CAR_Public/081219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 19, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 252

                            Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: Court Rules "Light" Cigarettes Makers May Be Sued
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: California Labor Suit Remains in Arbitration
CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Litigation
CORNELL COS: Texas Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger is Pending
DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit

DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Inked Settlement of Alabama Suits Last Dec. 5
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Law Firm Launches Website for "Coffey" Lawsuit
KRISPY KREME: Inked Settlement of FACTA Violation Suit in Aug.
MAGMA DESIGN: Awaits Approval of Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
NEXSTAR COMMS: Law Firms Files Fla. Suit Over POS ATM Terminals
SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Suit
SANDISK CORP: Parties in "McBride" Suit Seek Dismissal of Claims
SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SUNRISE SENIOR: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TULLY'S COFFEE: Probes Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods
WACHOVIA CORP: Settles N.C. Litigation Over Sale to Wells Fargo
YAHOO! INC: Calif. Court Grants Stay Motion in Shareholder Suit
YAHOO! INC: Wants Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
GABRIEL CAPITAL: Abbey Spanier Commneces Securities Fraud Suit
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing

TALEO CORP: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J. C. Penney Records $39Mil for Remediation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Webb Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Safeguard in Zeppieri Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Green in Safeguard Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Landry's Action Filed v. Chevron on Dec. 3

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Poole Local Charged for Contaminating Flats
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Hardie Director Accused in ASIC Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONMED to Remove Hazard in Utica, N.Y. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Lawmakers Seek Asbestos Bill Approval
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Rules on Simonetta, Braaten's Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Bridgeport, Conn., Bldg. Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reinstatement of $500Mil Settlement Mulled
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Z. Mail Hub Shut Down Due to Health Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Complex Rules Cause Ketton Disposal Delay
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Creditors to Ease $700M Payment

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichias Corp. Has 22 Claims in Korean Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 12 Claims Filed in Ill. During Dec. 1 to 5
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Water Pipes at Lufkin, Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Maropakis v. Gov't. Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Longo in Safeguard Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Star's Summary Judgment Motion Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Kummel Suit in Pa.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Affirms Smith Remand Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues $305T Fine to Sunoco's Refinery
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Still on Hellhole Watch List

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe at Wallhouse Estate in Bexley Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Young Tradesmen at Risk to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at 2 N.C. Buildings to Cost $7,850
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MPs To Support U.K. Pleural Plaques Victims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hellicar Accused of Omission in ASIC Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vallejo Man Wins $7.5MM Asbestos Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Snyder School Cleanup Project Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MAAC Warns of Asbestos in Holiday Products
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Local to Pay $109T for Cleanup Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westminster School Cleanup to Cost $280,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Billingham Guard's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burgess Suit Filed v. 35 Companies in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jack's Bean Co. Cleanup to Cost $410,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paul Morin Indicted for Cleanup Violations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Wants W.Va. to Hear Out-of-State Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Fire Execs Accused of Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vt. Health Department Cites Errors in Study
ASBESTOS ALERT: Certified Residential to Pay $46,412 Penalty


                           *********

ALTRIA GROUP: Court Rules "Light" Cigarettes Makers May Be Sued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled that tobacco firms can
be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of "light"
cigarettes, TopNews reports.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled against Altria Group
Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit, and held the Federal Cigarette
Labeling and Advertising Act does not bar or preempt such state
court lawsuits.

In the class-action lawsuit, three smokers from Maine sued
Altria and its Philip Morris USA unit, alleging fraud under
Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act, and saying they had suffered
due to the "false statements" of the companies, according to
TopNews.

The lawsuit sought compensation for economic rather than medical
harm.  It claimed that they had overpaid for cigarettes based on
deceptive advertisements suggesting that "light" cigarettes were
safer than regular ones.

The plaintiffs argue that cigarettes like Marlboro and Cambridge
Lights are deceptively designed and marketed, and that the
amounts of tar and nicotine consumed by a smoker of those brands
and a smoker of regular cigarettes is the same, TopNews
reported.

Writing on behalf of the high court panel, Justice Clarence
Thomas wrote, "The alleged misrepresentation here - that 'light'
and 'low tar' cigarettes are not as healthy as advertised - is
actionable only because of the effect that smoking light and
low-tar cigarettes had" on the plaintiffs' health.

According to David C. Frederick, who represented the plaintiffs,
the tobacco industry should view the court's decision as an
opportunity.  He added, "It would be appropriate for the tobacco
companies to take a very hard look at how they market their
products, because they have for decades been making deceptive
claims about their products."

The ruling could affect nearly 40 lawsuits around the country
that are in one for or another claiming billions of dollars in
damages, according to TopNews.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: California Labor Suit Remains in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor-related litigation against BJ's Restaurants, Inc.,
continues to remain in arbitration.

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and other BJ employees, filed a class-action complaint
in the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, with case
number BC310146.

On March 16, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
alleging causes of action for:

      -- failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
      -- failure to allow meal breaks;
      -- failure to allow rest breaks;
      -- waiting time penalties;
      -- civil penalties;
      -- reimbursement for fraud and deceit;
      -- punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and
      -- disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her
second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action, and in
September 2004, she stipulated to binding arbitration of the
action.

On March 2 and March 19, 2008, one of the plaintiff's attorneys
filed a notice in the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records and to pay
plaintiff minimum wage.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant.  The company's menu features the BJ's signature
deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a
selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty
salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The
company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-
house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are
produced and sold.


CORNELL COS: Discovery Begins in VCDC Strip Search Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a purported class-action suit against
Cornell Companies, Inc., filed in the Federal District Court in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, by individuals stripped searched at the
Valencia County Detention Center.

Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit on April 2007.
Each alleged that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation
of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth
amendments to the U.S. constitution.

The claimants also allege violation of their rights under state
law and seek to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
themselves and all detainees at VCDC during the applicable
statues of limitation.

The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and
operated the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the
period covered by the lawsuit.  Discovery has commenced in the
case.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


CORNELL COS: Texas Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc., continues to face a purported class-
action suit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
269th Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) by Ted Kinbergy, a
purported stockholder of the company.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 19, 2006, and names as defendants
the company and each member of its board of directors as well as
Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P.

The purported class action suit alleges, among other things,
that:

      -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they
         assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in
         connection with the company entering into the Agreement
         and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with
         Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition
         Corp., and

      -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate.

The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the merger.

The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the
company's stockholders held on Jan. 23, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/--
provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and
treatment services for adults and juveniles.  The company
partners with federal, state, county and local government
agencies.  Cornell offers services in structured and secure
environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure
institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice,
educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based
corrections and treatment programs.


DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2008 trial is scheduled for a class-action suit filed
in California against DISH Network Corp. by certain of its
retailers.

During 2000, two lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado
state and federal court attempting to certify nationwide classes
on behalf of certain of the company's retailers.

The plaintiffs request that the courts 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 federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of
the state court action.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts
and against all the state court action plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to enable them to respond to the motion.

The state court granted limited discovery that ended in 2004.
The state court action plaintiffs, however, claimed that the
company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery
process.

The state court agreed, and recently denied the company's motion
for summary judgment as a result.  The final impact of the state
court's ruling cannot be fully assessed at this time.

In April 2008, the state court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion.  Trial has been set for April 2009.

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

DISH Network Corp. -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a
provider of satellite delivered digital television to customers
across the United States.  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.


DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion that sought the dismissal of a purported class-
action suit, entitled "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names DISH Network
Corp. as a defendant.

On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite
subscribers filed the antitrust action against the company
before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast,
Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable,
NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney
Co.

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 company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion the
court denied in July 2008.

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

The suit is "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in ith the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com)
          Blecher & Collins
          515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-622-4222

Representing the defendants are:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com)
          Davis Polk and Wardwell
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Phone: 650-752-2005

          John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com)
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513
          Phone: 213-243-4000

               - and -

          Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6321


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Inked Settlement of Alabama Suits Last Dec. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corp., on Dec. 5, 2008, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the plaintiffs in
certain class action litigation pending against the company in
the Circuit Court of Bullock County, Alabama.

The actions generally alleged that the company implemented a
program to convince its consumers who purchased automobile
insurance policies to also purchase motor club memberships, and
sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
plaintiffs in the Alabama litigation will be divided into three
classes:

   (i) persons insured in Alabama by the company who purchased
       an automobile club membership from the company, and who
       own a liability insurance policy issued by the company
       that is in force on both Dec. 15, 2008 and March 6, 2009
       ("Active Current Policyholders");

  (ii) persons insured in Alabama by the company who purchased
       an automobile club membership from the company, and who
       owned a liability insurance policy issued by the company
       that was in force on Dec. 15, 2008, but is not in force
       on March 6, 2009 ("Inactive Current Policyholders"), and

(iii) persons insured in Alabama by the company who purchased
       an automobile club membership from the company, and who
       did not own a liability insurance policy issued by the
       company that was in force on Dec. 15, 2008 ("Former
       Policyholders").

Under the Settlement Agreement, each Active Current Policyholder
will, upon renewal of his or her current automobile insurance
policy with the company, receive a premium credit equal to 100%
of the amounts he or she paid for automobile club memberships
against the premium for a renewal automobile insurance policy,
unless he or she elects, prior to March 6, 2009, to receive
instead of the premium credit a reimbursement certificate that
provides for cash reimbursement of up to a maximum total payment
of $50 for any rental or towing expenses incurred by such Active
Current Policyholder on or before Feb. 28, 2010 as a result of
the disablement of his or her vehicle because of an accident.

Each Inactive Current Policyholder will receive a premium credit
equal to 100% of the amounts he or she paid for automobile club
memberships against the premium for his or her next automobile
insurance policy purchased from the company on Aug. 30, 2010,
unless he or she elects, prior to March 6, 2009, to receive
instead of the premium credit a reimbursement certificate that
provides for cash reimbursement of up to a maximum total payment
of $50 for any rental or towing expenses incurred by such
Inactive Current Policyholder on Feb. 28, 2010 as a result of
the disablement of his or her vehicle because of an accident.

Each Former Policyholder will receive a reimbursement
certificate that provides for cash reimbursement of up to a
maximum total payment of $50 for any rental or towing expenses
incurred by such Former Policyholder on Feb. 28, 2010 as a
result of the disablement of his or her vehicle because of an
accident, unless he or she elects, prior to March 6, 2009, to
receive instead of the reimbursement certificate a premium
credit equal to 100% of the amounts he or she paid for
automobile club memberships against the premium for his or her
next automobile insurance policy purchased from the company on
Aug. 30, 2010.

Any premium credits issued to class members as shall be applied
first to uninsured motorist coverage, if purchased, and then to
liability coverage, and shall be prorated over a 12-month term,
and the class member will be entitled to the prorated premium
credit only so long as he or she keeps his or her insurance
premiums current during the twelve-month term.

The company has also agreed to strengthen its disclosures to
customers of all relevant fees, charges and coverages.  In
addition, the company has agreed to pay $2.32 million in fees
and expenses for the attorneys for the plaintiffs and pay all
costs associated with the administration of the settlement. The
Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the court, and
the company expects the court to hold a hearing to consider the
settlement on Feb. 9, 2009.

According to the company's Dec. 11, 2008 Current Report on Form
8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
First Acceptance estimates that there are approximately 55,000
persons who were insured by the company prior to Dec. 15, 2008
that, pursuant to the proposed settlement terms, would be
eligible to be members of the plaintiff class in the Alabama
litigation. The total amount received by the company relating to
motor club memberships and deferred billing fees is $5.8 million
for the State of Alabama.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
approved the previously disclosed settlement relating to the
class action litigation pending against the company in the State
of Georgia. The company is in discussions with its insurance
carriers regarding coverage for the costs and expenses incurred
relating to the litigation settlements.

A full-text copy of the Class Action Settlement is available for
free at:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1017907/00009501440800925
3/g16878kexv99.htm

First Acceptance Corp. -- http://www.firstacceptancecorp.com/--
is a retailer, servicer and underwriter of non-standard personal
automobile insurance.  The company writes non-standard personal
automobile insurance in 12 states and is licensed as an insurer
in 13 additional states.  Non-standard personal automobile
insurance is made available to individuals who are categorized
as non-standard because of their inability or unwillingness to
obtain standard insurance coverage.  The company owns three
insurance company subsidiaries: First Acceptance Insurance
company, Inc. (FAIC), First Acceptance Insurance company of
Georgia, Inc. (FAIC-GA) and First Acceptance Insurance company
of Tennessee, Inc. (FAIC-TN).


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Law Firm Launches Website for "Coffey" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BLACKWELL, Okla., Dec 17, 2008 -- Nix, Patterson & Roach,
LLP and other attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a major
class action lawsuit against mining giant Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold, Inc. have launched Cleanupblackwell.com, a
website focusing on the legal action and the environmental
contamination underlying it.

     Blackwell is a town of 7,000 located in north-central
Oklahoma. The community is contaminated with 58 million pounds
of lead, arsenic, and other toxins left behind by the Blackwell
Zinc Smelter, at one time the largest smelter of its type in the
world.  As successor-in-interest to the company that owned the
smelter, Freeport-McMoRan is legally responsible for any related
contamination.

     Exposure to lead and arsenic can cause a wide variety of
serious health problems, and Cleanupblackwell.com includes
important information for Blackwell residents who are concerned
about the health of their families and the contamination of
their homes and properties.

     The lawsuit demands that the defendants thoroughly and
completely clean all property contaminated by the smelter waste
and provide for a medical-monitoring program open to all
Blackwell residents.

     It is styled, "Coffey, et al. and Others Similarly Situated
v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc., Phelps Dodge
Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-2008-68."

     The suit was filed earlier this year in Kay County,
Oklahoma, but was removed at the defendants' request to a
federal court in Oklahoma City.

For more details, contact:

          Nix, Patterson & Roach, L.L.P
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333
          Fax: 903-645-4415


KRISPY KREME: Inked Settlement of FACTA Violation Suit in Aug.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc., on Aug. 25, 2008, entered into an
agreement settling the case captioned Peter Jackson v. Krispy
Kreme Doughnut Corporation (Case No. CV07-06449 ABC (VBC), filed
in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

According to the company's Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Nov. 2, 2008, On Oct. 3, 2007, the purported nationwide
class action was filed against the company and ten fictitiously
named defendants.

The plaintiff asserted a single cause of action for alleged
willful violation of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleged a violation concerning
electronic printing of certain credit card and debit card
receipts that were not in compliance with the applicable
information truncation provisions of FACTA.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. -- http://www.krispykreme.com is
a branded retailer and wholesaler of doughnuts.  The company's
business is owning and franchising Krispy Kreme doughnut stores
where over 20 varieties of doughnuts, including the hot Original
Glazed doughnut, are made, sold and distributed and where an
array of coffees and other beverages are offered.  As of Feb. 3,
2008, there were 449 Krispy Kreme stores operated system-wide in
37 United States and in the District of Columbia, Australia,
Canada, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, the
Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the United Arab
Emirates and the United Kingdom, of which 105 were owned by the
company and 344 were owned by franchisees.  Of the 449 total
stores, there were 295 factory stores and 154 satellites.


MAGMA DESIGN: Awaits Approval of Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the proposed $13.5-million settlement in the
purported shareholder class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Magma Design Automation, Inc. remains pending.

On June 13, 2005, The Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust filed a
putative shareholder class action suit against:

      -- Magma Design Automation, Inc.,
      -- Rajeev Madhavan,
      -- Gregory C. Walker, and
      -- Roy E. Jewell.

The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
information regarding the risk of Magma infringing intellectual
property rights of Synopsys, Inc., in violation of Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and prays for unspecified damages.

In March 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiff filed a further
amended complaint in June 2006, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss.

The defendants' dismissal motion was granted in part and denied
in part by an order dated Aug. 18, 2006.  Specifically, the
order dismissed claims against several of the defendants.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the parties agreed to a settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
an Order of the Court, a settlement for $13.5 million was
proposed in the suit "In re Magma Design Automation, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-05-2394 CRB."

The settlement class includes all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Magma Design Automation
during the period between Oct. 23, 2002, through April 12, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 5, 2008).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
July 7, 2008.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the court held a hearing on final approval of
the settlement and requested that plaintiff submit additional
information, including information on claims by class members.

The court will rule on final approval after review of
plaintiff's submissions.  There is no assurance that the court
will grant final approval of the settlement, according to the
company's Dec. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2,
2008.

The suit is "Cornelia I. Crowell GST Trust v. Magma Design
Automation, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-02394-CRB," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Elizabeth P. Lin, Esq. (elin@milbergweiss.com)
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         One California Plaza, 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-617-1200
         Fax: 213-617-1975

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

              - and -

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. (info@glancylaw.com)
         Glancy & Binkow, LLP
         1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
         Fax: 310-201-9160

Representing the defendant is:

         Dale M. Edmondson, Esq. (dedmondson@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers
         2765 Sand Hill Road
         Menlo Park, CA 94025
         Phone: 650-473-2632
         Fax: 650-473-2601


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Is still facing several remaining
claims in a consolidated class-action complaint filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Dec. 10, 2008.

Between Oct. 5 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common shares during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to
Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements.

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four
putative class actions were consolidated as a single action
entitled "In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities
Litigation."

On Aug. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action complaint.  On Oct. 18, 2007, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  The motion
is fully briefed and was argued on Feb. 15, 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, June 19, 2008).

On Sept. 29, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part Marvell's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The District Court gave
the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs
elected not to amend the complaint and instead will proceed with
the claims that the court did not dismiss.

The defendants' responses to the complaint are due on Dec. 12,
2008.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. provides semiconductors of analog,
mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded
microprocessor integrated circuits worldwide.  The company is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NEXSTAR COMMS: Law Firms Files Fla. Suit Over POS ATM Terminals
---------------------------------------------------------------
     MIAMI, Dec. 17, 2008 -- Damian & Valori, LLP, Wadsworth
Huott LLP, and Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A. announced today
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a
putative Class consisting of all persons (the "Class") who
purchased, sold, held, and/or retained investments in Nexstar
Communications, LLC, TMT Equipment Company, LLC; TMT Management
Group, LLC; POSA, LLC, POSA TMT, LLC; Camtucket LLC; Televest
Communications, LLC; TMT International, LLC, Televest Group,
LLC; KBK Partnership LLP; Chilham LLC; and Spin Drift, LLC
(collectively, the "Defendants' Entities") between April 2003
and February 2006 (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Defendants Paul A. Hoffman and Edward
S. Digges, Jr. with perpetrating a fraudulent securities scheme
by which the Class members were defrauded out of approximately
$22 million through investments in the Defendants' Entities.

     The Complaint alleges that between April 2003 and February
2006, the Defendants and the Defendants' Entities fraudulently
sold to the Class certain securities in the form of investments
in "point-of-sale" ATM terminals coupled with lease agreements
based upon a series of misrepresentations concerning the nature
and worth of the investments as well as the role and background
of the Defendants.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class
(which excludes Defendants and all of their respective
employees, agents, family members, legal representatives, heirs,
subsidiaries, affiliates (including the Defendants' Entities),
successors, or assigns) and seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act.

     Plaintiffs are represented by Damian & Valori, LLP,
Wadsworth Huott LLP, and Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., whose
lawyers have extensive experience prosecuting class action
matters and representing defrauded investors.

For more details, contact:

          Damian & Valori LLP
          1000 Brickell Avenue Suite 1020
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 371-3960
          Fax: (305) 371-3965
          Web site: http://www.dvllp.com/

          Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A.
          Penthouse 2B
          2665 South Bayshore Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: 305.374.1920 or 888.578.6255
          Fax: 305.374.1961
          Web site: http://www.dkrpa.com/

               - and -

          Wadsworth Huott LLP
          200 S.E. 1st Street, Suite 1100
          Miami, Florida 33131
          Phone: (305) 777-1000
          Fax: (305) 777-1001
          Web site: http://wadsworthking.com


SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to rule on certain motions filed in the consolidated
class-action suit entitled "In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086," which named SanDisk Corp.
as a defendant.

Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, SanDisk, along with a number
of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued before
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
in eight purported class action complaints.

On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated
into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one
on behalf of indirect purchasers, before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in a purported class
action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Case No. C07-0086."

The plaintiffs allege that the company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in
violation of state and federal laws.

The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash
memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present. They seek an
injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement
of profits.

On April 8, 2008, the company, along with its co-defendants,
filed motions to dismiss the direct purchaser and indirect
purchaser complaints.  Also, the company, along with co-
defendants, filed a motion for a protective order to stay
discovery.

On April 22, 2008, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed oppositions to the dismissal motions.

The company's, along with co-defendants', reply to the
oppositions was filed on May 13, 2008.  The court took the
motions to dismiss and the motion for a protective order under
submission on June 3, 2008, and has yet to rule on the motions.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008.

The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
C07-0086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
          (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-398-8700
          Fax: 415-398-8704

          C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com)
          Amamgbo & Associates, APC
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Phone: 510-615-6000
          Fax: 510-615-6024

               - and -

          Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

Representing the company is:

          Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com)
          Bingham McCutchen LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262
          Fax: 415-393-2286


SANDISK CORP: Parties in "McBride" Suit Seek Dismissal of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter, "McBride v. Federman, et al., Case
No. 1-08-CV-122921," which names SanDisk Corp. as a defendant
have entered into a stipulation agreement providing for a
dismissal of the claims without prejudice, according to the
company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008.

On Sept. 17, 2008, a purported shareholder class action,
captioned, "McBride v. Federman, et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-
122921," was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County.

The lawsuit was brought by a purported shareholder of the
company and names as defendants the company and its directors,
Irwin Federman, Steven J. Gomo, Dr. Eli Harari, Eddy W.
Hartenstein, Catherine P. Lego, Michael E. Marks, and Dr. James
D. Meindl.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the Company
and its directors in rejecting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s
non-binding proposal to acquire all of the outstanding common
stock of the Company for $26.00 per share.

On Sept. 29, 2008, plaintiff served his first request for
production of documents on the Company.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the company and its directors filed a demurrer
seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, and plaintiff served his first
requests for production of documents on the company's directors.

The plaintiff and the company have entered into a stipulation
agreement providing for a dismissal of the claims without
prejudice.  The stipulation and proposed order have been
submitted to the Superior Court.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com-- designs, develops,
markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of
form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware
technologies.  It primarily offers Not And (NAND) (electronic
logic gate)-based flash storage cards.  The company sources
majority of its flash memory supply through its significant
venture relationships with Toshiba Corp.  SanDisk's cards are
used in a range of consumer electronics devices, such as mobile
phones, digital cameras, gaming devices and laptop computers.
It also produces Universal Serial Bus drives (USB) drives,
gaming consoles, Moving Picture Experts Group Layer-3 audio
(MP3) players and other flash storage products that are embedded
in a variety of systems for the enterprise, industrial, military
and other markets.


SEALED AIR: Discovery Ongoing in N.J. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit against Sealed Air Corp., which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit, "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04372-DMC-MF," was
filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
the company from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the company and five of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  The company and one of
these individuals remain as defendants after a partial grant of
the defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs' principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the class period, they materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the
Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from
past operations of W.R. Grace.  They seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case for
failure to state a claim.  On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted
in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
court determined that the Complaint failed adequately to allege
scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J.
Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect
to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged
scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the company.  Mr. Dunphy is a
current director of the company and was formerly chairman of the
board and chief executive officer of the company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's
arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the
court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.  On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on
the defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006,
the court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact
prevent the court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the
company's arguments other than scienter.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of the company during the period from March 27, 2000,
through July 30, 2002.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for
class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class
representative and to substitute a new class representative, the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System.

On March 26, 2007, the court entered an order permitting Miles
Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be
substituted as lead plaintiff.  Consequently, the case is now
properly referred to as "MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et
al."

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to
certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed
Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27,
2000, through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were
damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class
certification.  On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy
also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in
"Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," and "Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly" require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an opinion and order dated March 12, 2008, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  In another
Opinion and Order, dated March 14, 2008, the court denied the
defendants' motion of reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On
May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.  Discovery
is ongoing.

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

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com)
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         One North Lasalle Street, Suite 2225
         Chicago, IL 60602-3908
         Phone: 312-377-1181

              - and -

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. (lee@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: 856-797-4611
         Fax: 856-797-4612,

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC
         65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: 973-597-2500


SUNRISE SENIOR: Seeks Dismissal of D.C. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. is seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending against it in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to
the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints,
styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail
Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York
Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007,
respectively.

Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and
certain of its current or former officers and directors based on
allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option
backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting
principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and
insider trading of Sunrise stock.

Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005
through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable
relief, including an accounting and disgorgement.

Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties --
the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of
the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs,
which requests the Court ultimately approved.

The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption,
"In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 07-CV-00102-RBW."

Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the
new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint on June 6, 2008.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company,
Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany
L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and
Kenneth J. Abod.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on
Aug. 11, 2008, and briefing on that motion is continuing.

The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B.
Walton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789-1813

               - and -

          Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com)
          Hogan & Hartson, LLP
          8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100
          McLean, VA 22102-3609
          Phone: 703-610-6100
          Fax: 703-610-6200

               - and -

          Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500
          Reston, VA 20190
          Phone: 703-456-5220


TULLY'S COFFEE: Probes Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tully's Coffee Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
filed in a California State Court, alleging that the company
failed to provide meal and rest periods for its employees.

The suit was filed in December 2007 by a former store employee
who is seeking class-action certification of the suit.  The
plaintiff is seeking to include all hourly employees in Tully's
California stores as members of the proposed class.

In general, the suit is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been
filed in California against many other companies.

The company accrued $147,000 as of Sept. 28, 2008, for estimated
legal fees in order to defend this litigation, according to its
Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008.

Tully's Coffee Corp. -- http://www.tullys.com/-- is a specialty
retailer in the fast-casual categories of specialty coffee,
snacks and non-alcoholic beverages, within the quick-service
restaurant industry.


WACHOVIA CORP: Settles N.C. Litigation Over Sale to Wells Fargo
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. settled a class-action lawsuit brought by an
investor who sought to block the company's sale to Wells Fargo &
Co., the St. Louis Business Journal reports.

The suit, captioned, "Irving Ehrenhaus v. John D. Baker, et
al.," was filed on Oct. 8, 2008 in the Superior Court for the
County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina.  It names
as defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and the directors of
Wachovia (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 26, 2008).

The lawsuit is contending that the $15 billion price was too low
and the shareholder vote would be unfair.   It alleges that the
Wachovia directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the merger with Wells Fargo at an allegedly inadequate price,
and that the Wells Fargo directors aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

It alleges that Wachovia would force the sale without true
approval from shareholders, saying the Charlotte, N.C.-based
bank essentially disenfranchised the voters ... and locked up
the vote in favor of the merger by giving Wells preferred stock
representing 39.9 percent of Wachovia voting shares as part of
the merger agreement, according to the St. Louis Business
Journal.

The action seeks to enjoin the Wells Fargo merger, or to recover
compensatory or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated,
as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Under the settlement, Wachovia Corp. and San Francisco-based
Wells Fargo have agreed not to appeal a ruling made early this
month that prevented the banks from redeeming the preferred
shares for at least 18 months following the shareholder vote on
the merger.

The defendants also agreed to make additional disclosures
related to the proposed merger, the St. Louis Business Journal
reported.


YAHOO! INC: Calif. Court Grants Stay Motion in Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, Santa Clara County granted Yahoo!
Inc.'s motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint in the matter, "In re Yahoo! Inc.
Shareholder Litigation."

Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,
against Yahoo! Inc., members of the Board of Directors and
selected former officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the
Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg, Congregation Beth Aaron, and
the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System.

The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative
Complaint was filed, captioned, "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder
Litigation," in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges
that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties in
connection with Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire
Yahoo!.

The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted
defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action
and Derivative Complaint, according to the company's Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet
brand.  To its global users, it provides owned and operated
online properties and services.   To its advertisers, it
provides tools and marketing solutions.  Many of Yahoo!'s
services are free to its users.


YAHOO! INC: Wants Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. is still facing a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit pending against it before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Initially, on May 11, 2007, the first of two purported
securities class-action complaints was filed against Yahoo! And
certain of its officers and members of its board of directors.

The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under
the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al.,
Case No. 2:2007-cv-03125."

The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the
caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007-
cv-03902."

These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who
purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and July
18, 2006.  They allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme
to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and misleading
statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial results, and
future business prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are
subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading
proceeds, and other equitable relief.

On March 10, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Pursuant to the order, plaintiffs must file their Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint by Nov. 17, 2008.

The suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Christina A.
Snyder, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0853

               - and -

          Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com)
          Kreindler and Kreindler LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-622-6469

Representing the defendants is:

          Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com)
          Morrison and Foerster
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415-268-7000


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CRYSTALLEX INT'L: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood Announces that on December 8, 2008, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Crystallex
International Corp. (AMEX: KRY).

     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 July 28, 2005 through April 30, 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


GABRIEL CAPITAL: Abbey Spanier Commneces Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 17 -- Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 08-10930)
on behalf of a Class, consisting of all persons and entities who
invested in limited partnership interests of Gabriel Capital,
L.P. ("Gabriel" or the "Partnership") between December 12, 2002
through and including December 12, 2008 (the "Class Period") and
also retained their investment through that date.

     In addition, the Class, with respect to plaintiff's claims
of breach of fiduciary duty only, includes all Gabriel limited
partners as of the end of the Class Period.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty under the laws of
New York State.

     Defendants include Gabriel Capital, L.P., J. Ezra Merkin
("Merkin") and BDO Seidman, L.P. ("Seidman") Gabriel is an
investment partnership managed by defendant Merkin, who is the
founder, General Partner and Manager of Gabriel. Plaintiff and
other class members are qualified investors that purchased
limited partnership interests in Gabriel.

     Defendant Seidman is the independent auditor for Gabriel
and during the Class Period issued audit reports on Gabriel's
annual financial statements which were relied on by plaintiff
and other limited partners of Gabriel

     This case arises from a massive fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") through his
investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC
("BMIS"), and others.

     The complaint alleges that Defendants Gabriel, Merkin and
Seidman recklessly or with gross negligence and/or in breach of
fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and other class members,
caused and permitted at least 27% of the investment capital of
Gabriel to be handed over to Madoff to be "invested" for the
benefit of plaintiff and the other limited partners of Gabriel.

     Plaintiff's investment in Gabriel has been decimated as a
direct result of:

       -- defendant Merkin's abdication of his responsibilities
          and duties as General Partner and Manager of Gabriel
          and its investment funds and;

       -- the failure of Gabriel's auditor Seidman, in light of
          "red flags" indicating a high risk to Gabriel from
          concentrating its investment exposure in Madoff as
          third-party investment manager for a substantial
          portion of the Partnership's assets, to perform its
          audits and provide its annual audit reports in
          conformance with generally accepted auditing
          standards.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Susan Lee, Esq. (slee@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 1-800-889-3701 (Toll Free)
          Web Site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Dec 17, 2008 -- Law office of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Integral Systems, Inc.("Integral Systems" or the "Company")
between April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008 (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Charles H. Johnson Announces Lawsuit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     MINNEAPOLIS, Dec. 17, 2008 -- Charles H. Johnson &
Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of purchasers of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral
Systems" or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the
period April 28, 2008 through December 10, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

     On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors
when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the
Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March
30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due
to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions
with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between
periods.

     The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the
Company would restate its previously filed financial statements
for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008.

     The Company estimated that the net impact of the
adjustments for the first three quarters of 2008 would result in
a decrease of approximately $10 million in revenues, a decrease
of approximately $3 million in gross profit, a decrease of
approximately $4 million in operating income, and a decrease of
approximately $0.13 in earnings per share.

     On this news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per
share, or 28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per
share.

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Integral Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ISYS) ("Integral Systems" or the "Company") between
April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges that Integral Systems and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing false and misleading statements.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue;

       -- that as a result, Integral Systems 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

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially misleading.

     On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems revealed that it
would restate previously filed financial statements for interim
quarterly periods ended December 31, 2007, March 30, 2008 and
June 30, 2008 due to an error in the accounting treatment for
certain transactions with respect to the timing of the
recognition of revenue.

     On this news, shares of Integral Systems fell $6.38 per
share to close at $15.92 per share.

For more details, contact:

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


TALEO CORP: Barroway Topaz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Dec 17, 2008 -- The following statement was
issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, LLP announces that a class-action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of securities of Taleo
Corporation between October 4, 2005 and November 10, 2008
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     Taleo provides talent management solutions to organizations
which enables its client to acquire, develop and align their
workforces for improved business performance.

     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 since the time of its IPO, the Company had
          reported financial results that included revenues that
          should have been reported in later financial periods;

        -- that as a result, the Company's revenues were
           overstated in the reported periods;

        -- that the Company's financial statements 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 foregoing, the Company's
           financial statements were materially false and
           misleading at all relevant times.

     On November 10, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it would delay filing its third quarter financial
results due to the fact that its auditors requested that the
Company "re-evaluate whether the company's historical and
current practices with respect to the timing for recognition of
application and consulting revenues were appropriate under
generally accepted accounting principles."

     The Company stated that it was in the process of
determining whether an alternative accounting treatment should
be used.

     The Company further elaborated by revealing that the
questions were "whether our policy that delivery of our software
solutions has occurred when access to the software is provided
to the customer is correct," and "whether our policy that our
consulting services have standalone value is correct."

     The Company revealed that a change in either of the
policies "could impact the timing of our recognition of
application and consulting revenue."

     Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell
$3.22 per share, or 29.14 percent, to close on November 11, 2008
at $7.83 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J. C. Penney Records $39Mil for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc., as of Nov. 1, 2008, recorded US$39
million as its best estimate for total potential environmental
liabilities, including asbestos-related, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Dec. 12, 2008.

Of the US$39 million as of Nov. 1, 2008, US$2 million was
recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as accrued expenses
and other current liabilities and US$37 million was recorded in
other liabilities.

As of Nov. 1, 2008, the Company estimated its total potential
environmental liabilities to range from US$34 million to US$46
million.

This estimate covered potential liabilities primarily related to
underground storage tanks, remediation of environmental
conditions involving the Company's former Eckerd drugstore
locations and asbestos removal in connection with approved plans
to renovate or dispose of Company facilities.

Management continues to assess required remediation and the
adequacy of environmental reserves as new information becomes
available and known conditions are further delineated.

The Company estimated to incur US$43 million, as of Feb. 2,
2008, for potential environmental liabilities, which was
recorded in other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheet.
(Class Action Reporter, April 25, 2008)

Plano, Tex.-based J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was created in 2002
as a holding company for department store operator J. C. Penney
Corporation, which operates as a department store, catalog, and
e-commerce retailer in the United State. The retailer runs more
than 1,000 JCPenney department stores throughout the U.S. and
Puerto Rico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Webb Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, affirmed the Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals' determination, which stated
that Webb Electric Company of Florida, Inc. was not entitled to
compensation for three periods of delay.

These alleged delays occurred during Webb's performance of a
contract with Michael D. Griffin in his capacity as the
administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.

The case is styled Webb Electric Company of Florida, Inc.,
Appellant v. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Appellee.

Judges Paul R. Michel, Raymond C. Clevenger III, and Kimberly A.
Moore entered judgment in Case No. 2008-1226 on Nov. 10, 2008.

Webb and NASA contracted for Webb to perform electrical work at
the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field ("GRC").
Much of this work was not at issue on appeal. The Court merely
noted that prior to the events relevant on appeal, Webb and NASA
had modified and extended the time for performance of the
contract multiple times.

The dispute centered on transformers (which the parties refer to
merely as D2, D3, D5, and D6) that Webb and another contractor,
Chappy, were to replace. Chappy was to replace D6, and Webb was
to replace D2, D3, and D5.

NASA switched D5 off on June 17, 2002, and Webb began removing
it the following day. The discovery of asbestos-wrapped cables
associated with D5 caused a slight delay at the end of June and
beginning of July. The new D5 was powered up on July 26, 2002,
but there were problems with the transformer.

Eventually, Chappy finished installing the new D6 in September
2002. Webb completed installation of the new D2 around Sept. 19,
2002, and of the new D3 and D5 around Nov. 12, 2002.

Webb requested compensation for numerous delays it alleged were
caused by NASA. The Board determined that NASA did not "breach
its duties to cooperate and not to hinder or delay," a ruling
that Webb did not appeal. The Board found that Webb had proven
40 days of unreasonable delay attributable solely to NASA,
covering three periods in 2002: Feb. 7, 2002 to March 12, 2002;
June 13, 2002 to June 17, 2002; and Sept. 9, 2002 to Sept. 13,
2002.

Webb had also requested compensation for alleged delays covering
March 12, 2002 to June 12, 2002; July 26, 2002 to Aug. 12, 2002;
and Sept. 13, 2002 to Nov. 8, 2002.

The Board did not award Webb compensation for delays during
these time periods. These three periods of time were the focus
of Webb's appeal.

The Appeals court affirmed the Board's denial of compensation to
Webb for alleged delays during March 12, 2002 to June 12, 2002;
July 26, 2002 to Aug. 12, 2002; and Sept. 13, 2002 to Nov. 8,
2002.

Michael H. Payne, Esq., of Payne Hackenbracht & Sullivan in Fort
Washington, Pa., represented Webb Electric Company of Florida,
Inc.

Tara J. Kilfoyle, Esq., Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice in
Washington, D.C., represented Michael D. Griffin in his capacity
as the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. With her on the brief were Gregory G. Katsas,
Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Safeguard in Zeppieri Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on behalf
of James Zeppieri.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. v. General Electric Co. et
al.

State Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV065003774S on Oct. 21, 2008.

The plaintiff claimed that her decedent and deceased husband,
Mr. Zeppieri, suffered exposure to asbestos products
manufactured and sold by Safeguard Scientifics to Electric Boat
Corporation during his years of working as a pipefitter,
shipfitter, warehouseman and marine draftsman at General
Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat Shipyard in Groton, Conn.,
from 1965 to 1966 and then from 1968 to 1990, a total of 23
years.

As a pipefitter and shipfitter, Mr. Zeppieri performed overhaul
work on board the SSBN 600 Theodore Roosevelt and other boats in
for overhaul.

Mr. Zeppieri would work in the engine room of these subs
alongside other pipefitters, electricians, machinists,
carpenters, shipfitters and welders.

The plaintiff claimed that as a result of Mr. Zeppieri's
exposure to asbestos while working, he developed esophageal
cancer, asbestos-related lung disease, loss of lung function
resulting in his death.

Walter Roarke, an electrician and mechanic, and Calvin Hopkins,
an electrician, both recalled using Penn-El Baco asbestos
packing to insulate, pack and seal electric wire and cable in
stuffing tubes penetrating bulkheads throughout their employment
at Electric Boat.

Mr. Roarke worked on the same boat as Mr. Zeppieri, the Theodore
Roosevelt, during the years 1964-1966 coinciding with the dates
of 1965 and 1966, the years during which Mr. Zeppieri worked on
said boat and other boats.

Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics' motion for summary judgment
was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Green in Safeguard Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s summary judgment
motion in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed on behalf of Clara
Green.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. v. General Electric Co. et
al.

State Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV044002257S on Oct. 20, 2008.

Plaintiff claimed that her decedent, Ms. Green, suffered
exposure to asbestos products manufactured and sold by Safeguard
Scientifics to Electric Boat Corporation during her years of
working as a painter and cleaner of submarines under
construction or refurbishing from 1973 to 1992.

During these years, Ms. Green worked and cleaned up alongside
tradesmen, including electricians, in her role as
painter/cleaner.

Ms. Green's duties included entering all areas of the ship to
clean out the bilges, to clean out all the waste products of
construction including debris, asbestos dust, discarded asbestos
blankets and gloves. She and fellow workers would use high
powered air hoses to dislodge debris from submarine walls and
this made the work area very dusty.

As a result of her asbestos exposure, Ms. Green developed
mesothelioma and died.

In Safeguard's summary judgment motion, the affidavit of William
T. Gillan recited that the Penn El Service Company was acquired
by Safeguard Industries and that Safeguard acquired Penn El in
1968.

Penn Service/Safeguard purchased a product line known as Baco
Molded Cable Packing that contained "asbestos rovings encased in
crystalline wax."

Walter Roarke, an electrician and mechanic and Calvin Hopkins,
an electrician, both of whom worked with Ms. Green, recalled
using Penn El Baco asbestos packing to insulate, pack and seal
electric wire and cable installed in stuffing tubes penetrating
bulkheads throughout their careers of Electric Boat.

This testimony did not necessarily mean that the plaintiff will
be successful in this litigation. It did mean, however, that
plaintiff's evidence created a material issue of fact that must
be resolved by the trier of fact rather than by the court,
namely, whether the plaintiff was exposed to a Baco product
containing asbestos in the course of her working at Electric
Boat for 19 years.

Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics' motion for summary judgment
was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Landry's Action Filed v. Chevron on Dec. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
David K. Landry, on Dec. 3, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit on behalf of his father, Donnie G. Landry, against
Chevron Corporation (f/k/a Gulf Oil) in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

David Landry, of League City, Tex., claimed the pulmonary
asbestosis and lung cancer with which Donnie Landry was
diagnosed was wrongfully caused. Donnie Landry died on Dec. 8,
2006.

According to the suit, David Landry says Donnie Landry worked
for Gulf Oil in facilities in Jefferson County.

David Landry seeks unspecified exemplary and punitive damages,
plus interest at the legal rate, cost and other relief to which
he may be entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent David Landry.

Case No. A182-805 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham of the
58th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Poole Local Charged for Contaminating Flats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Poole Housing Partnership is accusing 62-year-old Richard
Freeman of causing thousands of pounds of damage by
contaminating Mr. Freeman's sheltered housing flat with
asbestos, the Daily Echo reports.

PHP says Mr. Freeman's actions contaminated a corridor and the
common room, leaving a hefty GBP3,766 cleanup bill.

However, Mr. Freeman said he would rather face prison than pay a
GBP60 bill.

PHP is charging Mr. Freeman for a new lock, fitted to keep him
out of his home after he ignored decontamination warnings and
broke through an airlock system to retrieve a carrier bag.

The reason for the airlock was because Mr. Freeman ignored
earlier requests to vacate his flat, to enable specialized
workmen to remove some asbestos panels, and took out the three
pieces himself.

Mr. Freeman said, "I've worked with asbestos all my life so I
removed it myself, took it outside to the workmen. They were not
wearing protective masks, they just put the asbestos in a bag
and said thank you. It was afterwards that everything boiled
over. Because of this I spent a weekend in bed and breakfast
accommodation and have incurred my own costs. There is no way
I'm paying this bill, I would rather go to prison than pay up."

Residents of Cynthia House, in Poole, England, were asked to
stay out of their flats for a few hours earlier this year while
workers removed asbestos ahead of a heating system overhaul.

After Mr. Freeman removed it himself, staff said his flat needed
to be sealed for urgent decontamination work. It was at this
point that PHP workers say he broke through the makeshift
airlock to grab his bag.

Workmen then installed a lock on the property until the
decontamination was finished.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Hardie Director Accused in ASIC Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former director of James Hardie Industries N.V., Michael
Gillfillan, was accused in the New South Wales Supreme Court of
trying to change signed documents in a lawsuit involving
asbestos filed by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission, Business Day reports.

These documents were held in Hardie's files after it appeared
that the ASIC would take legal action against the directors over
asbestos compensation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, it emerged that the directors attempted to
obtain a guarantee they would not be sued during negotiations in
2004 and 2005 which led to the company agreeing to meet an
estimated AUD1.5 billion compensation shortfall regardless of
its legal liability.

Mr. Gillfillan, a California resident and a Hardie director from
1999 until 2007, denied that when it became obvious in 2005 that
ASIC would not give such a guarantee, he became concerned about
his personal position.

ASIC launched a civil penalty suit in February 2007, claiming
that seven non-executive directors breached their duties to the
company by approving an allegedly misleading media release and
announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange at a February 2001
board meeting.

ASIC's barrister, Robert Beech-Jones, SC, asked, "And it was
only after it became clear, I suggest, that there was a
likelihood an action might be taken against you that you sought
to create some doubt as to what your role in the approval of the
ASX announcement was?"

"No," Mr Gillfillan replied.

Mr. Gillfillan provided the court with an unsigned letter from
himself, the former chairman, Meredith Hellicar, and another
former non-executive director, Michael Brown, to the company
secretary querying the accuracy of the formal minutes of the
February meeting and of declarations to the board in 2004 about
potential conflicts of interest.

Mr. Gillfillan could not recall whether he ever signed the
letter, but said that he remembered discussing it with Ms.
Hellicar and Mr. Brown in 2005. Both the minutes and the
declarations recorded that the board approved a media release
saying a new asbestos compensation trust would be "fully
funded."

In their defenses to ASIC's case, the seven directors all deny
or do not admit that such a resolution was passed.

Mr. Gillfillan also produced a draft, unsigned declaration dated
September 2004, intended to alert his fellow directors to his
personal interest in the board's response to the inquiry by
David Jackson, QC, into the compensation shortfall, which
strongly criticized the media release.

Mr. Gillfillan could not recall whether he had signed the
declaration but "if they had been signed, they had to be
corrected."

The unsigned letter produced on Dec. 11, 2008 said the three
directors had "given the matter significant thought over the
extended period of time since the occasion of our September 2004
declarations."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONMED to Remove Hazard in Utica, N.Y. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONMED Corporation, which found asbestos in early December 2008
in its building on French Road in Utica, N.Y., is moving to
remove the hazard, The Observer-Dispatch reports.

The Company is consolidating its local operations at the French
Road plant as part of a plan that involves closing plants in
Rome and on Utica's Broad Street. The Company started to prepare
the French Road plant for new employees in October 2008.

On Dec. 12, 2008, CONMED Chief Financial Officer Robert Shallish
said the asbestos was discovered during routine testing as the
building was being renovated.

The material was discovered in the floor tiles of a part of the
building that used to be designated for finished goods, Mr.
Shallish added.

The state Department of Labor said its Syracuse office has
gotten several calls about the matter. The Department said it
received notification from Midlantic Environmental Inc of New
Hartford, N.Y., which CONMED has contracted with, that asbestos
removal needs to occur.

Mr. Shallish said he has not gotten complaints from employees.
To the best of his knowledge, the tiles had not been broken or
overturned while people were working there, he said.

Mr. Shallish said CONMED has encountered asbestos during
construction before and has taken all of the appropriate steps,
including contacting the state Labor Department.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Lawmakers Seek Asbestos Bill Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Republican lawmakers in Ohio, on Dec. 11, 2008, said that they
are working to get House approval of a bill seeking clarity in
certain asbestos-exposure claims, The Toledo Times reports.

The proposal would then go to Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland,
who has indicated be might veto it because of concerns about
preserving the rights of ill people to pursue compensation
claims.

The proposal would require plaintiffs in asbestos cases to
disclose details about claims made to asbestos trusts, which pay
the liability of firms forced into bankruptcy while subjected to
asbestos litigation.

The bill has split the legislature along party lines in its
session. Democrats take over the House from the Republicans in
January 2009. Republicans will keep control of the Senate, which
has approved a companion to the House bill.

Sponsors of the bills in the House and Senate, Rep. Lou Blessing
and Sen. Bill Seitz, both Cincinnati-area Republicans, say the
bill would not inhibit filing claims but would guard against
double-dipping.

Without the measure, claimants can allege different or even
conflicting facts within the bankruptcy trust system and the
civil litigation system, Mr. Seitz said.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Ohio
Chamber of Commerce, and the Ohio Manufacturers Association, and
law firms representing firms facing lawsuits back the
legislation, Senator Seitz said.

At one time, Ohio had the nation's largest backlog of asbestos-
related cases. A 2004 state law requires a plaintiff to show
that a medical expert who treated the plaintiff has found that
the patient's health has been substantially impaired by asbestos
exposure.

Two recent Ohio Supreme Court rulings made filing an asbestos-
related lawsuit tougher by limiting the timeframe.

One ruling restricted the ability to pursue asbestos claims
filed before a 2004 law took effect that set a higher bar of
proof. Cuyahoga County judges dismissed about 30,000 pending
asbestos injury claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Rules on Simonetta, Braaten's Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Supreme Court, on Dec. 11, 2008, ruled that
a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn about
the hazards of someone else's products, The Seattle Times
reports.

The Court ruled in separate cases filed by Joseph Simonetta and
Vernon Braaten. These two men once worked aboard U.S. Navy
ships.

Signing the majority opinion in both cases were Chief Justice
Gerry Alexander and Justices Charles Johnson, Susan Owens, Mary
Fairhurst, Barbara Madsen and James Johnson.

Dissenting justices argued that the companies should be liable
because asbestos was important to the use of the equipment.

Mr. Simonetta said his lung cancer was caused by performing
maintenance on an evaporator, a device that removes salt from
seawater. Mr. Braaten, who worked as a pipefitter, developed
mesothelioma.

More than a dozen companies were sued, including Griscom
Russell, now called Viad Corp.

In Mr. Simonetta's case, after the evaporator was shipped from
the Griscom Russell plant in 1941 or 1942, it was insulated with
asbestos products made by another company.

The asbestos exposure that contributed to Mr. Simonetta's lung
cancer allegedly occurred in 1958 or 1959, when asbestos
insulation had to be removed from the evaporator during
maintenance work. Mr. Simonetta worked for the Navy 1954 to
1974, and was diagnosed in 2000 and 2002.

In Mr. Braaten's case, the defendants made valves and pumps sold
to the U.S. Navy and used aboard ships. After the valves and
pumps were installed, the Navy applied asbestos-containing
insulation.

Mr. Braaten changed packing on the pumps and valves, which
required removing the exterior asbestos insulation, removing the
old packing, replacing the packing and reapplying asbestos
insulation.

Mr. Braaten worked as a pipefitter aboard Navy ships from 1967
until 2002. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2003.

The court said, in separate 6-3 rulings in both cases, the
defendants could not be held liable because they did not make,
sell or distribute the asbestos, only the products it was
applied to.

The court wrote, "The manufacturer has the duty to warn of the
hazards involved in the use of the product that are or should be
known to the manufacturer. But Washington case law does not
support extending the duty to warn to another manufacturer's
product."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Bridgeport, Conn., Bldg. Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup is ongoing at a vacant office building at 333
State St. in Bridgeport, Conn., the Connecticut Post reports.

The city had acquired the property through foreclosure for
unpaid taxes.

An asbestos abatement permit was issued on Nov. 24, 2008, which
is valid until Feb. 1, 2008, for the property, according to
Jennifer Squires, a spokeswoman for the state Department of
Public Health.

Garfield and Rebecca Spencer, of First National Development,
paid the city US$550,000 during the summer of 2008 for the
former office structure next to Housatonic Community College at
State Street and Lafayette Boulevard.

First National is known locally for redeveloping the former
Warnaco factory in the South End into the Lofts on Lafayette
condominium complex.

The city has given the firm 36 months to complete the project,
which requires a minimum of two floors of commercial space, or
34,000 square feet. The rest of the building would be converted
into residential units.

The deal can be extended by 12 months if sufficient performance
benchmarks are met, like obtaining a building permit by May
2009.

The Spencers also have yet to go before the Zoning Board of
Appeals for permission to waive the site's on-site parking
requirements.

If the estimated US$12 million project is not completed within
the allotted timeframe, the city will take back control of the
property.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reinstatement of $500Mil Settlement Mulled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, on Dec. 12, 2008, considered the
reinstatement of a US$500 million settlement of asbestos
lawsuits against The Travelers Companies, Inc., The Associated
Press reports.

The settlement would also block any new lawsuits against
Travelers arising out of the insurance company's relationship
with Johns Manville Corp., which produced asbestos.

Travelers faced lawsuits claiming that it tried to hide the
dangerous health effects of asbestos. It argued that asbestos-
related claims should be paid out of a trust created by Johns
Manville in the 1980s and approved by a federal bankruptcy
judge. Money for the fund came largely from insurers.

Travelers agreed to settle with several groups of plaintiffs
provided that federal courts make clear that it would not have
to face any new similar lawsuits.

The 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned
lower-court approval of the settlement, saying a bankruptcy
judge lacks the authority to act so broadly.

The justices, at arguments in March 2009, will consider the
question of the bankruptcy court's power.

The consolidated cases are The Travelers Indemnity Co. v.
Bailey, 08-295, and Common Law Settlement Counsel v. Bailey, 08-
307.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Z. Mail Hub Shut Down Due to Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy dust, which workers feared could be asbestos, closed the
mail hub of Christchurch, New Zealand, on Dec. 12, 2008,
stuff.co.nz reports.

Construction workers transforming the Hereford Street New
Zealand Post building for the new city council headquarters
turned up heavy dust on Dec. 11, 2008. In the morning of Dec.
11, 2008, posties on the fourth floor of the building were sent
home because of fears for their health.

Engineers Printers and Manufacturers Union national postal and
logistics organizer Anna Kenny said workers had been stood down
for 24 hours pending a check of air quality. He said that the
building was checked for asbestos in November 2008 and none was
found.

An unnamed New Zealand Post employee working on the ground floor
said the building was cleared. He said, "We've had to have the
building evacuated - all the posties are all up in arms. And the
(workers on the) private boxes and the post shop have all been
sent home for the day now."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Complex Rules Cause Ketton Disposal Delay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Complicated rules for the disposal of asbestos caused a five-
week delay in clearing two tons of corrugated asbestos sheets
thrown near Ketton, England, the Rutland & Stamford Mercury
reports.

The fly-tipping was reported to Rutland County Council by Ketton
local Ted Carroll, who phoned the authority twice while the
waste stayed at the site.

The 66-year-old Mr. Carroll said, "It is deplorable that Rutland
County Council is unable to provide an efficient service to deal
with this incident."

A council spokesman said, "The dumped waste was corrugated
asbestos sheets, which, although containing an extremely low
level of asbestos, still has to be disposed of through a
licensed site.

"With licensed sites only accepting relatively small quantities
of this type of waste, the council has spent the last few weeks
trying to find a number of disposal sites that could accept
quantities of this waste. The council was also unable to move
the waste to a holding area as it is illegal to store waste of
this nature on any site without the correct license."

The waste was eventually cleared from Barrowden Road on Dec. 11,
2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Creditors to Ease $700M Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation agreed with its lenders to ease the terms
on its US$700 million asbestos-related debt, giving the Company
leeway to navigate the recession, the Dow Jones Newswires
reports.

As part of its review, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services had
noted the Company would have to pay some US$700 million as part
of an asbestos settlement linked to the bankruptcy emergence of
W. R. Grace & Co.

If it used all but US$100 million of cash on hand to finance it,
the percentage of funds from operations to debt would be lower
than is typical for companies with a BBB- rating, S&P said.

The deal will give the Company "additional financing
flexibility," said the Company, and possibly allow the credit
line to rise to US$750 million from the US$472 million currently
available.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical, and consumer
applications. Operating in 51 countries, the Company's
international reach generated revenue of US$4.7 billion in 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nichias Corp. Has 22 Claims in Korean Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-two former employees of an asbestos spinning factory and
their families filed an asbestos-related class action suit
against Tokyo-based Nichias Corp. in the Busan District Court in
Busan, South Korea, The Mainichi Daily News reports.

The suit, which seeks compensation for health damage caused by
asbestos, also names as defendants the South Korean government
and other parties.

The factory, Jeil Asbestos (present-day Jeil E&S), was jointly
established by Nippon Asbestos (forerunner of Nichias) and a
South Korean company in 1971.

The plaintiffs in the suit include people who worked at the
factory between the 1970s and 1990s and were diagnosed as having
an asbestos-related disease affecting the lungs, as well as the
bereaved families of former employees who died from lung cancer.

The bereaved families and other plaintiffs said Nichias moved
into Busan after regulations were tightened in Japan, and bore a
responsibility for "exporting disease caused by pollution."

The bereaved family members seek KPW200 million (about JPY13
million) in compensation, while the former employees are asking
for between KPW100 million and KPW200 million in compensation,
depending on the severity of their illnesses.

Explaining the decision to launch the class-action suit, Chong
Hyon-jong, a member of an environmental group in Busan, said,
"Much damage has occurred but there is no way to complain about
the suffering."

In November 2008, the bereaved families of two South Korean
citizens who died from the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma
filed lawsuits seeking compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 12 Claims Filed in Ill. During Dec. 1 to 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Dec. 1, 2008 through Dec. 5, 2008, 12 new
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The following claims were filed:

     -- Randy Beverly of Ohio in Case No. 08-L-1142 claims
        mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased father,
        Denver Beverly. The elder Mr. Beverly worked from 1942
        until 1984 as a construction battalion worker, coal
        miner, assembly line worker, maintenance worker,
        electrician and carpenter at various locations
        throughout Virginia, Ohio and Indiana, according to the
        complaint. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., Christopher J.
        Levy, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and John A.
        Barnard, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent the younger Mr. Beverly.

     -- William Brown, a laborer from 1948 until 1994, claims
        mesothelioma. He also worked on home construction and
        remodel from 1968 until 1976, according to Case No.
        08-L-1127. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
        Associates in Alton, Ill., and W. Mark Lanier, Esq.,
        Patrick N. Haines, Esq., C. Taylor Campbell, Esq., W.
        Casey Harris, Esq., and J.D. McMullen, Esq., of The
        Lanier Law Firm in Houston represent Mr. Brown.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1148, Paul Butzen of Illinois, a
        sandblaster, infantry, assembler, laborer, mechanic,
        operator, janitor and general maintenance at various
        locations throughout Illinois from 1942 until 1999,
        claims mesothelioma. John A. Barnerd, Esq., and Myles
        L. Epperson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
        Ill., represent Mr. Butzen.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1136, Clarence and Barbara Byrd of
        Alabama claim Mr. Byrd was diagnosed with laryngeal
        cancer. Mr. Byrd worked from 1963 until 1992 as a
        laborer and served in the army from 1975 until 1977 and
        in reserve components from 1978 until 1980, according
        to the complaint. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
        Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
        Ill., represent the Byrds.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1124, Frank Caroots of Ohio, a
        deckhand, disbursement clerk, laborer, relief operator,
        assembler, operator and paint filler at various
        locations throughout Illinois and Missouri from 1950
        until 1994, claims mesothelioma. John A. Barnerd, Esq.,
        and W. Brent Copple, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
        Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Caroots.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1143, George B. Dotson of Texas, who
        served in the U.S. Air Force and as a mechanic, claims
        mesothelioma. He also opened a furniture business in
        1987 and did other odd jobs to supplement his income,
        according to the suit. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
        Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
        Ill., represent Mr. Dotson.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1147, Robert K. and Anna M. Fisher
        claim Mr. Fisher was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He
        worked from 1964 until 1970 as a machinist, salesman
        and repairman in West Virginia, Ohio and Arizona. He
        worked from 1979 until now as an electrician for
        various employers throughout Arizona, according to the
        complaint. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
        Associates in Alton, Ill., and W. Mark Lanier, Esq.,
        Patrick N. Haines, Esq., C. Taylor Campbell, Esq., W.
        Casey Harris, Esq., and J.D. McMullen, Esq., of The
        Lanier Law Firm in Houston represent Mr. Fisher.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1147, Paul Phillips of Florida, a
        boilermaker at various locations throughout Illinois,
        Indiana and Missouri from 1967 until 1993, claims
        mesothelioma. John A. Barnerd, Esq., and W. Brent
        Copple, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Phillips.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1125, Jane Riebe of Ohio claims lung
         cancer on behalf of her recently deceased father,
         Edward Riebe. Mr. Riebe worked from 1948 until 1990 as
         a laborer at Allied Chemical in Toledo, Ohio. Randy L.
         Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
         Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Riebe.

      -- In Case No. 08-L-1134, Sharon Sale of Illinois claims
         lung cancer on behalf of her recently deceased husband,
         Donald R. Sale. Mr. Sale worked as a clerk, operator at
         Shell Oil Company, self-employed auto mechanic,
         cashier, manager and cashier from 1953 until 2002,
         according to the complaint. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
         Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
         Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Sale.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1134, Richard Stegner of Nevada, a
        cook, clerk, gas attendant and production foreman at
        various locations throughout Indiana from 1955 until
        1998, claims mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq.,
        and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
        Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Stegner.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1135, Marion Weisler of Michigan, an
        assembly line worker and receptionist at various
        locations throughout Michigan from 1963 until 2005,
        claims mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq.,
        Christopher J. Levy, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and
        John A. Barnerd, Esq., of East Alton, Ill., represent
        Ms. Weisler.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Water Pipes at Lufkin, Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found in the water supply pipes of Lufkin,
Tex., KTRE reports.

KTRE discovered that pipes were being replaced because of
asbestos being passed through the water lines.

In 1999, Lufkin tested the water supply and found traces of
asbestos. In 2001, the city was awarded a US$16 million grant
that has allowed them to replace water lines and pumps, getting
rid of the old pipes that contaminated the water.

However, City of Lufkin Public Director of Engineering, Chuck
Walker, says that asbestos in the water is not as scary as it
sounds.

However, the last project has some Crown Colony residents upset
about the damage done to their yards. But Mr. Walker says, the
city has tried to cause as little damage to personal property as
possible.

For the residents that have been affected by the asbestos
removal project, the city is going to mend what they have
broken.

Mr. Walker told KTRE that "it's a city policy that if the city
comes in and does any work, have to fix a leak or any damage to
your yard, we have to replace it to as good if not better."

As of Dec. 16, 2008, all but four of the pipes and pumps that
transported asbestos through the water have been replaced. Those
last four are on Walden Court in Crown Colony.

The city plans to be through with the water line project by the
end of January 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Maropakis v. Gov't. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued split rulings in a
lawsuit, which involves asbestos removal, filed by M. Maropakis
Carpentry, Inc. against the United States of America.

The case is styled M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc., Plaintiff v.
The United States of America, Defendant.

Judge Lawrence M. Baskir entered judgment in Case No. 03-2825C
on Oct. 3, 2008.

The U.S. Department of Navy issued Solicitation No. N62472-97-B-
4116, which stipulated the procurement of construction and
repair work on Building 110, a warehouse at the Naval Inventory
Control Point in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

The project involved the demolition and removal of asbestos-
containing materials, the removal and replacement of windows and
roofing materials, and related work. Maropakis was one of 26
contractors competing for the contract.

Prior to performing the contract work, Maropakis was to submit
and have approved its plans and materials for each phase of
performance. The Navy's specifications were prepared by the
architectural and engineering firm of Gale Associates, Inc.

On Feb. 4, 1999, prospective contractors conducted a routine
site visit. On Feb. 18, 1999, the Navy amended the solicitation.
On April 6, 1999, the Navy selected Maropakis' proposal.

Under the revised schedule, the project was to be completed on
Jan. 16, 2000. Collectively, modifications resulted in a revised
completion date of Feb. 4, 2000, and brought the total contract
price up to US$1,297,151.

On Dec. 17, 2003, Maropakis filed a Complaint in this Court. It
said that it was entitled to compensatory damages in the amount
of US$244,036 for the contract balance, "rescission (sic) of
liquidated damages," and interest and attorneys' fees.

On Sept. 15, 2005, after discovery had concluded, Maropakis
filed its First Amended Complaint.

Maropakis moved for partial summary judgment, limited to its
claims regarding the allegedly defective monitor window
specifications and its entitlement to an additional extension
for the unanticipated abatement of lead paint on the windows.

The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction the portions of Maropakis' complaint relating to
its claim for government-caused delay. The government also
sought summary judgment as to liquidated damages demanded by the
contracting officer. It further moved for summary judgment on
the majority of the contentions within Maropakis' amended
complaint.

On June 11, 2008, this Court heard oral arguments on the above
motions. During the argument, Maropakis' counsel presented new
arguments that had not been fully developed during the briefing.

Accordingly, this Court permitted the parties to file
supplemental papers, with the briefing to be completed by July
21, 2008.

Maropakis had failed to establish that jurisdiction to consider
its claims is proper. Having found that Maropakis did not submit
a valid certified claim for a final decision to the contracting
officer, the Federal Claims Court granted the government's
motion to dismiss.

The Federal Claims court found that the government was entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on its claim for liquidated
damages. Maropakis was liable for the retained balance of the
contract and an additional US$59,514 in liquidated damages.

The government's motion for summary judgment was granted-in-part
and denied-in-part. Furthermore, Maropakis' motion for summary
judgment was denied as moot.

David W. Francis, Esq., in Harrisburg, Pa., represented M.
Maropakis Carpentry, Inc.

Dawn S. Conrad, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
represented the United States of America. With her on the briefs
were: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General;
Jeanne E. Davidson, Director; and Donald E. Kinner, Assistant
Director. Joshua D. Harvey and Alan R. Caramella, Department of
the Navy, Of Counsel.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Longo in Safeguard Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Janet
Longo on behalf of her late husband Salvatore Longo.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Salvatore Longo) v.
General Electric Co. et al.

State Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV044002257 on Oct. 28, 2008.

Mrs. Longo claimed that Mr. Longo was exposed to asbestos
products manufactured and sold by Safeguard Scientifics to
Electric Boat Corporation during Mr. Longo's years of working as
a painter/cleaner at General Dynamics Corporation/Electric Boat
Shipyard in Groton, Conn., from 1950 to 1991, a total of 41
years.

Mr. Longo was a structural painter and cleaner at Electric Boat.
Elmer Taylor, a fellow painter/cleaner was Mr. Longo's working
partner for 25 years. Mr. Taylor described their job as cleaning
up the waste materials including asbestos gloves, asbestos
blankets, gaskets and other materials as well as cleaning up the
dust and debris left over from the other trades involved in the
construction of or overhauling of the boats.

Mr. Taylor recalled working specifically with Mr. Sammy Longo on
the Nautilus, Seawolf, Skate, Triton, Tullibee, George
Washington, Patrick Henry, Tinosa, Ethan Allen, Flasher, Grant,
Frances Scott Key, and Will Rodgers.

While working on the boats, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Longo worked
beside welders, loggers, pipefitters, machinists and grinders
who would be installing or removing asbestos products.

Walter Roarke, an electrician, also recalls working on the
George Washington and Patrick Henry, two of the boats that Mr.
Longo worked on.

Calvin Hopkins, the electrician, recalled working aboard the
Nautilus, Seawolf, Triton, Patrick Henry, and Nathan Hale, all
boats on which Mr. Longo worked. Mr. Roarke and Mr. Hopkins both
recalled using "Baco asbestos packing," the defendant's product,
to insulate, pack and seal electrical wire and cable in stuffing
tubes, penetrating bulkheads throughout their working years at
Electric Boat.

The Court found that material issues of fact existed for the
trier of fact to sort out in this case.

Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics' motion for summary judgment
as against Mr. Longo was denied.

Embry & Neusner in Groton, Conn., represented Janet Longo,
Roosevelt Oliver, Clara Green, Janet Lefebvre, Traficenti Bert
Sr., Donald Foster, Sammie Gary, Joseph Parker, Arthur Murano,
Tyler Perkins, Peter Pinkhover, Arthur Francis, Paul Romagna,
James Zeppieri, Barry Giliard.

Morrison Mahoney LLP in Hartford, Conn., represented Safeguard
Scientific Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: North Star's Summary Judgment Motion Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, denied
North Star Trust Company's motion for summary judgment in a
class action lawsuit, involving asbestos, styled Thomas
Fernandez, Lora Smith, and Tosha Thomas, individually and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. K-M Industries Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Claudia Wilken entered judgment in Case No. C 06-
7339 CW on Nov. 14, 2008.

Plaintiffs are former employees of either Kelly-Moore Paint
Company or Capital Insurance Group (CIG). Kelly-Moore was
founded in 1946 by William Moore. In 1998, Kelly-Moore and CIG
became wholly owned subsidiaries of Defendant K-M Industries
Holding Co., Inc. (KMH).

This lawsuit arose from Mr. Moore's establishment of an employee
stock ownership plan (ESOP) for Kelly-Moore and CIG employees in
1998. The gist of the complaint was that the ESOP purchased KMH
shares for more than they were worth because plan fiduciaries
failed to provide valuation experts with complete and accurate
information about Kelly-Moore's exposure to liability from
asbestos litigation.

Kelly-Moore's asbestos problems stemmed from its 1967
acquisition of Paco Textures Corporation, a company that
manufactured joint compound and wall and ceiling texture
products, some of which contained asbestos.

In 2003, Mr. Moore's deteriorating health necessitated his
resignation as the ESOP trustee. North Star was appointed to
replace him in April 2003. As North Star began familiarizing
itself with KMH's potential asbestos liability, it realized that
the initial stock valuation raised some concerns.

In notes from a May 14, 2003 due diligence meeting with Kelly-
Moore representatives, North Star wrote, "Initial ESOP
Purchase--we need to figure out how far along the asbestos
litigation was when the initial purchase took place--was it
factored into valuation? Did Tee [(Trustee)] look at; take into
consideration?"

Questions about the propriety of the original transaction
persisted, and North Star eventually became aware that Kelly-
Moore's creditors might attack the transaction in the event that
the company filed for bankruptcy.

North Star took no action to challenge the price for which the
ESOP purchased the KMH shares. In a deposition, a North Star
representative stated that this is because the company
determined that there was no legal basis for challenging the
ESOP transaction. Whether North Star was justified in coming to
this conclusion was a question that goes to the merits of
Plaintiffs' claim, and was not before the Court.

North Star moved for summary judgment on the basis that
Plaintiffs' claim against it under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) for breach of fiduciary duty was
invalid and was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiffs opposed North Star's motion. The matter was heard on
Oct. 30, 2008.

The Court denied North Star's motion for summary judgment.
Because Plaintiffs have reached a negotiated settlement of their
claims against the remaining Defendants, those Defendants'
motions for summary judgment were denied as moot.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Kummel Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania,
issued split rulings in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Mary P. Kummer on behalf of her late husband, Vincent R. Kummer.

The case is styled Mary P. Kummer, Executrix of the Estate of
Vincent R. Kummer, Deceased, Mary Patricia Kummer, his wife,
Plaintiff v. Allied Signal, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Chief Judge Donetta W. Ambrose entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 05-1569 on Oct. 31, 2008.

Mr. Kummer served in the U.S. Navy as a machinists' mate aboard
the USS Noble from 1961-1965. He worked in the engine room of
the USS Noble, which contained the steam turbines, pumps,
valving and was next to the boiler room.

Mr. Hosler came aboard the USS Noble in 1962 and was Mr.
Kummer's divisional supervisor. Mr. Hosler stated that Mr.
Kummer's primary role aboard the USS Noble was a boiler tender.
Mr. Hosler oversaw Mr. Kummer's work in the engine room from
March of 1962 through July of 1963.

Mr. Hosler stated that during his time as Mr. Kummer's
supervisor, Mr. Kummer did not work on the Westinghouse
turbines. Mr. Hosler also stated that Mr. Kummer never worked
with asbestos containing material on the Westinghouse turbines
and that Mr. Kummer never did anything to disturb the asbestos
material on the turbines.

It was undisputed that Viacom Inc. (f/k/a the Westinghouse
Electric Co.) manufactured the turbines that were aboard the USS
Noble during Mr. Kummer's service. The turbines were installed
on or before 1944.

The insulation on the Westinghouse turbine was installed by
unknown entities during the construction of the USS Noble on or
before 1944. The Westinghouse turbines on the USS Noble required
the use of asbestos-containing thermal insulation per the Navy's
specifications. Additionally, Westinghouse was aware of health
dangers associated with asbestos in the 1940s.

Mrs. Kummer claims that while aboard the USS Noble, Mr. Kummer
inhaled asbestos fibers, which caused him to develop
mesothelioma. Mr. Kummer died on Jan. 12, 2005.

Mrs. Kummer brought claims of wrongful death, survival action,
loss of consortium, and exemplary and punitive damages against
the defendants for defective asbestos containing products.

Viacom, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation all
moved for summary judgment in their favor.

Mrs. Kummer did not oppose the motions by Ford and GM, thus
summary judgment was granted in their favor. Mrs. Kummer opposed
Viacom's motion, and because there were genuine issues of
material fact as to causation, Viacom's motion was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: District Court Affirms Smith Remand Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted
Kenneth Alton Smith, Jr. and Cheryl Smith's Motion to Remand an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed against The Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company and Goodyear Canada, Inc. (together, "Goodyear").

The case is styled Kenneth Alton Smith, Jr. and Cheryl Smith,
Plaintiffs v. Anchor Packing Company et al., Defendants.

District Judge Gerard E. Lynch entered judgment in Case No. 08
Civ. 7219(GEL) on Nov. 12, 2008.

The Smiths brought this action in the New York State Supreme
Court for New York County, charging that Mr. Smith was injured
by asbestos to which he was exposed while serving in the Navy.

The action was removed to the District Court by Viad
Corporation, which asserted that it acted under the authority of
a federal agency, the Navy.

Following removal, the Smiths agreed to dismiss their claims
against Viad with prejudice, and submitted a stipulation to that
effect, which was so-ordered by this Court. The Smiths then
moved to remand the case to state court, as the only defendant
that had asserted a federal defense or sought to remove the case
had now been dismissed.

Goodyear opposed the motion to remand, arguing that dismissal
was improper without its consent, as it had asserted a cross-
claim against Viad before the dismissal.

The Court granted the Smiths' motion to remand.

Alani Golanski, Esq., of Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. in New York,
represented Kenneth Alson Smith and Cheryl Smith.

Scott R. Emery, Esq., of Lynch Daskal Emery LLP in New York,
represented The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Goodyear Canada
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OSHA Issues $305T Fine to Sunoco's Refinery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a
US$305,000 penalty to Sunoco Chemicals' Eagle Point Refinery in
Westville, N.J., for multiple citations, including asbestos-
related, the Gloucester County Times reports.

The U.S. Department of Labor's oversight board initiated an
investigation of the plant in June 2008 as part of its National
Emphasis Program on safety in petroleum refineries, OSHA
spokeswoman Leni Fortson said.

As a result of the probe, OSHA issued citations for 25 "serious"
violations, with a penalty of US$105,000, and nine "repeat"
violations, with a penalty of US$200,000.

The repeat violations cited the Company's inadequate process
safety management procedures; failure to determine the presence,
location and quantity of asbestos-containing materials at the
work site; and failure to affix labels to any products
containing asbestos.

Sunoco spokesman Thomas Golembeski said that the company will
review the OSHA report before determining the next course of
action.

The company has 15 working days to pay the penalty, contest the
citations before the independent Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission or meet with the area director, Ms. Fortson
said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Madison County Still on Hellhole Watch List
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a report issued on Dec. 16, 2008, Illinois' Madison
County, for the second straight year, has been put on the
American Tort Reform Foundation's watch list for potential
judicial hellholes, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Madison County may have moved off the ATRF's annual list of
judicial hellholes, but it is still being watched. The City of
St. Louis and St. Louis County also join Madison County. St.
Clair County was mentioned in the "Others to Watch" section of
the report.

The ATRF named Madison County as the No. 1 judicial hellhole
from 2002 to 2004 before dropping to No. 5 in 2005 and No. 6 in
2007.

One area of concern, the ATRF report says, is an increase in
asbestos filings from out-of-state plaintiffs. Some suits name
as many as 250 defendants, and an average of six to eight
lawsuits have been filed per week over the last two years.

The report says, "Although what once was a raging flood of
asbestos cases has been reduced to a steady stream, there is
fear among some observers that dangerous waters could rise
again. In one week in March 2008, 20 new asbestos cases were
filed in Madison County, the most in a five-day period in more
than two years.

"Sixteen of the 20 cases involved plaintiffs from outside
Illinois. Overall, the number of asbestos cases filed in the
county rose significantly in 2007 and again in 2008 with about
nine out of 10 claims filed on behalf of out-of-state
plaintiffs."

The ATRF sees progress in the Madison County's asbestos docket,
especially with the retirement of Judge Nicholas Byron. The
report says his plaintiff-biased rulings "invited a cross-
continent parade of asbestos plaintiffs and established the
county as the very worst of judicial hellholes for years."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe at Wallhouse Estate in Bexley Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos probe at the Wallhouse Estate in Slade Green,
Bexley, London, has been ongoing, the News Shopper reports.

Work will commence in the New Year to find out how whether
asbestos on the estate poses a significant risk to residents. In
2007, housing association Orbit South carried out works to the
garden of a house on estate after a resident dug up asbestos
materials in her back garden.

Bexley Council hired specialist asbestos contractors, who will
take air samples from inside a representative selection of
houses on the estate, along with soil samples to gauge whether
there is a risk.

The Council says there is likely to be minimal risk from the
materials if they are left in the ground.

While working in the area, asbestos contractors will remove any
material that is visible on the surface of any open areas on the
estate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Young Tradesmen at Risk to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is based
in Atlanta, states that young tradesmen are at risk to develop
health problems associated with asbestos, despite efforts to
decrease occupational exposure rates to asbestos, Mesothelioma
reports.

Doctors at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health say that their research from over 38 years of data shows
that the number of premature deaths (measured as deaths before
the age of 65) from asbestos-related diseases are currently
occurring at a high rate and still increasing.

The research team conducting the study had analyzed 38-plus
years of cause-of-death data. During that period, it was
identified that almost 13 percent of victims who died from
asbestosis were tradesmen between the ages of 25 and 64.

The study also found that of all tradesmen, construction workers
accounted for the largest percentage of those deaths.

Other top industries in which included high rates of asbestos-
related diseases among workers included ship building and
repair, the military, and automobile maintenance.

The researchers estimated that 1.3 million construction workers
are exposed to asbestos yearly, mainly during building
demolition or renovation work.

According to the doctors' study, in 2006, more than 2,000 metric
tons of asbestos was used in manufacturing in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at 2 N.C. Buildings to Cost $7,850
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup, including asbestos-related, at two downtown buildings
in Spencer, N.C., is estimated to cost US$7,850,
SalisburyPost.com reports.

On Dec. 12, 2008, by a 3-to-1 count, Spencer aldermen voted to
pay Tommy Long's Grading and House Moving US$7,850 to move the
brick and other debris that remains from the buildings at 127
and 129 Fifth St.

Mayor Jody Everhart said the town does not want its own
employees to clean the bricks because tests revealed a small
amount of asbestos in the debris. If town employees cleaned the
bricks, there's always a chance the workers could eventually sue
the town for getting asbestos in their lungs.

The buildings were brought down in October 2008. The heap of
bricks and lumber has since sat at the corner of Fifth Street
and Yadkin Avenue, greatly resembling a bomb's aftermath.

Mayor Everhart said he expects the bricks to be carted to the
town's landfill on Sower's Ferry Road sometime within the coming
week.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MPs To Support U.K. Pleural Plaques Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Members of Parliament will gather for a photo-op as an Early Day
Motion calling for the damaging 2007 asbestos-related Lords
ruling ending the right to compensation is laid before the
Commons, according to a Unite the Union press release dated Dec.
16, 2008.

The EDM has already been endorsed by 87 Mps.

This signals the growing concern among MPs that the Ministry of
Justice has yet to make clear what steps it will take to provide
support for thousands of British workers scarred by pleural
plaques.

Michael Clapham MP, who tabled the EDM said, "Pleural plaques
are a massive issue for MPs especially those representing seats
which contained a large amount of heavy industry. The delay in
the Government's announcement about whether pleural plaque
victims will have the right to compensation restored is
unacceptable, it is creating greater levels of anxiety
uncertainty and misery for people whose health and well-being
has been damaged, simply for going to work."

Jim Sheridan MP, who has played a key role in the campaign,
said, "We are calling on the Labour Government to reverse the
decision that adversely affects thousands of working families."

In October 2007, the Law Lords ruled that pleural plaques
victims could no longer claim compensation. The case was brought
by the insurance industry, which is set to save in excess of
GBP1 billion if the Law Lords ruling is not overturned.

Following a long running campaign by unions, MPs and asbestos
campaigners the Government agreed to consult on whether the Law
Lords ruling should be overturned and whether compensation
should be paid to pleural plaques victims. The consultation
closed in October 2008.

In October 2008, Justice Minister Jack Straw told the House of
Commons that an announcement on the Government intentions on
pleural plaques would be announced within a month. Nearly two
months later there has not been an announcement and it is
understood that one is not imminent.

The delay in the Government making an announcement is further
complicated by the fact that the Scottish Parliament is moving
ahead with a Bill, which will overturn the Law Lords decision
north of the border.

There is a real danger of a postcode lottery being created with
pleural plaque suffers living in Scotland being eligible for
compensation but those in England and Wales being denied
compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hellicar Accused of Omission in ASIC Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Hellicar, James Hardie Industries N.V.'s chairman in
2004, on Dec. 16, 2008, was accused of deliberately omitting
material from her sworn witness statement, in the case filed by
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the North
Queensland Register reports.

ASIC's barrister, Tony Bannon, SC, began by confronting Ms.
Hellicar with a discrepancy between her sworn witness statement
and a speech she gave in 2005. She said a line in the speech, on
the topic of the social responsibility of company directors, was
wrong.

Ms. Hellicar denied she "deliberately chose not to include" in
her witness statement that Hardie had received negative feedback
from United States investors and lenders in 1998 because of its
association with asbestos.

Ms. Hellicar added, "That speech was written for me at a time of
great activity and not when, with the benefit of going through
all the documents and being very precise and accurate about when
we were told what."

Ms. Hellicar is expected to be in the New South Wales Supreme
Court for the rest of the week, answering ASIC's claim that
Hardie's public statements in 2001 that the new trust would be
fully funded were misleading and deficient.

The claimed motive was to thwart government intervention in a
corporate restructure, a key objective of which was to protect
most of Hardie's assets from asbestos disease claims.

Ms. Hellicar was a non-executive director at the time of the
misconduct alleged against her and nine other former executives
and directors. She became chairman when her predecessor, Alan
McGregor, fell ill in 2004 and subsequently died in 2005.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vallejo Man Wins $7.5MM Asbestos Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert "Bobby" Hilt of Vallejo, Calif., has won a US$7.5 million
settlement in his asbestos-related lawsuit filed against various
defendants, the Times-Herald reports.

The 64-year-old Mr. Hilt was diagnosed with mesothelioma by his
doctors at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, Calif. His
mesothelioma likely resulted from his work as a marine machinist
and janitor in San Francisco and on Mare Island, said his San
Francisco lawyer, Gilbert Purcell, Esq.

Mr. Hilt worked as a janitor for Schlage Lock Co.'s Bayshore
plant from 1963 to 1965. He then went to work at the Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard, where he was employed until 1972.

The settlement, which will exceed US$7.5 million after all
parties ante up, is among the richest in California history,
particularly for someone of Mr. Hilt's age, Mr. Purcell said.

Mr. Hilt and his wife of 43 years, Geraldine, were plaintiffs in
a trial that began November 2008 in San Francisco Superior Court
with 11 defendants that made, supplied or distributed the
asbestos-containing products Hilt worked around from the early
1960s through the early 1970s, Mr. Purcell said.

Two weeks into the plaintiff's case, the last of the defendants
settled out of court, Mr. Purcell added.

In the 1970s, Mr. Hilt was "loaned out" to the Mare Island Naval
Shipyard, where he worked as a machinist in the nuclear reactor
compartments of Sturgeon Class submarines, said Mr. Purcell, who
added that Mr. Hilt's asbestos exposure came from all of those
work environments.

In 1972, Mr. Hilt took a job with the U.S. Mint in San
Francisco, where he stayed until his 2004 retirement.

The Hilts took a liking to Vallejo during Mr. Hilt's stint on
Mare Island, and they moved here more than 20 years ago, Mr.
Purcell said.

Mr. Purcell said, "Typically, people with mesothelioma live 12
to 18 months from the time of clinical diagnosis. Mr. Hilt is
coming up on a year now. But his good physical condition and his
good attitude have made it possible for him to continue
functioning fairly normally."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Snyder School Cleanup Project Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
School board members, on Dec. 15, 2008, approved the asbestos
removal project at the West Snyder Middle School in Beaver
Springs, Pa., The Daily Item reports.

Jeff Straub, of Crabtree, Rohrbaugh and Associates, presented
the plan to accept bids for this project beginning Dec. 23,
2008.

The board would have 120 days to accept or reject the bids. An
executive session was held to discuss the details of the
project.

The board also approved the accounting and design development
plans, known as PlanCon D and PlanCon E, for the high school
project. The cost of the project has been approved at US$43.8
million.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MAAC Warns of Asbestos in Holiday Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center urges caution
when dealing with all asbestos products, especially those
products used during the holiday season, TransWorldNews reports.

Many of these products are used around holiday season, such as
tree skirts, artificial trees or wreaths, and many other fire
retardant products. Any product of this nature known to be
manufactured before 1980 could potentially contain asbestos.

For this reason, it is important to examine older holiday
products each year to ensure that they are in good condition,
not only for aesthetic purposes but also because of possible
asbestos hazards.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court in Derbyshire,
England, on Dec. 16, 2008, an inquest heard that the death of
former Celanese Acetate Limited worker, Barry Matthews, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph reports.

The 65-year-old Mr. Matthews started work cutting sections of
plastic film for the Spondon firm in 1962, when it was British
Celanese Ltd. He spent a decade working in building 3C, where
the thermoplastic film known as clarifoil was manufactured and
cut to size. He also did sheeting work and rejoined the firm in
1997 until 2007, when he had to retire through ill health.

Mr. Matthews was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007 and died in
November 2008.

A written statement, given by Mr. Matthews before his death at
Derby's Nightingale Macmillan Unit, was read out during the
inquest.

Mr. Matthews said removal workers clad in full protective suits,
like "space suits" complete with masks and goggles, were working
at the site. He also said that some pipe work had stickers on
warning employees that the lagging, which he claimed he had to
climb over to get to machinery, contained asbestos.

A postmortem examination showed Mr. Matthews died from malignant
mesothelioma.

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner Dr. Robert Hunter returned a
verdict of industrial disease in Mr. Matthews' death. He said,
"During the course of his employment, I'm satisfied that Mr.
Matthews was exposed to asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Local to Pay $109T for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Hicks, Jr., of Muncie, Ind., on Dec. 16, 2008, was
penalized US$109,000 and threatened with jail time over
environmental violations at a former Car Doctors auto salvage
yard, in which potential contaminants include lead, asbestos,
antifreeze, gas, oil, and other auto-related fluids, The Star
Press reports.

Delaware Circuit Court Judge Marianne Vorhees found that Mr.
Hicks had failed to comply with a July 2008 court order to clean
up solid waste at the salvage yard on 1004 S. Burlington Drive.

Judge Vorhees fined Mr. Hicks US$1,000 a day for the 109 days he
had failed to comply with the order. And for every month
beginning Jan. 1 that Mr. Hicks delays the cleanup, he faces a
weekend in jail, Judge Vorhees ruled.

Mr. Hicks' stubbornness stems from his position that he no
longer owns the property and should not be held responsible for
cleaning it up. According to Mr. Hicks, Bank One took possession
of the property years ago.

Mr. Hicks' attorney, Bruce Munson, Esq., argued the bank likely
declined to take title to the property out of concern over pre-
existing environmental hazards, explaining why Mr. Hicks
remained the owner of record.

Deputy attorney general Justin Barrett, representing the Indiana
Department of Environmental Resources, produced auditors records
showing Mr. Hicks had owned the property uninterrupted since
1991.

Judge Vorhees said the state could suspend the US$109,000 fine
if Mr. Hicks complies with the cleanup order.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westminster School Cleanup to Cost $280,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Council of Westminster City, S.C., on Dec. 16, 2008,
received a US$280,000 Community Block Grant from the state to
pay for asbestos removal and demolition of the former Butler
Street School, the Anderson Independent-Mail reports.

Westminster City Administrator David Smith said, "The grant
portion is US$224,000 with a US$56,000 match from the city. The
US$280,000 amount is actually an estimated amount, so hopefully
when we go to bid and it is actually lower than that amount."

Mr. Smith added that Habitat for Humanity has spoken to the city
about using the property for a village of Habitat homes.

The next step for Westminster would be to advertise bids for the
demolition and asbestos removal project at the Butler Street
School, something Mr. Smith hopes to do in the next few months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Billingham Guard's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of retired security guard, Robin
Terence Dorn, of Billingham, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos during his working life, gazettelive.co.uk reports.

The 73-year-old Mr. Dorn, who previously worked removing lagging
from pipes, was admitted to the University Hospital of North
Tees on Nov. 7, 2008 and died there later that month.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burgess Suit Filed v. 35 Companies in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chester A. Burgess, Jr., on Dec. 10, 2008, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 35 undisclosed defendant corporations,
on his late wife Annie I. Burgess' behalf, in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, Mrs. Burgess was exposed to asbestos
through Mr. Burgess' work as an insulator.

Mr. Burgess seeks unspecified exemplary and actual damages, plus
pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate, costs and
other relief to which he may be entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins, Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of
Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent Mr.
Burgess.

Case No. B182-830 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson of
the 60th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jack's Bean Co. Cleanup to Cost $410,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Morgan, Colo., City Manager, Pat Merrill, told the Fort
Morgan City Council that asbestos abatement at the old Jack's
Bean Co. warehouse is to cost an additional US$110,000, on top
of the nearly US$300,000 the city has already spent, The Fort
Morgan Times reports.

Mr. Merrill made the announcement on Dec. 16, 2008, during the
Council's final regular meeting of 2008.

Mr. Merrill said the US$110,000 in additional costs includes
about US$56,000 for asbestos monitoring, US$18,500 for abatement
and about US$35,000 for disposal of the hazardous material.

The city could also either spend an additional US$4,000 to
remove the floor of the building's foundation, or leave it in
place as the foundation for a parking lot, Mr. Merrill added.

In June 2000, a report was prepared for the city on the purchase
of the building, Mr. Merrill said. At that time, it was
estimated that abatement of the asbestos in the building would
cost US$410,265.

The city purchased the building and adjacent property in August
2000 for US$50,000, Mr. Merrill said, and then this year the
city council approved a bid for US$242,348.33 for the asbestos
abatement that also had an additional "environmental cost" of
US$48,150.

Mr. Merrill said that after the city purchased the building in
2000, the city staff at the time continually underfunded the
cleanup work for eight years. Mr. Merrill credited Keith
Kuretich, the city's police chief who served as acting city
manager from February until the early fall, with taking on the
project and moving it forward.

Mr. Merrill said the city staff would find the additional
funding to complete the abatement project within the fiscal year
2009 budget that has already been set and approved by the
council. He said he would advise the Council, after final costs
are determined for the project, exactly where the money could
come from.

Councilman Terry McAlister said that because the project was
originally offered for bid, it seemed unfair that the city took
the lowest bid and is now paying that low bidder substantially
more money to finish the job.

Mr. Merrill said projects like this one involve a certain degree
of "unknown" factors, and that is where the additional costs
have come in. Even with the additional money, he noted, the cost
would still be below the next-lowest original bid.

City Attorney Jeff Wells said the contract for the additional
work will be a fixed cost agreement that will require the
contractor to finish the work at this cost with no leeway for
any change orders or additional charges.

Mayor Jack Darnell said the Council could not make a decision on
the matter at the meeting because it did not have a firm
contract on which to vote. He asked the staff to bring back the
firm cost numbers as well as details on where the staff proposes
to take the needed US$110,000 from the existing budget.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Paul Morin Indicted for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superintendent of the Soldiers Home in Holyoke, Mass., Paul A.
Morin, on Dec. 16, 2008, was indicted on a Clean Air Acti charge
that he failed to properly oversee asbestos removal at the
facility, which provides hospice care for veterans, The
Republican reports.

The 56-year-old Mr. Morin, of Chicopee, Mass., was indicted by a
Hampden grand jury. Arraignment is scheduled for Dec. 30, 2008.

Mr. Morin has been superintendent of the home for more than 10
years. He took a one-year leave of absence in 2006 to serve as
national commander of the American Legion.

The indictment stems from an investigation by the state
Environmental Crimes Strike Force that found Mr. Morin ordered
the demolition with sledgehammers of a wall that contained
asbestos insulation after he was warned by officials that it
would cause the release of asbestos into the air, putting his
employees at risk of exposure. The demolition work occurred in
an area where no patient rooms were located.

In October 2007, the demolition commenced and coincided with an
air-conditioning project at the Soldiers Home that was overseen
by the state Division of Capital Asset Management.

The indictment alleges Mr. Morin directed maintenance workers to
conduct renovations in areas that the division determined
contained asbestos and subsequently required one asbestos
abatement project at the facility that cost in excess of
US$18,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Wants W.Va. to Hear Out-of-State Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Peirce and Associates, a Pittsburgh-based law firm, is
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that West Virginia courts
should accommodate out-of-state asbestos claims, The West
Virginia Record reports.

Peirce wants the Court to hear its appeal of a ruling from West
Virginia that dismissed the asbestos cases of more than 1,000
railroad workers. The Peirce firm routinely files asbestos suits
in Kanawha County, where cases from three other counties were
consolidated in front of Circuit Judge Arthur Recht.

The Peirce firm says the U.S. Supreme Court has previously
agreed with its argument.

In July 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court backed Judge
Recht, choosing not to apply a 2006 decision, Morris v. Crown
Equipment, which granted West Virginia jurisdiction in a dispute
from another state.

According to numbers it recently filed in a federal court, 4,747
of the 5,325 individuals represented by Peirce firm who have
filed suit against railroad company CSX Corporation in West
Virginia have nothing to do with the state.

CSX filed a lawsuit in 2005 against the Peirce firm and Robert
Gilkison, one of its employees. The complaint said two CSX
employees came up with a plan to defraud the company by having
an employee who already had been diagnosed with asbestosis show
up for an X-ray screen for another employee with no signs of the
illness. Dr. Ray Harron reviewed those X-rays for the Peirce
firm, the suit states.

CSX says Mr. Gilkison, who was hired by the Peirce firm as a
"runner" to round up former colleagues for lawsuits, suggested
that CSX employee Ricky May get someone who previously tested
positive to pretend to be him at a 2000 asbestos screening.

CSX claims Mr. May had Danny Jayne, a CSX worker who had been
diagnosed with asbestosis in 1999, to impersonate him for the X-
ray. The suit says Mr. Gilkison helped make this happen by
letting Mr. May complete the paperwork and walking Mr. Jayne
through the exam.

The Peirce Law Firm has acknowledged that scam, but says it was
not behind it. The firm also says it did not know about Mr.
Gilkison's part in the plan and that, because he was a
contractor, it is not responsible for Mr. Gilkison's actions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mo. Fire Execs Accused of Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri State and local authorities have accused officials of a
St. Louis County fire district for potentially removing asbestos
from a building and then blocking inspectors from looking into
the complaints, Mesothelioma reports.

An investigation is ongoing the check if the fire officials
violated federal and state laws during the renovation of the
nearly 5,500 square foot building, recently purchased by the
fire district. If necessary, the state will request a search
warrant to look into matters further, a state official
commented.

The St. Louis County Health Department notified the fire
district that its officials had violated the law by refusing
access to two safety investigators who were sent to the site
after complaints were received.

The state Department of Natural Resources became involved
shortly after hearing about the incident and is now conducting
an investigation.

The fire district bought the building in November 2008 and began
conducting board meetings in it soon after.

A resident who attended the first public meeting saw what seemed
to be broken asbestos-containing floor tiles lying out in the
open and warned board directors of it. The resident recognized
it because he had hired licensed contractors to remove it from
his home before.

At the next meeting, the area had been cleaned up and the tiles
were gone. However, residents said they found a trashcan behind
the building that was filled to the top with tiles. Some of the
concerned residents took samples of the tiles, which they later
submitted to the authorities.

The county has also written another letter to the fire district
instructing the officials to halt renovation work and begin
testing the building for the presence of asbestos, to which the
district refused.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vt. Health Department Cites Errors in Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Vermont State Health Department says it made an error in a
recent report that pointed to higher cancer rates in towns
surrounding the Lowell and Eden asbestos mine in northern
Vermont, VPR News reports.

However, it says the study still shows higher rates of another
asbestos-related disease. The department said it re-examined the
data used in the study, which no longer states that people
living near the mine had a higher rate of lung cancer.

Health Commissioner Doctor Wendy Davis says the error occurred
because researchers mistakenly included the city of Newport in
the data.

Dr. Davis said the researchers should have excluded Newport City
from the communities that are within a 10 mile radius of the
mine.

Dr. Davis says the data does show a higher rate of asbestosis
disease and death in the region. She says the warning from
health officials remains the same.

The mine may eventually become a Superfund site administered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Certified Residential to Pay $46,412 Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
issued a Notice of Intent to assess a US$46,412.50 penalty to
Bruce LaPierre and Certified Residential Roofing and Siding of
Shrewsbury, Mass., for violations of MassDEP's asbestos
regulations, according to a MassDEP press release dated Dec. 10,
2008.

The violations occurred during the removal of asbestos-
containing transite roofing materials from a residential
property in Worcester, Mass.

During an inspection of the property in October 2006, MassDEP
personnel found that the company had removed the asbestos-
containing materials without having provided prior notification
to the Department, and without following the required handling,
packaging and disposal procedures.

Numerous pieces of shattered asbestos transite shingles were
observed dry and uncontained on the ground, and in an open-top
roll-off container at the property.

Upon discovery of the violations, the company was required to
hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety licensed
asbestos contractor to properly handle, package and dispose of
all the asbestos-containing waste materials, and to
decontaminate all impacted areas of the property.

MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing transite
materials to be removed wet, in a manner that minimizes
breakage, and then carefully lowered to the ground. The
regulations also mandate that the asbestos waste be sealed,
while wet, into leak tight containers that have the appropriate
asbestos warning labels affixed to them.

Lee Dillard Adams, deputy director of MassDEP's Central Regional
Office in Worcester, Mass., said, "Contractors must be fully
aware of their responsibilities to identify and properly remove
asbestos-containing materials.

"Failure to do so is an extremely serious and ultimately a
costly oversight that potentially exposes workers, residents and
the general public to a known carcinogen. Noncompliance
inevitably results in significant penalty exposure, as well as
escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and monitoring
costs."


                            *********

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  * * *