CAR_Public/081128.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 28, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 237

                            Headlines

3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed
BELL MOBILITY: NWT High Court Denies Dismissal Bid in 911 Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement for "Off" Suit
CENTERLINE HOLDING: To Defend Claims in Federal Securities Suit

DIRECTBUY INC: Denies Claims in Conn. "Buying Club" Charges Suit
ECHOSTAR COMMS: April 2009 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Bid
LOTO-QUÉBEC: Faces Canadian Lawsuit Over Lottery Tickets
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Approves $47.5M Lawsuit Settlement

NATIONAL CITY: Johnson Bottini Files Suit Over PNC Merger Deal
PENN NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Wells REIT Securities Suit Ongoing
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Ruling on Bid to Junk Amended Complaint Pending
TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Appeal Argued Last Oct. 23
UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in MDL-1663

UNUM LIFE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in "Rombeiro" Case
UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Mogel" Insurance Suit
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Claims in "Taylor"


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SADIA S.A.: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Federman Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Fraud Suit Filing
SOUTHWEST WATER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation

TALEO CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $140.8Mil Asbestos Adjustments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A&E Settlement Adds $8.1M Losses to NYMAGIC
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $221.1M Receivables at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Corp. Still Has "Premises" Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Has 39 Injury Suits at Oct. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Appeal, Dismissal Bid Still Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Facing 41T Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Corp. Records $10MM Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Onconase in Phase III for Cancer Treatment

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 208 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Midwest Generation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Reserves $1.044B for Carolinas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 300 Actions Still Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $278T for Gradall's Facility

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $20Mil Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Cites $1.790Bil A&E Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 3,700 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIHL Has $20.5M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Deal on Steam Rupture Entered in Aug.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Still Has Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Cites $1.211B in Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Involved in N.J. Coverage Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PREIT Has $5Mil Insurance Cleanup Coverage

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Involved in Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Limited Subject to A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. American Locker
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.3M for Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Inks Deal to Resolve ZAI Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Applica Inc. Still Facing 3 Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Funding, Inc. Still Faces Product Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Colombo Dismisses Expert's Testimony

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TH Agriculture Bankruptcy Filed on Nov. 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Northern Vt. Mine to Cost $200M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kostal Suit Filed v. 111 Firms in Illinois
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beaglehole Action v. 29 Firms Filed in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summey Case v. 111 Companies Filed in Ill.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exxon Mobil Cleared in Morton Action in Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Court Rules v. Insurers Over Payouts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Prison Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Builder's Death to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Colleagues' Help Sought in Fuller Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Still Faces 115T Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clarkson's Widow Seeks Help in Legal Battle
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Durham Gets GBP105,000 Payout After Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Corp. Facing 76 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Cleared from 700 Cases at 3rd-Qtr.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. IDEX, 5 Units Ongoing in 32 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MGP Ingredients Facing Martin Case in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $90.98M Liability


                           *********

3M CO: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Decatur, Ala. Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. is still facing two purported class-action lawsuits in
Alabama over alleged perflourooctanyl pollution at its Decatur
facility.

                        2002 Litigation

A former employee filed a purported class action complaint in
2002 before the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama,
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the
plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, sub-clinical injuries,
and property damage from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry
at or near the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility.

The Circuit Court, in 2005, granted the company's motion to
dismiss the named plaintiffs' personal injury-related claims on
the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

                        2005 Litigation

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit -- filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds -- granted the company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action filed in the same court
in 2002.

Despite the stay, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property
damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a
purported class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

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

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Interlocutory Review of Bias Suit Certification Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals granted 3M Co.'s petition for
interlocutory review of a decision by the District Court of
Ramsey County granting class certification for an age
discrimination class-action lawsuit against 3M Co.

On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company
filed a purported class action suit, seeking to represent a
class of all current and certain former salaried employees
employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who
were aged 46 or older at any time during an applicable period to
be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21,
2008).

The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and
Michael Mucci, 55.  According to the lawsuit, since at least
2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the
company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45
-- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new
business methodologies adopted by the company."

The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately
selects younger employees for a leadership-training program
called "Six Sigma."

The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms
of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of
the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble
under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive
damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.  This motion was unopposed by the
company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case,
although one claim has been dismissed following an individual
settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.  On
April 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document
on their last day of employment purporting to release claims
arising out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set
at this time.

The company reported no further 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.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


BELL MOBILITY: NWT High Court Denies Dismissal Bid in 911 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (NWT) dismissed a
motion by Bell Mobility to strike a CDN6 million civil class-
action lawsuit against the company, Cara Loverock of the
Northern News Services reports.

The suit, launched by James Anderson, was brought against the
cellphone provider over its charge for 911 service, which is not
provided in any community in NWT.

An Oct. 30, 2008 written decision from the Supreme Court stated
that there were grounds for the lawsuit to proceed.  Justice
R.S. Veale stated in that decision that "the plaintiff must
plead facts that disclose a cause of action and they have done
so.  The defendant raises issues of law that may be determined
after the evidence is heard," according to Northern News
Services.

Keith Landy, the Toronto-based lawyer representing Mr. Anderson,
said if Bell does not appeal, the matter is scheduled to be
heard in Supreme Court in May of 2009.

"It's gratifying the courts have seen fit to let the matter
proceed," Mr. Anderson tells the Northern News Services.

Mr. Anderson's son, Samuel, is also listed as a plaintiff and
joined the lawsuit shortly after it was originally filed.

"In my son's case he has a package (with Bell Mobility) and the
911 fee is not segregated," explains Mr. Anderson.  He also
explains that his son was added to the suit because then both
types of fees Bell charges, those that are separate and part of
a package, are included in the lawsuit, reports the Northern
News Services.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: Awaits Approval of Settlement for "Off" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. awaits the decision on the settlement in
a putative class and derivative action lawsuit, which deal could
lead to the possible resolution of several similar cases filed
against the company, according to its Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Jan. 15, 2008, the first of the state law cases, a putative
class and derivative action, entitled "Off v. Ross, CA No. 3468-
VCP," was filed against the company, its board of trustees and
The Related Companies, LP, in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The lawsuit concerns the company's sale of a new issue of
convertible preferred stock to an affiliate of TRCLP.  It
alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees
and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages from
them as well as injunctive relief against all defendants.

Thereafter, seven other derivative lawsuits asserting the same
or similar claims were filed in state and federal courts in New
York and in the Delaware Chancery Court.

Four of these later-filed actions also allege that the trustees
breached their fiduciary duties to the company by allegedly
violating the federal securities laws.

The company is named solely as a nominal defendant in all eight
derivative actions and no monetary relief is sought against the
company in any of those cases.

The seven derivative actions filed subsequent to the Off case
are:

      1. On Jan. 18, 2008, "Kramer v. Ross, et al., Index. No.
         100861-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York County Supreme Court;

      2. On Jan. 25, 2008, "Carfagno v. Schnitzer, et al., No.
         08 CV 00912," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees with the U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York;

      3. On Jan. 30, 2008, "Ciszerk v. Ross, et al., CA No.
         3511," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the
         Delaware Court of Chancery;

      4. On Feb. 22, 2008, "Kanter v. Ross, et al., 08 Civ.
         01827," was filed against the company, its board of
         trustees and The Related Companies, L.P. with the U.S.
         District Court for the Southern District of New York;

      5. "On Feb. 27, 2008, "Broy v. Centerline Holding Company
         et al., No. 08 CV 01971," was filed against the
         company and certain of its officers and trustees with
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York;

      6. On April 10, 2008, "Kastner v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601043-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court; and

      7. On April 10, 2008, "Kostecka v. Schnitzer et al, Index
         No. 601044-08," was filed against the company and its
         board of trustees, in New York Supreme Court.

On April 28, 2008, a consolidated amended verified complaint
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor, due
care, fair dealing, waste of corporate assets and unjust
enrichment, was filed against the company and its board of
trustees in "Carfagno v. Schnitzer et al., 08 CV 912 (SAS) and
Broy v. Blau, 08 CV 1971 (SAS)," pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class
action on behalf of all holders of Centerline securities who
qualified to purchase our 11.0% preferred shares under the
rights offering but who did not do so.

The company has negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff in
the Off case based on the rights offering and which is subject
to court approval. The company believes that the settlement in
Off will also resolve the similar claims that have been asserted
in several of the other derivative lawsuits.

An initial hearing for approval of the settlement of the Off
case was held on May 23, 2008, and a second hearing was held
July 15, 2008.

Centerline Holding Co. -- http://www.centerline.com/-- formerly
CharterMac, is an alternative asset manager focused on real
estate funds and financing.  The Company had $11.9 billion of
assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2007.  Organized as a
statutory trust, the Company conducts substantially all of its
business through its subsidiaries generally under the
designation Centerline Capital Group.  The Company operates in
four groups: Affordable Housing, Commercial Real Estate,
Portfolio Management and Credit Risk Products.  The Affordable
Housing and Commercial Real Estate groups raise capital through
a series of funds to deploy into an array of real estate debt
and equity investments. The Portfolio Management group monitors
and services the investments within its funds and servicing
portfolio.  The Credit Risk Products group provides credit
support to affordable housing debt and equity products investing
in syndicated corporate debt.


CENTERLINE HOLDING: To Defend Claims in Federal Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centerline Holding Co. intends to defend the claims that have
been asserted in the consolidated complaint under "In re
Centerline Holding Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 08 CV
00505," according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the first of the federal securities cases was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Five other, essentially duplicative putative class
actions were then filed in the same court.

The complaint in each case asserted that the Company and other
defendants allegedly violated federal securities law by failing
to disclose in a timely fashion its December 2007 transaction
with Freddie Mac.

On May 5, 2008, the Court designated Centerline Investor Group,
which is made up of several shareholders, as lead plaintiff for
these cases.

Under the Court's stipulation and order dated March 3, 2008, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 7, 2008 in
this action, "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08 CV 00505."

The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with its announcement of
the Freddie Mac transaction, changes to the Company's business
model, and the reduction in dividend guidance policy, and seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common
stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period March 12,
2007 through Dec. 28, 2007.

The defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008, and the plaintiff's
brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by Nov. 14,
2008.  The defendant's reply brief will then be due Dec. 12,
2008.

The suit is "In re Centerline Holding Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00505-SAS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          Fax: 212-818-0477

               - and -

          James Clayton Kelly, Esq. (jkelly@wolfpopper.com)
          Wolf Popper LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-451-9635
          Fax: 212-486-2093

Representing the defendants are:

          Jennifer Fletcher Beltrami, Esq.
          (jbeltrami@wolfblock.com)
          Wolf Block Schorr and Solis-Cohen, LLP
          250 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: 212-883-4955
          Fax: 212-672-1155

               - and -

          Daniel J. Leffell, Esq. (dleffell@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3218
          Fax: 212-492-0218


DIRECTBUY INC: Denies Claims in Conn. "Buying Club" Charges Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DirectBuy, Inc. has denied allegations made in a purported
antitrust class-action suit that was flied against the company
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut,
under the caption, "Debra Ponzi, et al. v. DirectBuy Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:08-CV-1274(SRU)," Team 5 Investigates reported.

Specifically, DirectBuy told Team 5 Investigates that the suit
is "misguided."  They denied all accusations, saying the company
never "received any illegal or improper 'kickback' of any kind."

Previously, the The CourtHouse News Service reported that an
antitrust class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, which accuses DirectBuy
Inc. of charging thousands of dollars for membership in a
"buying club" that falsely promises "direct prices" for items
such as furniture and appliances, i.e. the "price paid by
manufacturers or suppliers" (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 25,
2008).

It is a lie because DirectBuy gets "tens of millions of dollars
in kickbacks" from the manufacturers and suppliers, the
complaint states.

DirectBuy is based in Indiana and also operates under the name
of the United Consumers Club, the complaint further states.

Named plaintiffs Debra and Robert Ponzi filed the action on
behalf of all persons that have purchased memberships in the
"DirectBuy" members-only buying club from Aug. 20, 2002, to the
present.

According to the complaint, the defendants falsely and uniformly
represent that in exchange for the payment of significant
membership fees consisting of at least several thousand dollars
per class member, "members" will be entitled t buy consumer
products (such as carpeting, furniture and appliances) from
manufacturers and supplies at "direct" prices -- that is the
actual price paid by the manufacturers or suppliers.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

      (a) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of
          the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
          Act, 18 USC Section 1961, et seq.;

      (b) whether the conduct alleged unjustly enriched
          defendants;

      (c) whether the conduct alleged constitutes a violation of
          the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.
          Stat. Section 42-110a, et seq. (CUTPA); and

      (d) whether the members of the class have sustained
          damages and, if so, what the proper measure of damages
          is.

The plaintiffs asks the court:

       -- for an order that this action is properly maintainable
          under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23, and
          appointing the plaintiffs to represent the class;

       -- pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c), for an order
          awarding treble damages, costs of suit, and a
          reasonable attorneys' fee;

       -- for damages against the defendants in an amount to be
          determined at trial, together with interest thereon,
          costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees;

       -- pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(a), for an order
          prohibiting the defendants from engaging in the same
          type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in;

       -- for restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
          obtained by defendants as a result of their
          misconduct;

       -- for all recoverable compensatory and other damages
          sustained by the plaintiffs and the class;

       -- for compensatory and punitive damages and reasonable
          attorneys' fees for members of the CUTPA sub-class;

       -- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and

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

The suit is "Debra Ponzi, et al. v. DirectBuy Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:08CV1274(SRU)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

           Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
           Seth R. Klein, Esq.
           Izard Nobel LLP
           20 Church Street
           Hartford, CT 06103
           Phone: 860-493-6292
           Fax: 860-493-6290
           e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com


ECHOSTAR COMMS: April 2009 Trial Set for Colo. Retailers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative April 2009 trial was scheduled for a class-action
lawsuit filed against EchoStar Communications Corp. eight years
ago by thousands of its retail distributors, according to
EchoStar DBS Corp.'s Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

In 2000, retailers filed lawsuits in Arapahoe County and the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, attempting to
certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's
satellite hardware retailers (Class Action Reporter, April 30,
2008).

The plaintiffs in the two suits are requesting the courts to
declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged
agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and
payments, charge backs, and other compensation.

The company is vigorously defending against the suits and has
asserted a variety of counterclaims.

The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

EchoStar Communications later filed a motion for summary
judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion.

The court granted limited discovery, which ended in 2004.  The
plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide adequate
disclosure during the discovery process.  The Court agreed, and
denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result.

During April 2008, the Court granted plaintiff's class
certification motion.

EchoStar Communications Corp. -- http://www.echostar.com/-- is
primarily a holding company.  Through its subsidiaries, the
Company operates two interrelated business units: the DISH
Network and EchoStar Technologies Corp.  The DISH Network
provides a direct broadcast satellite subscription television
service in the U.S. DISH Network services include hundreds of
video, audio and data channels, interactive television channels,
digital video recording, high-definition television,
international programming, professional installation and around-
the-clock customer service.  ETC designs and develops DBS set-
top boxes, antennae and other digital equipment for the DISH
Network (collectively referred to as EchoStar receiver systems).
ETC also designs, develops and distributes similar equipment for
international satellite service providers.


ECHOSTAR SATELLITE: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of the purported
class-action lawsuit "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal,
Inc., et al., Case No. CV07-06101," which names Echostar
Satellite, LLC -- a unit of EchoStar Communications Corp. -- as
a defendant.

A purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed the
antitrust lawsuit against the company and other defendants on
Sept. 21, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 26, 2007)

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to
bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the
ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis.

The complaint names as defendants:

         -- NBC Universal, Inc.,
         -- Viacom Inc.,
         -- The Walt Disney Company,
         -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.,
         -- Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
         -- Comcast Corporation,
         -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.,
         -- Cox Communications, Inc.,
         -- The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
         -- Echostar Satellite LLC,
         -- Charter Communications, Inc.,
         -- Cablevision Systems Corp.

The named plaintiffs are:

         -- Rob Brantley,
         -- Darryn Cooke,
         -- William and Beverly Costley,
         -- Christiana Hills,
         -- Michael B. Kovac,
         -- Michelle Navarrette,
         -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and
         -- Joseph Vranich.

The suit states that the bundling conspiracy restrains trade,
suppresses and eliminates competition, fixes and elevates prices
and forces consumers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for
channels they do not want.

This lawsuit challenges the collective conduct of defendants
which was eliminated, in material part, competition among and
between the content providers and programmers for cable or
satellite television distribution and the cable and satellite
providers by the practice of offering only prepackaged tiers of
bundled programs and refusing to offer cable programming to
consumers on an "a la carte" basis.

The class action lawsuit seeks to terminate the practice of
offering consumers only bundled or prepackaged bundled tiers and
to require programmers and cable providers to offer channels on
an "a la carte" or individual choice basis.

The plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, for treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit and a reasonable attorneys'
fee, against defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiffs
and class members by reason of the defendants' violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.

They brought the suit as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons residing in
the U.S. who subscribe to "expanded basic cable" provided by one
of the cable television or direct broadcast satellite television
provider defendants within four years of the date of the filing
of the complaint.

The suit wants the court to rule on:

    (a) whether defendants have engaged in collaborative
        activity to preclude cable or satellite subscribers from
        securing "a la carte" programming apart from "basic"
        cable service;

    (b) whether, as a result of the antitrust violation as set
        forth in the complaint, plaintiffs and the class are
        entitled to damages, equitable relief or other relief,
        and the amount and nature of such relief;

    (c) whether defendants acted on grounds generally
        applicable to the class, making injunctive relief
        appropriate;

    (d) whether a class can be certified pursuant to
        Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3); and

    (e) whether, alternatively, a class can be certified
        pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, pray:

    -- that the matter be certified as a class action with the
       class defined set forth in the complaint under
       Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), or in the alternative
       Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), and that the named plaintiffs be
       appointed class representatives and their attorneys be
       appointed class counsel;

    -- that judgment be entered against defendants, and each of
       them jointly and severally, for the treble damages as a
       result of defendants' violations of Section 1 and 2 of
       the Sherman Act, and that plaintiffs be awarded a
       reasonable attorneys' fee and the costs of suit as
       required by Section 4 of the Clayton Act;

    -- that the court enter an order requiring defendants, and
       each of them, to immediately cease the wrongful conduct
       as set forth in the complaint and specifically enjoining
       defendants from unlawfully bundling expanded basic cable
       channels and ordering defendant cable providers and
       direct broadcast satellite providers to notify their
       subscribers that they each can purchase "a la carte"
       (separately) except for "basic cable"; and

    -- for such other and further relief as to the court may
       seem just and proper.

EchoStar DBS Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of EchoStar
Communications Corp. reported in its Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, that the company filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court denied in July 2008.

The suit is "Rob Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et
al., Case No. CV07-06101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
        David W. Kesselman, Esq. (dkesselman@blechercollins.com)
        Blecher & Collins, P.C.
        515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
        Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334
        Phone: 213-622-4222
        Fax: 213-622-1656


LOTO-QUÉBEC: Faces Canadian Lawsuit Over Lottery Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------
     MONTREAL, Nov. 26 /CNW Telbec/ - This morning, Loto-Québec
was served notice of petition for a class action suit in Quebec
Superior Court, alleging that since November 2001, instant
lottery tickets have remained on sale even after all available
grand prizes have been claimed, Loto-Québec believes that
plaintiffs' allegations are untrue and without merit.

     Insofar as these allegations have been disseminated by the
media and may have caused concern or sown confusion among the
public, Loto-Québec considers it important to make it clear that
plaintiffs' description of instant lottery distribution policies
in no way reflects actual Loto-Québec practices.

     For example, the Gagnant à Vie instant lottery specifically
mentioned by plaintiffs, has been marketed since September 2000,
and in each instance, tickets were withdrawn from sale as soon
as top prizes - in this case a lifetime annuity - were claimed.
In such cases, Loto-Québec prints a new series of tickets in a
different colour, to enable consumers to clearly distinguish
between the old and new series.

     Out of respect for the judicial process, Loto-Québec will
curtail its comments, but does intend to vigorously contest this
petition in the appropriate jurisdiction.

    
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: N.Y. Court Approves $47.5M Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval to the $47.5 million settlement for a
shareholder class-action lawsuit over alleged improper stock-
options backdating at Monster Worldwide, Inc., designated as "In
re Monster Worldwide Securities Litigation, 07 Civ. 2237
(S.D.N.Y.) (JSR)," Chad Bray of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The settlement will be funded by a $46.9 million payment by
Monster and a $550,000 personal contribution from Monster
Worldwide founder Andrew J. McKelvey, one of two individual
defendants in the case, according to court documents obtained by
Dow Jones Newswires.  Myron F. Olesnyckyj, Monster's former
general counsel, also is part of the settlement.

                        Case Background

On March 15, 2007, a putative securities shareholder class-
action lawsuit was filed by Middlesex County Retirement System
against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 11, 2008).

The class-action suit seeks an indeterminate amount of damages
on behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants, who
purchased or acquired the securities of the Company from May 6,
2005 until Sept. 9, 2006.

On July 9, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
securities class action asserting claims against the Company,
Andrew McKelvey and Myron Olesnyckyj, the Company's former
General Counsel, based on an alleged violation of Section 10(b)
the Exchange Act and against the individual defendants based on
an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On July 14, 2008, the Court certified a class consisting of all
of those who purchased or acquired securities of the Company
from May 5, 2005 to June 9, 2006 other than the defendants, the
officers and directors of the Company, members of the immediate
families of any excluded person, the legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns of an excluded person, any entity
in which defendants have or had a controlling interest and any
current of former Company employee who acquired the Company's
securities through the exercise of options.

On Sept. 28, 2008, the lead plaintiff, the Company and the
individual defendants entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
that memorializes the terms pursuant to which the parties have
agreed, subject to Court approval, to settle the securities
class action.

According to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Stipulation of Settlement provides for
a payment to the class by the defendants of US$47.5 million in
full settlement of the claims asserted in the Securities Class
Action.  The Company's cost is anticipated to be approximately
US$25 million (net of insurance and contribution from another
defendant).

On Oct. 3, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement.

The suit is "In Re: Monster Worldwide, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-02237," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jed S. Rakoff
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alan Ian Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow, LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0877
          Fax: (212) 883-7077

               - and -

          Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
          Goldman, Scarlato & Karon. P.C.
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: 484-342-0700
                 888-668-4130
          Fax: 484-342-0701
          e-mail: info@gsk-law.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Andrew J. Levander, Esq. (andrew.levander@dechert.com)
          Dechert LLP
          P.O. Box 5218
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: 212-698-3500
          Fax: 212-698-3500

               - and -

          Arunabha Bhoumik, Esq. (ABhoumik@manatt.com)
          Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-790-4554
          Fax: 212-536-1861


NATIONAL CITY: Johnson Bottini Files Suit Over PNC Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
     On November 26, 2008, on behalf of shareholders, Johnson
Bottini, LLP ("Johnson Bottini") filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, against members of the Board of
Directors of National City Corporation ("NCC" or the "Company")
(NYSE:NCC), NCC, and The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
("PNC") (NYSE:PNC) in connection with their efforts to sell NCC
to PNC pursuant to a Merger Agreement that was timed,
negotiated, and structured in violation of defendants' fiduciary
duties and at below market prices.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that instead of
complying with their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder
value for NCC's public shareholders, defendants instead
franticly scrambled to sell the Company at below market prices
while tens of millions of dollars are being diverted in the form
of:

       -- premium payments to a NCC significant shareholder for
          its block of preferred shares and warrants;

       -- the acceleration of unvested options held by
          defendants; and

       -- the potential elimination of millions of dollars of
          liability arising out of defendants' prior misconduct
          through a merger designed to wrest NCC shareholders of
          standing to maintain derivative litigation against
          defendants and a "deeper pocket" to indemnify them,
          all in exchange for agreeing to an alarming fire sale
          price for NCC.

     The complaint further alleges a claim for violations of
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, because the
defendants issued a false and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC on November 24, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that the Proxy is false and
misleading because, among other things:

       -- it does not properly disclose the defendants'
          potential liability from the derivative lawsuits and
          conceals the fact that these strong claims will be
          extinguished for the benefit of defendants upon
          completion of the merger;

       -- a number of statements in the Proxy were rendered
          misleading because the Proxy failed to allow the
          shareholders to make an informed judgment about
          whether the price is fair; and

       -- it misleads shareholders as to the extent of due
          diligence NCC performed on PNC before agreeing to a
          percentage of PNC's stock as consideration for NCC's
          shareholders in the Merger Agreement.

     The plaintiffs are represented by Johnson Bottini, which
has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and
extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

     The complaint seeks to change the terms of the Merger
Agreement, stop the proposed merger, or rescind the Merger
Agreement.

For more details, contact:

         Johnson Bottini, LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1400
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0063
         Fax: 619-233-5535
         Web site: http://www.johnsonbottini.com


PENN NATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penn National Gaming Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under the
caption, "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 8:08-
cv-01752-PJM," Ryan Conley of BloodHorse reports.

On July 16, 2008, the company was served with a purported class-
action lawsuit brought by Herman Braude, on behalf of himself
and others who purchased shares of company stock between April
1, 2008, and July 3, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 30,
2008).

The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosure practices
relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment
Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., and the eventual
termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified
damages, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.

BloodHorse reported that in its motion seeking for dismissal of
the case, the company claimed that the legal action is an
attempt by the plaintiffs to recover on bad investment
decisions.

Besides demanding dismissal based on various claimed
deficiencies in the complaint, the motion also refutes
accusations that the company held undisclosed termination
discussions with two private equity firms seeking to buy the
company's holdings for $8.9 billion, and charges that executives
tipped off certain outsiders of the deal's demise, according to
BloodHorse.

The company claims the deal, which was announced in June 2007,
ultimately collapsed for a variety of reasons related to a
deteriorating national economy hampered by a credit crisis, and
a general downturn in the gaming industry, reports BloodHorse.

"Amid these conditions, the market began to have substantial
doubts as to whether the Penn buyout would close," the dismissal
motion claimed.  "Having made the wrong investment decision,
plaintiffs now seek to hold Penn responsible for their
investment losses."

The suit is "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No.
8:08-cv-01752-PJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Herman Martin Braude, Esq.
          (hbraude@braudemargulies.com)
          Braude and Margulies PC
          1200 Potomac St NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 1-202-471-5400
          Fax: 1-202-471-5404


Representing the defendants is:

          Kevin B. Collins, Esq.
          Covington and Burling LLP (kcollins@cov.com)
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: 1-202-662-5598
          Fax: 1-202-778-5598


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Wells REIT Securities Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery remains ongoing in the matter captioned "In Re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case
No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," which names Piedmont Office Realty
Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT) -- f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate
Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) -- as a defendant.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class action suit and derivative complaint entitled
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April
24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court
dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in
their entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts
with the exception of allegations regarding the company's
failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind
Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to
the defendants as consideration for Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  The parties
are presently engaged in discovery, according to Piedmont Office
Realty Trust, Inc.'s Nov. 13, 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 Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Ruling on Bid to Junk Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
the matter "In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP," according to
the company's Nov. 13, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The purported class-action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the
company and its board of directors.

The complaint attempts to assert class-action lawsuit claims on
behalf of:

       -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares
          pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by
          Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and

       -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy
          statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of
the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated
thereunder.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the
court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contains the same counts as the original complaint.

On June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The suit is "In Re: Piedmont Office Trust Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge
Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Phone: 215-642-8500

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. (MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq. (tim.mast@troutmansanders.com)
          Troutman Sanders, LLP-ATL
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3312
          Fax: 404-962-6796


TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Appeal Argued Last Oct. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held oral
arguments on Oct. 23, 2008, for the appeal in the purported
shareholder class-action suit styled "Huberman v. Tag-It
Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352."

Talon International Inc., was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc.

On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead
plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2006.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
the purported class period.

The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1,
2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification.  The
plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also
sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class
certification.

Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007.  In
addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the
other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007
-- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and
his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007.  The
company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007.

The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         e-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         Jules Brody, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl.
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230

         Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com)
         Wolf Popper
         845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-759-4600

         Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP
         1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and -

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         e-mail: service@ssbla.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Panteha Abdollahi, Esq.
         (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com)
         Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker
         695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Phone: 714-668-6200


UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in MDL-1663
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned "In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663," which
names Unum Group, as a defendant, are appealing the dismissal of
several key claims in the matter.

The company and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many
other insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as
defendants in a series of putative class action complaints that
have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation.

The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended
complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things,
that the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and various state common law
requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
November 29, 2005.  On April 5, 2007, the defendants' dismissal
motion was granted without prejudice as to all counts except the
ERISA counts.

The plaintiffs were granted a last opportunity to file an
amended complaint, and they did so on May 22, 2007.

On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and for summary judgment on all counts.

On Aug. 31 and Sept. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs' federal antitrust
and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts
was granted on Jan. 14, 2008.  All pending state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in connection with the order
dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO claims.

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

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


UNUM LIFE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in "Rombeiro" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, a unit of Unum Group, is
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on
an interlocutory basis, a ruling that certified a class in the
purported class-action suit that was filed against the company
over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

On July 15, 2002, "Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of
America, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California
and subsequently was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.  It alleges that the plaintiff
was wrongfully denied disability benefits under a group long-
term disability plan.

On Jan. 21, 2003, an amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of individuals that were denied or terminated
from benefits under group long-term disability plans, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and payment of benefits.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint.  On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking
similar relief.

Between November 2002 and November 2003, six additional similar
putative class action suits were filed in (or later removed to)
federal district courts in Illinois, Massachusetts, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

The complaints allege that the putative class members' claims
were evaluated improperly and allege that the company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
the class members under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and various
state laws.

The suits seek various forms of equitable relief and money
damages, including punitive damages.

These actions all were transferred to the Eastern District of
Tennessee multidistrict litigation.  On Dec. 22, 2003, the court
entered an order consolidating all of the actions for all
pretrial purposes under the caption, "In re UnumProvident Corp.
ERISA Benefit Denial Actions," and appointed a lead plaintiff.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Feb. 20, 2004.

A court-ordered mediation concluded with a settlement of all
individual claims brought by seven of the 15 named plaintiffs.

An eighth plaintiff has subsequently resolved her claims through
the process established under the regulatory settlement
agreements.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the court certified a (b)(2) class consisting
of:

      "all plan participants and beneficiaries insured under
      ERISA governed long-term disability insurance
      policies/plans issued by UnumProvident and the insuring
      subsidiaries of UnumProvident throughout the United States
      who have had a long-term disability claim denied,
      terminated, or suspended on or after June 30, 1999, by
      UnumProvident or one or more of its insuring subsidiaries
      after being subjected to any of the practices alleged in
      the complaint."

The company is appealing the class certification order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on an interlocutory
basis.

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

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.


UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Mogel" Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Mogel et al.
v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 1:07-cv-
10955-NMG," which was filed against Unum Life Insurance Co., a
unit of Unum Group, have appealed the dismissal of their case to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for First Circuit.

In May 2007, Roy Mogel, Todd D. Lindsay and Joseph R. Thorley
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated filed the
suit against Unum Life Insurance in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

This is a putative class-action suit alleging that the company
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
group life insurance policies when the company paid certain life
insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing Retained
Asset Accounts rather than checks.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss all claims.  The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Unum Group reported no further development in the case 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 "Mogel et al. v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of
America, Case No. 1:07-cv-10955-NMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel M.
Gorton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          M. Scott Barrett, Esq. (barrettecf@aol.com)
          Barrett & Associates
          P.O. Box 5233
          Bloomington, IN 47407-5233
          Phone: 812-334-2600
          Fax: 812-337-8850

          John C. Bell, Esq. (john@bellbrigham.com)
          Bell & Brigham
          457 Greene Street
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Phone: 706-722-2014
          Fax: 706-722-7552

               - and -

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq. (cdelbaum@nclc.org)
          National Consumer Law Center
          77 Summer St., 10th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-542-8010
          Fax: 617-542-8033

Representing the defendants is:

          Byrne J. Decker, Esq. (bdecker@pierceatwood.com)
          Pierce Atwood
          1 Monument Square
          Portland, ME 04101
          Phone: 207-791-1100
          Fax: 207-791-1350

  
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Claims in "Taylor"
------------------------------------------------------------
A Tennessee federal court dismissed several claims in a lawsuit
against UnumProvident Corp., entitled, "Taylor v. UnumProvident
Corp., et al.," according to Unum Group's Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The litigation was filed on April 30, 2003, originally in the
Tennessee Circuit Court.  It was subsequently removed to federal
court.

The litigation alleges claims against UnumProvident and certain
subsidiaries on behalf of a putative class of long-term
disability insurance policyholders who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after Jan. 1, 1995, seeking equitable and monetary relief.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated various state
laws by engaging in unfair claim practices and improperly
denying claims.

The court subsequently granted in part the company's motion for
summary judgment in "Taylor," dismissing plaintiff's request for
equitable relief on her breach of contract claim and dismissing
any claim plaintiff may make for punitive damages under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

The former claim is the principal claim upon which class
certification is sought.

The court reserved ruling on the remainder of the pending motion
for summary judgment.

On July 7, 2008, the federal court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

On Sept. 23, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit denied plaintiff's petition to appeal the denial of
class certification; on the following day the District Court
dismissed all of the plaintiff's additional claims except for
plaintiff's individual claims for breaches of contract and
fiduciary duty and alleged violations of the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- formerly UnumProvident
Corp., is a provider of group and individual income-protection
insurance products in the U.S., and the U.K.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ARACRUZ CELULOSE: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, FL, Nov 26, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of
Aracruz Celulose S.A. ("Aracruz" or the "Company") (SAO PAULO:
ARCZ6) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

     The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Aracruz
Celulose S.A. American Depository Receipts (ADR's) and/or common
stock between April 7, 2008 through October 2, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     Aracruz is a major Brazilian manufacturer of forest
products, which they market to manufacturers of consumer paper
products around the world.

     During the Class Period, Aracruz entered into undisclosed
currency derivative contracts to purportedly hedge against the
Company's U.S. dollar exposure.

     The Company characterized the use of these contracts as
protection against foreign interest rate volatility and assured
investors that this type of trading did not represent "a risk
from an economic and financial standpoint."

     However, these contracts violated Company policy in that
they were far larger than necessary to hedge normal business
operations.

     As a result of Aracruz's clandestine and speculative
currency wagers, credit rating agencies downgraded Aracruz, the
Company's CFO resigned, and Aracruz's stock suffered a severe
decline, plummeting to the lowest levels in 14 years.

     On October 3, 2008, the price of the ADR's traded on the
New York Stock Exchange closed at $23.40, down $7.84 per share,
a decline of 25%. The Company's common stock suffered similar
drastic declines on the Sao Paulo Bovespa.

For more details, contact:

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 394-3399
          Fax: (561) 394-3382
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


SADIA S.A.: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Nov 26, 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 of purchasers of American
Depository Receipts ("ADRs" or "shares") of Sadia S.A. ("Sadia"
or the "Company") between April 30, 2008 and September 26, 2008
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect
to these matters, please contact Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer
& Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff,
Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-
mail at info@btkmc.com.

     The Complaint charges Sadia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

     Sadia is a refrigerated and frozen protein products company
that offers processed products, poultry, and pork in Brazil.

     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 entered into currency derivative
          contracts that were unnecessary, too large, and in
          clear violation of the Company's hedging policy;

       -- that the Company's exposure to currency contracts was
          not "nominal," but rather extremely large and
          speculative;

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

       -- that the Company's financial statements, by not
          accounting for Sadia's exposure to currency market
          fluctuation, were materially false and misleading at
          all relevant times; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being and future
          business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
          basis when made.

     On September 25, 2008, the Company shocked investors when
it announced that it had suffered losses of R$760 million (U.S.
$410 million) due to investments in currency contracts hedging
against the U.S. dollar.

     The Associated Press reported that the Company's losses on
these contracts were likely greater than the Company's earnings
for 2008.  The following day, the Company announced that its
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") had been dismissed.

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$5.77 per share, or 37.79 percent, to close on September 26,
2008 at $9.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     The Company's shares continued to fall the following
trading day as the news continued to reach the marketplace,
declining an additional $1.51 per share, or 15.89 percent, to
close on September 29, 2008 at $7.99 per share, again on
unusually high trading volume.

     Subsequently, on October 6, 2008, the Company announced
that its Chairman and Vice Chairman had resigned.  On this news,
the Company's shares continued to decline, closing at $7.75 per
share and $6.47 per share on October 6, 2008 and October 7,
2008, respectively.

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


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Federman Sherwood Announces Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood announces on November 25, 2008, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVNT).

     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 December 13, 2007 through October
24, 2008.  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


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Izard Nobel Announces Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT, Nov 26, 2008 -- The law firm of Izard Nobel
LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in
prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of Savient,
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Savient" or the "Company") between
December 13, 2007 and October 24, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges that Savient, and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Savient, a pharmaceutical company, is developing Puricase,
also referred to as pegloticase, for the control of uric acid in
patients with gout, whose signs and symptoms are inadequately
controlled by conventional urate lowering therapy due to
ineffectiveness, dose limiting toxicity, hypersensitivity or
other contraindications.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements about two
clinical trials of pegloticase called GOUT 1 and GOUT 2.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose five serious
adverse events ("SAEs") experienced by patients in those
studies.

     Subsequently, on October 27, 2008, before the markets
opened, Savient issued a press release that disclosed, among
other things, the previously undisclosed SAEs.

For more details, contact:

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


SOUTHWEST WATER: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Nov. 26, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
SouthWest Water Company ("SouthWest Water" or the "Company")
between March 16, 2006 and November 9, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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

     SouthWest Water provides water, wastewater and public works
services.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

       -- that in regard to certain acquired assets, the Company
          was improperly applying a rate of depreciation for
          financial reporting purposes that did not consider the
          length of time the assets were in service prior to
          being acquired;

       -- that the Company was improperly capitalizing and
          depreciating costs associated with installing water
          and sewer taps in Texas and Mississippi but
          recognizing the related tap fee revenue when received,
          instead of expensing the costs as incurred and
          recognizing the related revenue in the period the tap
          was actually installed;

       -- that, as a result of the above, depreciation expense
          related to assets acquired by acquisition since 2000
          had been understated on the Company's consolidated
          financial statements, expenses related to the
          installation of water and sewer taps in Texas and
          Mississippi had been understated, and certain assets
          and related depreciation were overstated;

       -- that as such, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

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

       -- that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On November 10, 2008, SouthWest Water shocked investors
when it announced that the Company would be delaying the filing
of its Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended September 30, 2008.

     The Company revealed that SouthWest Water's audit committee
had concluded that the consolidated financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2005, 2006 and 2007, and for each of
the quarters therein, as well as for the quarters ended March
31, 2008 and June 30, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and
would be restated to correct a number of errors related to:

       -- the establishment of the rate of depreciation of
          assets acquired by acquisition; and

       -- the accounting for revenues and related costs
          associated with the installation of water and sewer
          taps.

     The Company disclosed that it would correct the errors in
its consolidated financial statements to bring them into
alignment with its rate filings.

     On this news, shares of SouthWest Water declined $2.97 per
share, more than 36%, to close on November 10, 2008, at $5.25
per share, on unusually heavy volume.

For more details, contact:

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


TALEO CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Nov. 26, 2008 -- Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of Taleo Corporation ("Taleo" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: TLEO) between October 4, 2005 and November
10, 2008, inclusive(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges that Taleo misled or failed to inform
the investing public regarding the Company's historical and
current accounting practices with respect to the timing for
recognition of application and consulting revenues under
generally accepted accounting principles in the United States
(GAAP).

     These policies, which reflected an inappropriate of GAAP
designed to accelerate the recognition of revenues, had been
part of a scheme to defraud investors since the Company's
initial public offering in October 2005.

     As a result of this acceleration of revenues, Taleo was
ableto present to investors a rosier picture of its financial
condition thanthe appropriate revenue figures would have been
depicted.

     Then on November11, 2009, Taleo announced that it would
delay third quarter earnings reportto review its accounting
practices. On this news, the price of Taleocommon stock dropped
$3.06, or 28 percent, to $7.99.

     No Class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $140.8Mil Asbestos Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. asbestos-related adjustments were
US$140.8 million during the second quarter for fiscal year 2009,
according to a Company press release dated Nov. 17, 2008.

The press release was included in a Company report, on Form 6-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 19,
2008.

The Company's asbestos adjustments were US$100.3 million during
the half year of fiscal 2009.

For the quarter, net operating profit including asbestos,
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) expenses
and tax adjustments was US$153.5 million (mainly due to the
effect of foreign exchange adjustments on the asbestos liability
which has been favorably impacted by the depreciation of the AUD
against the U.S. dollar), compared with US$19.1 million for the
same quarter last year.

For the half year, net operating profit excluding asbestos, ASIC
expenses and tax adjustments decreased 36 percent to US$76.2
million from US$119.8 million. Including asbestos, ASIC expenses
and tax adjustments, net operating profit increased from US$58.2
million to US$154.9 million.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries
N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create products
for residential and commercial construction, including siding
(Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.
The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe
through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A&E Settlement Adds $8.1M Losses to NYMAGIC
----------------------------------------------------------------
A press release dated Nov. 4, 2008 states that a settlement in
the second quarter of 2008 of certain disputed reinsurance
receivables primarily related to NYMAGIC, INC.'s old Asbestos
and Environmental book added after tax losses of US$8.1 million,
or US$0.94 per diluted share, in the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2008.

A re-evaluation of the provision for other potentially
uncollectable reinsurance receivables of a similar nature in the
same book also contributed to the US$8.1 tax losses.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is an insurance holding company
whose property and casualty insurance subsidiaries specialize in
writing ocean marine, inland marine and non-marine liability
insurance, and whose agency subsidiaries specialize in
establishing markets for such business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $221.1M Receivables at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYMAGIC, INC.'s reinsurance receivables on unpaid balances, net
at Sept. 30, 2008, decreased to US$221.1 million from US$250.1
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Reinsurance receivables on paid balances, net at Sept. 30, 2008,
decreased to US$34.8 million from US$38.8 million at Dec. 31,
2007.

The decreases were largely as a result of the payment of gross
ocean marine losses and asbestos and environmental losses that
were substantially reinsured, the write-off of disputed
receivable balances with a reinsurer, and the subsequent
reevaluation of reserves for doubtful accounts.

New York-based NYMAGIC, INC. is an insurance holding company
whose property and casualty insurance subsidiaries specialize in
writing ocean marine, inland marine and non-marine liability
insurance, and whose agency subsidiaries specialize in
establishing markets for such business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Corp. Still Has "Premises" Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to be a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for and
to indemnify the Company against asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner. None of the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the
cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants.

In its 14-year experience with tendering these cases, the
Company has not made any payment with respect to any tendered
asbestos cases.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company noted
18 cases tendered during period, 66 cases resolved during
period, and 1,144 cases unresolved during period. During the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company noted 20 cases
tendered during period, 180 cases resolved during period, and
1,207 cases unresolved during period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had an accrued
liability of US$16.4 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of US$16.4 million relating to its
indemnity protection with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
Cases include all cases for which service has been received by
the Company, other than a number of cases that were erroneously
filed against it due to a clerical error. The cases filed in
error have been dismissed.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company noted
four cases filed during period, one case resolved during period,
and 42 cases unresolved during period. During the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company noted 52 cases filed during
period, 53 cases resolved during period, and 41 cases resolved
during period.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of nil during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$2.6 million
during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corporation manufactures
differentiated organic chemical products and inorganic chemical
products. Products comprise a broad range of chemicals and
formulations, which the Company markets globally to a
diversified group of consumer and industrial customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Has 39 Injury Suits at Oct. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at Oct. 31, 2008, faced 39 asbestos-related
or other personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants
seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal
injury, including claims purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

At July 31, 2008, the Company faced 38 asbestos lawsuits, one of
which was scheduled for trial in 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 22, 2008)

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry. It performs contract
drilling services with its fleet of 63 offshore drilling units
located worldwide, including the Middle East, India, the U.S.
Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, the North Sea, Brazil, and West Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Appeal, Dismissal Bid Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation says that a consolidated appeal and a
motion to dismiss are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, while oral arguments have yet to
be scheduled.

During the Company's Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, most
actions against the Debtors relating to pre-petition liabilities
were automatically stayed. Substantially all of the Company's
pre-petition liabilities were addressed under the Plan. Its
emergence from bankruptcy resolved certain of its contingencies.

During January 2008, both an Ad Hoc Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants as well as an asbestos claimant, Jose
Angel Valdez, filed notices of appeal of the Confirmation Order.

During February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the two appeals.

Prior Dana and the other post-emergence Debtors filed with the
District Court (i) a motion to dismiss the consolidated appeal
and (ii) a brief in support of the motion to dismiss and on the
merits of the consolidated appeal.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies axle,
driveshaft, structural, sealing, and thermal management products
for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about
32,000 people in 26 countries and operates 113 major facilities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Facing 41T Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 41,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at Sept. 30, 2008,
including about 11,000 claims that were settled but are awaiting
final documentation and payment.

The Company had about 42,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at June 30, 2008, including about 10,000
claims that were settled but awaiting final documentation and
payment. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

The Company has accrued US$146 million for indemnity and defense
costs for pending and future asbestos personal injury liability
claims at Sept. 30, 2008. The Company's policy before the
adoption of fresh start accounting had been to accrue the
undiscounted low end of the range of projected obligations,
which had resulted in an accrual of US$136 at December 31, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had recorded US$74 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending
and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared with US$69 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2007.

In addition, the Company had a net amount receivable from its
insurers and others of US$17 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec.
31, 2007.

The receivable represents reimbursements for payments related to
asbestos personal injury liability claims, including billings in
progress. A number of disputes involving administration of
claims had been pending for more than five years with several of
the Company's insurers and had delayed the collection of
outstanding receivables from these insurers.

These disputes were resolved in September 2008 and collection of
about US$20 million is expected prior to the end of 2008.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies axle,
driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management products
for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about
32,000 people in 26 countries and operates 113 major facilities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Holding Corp. Records $10MM Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at Sept. 30, 2008, had a receivable of
US$10 million that it expects to recover from available
insurance and surety bonds relating to Center for Claims
Resolution (CCR) asbestos claims.

After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former
CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, its insurers and the claimants over a period of several
years in an effort to resolve these issues. Through Sept. 30,
2008, the Company had paid US$47 million to claimants and
collected US$37 million with respect to these claims.

The US$20 million expected to be received in the fourth quarter
of 2008 as a result of resolving the administrative disputes
with several of the Company's insurers includes US$10 million to
satisfy this receivable.

Efforts to recover additional CCR-related payments from
available insurance and surety bonds are continuing. Additional
recoveries are not assured and accordingly have not been
recorded as assets at Sept. 30, 2008.

Toledo, Ohio-based Dana Holding Corporation supplies axle,
driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management products
for global vehicle manufacturers. The Company employs about
32,000 people in 26 countries and operates 113 major facilities
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation will likely continue to be involved in
product exposure (claimed exposure to asbestos, chemicals,
contaminants, and radiation) legal proceedings and claims.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 10, 2008.

Mentor, Ohio-based STERIS Corporation develops, manufactures and
markets infection prevention, contamination control, microbial
reduction, and surgical and critical care support products and
services for healthcare, pharmaceutical, scientific, research,
industrial, and governmental Customers throughout the world. The
Company operates in three reportable business segments:
Healthcare, Life Sciences, and STERIS Isomedix Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Onconase in Phase III for Cancer Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. says that Onconase is in
Phase III clinical development for the treatment of unresectable
malignant mesothelioma.

In January 2008, the Company entered into an exclusive licensing
agreement with Alfacell Corporation to acquire the
commercialization rights to Onconase in the United States.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company made an initial
cash payment of US$5 million to Alfacell in the first quarter of
2008.

Woodcliff Lake, N.J.-based Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
operates through its subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., in
two business segments, for the development, manufacture and
distribution of generic pharmaceuticals and branded
pharmaceuticals in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy Still Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to be named as a defendant in
pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and
multiple defendants.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,120 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 208 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Midwest Generation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, at Sept. 30, 2008, recorded 208
asbestos cases for which it was potentially liable and that had
not been settled and dismissed, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

The Company had recorded a US$53 million liability at Sept. 30,
2008 related to this matter.

At June 30, 2008, the Company recorded 230 asbestos cases for
which it was potentially liable and that had not been settled or
dismissed. The Company had recorded a US$53 million liability at
June 30, 2008 related to this matter. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 29, 2008)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison Company and Exelon Generation Company LLC on
Feb. 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of
its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in
the agreement.

Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion responsibility for
future asbestos-related claims based upon the number of exposure
sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or Company
locations.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms
(subject to the right of either party to terminate); under the
automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February
2009.

Payments are made under this indemnity upon tender by
Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability for an
asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or expense.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale
electricity to markets in the Midwest. The independent power
producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,470 MW from
its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois. The Company also
oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site
generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Reserves $1.044B for Carolinas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation recognized US$1.044 billion in asbestos-
related reserves for its Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary
as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$1.082 billion as of Dec.
31, 2007.

The Company had asbestos-related reserves of US$1.056 billion
for its Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary as of June 30,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the
self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the
second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit
will be reimbursed by the Company's third party insurance
carrier.

The insurance policy limit for potential insurance recoveries
for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.107
billion in excess of the self insured retention. Insurance
recoveries of US$1.036 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008 and US$1.040
billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 related to this policy are
classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within
Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Company subsidiaries Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy
Ohio, Inc. have also been named as defendants or co-defendants
in lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating
stations.

As of both Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has
recorded reserves, including reserves related to the
aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims, of
about US$1.1 billion for these proceedings and exposures.

The Company has insurance coverage for certain of these losses
incurred. The Company recognized about US$1.036 billion as of
Sept. 30, 2008 (US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007) of
probable insurance recoveries related to these losses.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation has 3.9 million
electricity customers and about 500,000 gas customers in the
U.S. South and Midwest. The Company's US Franchised Electric and
Gas unit operates through its Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy
Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy Kentucky regional
businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 300 Actions Still Pending v. Bucyrus Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. continues to face about 300 personal
injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure to
asbestos and other substances, involving about 600 plaintiffs.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question. At the time a liability associated with a case
becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company
accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.

For all other cases, an estimate of the costs associated with
the matters cannot be made due to the inherent uncertainties in
the litigation process.

The Company faced about 300 personal injury liability cases
alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other
substances, involving about 580 plaintiffs. (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. designs,
manufactures and markets high productivity mining equipment for
surface and underground mining. The Company operates in two
business segments: surface mining and underground mining.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alamo Reserves $278T for Gradall's Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$278,000 over a potential
asbestos issue at its Gradall facility in New Philadelphia,
Ohio, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company has an environmental reserve in
the amount of US$1,631,000 related to the acquisition of
Gradall's facility in Ohio.

Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior
to the acquisition are in process of remediation with a current
reserve balance of US$165,000.

The Company had a reserve of US$311,000 concerning a potential
asbestos issue at its Gradall facility. (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 5, 2008)

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. makes tractor-mounted mowing
equipment (rotary, flail, and sickle-bar). The Company's Alamo
Industrial and Tiger hydraulically powered tractor-mounted
mowers are sold to government entities. Its Rhino and M&W
subsidiaries sell rotary cutters and other equipment to farmers
and ranchers for pasture maintenance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Records $20Mil Reserves at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos- and environmental-
related gross reserves for loss and loss adjustment expenses
were US$20 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$19.4
million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's A&E net reserves for loss and LAE were US$13.4
million at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$11.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

In recent years, average A&E payments have declined modestly. As
a result of the Company's historical direct underwriting mix of
Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market
risks, past asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort
liability loss experience has remained minimal in relation to
the Company's total loss and LAE incurred experience.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$60 million
at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$56.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to
be subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
(ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.

The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years. Its
participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses
of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. is
an all-around property/casualty insurance holding company.
Through its Hanover Insurance Company, the Company provides
personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance and
professional liability coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Cites $1.790Bil A&E Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's asbestos and environmental net loss reserves were
US$1.790 billion at June 30, 2008, compared with US$1.875
billion at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2008.

The US$1.790 billion comprised of US$1.247 billion in reserves
held by Brandywine run-off companies, US$206 million of reserves
held by Westchester Specialty, US$163 million of reserves held
by ACE Bermuda, US$153 million of reserves held by Insurance –
Overseas General, and US$21 million of reserves held by active
ACE USA companies.

The Company's exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
principally arises out of liabilities acquired when it purchased
Westchester Specialty in 1998 and the P&C business of CIGNA in
1999, with the larger exposure contained within the liabilities
acquired in the CIGNA transaction.

In 1996, prior to the Company's acquisition of the P&C business
of CIGNA, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner approved a
plan to restructure INA Financial Corporation and its
subsidiaries (the Restructuring) which included the division of
Insurance Company of North America (INA) into two separate
corporations:

     -- An active insurance company that retained the INA name
        and continued to write P&C business; and

     -- An inactive run-off company, now called Century
        Indemnity Company.

As a result of the division, predominantly all A&E and certain
other liabilities of INA were allocated to Century and
extinguished, as a matter of Pennsylvania law, as liabilities of
INA.

As part of the Restructuring, most A&E liabilities of various
U.S. affiliates of INA were reinsured to Century, and Century
and certain other run-off companies having A&E and other
liabilities were contributed to Brandywine Holdings. As part of
the 1999 acquisition of the P&C business of CIGNA, the Company
acquired Brandywine Holdings and its various subsidiaries.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based ACE Limited sells property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance globally. The Company's North American
operations offer commercial property and casualty insurance in
Bermuda, Canada, and the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Gets 3,700 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received about 3,700 new asbestos-related claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 3,500 claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Metropolitan Life received about 2,900 new asbestos-related
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared with
2,600 claims during the six months ended June 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Metropolitan Life is and has been a defendant in a large number
of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These
suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with
respect to certain research, publication and other activities of
one or more of Metropolitan Life's employees during the period
from the 1920s through about the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life have included
negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos.

During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have
granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life,
while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life's motions
to dismiss.

During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid US$878 million in premiums
for excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided
for recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a
US$400 million self-insured retention. The Company's initial
option to commute the excess insurance policies for asbestos-
related claims would have arisen at the end of 2008. On Sept.
29, 2008, Metropolitan Life entered into agreements commuting
the excess insurance policies as of Sept. 30, 2008.

As a result of the commutation of the policies, Metropolitan
Life will receive cash and securities totaling US$632 million on
or before Jan. 30, 2009.

Of this total, Metropolitan Life received US$115 million in
fixed maturity securities on Sept. 26, 2008, and Metropolitan
Life received US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29, 2008.

Metropolitan Life will receive the remainder of the recoverable,
US$317 million, in cash on or before Jan. 30, 2009. Metropolitan
Life recognized a loss on commutation of US$35.3 million during
the three months and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.

New York-based MetLife, Inc. provides insurance and other
financial services with operations throughout the United States
and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.
Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company offers life insurance, annuities,
automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other
financial services, group insurance, and retirement & savings
products and services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIHL Has $20.5M Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC's reserve for unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses includes US$20.5 million of gross
reserves at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$22.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2007.

AIHL is an Alleghany Corporation subsidiary.

AIHL's reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes US$20.3
million of net reserves at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$22.7
million of net reserves at Dec. 31, 2007.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation (a Company subsidiary) between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

The Company said it believes that CATA's asbestos and
environmental reserves are adequate at Sept. 30, 2008.

New York-based Alleghany Corporation specializes in
property/casualty insurance and real estate. The Company's
subsidiaries include Capitol Transamerica (property/casualty,
fidelity, and surety insurance), RSUI Group, an underwriter of
wholesale specialty insurance, and Employers Direct Insurance,
which provides workers' compensation coverage.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Consolidated Edison, Inc. still face suits in
New York State and federal courts, wherein plaintiffs sought
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.

These Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The suits that have been resolved have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars.

In 2006, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years to be US$10
million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.

Under its current rate agreements, Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers' compensation claims.

For the Company, accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10
million at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007. Regulatory assets
for asbestos suits were US$10 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec.
31, 2007.

Accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$114 million
at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$116 million at Dec. 31,
2007. Regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$38
million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$41 million at Dec.
31, 2007.

For Con Edison of New York, accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$10 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.
Regulatory assets were US$10 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec.
31, 2007.

Accrued liability for workers' compensation was US$109 million
at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$111 million at Dec. 31,
2007. Regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$38
million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$41 million at Dec.
31, 2007.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Deal on Steam Rupture Entered in Aug.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. says that its subsidiary, Consolidated
Edison Company of New York, Inc., in August 2008, entered into
agreements with the New York State Public Service Commission
staff and the New York State Consumer Protection Board over the
explosion of a New York steam main.

In July 2007, a Con Edison of New York steam main located in
midtown Manhattan ruptured. It has been reported that one person
died and others were injured as a result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, with respect to the incident, the Company
incurred estimated operating costs of US$35 million for property
damage, cleanup and other response costs, recorded US$21 million
in actual and expected insurance recoveries and invested US$12
million in capital, retirement and other costs.

Over 70 suits are pending against the Company seeking generally
unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages,
for personal injury, property damage and business interruption.
The Company has notified its insurers of the incident.

In August 2008, Con Edison of New York entered into a Joint
Proposal with the PSC staff and the State Consumer Protection
Board with respect to the PSC's ongoing proceeding relating to
the steam main rupture.

Under the Joint Proposal the Company:

     -- Will not recover from customers the operating, capital
        and retirement costs it incurred as a result of the
        steam main rupture;

     -- Will, in general, effectively be limited in its
        recovery from customers of premiums for its excess
        liability insurance policies for each of the policy
        years beginning April 2008 through April 2011 to
        amounts designed to prevent recovery of any premium
        increase resulting from the steam main rupture; and

     -- Will be released from all prudence-related claims that
        were or could have been asserted in any PSC proceeding
        relating to the steam main rupture other than with
        respect to any damage to company facilities, or
        incremental costs, that are neither known nor
        reasonably foreseeable.

In August 2008, the Company entered into a second agreement with
the PSC staff, subject to the approval by the PSC of the Joint
Proposal, under which in lieu of a penalty action for
violations, if any, of the Public Service Law or the PSC's
regulations or orders as a result of the steam main rupture, the
Company accrued a US$4 million regulatory liability to be used
for future steam customer benefit.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Still Has Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. still faces lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in
the workplace, including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

Portland, Ore.-based Precision Castparts Corp. makes investment
castings used in aerospace and power generation applications.
Products include jet engine parts, fluid management valves, and
deep-hole boring tools. The cyclical aerospace market still
accounts for more than half of the Company's sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Cites $1.211B in Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's liability for asbestos-related
matters was US$1.211 billion at Sept. 30, 2007, compared with
US$754.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$439.3 million at Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$249.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority
of those claims has been filed against either subsidiaries
Ingersoll Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) and Trane Inc. and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain current and historical products sold by IR-New Jersey
and Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

At Sept. 30, 2008, over 90 percent of the open claims against
the Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been
placed on inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of
which have little or no settlement value against the Company,
particularly in light of recent changes in the legal and
judicial treatment of such claims.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries were
US$800,000 for the three months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared
with US$7.1 million for three months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of
asbestos-related claims after insurance recoveries were US$1.5
million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$27.1 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007.

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2007, the Company has resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) about 208,000 claims. The total amount of all
settlements paid by the Company (excluding insurance recoveries)
and by its insurance carriers is about US$308 million, for an
average payment per resolved claim of US$1,480.

The average payment per claim resolved during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007 was US$7,491. This amount reflects the Company's
emphasis on resolution of higher value malignancy claims,
particularly mesothelioma claims, rather than lower value non-
malignancy claims, which are more heavily represented in the
Company's historical settlements.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited designs,
manufactures, sells, and services industrial and commercial
products. The Company operates in four business segments: Air
Conditioning Systems and Services, Climate Control Technologies,
Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. Brands
include Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll Rand, Schlage, Thermo King
and Trane.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Involved in N.J. Coverage Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited's subsidiary, Trane Inc.
(formerly American Standard Companies Inc.), continues to pursue
litigation in New Jersey against certain carriers whose policies
it believes provide coverage for asbestos claims.

The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged
Trane's right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against
various primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers,
seeking coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental
claims against most of the insurers in the NJ Litigation have
been settled.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add
claims for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities
against 16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to
the NJ Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit
all contested matters to mediation.

Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

Trane has now settled with a substantial number of its insurers,
collectively accounting for 75 percent of its recorded asbestos-
related liability insurance receivable as at Sept. 30, 2008.

More specifically, effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered into a
coverage-in-place agreement (August 26 Agreement) with the
following five insurance companies or groups: 1) The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc.; 2) The Travelers Companies,
Inc.; 3) The Allstate Corporation (solely in its capacity as
successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance
Company); 4) Dairyland Insurance Company; and 5) American
International Group, Inc.

The August 26 Agreement provides for the reimbursement by the
insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos
bodily injury claims under specified terms and conditions and in
exchange for certain releases and indemnifications from Trane.

In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement
agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest
Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group,
resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies
issued by those companies (Everest Re Agreement).

The Everest Re Agreement contains a number of elements,
including policy buy-outs and partial buy-outs in exchange for a
cash payment along with coverage-in-place features similar to
those contained in the August 26 Agreement, in exchange for
certain releases and indemnifications by Trane.

Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the insurer
defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the
August 26 Agreement or Everest Re Agreement. Once concluded, the
Company said it believes NJ Litigation will resolve coverage
issues with respect to about 96 percent of Trane's recorded
insurance receivable in connection with asbestos-related
liabilities.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through Dec. 31, 2007, Trane has resolved 61,002 (by settlement
or dismissal) claims. Trane and its insurance carriers have paid
settlements of about US$109 million, which represents an average
payment per resolved claim of US$1,786.

During 2007, 3,019 new claims were filed against Trane, 1,826
claims were dismissed and 740 claims were settled. At Dec. 31,
2007, there were 105,023 open claims pending against Trane.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited designs,
manufactures, sells, and services industrial and commercial
products. The Company operates in four business segments: Air
Conditioning Systems and Services, Climate Control Technologies,
Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. Brands
include Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll Rand, Schlage, Thermo King
and Trane.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PREIT Has $5Mil Insurance Cleanup Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust still has insurance
coverage for certain environmental claims, including asbestos,
up to US$5 million per occurrence and up to US$5 million in the
aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

In the past, the Company had performed remediation of such
environmental matters, and it is not ware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these matters, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
7, 2008.

Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust
focuses on retail shopping malls and strip and power centers
located in the eastern half of the United States, primarily in
the Mid-Atlantic region. As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company's
portfolio consisted of 56 properties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Involved in Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to litigation,
including liability claims related to the Company's current
products and asbestos-related claims concerning premises and
historic products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 7, 2008.

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation produces chemicals
for the automotive, transportation, construction, packaging,
agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-durable
goods, industrial rubber and home pool and spa chemicals
markets. The Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500
products and formulations in more than 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries still face a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been
found liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement
in any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and said it believes adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Roseland, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs,
manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems and
provides products and services to the aerospace, defense,
automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical,
agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security,
and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enstar Group Limited Subject to A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited says that it will continue to be subject to
litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of
business, including litigation generally related to the scope of
coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 10, 2008.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited was formed to
acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-
off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to
the insurance and reinsurance industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. American Locker
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated still faces asbestos-related
injury actions, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 10,
2008.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through Nov. 10,
2008, the Company has been named as an additional defendant in
165 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts. The
plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company
manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a
shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury
resulted from exposure to those products.

The assets of this division were sold by the Company in 1973.
During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced
which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in
the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained
asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts
shipyards.

Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's
insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.
Settlement agreements have been entered in 20 cases with funds
authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier.

Further, more than 100 cases have been terminated as to the
Company without liability to the Company under Massachusetts
procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of unresolved cases
against the Company as of May 9, 2008 was 45 cases.

Grapevine, Tex.-based American Locker Group Incorporated sells
and rents coin-, key-, and electronically controlled lockers
used by the recreation and transportation industries,
bookstores, and libraries. The Company also makes a coin- and
credit card-operated baggage cart system for use in airports.
Customers have included Walt Disney World, The UPS Store, and
the University of Colorado.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.3M for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Sept. 30, 2008, has accrued
a total of US$2.3 million for estimated future costs of asbestos
removal or abatement at City National Plaza (US$2.1 million) and
Brookhollow (US$200,000).

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

As of June 30, 2008, the Company accrued a total of US$2.4
million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at City National Plaza (US$2.2 million) and
Brookhollow US$200,000). (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a real estate
operating company that owns, acquires, develops and manages
primarily office, and mixed-use and residential properties on a
nationwide basis. The Company conducts its business through its
Operating Partnership, of which the Company owns 61 percent.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Grace Inks Deal to Resolve ZAI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., on Nov. 21, 2008, entered into an agreement
in principle with the Official Committee of Equity Security
Holders, Special Counsel and Putative Class Counsel to the U.S.
Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) claimants and the Asbestos PD
Future Claimants' Representative, all parties-in-interest in the
Company's Chapter 11 cases, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Nov. 24, 2008.

The Agreement would resolve all of the Company's U.S. ZAI
property damage claims and demands, if any, including without
limitation, all asbestos-related ZAI property damage claims
pending in the U.S. at the filing of the Chapter 11 cases and
those asserted subsequent thereto (U.S. ZAI Claims) on the terms
and conditions set forth therein.

Under the Agreement, all U.S. ZAI Claims will be channeled for
resolution to an asbestos property damage trust (PD Trust)
established in compliance with Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code under the joint plan of reorganization filed by
the Company with the Bankruptcy Court on Sept. 19, 2008 (Plan).

The Agreement requires that the following assets (ZAI Assets) be
paid into the PD Trust:

     -- US$30 million in cash on the effective date of the Plan
        (Effective Date), plus, if the Effective Date occurs
        after March 31, 2009, interest from April 1, 2009 to
        the Effective Date, accrued at the same rate applicable
        to the Company's senior exit financing;

     -- US$30 million in cash on the third anniversary of the
        Effective Date; and

     -- Up to 10 contingent deferred payments of US$8 million
        per year during the 20-year period beginning on the
        fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, with each such
        payment due only if the ZAI Assets fall below US$10
        million during the preceding year.

The deferred payments would be backed by 50.1 percent of the
Company's common stock to meet the requirements of Section
524(g).

Under the Agreement, ZAI Claims that qualify for payment will
generally be paid 55 percent of the claimed amount, but in no
event will the PD Trust pay more than 55 percent of US$7,500 (as
adjusted for the increase in inflation each year after the fifth
anniversary of the Effective Date) and the Company will have the
right to conduct annual audits of the books, records and claim
processing procedures of the PD Trust.

The Agreement contemplates the filing of a revised Plan, a PD
Trust agreement and ZAI trust distribution procedures with the
Bankruptcy Court.

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: Applica Inc. Still Facing 3 Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc.'s subsidiary, Applica Incorporated, is still a
defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the plaintiffs
have alleged injury as the result of exposure to asbestos in
hair dryers distributed by Applica over 20 years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured those products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers sold by it prior to 1979, according
to the Company's quarterly filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Nov. 14, 2008.

There are numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of
whom actually manufactured asbestos containing products.

Miramar, Fla.-based Salton, Inc. markets and distributes small
kitchen and home appliances, pet and pest products, water
products and personal care products. Brand names include Black &
Decker, George Foreman, Russell Hobbs, Toastmaster, LitterMaid,
and Farberware.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VWR Funding, Inc. Still Faces Product Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc. continues to be involved in litigation
resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of the Company's predecessors or
acquired companies.

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

West Chester, Pa.-based VWR Funding, Inc. distributes laboratory
supplies, including chemicals, glassware, equipment,
instruments, protective clothing, production supplies and other
assorted laboratory products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to face lawsuits in which
it is one of numerous defendants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Nov. 10, 2008.

Based in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. makes ice-
making, beverage-dispensing, and refrigerating products, cranes,
and other material handling equipment. In 2008, the Company
agreed to sell its shipbuilding and repair operations to Italy-
based Fincantieri.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Colombo Dismisses Expert's Testimony
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Colombo, Jr., of the Third Circuit Court in Wayne
County, Mich., disqualified expert witness testimony from Dr.
Michael Kelly, a doctor who diagnosed more than 7,000 asbestos
plaintiffs, the ABA Journal reports.

Dr. Kelly was not a radiologist and was not board-certified to
read X-rays, according to lawyers challenging his testimony.
Their motion said the law firm Goldberg, Persky and White had
paid Dr. Kelly US$500 for each asbestos exam, the Detroit Free
Press reports.

Judge Colombo ruled in the case of one asbestos litigant, but
the ruling calls into question more than 2,100 cases on his
docket, the Free Press story says.

Judge Colombo had said Dr. Kelly makes findings of the same
physical conditions in almost every case, and that treating
physicians had often failed to confirm his findings.

Dr. Kelly said in testimony that his methods were exact and
radiologists not experienced in asbestos diagnosis could
overlook important indicators.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TH Agriculture Bankruptcy Filed on Nov. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
TH Agriculture & Nutrition LLC, on Nov. 24, 2008, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection saying it faces personal injury
litigation over asbestos and Vietnam-era exposure to "Agent
Orange," Reuters reports.

According to court documents in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York, TH Agriculture distributed
bulk shipments of chrysotile asbestos fiber in the United States
from about 1960 through 1980. It also distributed laundry
products and vermiculite that it said may have contained
asbestos.

Court documents said the Company is involved in almost 6,000
pending asbestos cases, and since the late 1970s has been named
as a defendant in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits,
allegedly resulting from exposure to "Agent Orange", an
herbicide used in defoliation operations in Vietnam.

The Company, incorporated as Thompson-Munro-Robbins Chemical Co
in January 1917, had assets of about US$78 million, and
liabilities of about US$577 million, as of Aug. 31, 2008, it
said in court papers.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, a subsidiary of
Royal Philips Electronics N.V., owns 10 percent or more of TH
Agriculture.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup in Northern Vt. Mine to Cost $200M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont state and federal officials say that hazardous waste
cleanup at an asbestos mine in northern Vermont could cost more
than US$200 million, The Associated Press reports.

The asbestos mine in Lowell, Vt., and Eden, Vt., operated for
almost a century. All that is left now are piles of waste rock,
some of which contain asbestos.

In 2007, the federal Environmental Protection Agency spent
almost US$2 million to stop the waste material from damaging
nearby streams and wetlands.

One of the owners of the mine is G-1 Holdings Inc., a successor
to the GAF Corporation, which is trying to reorganize in
bankruptcy court. GAF owned the mine until 1975, when it sold
the mine to the Vermont Asbestos Group.

The principal shareholder of the Vermont company is Lamoille
County businessman Howard Manosh. The state is suing the Vermont
Asbestos Group.

Vermont Assistant Attorney General John Beling said, "The total
cost estimates, which are preliminary, put the range in the
US$210- to US$250-million category. We're not optimistic that
we're going to get 100 percent recovery, but we're going to
attempt to get as much as we can out of the bankruptcy and out
of the state court proceeding."

Mr. Beling says the Vermont Asbestos Group is liable for the
contamination at the property. However, Vermont Asbestos lawyer
Ed French says the company has little money.

Mr. French said, "Its only asset is a warehouse in Morrisville
that it rents out for a minimal amount each month. So very
minimal assets and extensive liabilities at this point in time."

State and federal agencies have also filed a claim in bankruptcy
court outlining G-1's potential liability. The government is
listed as an unsecured creditor, which means it may have to
stand in line behind banks or other creditors.

A study by the Vermont Health Department found that people who
live near the mine have higher rates of lung cancer and
asbestosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kostal Suit Filed v. 111 Firms in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Illinois, Jerry J. and Rosemary Kostal, on Oct.
29, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 111
defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the suit (Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 08-
L-1017), the Kostals claim that Mr. Kostal was diagnosed with
lung cancer on March 20, 2008.

The Kostals say Mr. Kostal worked from 1943 until 1946 as a
laborer in the U.S. Army and from 1946 until 1987 as a member of
the Local 597 Chicago Steam Fitter Union. They state Mr.
Kostal's exposure was foreseeable and should have been
anticipated by the defendants, according to the suit.

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

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

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Kostals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Beaglehole Action v. 29 Firms Filed in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Beaglehole, on Oct. 30, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 29 defendant corporations in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the suit, Mrs. Beaglehole claims she was diagnosed
with mesothelioma on July 24, 2008.

According to the suit, Mrs. Beaglehole says she worked from 1943
until 1958 as a cashier and bookkeeper at Kroger in Michigan.
She claims her disease was caused after she was exposed to and
inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.

In addition to her employment, Mrs. Beaglehole was exposed to
asbestos fibers through her deceased husband, who worked from
1948 until 1950 as an assembly line worker at Ferguson Tractor
Company, in the 1950s as a line worker at Aircraft Precision
Parts Company and from 1960 until 1987 at Chevrolet Motors
Engineering where he tested and implemented new technologies,
built engines and tore them down, the suit states.

Mrs. Beaglehole was also exposed through her father, Giovanni
Agnello, who worked as a cement finisher at Ford Motor Company,
according to the complaint.

In the nine-count lawsuit, Mrs. Beaglehole seeks sums in excess
of US$50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, economic damages in excess of US$150,000 and
compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000.

Mrs. Beaglehole also seeks punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated
parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
Ill., W. Mark Lanier, Esq., R. Craig Bullock, Esq., J. Kyle
Beale, Esq., and Sara A. Morton, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in
Houston, represent Mrs. Beaglehole.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summey Case v. 111 Companies Filed in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Tennessee, Charles and Elizabeth Summey, on Oct.
29, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 111
defendant corporations in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

According to the suit (Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 08-
L-1016), the Summeys claim that Mr. Summey was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on July 23, 3008. They say Mr. Summey worked from
from 1950 until 1954 in the U.S. Navy, from 1955 until 1957 as a
stockman at Magnavox and from 1957 until 1992 as a machine
attendant/production worker at RCA.

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

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

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Summeys.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exxon Mobil Cleared in Morton Action in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An eight-member jury in Newport News Circuit Court, in Newport
News, Va., on Nov. 25, 2008, ruled in favor of Exxon Mobil
Corporation in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by the family
of former shipyard worker Stanley Morton, The Daily Press
reports.

The suit had asked for US$10 million in damages, plus US$500,000
in medical bills.

Mesothelioma struck in 2005, with Mr. Morton succumbing to the
disease in December 2007 at age 72.

Mr. Morton's law firm, Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein,
polled jurors after the verdict to see why they sided with
Exxon.

Bobby Hatten, Esq., said they primarily blamed Newport News
Shipbuilding — the company that built and repaired the ships —
rather than the oil giant.

Jurors were never told that the shipyard is immune from getting
sued under federal worker's compensation immunity. That is,
because the yard pays out worker's compensation for disability
claims, it cannot under law be sued in court for those same
injuries.

The lawsuit had asserted that Exxon's negligence led to Morton's
death. It contended that the oil company had known about the
problems with asbestos, developing rules to protect workers at
refineries beginning in 1937, but took no steps to warn shipyard
workers.

Exxon countered that its ships were some of many that Mr. Morton
worked on, that there was no firm evidence that he was exposed
to asbestos on the Exxon ships, and that the shipyard was
responsible for worker safety.

Aside from the shipyard's immunity, the Navy, which included
asbestos specifications in its purchase orders, is immune from
getting sued under provisions of defense contracting law.

Asbestos law is clear that companies that knowingly contributed
to the injury can be liable for the injury. But a danger to the
plaintiff's case, Mr. Hatten said, is when the jury begins
wondering why one company — say, Exxon — is bearing the brunt of
the blame.

Exxon's attorney, Bill Armstrong, from Oakland, Calif., sought
to get the jury to blame the shipyard for Mr. Morton's cancer.
He consistently brought up the idea that the shipyard had
"control" of the yard work, including the safety aspects — even
as Mr. Hatten said Exxon shared control. The yard, Mr. Armstrong
said, ran "all aspects of safety," from hard hats to welding
fumes to asbestos.

Mr. Hatten said Nancy Morton settled out of court, for an
undetermined amount, with parts suppliers even before the Exxon
portion of the case went to trial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: High Court Rules v. Insurers Over Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a United Kingdom High Court ruling, families of mesothelioma
victims will not be denied compensation from insurers, Rochdale
Online reports.

On Nov. 21, 2008, High Court Judge Mr. Justice Burton ruled that
employees can claim against the employers' historic insurers
even though there is no exact proof of when life–threatening
tumors develop.

Insurers had tried to use a legal loophole to defeat claims made
against them by victims of the asbestos-related cancer or their
families. The legal battle centered on when an insurers
liability began, either at the time of exposure or when the
disease actually developed.

About 14,000 claims are brought every year in the United
Kingdom, costing insurers as much as GBP25 million.

Guy Darlaston, partner at Irwin Mitchell law firm, said, "It's a
fundamental victory for asbestos disease victims who have claims
now and in the future."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: York Prison Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old widower Henry
Moss, who had worked in the Prison Service, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, The Press reports.

But York, England, Coroner Donald Coverdale said it was
impossible to say with certainty how Mr. Moss, who died of
mesothelioma, came to breathe in the deadly asbestos dust.

Mr. Coverdale said that while Mr. Moss had worked in the Prison
Service, he visited factories to look for work to be carried out
by prisoners.

Mr. Coverdale said Mr. Moss' father had worked as a boilerman,
and it was possible there had been asbestos dust on his clothes
when he came home.

There was no evidence Mr. Moss had lived in an area where there
was asbestos in the air.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Builder's Death to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Wales heard that the death of 64-year-old builder
Terry Ward was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Western Mail
reports.

Mr. Ward died early in 2008 from mesothelioma.

Mr. Ward spent most of his life as a builder working on sites
with little or no protection against the invisible danger of
asbestos.

The 64-year-old died earlier this year from mesothelioma – a
deadly cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Maureen Ward, who met her husband when she was 15 years old, has
spoken of how she nursed Mr. Ward, a grandfather-of-three,
throughout his "dreadful" illness.

The first sign that Mr. Ward, who was working as a security
guard at the time, was ill came when he started suffering from
nose bleeds. The couple, who have two children, initially put
the symptoms down to blood pressure.

However, 18 months ago, after a barrage of hospital tests they
were told that Mr. Ward had mesothelioma. He was given between
three and 12 months to live.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Colleagues' Help Sought in Fuller Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cecil Fuller, a 74-year-old pensioner ill with asbestosis, seeks
the help of former colleagues and their families to try to get
compensation, the Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Fuller had worked at Nene Valley Coachworks in Rushden,
England, more than 40 years ago. However, his solicitors cannot
find any trace of the Nene Valley's insurance company to try to
get compensation.

Mr. Fuller, who worked as a carpenter at the now defunct caravan
and mobile home company between 1955 and 1966, said, "So far, no
sufferers have been able to claim compensation because it has
not been possible to track down the company's insurers. Please,
please, come forward if you have any information which might
help."

Mr. Fuller's work required him to cut sheets of asbestos used
for insulation in caravans, exposing him to asbestos fibers. He
said, "Nene Valley Coachworks was a big employer back in the
1950s and 1960s and I'm sure there must still be lots of people
who came into contact with the company.

"We want to hear from anyone who worked there or their families.
We understand that eight former employees died as a result of
working at Nene Valley and we are anxious to talk to their
relatives."

According to Mr. Fuller, there was a fire at Nene Valley in
about 1965 which gutted the premises and it may be that local
people or firefighters dealt with the Company's insurers or
brokers as a result.

Jeremy Brooke, of Simpson Sissons & Brooke, a specialist
personal injury lawyer with extensive experience of handling
asbestos cases, said, "It is tragic that victims such as Mr
Fuller have not been able to claim the compensation to which
they are entitled."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Still Faces 115T Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 115,000 open asbestos-related claims during
the year ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 134,000 claims
during the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Nov. 26, 2008.

The Company had 115,000 open asbestos-related claims for the
nine months ended June 30, 2008, compared with 139,000 claims
for the nine months ended June 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 22, 2008)

During the year ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company recorded 4,000
new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 21,000 claims
dismissed. During the year ended Sept. 30, 2007, the Company
recorded 4,000 claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 30,000
claims dismissed.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.
Although Riley neither produced nor manufactured asbestos, its
industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components
provided by other companies.

Since Oct. 1, 2005, the Company has been dismissed as a
defendant in 92 percent of the resolved claims.

The Company's asbestos reserve was US$572 million during the
year ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$610 million during
the year ended Sept. 3, 2007.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$458 million, of which US$77 million relate to
costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$488 million at Sept. 30, 2007.

Non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$428 million
during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$458
million during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. is a diversified, global
chemical company, which provides quality products, services and
solutions to customers in more than 100 countries. The Company
operates through four divisions: Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Distribution, Valvoline and Ashland Water Technologies.
At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company had about 11,900 employees
(excluding contract employees).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Clarkson's Widow Seeks Help in Legal Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Clarkson's widow, Sylvia Clarkson, seeks information about
her husband's working conditions after he died from
mesothelioma, the Pontefract & Castleford Express reports.

Mr. Clarkson died at the age of 67 in November 2006 after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mrs. Clarkson is now pursuing a
claim for compensation.

Mrs. Clarkson believes her husband may have been exposed to
asbestos during his time as a plasterer with the former
Castleford Corporation, and possibly during a period of
employment at Ferrybridge Power Station.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Durham Gets GBP105,000 Payout After Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Durham has been awarded GBP105,000 after a landmark High
Court ruling forced United Kingdom insurers to pay out over the
asbestos-related death of her father, Leslie Screach, Chad.co.uk
reports.

Mr. Screach died of mesothelioma in November 2003 at the age of
73. He had been exposed to asbestos fibers when he worked as a
painting and decorating contractor for G&C Whittle Ltd in
Chiswick, Middlesex, England, from 1963 to 1968.

Mr. Screach's death sparked a legal battle for his daughter
against insurers, who had argued they should not be held liable
for asbestos exposure which happened so long ago.

At the High Court on Nov. 21, 2008, Mr. Justice Burton handed
victory to Ms. Durham and the thousands of mesothelioma victims
and their families by ruling that liability to pay compensation
to sufferers arises at the time of exposure to asbestos and not,
as insurers claimed, at the point when the tumor develops.

The landmark ruling means insurers must now stump up for
decades-old asbestos exposures.

Ms. Durham's solicitor Helen Ashton, of Sheffield firm Irwin
Mitchell, welcomed the judgment as a real victory for victims
and their families. She said, "The dangers of exposure to
asbestos dust have been known since at least the early part of
the last century and today's decision ensures that many
mesothelioma victims who were negligently exposed to asbestos by
their employers will have the comfort of knowing that they and
their families will receive compensation."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren Corp. Facing 76 Lawsuits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced 65 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov.
10, 2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company recorded 367 suits filed, 131
suits settled, and 171 suits dismissed.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as of June 30,
3008, faced 76 pending asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 29, 2008)

The Company, Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public
Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Central
Illinois Light Company and Illinois Power Company have been
named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure.

Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Ill. The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 161 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases that
were pending as of Sept. 30, 2008, the average number of parties
was 67.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO
plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company.

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a Dynegy Inc. subsidiary
prior to the Company's acquisition of IP. As a part of the
transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO generating plants,
CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to indemnify Genco and
AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated with asbestos-
related claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.

From July 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2008, one additional
asbestos-related lawsuit was filed against UE, CIPS, CILCO and
IP, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill. Seven lawsuits
were dismissed.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, five asbestos-related lawsuits were
pending against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability
insurance maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to
liabilities arising from asbestos-related claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms. Ninety
percent of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in
base electric rates are recovered by IP from a trust fund
established by IP and financed with contributions of US$10
million each by the Company and Dynegy.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the trust fund balance was US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.

St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation is a public utility holding
company. The Company's units operate rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution businesses, rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution businesses,
and non-rate-regulated electric generation businesses in
Missouri and Illinois.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Cleared from 700 Cases at 3rd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc., during the first nine months of 2008, was
dismissed from nearly 700 asbestos-related cases, according to
the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos. A small percentage of claims
have been asserted by railroad workers alleging exposure to
asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman
Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries.

Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.
A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from various
industries.

Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or
specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.
As major asbestos manufacturers continue to go out of business
or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an increased
number of these claims.

To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently
through the judicial process, the Company has regularly achieved
favorable resolution.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. manufactures automotive
emission control and ride control products and systems. The
Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle designers
and manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket through brands, including Monroe, Rancho, Clevite,
Elastomers and Fric Rottm ride control products and Walker,
Fonostm, and Gillettm emission control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. IDEX, 5 Units Ongoing in 32 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries face lawsuits
claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly
as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components
that contained asbestos.

These claims have been filed in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and
Wyoming.

Components with asbestos were acquired from third party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.

To date, all of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.

Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without
payment. The balance has been settled for various insignificant
amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Northbrook, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products. Products are sold in niche
markets to various industries worldwide. The Company has four
reportable segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health &
Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment and Fire &
Safety/Diversified Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MGP Ingredients Facing Martin Case in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGP Ingredients, Inc. is party to an asbestos lawsuit styled
Daniel Martin v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., et al., No. 08-L-697 in
the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

The suit was filed against the Company and about 70 other
defendants, wherein the claimant alleges that he contracted
desmoplastic mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.

The claimant alleges that in the late 1980s or early 1990s his
company was retained to install insulation at the Pekin, Ill.,
facility at the same time that the Company was conducting
asbestos abatement projects in the facility.

The claimant seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.

Atchison, Kans.-based MGP Ingredients, Inc. produces certain
ingredients and distillery products derived from grain. The
Company has three reportable segments: ingredient solutions,
distillery products and other. Ingredient solutions products
consist of specialty proteins, specialty starches, vital wheat
gluten, commodity wheat starch and mill by-products. The
distillery products consist of food grade alcohol, fuel grade
alcohol, and distillers feed and carbon dioxide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $90.98M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$90,978,431 as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$99,722,526
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$92,655,000 as
of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$17 million as of
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$74,971,154 as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$84,547,965
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$79,540,557 as of June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
15, 2008)

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$11
million as of Sept. 30, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation
manufactures various metal products. Its forged and cast steel
rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for the steel and aluminum
industries. The air and liquid processing segment includes
Buffalo Pumps, Aerofin, and Buffalo Air Handling.


                            *********

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  * * *