CAR_Public/081121.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 21, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 232

                            Headlines

ANADIGICS INC: Bull & Lifshitz, LLP Announces Investigation
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Aspirin-Based Drugs
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Junked Bid in Beryllium Suit Pending
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Judgment Bid in Anthony Case Under Submission
CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Ill-Fated Millennium Cruise

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending "Rix" Case for Breach of Contract
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery in "Chronister" Matter Still Ongoing
CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ruling on Motorola's Appeal Pending
GILEAD SCIENCES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Calif. Suit

JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Parties Seek Rehearing of Rulings in OOIDA Suit
OCA INC: Feb. 10. 2008 Hearing Set for $6.5M Lawsuit Settlement
ORKIN INC: Still Faces Wage and Hour Litigation in California
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending

ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Termite-Related Services Suits
PRESSTEK INC: Reaches Settlement for N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed
ROLLINS INC: Resolves Calif. Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations
SHAW GROUP: La. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

STEVE & BARRY'S: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
TOWN SPORTS: To Contest Actions Over Unpaid Wages in N.Y. County


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRITANNIA BULK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing
HARDINGE INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
INTERNAP NETWORK: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Berman DeValerio Announces Stock Suit Filing
SADIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing

SADIA S.A.: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $330.68M Liability at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $5.15Mil for Coverage Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,607 Claims Pending v. Colfax at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Receives $20.6M Proceeds at Sept. 26

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Cites $359.3Mil for Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $346.3M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Provides $1.725M at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $334.1Mil Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,370 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.3M for N.Y. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Have 347 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 188 Claims at Sept. 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Still Facing 10 Cases in Alabama

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,500 Sterling Fluid Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Still Facing 100 Cases in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 34,731 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable Corp.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Facing Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Involved in ASARCO LLC Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. Westinghouse
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 516 Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,236 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Transocean
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,031 Suits Ongoing v. Transocean Inc. Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.24B Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tronox Reserves $3.8Mil for Cleveland Plant

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 3 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,125 Abex Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $816.8M Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $192.3M Receivable at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 845 W.Va. Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Facing 113 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Settles w/ Md. Schools on AHERA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Freedom to Pay GBP6T for Mishandling Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kramer Pays $5T Penalty for Botched Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCarty Says Many Workers Have False Papers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Orders Ross to Undergo Autopsy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Cites 131 Asbestos Claims in Calderdale
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Barker's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Armstrong's Death to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Sufferers to Get Faster Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doberstein's Suit Filed in Ill. on Oct. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Denies Appeal in Clemenceau Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrington Widow Loses Compensation Battle
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Needs $21Mil for Office Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Related Deaths Rise in Lancashire
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Deny Petition Review in McGreevy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,385 Claims at Oct. 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,664 Claims at Oct. 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mt. Vernon Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Suits Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Has 445 Damage Claims at Oct. 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits Ongoing v. W.R. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916MM Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Records $50.4M Libby Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $16.6M in 3Q08 for Libby Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on Dismissal of Grace Action Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $300T on Pa. Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corporation Plan Filed on Nov. 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,600 Cases at Sept. 26

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Mail Reaches GBP155T Deal w/ Russell
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Workers Win Injury Action v. William Gray
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Lawsuit v. DuPont Filed on Nov. 12
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 South Koreans' Kin File Action v. 3 Firms



                           *********

ANADIGICS INC: Bull & Lifshitz, LLP Announces Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Nov. 19, 2008 -- The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz,
LLP is investigating possible illegal conduct as alleged in a
proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Anadigics,
Inc. ("Anadigics" or "Company") and certain of Anadigics's
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

     The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock from July 25, 2007 through February 12, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

     Anadigics is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Warren, NJ.  Anadigics provides
semiconductor solutions to the broadband wireless and wireline
communications markets.

     According to the class action complaint, the
representations contained in Anadigics' press releases, SEC
filings, conference calls and presentations during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading when made because
they failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company was experiencing manufacturing
          inefficiencies associated with increased production
          levels and would not be able to meet its stated
          guidance;

       -- the Company was at risk of losing customers due to its
          inability to meet demand; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company and its prospects.

     According to the class action complaint, on October 23,
2007, Anadigics held a conference call to discuss its third
quarter earnings announcement and the Company's operations.

     In response to the disappointing earnings announcement, the
price of Anadigics common stock declined from $19.34 per share
to $15.60 per share on heavy trading volume.

     However, defendants continued to conceal that the Company's
manufacturing inefficiencies were continuing to erode the
Company's profitability.

     Then, on February 12, 2008, Anadigics announced its
financial results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2007.
Following this announcement, the price of Anadigics common stock
dropped from $10.36 per share to $8.86 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Bull & Lifshitz, LLP
          18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 213-6222
          Fax: (212) 213-9405
          e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Aspirin-Based Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Nov. 19, 2008 -- A group of consumers filed a
proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit earlier this week
against Bayer Healthcare LLC, a subsidiary of Bayer AG (FRA:
BAY), alleging the pharmaceutical giant skirted FDA requirements
in marketing two aspirin-based drugs.

     The suit states that Bayer markets two of its over-the-
counter products -- Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage and Bayer
Women's Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium -- as products that reduce
the risks of heart disease and osteoporosis in women.  According
to the plaintiffs, these medical claims require an approved new-
drug application to be considered legal for marketing purposes.

     The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, alleges Bayer used improper marketing tactics aimed at
heart patients fearing high cholesterol and heart disease with
Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage, and women fighting
osteoporosis with Bayer Women's Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium.

     "Bayer knew that these drugs were illegally targeted at
consumers susceptible to the claims -- consumers who feared
heart disease and women concerned with fighting osteoporosis,"
said Steve Berman managing partner of Hagens Berman and lead
attorney for the plaintiffs.  "This suit is a direct response to
Bayer's scheme to convince millions of consumers to buy the
drugs sidestepping FDA oversight."

     While both drugs are labeled as a pain reliever with
additional benefits, neither drug is approved by the FDA for
use, the lawsuit claims.  If approved by the court, the class
action case would represent purchasers of the over- the-counter
drugs across the country.

     Reports also indicate the two drugs require a health care
professional's diagnosis and supervision.  This means that these
drug products cannot be labeled for use by consumers or sold
over-the-counter.

     The FDA normally allows over-the-counter pain reliever
sales as long as they include standard directions and labeling
for the consumer.  However, both Bayer drugs were labeled as a
combination of a drug and dietary supplement in a single tablet.
In these cases, the FDA requires drug approval before marketing
and bans such drugs from over-the-counter sales altogether, the
suit claims.

     Bayer has marketed the Heart Advantage product as an
aspirin that can reduce heart attack risk by up to 30 percent,
yet there is a warning on the Web site that this drug is not to
be used as a replacement for cholesterol lowering medications,
court documents state.

     The lawsuit claims Bayer used illegal marketing to sell the
combination drugs, a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, which prohibits consumer fraud in connection with sales and
using misleading claims to sell the drugs for a higher price
than other over-the-counter aspirins.

     "Not only did Bayer fail to include proper labeling and
directions for use," said Berman, "They also illegally marketed
the combination drugs with added supplements as a way to
artificially inflate the price point of regular over-the-counter
aspirin without proper FDA approval."

     Named plaintiff, Kris Gerhard purchased and paid for Bayer
Calcium during the period beginning in 2002 and was damaged by
the actions of Bayer due to deceptive and unfair marketing, the
suit claims.  Gerhard seeks to represent the class of consumers
that suffered economic damages from purchasing these unapproved
products and gain a full refund for their purchases.

For more details, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (206) 623-7292
          Fax: (206) 623-0594


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Appeal to Junked Bid in Beryllium Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from their denied motion for class
certification in the beryllium action against Brush Engineered
Materials, Inc.'s subsidiary, Brush Wellman Inc., is pending.

The class-action suit, "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc., Case No. BC299055," filed in Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County was filed on July 15, 2003.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at the Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability — design defect, strict liability —
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

Defendant Appanaitis Enterprises Inc. was dismissed on May 5,
2005.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the
Company opposed, was heard by the court on Feb. 8, 2008, and the
motion was denied by the court on May 7, 2008.

According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
May 20, 2008.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Judgment Bid in Anthony Case Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
in Gary Anthony's purported class-action lawsuit has been taken
under submission by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's Oct. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2007.

The purported class-action is captioned, "Gary Anthony v. Small
Tube Manufacturing Corporation d/b/a Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc., et al., Case No. 000525," which was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania,
on Sept. 7, 2006.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under case number 06-CV-4419, on Oct.
4, 2006.

The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony.  The defendants are
Small Tube Manufacturing Corporation, d/b/a Small Tube Products
Corporation, Inc.; Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and
Cabot Corporation.

The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.

The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence.  Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006.
Tube Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.  Brush moved to dismiss the
Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22, 2006.  On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube
Methods filed an amended third-party complaint, which Brush
moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007; however, the Court denied the
motion on Sept. 28, 2007.  Brush filed its answer to the amended
third-party complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

On Nov. 14, 2007, two of the defendants filed a joint motion for
an order permitting discovery to make the threshold
determination of whether plaintiff is sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 13, 2008, the court approved the parties' stipulation
that the plaintiff is not sensitized to beryllium.

On Feb. 29, 2008, Brush filed a motion for summary judgment
based on plaintiff's lack of any substantially increased risk of
chronic beryllium disease (CBD).

Oral argument on this motion took place on June 13, 2008, and
the court took the motion under submission.

Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.


CARNIVAL CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over Ill-Fated Millennium Cruise
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carnival Corp. settled a purported class-action lawsuit that was
filed in Florida by passengers of its "Carnival Cruise Lines"
cruise brand whose voyage to celebrate the millennium was
interrupted by equipment failure, Billy Shields of The Daily
Business Review reports.

The suit was originally filed by passenger Milagros Acosta in
May 2000 alleging the cruise line was aware of engine trouble
before leaving.  It claimed a violation of Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and asked for class
certification.

The ill-fated cruise left Miami on what was scheduled to be a
Caribbean itinerary including Puerto Rico, Tortola and St.
Thomas on Dec. 26, 1999, to commemorate the change to a new
century.  An engine failed eight hours into the voyage, and the
crew changed the destinations to the Bahamas and Cozumel,
Mexico, according to court documents obtained by The Daily
Business Review.

When the ship arrived at Freeport, 90 passengers left the ship
under the company's vacation guarantee, which stipulates that
dissatisfied customers are entitled to a refund plus return air
fare if they got off the ship at its first port of call outside
the U.S.

Court documents obtained by The Daily Business Review revealed
that 2,460 remaining passengers completed the voyage, returning
to Miami on Jan. 2, 2000.

The Daily Business Review reported that the company settled the
lawsuit with a unique result -- more than $5 million worth of
free trips.

According to plaintiffs' attorney David Mishael, Esq., "They're
actually getting more than a 100 percent recovery because we now
obtained for them a full seven-day cruise.  This is a win-win
for class members."

Under the settlement, according to the Daily Business Review
report, about 2,460 passengers from the last Carnival Paradise
cruise of 1999 will receive a free one-week cruise embarking
from any U.S. port outside Alaska.  The total value of the
cruises is $5.7 million.

Mr. Mishael of Miami, and D. Michael Campbell, Esq., a Winter
Haven, Fla., attorney who filed the original suit, were awarded
attorney fees of $1.75 million, bringing the total settlement
value to almost $7.5 million.  Vouchers for the free trips are
scheduled to be mailed in December and must be used within two
years.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jose M. Rodriguez certified the class
in August 2008 with Ms. Acosta as the class representative and
signed the settlement agreement on Oct. 31, 2008, reports The
Daily Business Review.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Defending "Rix" Case for Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc., continues to defend itself in
the lawsuit captioned "Sheri Rix v. Heartland Regional Medical
Center and Health Care Systems, Inc."

The lawsuit names Community Health Systems and certain of its
subsidiaries as defendants.  It was served against the company
on March 3, 2005, and was brought by the plaintiff on behalf of
herself and as the representative of similarly situated
uninsured individuals who were treated at the company's
Heartland Regional Medical Center.

The plaintiff alleges that uninsured patients who do not qualify
for Medicaid, Medicare or charity care are charged unreasonably
high rates for services and materials and that the company uses
unconscionable methods to collect bills.

The suit seeks recovery for breach of contract and the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, restitution of
overpayment, and for unjust enrichment.  The complaint also
seeks compensatory and other damages and equitable relief.

The court recently granted the company's motion to dismiss this
case, but allowed the plaintiff to re-plead her case.

The plaintiff elected to appeal the court's decision in lieu of
amending her case.  Oral argument was heard on this case on Jan.
9, 2008.

On June 16, 2008, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of
the consumer fraud claim, but reversed dismissal of the contract
claim.

The company filed a Petition for Leave of Appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court, which was denied on June 16, 2008, according to
its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Discovery in "Chronister" Matter Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action lawsuit,
"Chronister, et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company,
LLC d/b/aGateway Regional Medical Center," which was filed
before the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, and names
Community Health Systems, Inc., as a defendant.

The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The company's motion to dismiss the case has been granted in
part and denied in part and discovery has commenced.

According to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, Gateway Regional Medical Center v. Holman
is a companion case to the Chronister action, seeking
counterclaim recovery on a collections case. Holman has been
stayed pending the outcome of the Chronister action.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- through
its subsidiaries, owns, leases and operates acute care hospitals
that are the principal providers of primary healthcare services
in non-urban communities.


CRUM & FORSTER: Ruling in Suit Dismissal Appeal Expected in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit is expected to
issue a decision by 2009 in connection with the plaintiffs'
appeal of the dismissal of a purported class action suit over
allegations that Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. violated both the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and antitrust
statutes.

The company and U.S. Fire, among other insurance companies and
insurance brokers, have been named as defendants in the class
action complaint filed by policyholders alleging, among other
things, that the defendants used contingent commission structure
to deprive policyholders of free competition in the market for
insurance.

The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class
consisting of all persons who, between Aug. 26, 1994, and the
date of the class certification, engaged the services of any one
of the broker-defendants and who entered into or renewed a
contract of insurance with one of the insurer defendants.

In October 2006, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, subject to the
plaintiffs' filing of an amended statement of their case.

The plaintiffs then filed their "supplemental statement of
particularity," and amended case statement.  In response, the
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the suit.

On Aug. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed the antitrust claims with prejudice.   On
Sept. 28, 2007, the court dismissed the RICO case with prejudice
and declined to accept supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state law claims.

On Oct. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's dismissals before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third
Circuit.

The plaintiffs' opening brief was filed and served on Feb. 19,
2008.  Opposition briefs were filed on April 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed their reply brief on April 24, 2008.  A
final ruling is not expected from the Court of Appeals before
early 2009.  The company and U.S. Fire continue to be named as
defendants.

No further developments in the matter were reported by the
company in its Oct. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. -- http://www.cfins.com/--
through its eight subsidiaries, offers an array of
property/casualty insurance products to businesses, including
management liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
coverage.


FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR: Ruling on Motorola's Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., in its Form 10-Q dated Oct. 31,
2008, disclosed that the parties in the purported class-action
suit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," are awaiting the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision on
Motorola's interlocutory appeal.

A purported class-action lawsuit, "Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et
al.," was filed against Motorola and various of its directors,
officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase
or hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim in connection with the sale
of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased or held
shares of common stock of Motorola from "May 16, 2000 to the
present," and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.  Plaintiff
filed an appeal to the dismissal on Oct. 27, 2005.  On March 19,
2007, the appeals court dismissed the appeal.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs intervened in the case, and
filed a motion for class certification seeking to represent Plan
participants for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased
and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000
through Dec. 31, 2002.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Illinois District Court granted the
motion for class certification but narrowed the requested scope
of the class.

Motorola has sought leave to appeal in the appellate court and
reconsideration in the Illinois District Court of certain
aspects of the class certification order.

On Oct. 25, 2007, the Illinois District Court modified the scope
of the class, granted summary judgment dismissing two of the
individually-named defendants in light of the narrowed class,
and ruled that the judgment as to the original named plaintiff,
Howell, would be immediately appealable.

The class as certified includes all Plan participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held shares of
Motorola common stock from May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001
with certain exclusions.

On Feb. 15, 2008, Motorola and its co-defendants filed motions
for summary judgment on all claims asserted by the class.  Those
motions are currently pending before the District Court.

On Feb. 22, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit agreed to hear Motorola's interlocutory appeal of the
District Court's order certifying the class.  This hearing
occurred on Oct. 23, 2008.

As a result of the terms of its separation from Motorola, it is
possible that Freescale could be held responsible to Motorola
for a portion of any judgment or settlement in this matter,
according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. -- http://www.freescale.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor products that are based on its core capabilities
in embedded processing.  The Company's product portfolio are
Microcontroller Solutions; Networking and Multimedia; Cellular
Products, and Radio Frequency, Analog and Sensors.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California of the fourth amended complaint in a consolidated
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Gilead Sciences,
Inc.

On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in
its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended
complaint associated with a purported class action against:

       -- the company,
       -- the chief executive officer,
       -- chief financial officer,
       -- former executive vice president of operations,
       -- executive vice president of research and development,
       -- senior vice president of manufacturing, and
       -- senior vice president of research.

The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.  The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

On Aug. 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's decision and will remand
the case to the district court, according to the company's Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case
No. 03-CV-4999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins
presiding.

Representing thee plaintiffs are:

          Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-907-0878
          Fax: 212-818-0477

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM)
          Green Welling LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-477-6700
          Fax: 415-477-6710

Representing the defendants are:

          John C. Dwyer, Esq. (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
          Grant P. Fondo, Esq. (gfondo@cooley.com)
          Cooley Godward, LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Phone: 650-843-5000
          Fax: 650-857-0663


JARDEN CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
certified a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit
filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan
to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc.

In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan.
12, 2006.  The suits were subsequently consolidated.

The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire
The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005.

On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who
filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company,
Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits
of the THG Acquisition.

The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20,
2006.

On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the
defendants' dismissal motion.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's denial of their request.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their
dismissal request.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification.

On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class
comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from June 29, 2005 through January 11, 2006.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct.
31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al.,
Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com)
           Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C
           460 Park Avenue 21st Floor
           New York, NY 10022
           Phone: 212-838-3221
           Fax: 212-508-3695

           Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com)
           Paskowitz & Associates
           60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
           New York, NY 10165
           Phone: 212-685-0969
           Fax: 212-685-2306

                - and -

           Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com)
           Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
           58 South Service Road, Suite 200
           Melville, NY 11747
           Phone: 631-367-7100
           Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

           Stephen William Greiner, Esq.
           Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
           787 Seventh Avenue
           New York, NY 10019
           Phone: 212-728-8000
           Fax: 212-728-8111
           e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Parties Seek Rehearing of Rulings in OOIDA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the parties to the class-action lawsuit, "Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," has filed a
petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's earlier ruling in the
matter.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002,
by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the class and the
denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive
relief.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by
Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class
and other important elements of the Litigation relating to
liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's
rulings in favor of the Defendants.  The Defendants asked the
Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal
with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings
of the District Court.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which,
among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that:

       -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
          federal leasing regulations from charging
          administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
          Contractors in connection with voluntary programs
          offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
          Independent Contractor may purchase discounted
          products and services for a charge that is deducted
          against the compensation payable to the BCO
          Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"),

       -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or
          disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants
          of the applicable federal leasing regulations but
          instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which
          they sustained as a result of any such violations, and

       -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be
          handled on a class action basis for purposes of
          determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they
          sustained as a result of any violations.

Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the
absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the
federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of
all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO
Independent Contractors.

However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District
Court's rulings:

       -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by
          Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
          Independent Contractor complied with applicable
          disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
          regulations with respect to adjustments to
          compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
          certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense,
          and

       -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient
          documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the
          applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how
          the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were
          computed.

The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court
to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect
to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to
hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an
opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually
sustained as a result of such violations.

Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with
the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's
ruling, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-
HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Phone: 202-944-8600
                 202-965-6100

          Michael R. Freed, Esq. (mrfreed@bmdpl.com)
          Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL
          Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-366-1500
          Fax: 904-366-1501

               - and -

          Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq.
          The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806
          Washington, DC 20007-3708
          Phone: 202-944-8600
          Fax: 202-944-8611

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq. (dbarney@scopelitis.com)
          Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Phone: 202-783-5485

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. (aduva@hklaw.com)
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          (lhamilton@hklaw.com)
          Holland & Knight
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: 904-353-2000
                 904-353-2000 Ext. 25454
          Fax: 904-358-1872


OCA INC: Feb. 10. 2008 Hearing Set for $6.5M Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
will be hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
for the proposed $6,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re OCA
Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, Master File No. 05-
2165."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Sarah Vance,
United States District Judge of the Eastern District of
Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased the publicly
traded common stock or sold put options of OCA, Inc. during the
period from May 18, 2004 through June 6, 2005, inclusive.

This lawsuit alleges that press releases and SEC filings of OCA
announcing financial results during the first three quarters of
2004 were false when issued because defendants knowingly or
recklessly misstated, among other things, revenues and
receivables, and accordingly, issued financial results not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

For more details, contact:

          OCA Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2002
          Chanhassen MN 55317-2002
          Phone: 1-866-233-0122
          Web site: http://www.ocasecuritieslitigation.com

          Joel B. Strauss (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
     Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714

               - and -

          Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
          300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100
          Austin, TX 78701-3911
          300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100
          Austin, TX 78701-3911
          Phone: (512) 499-6250
          Fax: (512) 499-6290


ORKIN INC: Still Faces Wage and Hour Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin, Inc. -- a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc. -- is facing a
purported wage and hour class action lawsuit that was filed
before the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.

The suit is captioned, "John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et al."  It
has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing.

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: "Butland" Lawsuit in Florida Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc.,
continues to face a purported class action lawsuit entitled,
"Mark and Christine Butland, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,
Inc., et al."

The suit was filed before the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County in Tampa, Florida, in March 1999.  It seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

The court, in early April 2002, certified the class action
against Orkin.  Orkin appealed this certification ruling to the
Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case
back to the trial court for further findings.

In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the
class action.  Orkin again appealed this new ruling to the
Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals.  In June 2006, the
Florida Second District Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying
certification of the class.

Following the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing, the appeals
court upheld its prior decision that class certification was
improper, but also ruled that the plaintiffs can return to the
trial court and attempt to certify a narrower class.

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Still Faces Termite-Related Services Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., is
facing two purported class action lawsuits in California and
Arkansas over allegations that the plaintiffs have been damaged
as a result of the rendering of services by the company.

The suits are:

       1. "Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin
          Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.;" and

       2. "Roy Sheppard et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company,
          Inc. and Rollins, Inc."

The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit, a termite service related matter, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California and has not been scheduled for a class
certification hearing.

The Sheppard lawsuit, also a termite related matter, was
recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas and a date has not been set for a hearing
on class certification.

Rollins reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 31,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com/-- a subsidiary of
Rollins provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to
more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in
the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama.  The company,
which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices
throughout the U.S.  Orkin offers its services under the Acurid,
Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names.


PRESSTEK INC: Reaches Settlement for N.H. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc. settled a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the ompany's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

The company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has reached
an agreement to settle the federal securities class-action
lawsuit.  This settlement, which is subject to confirmatory
discovery and court approval, will have no material impact on
the company's 2008 operating results.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617 439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540

    
PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed against Public
Service Electric & Gas Co. in relation to a transition bond that
the company charges its customers appealed the dismissal of
their case to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior
Court.

On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were
served with a copy of a purported class-action complaint
challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of
New Jersey's Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against
continued collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the
transition bond charge of PSE&G Transition Funding, as well as
recovery of TBC amounts previously collected.

Notice of the filing of the complaint was also provided to New
Jersey's Attorney General.  Under New Jersey law, the
Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional.

On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint
to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of
related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously
collected and also filed a petition with BPU, requesting review
and adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same charges.

PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the
amended Complaint (or in the alternative for summary judgment)
on July 30, 2007, and PSE&G filed on Sept. 30, 2007, a motion
with the BPU to dismiss the petition.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was granted by the court.

On Nov. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.
Briefing of the appeal has been completed.

PSE&G reported no further development in the matter in the
company's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/--
is an operating public utility company engaged principally in
the transmission and distribution of electric energy and gas in
New Jersey.


ROLLINS INC: Resolves Calif. Lawsuit Alleging FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rollins, Inc., resolved a purported class-action suit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Central District of
California over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The suit, "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," was filed on Nov. 15, 2007.  A hearing date for class
certification has not been set.

Rollins in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008 that the Stauber case has been resolved on an
individual basis with the Plaintiff dismissing his case
including his class action allegations.

The suit is "Adam Stauber v. Rollins, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-
07517," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Central District of California, Judge Otis D. Wright, II,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Amir Goldstein, Esq. (ajgold@hauserlawoffices.com)
          Amir J. Goldstein
          591 Broadway, Suite 3A
          New York, NY 10012
          Phone: 212-966-5253
          Fax: 212-941-8566

Representing the defendant is:

          Mark L. Eisenhut, Esq. (meisenhut@calljensen.com)
          Call Jensen & Ferrell
          610 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: 949-717-3000


SHAW GROUP: La. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has dismissed the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit styled,
"Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc."

On July 23, 2004, an investor filed a complaint against The Shaw
Group, Inc., claiming that the company and three top officers
misled the investing public about its finances (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 19, 2007).  The class-action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought Shaw Group common stock from
Oct. 19, 2000, through and including June 10, 2004.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- Shaw Group;

     -- J.M. Bernhard Jr., chairman and chief executive officer;

     -- Tim Barfield, Jr., president, chief operating officer,
        and director since 2003; and

     -- Robert L. Belk, chief financial officer and executive
        vice president.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Shaw Group
issued materially false and misleading information about its
financial performance to the investing public.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Shaw Group established
excessive or "general" contract reserves in conjunction with two
acquisitions and then tapped those "cookie jar" reserves to
artificially boost its earnings when needed.

The defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in connection
with its long-term construction contracts, violating its own
reported revenue recognition policy.

These actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices
and resulted in significantly overstated revenues and net income
throughout the class period, which in turn inflated Shaw Group's
stock price.

The company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock
price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw Group common
stock to the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt
securities.

Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by
selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw Group common
stock during the class period, for proceeds of roughly $80
million.

After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the company shocked
the investing public by announcing that Shaw Group was the
subject of an informal investigation by the SEC into the
company's method of accounting for acquisitions.

In response to these revelations, the price of Shaw Group's
common stock plummeted, falling 18% to $10.05 when trading
resumed on June 14, 2004 (following a long weekend).

On Aug. 16, 2004, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.

On Aug. 31, 2004, all related cases were consolidated into one
class-action lawsuit, "Thompson v. The Shaw Group Inc., No. 04-
1685."

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action,
which was denied.  It then moved to certify the matter for
immediate appeal, which the District Court granted, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted leave to appeal.

On July 29, 2008, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District
Court's denial of the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated action and remanded the consolidated action to the
District Court with instructions to dismiss.

The District Court entered its order dismissing the consolidated
action on Aug. 29, 2008, 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.

The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Shaw Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04-CV-1685," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Helen G. Berrigan,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq. (phil@bohrerlaw.com)
          Bohrer Law Firm
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Phone: 225-925-5297

          Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr., Esq.
          (bcharbonnet@charbonnetassociates.com)
          Law Office of Bernard L. Charbonnet, Jr.
          365 Canal Street, One Canal Place, Suite 1155
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-561-0996

              - and -

          David Lyman Browne, Esq. (dbrowne@brownelaw.com)
          Law Offices of David L. Browne, LLC
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-648-0171

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven W. Copley, Esq. (scopley@gordonarata.com)
          Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4000
          New Orleans, LA 70170-4000
          Phone: 504-582-1111


STEVE & BARRY'S: Faces N.Y. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve & Barry's LLC, which was acquired by New York-based
private equity firm Bay Harbour Management for $168 million, is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit over the laying off of
employees -- including at least 250 at the company's Port
Washington, N.Y. Headquarters, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to a class-action complaint filed by Outten & Golden
LLP on Nov. 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the layoffs were made on Nov. 17, 2008
with no notice, and that violates the 60-day notice requirement
called for under the federal Worker Adjustment and  Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act.

The workers that were laid off received a letter along with
their pink slip saying the company could not have given them
further notice because the economy crumbled so quickly, says
Rene Roupinian, Esq. Of Outten & Golden.

For more details, contact:

          Rene Roupinian, Esq. (rroupinian@outtengolden.com)
          Outten & Golden LLP
          3 Park Avenue
          29th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (212) 977-4005
          Web site: http://www.outtengolden.com


TOWN SPORTS: To Contest Actions Over Unpaid Wages in N.Y. County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. intends to contest two
purported class-action lawsuits seeking unpaid wages filed in
the Supreme Court, New York County, according to its Oct. 30,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled, "Sarah Cruz, et al v.
Town Sports International, dba New York Sports Club," plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against the company in the
Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that wholly-owned subsidiary, Town Sports
International, LLC (TSI LLC) violated various overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness
managers.

On Nov. 2, 2005, the complaint and the lawsuit were stayed upon
agreement of the parties pending mediation.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs gave notice that they wished to
lift the stay.

On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second
purported class-action lawsuit against the company in the
Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI LLC violated various wage payment and overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees.

New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com-- is an operator of fitness clubs
in the northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S.  As of
Dec. 31, 2007, the Company, through its subsidiaries, operated
161 fitness clubs under its four brand names: New York Sports
Clubs, Boston Sports Clubs, Philadelphia Sports Clubs and
Washington Sports Clubs.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BRITANNIA BULK: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Nov 19, 2008 -- The following statement was
issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP:

     Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf purchasers of the common stock of
Britannia Bulk Holdings Inc. ("Britannia Bulk" or the
"Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's June 17, 2008 Initial
Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges Britannia Bulk and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

     Britannia Bulk is an international provider of drybulk
transportation services focusing on transporting drybulk
commodities in the Baltic region.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

       -- that the Company had not instituted or enforced
          protocols to prevent employees from buying forward
          freight agreements ("FFAs") that were not purchased to
          hedge identifiable cargo or ship positions;

       -- that Company was exposed to considerable risk due to
          FFAs being used outside of their stated guidelines;

       -- that the Company had failed to enter into proper fixed
          price contracts at a time when crude oil and bunker
          fuels were experiencing tremendous fluctuation;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          Registration Statement was false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On or about June 17, 2008, the Company conducted its IPO.
In connection with the IPO, the Company filed a Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the
"Registration Statement") with the SEC.

     The IPO was a financial success for the Company and its
underwriters, as they raised $125 million by selling over 8.33
million shares of the Company's common stock to investors at a
price of $15.00 per share.

     However, on October 28, 2008 the Company announced that
since July 2008, it had bought FFAs that appeared not to have
been purchased to hedge identifiable ship or cargo positions.

     This was in stark contrast to their stated purpose in the
Registration Statement that they were entered into "with an
objective of economically hedging the risk of the fleet,
specific vessels or freight commitments."

     This resulted in "the Company being more exposed to falling
charter rates and reduced overall demand for dry bulk shipping
services than it would have been if its historic practice of
using FFAs as economic hedges had been followed."

     Then, on October 29, 2008, the Company announced that
effectively immediately, its common shares would be suspended
from trading on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE").

     Finally, on October 31, 2008, the Company announced that
its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Britannia Bulk Plc, had
been placed into administration under United Kingdom insolvency
laws.

     In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $1.63 per share, or 85.79 percent, to close on October
28, 2008 at $0.27 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     This closing price on October 28, 2008 represented a
cumulative loss of $14.73, or over 98 percent, of the value of
the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months prior.

     Thereafter, the value of the Company's shares continued to
decline, trading as low as $0.01 per share.  At the time this
Complaint was filed, the Company's shares were trading for about
$0.03 per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz
Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both
state and federal courts throughout the country.

For more details, contact:

              Darren J. Check, Esq.
              David M. Promisloff, Esq.
              Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
              280 King of Prussia Road
              Radnor, PA 19087
              Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
              e-mail: info@btkmc.com


HARDINGE INC: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- 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
Hardinge Inc. ("Hardinge" or the "Company") between February 22,
2007 and February 21, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

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

     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


INTERNAP NETWORK: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Nov. 19, 2008 -- Federman & Sherwood
announces that on November 12, 2008, a class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against Internap Network Services Corp.
(NASDAQ: INAP).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from March 28, 2007 through March 18, 2008.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the
Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Berman DeValerio Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     HOUSTON, TX, Nov. 19, 2008 -- An investor has sued
McDermott International, Inc. ("McDermott" or "Company") (NYSE:
MDR) in federal court, accusing the company of violating
securities laws by concealing construction delays on a pipeline
project, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo announced
today.

     Berman DeValerio filed the class action complaint on
November 17, 2008 in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of NewYork on behalf of shareholders who purchased
McDermott stock between February 27, 2008 and November 5, 2008.

     The complaint, filed as 08-cv-9943,seeks damages for
violations of securities laws under the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934. Based in Houston, McDermott is an international
engineering and construction services company.  Its clients
include the U.S. government and companies in the oil and power
industries.

     The lawsuit claims that McDermott and two individual
defendants, including former Chief Executive Officer Bruce W.
Wilkinson, violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

     According to the complaint, McDermott concealed from
investors that its three large, ongoing construction contracts
for the installation of marine oil and gas pipelines off the
coast of Qatar were substantially delayed and that the delays
caused the Company to incur major losses on those contracts.

     As a result, plaintiffs said, the Company's oil and gas
division posted a $19.7 million loss during the third quarter of
2008, resulting from $90 million in contract losses related to
delays on the three pipeline contracts.

     Investors finally learned of the severity of the production
setback and the resulting negative impact to the Company's
earnings on November 5, 2008 when the Company filed its third
quarter 2008 Form 10-Q with the SEC.  McDermott's stock price
plunged on the news, from $15.56 pershare at close on November
5, 2008 to $10.39 per share at close on November6, 2008 -- a
loss of $5.17 per share, or 33%.

If you wish to be a lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on
your behalfmust be filed with the court no later than 60 days
from today. You maycontact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to
discuss your rights andinterests in the case, or you may submit
information online by clicking here. Please note: You may also
retain counsel of your choice and need not takeany action at
this time to be a class member.

Contact:Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Autumn Smith, Esq.Email Contact(617) 542-8300


          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com)
          Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300
          Fax: (617) 542-1194


SADIA S.A.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- Law Offices of Brian M.
Felgoise, P.C. announces that a securities class action has been
commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired Sadia, S.A.
securities between May 1, 2008 through September 26, 2008,
inclusive (the Class Period).

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.

     The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900


SADIA S.A.: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Nov. 19, 2008 -- Law offices of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased American Depository
Receipts in and/or common stock of Sadia S.A. ("Sadia" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SDA) (BOVESPA: SDIA4) between May 1, 2008 and
September 26, 2008 (the "Class Period").

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

     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 Sadia.

     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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $330.68M Liability at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$330,680,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$347,206,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$338,064,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,656,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$28,901,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,737,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$277,457,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$286,169,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$45,206,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$44,664,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The current asbestos insurance asset was US$18,857,000 as of
Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$19,059,000 as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling
products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty
valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps,
which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity
pumps.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Has 365 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at Sept. 30, 2008, is still a
defendant in 365 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 8,400
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

At June 30, 2008, the Company faced 365 cases asserting claims
on behalf of about 8,400 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
22, 2008)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.

There are four asbestos cases, involving 21 plaintiffs that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a
various potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to
identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

Cleveland-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through Park-Ohio
Industries Ltd. and subsidiaries, provides logistics services
and makes engineered products for the aerospace, auto,
semiconductor, and other industries. The Company's supply
technologies unit offers procurement and management services and
provides fasteners, fittings, and other industrial products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $5.15Mil for Coverage Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$5,148,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008,
compared with US$2,387,000 during the three months ended Sept.
28, 2007.

The Company recorded US$3,970,000 for asbestos coverage
litigation expenses for the three months ended June 27, 2008,
compared with US$3,687,000 for the three months ended June 29,
2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Asbestos liability and defense income was US$6,312,000 during
the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$30,285,000 during the three months ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$12,257,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008,
compared with US$8,318,000 during the nine months ended Sept.
28, 2007.

Asbestos liability and defense income was US$6,749,000 during
the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$32,032,000 during the nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling
products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty
valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps,
which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity
pumps.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 36,607 Claims Pending v. Colfax at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 36,607 unresolved asbestos claims at
Sept. 26, 2008, compared with 38,477 claims at Sept. 28, 2007,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

Unresolved asbestos claims against the Company numbered to
36,620 claims as of June 27, 2008, compared with 38,575 claims
as of June 29, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

At Sept. 26, 2008, the Company noted 3,282 claims filed and
4,299 claims resolved. At Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted
5,986 claims filed and 17,529 claims resolved.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries face lawsuits that claim
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from
products manufactured with components that are alleged to have
contained asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged
to have contained asbestos generally were provided to meet the
specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the
U.S. Navy.

The Company had reserves of US$7.5 million as a reduction of its
asbestos insurance asset at Sept. 26, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Until recently, one of the subsidiaries has had all of its
liability and defense costs covered in full by its primary and
umbrella insurance carrier. This carrier has informed the
subsidiary that the primary insurance policies are now
exhausted.

In May 2008, the carrier provided notice that one of 14 umbrella
policies had exhausted and in October 2008, notified the
subsidiary that two additional umbrella policies had been
exhausted.

As a result, the carrier in the future will pay 78.6 percent (or
11/14ths) of liability costs but will continue to pay 100
percent of defense costs. The carrier has also informed the
subsidiary that it will withhold payment of an additional 1/14
share of the subsidiary's liability costs for each umbrella
policy that exhausts in the future.

The subsidiary recently reached an agreement in principle and
expects to sign a settlement agreement with the primary and
umbrella carrier governing all aspects of the carrier's past and
future handling of the asbestos related bodily injury claims
against the subsidiary.

As a result of this agreement, during the third quarter of 2008,
the Company increased its insurance asset by US$7 million as a
result of value being ascribed to certain pre-1966 insurance
policies and recorded a corresponding gain. The additional
insurance will be allocated by the carrier to cover any gaps in
coverage of up to US$7 million in umbrella policies as they
exhaust. When the agreement is executed, the Company expects the
primary and umbrella insurer will once again be paying 100
percent of all liability and defense costs.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling
products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty
valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps,
which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity
pumps.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Receives $20.6M Proceeds at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's total insurance proceeds received, during
the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008, were US$20,600,000,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Total insurance proceeds received amounted to US$23,701,000
during the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$7,500,000.

Cash characterized as past cost reduces the Company's
outstanding asbestos insurance receivables. Cash characterized
as future costs within the 15-year liability range relates to
insurance policies that are triggered within the Company's 15-
year estimate of asbestos-related liability and were recorded as
a reduction of the asbestos insurance asset.

Cash characterized as future cost outside the 15-year liability
range relates to insurance policies which are not triggered
within the Company's 15-year estimate of asbestos-related
liability and were recorded as income in asbestos liability and
defense (income) costs.

In addition, the Company received US$11.5 million in past cost
on Oct. 15, 2008.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling
products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty
valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps,
which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity
pumps.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Cites $359.3Mil for Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation established asbestos reserves of US$359.3
million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$376.2 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company reserved US$366.8 million as of June 27, 2008 for
the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15
years. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

The Company has also established recoverables of US$296.3
million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$305.2 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on
a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
over the next 15 years was US$63 million as of Sept. 26, 2008
and US$71 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

In addition the Company has recorded a receivable for liability
and defense costs it had previously paid in the amount of
US$45.2 million as of Sept. 26, 2008 and US$44.7 million as of
Dec. 31, 2007.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation supplies fluid handling
products, including pumps, fluid handling systems and specialty
valves. Products include rotary positive displacement pumps,
which include screw pumps, gear pumps and progressive cavity
pumps.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to be a defendant in several
lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves
sold by one of the Company's predecessors-in-interest.

These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008.

Kewanee, Ill.-based Boss Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary Boss
Manufacturing Company (BMC) imports and markets gloves and
protective wear sold through mass merchandisers, hardware
stores, and other retailers in the United States and Canada. The
Boss Pet Products division markets pet supplies (collars,
chains, pet shampoos, toys) to U.S. retailers. The Company's
gloves and protective gear account for about 70 percent of
sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $346.3M Losses, LAE at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holding Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses were US$346,267,000 for the nine
and three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$269,959,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE were
US$216,125,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2008, compared with US$170,270,000 for the nine and three months
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company has exposure to losses from asbestos, environmental
pollution and other latent injury damage claims. Net unpaid
asbestos and environmental losses and loss adjustment expenses
as of Sept. 30, 2008 were US$245.1 million, representing 5.2
percent of total net unpaid losses and LAE, compared with
US$256.9 million, or 5.7 percent of total net unpaid losses and
LAE as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$21
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008 and US$15
million for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008 due to loss
emergence greater than expectations in the periods.

The Company did not incur net losses and LAE expenses related to
asbestos claims for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2007.

The Company's survival ratio for A&E-related liabilities as of
Sept. 30, 2008 is eight years. The Company's underlying survival
ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is eight years.

The A&E-related liability survival ratio represents the A&E
reserves, as of Sept. 30, 2008, divided by the average paid A&E
claims for the last three years of US$31.8 million, which are
net of reinsurance.

Stamford, Conn.-based Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an
underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty
products on a worldwide basis, and an underwriter of specialty
insurance, primarily in the United States and through the
Lloyd's of London marketplace. As of Sept. 30, 2008, Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited owned 70.6 percent of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Provides $1.725M at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s net asbestos-related provision was
US$1,725,000 during the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 28, 2007, net asbestos-
related gain was US$8,633,000.

Net asbestos-related gain was US$30,738,000 during the fiscal
nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$8,633,000
during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$18,275,000 for
the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008. For the fiscal six
months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net asbestos-related
gain was US$32,463,000. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and
upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures
power equipment through its two business units: Global
Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group
clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group
serves energy, utility, and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $334.1Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$334,142,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with
US$376,803,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$350,672,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$287,695,000 as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared
with US$324,588,000 as of Dec. 28, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$304,977,000 as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United States and
United Kingdom face asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court
informal claims pending in the U.S. and U.K.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries during
the 1970s and earlier.

Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and
upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures
power equipment through its two business units: Global
Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group
clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group
serves energy, utility, and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,370 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United States faced
130,370 open asbestos-related claims during the fiscal quarter
and nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, compared with 132,810
claims during the fiscal quarter and nine months ended Sept. 28,
2007.

The Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. faced 130,740 asbestos
claims for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008, compared with
133,580 claims for the fiscal quarter ended June 29, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, the Company
noted 860 new claims filed and 1,230 claims resolved. During the
fiscal quarter ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted 1,080 new
claims filed and 1,850 claims resolved.

During the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, the Company
noted 3,710 new claims filed and 4,680 claims resolved. During
the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the Company noted
4,160 new claims filed and 7,240 claims resolved.

Total asbestos-related assets for U.S. claims were US$285.7
million as of Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$326.2 million as
of Dec. 28, 2007.

Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$353.9 million as of
Sept. 26, 2008, compared with US$403.3 million as of Dec. 28,
2007.

The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$18.6 million for the fiscal quarter ended
Sept. 26, 2008 and US$55.8 million for the nine months ended
Sept. 26, 2008.

The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$21.8 million for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2008 and US$66.7 million for the nine months ended Sept. 28,
2007.

In fiscal year 2008, proceeds from settlements with the
Company's insurers exceeded payments made by US$10.6 million in
the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008 and US$21.8 million in
the nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Through Sept. 26, 2008, total cumulative indemnity costs paid
were about US$652.2 million and total cumulative defense costs
paid were about US$277.3 million.

As of Sept. 26, 2008, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$130 million relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$223.9 million relating to future unasserted
claims through the fiscal third quarter of 2023.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost
per resolved claim through Sept. 26, 2008 has been about
US$2,700.

Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and
upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures
power equipment through its two business units: Global
Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group
clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group
serves energy, utility, and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.3M for N.Y. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd., as of Sept. 26, 2008, estimated the value
of its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its units' insurers at
US$23.3 million.

As of June 27, 2008, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$23.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the Company's subsidiaries' various
insurers and its subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for
insurers to make lump-sum payments and payments over time, for
use by the subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and
defense costs and for reimbursement for portions of out-of-
pocket costs previously incurred.

In the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 28, 2007, the subsidiaries
reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-related
insurance coverage with two additional insurers.

In the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, the subsidiaries
reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-related
insurance coverage with two additional insurers. The Company
recorded a gain of US$35.9 million for these settlements in the
fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008, of which both
settlements occurred prior to the third fiscal quarter.

The Company received cash of US$40.5 million from these 2008
settlements during the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008.

In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the
coverage litigation with its subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On Oct.
11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate
court decision in the Company's favor.

Based on the fiscal year-end 2007 liability estimate, an
increase of 25 percent in the average per claim indemnity
settlement amount would increase the liability by US$70.4
million and the impact on expense would be dependent upon
available insurance recoveries.

The Company had net cash inflows of US$21.8 million as a result
of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the asbestos
liability indemnity payments and defense costs during the fiscal
nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008.

The Company expects to have net cash inflows of US$17.4 million
as a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs for the full 12
months of fiscal year 2008.

Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and
upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures
power equipment through its two business units: Global
Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group
clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group
serves energy, utility, and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Have 347 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Foster Wheeler Ltd.'s subsidiaries in the United
Kingdom face 347 open asbestos-related claims as of Sept. 26,
2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. faced 344 open
asbestos-related claims as of June 27, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

To date, 889 claims have been brought against these
subsidiaries.

As of Sept. 26, 2008, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$46 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$7.6 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the
fiscal third quarter of 2023 of US$38.4 million.

Of the total, US$2.8 million was recorded in accrued expenses
and US$43.2 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability
on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.8 million
was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$43.2
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury. If this ruling is reversed by legislation,
the total asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the
U.K. would be US$62.2 million.

Clinton, N.J-based Foster Wheeler Ltd. designs, builds, and
upgrades oil and gas processing facilities and manufactures
power equipment through its two business units: Global
Engineering & Construction and Global Power. Global E&C group
clients include companies in the oil and gas, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and biotechnology markets. Global Power group
serves energy, utility, and industrial clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Facing 188 Claims at Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced 188 pending asbestos claims as of Sept.
28, 2008, compared with 192 pending claims at June 29, 2008 and
175 pending claims at Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos.
Rather, the Company made some limited products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos. Those products were provided to
industrial users. The Company stopped manufacturing these
products in 1987.

Of the 188 claims pending as of Sept. 28, 2008, 54 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 130 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and four claims (about 2.1 percent of
the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these four claims, one claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages of US$20 million; one claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million, and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and
two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and
punitive damages of US$60 million. These four claims name from
nine to 76 defendants.

In the nine month period ended Sept. 28, 2008, the Company was
able to have 43 claims dismissed and settled four claims. For
the full year 2007, 59 claims were dismissed and 12 were
settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about
US$1.5 million in the first three quarters of 2008, compared
with about US$2 million for the full year 2007.

Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures high performance,
specialty-material-based products for applications in diverse
markets including: portable communications, communications
infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer
products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense. The
Company is based in Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Still Facing 10 Cases in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in 10
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of 324 individual plaintiffs.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 10
cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos
in the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant
in Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma,
asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant which were manufactured by each defendant. In eight of the
cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

The liability of the Company cannot be determined at this time.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Ind. Cites 2,500 Sterling Fluid Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,500 cases to the Company for indemnification.

These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, and California.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling
purchased the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the
Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company over these
matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed
to asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of
their employment. Each complaint names as defendants many
manufacturers of products containing asbestos, apparently
because plaintiffs came into contact with a variety of different
products in the course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of
an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and Sterling may have
manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in
these matters.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Still Facing 100 Cases in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that LaBour Pump Company, a former
division of an inactive Company subsidiary, still faces 100
active asbestos cases.

LaBour has been named as a defendant in 400 of the New Jersey
cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA).

The Company has elected to defend these cases, most of which
have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. makes and markets
maintenance products, including cleaning supplies, abrasives,
and stains. Its Continental Commercial Products (CCP) subsidiary
operates five divisions: Contico, Disco, Glit, Wilen, CCP
Canada, and Gemtex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 34,731 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of Sept. 26, 2008, was a defendant
in 34,731 asbestos-related cases, of which 1,249 were non-
maritime cases and 33,482 were maritime cases.

These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States.

The Company has accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.8 million
as of Sept. 26, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. The Company has recorded
about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, and markets copper, aluminum and fiber
optic wire and cable products. The Company manages its worldwide
operations based on three geographic reportable segments: 1)
North America, 2) Europe and North Africa and 3) Rest of World
(ROW).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Facing Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various
unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product
liability actions that arise in the normal course of its
business.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 5, 2008.

Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air
cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company
designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by the Company or its subsidiaries. The Company
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP (NRG).

Under the terms of the arrangements over separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to Texas Genco
LLC, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
Texas Genco LLC and its successor.

However, the Company has agreed to continue to defend those
claims to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by
the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such
defense from the purchaser.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility
holding company. Its operating subsidiaries own and operate
electric transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas
distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas
gathering, processing and treating facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Involved in ASARCO LLC Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo
Mexico, continue to face litigation (including asbestos-related)
involving ASARCO LLC.

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from a subsidiary of Asarco.
That action was settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2,
2003.

In March 2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from
Asarco.

In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre and other
parties, not including the Company, were named in a lawsuit
filed in New York State court in connection with alleged
asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's purchase
of SCC from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.
The lawsuit filed in New York State court was stayed as a result
of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by Asarco.

However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit after being removed to
federal court was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for resolution
in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco's creditors.

On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco on behalf of
Asarco's creditors, alleging many of the matters previously
claimed in the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's
purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a
fraudulent conveyance. In June 2008, the lawsuit was concluded
in Brownsville, Tex.

The constructive fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed.
However, the actual fraud and the aiding and abetting the breach
of fiduciary duties counts were favorable to plaintiffs. The
court's decision did not determine the damage amount. Grupo
Mexico will appeal the ruling.

In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities.

In July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage. As a result of various factors, including the work
stoppage, in August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

Asarco's bankruptcy case is being joined with the bankruptcy
cases of its subsidiaries. Asarco's bankruptcy could result in
additional claims being filed against Grupo Mexico and its
subsidiaries, including the Company, Minera Mexico or its
subsidiaries.

With its U.S. headquarters in Phoenix, Ariz., Southern Copper
Corporation produces and sells copper. In the process of
producing copper, a number of valuable metallurgical by-products
are recovered, like molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead and gold,
which the Company also produces and sells.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. Westinghouse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of
its affiliates continue to face asbestos lawsuits filed in
various jurisdictions across the United States.

The cases were filed by persons alleging bodily injury as result
of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Since 2000, the number of those claims has increased and the
resolution of these claims may take a significant period of
time.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation, and
are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

On April 17, 2005, a claim against the Company by a former
stockholder of RFPC contending that the Company assumed that
entity's liability for asbestos claims arising from exposure to
RFPC's product was resolved in the Company's favor.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

The Company's ultimate legal and financial liability with
respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending
litigation, cannot be estimated.

Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation provides products and services for the global rail
industry. Products are found on U.S. locomotives, freight cars,
and passenger transit vehicles. The Company has operations in 13
countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Facing 516 Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation faced 516 asbestos-related claims, of
which 12 were "malignant" claims and 504 were "non-malignant"
claims, according to the Company's report for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2008.

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former facilities.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners,
asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and
equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic
substances.

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on
severity of illness.

Based on current fact patterns, certain diseases including
mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are
categorized by us as "malignant" claims. All others of a less
medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant."

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation, through Todd Pacific
Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and builds government-
owned and commercial vessels. Services range from minor repairs
to major overhauls in dry dock at the Company's Seattle-area
shipyard. The U.S. government, through the U.S. Navy and the
Coast Guard, accounts for more than 60 percent of the Company's
shipyard sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. continues to be subject to legal and administrative
proceedings over allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances like asbestos and benzene.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. is an oil refiner and marketer.
The Company operates five refineries, which have a combined
processing capacity of 910,000 barrels of crude oil a day, and
it has 5,450 miles of oil and refined products pipelines and 38
product terminals. The Company markets its Sunoco gasoline
through more than 4,680 retail outlets (including Ultra Service
Centers and APlus convenience stores).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,236 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced 26,236 pending
asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants.

Of these cases, 25,719 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims,
totaling 517, are filed in various counties in a number of state
courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New
York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 17,858 cases.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 392 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.
The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs.

The Company's insurance carrier has paid all legal and
settlement costs and expenses to date.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation's MultiServ unit offers
metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other
services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. Its Access
Services businesses, SGB Group, Hünnebeck Group, and Patent
Construction Systems, rent and sell concrete-forming equipment,
scaffolding, and bridge-decking products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be a defendant in a number of
asbestos personal injury lawsuits and silica exposure lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or
silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of
about 25 or more named defendants.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and
silica litigation lawsuits.

However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or
silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury
underlying the lawsuits.

Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products
were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos and silica lawsuits.

Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. makes compressors
(reciprocating, rotary screw, and sliding vane) and positive
displacement and centrifugal blowers. The Company also makes
well-servicing pumps for oil and natural gas companies. More
than half of the Company's sales come from outside the United
States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Still Pending v. Transocean
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Transocean Inc., since 2004, have been
facing asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi.

These 21 complaints involved 750 plaintiffs that alleged
personal injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and
1986.

The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of
TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the
Company may owe indemnity.

Further, the complaints named other unaffiliated defendant
companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured
drilling related products containing asbestos.

The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos-
containing products in connection with drilling operations and
included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The
plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases
required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint
and then he dismissed the original 21 complaints. The Company
said it believes it has a direct or indirect interest in 44 of
the resulting complaints.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in
all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to
asbestos, their medical condition or the vessels potentially
involved in the claims.

The Company historically has maintained broad liability
insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will
cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore drilling
services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile
offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,031 Suits Ongoing v. Transocean Inc. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed subsidiary of Transocean Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008,
faced about 1,031 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are 3,064 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits.

This subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the its
involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of
major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
its litigation, fundings from settlements with the primary
insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain
insurance policies.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was
filed against this subsidiary in 1990.

Through Sept. 30, 2008, the amounts expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement
costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect
to the primary insurance have been satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits and the Company cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can it
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or
to resolve the pending cases.

However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in
insurance limits.

Houston-based Transocean Inc. provides offshore drilling
services for oil and gas wells. At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
owned, had partial ownership interests in or operated 137 mobile
offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.24B Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were a
gross of US$1.24 billion at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$1.30 billion at Dec. 31, 2007.

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

About 64 percent of the total net asbestos reserves at Sept. 30,
2008 (63 percent at Dec. 31, 2007) were for incurred but not
reported estimated losses.

Reserve additions for asbestos totaled US$8 million in the third
quarter of 2008 compared with US$6 million in the same period of
2007.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a
personal lines insurer. The Company sells auto, homeowners,
property/casualty, and life insurance products in Canada and the
United States. The Company's life insurance subsidiaries include
Allstate Life, American Heritage Life, and Lincoln Benefit Life.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tronox Reserves $3.8Mil for Cleveland Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tronox Incorporated, in the second quarter of 2008, reserved
US$3.8 million over an asbestos-related evaluation and other
associated project requirements in its Cleveland, Ohio,
facility.

The Company is a former subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation.

Triple S Refining Corporation, formerly known as Kerr-McGee
Refining Corporation, owned and operated a petroleum refinery
near Cleveland, Okla., until the facility was closed in 1972.

In 1992, Triple S entered into a Consent Order with the Oklahoma
Department of Health, which addresses the remediation of air,
soil, surface water and groundwater contaminated by hydrocarbons
and other refinery related materials. Facility dismantling and
several interim remedial measures have been completed.

In 2006, the ODEQ approved the remedial design for soil and
waste remediation, which includes construction of an on-site
disposal cell.

Triple S has completed a reassessment of the expected soil
volumes that will require placement in the previously approved
disposal cell. This reassessment was required due to additional
findings of asbestos impacted material.

The proposed disposal cell is anticipated to begin construction
in 2010. A feasibility study of groundwater remedial measures is
under review by the ODEQ. Duration of remedial activities
currently cannot be estimated.

Additional groundwater characterization will occur upon
completion of the soils and sediments removal. Although actual
costs may differ from current estimates, the amount of any
revisions in remediation costs, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated at this time.

Oklahoma City, Okla.-based Tronox Incorporated produces titanium
dioxide (Ti02). The Company's products are sold under the TRONOX
brand and are used as a whitening pigment in coatings, plastics,
and paper. TiO2 sales account for most of the Company's
revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Industries Still Has Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and it said it believes it has valid
defenses to those claims.

Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. designs,
manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls,
scientific and industrial imaging products and software,
industrial technology products and radio frequency products and
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Cites 3 Cases Set for Trial in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. recorded three asbestos-related cases scheduled for
trial during 2008, according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2008.

The Company is party to various legal proceedings and
administrative actions that are incidental to its operations.
These proceedings include personal injury cases, about 125 of
which the Company was aware at Oct. 29, 2008, in which the
Company is one of many defendants.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special and punitive damages. The claimants in these cases
allege injury from exposure to asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of
those products more than 20 years ago.

Through Oct. 29, 2008, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in 255 similar asbestos cases
without any going to trial, and with 26 of these involving any
payment to the claimant.

St. Louis-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
signal transmission solutions, including cable, connectivity and
active components for mission-critical applications in markets
ranging from industrial automation to data centers, broadcast
studios, and aerospace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 25,125 Abex Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at Sept. 30, 2008, recorded 25,125
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo Abex Corporation.

At June 30, 2008, the Company recorded 25,741 pending asbestos-
related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo Abex.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained
from Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through
subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was
sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
Aug. 17, 1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and
Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company
and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was
subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-
Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-
Mogul 524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex Friction product line ("Abex
Claims"), the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to
significant insurance for such claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2008, a total of 145,474
Abex Claims were filed, of which 120,349 claims have been
resolved.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, 1,931 claims were
filed and 6,265 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,090
before insurance.

A total of US$142.1 million was spent on defense costs for the
period Aug. 28, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2008.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims.

However, insurance recovery is currently at a lower percentage
(about 30 percent) due to exhaustion of primary layers of
coverage and litigation with certain excess insurers.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.
Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of
the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $816.8M Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., as of Sept. 30, 2008, estimates that
the asbestos-related liability for pending and future indemnity
and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$816.8
million.

The estimated liability is before any tax benefit and is not
discounted as the timing of the actual payments is not
reasonably predictable.

However, a discounted value would likely be about 60 percent or
less of the US$816.8 million liability recorded.

Pneumo Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

The Company utilized scenarios that it believed were reasonably
possible that indicate a broader range of potential estimates
from US$735 to US$950 million.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.
Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of
the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $192.3M Receivable at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s receivable for recoveries of costs
from insurers amounted to US$192.3 million, as of Sept. 30,
2008, of which US$72.7 million relate to costs previously paid
or insurance settlements.

The Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, as of Sept. 30, 2008, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$750 million.

Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance
sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements,
settlements or policy recoveries are probable.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months.

About 90 percent of the US$192.3 million receivable from
insurance companies at Sept. 30, 2008 is due from domestic
insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better.

The remaining balance of the insurance receivable has been
significantly discounted to reflect management's best estimate
of the recoverable amount.

Houston-based Cooper Industries, Ltd. makes electrical products,
tools, hardware, and metal support products. The Company's
electrical products include electrical and circuit protection
devices, residential and industrial lighting, and electrical
power and distribution products for use by utility companies.
Customers in the United States provide more than 70 percent of
the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 845 W.Va. Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced 845 asbestos
exposure claims in West Virginia, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company faced five claims in West
Virginia.

The Company's asbestos exposure claims, as of June 30, 2008,
totaled 848, of which 842 were filed in West Virginia and four
were filed in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22,
2008)

The Company's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging
bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture,
sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the
Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities. The Company's
historical operations were insured by various foreign and
domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers,
and the Company said it believes that it has sufficient
insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits.

Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and
environmental insurance-related actions. These actions are:

     -- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v.
        Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733
        (Washington County, Md.),

     -- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain
        Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market
        Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281
        (Monongalia County, W.Va.); and

     -- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual
        Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS
        (Suffolk Superior Court, MA).

The parties in these actions seek a declaration of coverage
under the policies for asbestos-related and environmental
claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated
energy business that owns and operates electric generation
facilities and delivers electric services to customers in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The
Company's two business segments are the Delivery and Services
segment and the Generation and Marketing segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Unit Facing 113 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power &
Light Company, faced about 113 pending asbestos-related lawsuits
as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 114 suits as of Dec. 31,
2007.

These suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that it did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by
IPL.

IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims.
Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a subsidiary of
The AES Corporation. The Company owns all of the outstanding
common stock of its subsidiaries. These include its regulated
electric utility subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company,
and its unregulated subsidiary, Mid-America Capital Resources,
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Settles w/ Md. Schools on AHERA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has settled four cases
in Maryland in an effort to ensure the safe management of
asbestos-containing materials in schools, according to a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency press release dated Nov. 12,
2008.

In separate consent agreements with EPA, the Board of Education
of Dorchester County Schools, St. Timothy's School in Stevenson,
Md., the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church preschool and
kindergarten in Baltimore, and Saint Paul's Evangelical Lutheran
Church School in Kingsville, Md., have settled alleged
violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA), the federal law requiring schools to inspect and manage
asbestos-containing building materials.

The three individual schools and one school district were cited
for include failing to include all school buildings in the
management plan, failure to conduct an initial inspection of all
school buildings to determine if there was any asbestos located
in the facility, failure to submit an asbestos management plan,
failure to conduct reinspections of all friable and nonfriable
asbestos every three years, and failure to provide annual
notification of the management plan to parents, teachers, and
employee organizations.

EPA did not find that students or other building occupants were
exposed to asbestos as a result of the alleged violations. The
schools that were cited have now certified their compliance with
the AHERA requirements.

Under AHERA, EPA may agree to reduce or eliminate penalties due
to the schools' cooperation with EPA, compliance activities and
expenditures.

The four Maryland settlement agreements are:

     -- EPA inspected St. Timothy's School, Stevenson, Md., and
        cited it for failing to maintain copies of updated
        management plans in the school, failing to inspect the
        athletic complex, and failing to provide annual
        notification to parents, teachers, and employees. The
        school has spent at least $17,195 to come into
        compliance, so there is a zero penalty amount.

     -- EPA inspected 13 schools in the Dorchester County
        Public School district, headquartered in Cambridge, Md.
        The violations vary from school to school but include
        failure to conduct reinspections of nine facilities
        every three years and failure to make management plans
        available for inspection. Dorchester County Public
        Schools has spent at least US$55,250 to comply with
        AHERA regulations, so there is zero penalty amount.

     -- EPA cited First English Evangelical Lutheran Church,
        Baltimore, Md. for AHERA violations discovered during
        inspections by the Maryland Department of the
        Environment, which included failure to have an initial
        inspection conducted at the facility to determine
        whether there was any asbestos in the facility prior to
        its use as a school, and failure to submit an asbestos
        management plan for the facility. EPA determined the
        civil penalty to be US$5,500. The school has spent
        US$3,000 on compliance and agrees to an additional
        penalty of US$2,500.

     -- EPA cited Saint Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church,
        Kingsville, Md., for failing to include the parish
        hall, a school building used for recreational
        activities, in the management plans. The school has
        spent US$5,682 to come into compliance, so there is a
        zero penalty amount.

The Nov. 12, 2008 action contributes to EPA's record-shattering
enforcement results for the 2008 Fiscal Year. To date, EPA has
concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to spend an
estimated US$11 billion on pollution controls, clean-up and
environmental projects, an all time record for EPA.

After these activities are completed, EPA expects annual
pollution reductions of more than three billion pounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Freedom to Pay GBP6T for Mishandling Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom Finance, a Wilmslow, Chesire, England-based firm known
for looking after its employees, has been fined GBP6,000 for
exposing them to asbestos, the Manchester Evening News reports.

Freedom Finance pleaded guilty at Macclesfield Magistrates'
Court to three offences of failing to manage asbestos.

An employee complained in June 2007 to Macclesfield council that
he might have been exposed to damaged asbestos while at work. It
happened after an insurance company survey found asbestos in the
boiler room and lift motor room at the Company's offices in
Brook House, Church Road, Macclesfield.

The court heard that Freedom Finance had arranged for the
surveys to be carried out in April 2007 and June 2007, some
three years later than it should have done, following a request
from their insurers.

A council investigation found that a number of employees had
been exposed to asbestos. The Company was fined a total of
GBP6,000 for breaching three different health and safety laws
and ordered to pay council costs of almost GBP1,200.

Freedom Finance has twice been included in The Sunday Times Best
Company to work for list and also has Investors in People
status.

Freedom Finance has been praised for the way it treats
employees. It has a Bupa Employee Scheme, a discount scheme,
benefits such as above-average holiday entitlement and a pension
scheme, a health and safety awareness program and NVQ training
open to all staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kramer Pays $5T Penalty for Botched Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gus Kramer, the assessor of Contra Costa County, Calif., paid
US$5,000 to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for
improperly demolishing a Bay Point house after ignoring warnings
that it contained asbestos, The Mercury News reports.

Officials say that Mr. Kramer violated numerous Bay Area Air
Quality Management District regulations:

     -- Late notice of demolition;
     -- Asbestos was not removed before demolition;
     -- No survey was conducted; asbestos was discovered after
        demolition;
     -- Waste was not contained properly; and
     -- No waste records were kept.

Mr. Kramer said the district erred in its report and that it
makes demolition too difficult for the average person. He said,
"The way I was treated by the air board was one more reason
people hate government. My advice to the public is to never tear
down a home. Let some demolition contractor do it who probably
has some relationship with the air (expletive)."

Mr. Kramer said the violations date to January 2006 he decided
to demolish a vacant house he owned on Bella Vista Avenue after
it was torched and had become a dumping ground and eyesore.

A friend had gutted the house to its studs in 1992, so, Mr.
Kramer said, he knew the house was asbestos free.

District spokeswoman Jennifer Alverson said a base fine for
improper asbestos removal is US$1,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCarty Says Many Workers Have False Papers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don McCarty, manager for the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division, says many of the people who work in asbestos removal
have false documents, Times-Herald.com reports.

Mr. McCarty told members of White Oak Golden K in Newnan, Ga.,
that Georgia has a number of regulations regarding asbestos,
including a requirement for people who work at asbestos removal
to complete certain training.

A certificate program shows a person has completed that
training, but Mr. McCarty told the group of about 70 at the
Special Events Center that many of the people who can produce a
certificate have not actually earned one.

Mr. McCarty said that when the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency checked a site in Florida where 89 people were working,
the EPA found a third of the workers had authentic certificates,
a third were working with a bogus certificate and Social
Security number and a third had certificates with the names of
"people who were dead."

Fake certificates are sometimes made for illegal aliens, and
sometimes workers have multiple false certificates from
different states.

Mr. McCarty said many building products still contain some
asbestos. The EPA issued a ban on asbestos in 1989. A federal
court subsequently ruled EPD could not ban existing uses of
asbestos.

Many people, Mr. McCarty said, heard about the ban but not about
it being overturned. Because of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, products can come from outside the United States that
contain asbestos.

Mr. McCarty said there are some 3,500 building products on the
U.S. market that still contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Court Orders Ross to Undergo Autopsy
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court is ordering James Ross, who is expected to die from
mesothelioma, to undergo an autopsy after his death, in order
for his estate to sue the company that allegedly exposed him to
asbestos, Asbestos.Com reports.

However, Mr. Ross is objecting to the procedure.

Mr. Ross worked around asbestos for several decades during his
employment with Burlington Northern Railroad. He also worked on
a home remodeling during the 1960s and 1970s that he believes
exposed him to the toxic substance.

Mr. Ross is objecting to the procedure of an autopsy on moral
grounds and is asking for the requirement to be waived even
though it will make his case more difficult to prove.

The defendants, Kaiser Gypsum and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition,
LLC believe the case should be dismissed if Mr. Ross does not
comply with the request of the autopsy.

According to Washington Law, individuals in asbestos litigation
can opt out of the autopsy if they cite religious reasons.
However, Mr. Ross is objecting because he believes that an
autopsy results in the destruction and disfiguration of the
body.

The lawsuit has yet to move to trial because the defendants
claim Mr. Ross has not been diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma.

Though Mr. Ross and his lawyer understand the importance of an
autopsy in their case, they are willing to stand by their
decision in order to help future cases and their right to deny
an autopsy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Cites 131 Asbestos Claims in Calderdale
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive reports that a total of 131
people in Calderdale, West Yorkshire, England, have died from
mesothelioma, the Evening Courier reports.

The 131 in Calderdale includes workers at the Acre Mills
asbestos factory at Old Town, Hebden Bridge, which closed in
1971.

HSE figures for 1981 to 2005 show Calderdale has the fewest
cases in West Yorkshire. However, chiefs warn that in years to
come the biggest threat is likely to be to tradespeople rather
than factory workers.

Dr David Snowball, the HSE's regional director, said. "Exposure
to asbestos is the biggest single cause of work-related deaths,
with around 4,000 people a year dying.

"Overall deaths are rising because a large number of workers
already exposed to asbestos dust around 40 years ago will go on
to develop mesothelioma."

Between 1981 and 2005, mesothelioma claimed 579 people in Leeds,
213 in Kirklees, 197 in Bradford and 155 in Wakefield.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Barker's Death to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest on Nov. 12, 2008 heard that the death of 67-year-old
Robert Barker was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Diss
Express reports.

Mr. Barker, of East Harling, Norfolk, England, spent his working
life as a production worker laborer and fork lift truck driver
between 1959 and 1962 in Uxbridge and was exposed to asbestos
powder put into a hopper.

Mr. Barker was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in August
2008 and died on Oct. 24, 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Armstrong's Death to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Kettering, England, on Nov. 17, 2008, heard that
the death of 60-year-old Terence Armstrong was linked to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph.

Mr. Armstrong died at his home on July 28, 2008.

The court heard that Mr. Armstrong had worked in several jobs as
a carpenter and had been exposed to asbestos during this time.

Coroner Anne Pember recorded a verdict that the death was due to
an industrial disease. She said, "Sadly, he was exposed to
asbestos and many years ago the dangers were not known and
protective clothing not supplied."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Sufferers to Get Faster Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campaigners in York, England, welcomed new rules granting all
victims of asbestos to get swift compensation from the United
Kingdom Government, The Press reports.

These victims include the wives of former York Carriageworks
employees.

Kim Daniells, the founder and chairwoman of the York Asbestos
Support Group, said that until now, only people who were exposed
to lethal asbestos dust during their work were able to claim
state compensation. However, now anyone contracting the
mesothelioma can claim the lump sum payment, including
housewives who used to wash their husbands' overalls and
breathed in the deadly dust.

The Press reported earlier this decade how Lilian Browne died in
2000, aged 82, after developing mesothelioma. Her husband,
Cyril, had worked as an engineer at the Carriageworks and
changed out of his dirty overalls on arriving home after a day's
work.

In 2006, the newspaper reported how Marjorie Fox, 61, of Acomb,
used to shake and then wash her carpenter husband's work clothes
after he came home from work, and she believed this had caused
the illness.

On Nov. 13, 2008, Ms. Daniells said that Pensions Minister Lord
McKenzie had said in a letter that people would now receive the
lump sum within six weeks of claiming. She said the payments
were calculated on a sliding scale, from a few thousand pounds
to perhaps GBP20,000.

People diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma often needed
swift payments of compensation to help pay mortgages and other
bills, and their expected life span was often short.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doberstein's Suit Filed in Ill. on Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald A. Doberstein, of Wisconsin, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill., on Oct. 30, 2008,
JusticeNewsFlash.com reports.

Mr. Doberstein filed the lawsuit stemming from his workplace
exposure to asbestos. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The suit names various manufacturing companies like Sprinkmann
Sons Corporation of Illinois and Young Insulation Group of St.
Louis, where these asbestos insulation and linings were
commonplace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Court Denies Appeal in Clemenceau Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A legal battle to stop the asbestos-contaminated French aircraft
carrier, Clemenceau, being allowed into the United Kingdom for
dismantling in County Durham has failed at the Court of Appeal,
the Northumberland Gazette reports.

Once the flagship of the French Navy, the Clemenceau was
considered too toxic for Indian breakers' yards and is now
destined for Graythorp, near Hartlepool, to be broken up by Able
UK Ltd.

Through law firm Public Interest Lawyers, campaign group Friends
of Hartlepool challenged a High Court decision in September
2008, which allowed the project to go ahead. However, Lords
Justice Rix, Dyson and Jackson dismissed the appeal, saying they
would give their reasons at a later date.

The Clemenceau, now known as Hull Q790, is estimated to contain
760 tons of asbestos and 330 tons of polychlorinated biphenyls.
It has been docked off the port of Brest, France, since 2006,
when the French government called it back from India in the wake
of protests.

Lawyers for the campaign group argued that the decision of the
Health and Safety Executive to allow the importation of the
Clemenceau and its carcinogenic cargo was unlawful.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harrington Widow Loses Compensation Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Harrington's widow, Iris Harrington, has been refused a
penny in asbestos-related compensation, the Pontefract &
Castelford Express reports.

Mrs. Harrington blamed Mr. Harrington's death on his work at
Fryston Colliery.

Mrs. Harrington sought GBP80,000 in damages after Mr. Harrington
died in July 2007 at the age of 70 of mesothelioma.

Mr. Harrington worked as an apprentice bricklayer at the
Castleford, England, pit when he was a teenager, between 1956
and 1958.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. County Needs $21Mil for Office Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oneida County, N.Y., estimates to spend at least US$21 million
to rid its office building in Utica, N.Y., of asbestos, The
Observer-Dispatch reports.

The office building was dedicated and opened to the public on
June 13, 1970. At the time, asbestos-containing materials were
widely used in construction.

County Executive Anthony Picente said the asbestos contamination
scare showed the abatement that was already under way is worth
the money.

"In normal office buildings, OSHA expects us to assume materials
that are from 1980 or older have asbestos," Tom Laubenthal of
the Atlanta-based Environmental Institute said, referring to the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The county already has spent about US$5.5 million on asbestos
abatement on three floors of the 10-story building, as well as
one of the basement levels, said Mark Laramie, the county Public
Works Department's deputy commissioner of engineering.

Completing such work on the rest of the building should cost
another US$15.4 million, Mr. Laramie added.

The county office building was shut on Nov. 12, 2008 after
asbestos-containing material was found near the building's
ventilation system. The material was discovered on Nov. 11,
2008, when the building was closed for Veterans Day.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos-Related Deaths Rise in Lancashire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health and safety bosses warned that the rates of which people
are dying of mesothelioma are increasing, the Lancashire Evening
Post reports.

More than 500 people in Lancashire, England, have died from
asbestos-related cancer over a 24-year period.

Wyre has the worst rate of asbestos-related deaths in the
county. A total of 80 people died in the 24 years since 1981.

The latest figures, included in a National Statistics report on
mesothelioma deaths, reveal in Preston 60 people died from
mesothelioma and 55 in Chorley.

Chorley and South Ribble also have the highest rate of female
casualties, 18 deaths.

Alan Manning, regional secretary of the TUC union, which
represents many tradesmen, said, "Asbestos may no longer be in
use, but even those starting out in their careers in industry
might encounter it as they refurbish, repair and refit ageing
buildings."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Deny Petition Review in McGreevy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, will deny a Petition
for Review filed by Consolidation Coal Company, in an asbestos-
related lawsuit involving John R. McGreevy.

The case is styled Consolidation Coal Company, Petitioner v.
John R. McGreevy; Benefits Review Board; Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor,
Respondents.

Judges Dolores Korman Sloviter, Morton Ira Greenberg, and Joseph
E. Irenas entered judgment in Case No. 07-3944 on Nov. 10, 2008.

Mr. McGreevy is an 81-year-old man who worked as a coal miner
for Consolidation for 28 years and claimed he suffers from
pneumoconiosis caused from exposure to "coal mine dust and
asbestos during his mining career."

Mr. McGreevy filed an unsuccessful claim with the Department of
Labor ("DOL") for federal black lung benefits in 1993. In 2001,
he filed a second claim, which was denied in 2002, and his case
was forwarded to an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ").

Before the ALJ, Mr. McGreevy testified that he started smoking
cigarettes when he was 17 or 18 years old, smoked between two
and three packs per day before quitting in 1989, but still
smoked "small cigars once or twice a day."

On appeal, the Benefits Review Board vacated the ALJ's findings
that Mr. McGreevy established the existence of pneumoconiosis,
that Mr. McGreevy's medical condition had changed since the
denial of his first black lung claim, and that Mr. McGreevy was
totally disabled.

The Board remanded the case to the ALJ to reconsider the medical
opinions of Drs. Garson, Fino, and Renn, with consideration to
whether Dr. Garson's opinion was "merely a restatement of an x-
ray opinion."

On remand, the ALJ again awarded benefits, explaining that Dr.
Garson's opinion was still the most persuasive. The Board
affirmed the award on June 29, 2007, and this petition followed.

Consolidation petitioned for review of the decision of the
Board, affirming an award of disability benefits Mr. McGreevy
under the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as
amended, known as the Black Lung Benefits Act ("BLBA").

William S. Mattingly, Esq., for Jackson Kelly in Morgantown,
W.Va., represented Consolidation Coal Company.

Cheryl C. Cowen, Esq., in Waynesburg, Pa., represented John R.
McGreevy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Has 18,385 Claims at Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 18,385 asbestos
claims as of Oct. 27, 2008, compared with 18,462 claims as of
July 25, 2008, 18,529 claims as of May 2, 2008, and 18,789
claims as of Feb. 1, 2008.

The Company faces lawsuits brought in various courts in the
United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products previously manufactured by the Company. Albany produced
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer
fabrics marketed from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper
mills.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company noted 523 claims dismissed,
settled or resolved and 110 new claims. Amounts paid to settle
or resolve claims were US$52,000.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, about 12,436 of the claims pending against
the Company were pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 11,871
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel,
either through removal or original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 11,871 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are about 888 claims pending against
the Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts
in other states.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, the remaining 5,949 claims pending against
the Company were pending in states other than Mississippi.

On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued an administrative order that
required each MDL plaintiff to provide detailed information
regarding the alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The
order does not require exposure information with this initial
filing.

The first set of plaintiffs were required to submit their
filings with the Court by Aug. 1, 2007, with deadlines for
additional sets of plaintiffs monthly thereafter until Dec. 1,
2007, but the process is continuing with defendants reviewing
the submissions for compliance.

The Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case
and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights.
As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 22,046 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,758,000. Of this amount,
US$6,713,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like
aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and
industrial fabric filters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Has 8,664 Claims at Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending against 8,664 asbestos-related claims as of
Oct. 27, 2008, compared with 8,672 claims as of July 25, 2008,
8,689 claims as of May 2, 2008, and 8,741 claims as of Feb. 1,
2008.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, the Company noted 86 Brandon claims
dismissed, settled or resolved and 10 new claims.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.

In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills, a
South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired
by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold dryer fabrics
containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. It is believed
that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing fabrics
prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 8,911 claims for a total of US$152,499.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2
percent of the total indemnification and defense costs related
to these proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs
had been borne directly by Brandon.

During  2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs and too reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of Oct. 27, 2008, 6,821 (or about 79 percent) of the claims
pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like
aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and
industrial fabric filters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Still Has Mt. Vernon Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In some of the asbestos cases filed against it, Albany
International Corp., still is named both as a direct defendant
and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.

Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually
obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising
out of such products.

The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount
Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. makes paper machine clothing (PMC,
custom-made fabric belts that move paper stock through each
phase of production). The Company produces about 45 percent of
the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder. The Company
also makes industrial fabric doors (Rapid Roll Doors) like
aircraft hangar doors, dock doors, synthetic insulation, and
industrial fabric filters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Suits Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be a defendant in property damage
and personal injury lawsuits relating to previously-sold
asbestos-containing products.

As of the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date, the Company was
a defendant in 65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving
Property Damage Claims (one of which has since been dismissed),
and the remainder involving 129,191 Personal Injury Claims.

Due to the Filing, holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed
from continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from
commencing new lawsuits against the Debtors.

The Personal Injury and Property Damage Committees, representing
the interests of property damage and personal injury claimants,
respectively, and the legal representative of future asbestos
claimants (FCR), representing the interests of future personal
injury claimants, have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases.

The Company's obligations with respect to present and future
claims will be determined through the Chapter 11 process.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Has 445 Damage Claims at Oct. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Oct. 20, 2008, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 445
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims, subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date, remain outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 310 of those claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$92 million.

The Company said that, as of June 30, 2008, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, 460
asbestos-related property damage claims remained outstanding.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally
seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing,
containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the
affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed before the April 2, 2001
Bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of
any damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases
settled following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company).
Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1
million, 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million, and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the
one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic
Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI).

About 4,035 additional PD Claims were filed prior to the March
31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.

Eight of the ZAI property damage cases were filed as purported
class action lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits
were filed as purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with
respect to persons and homes in Canada.

These cases seek damages and equitable relief, including the
removal, replacement and disposal of all such insulation. The
plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes and
that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that requires persons with a U.S. ZAI PD
Claim to submit individual proofs of claim no later than Oct.
31, 2008. The Bankruptcy Court denied the first three requests
and has taken the motion to certify a class claim under
advisement.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the Company, Grace Canada and legal
representatives of Canadian ZAI property damage claimants
entered into an agreement (the "Minutes of Settlement") that
would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims. The Minutes of
Settlement were approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in the Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, on Oct. 17, 2008.

Under the Minutes of Settlement, all CDN ZAI PD Claims would be
paid through a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund to which the
PD Trust would contribute CDN6.5 million.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009
as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Personal Injury Suits Ongoing v. W.R. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. still faces asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits, in which claimants allege adverse health effects from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured
by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
Personal Injury Claims were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that the
Company products were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits
involving approximately 163,698 PI Claims were disposed of
(through settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6
million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims for personal injury
were pending against the Company.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing
Date and Sept. 30, 2008 had such PI Claims not been stayed by
the Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered separate case management orders
for estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims and
adjudicating pending PD Claims, excluding Zonolite Attic
Insulation claims.

A trial for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January
2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI
Settlement.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Maintains $916MM Coverage at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2008, there remains
about US$916 million of asbestos-related excess coverage from 53
presently solvent insurers.

The Company said that, as of June 30, 2008, there remained about
US$917 million of excess coverage from 54 presently solvent
insurers. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts
paid and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$433 million.

Presently, the Company has no settlement agreements in place
with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess
coverage. Those policies are at layers of coverage that have not
yet been triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the
Prior Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related
liability of US$1.7 billion. In addition, the Company has about
US$254 million of excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying
insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with an underwriter of a portion of its excess
insurance coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of
US$90 million directly to an escrow account for the benefit of
the holders of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies. The escrow account balance
at Sept. 30, 2008 was about US$96.7 million, including interest
earned on the account.

Funds will be distributed from this account directly to
claimants at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms
of a confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by
the Bankruptcy Court. The settlement agreement provides that
unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31,
2008, at the option of the insurer, exercisable at any time
prior to April 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be
returned to the insurer.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage. The Company further
estimates that, assuming the resolution value of asbestos-
related claims is equal to the recorded liability of US$1.7
billion (which should fund claim payments in excess of US$2
billion), it should be entitled to about US$500 million of
insurance recovery, including the escrow.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Records $50.4M Libby Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$50.4 million at Sept.
30, 2008, compared with USUS$270.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, including
the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside
of Libby, was US$200.9 million at June 30, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

As a result of a 2003 U.S. District Court ruling, the Company
was required to reimburse the U.S. Government for US$54.5
million (plus interest) in costs expended through December 2001,
and for all appropriate future costs to complete asbestos-
related remediation relating to the Company's former vermiculite
mining and processing activities in the Libby, Mont., area.

These costs include cleaning and demolition of contaminated
buildings, excavation and removal of contaminated soil, health
screening of Libby residents and former mine workers, and
investigation and monitoring costs.

The Company and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to settle
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cost recovery claims
with respect to the Company's former Libby operations for a
payment by the Company of US$250 million (including the US$54.5
million).

The settlement covers all past and future remediation costs in
the Libby area, except for those relating to the Company-owned
mine.

In return, the EPA has agreed to take no action against the
Company with respect to the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. In
June 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement
agreement.

In June 2008, the Company paid US$100 million of the settlement
amount plus accrued interest of about US$1.6 million. In July
2008, the Company paid the remaining US$150 million, plus about
US$400,000 of accrued interest.

The estimated obligation at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007
does not include the cost to remediate the Company-owned mine
site at Libby.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $16.6M in 3Q08 for Libby Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total expense for W. R. Grace & Co. and seven current and former
senior level employees, over a lawsuit on the Company's former
vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Mont.,
was US$16.6 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$11.2 million for the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2007.

Cumulative expenses to address this matter were US$108.3 million
through Sept. 30, 2008.

Total expense for the Company and seven current and former
senior level employees, over the Libby suit was US$8.5 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with US$6.3
million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

On Feb. 7, 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and
seven current or former senior level employees (United States of
America v. W. R. Grace & Co. et al) relating to the Company's
former vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby,
Mont.

The indictment accuses the defendants of: (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and
(3) obstruction of justice.

The Company purchased the Libby mine in 1963 and operated it
until 1990. Vermiculite processing activities continued until
1992. The grand jury charges that the conspiracy took place from
1976 to 2002.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company could
be subject to fines in an amount equal to twice the after-tax
profit earned from its Libby operations or twice the alleged
loss suffered by victims, plus additional amounts for
restitution to victims. The indictment alleges that such after-
tax profits were US$140 million.

The Company has categorically denied any criminal wrongdoing.
The District Court has set a trial date of Feb. 17, 2009 and has
indicated that the trial could last three to five months.

The Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to
advance legal and defense costs to the employees involved in
this case, subject to a reimbursement obligation if it is later
determined that the employees did not meet the standards for
indemnification set forth under the appropriate state corporate
law.

For the remainder of 2008, the Company expects legal fees for
this matter to be in the range of about US$8 million to US$10
million.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal on Dismissal of Grace Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of New Jersey's appeal over the dismissal of an
asbestos-related lawsuit against W. R. Grace & Co. and two
former employees is still pending.

On June 1, 2005, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection filed a lawsuit against the Company and the two
former employees in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division: Mercer County (N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.).

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations
and false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the DEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former plant in Hamilton Township, N.J.

The State of New Jersey and the U.S. Department of Justice also
have conducted criminal investigations related to the Company's
former operations of the Hamilton plant, but the Company is not
aware of any recent activity related to such investigations.

The Company purchased the Hamilton plant assets in 1963 and
ceased operations in 1994. During the operating period, the
Company produced spray-on fire protection products and other
vermiculite-based products at this plant. The current property
owners have carried out remediation activities as directed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The property owners and the EPA have filed proofs of claim
against the Company with respect to the Hamilton plant site.
These claims were resolved as part of the multi-site settlement
agreement described above for a total of about US$4.1 million.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied the State of New
Jersey's motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the
amount of US$31 million. This ruling, which the State of New
Jersey has appealed, does not affect the claims against the
former employees, for which the Company would have an
indemnification obligation.

On April 1, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and
order directing New Jersey to dismiss its lawsuit against the
Company with prejudice.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries,
engages in specialty chemicals and specialty materials
businesses through two operating segments: "Grace Davison,"
which includes specialty catalysts and materials used in energy,
refining, consumer, industrial, packaging and life sciences
applications; and "Grace Construction Products," which includes
specialty chemicals and materials used in commercial,
infrastructure and residential construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star Spends $300T on Pa. Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Majestic Star Casino, LL, as of Sept. 30, 2008, has spent
US$300,000 on asbestos abatement in the 302 Carson Street Office
Building in Pittsburgh.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company spent US$200,000 on asbestos
abatement in the 02 Carson Street Office Building in Pittsburgh.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

On March 31, 2008, the Company entered into a lease with Carson
Properties Nevada LLC ("Landlord"), a subsidiary of Barden
Development, Inc., for office space ("Lease").

The Lease has an initial term of five years and six months
("Initial Term") and allows for one five-year extension under
substantially similar terms as the Initial Term.

The Lease will commence upon receipt of a temporary certificate
of occupancy and abatement of asbestos to the area being
occupied by the Company ("Premises").

Base rent will be US$1.80 per square foot, for a total of 11,549
square feet, for the first 18 months and US$2.50 per square foot
beginning in month 19, and will increase by three percent on the
second anniversary date of commencement of the Lease and every
anniversary date thereafter.

The Company will perform asbestos abatement to the Premises and
be reimbursed by the landlord for all direct and indirect costs,
not to exceed US$400,000, through rent offset.

In October 2008, the Landlord sold the building and assigned the
Lease to the buyer. The Landlord reimbursed the Company for
US$600,000 of general improvements previously made to the
Premises by the Company.

The US$300,000 spent on asbestos treatment will be reimbursed
through rent offset from the new landlord.

Based in Las Vegas, The Majestic Star Casino, LLC is a multi-
jurisdictional gaming company with operations in three states:
Indiana, Mississippi and Colorado.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Corporation Plan Filed on Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation, jointly with the Official Committee of
Bondholders and Asbestos Claimants' Committee, on Nov. 14, 2008,
filed an amended plan of reorganization and disclosure statement
with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Nov. 19, 2008.

A hearing to consider the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement
describing the Amended Plan is scheduled for Dec. 18, 2008.

If the Amended Plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court and
accepted by the requisite creditor constituencies, it will
permit the Company to exit Chapter 11 free of liability for
existing or future asbestos claims.

Under the terms of the Amended Plan, a trust will be created
that will assume the liability for the Company's current and
future asbestos claims. That trust will receive the proceeds of
various settlements the Company has reached with a number of
insurance carriers, and will be assigned the Company's rights
under its remaining policies covering asbestos product
liability.

The trust will also receive 70 percent of the newly issued
common stock in reorganized Congoleum when the Amended Plan
takes effect and US$5 million in new 9.75 percent senior secured
notes that mature five years from issuance.

Holders of the Company's US$100 million in 8.625 percent senior
notes that matured in August 2008 will receive on a pro rata
basis US$70 million in new 9.75 percent senior secured notes
that mature five years from issuance.

The new senior secured notes will be subordinated to the working
capital facility that provides the Company's financing upon
exiting reorganization. In addition, holders of the US$100
million in 8.625 percent senior notes due in August 2008 will
receive 30 percent of the common stock in reorganized Congoleum.

The Company's obligations for the US$100 million in 8.625
percent senior notes due in August 2008, including accrued
interest (which amounted to US$44.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007)
will be satisfied by the new senior secured notes and the common
stock issued when the Amended Plan takes effect.

Under the terms of the Amended Plan, existing Class A and Class
B common shares of Congoleum will be canceled when the plan
takes effect and holders of those shares, including the current
controlling shareholder, American Biltrite Inc., will not
receive anything on account of their canceled shares.

The Company expects existing management will continue post-
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.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,600 Cases at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. and its subsidiaries, as of Sept. 26,
2008, faced about 4,600 pending asbestos liability cases,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19, 2008.

Asbestos-related liability cases against the Company and its
subsidiaries dropped to 4,700 cases as of June 27, 2008, from
5,800 cases as of March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of heat-
resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the past
distribution of industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-
containing gaskets or packing. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and, as a result, have
been dismissed by the courts.

The Company has recently experienced an increase in the number
of lawsuits that have proceeded to trial. Of the lawsuits that
have proceeded to trial in 2008, the Company has won or settled
all but one case, with that one case returning an adverse jury
verdict for about US$7.7 million, which included both
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the
verdict or order a new trial, and said it believes that the
verdict will ultimately be overturned.

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Tyco International Ltd. makes electrical
and metal products (steel tubing, pipes, cables) for commercial
construction. Its flow control unit makes valves and related
products for water, wastewater, and the oil and gas markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal Mail Reaches GBP155T Deal w/ Russell
----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Mail has reached an out-of-court settlement with Lesley
Russell for GBP155,000 over her husband's (Keith Russell)
exposure to asbestos at work, Safety Med!a reports.

Mrs. Russell says Mr. Russell's mesothelioma was caused by the
presence of asbestos in the building where he used to work for
Royal Mail, the Evening Post reports.

While the Royal Mail asserts there is not enough evidence to
suggest it is responsible for "negligently exposing" Mr. Russell
to asbestos, it has agreed to the deal.

Mr. Russell worked for the business between 1957 and 1992 at a
site where there is information to suggest asbestos fibers were
present.

As part of the Health and Safety Executive's Asbestos: The
Hidden Killer campaign, student tradesmen will be targeted with
information on how to minimize the risks it presents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Workers Win Injury Action v. William Gray
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two clients of Askews Solicitors have won their fight for
asbestos compensation against William Gray and Company Ltd, a
former Hartlepool, England-based shipbuilding firm, the Evening
Gazette reports.

William Gray closed in 1968.

The two clients shared a GBP100,000-plus payout following a
dogged fight by Askews' personal injury specialist, partner
Chris Buckland.

Of the two victims, only one survives. He was diagnosed with an
asbestos-linked illness in 2005. The second died of the lung
disease mesothelioma.

Mr. Buckland said, "Both cases hinged on us being able to
establish that the company could be legally recognized in spite
of it having gone out of business almost 40 years previously."

Hartlepool was revealed to be one of the Health and Safety
Executive's asbestos black spots.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn's Lawsuit v. DuPont Filed on Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Veigh Conn, of Hardin County, Tex., filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, on
Nov. 12, 2008, in Jefferson County District Court, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Conn says that her husband, Elray Conn, died from asbestos-
related disease on Aug. 26, 2008.

According to the suit, Mrs. Conn says Mr. Conn worked for DuPont
at its Beaumont Works facility. She states Mr. Conn was exposed
to toxic and carcinogenic dusts, including asbestos, during his
work. She claims the Company failed to timely warn workers of
the dangers of the dusts.

Mrs. Conn seeks unspecified exemplary and punitive damages, plus
interest at the legal rate and other relief the court deems
just.

Darren L. Brown, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., represents Mrs. Conn.

Case No. E182-695 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 South Koreans' Kin File Action v. 3 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
It was revealed that bereaved families of two South Korean
residents who died from mesothelioma after living near an
asbestos factory filed a damages suit against three parties, The
Mainichi Daily News reports.

On Nov. 13, 2008, their bereaved families sued Nippon Asbestos
(forerunner of Nichias Corp.) and Jeil E&S (formerly Jeil
Asbestos), and the South Korean government for "failing to take
measures to improve the factory."

In the suit filed at the Busan district court, plaintiffs
demanded companies including Tokyo-based Nichias pay KPW200
million (about JPY14 million) each in compensation.

It is the first time that local residents near an asbestos
factory have filed a damages suit in South Korea.

The plant -- an asbestos spinning factory -- was run by Jeil
Asbestos, which was jointly established by Nippon Asbestos and a
South Korean company near Busan city hall in 1971. The plant
continued to operate until 1992.

One of the victims was living 900 meters away from the factory
for seven years in the 1980s and subsequently died in 2006 from
mesothelioma at age 44. The other victim was living 2.1
kilometers away from the factory for four years during the 1970s
and died in 2002 from mesothelioma at age 62.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Nichias
established the joint venture while knowing the toxicity of
asbestos but concealed it from the public.

In a related development in December 2008, the Daegu district
court in South Korea ordered Jeil E&S to pay KPW158 million in
compensation to a female former employee of its Busan factory
who died from mesothelioma. The court case has subsequently
prompted a series of damages suits against the company by its
former employees.


                            *********

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  * * *