CAR_Public/081114.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 227

                            Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Oct. Trial on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit Held
BALANCED HEALTH: NFL Player Files Calif. Suit Over StarCaps Pill
CLASSMATES ONLINE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent E-mails
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
COMMERCIAL METALS: To Defend Standard Iron Works' Antitrust Suit

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: To Defend FEMA Trailers/Homes Litigation
GENERAL GROWTH: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation
NEBUAD INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Alleging Privacy Violations
SCOTTISH RE: Investors Win $37.5M Award in N.Y. Litigation
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Milberg LLP Continues Fraud Investigation

ST. JUDE: EEU Residents' Time to Appeal Junked Motion Expires
ST. JUDE: Four Silzone-Related Lawsuits Remain Pending in Canada
ST. JUDE: Judgment Bid in Securities Suit to be Argued on Dec. 5
ST. JUDE: Minn. Silzone Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Minntac Lawsuit to Federal Court

UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Lehman Structured Notes
VALLEY EYE: Faces Nev. Suit Alleging Consumer Fraud Violations
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Ohio Woman Sues Over Rash, Hive Causing Bras


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANADIGICS INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
ANADIGICS INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
CADENCE DESIGN: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
HARDINGE INC: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
HARDINGE INC: Johnson & Perkinson Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
WATERS CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites $24.29Mil Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,620 Cases Ongoing v. Standard at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Spends $13M for Asbestos at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites 105,100 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites 3 Pending Appeals at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Sealing Has $53.9Mil for Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $323.3M Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $483.4M at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Magnetek
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Controls Has 972 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Cites $19.8Mil Liability at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Records $9.4M Indemnity at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Spence & Hoke
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Facing Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Facing 8,100 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Units Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.7M for Cleanup at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Liabilities Remain at $210M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Still Facing 13,000 Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,960 Claims Ongoing v. 3M Co. at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Cites $35Mil Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $126M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. NL Industries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unitrin Still Involved in Asbestos Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Facing Aaron Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Has Injury Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $312.1M in Losses & ALAE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Increases Reserves by $25.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $147.3M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Raises Incurred Losses by $83.4M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas, Inc. Still Has Cooper Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $24.9M Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Piacentine Suit Filed v. 109 Firms in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smith Case v. Norfolk Ongoing in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chester Widow Aids HSE in Asbestos Campaign
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La Trobe University Sues for AUD16M Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC's Suit v. 10 Ex-Hardie Workers Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Insurers to Oppose New Asbestos Law
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SNP, Westminster Disagree over Damages Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retired Welder's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beeford Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lambeth Council's Probe on Asbestos Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Boss Facing Injury Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITUC Decries Asbestos, Endosulfan Exclusion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurring No Amounts at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 10

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces 25T Claims in 6 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Lofton Action to Jones County
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Certification for Class in AMS Case Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Lawsuits Pending v. RBS Global
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Still Has 2 Injury Suits at Sept. 27

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Has 150 Actions at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Rise to 6,500 at Sept.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $7.9Mil Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.88M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,281 Pending Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $53.25M Liability at Sept. 30



                           *********


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Oct. Trial on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motions to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed
against Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., over the attempted
buyout of the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus
Capital Management LP occurred on Oct. 22, 2008, according to
the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed.  In general, the suits
allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are
seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5,
2008).

The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders
bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public
stockholders.

Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the
company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire
the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders
because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to
be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court:

    1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
       Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
       Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
       Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
       Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
       filed on March 20, 2007.

    2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
       Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
       March 21, 2007.

    3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
       Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
       Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
       Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on
       March 22, 2007.

    4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
       System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A.
       Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007.

    5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on
       April 20, 2007.

    6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
       R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007.

On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated
into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption
"In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."

Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.

On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and
derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors.

The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified
monetary damages sustained by the company.

On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class
and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all
individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and
abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup.

On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their
respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to
dismiss is complete (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.


BALANCED HEALTH: NFL Player Files Calif. Suit Over StarCaps Pill
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suspended National Football League player filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California against
Balanced Health Products, the manufacturer of Nikki Harrell's
StarCaps diet pills, By D. Orlando Ledbetter of The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reports.

Atlanta Falcons defensive tackle Grady Jackson, appealing a
four-game suspension from the NFL, filed the suit against the
company.  He is seeking restitution and damages for false
advertising and unfair business practices against the company
and retailers of StarCaps.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that other named
defendants include Nikki Haskell, General Nutrition Corporation
and Centers, Great Earth Companies, and Vitamin Shoppe
Industries.

Attorney Eric Farber, Esq., who filed the lawsuit told The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Grady has obviously suffered
damage to his reputation with the taking of StarCaps."  He adds,
"As well, Grady has set up a place for consumers to seek
restitution."

The lawsuit seeks to stop the sale of StarCaps to the general
public.  It reveals that Mr. Jackson has been suspended for four
games as a first-time offender of the league's steroids policy,
but is currently in the appeals process, according to The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In the lawsuit, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that
Mr. Jackson said he thought he was taking a papaya and garlic
extract.  He though contends in his lawsuit that the StarCaps
pills, which were billed as natural diet pills, actually
contained Bumetanide, a powerful loop diuretic available only by
prescription.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bumetanide is
used for the treatment of edema associated with congestive heart
failure, hepatic and renal disease.  Bumetanide is on the NFL's
list of banned substances as a diuretic masking agent.

For more details, contact:

          Eric J. Farber, Esq. (efarber@pinnaclelawgroup.com)
          Pinnacle Law Group LLP
          425 California Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco California 94104
          Phone: 415.394.5700
          Fax: 415.394.5003
          Web site: http://www.pinnaclelawgroup.com


CLASSMATES ONLINE: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Fraudulent E-mails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Classmates Online, Inc., the company behind social networking
site, Classmates.com, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
in California from one of its users for allegedly sending him
lying e-mails, Amy-Mae Elliott of Pocket-lint.co.uk reports.

Anthony Michaels, a San Diego resident, got an email from the
site last Christmas Eve saying that some of his former school
mates were trying to contact him.

This kind of email is apparently one of Classmate.com's tactics
to lure users into signing up for paid-for membership.

Mr. Michaels spent $15 upgrading to the membership level that
would let him see the requests for contact, but found out that
no one he knew had been trying to contact him at all.  According
to a report by Ryan Singel of Wired.com, "Classmates.com's come-
on was a lie, and he'd been scammed."

According to a complaint obtained by Wired.com, "Upon logging
into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate
contacts Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former
classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile."

The complaint goes on to state, "Of those www.classmates.com
users who were characterized ... as members who viewed
Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or
persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter."

The putative class action suit, was filed in a the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles Central
District on Oct. 30, 2008.  It claims that there are hundreds of
thousands of Anthony Michaels around the country who were
similarly duped.

The suit asks the court to force the company to refund millions
in subscription dollars and fine the company for deceptive
advertising.

The case is a class-action complaint for:

       -- Intentional Misrepresentation;
       -- Negligent Misrepresentation;
       -- Negligence;
       -- Fraudulent Concealment;
       -- Business & Professions Code & 17200 et seq.; and
       -- Business & Professions Code & 17500 et seq.

A copy of the complaint is available at:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/classmates_summons_and_co
mplaint_00054685_2.pdf

For more details, contact:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, New York 10004
          Phone: 646.964.9600
          Fax: 212.202.6364
          Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com/


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces N.Y. Lawsuits Alleging ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Co. is facing several purported class-action
lawsuits in New York over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended  Sept.
30, 2008.

In October 2007, a putative class action suit claiming that
certain aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-
Palmolive company Employees' Retirement Income Plan do not
comply with ERISA was filed against the Plan and the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Specifically, "Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al.," alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby
resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class-action lawsuits filed earlier in 2007,
"Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al.," in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, and "Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive company Employees' Retirement Income Plan," in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
allege improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of "Abelman," claims for failure to satisfy minimum
accrual requirements.  These two cases have been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The relief sought in the three actions includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  None of the
actions has been certified as a class action yet (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 5, 2008).

Colgate-Palmolive Co. -- http://www.colgate.com/-- is a
consumer products company, whose products are marketed in over
200 countries and territories throughout the world.  Colgate's
Oral Care products include toothpaste, toothbrushes, oral
rinses, dental floss and pharmaceutical products for dentists
and other oral health professionals.  Product launches include
Colgate Max Fresh, Colgate Max White, Colgate Sensitive Multi
Protection, Colgate Total Advanced Clean, Colgate Total
Professional Clean, Colgate Max Fresh BURST and Colgate Herbal
Seabuckthorn toothpastes; Colgate 360, Colgate 360 Sensitive
and Colgate Twister Fresh manual toothbrushes, and Colgate 360
Sonic Power battery toothbrush and Colgate Plax Whitening mouth
rinse. The company operates in two product segments: Oral,
Personal and Home Care, and Pet Nutrition.


COMMERCIAL METALS: To Defend Standard Iron Works' Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Co. is facing a purported antitrust class-
action lawsuit brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008.

On Sept. 18, 2008, subsequent to the end of its 2008 fiscal
year, the company was served with the plaintiffs' antitrust
lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
brought against nine steel manufacturing companies, including
Commercial Metals Co.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants conspired to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.

The lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between Jan. 1, 2005 and the present, seeks treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

Since the filing of this lawsuit, additional plaintiffs have
filed class-action lawsuits naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially identical to those of the
Standard Iron Works complaint.

Commercial Metals Co. -- http://www.cmc.com/-- engages in the
manufacture, recycle, marketing, and distribution of steel and
metal products. The Company is based in Irving, Tex.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: To Defend FEMA Trailers/Homes Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. intends to defend itself in all
putative class-action complaints filed against manufacturers of
travel trailers and manufactured homes supplied to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The units were to be used for emergency living accommodations in
the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The complaints generally allege injury due to the presence of
formaldehyde in the units.

The company disputes the allegations in these complaints,
according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 30, 2008.

Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.fleetwood.com/-- is
engaged in producing both recreational vehicles and manufactured
housing.  The Company also operates three supply companies that
provide components for the recreational vehicle and housing
operations, while also generating outside sales.


GENERAL GROWTH: Keller Rohrback Announces ERISA Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Wash., Nov. 12, 2008 -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
today announced that it is investigating General Growth
Properties, Inc. ("General Growth" or the "Company") for
potential violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA").

     The investigation focuses on investments in Company stock
in the General Growth 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan").

     Keller Rohrback's investigation involves concerns that
General Growth and other administrators of the Plan may have
breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.  A
breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the
assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing the assets
in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for
participants' retirement savings.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal
          Erin Riley, Esq.
          Derek Loeser, Esq.
          Lynn Sarko, Esq.
          Phone: (800) 776-6044
          e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com


NEBUAD INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Alleging Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
NebuAd, Inc., as well as a number of Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), are facing a purported class-action suit in California,
alleging numerous privacy violations, fraud, and unjust
enrichment, Sam Diaz of ZDNet reports.

The suit, styled, "Valentine et al v. Nebuad, Inc. et al., Case
No. 3:08-cv-05113-TEH," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Nov. 10, 2008.

ZDNet reports that the suit was in connection to a controversial
deep-packet inspection technology -- essentially a behavioral
advertising platform -- that the company was trying to sell to
ISPs.  The ISPs allegedly used Nebuad on a trial basis, but
ultimately did not deploy the technology throughout its network.

Zachary Rodgers of The ClickZ Network reports that suit, which
was filed on behalf of 16 plaintiffs, names several ISPs as
defendants, including CenturyTel, WOW, CableOne, Embarq,
Knology, and Bresnan Communications.  The filing also targets an
additional 20 unnamed ISP defendants, referred to as "John
Does," which it claims also worked with NebuAd.

The six ISPs identified in the complaint retained NebuAd earlier
this year to conduct trials of the company's technology.  None
have active relationships with the company now, however,
according to The ClickZ Network report.

The plaintiffs named in the suit are:

       -- Andrew Paul Manard;
       -- Charlotte Miranda;
       -- Crystal Reid;
       -- Dale Mortensen;
       -- Dan Valentine;
       -- Frank Miranda;
       -- Kathleen Kirch;
       -- Melissa Becker;
       -- Neil Deering;
       -- Paul Driscoll;
       -- Samuel Green;
       -- Saul Dermer;
       -- Sherron Rimpsey;
       -- Terry Kirch; and
       -- Wayne Copeland

In general, ZDNet reports that the suit alleges violations of
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act and California's
Computer Crime Law, as well as aiding and abetting, civil
conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

It notes that NebuAd and the ISPs acted both independently and
jointly to access and disclose information about the ISP
subscribers that was sensitive and personally identifying, and
that the intentional interception of the information was done so
without the consent of the subscriber, according to the ZDNet
report.

In addition, the suit notes that the process was not in the
normal course of business for the ISP, but instead was used to
monetize the subscriber's data for advertisement purposes, ZDNet
reports.

The suit is "Valentine et al v. Nebuad, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-05113-TEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Thelton E. Henderson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net)
          Kamberedelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd
          Vernon, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8696

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          Law Office of Joseph H. Malley, PC
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Phone: 214-943-6100
          Fax: 214-943-6170


SCOTTISH RE: Investors Win $37.5M Award in N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Investors of Scottish Re Group Ltd. have won an award of $37.5
million in a class-action lawsuit against the Bermuda-based
company, several former officers and directors, its auditors,
and underwriters of two public offerings of the reinsurer's
shares in 2005, Royal Gazette reports.

KYC News' Offshore Alert Online Newsletter reported that among
the defendants were Lord Norman Lamont, a former U.K. Chancellor
of the Exchequer under the then-Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher, and the life reinsurer's former chief executive
officer Scott Wilkomm..  Michael Austin, who was a director of
the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority from 1997 to 2004, was
also named as a defendant.

According to The Royal Gazette, other defendants in the matter
were:

       -- Elizabeth Murphy;
       -- Dean E. Miller;
       -- Michael C. French;
       -- William Caulfeild-Browne;
       -- Robert Chmely;
       -- Hazel O'Leary;
       -- Lehman Brothers Inc.;
       -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.;
       -- Banc of America Securities LLC;
       -- Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.;
       -- Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.;
       -- Advest, Inc.;
       -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc.;
       -- Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated;
       -- Goldman, Sachs & Co.;
       -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC;
       -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.;
       -- Fox-Pitt, Kelton Incorporated;
       -- Bear Stearns International Limited;
       -- Lehman Brothers OTC Derivatives; and
       -- Scottish Re's independent auditors during the class
          period, Ernst & Young LLP.

The suit covers all investors who acquired Scottish Re shares of
any class between Feb. 17, 2005 and Feb. 20, 2007 are eligible
to recover some money, The Royal Gazette reported.

Initially, on Aug. 2, 2006, putative class-action lawsuit was
filed against the company in the the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, July 17,
2008).

Between Aug. 7, 2006, and Oct. 2, 2006, seven additional related
class-action complaints were filed against the company, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, and certain
third parties.

Each of the complaints allege that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the company's business and operations, thereby
causing investors to purchase the company's securities at
artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

Two of the complaints also allege violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, related to a 2005 preferred
stock offering.  Each of the class action suits filed seek an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

On Oct. 12, 2006, all of the cases were consolidated.  A
consolidated complaint was filed on Dec. 4, 2006.

On March 7, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated litigation.

On Nov. 2, 2007, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claims against Ernst & Young LLP, but gave the plaintiffs
leave to amend.  The court denied the dismissal motions brought
by the other named defendants.

In May, 2008, the parties held an initial mediation at which no
settlement was reached.

On June 16, 2008, all claims brought in the action against Glenn
Schafer, one of the defendants, were dismissed without
prejudice.

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint in which they seek to expand the class period, renew
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 allegations against Ernst & Young
LLP, and assert additional factual allegations.

The is suit is "Zuckerman v. Scottish Re Group Ltd. et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-05853-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Arthur N. Abbey, Esq. (aabbey@abbeygardy.com)
         Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis
         LLP, 212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-889-3700
         Fax: 212-684-5191

              - and -

         Gerald Harlan Silk, Esq. (jerry@blbglaw.com)
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-554-1282
         Fax: 212-554-1444

Representing the company is:

         Daniel Keywon Chang, Esq. (dchang@dl.com)
         Dewey & LeBoeuf, L.L.P.
         1101 New York Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-986-8000 x8221
         Fax: 202-986-8102

              - and -

         James E. Brandt, Esq. (james.brandt@lw.com)
         Latham & Watkins LLP
         885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-906-1278
         Fax: 212-751-4864


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Milberg LLP Continues Fraud Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 12, 2008 -- The law firm of Milberg LLP is
continuing to investigate potential conduct allegedly involving
The Spectranetics Corporation ("Spectranetics") certain of its
officers and/or directors which took place from approximately
February 2007 to September 2008.

     This alleged misconduct involved, among other things, the
improper promotion of Spectranetics products and the products of
others; the improper payment of persons involved in two prior
post-market studies of important Spectranetics' products; and
the improper receipt of parts for its products in violation of
customs laws.

     Spectranetics reportedly develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally
invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system for use
with Spectranetics' excimer laser system.

     On September 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release
revealing that it had been served by the United States Food and
Drug Administration and the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement with a search warrant issued by the United
States District Court, District of Colorado.

     The search warrant reportedly sought information and
correspondence relating to the promotion, use, testing,
marketing, and sales of certain of the Company's products, among
other things.

     As a result of this disclosure, Spectranetics' closing
stock price dropped from $9.00 per share on September 3, 2008 to
$4.73 the next day, and trading was halted.

     On September 15, 2008, it was announced that a physicians
group running a study of the use of Spectranetics lasers with
nitinol stents has voluntarily stopped enrollment in the study
to address safety concerns, and that the decision to halt
enrollment in this trial came after the FDA contacted it about
potential safety concerns.

     On September 25, 2008, Spectranetics also revealed that it
has been named as a defendant in several class action lawsuits
filed in United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, and that the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission has requested documents from Spectranetics in
connection with an investigation into its operations.

     At least one former employee has also brought suit against
Spectranetics for wrongful termination and made allegations
similar to certain of those discussed above, and Milberg LLP's
own independent investigation has also revealed additional
information pertinent to this matter.

For more details, contact:

          Kent A. Bronson
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor
          New York, NY  10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com


ST. JUDE: EEU Residents' Time to Appeal Junked Motion Expires
-------------------------------------------------------------
The time for appeal has expired for all persons residing in the
European Economic Union member jurisdictions who sought to be
plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit against St. Jude
Medical, Inc., which was was pending in a Minnesota state court,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2008.

              Minnesota Litigation by EUU Members

The suit was filed for all persons residing in the European
Economic Union member jurisdictions who have had a heart valve
replacement or repair procedure using a product with Silzone
coating, in Minnesota state court.  It was served upon the
company in February 2004 by two European citizens who now live
in Canada.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the
class, and in excess of $50 thousand for each plaintiff. It also
seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring.

The company opposed the plaintiffs' pursuit of this case on
jurisdictional, procedural and substantive grounds, and in April
2008, the Minnesota state court denied the plaintiffs' request
for class certification.

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 28, 2008)

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The
company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Four Silzone-Related Lawsuits Remain Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class-action lawsuits over St. Jude Medical
Inc.'s Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves reamin pending in
Canada, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2008.

                      Canadian Litigation

In one such case in Ontario, the court certified that a class
action involving Silzone patients may proceed.  The company's
request for leave to appeal the rulings on certification was
rejected, and the trial of the initial phase of this matter is
scheduled for March 2009.

A second case seeking class action in Ontario has been stayed
pending resolution of the other Ontario action.

A case filed as a class action in British Columbia is in the
early stages of discovery and has not been certified by the
court as a class action.  That case remains pending.

A court in Quebec has certified a class action, and that matter
is proceeding in accordance with the court orders.

In addition, in December 2005, the company was served with a
lawsuit by the Quebec Provincial health insurer to recover the
cost of insured services furnished or to be furnished to class
members in the class-action suit pending in Quebec.

The complaints in these cases request damages ranging from 1.5
million to 2.0 billion Canadian Dollars (the equivalent to
US$1.4 million to US$1.9 billion at Sept. 27, 2008).

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 28, 2008)

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The
company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Judgment Bid in Securities Suit to be Argued on Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class action is scheduled to be argued
on Dec. 5, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

In April and May 2006, five shareholders, each purporting to act
on behalf of a class of purchasers during the period Jan. 25
through April 4, 2006, separately sued the company and certain
of its officers in federal district court in Minnesota alleging
that the company made materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period relating to financial performance,
projected earnings guidance and projected sales of implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems.

The complaints, all of which seek unspecified damages and other
relief, as well as attorneys' fees, have been consolidated.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the
district court in March 2007.

The discovery process concluded in September, and the company
has filed a motion for summary judgment.

The company's directors and officers liability insurance
provides US$75 million of insurance coverage for St. Jude, the
officers and the directors, after a US$15 million self-insured
retention level has been reached.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The
company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


ST. JUDE: Minn. Silzone Suit Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
certify a new class in a consolidated lawsuit against St. Jude
Medical Inc. over its Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2008.

                    Consolidated Litigation

In October 2001, eight complaints were consolidated into one
class-action lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

The company requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit to review the District Court's initial class
certification orders and, in October 2005, the Eighth Circuit
issued a decision reversing these class certification rulings
and directed the District Court to undertake further
proceedings.

In October 2006, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify a nationwide consumer protection class
under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes and Private
Attorney General Act.

The company again requested the Eighth Circuit to review the
District Court's class certification orders and, in April 2008,
the Eighth Circuit again issued a decision reversing the October
2006 class certification rulings.  The Eighth Circuit again
returned the case to the District Court for continued
proceedings.

The plaintiffs have recently requested the District Court to
certify a new class.

                       Silzone Background

In July 1997, the company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated Silzone coating.  The company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating
Silzone coating.

Silzone coating was intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis,
a bacterial infection affecting heart tissue, which is
associated with replacement heart valve surgery.

In January 2000, the company initiated a voluntary field action
for products incorporating Silzone coating after receiving
information from a clinical study that patients with a Silzone-
coated heart valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with heart valves that did
not incorporate Silzone coating.

Subsequent to its voluntary field action, the company has been
sued in various jurisdictions by some patients who received a
product with Silzone coating.

Some of these claimants allege bodily injuries as a result of an
explant or other complications, which they attribute to Silzone-
coated products.

Others, who have not had their Silzone-coated heart valve
explanted, seek compensation for past and future costs of
special monitoring they allege they need over and above the
medical monitoring all other replacement heart valve patients
receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 28, 2008)

St. Jude Medical, Inc. -- http://www.sjm.com/-- develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiology and cardiac
surgery and atrial fibrillation therapy areas and implantable
neurostimulation devices for the management of chronic pain. The
company operates in four business segments: Cardiac Rhythm
Management, Cardiovascular, Atrial Fibrillation and Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems.  The company's principal products in
each operating segment include CRM-tachycardia implantable
cardioverter defibrillator systems and bradycardia pacemaker
systems (pacemakers); CV-vascular closure devices and heart
valve replacement and repair products; AF-electrophysiology
introducers and catheters, advanced cardiac mapping and
navigation systems and ablation systems, and ANS-
neurostimulation devices.


U.S. STEEL: Seeks Transfer of Minntac Lawsuit to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. wants to move a time-card lawsuit out of state
court, and into federal court, Renee Passal of WDIO-TV reports.

John Zupancich, a long-time employee of the company's Minntac
Plant in  Mt. Iron, Minnesota filed the proposed class-action
law suit against the company in September 2008.

Mr. Zupancich alleges that the time card procedures in place are
causing employees to work more hours than they are being paid
for.

U.S. Steel has filed a notice of removal, to get the case in the
federal system.  They cite the size of the proposed class
action, and the amount of pay that's in controversy.

Mr. Zupancich's attorney told WDIO-TV that they plan on filing a
motion to have the case brought back to the state court.


UBS FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Lehman Structured Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Financial Services, Inc. is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in New York that was brought on behalf of all investors
who were sold Lehman Brothers structured notes, also referred to
as Lehman principal protection notes, by the brokerage firm,
AboutLawsuits.com reports.

The Lehman Brothers structured notes were a hybrid financial
instrument, constructed from a combination of stocks, bonds,
currencies, commodities and derivatives, which were sold as low-
risk and safe investments, according to AboutLawsuits.com.

According to the report, UBS and a number of other brokerage
firms sold the structured notes to retail investors with
guaranteed principal protection from Lehman Brothers, which
means that investors were assured that they would at least
receive their initial investment back.

AboutLawsuits.com reported that when Lehman Brothers filed for
bankruptcy protection on Sept. 15, 2008, the guarantee that the
principal would be protected became meaningless, and the Lehman
notes are now essentially worthless.

Many investors have reported that they were sold these Lehman
structured notes even during the months right before the
bankruptcy filing, and they were provided no indication that the
investment bank had a severely weakened financial position as a
result of heavy investments in the subprime mortgage market,
AboutLawsuits.com reports.

The suit, captioned, "Gott et al v. UBS Financial Services Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-09578-VM," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Nov. 6,
2008.

It was specifically brought on behalf of all investors who were
sold Lehman Brothers Principal Protection Notes by the brokerage
firm.

The complaint alleges that UBS brokers made false and misleading
statements that omitted material facts about the risk associated
with investing in the Lehman structured notes.

It seeks to cancel the UBS investors' purchases of the Lehman
Brothers notes, and to allow the investors to recover what they
paid for the securities.

The suit is "Gott et al v. UBS Financial Services Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:08-cv-09578-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. (rkaplan@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714

          Daniel Charles Girard. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP
          601 California St, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415)-981-4800
          Fax: (415)-981-4846

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq. (siegel@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Fax: (816) 714-7101


VALLEY EYE: Faces Nev. Suit Alleging Consumer Fraud Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley Eye Center, its former surgeon, Dr. Stella Chou, its
owner, Dr. Anamika Jain, and its administrator, Dr. Vikas Jain,
face a purported class-action lawsuit in Nevada that accuses
them of deceptive trade, breach of contract, and consumer fraud,
KLAS-TV reports.

The suit was filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada
on Nov. 10, 2008.  It was filed by Barry Levinson, Esq. On
behalf of Mary Lydick, Richard Gamboni, Carol Bronke, and Deidra
Marley.

Specifically, the suit alleges that plaintiffs were lured into
Valey Eye by deceptive and misleading advertisements offering
"one price" "state of the art" Lasik surgery using "the most
advanced equipemt," and performed by "board certified
ophthalmologists," which blanketed the media in the Las Vegas,
Nevada area.

According to the complaint, ads for Valley Eye Center, guarantee
discount Lasik at a standard of care the clinic doesn't provide,
KLAS-TV reports.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

       http://www2.lasvegasnow.com/docs/ve_complaint.pdf

For more details, contact:

          Barry Levinson, Esq.
          Law Offices of Barry Levinson
          A Professional Corporation
          2810 South Rainbow Boulevard
          Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
          Phone: (702) 836-9696
          Fax: (702) 836-9699
          e-mail: contact@lawbybarry.com
          Web site: http://www.attorneybarrylevinson.com/


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Ohio Woman Sues Over Rash, Hive Causing Bras
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria's Secret is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
that claims the brand's popular bras are responsible for
injuring customers, causing rashes, hives and even permanent
scarring, ABC News reports.

Ohio resident Roberta Ritter filed a lawsuit against the company
May 14, 2008, claiming the Angels Secret Embrace and Very Sexy
Extreme Me Push-Up bras she purchased made her sick.

Ms. Ritter, 37, told ABC News, "I had the welts ... very red,
hot to the touch, extremely inflamed, blistery. It itched
profusely."   She adds, "I couldn't sleep, waking up itching."

According to Ms. Ritter's lawyers, they purchased the same bra
types named in the suit and had them tested at a lab.  The tests
revealed that the bras contained formaldehyde, a chemical used
in embalming.  The lawyers believe Ms. Ritter may be allergic to
formaldehyde.

Ms. Ritter's lawyers told ABC News they've been contacted by
dozens of other women who have experienced similar problems and
hope to be part of a class action lawsuit.

The paperwork for the class-action suit has been filed, but a
judge won't rule as to whether the case can move forward until
May 2009, according to the ABC News report.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANADIGICS INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 12, 2008 -- The Law offices of
Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ANAD) between July 25, 2007 and February 12, 2008(the "Class
Period").

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


ANADIGICS INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, Ga., Nov 12, 2008 -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of Anadigics, Inc. ("Anadigics" or the
"Company") common stock during the period between July 25, 2007
and February 12, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Anadigics and certain of its current
and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  During the Class Period, the Complaint alleges the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing
manufacturing inefficiencies associated with increased
production levels such that it would not be able to meet its
stated guidance.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (ormdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Spector Roseman Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Pa., Nov. 12, 2008 -- The law firm of
Spector, Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. announces that a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Cadence Design
Systems, Inc. ("Cadence" or the "Company") between April 23,
2008 through October 22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") during the Class
Period.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants caused
Cadence to improperly report approximately $24 million in
revenue in the first quarter of 2008 and in the six months ended
June 28, 2008 that will not be earned until the later quarters
and, therefore, should be recognized properly over the duration
of the customer contracts.

     On October 15, 2008, the Company announced the departures
of its Chief Executive Officer and four other senior executives.
As a result of this announcement, the price of Cadence common
stock dropped 15%.

     Then, on October 22, 2008, defendants acknowledged that the
Company was reviewing the recognition of revenue related to
customer contracts signed in the first quarter of 2008 and that
it expected to restate its financial statements for the entire
first half of 2008.  As a result of these disclosures, Cadence's
stock price dropped another 25%.

For more information, contact:

          Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 888-844-5862
          e-mail: classaction@srkw-law.com
          Web site: http://www.srkw-law.com


HARDINGE INC: Howard Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Nov 12, 2008 -- The Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, representing investors of Hardinge Inc., has filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Hardinge Inc. ("Hardinge" or the "Company"), between February
22, 2007 and February 21, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     The Complaint charges Hardinge and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     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:

       -- that Hardinge's orders and sales were slowing;

       -- slowing sales were causing Hardinge's inventory of
          outdated machinery to grow;

       -- that the Company failed to timely record an impairment
          in the value of its inventory;

       -- as a result, the Company's financial results were
          materially inflated; and

       -- 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 United States 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.  This announcement shocked the
market and caused the Company's stock to fall $4.16 per share,
or 25.43 percent, to close on February 21, 2008 at $12.20 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


HARDINGE INC: Johnson & Perkinson Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt., Nov. 12, 2008 -- Johnson & Perkinson
hereby announces the commencement of a class action lawsuit
naming Hardinge Inc.("Hardinge") (NASDAQ: HDNG) and officers and
directors of Hardinge.

     The action, docket numbered 6:08-cv-6490-MAT, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York.

     Individuals, families, trusts or other entities that
invested in Hardinge securities between February 22, 2007 and
February 21, 2008, have the opportunity to meaningfully
participate as Lead Plaintiffs in the currently pending
classaction litigation against the Company.  To do so, you must
apply to serve inthat capacity by December 29, 2008.

     The Complaint charges that defendants misled or failed to
inform the investing public that orders and sales were slowing,
thus causing Hardinge's inventory of outdated machinery to grow
and causing an undisclosed impairment in the value of inventory.

     The complaint further alleges that this undisclosed
information materially inflated the financial results of the
Company and demonstrated that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls.

     According to the complaint, the value of Hardinge's shares
declined significantly after the Company announced on February
21,2008, 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 of2007 and that the
Company planned to lower inventory by $20 million and to
discount inventory of older product lines.

For more information, contact:

          James F. Conway, III, Esq.
          Eben F. Duval, Esq.
          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, Vermont 05403
          Toll free: 1-888-459-7855
          e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com



WATERS CORP: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Nov. 12, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has
significant experience representing investors in prosecuting
claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Waters Corporation ("Waters" or
the "Company") (NYSE: WAT) between January 24, 2007 and January
22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Waters and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Waters was experiencing a slowdown in sales in the
          Japanese market as a result of decreased government
          regulation, which reduced the need for the Company's
          products and services;

       -- the Company's earnings were being materially impacted
          by an increased tax rate; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, Waters had no reasonable
          basis for its 2007 earnings guidance.

     On January 22, 2008, Waters announced its financial results
for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007.  In a conference call,
defendants revealed that an unexpected increase in the Company's
annual tax rate had adversely affected the Company's
performance.

     Moreover, Japanese sales were "weaker than anticipated due
to [ ] a change in the testing protocols for drinking water
analysis in Japan." On this news, shares of the Company's stock
fell $14.65 per share to close at $58.58 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites $24.29Mil Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
were US$24,293,000 as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$22,261,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 6, 2008.

Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
were US$22,434,000 as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 15, 2008)

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor
vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,620 Cases Ongoing v. Standard at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. says that, at Sept. 30, 2008,
about 3,620 asbestos-related cases were outstanding for which
the Company was responsible for any related liabilities,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 6, 2008.

A total of 3,560 asbestos cases, at June 30, 2008, were
outstanding for which the Company was responsible for any
related liabilities. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend
upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1,
2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof.

Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2008, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$6.5 million.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2008. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$25.3 million
to US$69.2 million for the period through 2059.

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor
vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Spends $13M for Asbestos at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses were US$13
million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$11.5 million during the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related expenses were US$37.3 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$37.5 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Cash paid during the period for asbestos-related claims and
expenses, net of insurance recoveries, was US$20.1 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$14.1 million during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites 105,100 Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2008, faced about 105,100
open asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among
defendants in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos
fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid more than US$1.3 billion in settlements and judgments
and over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, three percent have been claims of
plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, seven percent have
been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other cancers, and 90
percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging asbestosis,
pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of the
respiratory system.

Of the open cases at Sept. 30, 2008, the Company is aware of
4,500 (four percent) that involve claimants alleging
mesothelioma.

About 4,400 new claims were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in the first nine months of 2008, about the same
number as in the first nine months of 2007.

The number of new actions filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in 2007 (5,200) was lower than the number filed in
2006 (7,700) and 2005 (15,300).

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites 3 Pending Appeals at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at Sept. 30, 2008, three
appeals of its subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC were
pending from adverse verdicts totaling US$1.2 million.

Garlock has historically been successful in a majority of its
appeals. The Company said it believes that Garlock will continue
to be successful in the appellate process.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned an US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict
that was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial.
The case subsequently settled.

On the other hand, the Maryland Court of Appeals denied
Garlock's appeal from a 2005 verdict in a mesothelioma case in
Baltimore and Garlock paid that verdict, with post-judgment
interest, in the fourth quarter of 2006.

In a separate Baltimore case in the fourth quarter of 2006, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from
another 2005 verdict. The subsequent appeal of that decision was
also denied and Garlock paid that verdict in the second quarter
of 2007.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company has been required to provide cash
collateral to secure the full amount of the bonds, which can
restrict the use of a significant amount of the Company's cash
for the periods of such appeals.

At Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had US$1.1
million of cash collateral relating to appeal bonds recorded as
restricted cash in other assets on the Consolidated Balance
Sheets.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Sealing Has $53.9Mil for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s new asbestos-related settlement
commitments for its subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC
were US$53.9 million in the first nine months of 2008, compared
with US$63.6 million in the first nine months of 2007.

Some of the decline was because of timing.

Garlock settles and disposes of actions on a regular basis.
Garlock's historical settlement strategy was to settle only
cases in advanced stages of litigation. In 1999 and 2000,
however, Garlock employed a more aggressive settlement strategy.

The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a permanent
reduction in the number of overall asbestos claims through the
settlement of a large number of claims, including some early-
stage claims and some claims not yet filed as lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.

In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments. As a result, Garlock
reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million in 2000
to US$94 million in 2001 and US$86 million in 2002.

New settlement commitments totaled US$84 million in 2006 and
US$76 million in 2007.

About US$15 million of the 2006 amount and about US$5 million of
the 2007 amount were committed in settlements to pay verdicts
that had been rendered in the years 2003 to 2005.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Cites $323.3M Coverage at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, at Sept. 30, 2008, had available US$323.3
million of solvent insurance and trust coverage that the Company
believes will be available to cover future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments.

Garlock, at June 30, 2008, had available US$337.5 million of
solvent insurance and trust coverage that the Company said it
believes will be available to cover future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

In addition, at Sept. 30, 2008, Garlock classified US$24.7
million of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. The
Company said it believes that Garlock will recover some of the
insolvent insurance over time. In fact, Garlock collected about
US$1 million from insolvent carriers in 2007.

Of the US$323.3 million, US$219.4 million is allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims.

Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount
of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any
one year.

Based on these arrangements, which include settlement agreements
in place with most of the carriers involved, the Company
anticipates that its remaining solvent insurance will be
collected during the period 2008 2018 in about the following
annual amounts: 2008 through 2010 US$70 million per year
(US$58.8 million was collected in the first nine months of
2008); 2011 US$40 million; 2012 and 2013 US$25 million per
year; 2014 through 2016 US$20 million per year; and 2017 and
2018 US$12 million per year.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company reached an
agreement with a significant group of related U.S. Insurers.
These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of a
dispute.

The agreement provides for the payment of the full amount of the
insurance policies (US$194 million) in various annual payments
to be made from 2007 through 2018.

Under the agreement, Garlock received US$22 million in 2007 and
US$20 million in the first nine months of 2008.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Liability Totals $483.4M at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s total asbestos liability as of Sept.
30, 2008 was US$483.4 million, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

The liability included US$88.5 million classified as a current
liability and US$394.9 million classified as a noncurrent
liability.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had remaining solvent
insurance and trust coverage of US$323.3 million reflected on
its balance sheet as a receivable (US$61.1 million classified in
current assets and US$262.2 classified in non-current assets),
which it believes will be available for the payment of asbestos-
related claims.

Included in the receivable is US$219.4 million in insured claims
and expenses that Company subsidiaries have paid out in excess
of amounts recovered from insurance. These amounts are
recoverable under the terms of the Company's insurance policies
and have been billed to the insurance carriers.

The remaining US$103.9 million will be available for pending and
future claims.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures and markets well recognized, proprietary engineered
industrial products that include sealing products, metal and
metal-polymer bearings and filament wound products, air
compressors, and heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Magnetek
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related suits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these
claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against
liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no
liability for those claims.

The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings,
and has also tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers
for the companies from which the Company acquired the
businesses.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. provides digital
power control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator and energy delivery
applications. The Company's products consist primarily of
programmable motion control and power conditioning systems used
on the following applications: overhead cranes and hoists;
elevators; coal mining equipment; and alternative energy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Controls Has 972 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
as of the end of the third quarter of 2008, faced 972 active,
unresolved asbestos-related claims in California, Texas, New
York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 25 other states.

As of the end of the second quarter of 2008, Leslie was a named
defendant in about 846 active, unresolved asbestos-related
claims filed in California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and 25 other states. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
8, 2008)

Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Leslie,
which the Company acquired in 1989, has been and continues to be
named as a defendant in product liability actions brought on
behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In some instances, the
Company also has been named individually and as alleged
successor in interest in these cases.

About 474 of these claims involve claimants allegedly suffering
from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died from)
mesothelioma.

In addition to these claims, Leslie was also a named defendant
in about 4,700 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi.

Since 2004, however, the Mississippi Supreme Court has
interpreted joinder rules more strictly, and the state
legislature enacted a tort reform act under which each plaintiff
must independently satisfy venue provisions, thus preventing
thousands of out-of-state claimants from tagging onto a single
in-state plaintiff's case.

As a result of these changes, Mississippi state court judges
since 2004 have severed and dismissed tens of thousands of out-
of-state asbestos claims against numerous defendants including
Leslie.

On Oct. 12, 2007, a Los Angeles state court jury rendered a
verdict that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability
to Leslie of US$2.5 million.

Although Leslie accrued a liability in the third quarter of
fiscal 2007 for this verdict, both Leslie and the other
defendant against whom the judgment was rendered have appealed
this verdict.

In addition, Leslie has an incremental US$1.3 million in
liabilities related to an earlier verdict for which an appeal is
also pending and US$400,000 in accrued interest for both adverse
verdicts.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Cites $19.8Mil Liability at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Controls, Inc.'s asbestos related liabilities were
US$19.8 million as of Sept. 28, 2008, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

This US$19.8 million liability is composed of US$13.4 million
for existing claims, US$4.2 million related to adverse verdicts
and US$2.2 million for incurred but not paid legal costs.

Asbestos related insurance receivable amounts totaled US$11.4
million as of Sept. 28, 2008 and are comprised of US$7.1 million
for existing claims, US$2.6 million related to adverse verdicts
and US$1.6 million for incurred but not paid legal costs.

Existing claim and adverse verdict liability was US$17,569,000
as of Sept. 28, 2008, compared with US$13,731,000 as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Incurred defense cost liability was US$2,216,000 as of Sept. 28,
2008, compared with US$3,028,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The insurance receivable was US$11,367,000 as of Sept. 28, 2008,
compared with US$11,899,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

During the three months ended Sept. 28, 2008, there were 267
asbestos claims filed and 141 claims resolved with respect to
Leslie.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Records $9.4M Indemnity at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that the aggregate amount of
indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining on subsidiary Leslie
Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of asbestos insurance was about
US$9.4 million as of Sept. 28, 2008.

The remaining amount of Leslie's primary layer of insurance is
US$6.6 million.

To date, Leslie's insurers have paid the majority of the costs
associated with its defense and settlement of asbestos-related
actions. Under Leslie's cost-sharing arrangements with its
insurers, Leslie's insurers have paid 71 percent of defense and
settlement costs associated with asbestos-related claims and
Leslie was responsible for the remaining 29 percent of all such
defense and indemnity costs.

The amount of indemnity available under Leslie's primary layer
of insurance coverage was therefore reduced by 71 percent of any
amounts paid through settlement or verdict.

During the third quarter 2008, one of Leslie's insurers that has
paid eight percent of Leslie's historical asbestos defense and
indemnity costs informed Leslie that it had reached its maximum
indemnity obligation under the applicable insurance policy.

Therefore, Leslie will now be responsible for 37 percent of
asbestos related defense and indemnity costs until such time as
the aggregate amount of indemnity claims actually paid out by
the remaining two primary layer insurance carriers exceed policy
limits.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Spence & Hoke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims are still ongoing against two of CIRCOR
International, Inc.'s subsidiaries: Spence Engineering Company,
Inc., the stock of which it acquired in 1984; and Hoke, Inc.,
the stock of which it acquired in 1998.

The Company acquired Spence's stock in 1984 and Hoke's stock in
1998.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continue
to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Oct. 30, 2008.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries.

Management said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers. The
vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products
allegedly containing asbestos.

Management believes that, to the extent any of the products sold
by the Company's subsidiaries and at issue in these cases
contained asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Based upon several years of experience with those claims,
management said it believes that a small proportion of the
claimants has or will ever develop any asbestos-related illness.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related
aftermarkets. The Company conducts substantially all of its
operations through subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Still Facing Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and still faces numerous
lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary.

It is projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the
next 50 years for these claims is about US$13,800,000 (excluding
costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary
and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense
costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the
subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up
to the aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has
challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being
brought against the subsidiary.

In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the first
quarter of 2007 for US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007 and the second of
which was received in the first quarter of 2008.

During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the
remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on
behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily
injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may
choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding
the application of the policy limits.

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation provides
process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical
expertise to industries including steel, automotive, mining,
aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Ind. Facing 8,100 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,100 asbestos-related claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 8,200 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company continued to face 8,200 asbestos claims in the six
months ended June 30, 2008, the same as for the year ended Dec.
31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
recorded 200 claims closed during the period and 100 claims
opened during the period.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 700
claims closed during the period and 300 claims opened during the
period.

The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was
US$70.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$70.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability and
the claims for past payments was US$35.5 million at Sept. 30,
2008 and US$37.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The asbestos liability included in the above amounts was US$53.8
million at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$53.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.
The insurance receivable related to the liability and claims for
past payments was US$33.5 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$35.6
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

West Paterson, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company and sells its products
to diverse major markets for aerospace, adhesives, automotive
and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, inks, mining
and plastics. The Company operates in four major segments: Cytec
Surface Specialties, Cytec Performance Chemicals, Cytec
Engineered Materials and Building Block Chemicals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Units Still Facing Lawsuits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Pride International, Inc., since 2004,
have been facing several asbestos complaints that have been
filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by
several hundred individuals that allege that they were employed
by some of the named defendants between about 1965 and 1986.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Houston-based Pride International, Inc. provides offshore
contract drilling services. The Company provides these services
to oil and natural gas exploration and production companies
through the operation and management of 45 offshore rigs. The
Company also has four ultra-deepwater drillships under
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.7M for Cleanup at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$5.7 million, which is
under "Accounts payable and other," for asbestos and
environmental cleanup costs at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$3.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded US$4.5 million in "Accounts payable and
other" as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1,
2008)

The Company recorded US$3 million, which is under "Other long-
term liabilities," for A&E cleanup costs at Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded US$3 million in "Other long-term
liabilities" (to address asbestos and environmental cleanup) as
of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties the Company has or expects to be assessed.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-mile
U.S. Portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum pipeline.
Other midstream assets include 5,000 miles of crude oil
gathering and transportation lines and 28.9 million barrels of
crude oil storage and terminaling capacity, and 11,500 miles of
natural gas gathering and transportation pipelines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Liabilities Remain at $210M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$210 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7,
2008.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities
were US$210 million as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 8, 2008)

Long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$105.2 million as
of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$245.5 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$141.9 million as
of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 8, 2008)

Asbestos-related payments were US$140.3 million during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$226.2 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes glass
containers. The Company's products include bottles that are used
to hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, juice, and other
beverages. The Company also makes glass containers for food
products like soups, salad dressings, and dairy products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Still Facing 13,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 13,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company faced asbestos lawsuits and
claims involving about 13,000 plaintiffs and claimants. (Aug.
29, 2008)

The Company faces lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal
courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a
result of exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to
1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially
produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-temperature,
calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation material
containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and block
insulation business in April 1958.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31,
2007, about 89 percent of plaintiffs either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim
an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court.

About nine percent of plaintiffs specifically plead damages of
US$15 million or less, and one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less
than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less
than US$123 million.

The Company also has claims-handling agreements in place with
many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. The Company
said it believes that as of Sept. 30, 2008 there are about 1,100
claims against other defendants which are likely to be asserted
some time in the future against the Company. These claims are
not included in the pending "lawsuits and claims" totals.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical
monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage
claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
Sept. 30, 2008, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
364,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,200.

Certain of these dispositions have included deferred amounts
payable over a number of years. Deferred amounts payable totaled
US$29.2 million at Sept. 30, 2008 (US$34 million at Dec. 31,
2007) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.22 billion through 2007, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes glass
containers. The Company's products include bottles that are used
to hold beer, soft drinks, liquor, wine, juice, and other
beverages. The Company also makes glass containers for food
products like soups, salad dressings, and dairy products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3,960 Claims Ongoing v. 3M Co. at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company faced respiratory mask lawsuits (including asbestos)
that purport to represent 3,960 individual claimants as of Sept.
30, 2008, a reduction from about 4,700 individual claimants with
actions pending at June 30, 2008.

As of  June 30, 2008, the Company faced respirator mask or
asbestos lawsuits that purport to represent about 4,700
individual claimants, a significant reduction from about 8,790
individual claimants with actions pending at March 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's
mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company
and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace
exposures to asbestos, silica or other occupational dusts found
in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as
well as products manufactured by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.

Since about 2006, the Company has experienced a significant
decline in the number of new claims filed annually by apparently
unimpaired claimants.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide
variety of products and services. The Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation, Health Care, Display and Graphics, Consumer and
Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services, and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Cites $35Mil Aearo Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its newly acquired Aearo Technologies
subsidiary, as of Sept. 30, 2008, recorded US$35 million as an
estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims.

As part of the process of finalizing the purchase price
allocation, the Company increased this estimate from US$8
million as of June 30, 2008 to US$35 million.

As of June 30, 2008, Aearo recorded an US$8 million estimate of
the probable liabilities, for product liabilities and defense
costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and
silica-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the
stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
(Aearo). Aearo manufactures and sells various products,
including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head,
face, fall and respiratory protection products.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits.

Plaintiffs in these suits allege use of mask and respirator
products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for
alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos,
silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products
manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, settlements, and judgments is
currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot,
American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert
and their insurers (Payor Group).

Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO
Safety" brand and owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995.

This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an
annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-
related product liability claims for respirators manufactured
prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this
arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its
obligations in these matters.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide
variety of products and services. The Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation, Health Care, Display and Graphics, Consumer and
Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services, and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Records $126M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's respirator mask or asbestos liabilities were US$126
million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$121 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Sept. 30, 2008 liabilities include US$35 million for the
Company's Aearo Technologies subsidiary.

The Company's respirator mask or asbestos liabilities were
US$112 million as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

The Company's respirator mask or asbestos insurance receivables
were US$200 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$332
million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Respirator mask or asbestos insurance receivables were US$214
million as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,
2008)

On Jan. 5, 2007, the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$200 million
insurance recovery receivable.

The action was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and names, in
addition to the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers.

This action is similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with
respect to breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in
the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in
the Company's favor.

At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota
Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of
that decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the
proper venue of that case is Ramsey County.

As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the
Company was paid about US$14 million in the third quarter and
the Company currently has agreements in place to receive another
US$31 million in payments over the next three quarters in
connection with the respirator mask/asbestos receivable.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a diversified global
manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide
variety of products and services. The Company manages its
operations in six operating business segments: Industrial and
Transportation, Health Care, Display and Graphics, Consumer and
Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services, and Electro
and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. NL Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. faces lawsuits in several jurisdictions,
alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure
primarily to products manufactured by the Company's former
operations containing asbestos, silica and mixed dust.

About 460 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a
total of about 5,500 plaintiffs.

About 470 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a
total of about 6,500 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
22, 2008)

In addition, the claims of about 4,500 former plaintiffs have
been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket
in Ohio state courts.

The Company does not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. The Company has not accrued any amounts
for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and
inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any.

Dallas, Tex.-based NL Industries, Inc., through its subsidiary
Kronos Worldwide, supplies titanium dioxide (TiO2). The Company
also holds a majority stake in CompX International Inc., a
manufacturer of office furniture components. Valhi, which is
controlled by Contran Corporation, owns 83 percent of the
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc. is still facing asbestos-related cases in
Mississippi, according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, six asbestos cases in Illinois
and one asbestos case in California.

As of Nov. 3, 2008, the Company has been dismissed from a
majority of the cases in Mississippi, all of the cases in
Illinois and the one case in California.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims.

Cudahy, Wis.-based Ladish Co., Inc. designs and manufactures
high-strength forged and cast metal components for aerospace and
industrial markets. Jet engine parts, missile components,
landing gear, helicopter rotors, and other aerospace products
generate about 80 percent of the Company's sales; general
industrial components account for the remaining 20 percent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Unitrin Still Involved in Asbestos Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc. has some exposure to construction defect and
asbestos claims, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3,
2008.

The estimation of loss reserves relating to construction defect
and asbestos are subject to greater uncertainty than other types
of claims due to differing court decisions as well as judicial
interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have
tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such
policies.

Chicago-based Unitrin, Inc. engages in the property and casualty
insurance, life and health insurance and automobile finance
businesses. The Company conducts its continuing operations
through five operating segments: Kemper, Unitrin Specialty,
Unitrin Direct, Life and Health Insurance and Fireside Bank.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Facing Aaron Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to face an asbestos-related
lawsuit styled, "Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company
et al." in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss., according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries. The complaints also name certain subsidiaries of
TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may owe indemnity, and other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints. The number of
unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each complaint
ranges from about 20 to 70.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act. The plaintiffs seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

All of these cases were assigned to a special master who has
approved a form of questionnaire to be completed by plaintiffs
so that claims made would be properly served against specific
defendants. As of Oct. 31, 2008, about 700 questionnaires were
returned and the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a
questionnaire reply, have had their suits dismissed without
prejudice.

Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by
TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against
either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not
state in their questionnaire answers that the employment
actually involved exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct
claim as identified in the questionnaire answers.

Defendants not identified in the amended complaints were
dismissed from the plaintiffs' litigation. To date, three
plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their amended
complaints.

The Company has not determined which entity would be responsible
for those claims under the Master Separation Agreement between
TODCO and its former parent.

Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and gas exploration and
production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and international
locations through its Domestic Offshore, International Offshore,
Inland, Domestic Liftboats, International Liftboats and Delta
Towing segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be subject to unresolved legal
actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal
course of business.

The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Oct. 31, 2008.

Peoria, Ill.-based Caterpillar Inc. makes earthmoving machinery
and supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power-
generation systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Faces 180 Md. Cases at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, continues to face
180 pending asbestos cases in the State Courts of Maryland,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2008.

About 180 asbestos-related cases, as of June 30, 2008, were
still pending against Pepco Holdings, Inc. in the State Courts
of Maryland. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

Of the 180 cases as of Sept. 30, 2008, about 90 cases were filed
after Dec. 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for
defense and indemnification under the terms of the Asset
Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Company and Mirant under
which the Company sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

During 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints
filed in the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County,
Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on the Company's property.

Initially, a total of 448 individual plaintiffs added the
Company to their complaints. While the pleadings are not
entirely clear, it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2
million in compensatory damages and US$4 million in punitive
damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against the Company and significant numbers of
cases have been dismissed.

As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings and
meetings and one motion for summary judgment, the Company has
had about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with
prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about
US$360 million, the Company said it believes the amounts claimed
by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes
electricity to about 1.9 million customers and natural gas to
122,000 customers in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Washington, D.C., through its utility subsidiaries. The Company
also has international energy interests.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Has Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation still faces personal injury
claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors
alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene while working
at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired
companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 4, 2008.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation explores for, develops, produces, gathers,
processes, and markets natural gas, crude oil, condensate and
natural gas liquids (NGLs). The Company also engages in the hard
minerals business through non-operated joint ventures and
royalty arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $312.1M in Losses & ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holding Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos exposures were
US$312,140,000 for the three and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2008, compared with US$326,686,000 for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's net unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos exposures
were US$339,268,000 for the three and six months ended June 30,
2008, compared with US$328,954,000 for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos
exposures were US$395,628,000 for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$410,184,000 for the three
and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos
exposures were US$421,617,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2008, compared with US$421,380,000 for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,
2008)

The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
arising from the sale of general liability, commercial multi-
peril and umbrella insurance policies, the majority of which
were written for accident years 1985 and prior.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100-
percent owned Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance
distributed through an independent producer force located across
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Increases Reserves by $25.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp., during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2008, increased its asbestos reserves by US$25.5
million, according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The increase was attributable to the settlement of an asbestos
lawsuit with Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
incurred the US$25.5 million and paid US$18,333,000 related
thereto in the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Morristown, N.J.-based Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is 100-
percent owned Fairfax Inc., which is ultimately owned by Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, offers commercial property and casualty insurance
distributed through an independent producer force located across
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $147.3M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestosis and
environmental claim reserves were US$147.3 million at Sept. 30,
2008, compared with US$158.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$176.6 million at
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$190.5 million.

Chicago-based Old Republic International Corporation is an
insurance holding company operating in three primary areas. Old
Republic General Insurance offers general commercial liability
and property/casualty insurance. The Mortgage Guaranty unit
offers mortgage guaranty insurance. Title Insurance Groups
specialize in title insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OneBeacon Raises Incurred Losses by $83.4M
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., based on its September 2008
asbestos and environmental exposures study, increased its best
estimate of its incurred losses ceded to National Indemnity
Company (NICO), net of underlying reinsurance, by US$83.4
million to US$2.2 billion.

In connection with the Company's acquisition by White Mountains
Insurance Group, Ltd. in 2001 (the OneBeacon Acquisition), Aviva
plc caused the Company to purchase a reinsurance contract with
NICO for up to US$2.5 billion in old A&E claims and certain
other exposures (the NICO Cover).

Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economic
benefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of the
Company's third party reinsurers in existence at the time the
NICO Cover was executed (Third Party Recoverables). As a result,
the Third Party Recoverables serve to protect the US$2.5 billion
limit of NICO coverage for the Company's benefit.

The US$2.2 million is within the US$2.5 billion coverage
provided by the NICO Cover.

About US$1.1 billion of the estimated US$2.2 billion of incurred
losses have been paid by NICO through Sept. 30, 2008.

The ratio of reserves net of Third Party Recoverables for A&E
losses at Sept. 30, 2008 to trailing three year average paid
loss and allocated LAE (survival ratio) is 13.3 years including
the remaining available protection under the NICO Cover.

Canton, Mass.-based OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. provides
personal auto and homeowners, commercial, and specialty
insurance, including marine, travel, media liability, medical
malpractice, and tuition coverage for when a student is forced
to leave school unexpectedly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas, Inc. Still Has Cooper Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas, Inc. and other parties continue to face an
asbestos insurance action filed by Cooper Industries, LLC in
Cook County Circuit Court, Ill.

The case is styled Cooper Industries, LLC v. PepsiAmericas,
Inc., et al., Case No. 05 CH 09214.

On May 31, 2005, Cooper filed and later served a lawsuit against
the Company, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and the Trustee of a Trust.

The claims involve the Trust and insurance policy. Cooper
asserts that it was entitled to access US$34 million that
previously was in the Trust and was used to purchase the
insurance policy.

Cooper claims that Trust funds should have been distributed for
underlying Pneumo Abex asbestos claims indemnified by Cooper.
Cooper complains that it was deprived of access to money in the
Trust because of the Trustee's decision to use the Trust funds
to purchase the insurance policy. Pneumo Abex, LLC, the
corporate successor to the Company's prior subsidiary, has been
dismissed from the suit.

During the third quarter of 2006, the Trustee's motion to
dismiss, in which the Company had joined, was granted and three
counts against the Company based on the use of Trust funds were
dismissed with prejudice, as were all counts against the
Trustee, on the grounds that Cooper lacks standing to pursue
these counts because it is not a beneficiary under the Trust.

The Company then filed a separate motion to dismiss the
remaining counts against it. The Company's motion was also
granted during the third quarter of 2006 and all remaining
counts against it were dismissed with prejudice.

Cooper subsequently filed a notice of appeal with regard to all
rulings by the court dismissing the counts against the Company
and the Trustee.

Prior to any oral argument, the appellate court on Sept. 7, 2007
issued an opinion affirming the trial court's opinion. Cooper
subsequently filed motion papers asking the Illinois Supreme
Court to accept a discretionary appeal of the rulings.

The Trustee then filed an opposition brief explaining why the
Illinois Supreme Court should not allow another appeal, and the
joined in that brief. On Nov. 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of
Illinois denied Cooper's petition for leave to appeal the
appellate court's Sept. 7, 2007 ruling.

Cooper did not file a petition for certiorari seeking
discretionary review by the U.S. Supreme Court by the Feb. 27,
2008 deadline for such filing.

The Company also has certain indemnification obligations related
to product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate
out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex. Other companies not
owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible to
Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product
liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date
in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company.

Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas, Inc. operates as a Pepsi
bottler. The Company also distributes Lipton Iced Teas,
Schweppes (tonic water, ginger ale from Dr Pepper Snapple
Group), Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water. The Company
operates in 19 U.S. states (mostly in the Midwest) and holds
about 19 percent of the U.S. market for Pepsi products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Markel Records $24.9M Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation's underwriting loss for both the quarter and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008 included US$24.9 million of
loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures
and related reinsurance bad debt compared with US$34 million in
both periods of 2007.

For both periods of 2007, the increase in loss reserves for A&E
exposures was offset in part by favorable development of loss
reserves in other discontinued lines of business.

The increase in A&E reserves in all periods was a result of the
completion of the Company's annual review of these exposures
during the third quarters of 2008 and 2007.

Glen Allen, Va.-based Markel Corporation markets and underwrites
specialty insurance products and programs to various niche
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Piacentine Suit Filed v. 109 Firms in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Piacentine, on behalf of Edward C. Piacentine, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 109 defendant corporations in
Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on Oct. 30, 2008,
Asbestos.com reports.

Mrs. Piacentine, a resident of Wisconsin, claims Mr. Piacentine
developed pleural mesothelioma after experiencing occupational
asbestos exposure. He was diagnosed with the disease on March
16, 2007 and died on May 23, 2007.

The suit claims Mr. Piacentine worked between 1953 and 1955 as a
meat packer, between 1955 and 1957 as a corpsman, and between
1957 and 1967 as a construction worker and truck driver. Between
1967 and 1996, he also worked as an electrical inspector for the
state of Wisconsin.

The 11-count suit seeks at least US$350,000, including exemplary
damages, economic damages, and compensatory damages for mental
and physical pain, medical expenses, and loss of income.

The suit also seeks punitive damages against Ferris Kimball
Company, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Insulation and
Young Insulation Group of St. Louis for negligence and
misconduct.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smith Case v. Norfolk Ongoing in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don W. Smith, on Oct. 31, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., Asbestos.com reports.

Mr. Smith claims his chronic pulmonary disease was wrongfully
caused as a result of toxin exposure while working as a
locomotive engineer.

The suit claims Mr. Smith suffered from exposure to a range of
toxins, including asbestos, diesel exhaust, smoke, and fumes.

Mr. Smith states his illness has caused him considerable mental
and physical pain, and that his general enjoyment of life has
suffered. The suit also alleges he has lost money due to medical
expenses and being unable to work.

The two-count lawsuit, which claims the Company was negligent in
failing to provide Mr. Smith with a safe workplace, seeks
damages to compensate for these factors and legal costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chester Widow Aids HSE in Asbestos Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Antrobus, a 64-year-old widow of Waverton, Chester,
England, is working with the Health and Safety Executive to
launch the campaign, "Asbestos the Hidden Killer," which aims
to reduce the 20 deaths of tradesmen that occur each week, the
Evening Leader reports.

Mrs. Antrobus' husband, Tony Antrobus, died of mesothelioma in
2005 after years of working as a joiner. He came into the
contact with asbestos throughout his working life. However, he
died before he reached retirement.

Richard Jarvis, consultant in health protection for the Health
Protection Agency in Cheshire and Merseyside, said, "Once
mesothelioma has developed it is very difficult and often
impossible to treat or cure. In order to prevent inhaling
asbestos fibers it is important to always consider the
possibility that asbestos may be present before starting work,
and make use of personal protective equipment.

"Following the HSE advice right from starting out in a trade
will help reduce the possibility of breathing in asbestos and
will prevent illness in later life."

Research shows many workers, particularly tradesmen, think they
are not personally at risk of exposure to asbestos and the
diseases it can cause.

They think because asbestos was banned many years ago, the
problem has been dealt with and therefore it is not relevant to
them.

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

Asbestos may be present in any building built or refurbished
before the year 2000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La Trobe University Sues for AUD16M Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
La Trobe University, in Australia, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against property developer Baracon Group Pty Ltd and one
of its directors, Brett Rogers, in the Federal Court, The Age
reports.

The university seeks damages from Baracon and Mr. Rogers under
the Trade Practices Act.

In the statement of claim, the university says Baracon and Mr.
Rogers said the site (the Argus building) had "gone through
extensive cleaning and all of the hazardous material (had) been
removed."

However, while redevelopment was under way, hazardous materials
were found, costing the university millions. The university says
the removal of the asbestos and lead paint cost AUD15,896,561.

The university says the figure listed in the pre-purchase budget
for pre-construction costs, including hazardous material
removal, was AUD350,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC's Suit v. 10 Ex-Hardie Workers Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's lawsuit
involving asbestos against 10 former executives and directors of
James Hardie Industries N.V. is ongoing in the New South Wales
Supreme Court, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

ASIC alleges that the Company misled the public about the
sufficiency of funding in the trust.

Former chief financial officer Phillip Morley recalled that
there was a sense of urgency to establish the trust before March
31, 2001, when Hardie ruled off its annual accounts.

Mr. Morley, now retired and living in Sydney, said the board was
briefed about a proposed new accounting standard that would
require Hardie to raise a provision in its accounts for its
"best estimate" of its future asbestos liabilities.

Mr. Morley recalled former chief executive Peter Macdonald
telling a board meeting on Jan. 17, 2001, that the Company's
main competitor, CSR Limited, was planning to disclose its
asbestos liabilities by March 31, 2001, before the new
accounting standard took effect.

Mr. Macdonald had said it was important that James Hardie set up
the trust before that date, Mr. Morley said.

Mr. Morley is alleged to have breached his duties of care and
diligence to the Company by not telling the board at a meeting
on Feb. 15, 2001 that there were shortcomings in a cash flow
model he had prepared to illustrate how long the funds in the
trust were likely to last.

The three executives and seven directors defending the case are
all entitled to choose whether to give evidence. Mr. Macdonald
and Hardie's former general counsel Peter Shafron have both
elected to rely on documents for their defenses.

Tom Bathurst, QC, who represents former non-executive directors
Michael Brown, Michael Gillfillan, Meredith Hellicar and Martin
Koffel told Justice Ian Gzell his clients were still considering
whether to give evidence themselves.

The Court has received no formal indication from former
directors Dan O'Brien, Greg Terry and Peter Willcox.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Insurers to Oppose New Asbestos Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance firms in the United Kingdom are set to challenge in
the Scottish Parliament a Bill that would allow Scottish
residents with pleural plaques to sue companies that exposed
them to asbestos, Telegraph.co.uk reports.

No claims for pleural plaques can be brought in England and
Wales following a court ruling in October 2007.

The House of Lords judgment is not binding in Scotland but is
regarded as highly persuasive.

Ministers in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been
consulting on whether to reverse the House of Lords decision or
to set up a compensation scheme.

However, the Scottish Government has decided to amend the law
and the Scottish Parliament is debating the Damages (Asbestos-
Related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, which would make asbestos-
related pleural plaques an actionable personal injury.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP,
and the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, Alex
Fergusson MSP, have certified that the Asbestos-Related
Conditions Bill is within the Parliament's legislative
competence.

However, an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law if it is
incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The
Association of British Insurers says its members have been
advised that the Bill is not compatible with Article 6 of the
convention, the right to a fair hearing, or Article 1 of the
First Protocol, which protects property rights.

Nick Starling, the ABI's Director of General Insurance and
Health, said, "The Bill seeks to overturn a fundamental
principle of UK law: that compensation is only payable when a
claimant has suffered physical harm due to someone's negligence.

"This could open the floodgates for claims from anyone exposed
to a risk but not suffering any adverse impact on their health.
The resultant higher costs would end up being paid for by all
Scottish firms and taxpayers."

Mr. Starling said the insurance industry was fundamentally
opposed to the Bill. He stressed that insurers would continue to
pay claims "which do impact on health" as quickly as possible.
But, he insisted, pleural plaques did not fall into this
category.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SNP, Westminster Disagree over Damages Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish ministers are in dispute with Westminster, the United
Kingdom's parliament, on concerns that Scottish National Party's
legislation on asbestos could cut Scotland's budget by tens of
millions of pounds, Scotland on Sunday reports.

The Damages Bill has been introduced to overturn the October
2007 House of Lords ruling that people with pleural plaques
should no longer be able to claim compensation.

The bill, which would set apart Scotland from the rest of the
United Kingdom by compensating those with the plaques north of
the border, has been championed by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice
Minister.

The Lords decided against paying damages to those individuals
since the plaques are not harmful and cause no physical
symptoms. Medical experts agree that although they are a
"marker" of asbestos exposure, plaques do not necessarily mutate
into lethal forms of asbestosis like mesothelioma, which still
merit damages.

Mr. MacAskill was supported by Members of Scottish Parliament of
all parties as well as campaign group Clydeside Action on
Asbestos and Thompsons Solicitors, which handles 90 percent of
asbestos claims in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has said that the potential cost to
businesses, insurers, Government departments and local
authorities will be GBP6.5 million a year.

Others estimate the cost could run into tens of millions once
the floodgates open, with the Association of British Insurers
claiming the annual cost could be as much as GBP607 million.

Holyrood's Justice Committee has raised concerns that the
legislation will invoke a Treasury mechanism known as the
Statement of Funding Policy.

The Policy states that if a decision of a devolved
administration has financial implications for the U.K.
Government, the devolved administration will meet that cost.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Retired Welder's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 83-year-old retired welder,
Jan Rusenek, was linked to exposure to asbestos,
gazettelive.co.uk reports.

The hearing was told that Mr. Rusenek, of Castlewood,
Middlesbrough, England, was admitted to James Cook University
Hospital on Feb. 10, 2008 and died on Feb. 19, 2008.

Medical evidence revealed the cause of death to be the lung
condition malignant mesothelioma.

Teesside Coroner Michael Sheffield recorded a verdict of death
due to an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beeford Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Hull, England, heard that the death of 53-year-old
John Johnson was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Bridlington
Free Press reports.

Mr. Johnson, of Alton Park, Beeford, England, was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma 10 weeks before his death in June 2008.

At the inquest on Nov. 4, 2008, coroner Geoffrey Saul said he
needed a further report on Mr. Johnson's working history before
he could finally close the inquest with a verdict.

Dr. Justin Cooke, who carried out a post mortem examination said
Mr. Johnson had died of pneumonia as a result of the
mesothelioma. He said, "Nearly all mesotheliomas are related to
asbestos exposure."

The inquest heard it was highly likely that Mr. Johnson had come
into contact with asbestos during his work as a joiner.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lambeth Council's Probe on Asbestos Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The investigation of the Lambeth Council, in South London,
England, over management of asbestos risk, is ongoing, Inside
Housing reports.

The GBP1 million project at the Central Hill estate began in
2007. However, workers were unaware there was asbestos in the
200 flats because Lambeth Council did not have an accurate
record of where the substance was present in its 33,000 homes.

The Council called in safety experts after complaints from
residents who were aware that there was asbestos in certain
areas. Specialist equipment was used to complete the work.

A cross-party group of councilors, or the Asbestos Commission,
will investigate how the Council monitors asbestos risk. The
group is expected to report its findings early in 2009.

A spokesperson for Lambeth's new arm's-length management
organization, Lambeth Living, which manages the flats, said it
welcomed the investigation as a way of engaging with tenants and
improving practice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Boss Facing Injury Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Morris, the former boss of electrician Michael Victor
Smith, who died of mesothelioma, is facing charges over Mr.
Smith's exposure to asbestos and subsequent death, the Leicester
Mercury reports.

Mr. Smith died at the age of 52 in May 2004. His wife, Susan
Smith, of High Street, Packington, England, is suing two of his
former employers for "personal injury, expense and loss."

At London's High Court, giving evidence before Judge Oliver-
Jones, QC, Mr. Morris, Mr. Smith's boss at J&M Morris Electrical
Contractors from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, denied any
knowledge of Mr. Smith being exposed to asbestos on the job.

In a statement made before his death, Mr. Smith said he came
into contact with asbestos, which he said was used to line walls
and ceilings, while working for J&M Morris in pubs in
Leicestershire.

After hearing Mr. Morris knew of dangers relating to asbestos at
the time, the judge asked, "You did not raise the issue (of
asbestos) with your men...because, as far as you were aware, you
weren't encountering it?"

Mrs. Smith's counsel, Allan Gore, QC, said J&M Morris and the
Midland Co-operative Society were liable for substantial damages
for the "pain and suffering" Mr. Smith endured before he died
and the "loss of dependency" suffered by his widow and their
children.

Mr. Gore claims the companies were either negligent or in breach
of their statutory duty, or both, for allowing Mr. Smith to be
exposed to asbestos.

Mr. Smith had worked as an electrician for both companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITUC Decries Asbestos, Endosulfan Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The International Trade Union Confederation has decried the
exclusion of chrysotile asbestos and the pesticide endosulfan
from the list of dangerous products under the Rotterdam
Convention, Scoop World Independent News reports.

The Rotterdam Convention is the international agreement, which
regulates exports of hazardous chemicals.

ITUC General Secretary Guy Ryder said, "Industry lobbies and the
profit motive have tragically prevailed over the safety of
workers and consumers with the refusal to include these two
highly dangerous substances from the coverage of this
Convention."

Mr. Ryder added that "governments must move urgently to correct
this mistake, which leaves the health of many thousands of
workers in mining, construction, agriculture and other sectors
at grave risk."

Under the Rotterdam Convention, governments maintain a list of
dangerous substances which may be exported according to the
principle of "Prior Informed Consent" (PIC): exporting countries
must get specific permission from potential importing countries
before the substances can be shipped.

According to the rules of procedure of the Rotterdam Convention,
chemicals can be added to the PIC list if signatories to the
1998 convention reach consensus.

At the most recent meeting on the Convention, seven asbestos-
importing countries (India, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Pakistan,
Philippines, Ukraine and Vietnam) supported asbestos-exporting
Kazakhstan in opposing the PIC-listing.

Other exporters (Brazil, Canada, Russia and Zimbabwe) are known
to oppose restrictions on the trade in asbestos, despite the
huge toll of death and disease it is known to cause.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurring No Amounts at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Sept. 30, 2008, still has not
incurred and does not expect to incur material amounts related
to asbestos-related claims not subject to certain arrangements
("Remaining Claims"), according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these
contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third
parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related
claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and
does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts
related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Before the 1988 sale,
those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing
friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named as a defendant in various personal
injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to
asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement
(Transfer Agreement).

Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI
substantially all of its assets and liabilities other than the
assets and liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace
Division (Aerospace) and certain contingent liabilities and the
related assets, including its historical insurance and
indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims, that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement,
all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related
claims are managed and paid by others.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Harland Clarke business
makes checks and related products, forms, treasury supplies and
related delivery and fraud-prevention services. Harland
Financial Solutions provides lending and mortgage origination
and servicing applications, business intelligence solutions, and
customer management software for community banks and credit
unions. Mafco Worldwide makes licorice extract, used for
flavoring candy and tobacco products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at Oct. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of Oct. 10, 2008, of the
3,312 asbestos cases brought against its subsidiary Central
Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, 1,183 remain pending.

As of July 15, 2008, 1,185 asbestos cases remained against
Central Hudson, out of 3,312 asbestos cases filed. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group, Inc. provides
electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary Central
Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers
in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley,
and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile
service territory that extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Faces 25T Claims in 6 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, still faced
about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, and New Jersey.

It has been difficult for Fairmont to determine how many of the
cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs who were
actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by
Fairmont.

While Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products,
the availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at
this time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named
as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage
with respect to these asbestos cases.

For the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008 and the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007, payments by Fairmont with respect to
asbestos cases have not been material.

The Company has also been sued in a limited number of asbestos
cases in Pennsylvania and Illinois. All involve claims that the
plaintiffs developed asbestos-related diseases as a result of
working with or around asbestos containing products used at
mines operated by subsidiaries Consolidation Coal Company or
CONSOL of Kentucky.

The Company has raised a number of defenses including lack of
jurisdiction and that it is not properly named as a party since
the Company did not own or operate the mines at which the
alleged exposures occurred.

Discovery is still in the early stages in each matter.

Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy Inc. mines coal. The Company
has some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern
and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and produces
about 65 million tons of coal annually. Customers include
electric utilities and steel mills. The Company also explores
for and produces natural gas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Remands Lofton Action to Jones County
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
Southern Division, granted the remand motion filed by Troy
Lofton in an asbestos lawsuit filed against various defendants.

The matter was remanded to the Circuit Court of Jones County,
Miss.

The case is styled Troy Lofton, Plaintiff v. Phillips 66
Company, et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge Walter J. Gex, III entered judgment in
Civil Action No. 1:08cv1008WJG-JMR on Nov. 4, 2008.

Mr. Lofton filed the suit on or about March 6, 2006, seeking
damages for alleged injuries caused by exposure to asbestos
containing products. The case was originally filed in 2004, and
was part of multi-plaintiff litigation which was severed,
transferred or dismissed without prejudice in Mississippi state
court actions.

According to the Defendants, the "proper" defendants remaining
in this case are Union Carbide Corporation, Conoco Phillips
Company, and Montello, Inc. They claimed that Mississippi Mud,
Inc. and Oilfield Service and Supply Company, Inc. were added as
defendants to defeat jurisdiction in this case.

Defendants maintained that the removal was timely, because
Oilfield Service filed a motion for summary judgment, which
establishes, according to the removing defendants, that Oilfield
Service was not a mud company and never supplied asbestos-
drilling mud additives to drilling rig operations.

Defendants claimed that the other paper allowing the removal of
this case was the motion for summary judgment. The 30-day limit
was met, according to Defendants, because the summary judgment
motion was filed Sept. 4, 2008, and the removal notice was filed
on Sept. 25, 2008.

Mr. Lofton identified Oilfield Service as a distributor of
asbestos drilling mud additives in his deposition dated Dec. 7,
2007. He contended that this evidences that he did develop
testimony concerning Oilfield Service's potential liability in
this case.

Mr. Lofton further contended that no manipulative action was
taken on his part to ensure that Defendants could not remove the
case until beyond the one-year limitation period under the
statute. He argued that the fraudulent and manipulative conduct
by him must have occurred during the first year of removability
to allow for the removal of a case beyond the one-year time
limitation.

Mr. Lofton further argued that there was no "other paper"
creating the removability of this case filed within 30 days of
the removal in this case.

The Court found that Mr. Lofton's motion to remand this case to
the Circuit Court of Jones County, Miss., should be granted.

Allen R. Vaught, Esq., of Franklin, Cardwell & Jones in Dallas,
represented Troy Lofton.

John Jeffrey Trotter, Esq., of Adams and Reese, Marcy B. Croft,
Esq., of Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy in Jackson,
Miss., represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Certification for Class in AMS Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, in a
lawsuit involving asbestos filed by The Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund, Inc. and other parties against Halliburton
Company.

The case is styled The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund,
Inc., et al., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Lead Plaintiff, v. Halliburton Company, Defendants.

District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 3:02-CV-1152-M on Nov. 4, 2008.

Before the Court was the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
The Court held a hearing on this Motion on March 21, 2008 and
approved the AMS as Class Representative.

The Court also noted the parties' agreement, and found
independently, that the Proposed Class satisfied Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 as to numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy of AMS as a class representative.

The parties did not dispute, and the Court also found, that but
for a single issue, a class action would be the superior method
for adjudicating the claims of these class members.

The sole issue in dispute was the application of the requirement
that, in a securities fraud class action, loss causation must be
proven at the class certification stage. Absent this
requirement, the Court would certify the class.

However, having considered the parties' extensive briefing, oral
argument, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion
that Plaintiffs did not demonstrate loss causation as to any of
their claims.

Plaintiffs' Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint against
Halliburton alleged misrepresentations with respect to three
issues:

-- The expense of asbestos litigation;

-- Changes to the accounting methodology used by Halliburton and
their effect on earnings; and

-- The benefits of Halliburton's merger with Dresser Industries.

The class period was June 3, 1999 to Dec. 7, 2001. Plaintiffs
alleged that during this period Halliburton, under the guidance
of Dick Cheney (CEO until July 2000) and David Lesar (CEO since
July 2000), downplayed the Company's estimated asbestos
liabilities, falsified earnings statements, and overstated the
benefits of a merger with Dresser, in an effort to inflate
Halliburton's stock price.

Plaintiffs alleged that Halliburton "intentionally concealed and
affirmatively misrepresented the true significance of
Halliburton's exposure to asbestos liabilities in Halliburton's
financial statements, [SEC][sic] filings, press releases and
communications with analysts and investors."

Plaintiffs pointed to four separate statements they claimed were
corrective disclosures. First, on June 28, 2001, Halliburton
disclosed that Harbison-Walker, a former subsidiary of
Halliburton's new subsidiary (Dresser), had requested financial
assistance from Halliburton to cover potential losses from
asbestos lawsuits.

Second, Plaintiffs pointed to a Form 10-Q filed by Halliburton
with the SEC on Aug. 9, 2001, in which it further increased its
asbestos liability reserves to US$124 million in response to the
request for assistance from Harbison-Walker.

Third, on Oct. 30, 2001, Halliburton issued a press release
announcing a US$150 million jury verdict in an asbestos lawsuit,
for which Halliburton would be responsible for US$21.3 million.

Fourth, on Dec. 7, 2001, Halliburton issued a press release
detailing the recent asbestos verdicts returned against it.

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs' arguments with respect to
the asbestos issue are legally insufficient to establish loss
causation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 700 Stearns Lawsuits Pending v. RBS Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. continues to face about 700 asbestos-related
lawsuits (with about 6,950 claimants) concerning its Stearns
division, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions over alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches previously
made by Stearns and its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and Water
Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Still Has 2 Injury Suits at Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary continues to be a defendant
in two pending multi-defendant lawsuits over alleged personal
injuries due to the presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
made by Prager.

There are about 3,700 claimants in the Prager lawsuits,
according to the Company's report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The ultimate outcome of these suits cannot presently be
determined. To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid
100 percent of the costs related to the Prager lawsuits.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and Water
Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Has 150 Actions at Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity, is
still a defendant in about 150 asbestos-related lawsuits,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
27, 2008.

These suits are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously made by Falk.

About 1,840 claimants are in these suits.

The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be
determined.

Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies
Corporation, is defending the Company in these lawsuits under
its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs
to date.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and Water
Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Rise to 6,500 at Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zurn Industries, LLC, one of RBS Global, Inc.'s Water Management
subsidiaries, and 113 other unrelated companies face about 6,500
asbestos related suits representing about 45,000 claims, as of
Sept. 27, 2008.

Zurn faced about 6,000 asbestos-related cases representing about
45,000 claims as of June 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
22, 2008)

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$14.3
billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims allege
personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily
in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of
Zurn.

Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled under a defense strategy funded by insurers.

The Company currently estimates the potential liability for
asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn and the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years is US$134 million, of
which Zurn expects to pay US$116 million in the next 10 years on
those claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Sept. 27, 2008, is US$280
million, and believes that all current claims are covered by
this insurance.

However, certain coverage gaps will exist if and after the
Company's other carriers have paid the first US$204 million of
aggregate liabilities. In order for the next US$51 million of
insurance coverage from solvent carriers to apply, management
estimates that it would need to satisfy US$14 million of
asbestos claims. Layered within the final US$25 million of the
total US$280 million of coverage, management estimates that it
would need to satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos
claims.

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$280 million of insurance
coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos
liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$280 million.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial company
comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and Water
Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $7.9Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability is about US$7.9 million, which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements as of Sept. 28, 2008.

Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability
payments of about US$400,000 over the next 12 months.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 2026 and
March 2038 to range between US$5 million and US$15 million using
actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to
30 years.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate
liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance with
U.S. generally accepted accounting principles was about US$8.4
million, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, June 6, 2008)

Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corporation manufactures
and markets material handling products, systems, and services.
Key products include hoists, cranes, chain and forged
attachments. The Company's products are sold to third party
distributors through diverse distribution channels, and to a
lesser extent directly to manufacturers and other end-users.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.88M
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
were US$12,880,000 at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$12,600,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 10, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$12,840,000 at June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5,
2008)

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$11,140,000 at both Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec.
31, 2007.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid
asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,281 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. faced 1,281 pending claims involving
1,836 individuals as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 1,360
claims as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company faced 1,339 pending claims involving 1,894
individuals as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
5, 2008)

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
recorded 303 new claims, eight settlements, and 374 dismissals.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 523
new claims, 20 settlements, and 475 dismissals.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were
US$600,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$2.2 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In June 2008, the Company's primary layer insurance carriers
advised the Company that coverage limits under the February 1996
coverage-in-place agreement had exhausted.

In August 2008, the Company and its applicable first-layer
umbrella carriers reached an understanding on the coverage under
the Company's applicable first-layer excess umbrella policies
(Umbrella Coverage), including defense and indemnity
obligations, allocation of claims to specific policies, and
other matters.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid
asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $53.25M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$53,254,000 at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$31,207,000 at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$45,647,000 at June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5,
2008)

Asbestos-related reorganization charges were US$11,491,000
during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case
No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted against it
related to the use of asbestos in its products decades ago.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the Future Claimants' Representative, the
Asbestos Claimants' Committee, the Bondholders' Committee and
the Company jointly filed a plan of reorganization (Joint Plan).
The Bankruptcy Court approved the disclosure statement for the
Joint Plan in February 2008, and the Joint Plan was solicited in
accordance with court-approved voting procedures.

Various objections to the Joint Plan were filed, and on May 12,
2008 the Bankruptcy Court heard oral argument on summary
judgment motions relating to certain of those objections.

On June 6, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling that the
Joint Plan was not legally confirmable, and issued an Order to
Show Cause why the case should not be converted or dismissed.

Following a further hearing on June 26, 2008, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion that vacated the Order to Show Cause and
instructed the parties to propose a confirmable plan by the end
of calendar year 2008.

Following further negotiations, the Bondholders' Committee, the
ACC, the FCR, representatives of holders of pre-petition
settlements and the Company reached an agreement in principle
which the Company believes addresses the issues raised by the
Bankruptcy Court in the ruling on the Joint Plan and in the
court's prior decisions.

A term sheet describing the proposed material terms of a new
plan of reorganization (New Plan) and a settlement of avoidance
litigation with respect to pre-petition claim settlements
(Litigation Settlement) was signed by the parties to the
agreement and was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 14,
2008 and reported by the Company on form 8-K on Aug. 15, 2008.

Certain insurers and a large bondholder have filed objections to
the Litigation Settlement and reserved their rights to object to
confirmation of the New Plan.

The Bankruptcy Court approved the Litigation Settlement
following a hearing on Oct. 20, 2008, but the court reserved
until a later date a determination of whether the settlement
meets the standards required for confirmation of a plan of
reorganization.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation makes flooring
products for residential and commercial use, including resilient
sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself
vinyl tile, and commercial flooring.


                            *********

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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, 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  * * *