.

     Deadline to file objections is on December 8, 2008.
Deadline to file claims is on March 6, 2009.

     The GM Securities Action was initially filed on September
19, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Court subsequently appointed the Lead Plaintiffs
to represent the Class, and approved Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Lead Counsel. In April 2006, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases pending in the
Southern District of New York to the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
In August 2006, following an extensive investigation of their
claims, including interviews of former GM employees and current
and former employees of entities with which GM engaged in
transactions during the Class Period, Lead Plaintiffs filed the
180-page Third Amended Complaint For Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws.

     In this Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GM, GMAC, various GM
officers and directors, and Deloitte & Touche (GM's auditor
during the Class Period). This Complaint alleges that Defendants
issued false and misleading statements and made material
omissions regarding GM's revenues, expenses, cash flows, and
earnings (among other financial disclosures) and its financial
condition during the Class Period. This Complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the Defendants' false and
misleading statements, the value of GM Securities was inflated,
and that members of the Class who purchased or acquired those
securities were damaged when the truth about GM's financial
condition was revealed and the value of its securities dropped.

     After a Court sponsored Mediation, on July 21, 2008, the
parties agreed to a $303 million Settlement of the case,
memorialized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
September 16, 2008. Its terms include GM paying $277 million and
Deloitte & Touche paying $26 million to the Class. Such amounts
will be divided, after taxes, fees, and expenses, among all
Class Members who submit a valid Proof of Claim form.

     The Class was certified by the Court, for settlement
purposes only, as follows:

     "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired GM Securities, including GM Securities purchased or
otherwise acquired in any non-U.S. offering or on any non-U.S.
exchange or market, during the period between April 13, 2000 and
March 30, 2006 and who suffered damages thereby, including all
persons and entities who acquired shares of GM common stock and
preferred stock in the secondary market, all persons or entities
who acquired GM debt securities in the secondary market or
pursuant to a registration statement or prospectus, and all
persons who purchased or wrote (sold) exchange-traded options on
the GM common stock.

General Motors Corporation Securities Case on the net:
http://www.GMsecuritiescase.com


GETTY IMAGES: Photographers File $100M Royalties Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Getty Images is facing a $100 million class-action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
alleging that it cheated 86 photographers of royalties, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.

Photographers say Getty sells a "Premium Access" package which
lets customers reproduce images without tracking them, violating
Getty's contracts with the artists, violating copyrights and
enriching Getty at their expense.

This action seeks damages based upon copyright infringement,
breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, engaged in by
defendant.

The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of all persons, entities, or third-party beneficiaries
who had Rights Managed Image Distribution Agreements (RMID
agreements) with Getty between Oct. 27, 2002 to Oct. 27, 2008.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the Copyright Act was violated by defendant's
         acts as alleged;

     (b) whether defendant breached its obligations under the
         UCC;

     (c) whether defendant breached its duties to plaintiffs as
         alleged; and

     (d) whether plaintiffs and the class have sustained injury
         by reason of defendant's actions and omissions.

The plaintiffs request judgment for damages and losses in excess
of $1 million, including exemplary damages, in amounts allowable
by law, along with costs, interest, fees and any other relief as
authorized by law.

The suit is "Roger Ressmeyer et al v. Getty Images, Inc., Case
No. 08-4360," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Justin T. Green, Esq.
          Danial A. Nelson, Esq. (dnelson@kreindler.com)
          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          Kreindler & Kreindler LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 687-8181
          Fax: (212) 972-9432


LCA-VISION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal Motion in Ohio Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against LCA-Vision, Inc., are opposing a motion by the
company that sought for the dismissal of the case, which is
pending the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio against the company.

On Sept. 13, 2007, and Oct. 1, 2007, two complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers by Beaver County Retirement Board and
Spencer and Jean Lin, respectively, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, purportedly on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock
between Feb. 12, 2007, and July 30, 2007.  

On Nov. 8, 2007, an additional complaint was filed by Diane B.
Callahan against the company and certain of the company's
current and former directors and officers before the same court.  

This third action was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 12, 2007, and Nov. 2, 2007.  

All three actions have been consolidated into one case.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on April 19, 2008.  

The plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint are seeking damages
on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the company's
common stock between Oct. 24, 2006, and Nov. 2, 2007, asserting
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

They allege that certain of the company's public disclosures
regarding its financial prospects and historical accounting for
bad-debt reserves and expenses were false or misleading.

On July 10, 2008, the company, together with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On July 10, 2008, the company, together with the other
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On Sept. 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, according to
the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit is "Beaver County Retirement Board v. LCA-Vision Inc.
et al., Case No 1:07-cv-00750-SJD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Susan J. Dlott,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is

          Thomas P. Glass, Esq. (tpglass@strausstroy.com)
          Strauss & Troy
          Federal Reserve Building
          4th Floor, 150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Phone: 513-621-2120

Representing the defendants is:

          Grant Spencer Cowan, Esq. (gcowan@fbtlaw.com)
          Frost Brown Todd LLC
          201 E 5th Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4182
          Phone: 513-651-6800
          Fax: 513-651-6745


SEARS ROEBUCK: Appeals Court Nixes Kenmore Dryer Drums Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed a lower court decision that granted class-
action status to a lawsuit filed against Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
a subsidiary of the Sears Holdings Corp., the Calgary Herald
reports.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 7, 2006, under the
caption, "Thorogood v. Sears Roebuck And Co., Case No. 1:06-cv-
01999."  In general, it is claiming that consumers were deceived
by the company's representation that its Kenmore clothes dryer
drums were made of stainless steel.

According to the report, that while Sears marketed 50 different
dryer models as having stainless steel drums, the Court of
Appeals panel said it was unclear whether anyone other than
Tennessee plaintiff Steven Thorogood believed the drums were
made entirely of the metal.

Speaking on behalf of the panel, Judge Richard A. Posner asked
in the unanimous decision, which reversed a lower court's
certification of the case as a class-action suit, "Do the other
500,000 members of the class believe this?"

Sears Holdings Corp. -- http://www.searsholdings.com/-- is a  
broadline retailer with approximately 2,300 full-line and 1,100
specialty retail stores in the U.S. operating through Kmart
Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co., and
approximately 370 full-line and specialty retail stores in
Canada operating through Sears Canada Inc.


SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Faces Suit Over $1.9B Sale to Banco Santander
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Sovereign Bancorp filed a class-action complaint
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, opposing the bank's $1.9 billion sale to Banco
Santander, in a stock deal that will pay them 0.2924 Santander
shares for each Sovereign share, the CourtHouse News Service
reports.

The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 1702 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of shareholders
of Sovereign common stock.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the offer described is grossly unfair to the
         class;

     (b) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary and
         other common law duties owed by them to plaintiff and
         the other members of the class; and

     (c) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
         would be irreparably damaged were the transactions
         complained of consummated.

The plaintiff demands judgment and relief as follows:

     -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
        class action;

     -- declaring and decreeing that the proposed transaction
        was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties owed
        by the defendants to Sovereign and its minority public
        stockholders and is therefore unlawful and
        unenforceable;

     -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
        and all persons acting in concert with them from
        consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until
        the board adopts and implements a fair sales process;

     -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
        fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the
        best interests of Sovereign and its shareholders and to
        refrain from entering into any transaction until a fair
        process is used to sell the company;

     -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
        proposed transaction or any of the terms thereof;

     -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
        action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
        fees; and

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

The suit is "Sheila Simon et al v. Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. et
al, Case No. 001580," filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Representing plaintiff are:

          Patricia C. Weiser
          Debra S. Goodman
          Sandra G. Smith
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 225-2677
          Fax: (610) 225-2678


U.S. STEEL: Faces Several Antitrust Lawsuits in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. is facing several purported antitrust class-
action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products, according to
the company's Oct. 28, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008,
individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products have
asserted that eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel,
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict the
domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated  
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe.  The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons (tons) in the North America
and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe.  U. S. Steel is also
engaged in several other business activities, most of which are
related to steel manufacturing.  These include the production of
coke in both in North America and Central Europe, and the
production of iron ore pellets from taconite, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations
and engineering and consulting services in North America.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the company had three
operating segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S.
Steel Europe (USSE) and Tubular Products (Tubular).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Oct. 29, 2008 -- On October 28, 2008, Scott+Scott
LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Constellation Energy
Group, Inc. and certain officers and directors of the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

     The action is on behalf of those purchasing Constellation
Energy common stock during the period beginning January 30, 2008
and through September 16, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period,
Constellation Energy issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's operations and financial
performance. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose
that the Company's financial results were inflated by
questionable accounting practices. In addition, the Company
concealed the extent of its credit exposure to failing trading
partners, particularly Lehman Brothers Holding Inc., which would
affect the Company's ability to engage in energy-related trades.

     As a result of defendants' false statements and omissions
during the Class Period, Constellation Energy common shares
traded at artificially inflated prices.

     In August 2008, share prices of Constellation Energy
softened as analysts began to question certain aspects of the
Company's accounting, particularly the Company's questionable
characterizations of depreciation, cash flow and mark-to-market
adjustments. Shortly thereafter, on September 15, 2008, Lehman
Brothers, a key trading partner of Constellation Energy, filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On that day, investors
were stunned as Constellation's business exposure to the Lehman
bankruptcy was revealed. By the close of the Class Period, the
Company's shares traded at $24.77 per share, a 75% loss from the
Class Period high.

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

For more information, contact:

          Scott+Scott, LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537
          e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


ELAN CORP: Berger & Montague Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 29, 2008 -- Berger & Montague announced
today that a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court of New York on behalf of all purchasers of American
Depository Shares (evidenced by American Depository Receipts) of
Elan Corporation PLC and all purchasers of options to purchase
Elan securities during the period of June 17, 2008 through July
29, 2008 charging Elan and certain of its principal officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that the Defendants materially
misrepresented the facts about the results of a clinical study
of a four ascending doses of a drug (bapineuzumab or AAB-001)
that the Company and Wyeth were testing as a treatment for mild
to moderate Alzheimer's disease.

     The complaint alleges that the Defendants issued materially
false and misleading representations stating that the 18 month
clinical study of AAB-001, the Elan-Wyeth drug, produced
"statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefits"
in the 40-70% of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's
disease who do not carry the gene that predisposes a person to
Alzheimer's disease, as measured by four neuropsychological,
mental and other Alzheimer's disease assessment scales.

     These representations were materially misleading due to the
facts disclosed at a medical conference on July 29, 2008, as
follows:

     (a) Typically, if a drug is effective higher doses of a
         drug correspond with increased efficacy. In the study
         of AAB-001 that did not occur. Indeed, patients did not
         even show a consistent pattern of benefit across the
         four different dosages that were administered in the
         trial.

     (b) The lowest doses of AAB-001 worked better on some
         measures of cognition and function, while higher doses
         worked better on others, and sometimes doses in the
         middle produced worse results than placebo. This made
         the results appear random, rather than drug-related.

     (c) For nearly a year into the 18-month trial, AAB-001 and
         placebo patients were both losing cognition at the same
         rate. The lower rate in the drug-treated patients came
         about only because placebo patients suffered a steep
         loss of cognition at the end of the study. An effective
         drug would be expected to manifest its effect at an
         earlier stage in time.

     (d) The non-gene carrier placebo patients loss cognition at
         the rate of 11 points on the scale used to measure
         cognition, compared with a 7 point loss of cognition by
         placebo patients in a much larger trial recorded
         publicly, and lower rates in other 18-month trials,
         which suggests that the condition of the placebo
         patients may have been more severe than the norm in
         such trials.

     (e) The baseline score for the Mini Mental State
         Examination score for non-carrier placebo patients was
         1.6 points lower than the score for the AAB-001
         patients, a statistically significant difference. Thus,
         the condition of the placebo patients was worse than
         that of the AAB-001 patients at the state of the study,
         which indicated a likelihood that the placebo patients
         would deteriorate more rapidly than those treated with
         the drug.

     (f) Twelve patients in the study treated with AAB-001
         developed a potentially dangerous accumulation of fluid
         in the brain known as vasogenic edema.

     All of these cases resolved favorably, however, this
condition was detected only by subjecting patients to numerous
MRI scans. In the real world, Alzheimer's patients would not be
monitored this closely, so that vasogenic edema remains an issue
with respect to the drug. The condition was found in patients
receiving the high dose of the drug, indicating that the high
dose was unlikely to be a dose that could receive regulatory
approval.

     When these facts were revealed on July 29, 2008, the market
price of Elan ADSs fell from a closing price of $33.75 on July
29th, to a closing price of $20.99 on July 20, 2008, a decline
of $13.76 per ADS, on extraordinary volume of almost 53 million
ADSs.

     As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Ronald
Petersen, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic and Chairman of the
Medical and Scientific Advisory Counsel of Alzheimer's
Association, the group sponsoring the July 29th Alzheimer's
meeting at which the data from the study of AAB-001 was
presented, commented that "I can't tell if the compound's
efficacious or not at this point in time." The Wall Street
Journal further reported the comments of experts that it was not
clear why the drug seemed to work in some people but not others,
and their concern that the more ways the data are sliced, the
more likely it was that positive results would result from
chance. In summary, The Wall Street Journal stated:
     
     [T]he full findings for the drug bapineuzumab, remain
inconclusive and may underwhelm many scientific experts and
investors.

Interested parties may move the court no later than December 14,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Carole A. Broderick, Esq.
          Douglas M. Risen, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000


HARDINGE INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Oct. 29, 2008 -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP  
filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Hardinge Inc., between February 22, 2007 and
February 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Hardinge and certain of Hardinge's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects caused Hardinge's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     Hardinge is a machine tool manufacturer, which designs and
manufactures computer-numerically controlled cutting lathes,
machining centers, grinding machines, collets, chucks, indexing
fixtures and other industrial products. The Company's brands
include Hardinge, Kellenberger, Bridgeport, and Hauser, Tripet,
and Tshudin.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Hardinge's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were
false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) that Hardinge's orders and sales were slowing;

     (2) slowing sales were causing Hardinge's inventory of
         outdated machinery to grow;

     (3) that the Company failed to timely record an impairment
         in the value of its inventory;

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated; and
   
     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     On February 21, 2008, Hardinge shocked investors when it
revealed that in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007, Hardinge experienced a combination of prior
period accounting adjustments and the negative impact of
operational initiatives to reduce inventory which contributed to
an unexpected loss in the fourth quarter of 2007. Hardinge's
fourth quarter and full year 2007 earnings reflected a
significant and unexpected reduction in the Company's gross
margin as a result of: prior period accounting adjustments
related to intercompany profits in inventory elimination and
accounts payable which were recorded in the fourth quarter of
2007; the rebalancing of production volumes in the Company's
U.S. and Taiwan production facilities to address current market
demand for certain products and to reduce inventory; higher
price discounting related to plans to reduce finished machine
inventories and accelerate the phase-out of older product lines,
and product and channel mix changes.

     Moreover, Hardinge announced plans to lower inventory by
$20 million and to discount inventory of older product lines,
both of which would continue to constrain the Company's margins
during the 2008 fiscal year. On this news, Hardinge's shares
declined $4.16 per share, or 25.43 percent, to close on February
21, 2008 at $12.20 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a
law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class
actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving
corporate fraud.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Oct. 29, 2008 -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed
a class-action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased
Spectranetics Company stock, claiming the company, its chief
executive officer and chief financial officer violated U.S.
securities laws through illegal marketing practices and false
statements about the company's financial health. If you are
interested in serving as lead plaintiff, the deadline for filing
is Nov. 24, 2008.

     Last week, Spectranetics announced the appointment of
chairman Emile J. Geisenheimer to president and CEO, ousting
John G. Schulte, a named defendant in the class action suit.
Geisenheimer issued a statement that he has an "understanding of
the challenges before us, and the board of directors and I are
confident that we are taking an important step towards putting
these challenges behind us so that we can build a stronger
future for our company."

     The class action was filed after a former employee filed
suit against the company claiming Spectranetics fired him after
he informed senior management of potentially illegal marketing
practices with some of the company's products.

     According to court documents, shortly thereafter, the
Denver office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
began its own investigation into the company sparking further
speculation about the company and its practices.
"Investors across the country are on shaky ground these days,"
said Reed Kathrein, lead attorney and partner at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro. "Spectranetics, like many companies, fell prey to
a bad market and unfortunately decided to mislead investors to
try and turn things around."

     The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who purchased or
acquired company stock between April 19, 2007 and Sept. 4, 2008.
The lawsuit alleges company executives issued false and
misleading statements concerning operations and finances, which
caused company stock to trade at an artificially inflated price.
Defendants knowingly shared misinformation and failed to
communicate accurate reports, the complaint states.

     The shock came to investors on Sept. 4, 2008 when reports
surfaced that federal officials raided the company. Almost
immediately, NASDAQ halted trading of Spectranetics stock.
According to court documents, Spectranetics issued a press
release revealing more information about the search warrants,
disclosing the company was jointly served by the FDA and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding the promotion,
use, testing, marketing and sales of certain Spectranetics
products. The warrants also addressed payments made to medical
personnel.

     The suit claims the effect on company stock was significant
as it fell 47% to $4.73 per share. Today the company stock
stands at $2.74, after trading at a high of $16.00 per share in
December 2007.

     The allegations against Spectranetics include:

     -- failing to notify investors and the public that the
        company lacked effective regulatory compliance controls;

     -- illegally and extensively marketing its laser and
        catheters for uses not approved by the FDA;

     -- failing to report to the FDA that tests found its laser
        caused significant damage to stents when used in
        clinical trials;

     -- illegally testing several products without FDA approval;

     -- the company's lack of effective internal controls and
        the material inflation of the company's financial
        results.

     The complaint alleges the defendants, which include The
Spectranetics Corporation, John G. Schulte, president and CEO,
and Guy A. Childs, vice president and CFO, violated several
sections of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com

          or

          Mark Firmani (206) 443-9357
          Firmani + Associates Inc.
          2505 2nd Avenue, Suite 700
          Seattle, WA, 98121
          e-mail: Mark@firmani.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers' $449M Fee Handed to ACandS Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s US$449 million asbestos-related
settlement payment was released from escrow to the ACandS, Inc.
Trust, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 22, 2008.

This transaction was recorded as a paid claim and reduction in
claim reserves, and accordingly, there was no effect on the
Company's results of operations. The Company seeks to recover
about US$84 million of the US$449 million from reinsurers.

Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, was involved in three significant
proceedings relating to ACandS, formerly a national distributor
and installer of products containing asbestos.

The proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware (In re: ACandS, Inc.) and the U.S. District Court for
the District of Pennsylvania (ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty
and Surety Co., No. 03-MC-222 and ACandS, Inc. v. Travelers
Casualty and Surety Co., 00-CV-4633), involved disputes as to
whether and to what extent any of ACandS' potential liabilities
for current or future bodily injury asbestos claims are covered
by insurance policies issued by TPC.

On July 6, 2007, the Company announced that it entered into a
settlement to resolve fully all current and future asbestos-
related coverage claims relating to ACandS. Under that
agreement, the Company placed US$449 million into escrow.

The settlement was subject to a number of contingencies,
including final non-appealable approvals by the court of the
settlement agreement, a plan of reorganization for ACandS and
the issuance of injunctions in favor of the Company. The
contingencies have been fulfilled.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including SPC) in state court in
West Virginia. These and other cases subsequently filed in West
Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices by inappropriately handling and settling
asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of
settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages,
including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Similar suits
were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts (Statutory
and Hawaii Actions).

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, are also pending in Texas state court against TPC and
The St. Paul Companies, Inc., and in Louisiana state court
against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-
sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy
court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy
court's orders that required all future direct actions against
TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before
proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of an order
issued by the bankruptcy court prohibiting the prosecution of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and Common Law Claims, as well
as future similar direct action litigation, against TPC.

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc,
requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which
were denied.]

TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 4, 2008 seeking
review of the Second Circuit's decision. The Petitions remain
pending.

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: Travelers Cites $3.23B Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves totaled
US$3.23 billion at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$3.79 billion
at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 22,
2008.

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first nine months
of 2008 were US$577 million, compared with US$266 million in the
same period of 2007. This increase in net paid losses is the
result of the US$449 million ACandS, Inc. payment in the third
quarter of 2008.

Excluding the ACandS settlement, payments in the first nine
months of 2008 were US$212 million.

About 70 percent of total net paid losses in the first nine
months of 2008 (36 percent in the first nine months of 2007)
related to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into
settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability.

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: ABB Records $29Mil Obligations at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's asbestos obligations were US$29 million as of Sept.
30, 2008, compared with US$101 million as of Dec. 31, 2007,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 23, 2008.

The Company recorded US$53 million in asbestos obligations as of
June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

Cash flow from operations increased by US$235 million compared
with the third quarter of 2007, reflecting the higher volume of
business and the effect of ongoing working capital management
measures.

Also included in cash flow from operations was a payment of
US$25 million to asbestos trusts.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd provides power and automation
technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial customers.
Power products include transmission, distribution components,
and turnkey substation systems. The Company, which operates in
about 100 countries worldwide, has divested a number of its
businesses to focus on its two core operational areas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Third-Party Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. is still named a defendant in numerous multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 23, 2008.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated
into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's
products.

The Company is defending itself against these claims.

No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured
or sold by the Company and a number of cases have been
voluntarily dismissed.

Milwaukee-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets
products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies, which are developed both internally and in
conjunction with other technology companies. The Company's
product lines fall into two general categories, utility and
industrial flow measurement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Actions in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in
Mississippi courts.

In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second
Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District),
Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 66 individual
plaintiffs.

Of these claims, 63 claims or lawsuits are pending in
Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

Currently, none of the pending Mississippi asbestos lawsuits
against the Company has been set for trial.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an offshore
drilling contractor that owns a fleet of 46 offshore rigs,
including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig, and one semisubmersible.
The Company conducts most of its domestic drilling business in
the Asia/Pacific region, Europe/Africa, and North and South
America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Cleared From Penrod Case on Sept. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated says that it and its related
subsidiaries and affiliates, on Sept. 18, 2008, were dismissed
with prejudice from an asbestos lawsuit filed by a former
employee of Penrod Drilling Corporation, the predecessor of one
of the Company's subsidiaries.

In January 2008, the Company assumed the defense of two parties
that formerly held an interest in Penrod, which was named in a
lawsuit that was pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California.

The assumption of these parties' defense arose under the terms
and conditions of a prior Assumption Agreement entered into by
Penrod, which included an indemnification obligation.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages allegedly arising from
exposure to asbestos or products containing asbestos while
employed by Penrod and several other named defendants between
1960 and the early 1990s.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an offshore
drilling contractor that owns a fleet of 46 offshore rigs,
including 44 jack-ups, one barge rig, and one semisubmersible.
The Company conducts most of its domestic drilling business in
the Asia/Pacific region, Europe/Africa, and North and South
America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Co. Cites $904Mil Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$904 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$1.001 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 23, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$925 million as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
1, 2008)

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$662 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$696
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$681 million as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 1, 2008)

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company, with annual
sales of US$54 billion and 46,000 employees worldwide, is a
diversified chemical company that delivers products and services
to customers in around 160 countries. Products include fresh
water, food, pharmaceuticals, paints, packaging, and personal
care products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Corp. Records $256M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liability
was US$256 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$272 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$258
million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with
US$296 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$11
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$13 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits in which current and
former employees and other parties allege exposure to asbestos.
Additionally, the Company has received claims for asbestos
exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases,
the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not
specify an amount of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at Sept.
30, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2007.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific
Railroad is a rail freight carrier operating in the United
States. Union Pacific Railroad transports coal, chemicals,
industrial products, and other freight over a system of more
than 32,200 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds
of the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Estate Pays Cooper Ind. $141M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal-Mogul Corporation bankruptcy estate paid Cooper
Industries, Ltd. US$141 million in early October 2008, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 23, 2008.

As was previously announced on Oct. 1, 2008, the Company will
not participate in the Federal Mogul Corporation Asbestos Trust
and is instead proceeding under Plan B.

The Company's financial statements reflect the assets and
liabilities related to the ongoing activities under Plan B. As a
result of these adjustments, the Company recognized an after-tax
discontinued operations income of US$16.6 million or US$0.09 per
share in the third quarter of 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Exposure Lawsuit in Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 24, 2008.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR.

The case seeks to recover US$1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American
Inc. manufactures cigarettes and tobacco. Its wholly owned
subsidiaries include its operating subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R. J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood
Company, LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and
Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,860 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,860 asserted
asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 1,903
claims at Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
24, 2008.

The Company faced 1,800 asbestos-related claims at June 30,
2008, compared with 1,930 claims at June 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

In the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had 143
claims filed and 83 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise
resolved. In the three months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company
had 107 claims filed and 134 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had 415
claims filed and 336 claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise
resolved. In the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company
had 339 claims filed and 411 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The
heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

During the third quarter of 2008 and 2007, the Company analyzed
recent filing and payment trends to ensure the assumptions used
by the Company to estimate its future asbestos liability were
reasonable.

In the third quarter of 2007, management recorded a decrease in
expense of US$17 million due to a statistically significant
reduction in filing rate experience for non-malignant claims. In
the third quarter of 2008, management determined that the
liability remained appropriate and no change was recorded.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters were US$256 million in the three and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$276 million
in the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Of the Sept. 30, 2008 obligation, US$211 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$45 million was related to asserted
claims. At Sept. 30, 2008, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities.

Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation,
through its primary subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, operates
as a railroad operator. The Company makes tracks through 28
states in the West, Midwest, and Sunbelt regions of the United
States and in two Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc. and other third parties continue to
face several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from exposure
to asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 24, 2008.

The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products. Because the cases are in
initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have
asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products,
much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of the Company's product or whether
such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to
the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal
and indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc, under the
stock purchase agreement under which the Company acquired
Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated
with all other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase
price paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of
Invensys Metering Systems.

Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides
advanced metering and related communications solutions to the
worldwide utility industry. The Company manufactures water, gas,
heat and electric meters including comprehensive metering
communications system solutions that include both automatic
meter reading ("AMR") and advanced metering infrastructure
("AMI") systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Faces Suits in Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and
pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total
gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's
assets.

On Oct. 31, 2003, Crown Cork received a favorable ruling on its
motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-related case pending
against it in the district court of Harris County, Tex. (in Re  
Asbestos Litigation  No. 90-23333, District  Court, Harris
County, Tex.), which  was appealed.

On May 4, 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld the
favorable ruling in that case (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Tex.).

The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by the plaintiff to
the Texas Supreme Court where oral argument was held on Feb. 7,
2008. The Texas Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeal.

A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis
County, Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc. District Court Travis County, 98th Judicial
District Cause No. GN-203572) has been reversed on appeal.

Although the Company said it believes that the favorable rulings
of the District Court and the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals
are correct, there can be no assurance that the legislation will
be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal or by Texas
courts in other cases that may challenge the legislation.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging. Its product portfolio includes metal food and
beverage cans and related packaging, aerosol cans and a wide
variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, and specialty
packaging such as decorative novelty containers and industrial
paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and
replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Facing Suits in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos.

The legislation limits the successor's liability for asbestos to
the acquired company's asset value adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has already paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.

On Feb. 20, 2004, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the
June 11, 2002 order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
in which the Court of Common Pleas ruled favorably on a motion
by Crown Cork for summary judgment regarding 376 pending
asbestos-related cases against Crown Cork in Philadelphia and
remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
(Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002).

The Court ruled that the new statute, as applied, violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution because it retroactively extinguished
the plaintiffs' pre-existing and accrued causes of action. The
Company believes that the ruling by the court was limited only
to cases which were pending at the time the legislation was
enacted.

In November 2004, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation amending the 2001 successor liability statute
providing that the 2001 statute applies only to asbestos-related
claims with respect to which the two-year statute of limitations
for asbestos-related claims had not yet commenced at the time
the statute was enacted on Dec. 17, 2001.

On July 28, 2005, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted
Crown Cork's global motion for summary judgment to dismiss all
pending asbestos-related cases filed in the court after Dec. 17,
2003 (In re: Asbestos-Litigation October term 1986, No. 001).

Additional cases have been dismissed subsequent to July 28, 2005
by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. These decisions
remain subject to potential appeal by the plaintiffs and, in
some cases, appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania have
been filed by the plaintiffs in connection with these decisions
and oral argument held before the Superior Court.

The Superior Court has not ruled on these appeals.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging. Its product portfolio includes metal food and
beverage cans and related packaging, aerosol cans and a wide
variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, and specialty
packaging such as decorative novelty containers and industrial
paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and
replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Facing 50,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., at Sept. 30, 2008, faces about 50,000 open asbestos
claims, which excludes about 19,000 inactive claims, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 24, 2008.

Crown Cork faced about 69,000 outstanding asbestos claims at the
end of the six months ended June 30, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims arose from the
insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose
stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90 days after the
stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation assets and
was later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, the amounts paid to asbestos claimants were
covered by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985
settlement with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when
Crown Cork became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998
and the Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related
costs.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, Crown Cork received
about 2,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about 3,000 claims
for a total of US$9 million, and had about 50,000 claims
outstanding at the end of the period. During the second quarter
of 2008, the Company updated its claims database to remove about
10,000 duplicate claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$184 million, including US$65 for unasserted claims and US$3
for committed settlements that will be paid over time.

Historically (1977-2007), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for
settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Underlying the accrual are assumptions that claims for exposure
to asbestos that occurred after the sale of the U.S. company's
insulation business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement
payouts and that the Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio,
Mississippi, Texas and Pennsylvania asbestos legislation are
expected to have a highly favorable impact on Crown Cork's
ability to settle or defend against asbestos-related claims in
those states, and other states where Pennsylvania law may apply.

Estimated additional costs of US$42 million beyond 2017 have not
been included in the Company's liability, as the Company
believes cost projections beyond 10 years are inherently
unreliable due to potential changes in the litigation
environment and other factors whose impact cannot be known or
reasonably estimated.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. produces consumer
packaging. Its product portfolio includes metal food and
beverage cans and related packaging, aerosol cans and a wide
variety of metal caps, crowns, and closures, and specialty
packaging such as decorative novelty containers and industrial
paint cans. The Company also makes canmaking equipment and
replacement parts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 572 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of Sept. 30, 2008, two of Celanese Corporation's subsidiaries
in the United States (Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc.)
faced 572 asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
22, 2008.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, 57 new cases were
filed against the Company, 114 cases were resolved, and four
cases were added and one removed after further analysis by
outside counsel.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases.

The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims
arising from these matters.

As of June 30, 2008, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc. faced
about 611 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

Dallas-based Celanese Corporation is an integrated chemical and
advanced materials company. The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials like methanol, carbon monoxide
and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp, into
value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Still Facing 104,000 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced about 104,000 open
claims, essentially unchanged from Dec. 31, 2007, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2008.

As of June 30, 2008, about 104,000 open asbestos claims were
pending against ITT Corporation. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008)

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other industrial
companies in product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to
asbestos.

These claims stem primarily from products sold prior to 1985
that contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a
gasket, which allegedly contained asbestos. The asbestos was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may
have contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure.

During the first nine months of 2008, the Company resolved about
4,500 claims. Most of these claims were dismissed, with
settlement on a modest percentage of claims.

The average amount of settlement per claim has been nominal and
substantially all defense and settlement costs have been covered
by insurance.

The Company's estimated accrued costs, net of expected insurance
recoveries, for the resolution of all of these pending claims
were US$26.8 million as of Sept. 20, 2008 and US$24.8 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a multi-industry
company designs and manufactures engineered products. The
Company also provides related services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Facing Insurance Cases in Calif., N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation is involved in two asbestos-related insurance
actions filed in California and New York. These cases are:

     -- Cannon Electric, Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty
        Company ("ACE") et al. Superior Court, County of Los
        Angeles, CA, Case No. BC 290354, and

     -- Pacific Employers Insurance Company et al., v. ITT
        Industries, Inc., et al., Supreme Court, County of New
        York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.  

The parties in both cases are seeking an appropriate allocation
of responsibility for the Company's historic asbestos liability
exposure among its insurers.

The California action is filed in the same venue where the
Company's environmental insurance recovery litigation had been
pending since 1991. The New York action has been stayed in favor
of the California suit.

The Company, ACE and Nationwide Indemnity have successfully
resolved the matter and the Company is working with other
parties in the suit to resolve the matter as to those insurers.

In addition, Goulds Pumps, Inc. (a Company subsidiary) has
negotiated coverage-in-place agreements with Utica National and
ACE allocating the Goulds' asbestos liabilities between
insurance policies issued by Utica, ACE and those issued by
others.

The terms of the settlements provide Goulds with substantial
coverage from those two insurers for asbestos liabilities.
Goulds will continue to seek coverage from its other insurers
for these liabilities.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT Corporation is a multi-industry
company designs and manufactures engineered products. The
Company also provides related services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Cites $52M Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved US$52 million for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$50 million at Dec.
31, 2007.

Generation had reserved about US$53 million in total for
asbestos-related bodily injury claims at June 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned
by other Company subsidiaries: Commonwealth Edison Company and
PECO Energy Company.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, US$13 million of the US$52 million related
to 155 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$39 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050.

Chicago-based Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to 5.4
million customers in northern Illinois and southeastern
Pennsylvania through subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Company
and PECO Energy Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Int'l. Still Facing Lawsuits in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm and Haas Company's subsidiary, Morton International, Inc.,
continues to face pending lawsuits related to employee exposure
to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in Weeks Island, La.,
with additional lawsuits expected.

The Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under workers' compensation laws.

As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys have focused on peripheral defendants, including the
Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at the Company's facilities.

Morton has also been sued in connection with asbestos-related
matters in the former Friction Division of the former Thiokol
Corporation, which merged with Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have
closed with no payment.

Philadelphia-based Rohm and Haas Company is a specialty
materials company. The Company reported sales of US$8.9 billion
in 2007 on a portfolio of businesses including electronic
materials, specialty materials and salt. The Company operates
with 96 manufacturing and 35 research facilities in 27 countries
with 15,710 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tidewater Inc. Involved in Exposure Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2008.


COMPANY PROFILE

Tidewater Inc.
601 Poydras St., Suite 1900
New Orleans, La.
Tel.: (504) 568-1010

Description:
Tidewater Inc. provides services and equipment to the global
offshore energy industry through a fleet of marine service
vessels. Revenues are dependent upon the activity level of the
vessel fleet and vessel day rates, which are dependent upon oil
and natural gas prices and ultimately the supply/demand
relationship for crude oil and natural gas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company continues to be involved in
asbestos- and silica-related product liability claims.

The Company is named as a defendant in about 2,700 lawsuits,
primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively, these suits
represent a total of about 13,000 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures, and supplies products that protect people's health
and safety. The Company's lines of safety products are used by
workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction,
other industries, and the military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety's Bid to Compel Discovery OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa., in October
2008, granted Mine Safety Appliances Company's motion to compel
discovery in an asbestos- and environmental-related insurance
lawsuit filed against Century Indemnity Company.

Century has begun to comply with that order.

The Company has sued Century in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pa., alleging that Century breached five
insurance policies by failing to pay amounts owing to the
Company.

The Pennsylvania court has denied a motion by Century to stay or
dismiss the Pennsylvania lawsuit in favor of a New Jersey
action.

The court also denied certain preliminary motions filed by both
parties to narrow the issues in dispute.

It is expected that additional motions will be filed during
discovery.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures, and supplies products that protect people's health
and safety. The Company's lines of safety products are used by
workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction,
other industries, and the military.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Corp. Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries continue to
face various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result
of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at the Company's
facilities, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2008.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products segment, which at the time of the
spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec Industries
Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a
significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to
the Company's ownership.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro,
Coltec or its subsidiaries.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that
was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and
products to the global defense and space markets. Products and
services are principally sold to customers in North America,
Europe and Asia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Has 26 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 26 pending asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2008.

To date, one asbestos case has been dismissed.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.

Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company
or its subsidiaries.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date. It is
unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of
the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not
require identifying the amount of the claimed damage.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these
cases since inception was about US$100,000.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc.'s precipitated calcium
carbonate (PCC) products brighten and whiten paper, polymers,
and teeth. PCC products account for about half of the Company's
sales. The Company's processed mineral products include lime
(used to make PCC), limestone, and talc. The Company also sells
monolithic and pre-cast refractory products, which are used to
coat steel, cement, and glass production surfaces with high-
temperature-resistant material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin Corp., Units Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 27, 2008.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation is a manufacturer
concentrated in two business segments: Chlor Alkali Products and
Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products produces chlorine and caustic
soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach
products and potassium hydroxide. Winchester produces and
distributes sporting ammunition, reloading components, small
caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial
cartridges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Still Has 114T Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about
114,000 open claims served on the Company.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company was one of many defendants in
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 open
claims served on it. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)

For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products
manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation.
The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent
shareholders of PC.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh.

The liability recorded at Sept. 30, 2008 was US$615 million
current and US$300 million non-current.

The current portion of the asbestos settlement liability
included in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of Sept. 30, 2008, consists of all such payments
required through June 2009, the fair value of the Company's
common stock and legal fees and expenses.

The amount due June 30, 2010, of US$25 million and the net
present value of the remaining payments is included in the long-
term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet.

For 2008, accretion expense associated with the asbestos
liability will be about US$5 million per quarter.

Asbestos settlement was US$300 million as of Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$324 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

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: Garlock Objects to ASARCO Plan Confirmation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, opposes the confirmation of
ASARCO LLC's Second Amended Plan of Reorganization.

Garlock asserts that the confidentiality provisions in the
proposed Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution
Procedures will prejudice Garlock's rights as a potential
indirect claimant under the TDP and would thus impair Garlock's
state law rights of contribution and indemnification, and would
augment the rights potential direct claimants would otherwise
possess under state or federal law.

Garlock contends that the ASARCO Plan's confidentiality
provisions have the potential to prejudice it in four ways:

     (1) When a plaintiff, whose judgment was satisfied by
         Garlock, files a direct claim, the Asbestos Personal
         Injury Trusts do not notify Garlock;

     (2) When Garlock inquires whether a particular Satisfied
         Plaintiff filed a direct claim against a Trust, the
         Trust will often refuse to disclose information;

     (3) When Garlock asks the Trust to disclose the medical
         and exposure evidence that a Satisfied Plaintiff has
         filed with the Trust, the Trust refuses; and

     (4) When Garlock asks the Trust to incorporate medical and
         exposure evidence into Garlock's indirect claim, the
         Trust refuses.

Garlock thus asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to deny confirmation
of the ASARCO Plan until the Debtors modify the proposed TDP by
adding certain languages to protect Garlock's interests.

(ASARCO Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 90; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Grace Lawsuit to Start on Feb. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald Molloy of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana will commence on Feb. 19, 2009, a trial on the
criminal case filed by the U.S. Government against W. R. Grace &
Co. and seven of its former officers and directors.

The trial, according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, could
take as long as four months and could be the largest
environmental criminal trial in U.S. history.

The Government alleges that Grace and its executives conspired
to fraudulently hide the danger caused by the company's
vermiculite mining operations in Libby, Mont. Vermiculite mined
from Libby contained asbestos, which caused many lung diseases
and deaths around the area.

Judge Molloy, the Seattle PI quoted, has said during a
conference held October 24, that it has been two years since the
last hearing in the criminal case and he is "eager to move it
forward quickly."

Judge Molloy previously rejected the Government's conspiracy
charges against Grace and the executives saying the charges were
barred by statute of limitations. The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, however, reversed Judge Molloy's decision and
reinstated the conspiracy charges. Grace appealed the Circuit
Court's decision and raised the issue to the Supreme Court but
the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and remanded the
issue back to the Judge Molloy.

If found guilty, the Settle PI said Grace executives could be
facing maximum prison sentences from 55 to 70 years. Grace said
in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that it may pay as much as US$280 million in fines if convicted
in the criminal case. Grace said it expects legal fees for its
defense in the indictment could range from US$3 million to US$4
million per quarter.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Mulls Disclosure Statement Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta A. DeAngelis, Acting U.S. Trustee for Region 3, Bank of
America, N.A., and certain bank lenders, and insurance
companies, among others, previously asked the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court to deny approval, or, in the alternative, direct W. R.
Grace & Co. to modify, the Disclosure Statement explaining the
Joint Plan of Reorganization.

The Debtors point out that the Disclosure Statement Objections
generally fall into four categories:

     (a) Objections concerning the adequacy of the Disclosure
         Statement;

     (b) Objections raising substantive confirmation issues;

     (c) Insurance-related objections covering both disclosure
         and confirmation issues; and

     (d) Objections to the Debtors' proposed Voting Procedures.

The Debtors have prepared a tabulation of the Disclosure
Statement Objections and their response to each of those
objections, a copy of which is available for free at:

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

The Debtors ask the Court to overrule Objections pertaining to
the confirmation of the Plan as the hearing on the Disclosure
Statement is not the proper venue to hear any confirmation
issue. More importantly, the Debtors ask the Court to overrule
the objections questioning the adequacy of the Disclosure
Statement under Section 11125 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Debtors indicated changes to the Plan that the Plan
Proponents are considering making to address certain
confirmation issues. Included in those considerations are
amendments to address the objections to the treatment of Class 9
General Unsecured Claims are unimpaired under the Plan.

David M. Bernick, P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in New
York, argues that issues relating to impairment, absolute
priority rule, third party releases, and classification and
treatment of certain Asbestos PI Claims do not render the Plan
"patently unconfirmable."

Mr. Bernick attests that Class 9 General Unsecured Creditors are
properly treated under the Plan as unimpaired claims. The Plan
Proponents are considering procedures in line with the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors' request wherein general
unsecured creditors may seek a postpetition interest other than
what is in the Plan, he tells the Court. The Plan, however, will
explicitly permit the Court to award no postpetition interest to
any creditor who seeks to request additional postpetition
interest. Moreover, the Plan will provide that any litigation to
determine claims for a different interest rate that occurs after
the Effective Date will be conducted as claim allowance
litigation, subject to the Bankruptcy Code.

As to Asbestos PI Claims, Mr. Bernick points out that the Plan's
classification and treatment of indirect PI Trust Claims are
consistent with Sections 524(g) and 1122 as the Indirect PI
Trust Claims relate to the Debtors' asbestos liability. Thus, he
maintains the Plan's classification of claims as Class 6
Asbestos PI Claims is only just and equitable. He further
maintains that the Debtors' treatment of Indirect PI Trust
Claims is far from unique as the Court has approved Chapter 11
plans of asbestos companies who adhere to the same treatment of
claims.

Other than the insurance companies' "disguised" Plan objections,
the Debtors believe that there is no need for the Disclosure
Statement to touch on the subject of the insurers' right to
discovery since neither the Plan nor the Disclosure Statement
restricts any of the insurance companies' rights and the
insurance neutrality provision has been clear all along. Thus,
the Debtors intend to add a language on the Plan mentioning
contentions of these insurance companies and the Debtors'
argument on these issues.

Mr. Bernick reiterates that the Plan has resulted from extensive
negotiations throughout the entire case. The settlement with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the
Asbestos PI Future Claims Representative was reached in the
midst of hotly contested estimation proceedings concerning the
value of the Debtors' PI liabilities.

"There is absolutely no basis for any conclusion other than that
the settlement made under such circumstances was reached in good
faith and that the Plan incorporating it has been proposed in
good faith," Mr. Bernick asserts.

Mr. Bernick tells the Court that the Debtors intend to file the
remaining exhibits to the Plan before the conclusion of the
Disclosure Statement hearing.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Insurers Object to W. R. Grace Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowood Indemnity Company joins in Maryland Casualty Company's
objection to W. R. Grace & Co.'s the Disclosure Statement.
Maryland and Arrowood previously filed Disclosure Statement
objections on Oct. 17, 2008.

Maryland Casualty objects to the proposed language set forth in
each objection filed by Libby Claimants, BNSF Railway Company
and The Scotts Company.

Maryland stresses that it was neither directly or indirectly
"responsible for failing to protect the workers and Libby from
Grace's asbestos." In the same way that BNSF and Scotts Company
have no rights to coverage under any insurance policies issued
by Maryland to the Debtors. Maryland adds that the parties'
rights, if any, are subject to settlement agreements between the
Debtors and Maryland.

Maryland joins in the Libby Claimants' Objections for reasons
that:

     (i) The Debtors' proposed filing of the Plan Supplement
         after the Plan objection and voting deadlines have
         passed; and

     (ii) The Debt filing of or amendment to any Plan-related
         documents after the Disclosure Statement without
         Court approval of these documents under Section 1125.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Files Asbestos-Related Plan Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., et al., delivered to the Court the Asbestos
Insurance Policy Schedule as Exhibit 5 to the Joint Plan of
Reorganization, a copy of which is available for free at:

     http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_exhibit5.pdf

Grace also delivered to the Court the Asbestos Insurance
Transfer Agreement entered into between the Debtors and certain
Insurance Companies, a full-text copy of which is available for
free at:

     http://bankrupt.com/misc/grace_exhibit6.pdf

The Schedule discloses the Insurance Entities that have entered
into prepetition asbestos insurance settlement agreements with
the Debtors and the asbestos insurance policies that are subject
to those settlement agreements.

Several insurance companies previously objected to the adequacy
of the Disclosure Statement explaining the Joint Plan because
the Asbestos Insurance Policy Schedule and the Asbestos Trust
Agreement were not filed together with the Plan and Disclosure
Statement.

The Objecting Insurance Companies are:

     -- Maryland Casualty Company;

     -- Continental Casualty Company, Transportation Insurance
        Company, and their American insurance affiliates;

     -- Seaton Insurance Company and OneBeacon America
        Insurance Company;

     -- Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and Riunione Adriatica
        di Sicurta;

     -- Century Indemnity Company, Pacific Employers Insurance
        Company, Century Indemnity Company of Hartford,
        Connecticut by and through Cravens, Dargan & Company
        Pacific Coast, and Central National Insurance Company
        of Omaha;

     -- Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich International
        (Bermuda), Ltd.; and Federal Insurance Company;

     -- Arrowood Indemnity Company;

     -- Federal Insurance Company.

The Insurance Companies asserted that the Asbestos Insurance
Policy Schedule and the Asbestos Insurance Transfer Agreement
are critical components of how the Plan intends to treat them.   
Without the schedule and the agreement, the Insurance Companies
argued that the Disclosure Statement fails to fully and clearly
provide information necessary for creditors to make an informed
judgment on the Plan.

The Plan provides that the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust will
have the right to seek to recover from the Insurance Companies
some or all payments under the Insurance Policies. Since the
Plan purports to be "insurance neutral," for the Insurance
Companies to have a meaningful opportunity to determine whether
they should object to the Plan, the companies need to be able to
review all relevant documents relating to the transfer of
insurance rights to the Asbestos PI Trust.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks Disclosure Statement's Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and David T.
Austern as Asbestos PI Future Claims Representative, join in W.
R. Grace & Co.'s request for approval of (i) the Disclosure
Statement explaining the Joint Plan of Reorganization, and the
procedures governing the solicitation and tabulation of votes
for the Plan.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace's Application for Sanders as FCR OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the application of W. R. Grace
& Co. to employ Alexander M. Sanders, Jr., as legal
representative for future asbestos-related property damage
claimants under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, including
future claimants and holders of demands in the U.S., alleging
property damage related to Zonolite Attic Insulation.

Mr. Sanders will have standing under Section 1109(b) to be heard
as a party-in-interest in all matters relating in these Chapter
11 cases.

Mr. Sanders, however, will not be liable for any damages, or
have obligations other than mandated by the Court; provided that
he may be liable for damages caused by willful misconduct or
gross negligence.

(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 169; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc. 215-945-7000 FAX 215-945-7001)


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Fleming
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Montana reversed the Montana Workers'
Compensation Court's ruling, which dismissed an asbestos
occupational disease claim filed by Eldon Fleming against
International Paper Company.

The case is styled Eldon Fleming, Petitioner and Appellant v.
International Paper Co.; as successor-in-interest to Champion
International Co., and Liberty NW Ins. Corp., Respondents and
Appellees.

Justices James C. Nelson, Karla M. Gray, Patricia Cotter, John
Warner, and Brian Morris entered judgment in Case No. 05-738 on
Sept. 23, 2008.

Mr. Fleming worked at the lumber mill in Libby, Mont., from 1960
until May 1998. During that time, he had three different
employers: St. Regis Lumber Company, from 1960 to 1985; Champion
International Paper Co., from 1985 to November 1993; and Stimson
Lumber Company, from November 1993 to May 1998. He was diagnosed
with asbestos-related lung disease on April 2, 2001.

On Nov. 29, 2001, Mr. Fleming filed a claim for occupational
disease benefits against Stimson identifying the date of the
"accident" as "1960- 5/1998."

On March 22, 2004, Mr. Fleming filed a "Claim for Compensation"
listing Champion as the employer and identifying the date of the
"accident" as "1961- 1993." The insurers for both Stimson and
Champion denied Mr. Fleming's claims for occupational disease
benefits.

Mr. Fleming underwent a medical evaluation on Sept. 21, 2004, at
the request of the Department of Labor and Industry.

Mr. Fleming filed a Petition for Hearing with the WCC on April
14, 2005, naming as Respondents both IPC, as successor-in-
interest to Champion (hereafter collectively referred to as
IPC), and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corp., Stimson's workers'
compensation insurer.

In his petition, Mr. Fleming sought acceptance of liability by
one or both of the Respondents and payment of applicable
workers' compensation benefits.

IPC filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Fleming's Petition for Hearing
on May 6, 2005. Mr. Fleming responded to IPC's motion.

The WCC, in an Order dated July 8, 2005, agreed that Mr.
Fleming's claim against IPC was timely. Consequently, the WCC
granted IPC's Motion to Dismiss Mr. Fleming's claim against IPC.

IPC also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 20, 2005.
The WCC deemed that this motion was moot in light of the court's
decision to grant IPC's Motion to Dismiss.

On Aug. 2, 2005, Mr. Fleming filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the WCC's Order granting IPC's Motion to Dismiss. On Aug. 17,
2005, the WCC issued its Order denying Mr. Fleming's Motion for
Reconsideration.

Mr. Fleming then filed a second Motion for Reconsideration. The
WCC denied Mr. Fleming's second Motion for Reconsideration on
Dec. 20, 2005. Mr. Fleming appealed.

Accordingly, on the narrow question of whether Mr. Fleming's
claim against IPC should have been dismissed, the Supreme Court
held that the WCC erred when it failed to apply the statutes in
effect on Mr. Fleming's last day of employment with IPC.

The matter was also remanded for further proceedings.

Laurie Wallace, Esq., of Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C. in Columbia
Falls, Mont., Jon Heberling, Esq., of McGarvey, Heberling,
Sullivan & McGarvey, P.C. in Kalispell, Mont., represented Eldon
Fleming.

Leo S. Ward, Esq., Chad E. Adams, Esq., of Browning, Kaleczyc,
Berry & Hoven, P.C. in Helena, Mont., represented International
Paper Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Contingencies Remain at $1.7Bil
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s asbestos-related contingencies remained at
US$1.7 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28,
2008.

The Company's asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million, the
same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2007.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its U.S. subsidiaries
and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary
W. R. Grace & Co.–Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order
to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization and several associated documents, including a
disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court.

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
the Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders
are co-proponents of the Plan. The Plan supersedes the plans of
reorganization previously filed by the Company and the PI
Committee and the PI FCR.

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are not
co-proponents of the Plan. A hearing on the disclosure statement
is scheduled to begin on Oct. 27, 2008 and a confirmation
hearing is currently scheduled to begin on March 9, 2009.

Most of the Company's non-core liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process. The Company has not revised its accounting to
reflect the PI Settlement or the filing of the Plan.

The resolution of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and
other unresolved claims under the Plan would result in allowable
claims that differ from amounts recorded as part of liabilities
subject to compromise as of Sept. 30, 2008.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing entity interest income, were US$12 million in the third
quarter compared with US$21.3 million in the prior year quarter.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the
manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction. The Company has about 6,400 employees
and operations in over 40 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on A.P. Green's Confirmation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that several insurers' appeal on
the confirmation of A.P. Green's plan of reorganization
continues to be pending, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct.
28, 2008.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak
Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003.

The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan. Several insurers have appealed that ruling.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Keasbey Case in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation is still engaged in insurance coverage
litigation in New York State Court, filed in 2003, with a
defendant class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos
bodily injury claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey
Company.

The case is styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03, N.Y. County.

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey.

However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not
cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment
standards.

Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, a small portion
of such claims have met medical impairment criteria under New
York court rules and as to the remaining claims, Keasbey's
involvement at a number of work sites is a highly contested
issue.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits, an allegation the Company vigorously contests in the
lawsuit.

In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.

On May 8, 2007, the Court in the first phase of the trial held
that all of the Company's primary policy products aggregates
were exhausted and that past products liability claims could not
be recharacterized as operations claims. The Court also found
that while operations claims would not be subject to products
aggregates, such claims could be made only against the policies
in effect when the claimants were exposed to asbestos from
Keasbey operations.

These holdings limit the Company's exposure to those instances
where Keasbey used asbestos in operations between 1970 and 1987.
Keasbey largely ceased using asbestos in its operations in the
early 1970s.

The Company noticed an appeal to the Appellate Division to
challenge certain aspects of the Court's ruling. Other insurer
parties to the litigation also filed separate notices of appeal
to the Court's ruling.

The appeal was fully briefed and was argued on Dec. 6, 2007.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Facing Burns & Roe Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to be involved in insurance
coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily injury claims
against a bankrupt insured, Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.

These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed
in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.

At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of
construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.

The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with
Burns & Roe, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
appointed by the Bankruptcy Court and the Future Claims
Representative, which provides that claims allegedly covered by
CNA policies will be adjudicated in the tort system, with any
coverage disputes related to those claims to be decided in
coverage litigation.

With the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Burns & Roe included
the Addendum as part of its Fourth Amended Plan, which was filed
on June 9, 2008 and which will be the subject of a later
confirmation hearing.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Still Involved in Court Cases in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation and numerous other insurers continue
to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas courts,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2008.

About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Texas)).

During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed and while
certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals.

A different Texas court, however, denied similar motions seeking
dismissal. After that court denied a related challenge to
jurisdiction, the insurers transferred the case to a state
multi-district litigation court in Harris County charged with
handling asbestos cases.

In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in
Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district
litigation court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds.

On Feb. 29, 2008, the appellate court denied the insurers'
mandamus petition on procedural grounds, but did not reach a
decision on the merits of the petition.

Instead, the appellate court allowed to stand the multi-district
litigation court's determination that the case remained on its
inactive docket and that no further action can be taken unless
qualifying reports are filed or the filing of such reports is
waived.

With respect to the cases that are still pending in Texas, in
June 2008, plaintiffs in the only active case dropped the
remaining CNA company from that suit, leaving only inactive
cases against CNA companies.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Grace Case in Mont. Still in Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed by W. R. Grace & Co. employees
against CNA Financial Corporation and other defendants is still
stayed because of Grace's pending bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Mont.) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of Grace) and their spouses
against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the State of Montana.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect W.R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Mont.

On April 7, 2008, Grace announced a settlement in principle with
the asbestos personal injury claimants committee subject to
confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the bankruptcy
court.

While the confirmation hearing has not been scheduled, Grace
expects the hearing to occur in 2009.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Cites $1.215B Net Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos reserves were US$1.215
billion at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$1.322 billion at
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 28, 2008.

The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$1.229 billion at
June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)

The Company's gross asbestos reserves were US$2.155 billion at
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$2.352 billion at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company had 1,282 asbestos policyholders at Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with 1,289 policyholders at Dec. 31, 2007.

Net paid losses were US$125 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$136 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded US$18 million of unfavorable asbestos-
related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation provides commercial
coverage, with standard offerings as workers' compensation,
general and professional liability, and other products for
businesses and institutions. The Company also sells specialty
insurance including professional liability for doctors, lawyers,
and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts. Holding
company Loews Corporation owns about 90 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Cites $12.723M Liability at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability amounted
to US$12,723,000 as of Sept. 28, 2008, compared with
US$9,697,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company press
release dated Oct. 29, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$9,723,000 as of
June 29, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)

The long-term asbestos liability amounted to US$7,062,000 as of
Sept. 28, 2008, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and other fluid control devices for the instrumentation,
aerospace, thermal fluid and energy markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berry Couple Sue 17 Firms in Madison Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn and Dana Berry, on Oct. 23, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 17 defendant corporations in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

The Berry couple, of Michigan, claims Mrs. Berry's mesothelioma
was wrongfully caused. She was diagnosed with the disease on
April 25, 2008.

The Berrys claim Mrs. Berry's disease was caused after she was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers. They say Mrs. Berry was exposed to the asbestos fibers
through clothing Mr. Berry would wear home from work.

The suit states that Mr. Berry worked from 1960 until 2003 as an
auto mechanic.

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

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

Randy L. Gori, Esq. of Gori, Julian & Associates in Alton, Ill.,
and W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., C. Taylor
Campbell, Esq., and W. Casey Harris, Esq., of The Lanier Law
Firm in Houston, represent the Berrys.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE's Campaign in Portsmouth Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Figures issued by the Health and Safety Executive on Oct. 29,
2008 revealed that every week 20 tradesmen die from asbestos-
related diseases like mesothelioma, according to an HSE press
release dated Oct. 29, 2008.

Portsmouth, England, has the fifth highest mesothelioma rate in
Great Britain, with 277 people in Portsmouth and 28 women dying
of the cancer between 1981 and 2005.

The HSE's "Asbestos: The Hidden Killer" campaign is running
throughout October 2008 and November 2008 and aims to reduce the
rising death rate.

Charles Gilby, Principal HSE Inspector for Portsmouth says, "We
need to educate tradesmen about how asbestos and its dangers are
relevant to them. We want them to change the way they work so
that they don't put their lives at risk."

Mr. Gilby explained why a major campaign has been launched to
raise awareness of the real risk that tradesmen face. He said,
"Exposure to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-
related deaths, with around 4,000 people a year dying from
asbestos-related disease. The overall number of deaths is rising
because a large number of workers who have already been exposed
to asbestos dust around 40 years ago will go on to develop
mesothelioma, a terminal cancer or other asbestos related
diseases."

Annually, 1,000 (25 percent) of the 4,000 dying are tradesmen.
While the number of deaths in traditional industries has
plateaued, deaths in trades continue to rise.

Jill Morrell, Head of Public Affairs at The British Lung
Foundation says, "The HSE campaign is vital because research
shows that only one in ten tradesmen know that exposure to
asbestos can prove fatal. The asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma is a cruel disease which as yet has no cure. We
must do all we can to prevent more people dying from this
preventable disease."

Even today, asbestos presents a real and relevant risk to
plumbers, joiners, electricians and many other maintenance
workers.

Posters and radio adverts will encourage tradesmen to get a free
asbestos information pack by calling 0845 345 0055 or by
visiting http://www.hse.gov.uk/hiddenkillerfor further  
information.


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *