CAR_Public/090102.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 1

                           Headlines

EL PASO: Colorado Court Nixes Claims in ERISA & Age Bias Lawsuit
EL PASO: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suits, Still Faces Others
EL PASO: Texas Court Yet to Rule on Motions in ERISA Litigation
ENERGY FUTURE: Disputes on Securities Fraud Litigation Ongoing
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal

GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Sets Jan. 6 Hearing for $303M Deal
INVESTMENT FIRMS: Fresno County Files Suit Over Investment Rates
JONES SODA: Seeks Dismissal of Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Madoff Scandal
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Awaits OK on Acquisition Offer Suits Pact

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: "Haddock" Certification Disputes Ongoing
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Beary" Litigation in Ohio
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal Bid in "Gwin" Suit Denied on Nov. 20
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Market Timing Suit Dismissal Remains on Appeal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Wash. ERISA Suit

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Remains Defendant in "Michael Carr" Lawsuit
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Trial Set for Securities Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Del., Fla. Suit Over Allied Waste Deal
SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
SUNTERRA CORP: Feb. 9, 2009 Hearing Set for $8M Suit Settlement

TRAILER MANUFACTURERS: Certification Bid in La. Lawsuit Denied
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Faces "Jaroslawicz" Stockholder Suit in Calif.
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Faces "Kahn" Stockholder Lawsuit in Calif.
UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Pires" Stockholder Suit in Calif. Continues
UNIONBANCAL CORP: Still Faces VIGERS Litigation in Delaware

VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Nixes Consolidated Securities Suit
WASHINGTON GROUP: Still Faces La. Lawsuits on Levee Failure


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Vianale & Vianale Files Suit in N.Y.
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 Suits Filed in Madison on Dec. 15 to 19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sanders Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bushey Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Larkhall Swimming Pool Closed Due to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toronto City Fire Sparks Asbestos Scare

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Court OKs Abex Summary Judgment Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Pinkhover in Safeguard Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in R.T. Vanderbilt Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Gary in Safeguard Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inn Owner Fined $30T for Improper Removal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kin of 2 Japan Railway Workers Settle Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AUD3M Audit Reveals Hazard in 2,200 Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Drops AUD840T Appeal in Lo Presti Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dobbs Ferry School Cleanup to Cost $23,000

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Truck With Hazard Discovered in County Cork
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anderson Motion Denied in Grace Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Seeks Irish Navigators in Payout Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Defendants in Elbrink Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in ACE Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 More Suits Filed in Madison on Dec. 15-19
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filings in Jefferson, Tex. Drop by 600
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian School Board To Adopt Plan in 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work Stops Briefly at Canada Post Office
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston Owner Indicted for Disposal Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. AG's Office to Check Essroc Site Waste
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Manx Sea Terminal Building
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Illawarra Region's Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interior Work Ongoing at Fostoria Facility
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Most Schools at NSW Area

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schools Along NSW's Coast Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Ruling Upheld to Favor Georgia-Pacific
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Regents in Leong Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Pa. General Insurance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Rules on Cunninghams' Claim

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Cites $34MM Liabilities at Oct. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Osborne Action v. 25 Firms Filed on Dec. 16
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbia Files Suit v. 3 Local Contractors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Cambridgeshire Hospitals
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mason Kin Seeks Help in Compensation Claim

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rank Flour Worker Seeks Ex-colleagues' Help


                           *********

EL PASO: Colorado Court Nixes Claims in ERISA & Age Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed
certain claims in a purported class-action suit, captioned,
"Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02686-WDM-OES."

The purported class-action suit was filed in December 2004.  The
lawsuit alleges various violations of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a
result of its change from a final average earnings formula
pension plan to a cash balance pension plan.

Certain of the claims that said the company's cash balance plan
violated ERISA were recently dismissed by the trial court.

The company reported 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.

The suit is "Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, Judge Walker D. Miller, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net)
         Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices
         805 15th Street, NW #210
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-371-8013
         Fax: 202-371-0121

              - and -

         Barry Douglas Roseman, Esq. (broseman@nela.org)
         Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC
         1120 Lincoln Street #1607
         Denver, CO 80203-2141
         Phone: 303-839-1771
         Fax: 861-9214

Representing the company are:

         Raymond W. Martin, Esq. (martin@wtklaw.com)
         Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP
         1801 California Street #3600
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-244-1863
         Fax: 303-244-1879

              - and -

         Christopher James Rillo, Esq.
         Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
         685 Market Street, Sixth Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: 415-882-5000
         Fax: 415-543-5472


EL PASO: Settles Natural Gas Antitrust Suits, Still Faces Others
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Co., and certain of its affiliates have
settled two of several antitrust lawsuits over natural gas,
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.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso
Marketing L.P., alleging that it conspired with El Paso Natural
Gas Co. and other energy companies to manipulate the price of
natural gas by providing false price information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices.

The first set of cases, involving similar allegations on behalf
of commercial and residential customers, was transferred as a
multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL) in the U.S. District
Court for Nevada and styled, "In re: Western States Wholesale
Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation."  These cases were dismissed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however,
reversed the dismissal at the plaintiffs' behest and remanded
the cases to the trial court.

The second set of cases also involve similar allegations on
behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.  These cases
include:

   -- "Farmland Industries v. Oneok Inc., et al.," which was
      filed in the state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas, in
      July 2005, and

   -- "Missouri Public Service Commission v. El Paso
      Corporation, et al." which was filed in the circuit court
      of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City in October
      2006.

In addition, the second set of cases include several purported
class-action lawsuits.  They are:

   -- "Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.,"
      filed in the Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005;

   -- "Ever-Bloom Inc., et al. v. AEP Energy Services Inc., et
      al.," filed in federal court for the Eastern District of
      California in September 2005;

   -- "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in
      the state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in September
      2005;

   -- "Breckenridge, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in
      the state court in Denver County, Colorado, in May 2006;

   -- "Arandell, et al. v. Xcel Energy, et al.," filed in
      the circuit court of Dane County, Wisconsin in December
      2006; and

   -- "Heartland, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the
      circuit court of Buchanan County, Missouri in March 2007.

The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court and
has been appealed.  The Missouri Public Service case was
transferred to the MDL, but remanded back to state court, where
a motion to dismiss has been filed.

The remaining cases have all been transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

The Breckenridge Case has been dismissed, but a motion for
reconsideration was filed.

Motions for summary judgment in Learjet and Farmland were
denied, but a motion for reconsideration has been filed.

Discovery is proceeding in the MDL cases.


The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court, but
in October 2008, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal, remanding the matter to trial court.

The Missouri Public Service case was transferred to the MDL, but
remanded back to state court, where a motion to dismiss has been
filed.

The remaining cases have all been transferred to the MDL
proceeding.

The Breckenridge Case has been dismissed, but a motion for
reconsideration was filed. Motions for summary judgment in
Learjet and Farmland were denied, but a motion for
reconsideration has been filed.

Discovery is proceeding in the MDL cases.

The company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Western States and Ever-Bloom cases and have established
accruals for those cases which we believe are adequate.
Settlement documents are being drafted.

El Paso Natural Gas Co. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is engaged
in the primary business of interstate transportation of natural
gas.  It conducts its business activities through two pipeline
systems: The EPNG system, which consists of approximately 11,000
miles of pipeline with a winter sustainable west-flow capacity
of 4,850 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) and approximately
800 MMcf/d of east-end deliverability, and The Mojave system,
which consists of approximately 400 miles of pipeline with a
design capacity of approximately 400 MMcf/d.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2004, the average throughput on the EPNG system
and the Mojave system was 4,074 billion barrels tons per day
(BBtu/d) and 161 BBtu/d, respectively.


EL PASO: Texas Court Yet to Rule on Motions in ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
yet to rule on various motions filed in the class-action lawsuit
captioned "William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al."

The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the
company's direct and indirect communication with participants in
the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Various motions have been filed, and the company is awaiting the
court's ruling.

The company reported 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.

The suit is "Lewis, et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No.
4:02-cv-04860," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Lynn N. Hughes, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
         Hoeffner and Bilek LLP
         1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713-227-7720
         Fax: 713-227-9404

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plz E., Ste. 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the company is:

         Stephen D. Susman, Esq. (ssusman@susmangodfrey.com)
         Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100
         Houston, TX 77002-5096
         Phone: 713-651-9366
         Fax: 713-654-6670


ENERGY FUTURE: Disputes on Securities Fraud Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal related to a dismissal of a purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH
Corp.), formerly TXU Corp., remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In September 2005, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and
C. John Wilder, EFH Corp.'s former Chief Executive Officer.

The plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, asserts claims on behalf
of the plaintiffs and a putative class of owners of certain EFH
Corp. securities who tendered such securities in connection with
a tender offer conducted by EFH Corp. in 2004.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the provisions of
Sections 14(e), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The allegations relate to a tender offer conducted in September
and October 2004 for certain equity-linked securities in which
it was expressly disclosed that EFH Corp. management was
evaluating whether it should recommend to the board of directors
that the board reevaluate EFH Corp.'s dividend policy.

After the tender offer was closed, and consistent with the
disclosure, management did make a recommendation to the board to
reevaluate the dividend policy, and the board elected to
increase the quarterly dividend.  The plaintiffs contend that
such disclosure in connection with the tender offer was
inadequate.

EFH Corp. maintains that the disclosure provided in connection
with the tender offer regarding the evaluation of the dividend
policy was complete and accurate at the time the tender offer
was initiated as well as when it was closed.

A Motion to Dismiss was filed by the defendants, and the
District Court entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss
and dismissing this litigation with prejudice in August 2006.

The plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal, and on appeal,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the
dismissal to the District Court in light of the decisions in
"Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd." On remand,
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The District Court entered an order
granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this litigation
with prejudice in April 2008.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in May 2008 and the
appeal is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. Briefing on the appeal has been completed.

Dallas Texas-Based Energy Future Holdings Corp. --
http://www.energyfutureholdings.com/-- is a non-regulated
retail electric provider in Texas, with more than 2 million
customers, and through its Luminant unit it has a generating
capacity of more than 18,300 MW from its interests in nuclear
and fossil-fueled power plants in the state. Energy Future
Holdings has regulated power transmission and distribution
operations through Oncor Electric Delivery. In 2007 the Company
was acquired in a $45 billion leveraged buyout by an investor
group led by Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Texas
Pacific Group.


FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfield Greenwich Group is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit concerning the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme claimed
to have been run by Bernard L. Madoff under the guise of a hedge
fund, Martha Neil of ABA Journal reports.

                           Background

Bernard Lawrence Madoff is a businessman and former chairman of
the NASDAQ stock market.  He started the Wall Street firm
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its
chairman until December 11, 2008, when he was arrested and
charged with securities fraud.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, which is in the process
of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on
Wall Street, often functioning as a "third-market" provider that
bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over-
the-counter from retail brokers.  The firm also encompassed an
investment management and advisory division that is now the
focus of the fraud investigation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
arrested Mr. Madoff on a tip-off from his sons, Andrew and Mark,
and charged him with one count of securities fraud.  On the day
prior to his arrest, Mr. Madoff told his senior executives at
the firm that the management and advisory segment of the
business was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme."

Five days after his arrest, Mr. Madoff's assets and those of the
firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the
case.  Mr. Madoff's alleged fraud may be valued at a loss of up
to a $50 billion in cash and securities.

Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have
potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result.  The FBI
complaint states that Mr. Madoff told his sons he believed the
losses from his scheme could exceed that $50 billion sum.

To date, it is the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a
single individual.

                           Litigation

According to a posting in a New York Times blog by Michael J. de
la Merced, the lawsuit, filed in New York State Supreme Court in
Manhattan, accuses Fairfield Greenwich and several of its
principals for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and unjust
enrichment.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are Pasha S. Anwar and Julia
Anwar, Illinois residents who had invested in Sentry,
Fairfield's largest fund and its primary source of exposure to
Mr. Madoff, the posting stated..

According to attorney Christopher Lovell, Esq., of Lovell
Stewart & Halebian in New York, says the action was filed in
state court because that is expected to put it on a faster track
than would apply to a federal case.  He expects to issue
subpoenas and seek a document preservation order shortly,
Bloomberg reports.


GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Sets Jan. 6 Hearing for $303M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
will hold a hearing on Jan. 6, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. for the
proposed $303,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re: General
Motors Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 1749,
Master Case No. 06-1749."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, Room 733, Theodore Levin Courthouse, 231 W.
Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226.

                         Case Background

The GM Securities Action was initially filed on Sept. 19, 2005
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The Court subsequently appointed the Lead Plaintiffs
to represent the Class, and approved Lead Plaintiffs' selection
of Lead Counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008).

In April 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the Honorable Gerald E. Rosen
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In August 2006, following an extensive investigation of their
claims, including interviews of former GM employees and current
and former employees of entities with which GM engaged in
transactions during the Class Period, Lead Plaintiffs filed the
180-page Third Amended Complaint For Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws.

In this Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against GM, GMAC, various GM officers and
directors, and Deloitte & Touche (GM's auditor during the Class
Period). This Complaint alleges that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and made material omissions regarding GM's
revenues, expenses, cash flows, and earnings (among other
financial disclosures) and its financial condition during the
Class Period.

This Complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
Defendants' false and misleading statements, the value of GM
Securities was inflated, and that members of the Class who
purchased or acquired those securities were damaged when the
truth about GM's financial condition was revealed and the value
of its securities dropped.

After a Court sponsored Mediation, on July 21, 2008, the parties
agreed to a $303 million Settlement of the case, memorialized in
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Sept. 16, 2008.

Its terms include GM paying $277 million and Deloitte & Touche
paying $26 million to the Class.

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

For more details, contact:

          In re GM Securities and Derivative Litigation
          c/o Epiq Systems
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 4068
          Portland OR 97208-4068
          Phone: 1-866-879-0481
          e-mail: info@gmsecuritiescase.com
          Web site: http://www.GMsecuritiescase.com


INVESTMENT FIRMS: Fresno County Files Suit Over Investment Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno County. California has filed a federal lawsuit against
more than 30 investment firms, alleging they conspired to rig
bids on investment rates, John Ellis of The Fresno Bee reports.

The suit comes as a federal investigation is being conducted
against the same companies, which include AIG Financial
Products, Bear Stearns Companies, Bank of America and Wachovia
Bank, among others.

The county's lawsuit -- which seeks class-action status --
alleges the companies beginning in 1992 violated federal
antitrust laws to rig bids, allocate customers and markets, and
fix the rates of return on municipal investments, according to
The Fresno Bee.

Fresno County's Financing Authority, the official plaintiff in
the lawsuit, is a joint powers agency created by the county and
the county's Industrial Development and Finance Authority.  The
authority issues bonds to finance Fresno County projects, such
as the county's Juvenile Justice Center on American Avenue.

According to the lawsuit, the authority has issued hundreds of
millions of dollars of tax-exempt bonds and has purchased
guaranteed investment contracts to invest the proceeds until
they need to be spent.  Those contracts allowed Fresno County to
earn either a higher rate of return than it would if it had
simply invested the proceeds in a savings account or provide a
hedge against variable interest rates, reports The Fresno Bee.


JONES SODA: Seeks Dismissal of Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Soda Co. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class-action suit filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Initially, on Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class-action complaint
was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and
its chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The case is entitled, "Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-CV-1366-RSL," and purports to be brought on behalf
of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during
the period from March 9, 2007, to Aug. 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints were subsequently filed in
the same court, some of which allege claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
from Nov. 1, 2006, to Aug. 2, 2007.  Some of the subsequently
filed complaints also added as defendants certain directors and
another officer of the company.

The additional complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws based on, among other things, false and
misleading statements and omissions about the company's
financial results and business prospects.  They seek unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, all seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled "In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL."  The Court appointed
Robert Burrell as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities
case.

On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint, which purports to allege claims on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock
during the period Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the
company and Peter van Stolk, its former CEO, former Chairman of
the Board, and current director.

The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the
company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources,
and business prospects.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on July 7, 2008.  The motion is scheduled to be fully briefed
and submitted for consideration in early October 2008.

The company reported 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 "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-501-9000

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net)
          627 208th Ave Se
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Phone: 425-868-7813
          Fax: 425-868-7870

Representing the defendants is:

          Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com)
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: 206-883-2500
          Fax: 206-883-2699


MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Faces Investors' Suit Over Madoff Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., and its subsidiary, the
Tremont Group Holdings Inc., is facing a purported class-action
suit that seeks to recover nearly $3.3 billion in losses by
Tremont investors in the Bernard Madoff scandal, Stan Freeman of
The Republican reports.

                           Background

Bernard Lawrence Madoff is a businessman and former chairman of
the NASDAQ stock market.  He started the Wall Street firm
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its
chairman until December 11, 2008, when he was arrested and
charged with securities fraud.

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, which is in the process
of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on
Wall Street, often functioning as a "third-market" provider that
bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over-
the-counter from retail brokers.  The firm also encompassed an
investment management and advisory division that is now the
focus of the fraud investigation.

On Dec. 11, 2008, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
arrested Mr. Madoff on a tip-off from his sons, Andrew and Mark,
and charged him with one count of securities fraud.  On the day
prior to his arrest, Mr. Madoff told his senior executives at
the firm that the management and advisory segment of the
business was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme."

Five days after his arrest, Mr. Madoff's assets and those of the
firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the
case.  Mr. Madoff's alleged fraud may be valued at a loss of up
to a $50 billion in cash and securities.

Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have
potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result.  The FBI
complaint states that Mr. Madoff told his sons he believed the
losses from his scheme could exceed that $50 billion sum.

To date, it is the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a
single individual.

                           Litigation

The Republican reported that the suit, filed in U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of New York, charges that the
officials of Tremont violated federal securities laws and
committed "breaches of their fiduciary duties."

MassMutual Financial Group, based in Springfield, is the
marketing umbrella for the Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Co. and its many subsidiaries, including Tremont Group Holdings,
which is a hedge fund.

The losses of Tremont Group Holdings were among the largest for
any investment group involved in the Madoff scam, according to
The Republican.

Plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that the defendants "failed to
perform the necessary due diligence that they were being
compensated to perform as investment managers and fiduciaries."

Specifically, the attorneys of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP state, "Defendants either knew or should have known
that the fund's assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi
scheme and took no steps in a good faith effort to prevent or
remedy that situation, proximately causing billions of dollars
of losses and possible complete collapse of the fund."

Also named as defendants in the suit was Oppenheimer Acquisition
Corp., another subsidiary of MassMutual, and Ernst & Young, an
accounting firm, reports The Republican.

Tremont had about half its funds with Madoff.  MassMutual, which
also invests money that flows into the company from its
insurance concern and other businesses, lost about $10 million
of investments with the Madoff fund, a small fraction of the
nearly $500 billion in assets held by the company, The
Republican reported.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Awaits OK on Acquisition Offer Suits Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. is awaiting approval of a
tentative settlement in several purported class-action lawsuits
brought by Nationwide Financial Services Inc. shareholders
against NFS; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Nationwide Mutual
Fire Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and the directors of NFS.

The memorandum of understanding is still conditioned upon the
plaintiffs receiving satisfactory confirmatory discovery and
upon court approval of the proposed settlement.

The lawsuits arose following the announcement of the joint offer
by NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp. to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common stock.

The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege
that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for
reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair and that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders
of the NFS Class A common stock.

The defendants have deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing
and have defended these lawsuits.

On Aug. 6, 2008, NFS and NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp.
announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement for
the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A
common stock for $52.25 per share by Nationwide Corp, subject to
the satisfaction of specific closing conditions.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding for the settlement of these
lawsuits. The memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, for the settlement of the lawsuits and release of the
defendants and, in exchange for the release and without
admitting any wrongdoing, defendant NMIC shall acknowledge that
the pending lawsuits were a factor, among others, that led it to
offer an increased share price in the transaction.

NMIC shall agree to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the
costs of notifying the class members of the settlement.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: "Haddock" Certification Disputes Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed their reply to the
opposition of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc., and its
subsidiary, Nationwide Life Insurance Co., to the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case.

On Aug. 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
suit, entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die,
Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, et al. v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company," alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Currently, the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint, filed on
March 21, 2006, purports to represent a class of qualified
retirement plans under ERISA that purchased variable annuities
from NLIC.

The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in
their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached
ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments
allegedly received by NLIC and NFS, other unspecified relief for
restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees. To date, the District Court has rejected the plaintiffs'
request for certification of the alleged class.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a motion by NFS' and NLIC's to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint was denied.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NFS and NLIC filed their answer to the
plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint and amended their
counterclaims.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss NFS'
and NLIC's amended counterclaims.  They later filed a motion for
class certification.

On Feb. 8, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss the amended counterclaim, with the exception that it was
tentatively granting the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with
respect to NFS' and NLIC's claim that they could recover any
"disgorgement remedy" from plan sponsors.

On April 25, 2008, NFS and NLIC filed their opposition to the
plaintiffs' request for class certification.

National Financial Services reported no further development in
the matter in its Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2008.

The suit is "Haddock, et al. v. Nationwide, et al., Case No.
3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Richard A. Bieder, Esq. (rbieder@koskoff.com)
          Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Ave., Bridgeport
          CT 06604
          Phone: 203-336-4421
          Fax: 203-368-3244

          Gregory G. Jones, Esq. (greg@gjoneslaw.com)
          603 S. Main, Suite 200
          Grapevine, TX 76051
          Phone: 871-424-9001
          Fax: 817-424-1665

               - and -

          Roger L. Mandel, Esq. (rmandel@smi-law.com)
          Stanley, Mandel & Iola
          3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Phone: 214-443-4300
          Fax: 214-443-0358

Representing the defendants are:

          Jessica A. Ballou, Esq. (jballou@llgm.com)
          LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae
          Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-293-3535
          Fax: 860-293-3555

               - and -

          Sam Broderick-Sokol, Esq.
          (sam.broderick-sokol@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr-LLP-DC
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6000
          Fax: 202-663-6363


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Beary" Litigation in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services Inc., National Life Insurance Co.,
and Nationwide Retirement Solutions Inc. continue to face the
lawsuit in the matter "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.,
et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK."

On Oct. 15, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's Sept.
15, 2008 ruling denying their motion to vacate judgment and for
leave to file an amended complaint.

The Beary suit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class of all sponsors
of 457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had
variable annuity contracts with NFS, NLIC and NRS.  It was filed
on Nov. 15, 2006, by Kevin Beary, Sheriff of Orange County,
Florida, in his official capacity, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

Sherrif Beary seeks to represent a class of all sponsors of
457(b) deferred compensation plans in the U.S. that had variable
annuity contracts with the defendants at any time during the
class period, or in the alternative, all sponsors of 457(b)
deferred compensation plans in Florida that had variable annuity
contracts with the defendants during the class period.

The class period is from Jan. 1, 1996, until the class notice is
provided.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by arranging for and retaining service payments
from certain mutual funds.

The complaint seeks an accounting, a declaratory judgment, a
permanent injunction and disgorgement or restitution of the
service fee payments allegedly received by the defendants,
including interest.

On Jan. 25, 2007, NFS, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss
the case. On Sept. 17, 2007, the court granted the motion to
dismiss.

On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint.  On Oct. 25, 2007,
NFS, NLIC and NRS filed their opposition to the plaintiff's
motion.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Dismissal Bid in "Gwin" Suit Denied on Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on Sept. 18,
2008, denied the defendants' motions to dismiss a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed by state employees against Nationwide
Life Insurance Co. and the Alabama State Employees Association
over allegations that they breached their fiduciary duties under
their defined contribution retirement plan.

On Nov. 20, 2007, Nationwide Life and Nationwide Retirement
Solutions, Inc., were named in a lawsuit filed with the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, entitled, "Ruth A. Gwin and
Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated individuals
v. NLIC, NRS, Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc.
and Fictitious Defendants A to Z."

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all participants
in the Alabama State Employees Association plan, excluding
members of the Board of Control during the Class Period and
excluding ASEA's directors, officers and board members during
the class period.  The class period is the date from which NLIC
and NRS first made a payment to ASEA or PEBCO arising out of the
funding agreement dated March 24, 2004, to the date class notice
is provided.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, converted plan participants' properties, and
breached their contract when payments were made and the plan was
administered under the funding agreement.

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, an injunction,
disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory and punitive damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other equitable
and legal relief to which the plaintiffs and class members may
be entitled.

On Jan. 9, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a Notice of Removal of the
case to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama.

On Jan. 16, 2008, NLIC and NRS filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On Jan. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
move the case back to the original court.

Subsequently, on April 15, 2008, the Court remanded the case
back to state court in Jefferson County, Alabama (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008).

On May 12, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

The suit is "Gwin, et al. v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company
et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00059-RDP," filed before the U.S.
District Court Northern District of Alabama, Judge R. David
Proctor presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          James S. Christie, Jr., Esq.
          (jchristie@bradleyarant.com)
          Bradley Arant Rose & White
          P.O. Box 830709
          Birmingham, AL 35283-0709
          Phone: 521-8000

Representing the defendants are:

          J. Kirkman Garrett, Esq. (jkgarrett@csattorneys.com)
          Christian & Small LLP
          Financial Center, Suite 1800
          505 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2696
          Phone: 795-6588

          Rebecca G. DePalma, Esq. (rdepalma@waadlaw.com)
          White Arnold Andrews & Dowd PC
          2025 3rd Avenue, North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 323-1888

               - and -

          Joseph C. Espy, III, Esq. (jespy@mewlegal.com)
          Melton Espy & Williams PC
          301 Adams Avenue
          P.O. Drawer 5130
          Montgomery, AL 36103-5130
          Phone: 334-263-6621
          Fax: 334-263-7252


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Market Timing Suit Dismissal Remains on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's
dismissal of their case, which names as one of the defendants
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc., remains pending.

On April 13, 2004, NLIC was named in a class action filed before
the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois,
entitled, "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company." NLIC
removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.

On Dec. 27, 2004, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland and included in the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

In response, on May 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed the first
amended complaint purporting to represent, with certain
exceptions, a class of all persons who held (through their
ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units of any
NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included foreign
securities in their portfolios and that experienced market
timing or stale price trading activity.

The first amended complaint purports to disclaim, with respect
to market timing or stale price trading in NLIC's annuities sub-
accounts, any allegation based on NLIC's untrue statement,
failure to disclose any material fact, or usage of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection
with any class member's purchases or sales of NLIC annuities or
units in annuities sub-accounts.

The plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that if NLIC is found
with respect to market timing or stale price trading in its
annuities sub-accounts, to have made any untrue statement, or to
have failed to disclose any material fact or to have used or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,
then the plaintiff purports to represent a class, with certain
exceptions, of all persons who, prior to NLIC's untrue
statement, omission of material fact, use or employment of any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance, held (through
their ownership of an NLIC annuity or insurance product) units
of any NLIC sub-account invested in mutual funds that included
foreign securities in their portfolios and that experienced
market timing activity.

The first amended complaint further alleges common law
negligence and seeks to recover damages not to exceed $75,000
per plaintiff or class member, including all compensatory
damages and costs.

On June 1, 2006, the District Court granted NLIC's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff appealed the
District Court's decision, and the issues have been fully
briefed. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008)

On Oct. 31, 2008, the Court heard oral argument.  NLIC continues
to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

The suit is "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, Case No.
1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com)
          Andrew Steven Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com)
          Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC
          2901 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: 1-602-776-5903
          Fax: 1-602-274-1199

               - and -

          Eugene Yevgeny Barash, Esq.
          (ebarash@koreintillery.com)
          George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com)
          Korein Tillery 701 Market St., Ste. 300
          St. Louis, MO 63108
          Phone: 1-314-241-4844
          Fax: 1-314-241-3525

Representing the company are:

          Shoshana Leah Gillers, Esq.
          (shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com)
          Eric John Mogilnicki, Esq.
          (eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com)
          Charles Collier Platt, Esq.
          (charles.platt@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
          399 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 1-212-230-8841
          Fax: 1-212-230-8888


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Wash. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to an order dismissing a purported class-action suit
"Daniels-Hall et al. v. National Education Association et al.,
Case No. 3:2007-cv-05339," which was filed against Nationwide
Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services Inc., is pending.  The appeal was filed by the
plaintiffs in the suit.

The suit was filed on July 11, 2007, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  It alleges violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suit was filed by Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
against:

       -- NLIC,
       -- National Education Association,
       -- NEA Member Benefits Corporation,
       -- Security Benefit Life Insurance Company,
       -- Security Benefit Group, Inc., and
       -- Security Distributors, Inc.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or
former National Education Association members who participated
in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between
January 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and/or
beneficiaries).

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) by
failing to prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing
to provide complete and accurate information, by engaging in
prohibited transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties
when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching
their fiduciary duties.

The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to
the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to
participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of
service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to
plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

On Oct. 12, 2007, NLIC filed a motion to dismiss the case, and
the Court granted the defendants' request.

On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in
connection with the dismissal order, according to National
Financial Services's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2008.

On Oct. 17, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Allen C. Engerman, Esq. (ACELaw@mcn.org)
          Law Offices of Allen C. Engerman, P.A.
          Sanctuary Centre
          4800 N Federal Hwy., Ste. 100-d
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 561-392-2222

               - and -

          Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Bieter, Esq. (mark.bieter@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-663-6126

               - and -

          Abigail V. Carter, Esq. (acarter@bredhoff.com)
          Bredhoff & Kaiser
          805 Fifteenth St. NW
          Ste. 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-842-2600


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Remains Defendant in "Michael Carr" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Several claims against Nationwide Life Insurance Co. remain in
the purported class action, "Michael Carr v. Nationwide Life
Insurance Co.," according to National Financial Services, Inc.'s
Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008. These
claims include plaintiff Carr's individual claim for breach of
contract and the plaintiff Class' claims for breach of contract
for the term life policies in 43 of 51 jurisdictions.

On Feb. 11, 2005, NLIC, a subsidiary of Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., was named in a class action filed with the
Common Pleas Court, Franklin County, Ohio entitled, "Michael
Carr v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."

The plaintiff claims that the total of modal payments that
policyholders paid per year exceeded the guaranteed maximum
premium provided for in the policy.

The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract, fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and unjust enrichment.

The complaint also seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
disgorgement of all amounts in excess of the guaranteed maximum
premium and attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 2, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The court certified a class consisting of all
residents of the United States and the Virgin Islands who,
during the class period, paid premiums on a modal basis to NLIC
for term life insurance policies issued by NLIC during the class
period that provide for guaranteed maximum premiums, excluding
certain specified products.

Excluded from the class are NLIC; any parent, subsidiary or
affiliate of NLIC; all employees, officers and directors of
NLIC; and any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the State of
Ohio who may hear the case.

The class period is from Feb. 10, 1990 through Feb. 2, 2006, the
date the class was certified.

On Jan. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On April 30, 2007, NLIC filed a motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 4, 2008, the Court entered its ruling on the parties'
pending motions for summary judgment.  The Court granted NLIC's
motion for summary judgment for some of the plaintiffs' causes
of action, including breach of contract claims on all decreasing
term policies, plaintiff Carr's individual claims for fraud by
omission, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and all unjust enrichment claims.

On May 16, 2008, the parties filed their briefs on NLIC's motion
for summary judgment on the voluntary payment doctrine or, in
the alternative, decertification.

Additional briefs were filed on June 20, 2008.  NLIC continues
to defend the lawsuit.

Columbus, Ohio-based Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. --
http://www.nationwide.com/-- is the holding company for
Nationwide Life Insurance Co., and other companies that comprise
the domestic life insurance and retirement savings operations of
the Nationwide group of companies.  This group includes
Nationwide Financial Network, which refers to Nationwide Life
Insurance Co. of America and subsidiaries, including the
affiliated distribution network.  The company is a provider of
long-term savings and retirement products in the U.S.


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Jan. 19 Trial Set for Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial is scheduled to commence on Jan. 19, 2010, for a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Powerwave Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

Several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed
in January, February and March 2007, against the company, its
president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of
the board of directors and its chief financial officer.

The complaints are:

       -- "Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al.,"

       -- "Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al.,"

       -- "Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al.," and

       -- "Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et.
          al."

These were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaints purport to state claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
2006.

The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's
projected and actual sales revenues, the integration of certain
acquisitions and the sufficiency of the company's internal
controls.

In June 2007, the four cases were consolidated into one, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.  In October 2007, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes
of action.

The amended complaint purports to state claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005,
and Nov. 2, 2006.

In December 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On April 17, 2008, the court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in
connection with the company's projected sales revenues, but
denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the other claims
asserted. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2008)

On Aug. 29, 2008, the defendants answered the amended complaint.

The suit is "Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies Inc et al., Case
No. 8:07-cv-00065-PSG-MLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          Braun Law Group
          12304 Santa Monica Blvd Suite 109
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 310-442-7755
          Fax: 310-442-7756
          e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. (rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com)
          Brualdi Law Firm
          29 Broadway, Ste. 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-952-0602

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
          Kahn Gauthier Swick
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: 504-455-1400

Representing the defendants are:

          Seth A. Aronson, Esq. (saronson@omm.com)
          O'Melveny and Myers LLP
          400 South Hope Street 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Phone: 213-430-7486


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Del., Fla. Suit Over Allied Waste Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Services, Inc., settled class-action lawsuits in
Delaware and Florida over its planned merger with Allied Waste
Industries, Inc., 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.

On July 25, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed, and
on Aug. 15, 2008 was amended, in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware by the New Jersey Carpenters Pension and the
New Jersey Carpenters Annuity Funds against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors, individually.

On Aug. 21, 2008, a second putative class action was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by David Shade
against the Company, the members of the Company's board of
directors, individually, and Allied.

On Sept. 22, 2008, the New Jersey Carpenters and the Shade cases
were consolidated by the Court of Chancery, and on Sept. 24,
2008, the plaintiffs in the Delaware case, now known as "In Re:
Republic Services Inc. Shareholders Litigation," filed a
verified consolidated amended class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On Sept. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, by the
Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund against the Company and the
members of the Company's board of directors, individually.

Both the Delaware consolidated action and the Florida action
were brought on behalf of a purported class of the Company's
shareholders and primarily sought, among other things, to enjoin
the proposed transaction between Republic and Allied, as well as
damages and attorneys' fees.

The actions also sought to compel the Company to accept the
unsolicited proposals made by Waste, or at least compel the
Company's board of directors to further consider and evaluate
the Waste proposals, which proposals were subsequently
withdrawn.

On Sept. 24, 2008, the defendants in the Florida litigation
filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss the lawsuit in light of the
consolidated Delaware class action.

On Oct. 17, 2008, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to require
the defendants to make certain additional disclosures prior to
the shareholder vote on the merger.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
Delaware and Florida actions.

Republic Services, Inc. -- http://www.republicservices.com/--
is a provider of services in the domestic non-hazardous solid
waste industry. Its operations primarily consist of the
collection, transfer and disposal of non-hazardous solid waste.
The company provides non-hazardous solid waste collection
services for commercial, industrial, municipal and residential
customers through 136 collection companies in 21 states.  It
also owns or operates 94 transfer stations, 58 solid waste
landfills and 33 recycling facilities.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, its
operations were organized into five regions: Eastern, Central,
Southern, Southwestern and Western.  Each region is organized
into several operating areas and each area contains multiple
operating locations.  Each of the company's regions and
substantially all its areas provide collection, transfer,
recycling and disposal services.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. is still facing a consolidated class
action derivative lawsuit filed before the Delaware Court of
Chancery, New Castle County, over the company's acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions
were filed against the company. On Jan. 31, 2005, three suits
were consolidated into one action, "In Re Southern Copper
Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
961-N."

These three suits were:

       -- "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al.,
          Civil Action No. 961-N,"

       -- "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
          Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-
          N," and

       -- "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
          Action No. 978-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The
consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of the
company's common stockholders. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 12,
2008)

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the
result of breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's
directors and is not entirely fair to the Company and its
minority stockholders.

The suit seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent
injunction to enjoin the acquisition, the award of damages to
the class, the award of damages to the Company and such other
relief that the court deems equitable, including interest,
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

Southern Copper Corp. -- http://www.southernperu.com/-- is an
integrated copper producer. The Company produces copper,
molybdenum, zinc and silver. All of its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are located in Peru and in Mexico, and it
conducts exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


SUNTERRA CORP: Feb. 9, 2009 Hearing Set for $8M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada will hold a
fairness hearing on Feb. 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed
$8 million settlement in the matter, "In re Sunterra Corp.
Securities, Master File No. 2:06-cv-00844-BES-RJJ."

The hearing will be held at the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse,
333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, NV 89101, before the
Honorable Brian E. Sandoval.

                        Case Background

Between July 12, 2006 and July 21, 2006, three class actions
(Gonan v. Sunterra Corp., et al., No. 2:06-cv-0084; Kaltman v.
Sunterra Corp., et al., No. 2:06-cv-00894; and Sickles v.
Sunterra Corp., et al., No. 2:06-cv-0877) were filed by
purchasers of Sunterra common stock in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada against Sunterra and two of its
former officers and directors, Nicholas J. Benson and Steven E.
West (Sunterra's former Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively).

By Order dated June 22, 2007, the actions were consolidated.  On
June 22, 2007, the Court appointed the "Employees' Retirement
Group," which plaintiffs defined to include the City of Pontiac
General Employees' Retirement System and the City of Livonia
Employees' Retirement System, as the Lead Plaintiffs and
approved the selection of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and Beckley Singleton
Chtd. as liaison counsel.

The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
Aug. 21, 2007, which is the operative complaint in this action.

In general, 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 by artificially inflating
Sunterra's stock price between April 15, 2003 and June 22, 2006.

The Lead Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Sunterra's May 3, 2006
announcement that it intended to restate its financial
statements for the period 2002 through 2006 in order to account
for a tax liability and that its 2002-2006 financial statements
should not be relied on.

The complaint alleges that Sunterra overstated its EBITA,
EBITDAR, and net earnings by understating its employee
withholding taxes.

For more details, contact:

          Sunterra Settlement Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          201 South Lyndale Ave., Suite S-3
          P.O. Box 1956
          Faribault, MN 55021-6152
          Phone: 1-888-568-7650
          Web site: http://sunterrasettlement.com/

               - and -

          Joy Ann Bull, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
     e-mail: joyb@csgrr.com


TRAILER MANUFACTURERS: Certification Bid in La. Lawsuit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kurt Engelhardt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana refused to grant class-action status to
lawsuits claiming that thousands of Gulf Coast hurricane victims
were exposed to potentially toxic fumes while living in
government-issued trailers, The Associated Press reports.

Judge Engelhardt ruled that a batch of lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds of plaintiffs against the federal government and
several trailer manufacturers can't be handled as a class action
because each person's claim is unique and must be examined
individually.

The Associated Press reported that government tests found
elevated levels of formaldehyde in many of the trailers that
housed victims of Katrina and Rita after those powerful
hurricanes clobbered the Gulf Coast in 2005.

Attorneys for the storm victims accuse trailer makers of using
shoddy materials and building methods in a rush to meet the
government's demand for emergency housing for the displaced,
according to The Associated Press.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Faces "Jaroslawicz" Stockholder Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation reports is facing a a purported class-
action lawsuit captioned, "Jaroslawicz v. UnionBanCal Corp., et
al.," filed by an alleged stockholder in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco on Aug. 15, 2008.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
as of Aug 18, 2008, with BTMU, MUFG, and Blue Jackets, Inc. The
Merger Agreement provided for a cash tender offer by BTMU
(Offer) to purchase all of the publicly held outstanding shares
of the Company's common stock at a price of US$73.50 per share
in cash.

The Jaroslawicz complaint was amended on Aug. 19, 2008,
asserting claims:

       -- for breach of fiduciary duty against the Company's
          directors, the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
          (MUFG) and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.
          (BTMU); and

       -- for aiding and abetting an alleged breach of fiduciary
          duty against the Company, MUFG and BTMU.

The amended complaint sought declaratory, injunctive and
rescissory relief with respect to the Offer.

UnionBanCal Corp. is a commercial bank holding Company whose
major subsidiary, Union Bank of California, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  The Company and its subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services to consumers, small businesses,
middle-market companies and major corporations, primarily in
California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as nationally and
internationally.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Faces "Kahn" Stockholder Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corp. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
captioned, "Kahn v. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc." filed
by an alleged stockholder in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco on Aug. 14, 2008.

The complaint was amended on Sept. 4, 2008. The amended
complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Company, its directors, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.
(MUFG) and its affiliates in connection with the Blue Jackets,
Inc.'s merger into the Company and the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
UFJ, Ltd.'s (BTMU) cash tender offered to purchase all of the
publicly held outstanding shares of the Company's common stock
at a price of US$73.50 per share in cash.

The amended complain also challenged the adequacy of the
Company's disclosures regarding the Offer.

The amended complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages
and declaratory, rescissory and injunctive relief with respect
to the Offer and the Merger.

UnionBanCal Corp. is a commercial bank holding company whose
major subsidiary, Union Bank of California, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  The Company and its subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services to consumers, small businesses,
middle-market companies and major corporations, primarily in
California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as nationally and
internationally.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: "Pires" Stockholder Suit in Calif. Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed against UnionBanCal
Corp., among others, in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco, by an alleged stockholder on Aug. 29, 2008, is
ongoing.

The complaint, captioned, "Pires v. UnionBanCal Corp., et al.,"
asserted a claim of breach of fiduciary duty against the Company
and its directors, and against  Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group,
Inc. (MUFG) for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi
UFJ, Ltd.'s (BTMU) cash tender offered to purchase all of the
publicly held outstanding shares of the Company's common stock
at a price of US$73.50 per share in cash.

The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages.

UnionBanCal Corp. is a commercial bank holding Company whose
major subsidiary, Union Bank of California, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  The Company and its subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services to consumers, small businesses,
middle-market companies and major corporations, primarily in
California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as nationally and
internationally.


UNIONBANCAL CORP: Still Faces VIGERS Litigation in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
UnionBanCal Corporation is still facing a purported class and
derivative action captioned, "Virgin Islands Government
Employees' Retirement System v. Alvarez, et al. (VIGERS)" filed
on Aug. 15, 2008, by an alleged stockholder in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The VIGERS complaint was amended on Aug. 27, 2008 and again on
Sept. 5, 2008. The second amended VIGERS complaint asserted
class action claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's current directors, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group,
Inc. (MUFG) and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (BTMU),
and claims for self-dealing against MUFG and BTMU, in connection
BTMU's cash tender offered to purchase all of the publicly held
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock at a price of
US$73.50 per share in cash.

The complaint also asserted derivative claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the Company's current directors, except
for Nicholas Binkley, and some of its former directors arising
out of alleged non-compliance by specified subsidiaries with the
Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering laws and
regulations.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 21, 2008,
shareholders contend that the Company's money laundering cost
the bank and its shareholders US$31.6 million in fines and
forfeits.  In addition, the plaintiffs, led by the Virgin
Islands' Government Employees' Retirement System, said that for
years, the bank accepted suspicious deposits from Mexican casas
de cambio, generated by "multi-ton cocaine sales".

Furthermore, federal criminal prosecutors accused the bank of
"willfully failing to establish an adequate anti-money
laundering program," and demanded, and got, US$21.6 million in
forfeited deposits, plus a US$10 million fine.

The amended complaint also asserted claims alleging that the
Company's  disclosures regarding the Offer were materially false
and misleading in several respects.

The second amended VIGERS complaint sought declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.

UnionBanCal Corp. is a commercial bank holding Company whose
major subsidiary, Union Bank of California, N.A., is a
commercial bank.  The Company and its subsidiaries provide a
range of financial services to consumers, small businesses,
middle-market companies and major corporations, primarily in
California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as nationally and
internationally.


VALUECLICK INC: Calif. Court Nixes Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit
filed against ValueClick, Inc.

Initially, a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit was
filed on Aug. 17, 2007, by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, presuming to represent all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
ValueClick between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws and is brought against the company, its executive chairman
and its chief administrative officer.

A similar purported class-action lawsuit was filed later.  On
Nov. 20, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California consolidated the second purported securities fraud
class action with the first lawsuit.  The court appointed the
combined funds of Laborers' International Union of North America
National Pension and the LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund
as lead plaintiffs.

In January 2008, the LIUNA Funds filed a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws based
upon the company's and its officers' alleged misrepresentation
of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's compliance with laws and standards applicable to its
lead generation business, among other things.

The LIUNA Funds purport to represent all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company between
June 13, 2005, and July 27, 2007, and seek class certification,
damages, costs incurred in bringing suit, and
equitable/injunctive relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this matter in March 2008
and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint by Nov. 24, 2008.

The company reported 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 "Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:2007cv05411," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com)
          Barrack Rodos and Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600

               - and -

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-849-5300


WASHINGTON GROUP: Still Faces La. Lawsuits on Levee Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc., is still facing several
purported class action suits in Louisiana that are related to
the New Orleans levee failure during Hurricane Katrina.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group, a wholly
owned subsidiary acquired by URS Corp. on Nov. 15, 2007,
performed demolition, site preparation, and environmental
remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the
east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans,
Louisiana (Industrial Canal).

On Aug. 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and
other parts of the city.

Since September 2005, over 59 personal injury, property damage
and class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court, naming Washington Group as a defendant.

Other defendants include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Board for the Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer,
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.

Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases, including Washington Group
cases, have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees.

The plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim
to have incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure
of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs assert that the work performed by the Company
adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and floodwall
and caused and contributed to breaches and flooding.

The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and demand
attorneys' fees and costs.

USR Corp. reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008.

Washington Group International, Inc. -- http://www.wgint.com/--
is an international provider of a range of design, engineering,
construction, construction management, facilities and operations
management, environmental remediation and mining services.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Vianale & Vianale Files Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, Fla., Dec 29, 2008 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX)
-- The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP announces that it filed
a class action lawsuit on December 29, 2008 on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts of Australia and
New Zealand Banking Group Limited ("ANZ" or the "Company") (Pink
Sheets:ANZBY) during the period March 2, 2007 through July 27,
2008 (the "Class Period").  The action is pending in Manhattan
federal court, Case No. 08-CV-11278.

     The complaint alleges that the Company and its top
executives violated the federal securities laws.  The complaint
charges that ANZ failed to adequately disclose the range of
risks arising from its loans to Opes Prime Group Limited, an
Australian stock brokerage firm that lent money to customers on
margin.

     ANZ had lent hundreds of millions of dollars to this failed
brokerage house, but without adequate disclosure of the risks
the loans posed to ANZ.

     The day before the Company announced its losses stemming
from exposure to Opes Prime, its stock (ADRs) closed at a high
of $17.24. The following day, after ANZ's announcement, ANZ's
stock price dropped to $14.57. ANZ's stock is currently trading
at $9.90.

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com)
          Julie Prag Vianale. Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free)
                 561-392-4750


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood Announces that on December 16, 2008, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland against Integral Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ISYS).

     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 April 28, 2008 through December 10, 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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 Suits Filed in Madison on Dec. 15 to 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen new asbestos-related lawsuits, during the week of Dec.
15, 2008 through Dec. 19, 2008, were filed in Madison County,
Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These claims are:

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1182, Thomas and Randa Berry of Kansas
        claim mesothelioma. According to the complaint, Mr.
        Berry worked from 1976 until 2008 as a mechanic at
        various locations. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M.
        Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent the Berrys.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1180, Manuel Talavera Bobadilla of
        Illinois, a steel mill laborer, pipefitter, millwright
        and mechanic from 1971 until 1992, claims mesothelioma.
        T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq., of
        French and Mudd in St. Louis represent Mr. Bobadilla.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1178, Opal Bronson of New Jersey
        claims lung cancer on behalf of her deceased father,
        Charles Bronson. According to the complaint, Mr.
        Bronson worked from 1941 until 1975 as a fire control
        technician, ship repairman, laborer and fire control
        mechanic at various locations. Robert Phillips, Esq.,
        and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
        Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Bronson.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1187, Robert Frolichstein of Missouri,
        a laborer, sheet metal worker and pipefitter at various
        locations throughout Illiniois and Missouri from 1952
        until 1994, claims lung cancer. Nicholas J. Angelides,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents
        Mr. Frolichstein.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1191, Charles W. Greer of Tennessee,
        plumber and electrician at industrial job sites in the
        late 1940s and early 1950s, claims mesothelioma. Andrew
        O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
        Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and
        Gerald J. FitzGerald, III, Esq., of the O'Brien Law
        Firm in St. Louis represent Mr. Greer.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1189, Bonita Hicks of Ohio claims
        mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Marvin
        McFarland. According to the complaint, Mr. McFarland
        worked from 1946 until 1980 at various locations
        throughout Illinois. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul
        M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mrs. Hicks.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1177, Judith Hodge of Tennessee claims
        mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Roy
        Dauphin. According to the complaint, Mr. Dauphin worked
        from 1946 until 1980 as a boilermaker at various
         locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
         Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
         Mrs. Hodge.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1188, Loren King Jr. of Florida, a
        laborer, truck driver, purchasing agent, logistics
        officer and security guard at various locations through
        Illinois, New York, Indiana, Kansas, Florida and
        Missouri from 1947 until 2008, claims mesothelioma.
        Perry J. Browder, Esq., John A. Barnerd, Esq.,
        Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J. Levy,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mr. King.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1179, Anna Magill of Pennsylvania
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband,
        Francis Magill. According to the complaint, Mr. Magill
        worked from 1951 until 2006 as a laborer and inspector
        at various locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
        J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mrs. Magill.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1183, Ronald E. Nuss of Kansas, a
        laborer, manager, driver and service manager from 1973
        until now, claims peritoneal mesothelioma. Elizabeth V.
        Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenbert,
        Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Nuss.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1190, Karon N. Sullivan claims
        mesothelioma. According to the complaint, Ms. Sullivan
        claims she was exposed to asbestos fibers through the
        cleaning of her father's clothes from 1950 until 1959.
        She was also employed as a general laborer at various
        industrial sites in the 1970s and 1980s. Anthony
        O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
        Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and
        Gerald J. FitzGerald, III, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in
        St. Louis represent Ms. Sullivan.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1186, Perry H. and Virginia Tisdale of
        Illinois claim pharynx cancer. According to the
        complaint, Mr. Tisdale worked from 1957 until 1963 as a
        clerk at a grocery store and from 1963 until 2008 as a
        laborer at Keystone Steel and Wire in Bartonville, Ill.
        Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
        Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
        Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Tisdales.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1181, George E. and Mary Wadsworth
        claim mesothelioma. According to the complaint, Mr.
        Wadsworth worked from 1974 until 2008 as a boilermaker,
        grinder, press operator and electrician. He was also
        exposed to asbestos through home construction and
        remodel work. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
        Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the Wadsworths.
        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 serve
         of counsel.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sanders Widow Calls For Help in Payout Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Sanders' widow, 57-year-old Ethel Sanders, is calling for
witnesses to help her in her compensation claim, stemming from
Mr. Sanders' death from exposure to asbestos, the Barking & Da
genham Post reports.

Mr. Sanders, of Sutton Green, Barking, England, died from
mesothelioma in September 2005 at the age of 57.

As a child, Mr. Sanders would visit the Cape PLC plant, which
opened in 1913 and closed in 1968, in Harts Lane with his father
who worked there occasionally as a telephone engineer.

Mr. Sanders was also exposed when a family friend who worked at
the factory stopped off to visit them on his way home. He would
play with Mr. Sanders and inadvertently expose him to asbestos
dust from his clothes.

Mrs. Sanders is now pursuing a claim against Cape. She said, "I
urgently need witnesses to come forward who can confirm what
conditions were like in the area around the factory and inside
the factory between 1953 and 1959.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bushey Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 23, 2008 inquest heard that the death of John Gandy, of
Park Avenue, Bushey, England, was linked to exposure to as
bestos, the Watford Observer reports.

Mr. Gandy oversaw the cutting of ceiling tiles with a circular
saw during the 1960s which Hertfordshire's coroner, Edward
Thomas, concluded led to his death from mesothelioma in August
2008.

Mr. Thomas said the cutting process had caused a large amount of
dust, exposing the 71-year-old Mr. Gandy to the fibers daily for
about five years.

Following doctors' failure to treat a chest cough in 2007, an x-
ray revealed a tumor in Mr. Gandy's right lung which spread to
the liver and pancreas. He was admitted to Watford General
Hospital where he was treated with chemotherapy but died in the
hospital.

After recording a verdict of death by industrial disease, Mr.
Thomas said it was not unusual for asbestos-related illnesses to
take decades to develop.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Larkhall Swimming Pool Closed Due to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larkhall Swimming Pool in Larkhall, South Lanarkshire, Scotland,
was closed on Dec. 18, 2008, following the discovery of asbestos
at the facility, the Hamilton Advertiser reports.

The baths were closed after a routine inspection found asbestos-
containing debris in a plant room. A South Lanarkshire Council
spokeswoman asserted that at no time was the public's health put
in danger.

Although the swimming pool has closed, the staff is hopeful that
all other facilities at the leisure center will remain open to
the public, including the games hall, fitness gyms and function
halls.

The Council will make alternative arrangements for groups who
use the swimming baths.

SNP councilor Lesley McDonald said she was concerned that
asbestos has been found at the leisure center. She added, "The
council will do everything in the power to get the facility open
again as quickly as possible.

"Larkhall Leisure Centre is well used and it is unfortunate that
it will impact on a lot of people at this time of the year. It
is important to point out that there was no risk to anyone's
health."

Larkhall Leisure Centre received a GBP1.2 million refurbishment
in 2004. At the time, swimmers were furious because the revamped
swimming pool reopened five months behind schedule.

The work consisted of the upgrading of the swimming pool and
installation of a spa pool. It also included improved changing
facilities and the installation of a lift, suitable for disabled
people.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Toronto City Fire Sparks Asbestos Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dec. 25, 2008 fire sparked an asbestos scare in the east end
of Toronto City, Canada, CityNews reports.

The fire broke out about 5:30 a.m. on Guildwood Parkway, in a
building right beside the Guild Inn. It was out by 7 a.m. but
the danger was not over.

The flames released asbestos trapped in the building into the
air.

No injuries are reported but fire trucks were on the scene for
hours after.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Court OKs Abex Summary Judgment Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted Pneu
mo Abex, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment in an asbestos-relat
ed lawsuit filed by Teresa Denton on behalf of her late husband,
Charles Denton.

The case, under In re Asbestos Litigation, is styled Teresa Den
ton and Charles Denton, her husband, Plaintiffs v. A. Schulman,
Inc., et al., Defendants.

Judge Mary Miller Johnston entered judgment in C.A. No. 06C-10-
320 ASB on Oct. 16, 2008.

Pneumo Abex moved for summary judgment, claiming that Mrs. Den
ton's claim was barred by Indiana's 10-year statute of repose.
Abex stopped manufacturing brakes containing asbestos by 1986.
This action was filed in 2006. The parties agreed that Indiana
law applied.

Mrs. Denton argued that the statute of repose did not apply to
claims of willful and wanton conduct. The Statute explicitly
bars claims of negligence and strict liability, but does not
mention intentional conduct.

The Superior Court, having found that Indiana's statute of re
pose barred this action, Pneumo Abex's Motion for Summary Judg
ment was granted.

David W. DeBruin, Esq., of Bifferato Gentilotti LLC in Wilming
ton, Del., represented Teresa Denton.

C. Scott Reese, Esq., of Cooch and Taylor in Wilmington, Del.,
represented Pneumo Abex, LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Pinkhover in Safeguard Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in an asbestos-related law
suit filed by Peter Pinkhover.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Peter Pinkhover) v. Gen
eral Electric Co. et al.

State Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in
CV065003774S on Oct. 23, 2008.

Mr. Pinkhover claimed that he was exposed to asbestos while
working as a logger at Electric Boat Corporation from 1959 to
1962, and while working as a painter/cleaner and a
painter/cleaner supervisor from 1962 to 1996, a total of 37
years.

Mr. Pinkhover further claimed that during his employment, he was
exposed to asbestos introduced to his work area by the defendan
t's products.

Mr. Pinkhover's deposition revealed that, while working at Elec
tric Boat he worked "mostly off of Barge 60 and then I went
mostly just to the ships."

As a painter/cleaner, Mr. Pinkhover cleaned all the compartments
on the boats by wiping, sweeping, and blowing the dust picking
up and digging out the debris from the boat's bilge where the
various trades would drop their debris as they worked including
any asbestos discarded during insulating and sealing procedures.

The Court found that Mr. Pinkhover had introduced substantial
evidence. Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics' motion for summary
judgment as against Mr. Pinkhover was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in R.T. Vanderbilt Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut issued split rulings in an as
bestos-related insurance action involving R.T. Vanderbilt Compa
ny, Inc. and various insurance companies.

The case is styled R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. v. Hartford Ac
cident & Indemnity Co. et al.

Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh entered judgment in Case No.
UWYCV075007875 on Oct. 23, 2008.

In its Revised Complaint, Vanderbilt alleged that it is a hold
ing company that also is engaged in the sale of various mineral
or chemical products, including industrial talc.

Vanderbilt has been sued in several hundred pending and unre
solved bodily injury actions, in which the plaintiffs claimed
exposure to asbestos contained in Vanderbilt's industrial talc.

Vanderbilt alleged that Continental Casualty Company (CNA) sold
Vanderbilt liability insurance policies for at least the period
of 1956 until March 3, 1977. Vanderbilt further alleged that
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company sold Vanderbilt liability
insurance policies from the period of March 3, 1977 through
March 3, 1986.

Vanderbilt claimed that these policies obligated CNA and Hart
ford to pay in full Vanderbilt's liability and defense costs re
lated to the underlying actions.

Vanderbilt further alleged that American International Specialty
Lines Insurance Company (AIG) issued Vanderbilt insurance poli
cies for the period of April 24, 2003, until April 3, 2008, but
that these policies did not provide any coverage for Vanderbilt
with respect to the underlying actions.

Vanderbilt also alleged that, while CNA and Hartford had been
paying Vanderbilt's liability and defense costs over the under
lying actions, CNA and Hartford had informed Vanderbilt that
they no longer will pay for all of Vanderbilt's liability and
defense costs for the underlying actions. Vanderbilt also al
leged that CNA and Hartford had failed to timely pay for expert
witnesses in the underlying actions.

Count One of the Revised Complaint claimed a Declaratory Judg
ment action against CNA. Count Two claimed a Declaratory Judg
ment action against Hartford. Count Three claimed a Breach of
Contract action against CNA. Count Four claimed a Breach of Con
tract action against Hartford.

Count Five alleged CUIPA/CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Insurance
Practice Act/Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act) claims
against CNA. Count Six alleged CUIPA/CUTPA actions against Hart
ford. Count Seven alleged common law Breach of the Duty of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing against CNA. Count Eight alleged Breach
of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against Hartford.

On April 30, 2008, Hartford filed a Motion to Strike Count Six
of the Complaint relating to the CUIPA/CUTPA actions against
Hartford. On April 30, 2008, CNA filed a Motion to Strike Counts
Three, Five, and Seven of the Amended Complaint. Vanderbilt op
posed both motions.

The Court heard the parties on Oct. 7, 2008, at which time it
reserved decision on the matter.

The Motions of both CNA and Hartford with respect to the
CUIPA/CUTPA claims were granted. CNA had also moved to strike
Count Three of the Revised Complaint on the ground that there
was no injury claimed. Vanderbilt had alleged that it had been
required to pay out sums properly paid by CNA under its poli
cies, including but not limited to the costs of payment for ex
pert witnesses. The Motion to Strike Count Three was denied.

CNA had moved to strike Count Seven of the Complaint. Vanderbilt
contended that CNA was attempting to avoid its coverage obliga
tions to Vanderbilt. The Motion to Strike was granted.

Hartford's Motion to Strike Count Six of the Revised Complaint
was granted. CNA's Motion to Strike Counts Five and Seven of the
Revised Complaint was granted. CNA's Motion to Strike Count
Three of the Revised Complaint was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Favors Gary in Safeguard Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in an asbestos-related law
suit filed by Sammie Gary.

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

Judge David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case No.
CV044002257S on Oct. 23, 2008.

Mr. Gary was a structural welder and a nuclear inspector at
Electric Boat Corporation in Groton, Conn., from 1958 to 1959
and from 1961 to 1985, a total of 25 years. He claimed that,
while working for Electric Boat, he was exposed to asbestos in a
product or products manufactured and/or sold by Safeguard to
Electric Boat.

Mr. Gary testified that he worked in "all the places there were
boats, the wet dock, the graving dock, south yard, and north
yard." He identified Elmer Taylor as working with him on boats
that he was working on.

Mr. Taylor described Mr. Gary working with him on the Tullibee,
the George Washington, Patrick Henry, the Tinosa, Dace, Flasher,
Greenling, Gato, Ethan Allen, Casimer Pulanski, and Sturgeon.

Walter Roarke, an electrician, also recalled working on the
George Washington and Patrick Henry. Calvin Hopkins recalled
working aboard the Patrick Henry, Dace, Casimer Polanski and
Sturgeon.

Mr. Roarke recalled using "Baco asbestos packing" to insulate,
pack, and seal electrical wire and cable installed in stuffing
tubes penetrating bulkheads through their careers of electric
boat, Mr. Roarke from 1964 to 1966 and Mr. Hopkins from 1968 to
2000.

As "Baco asbestos packing" was a product of the defendant Mr.
Gary was working on boats on which said product was being in
stalled, a material issue of fact exists as to whether this de
fendant contributed to creating an atmosphere containing as
bestos which proved deleterious to the plaintiff as he worked.

The Superior Court found that material issues of fact existed.
Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics' motion for summary judgment
as against Mr. Gary was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inn Owner Fined $30T for Improper Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said that Vithalbhai Pa
tel, the owner of the Howard Johnson Express Inn in
Collinsville, Ill., will pay a US$30,000 penalty for alleged im
proper asbestos removal in 2005, according to an Illinois Attor
ney General press release dated Dec. 26, 2008.

Ms. Madigan's office filed a complaint with the Illinois Pollu
tion Control Board (IPCB) in June 2007 against Mr. Patel. In the
complaint, Ms. Madigan alleged that Mr. Patel allowed employees
and the public to disturb asbestos-containing materials as they
removed contents and fixtures that they acquired from Mr. Patel
through an auction of hotel items.

Ms. Madigan filed a proposed settlement with the IPCB which, if
approved, would resolve the June 2007 complaint.

In November 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) stopped demolition of the office portion of the hotel
when the agency learned that Mr. Patel allegedly had failed to
inspect for asbestos. More than 200 square feet of ceiling mate
rial contained asbestos. The IEPA ordered Mr. Patel to properly
deal with the asbestos before demolition could proceed.

In July 2005, the IEPA inspected the facility at the request of
the future owner and observed that walls within 72 individual
rooms had been damaged and copper plumbing had been removed. The
IEPA saw that pipe insulation suspected to contain asbestos had
been stripped from the lines and discarded on the floor.

Testing of samples of the insulation revealed that it contained
between 10 and 15 percent asbestos. The scrapped plumbing lines
contained 576 linear feet of regulated asbestos containing mate
rial. Remediation was completed in September 2005 and the build
ing was subsequently demolished.

Mr. Patel failed to provide written notification to the IEPA
prior to beginning demolition as required by the National Emis
sion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations. In ad
dition, Mr. Patel also allegedly failed to collect, contain and
deposit the regulated asbestos containing material in a facility
licensed to accept such material.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Janasie is handling the case
for Ms. Madigan's Environmental Enforcement Bureau.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kin of 2 Japan Railway Workers Settle Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency
and Japan Freight Railway Co. agreed to pay asbestos damages to
the families of two former workers of the defunct Japanese Na
tional Railways, The Mainichi Daily News reports.

Under the agreement mediated by the Yokohama District Court, the
Yokohama, Japan-based Agency and JR Freight will pay about JPY17
million each to the two families, who claimed that the victims
died of mesothelioma.

The lawyers for the bereaved families hailed the decision.
Lawyer Takeshi Furukawa said, "It is equal to a victory in the
suit. It will serve as a standard for settling similar lawsuits
and open the way to early resolutions."

Following the signing of the settlement, the Agency announced
that it will launch a system in April to make JPY10 million
lump-sum payments to the bereaved families of each victim.

About 100,000 former JNR workers were reportedly exposed to
asbestos used in parts and insulating materials in trains.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Terry Fletcher, a retired re
fractory bricklayer from Hartlepool, England, was linked to ex
posure to asbestos, the Hartlepool Mail reports.

The 67-year-old Mr. Fletcher died in Hartlepool and District
Hospice, on Dec. 11, 2008, after suffering from mesothelioma. He
had been in and out of the hospice since he was diagnosed in
January 2008.

Hartlepool coroner Malcolm Donnelly ruled that Mr. Fletcher died
as a result of an industrial disease.

A postmortem examination was carried out by consultant
pathologist Jan Lowe at the University Hospital of Hartlepool.
Mr. Fletcher was suffering from bronchopneumonia, a metastatic
tumor and mesothelioma.

The inquest heard Mr. Fletcher had worked in power stations and
steelwork sites since the age of 15 and had worked with asbestos
all his life.

Mr. Donnelly said, "I'm satisfied on the balance of probability
that the exposure through his working life contributed to or
caused the mesothelioma. My conclusion is that he died as a
result of an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AUD3M Audit Reveals Hazard in 2,200 Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
An AUD3 million audit uncovered evidence of asbestos in more
than 2,200 public schools and TAFE (Technical and Further Educa
tion) campuses in New South Wales, Australia, The Daily Tele
graph reports.

The audit uncovered asbestos material in classrooms, childcare
facilities, children's toilets, canteens, ceilings and buried
under playgrounds in schools.

An analysis of every asbestos site register by The Daily
Telegraph shows that 109 of the 2375 schools and TAFE buildings
are completely free of asbestos, worse than previous estimates.

Based on the audit findings, the New South Wales Government has
launched a statewide management plan and program of works to
"minimize the risk to students, staff, contractors, parents and
other visitors."

On Dec. 28, 2008, the Department of Education and Training said
the asbestos registers would help protect parent and citizen
groups on holiday working bees as well as professional builders
and maintenance workers.

A department spokesman said, "When hammering a nail or screwing
something into a wall they will now be able to know whether the
material they are putting it into contains asbestos and take
precautions."

More than 100 schools have material classified by experts as
"medium risk" but Alastair Hunter, Deputy Director-General,
Finance and Infrastructure, said the "vast majority of materials
containing asbestos" were safe.

The register identifying asbestos and showing its presence "room
by room" is now available for inspection at every primary and
secondary school.

The release to parents of the register follows The Daily
Telegraph first revealing the scale of the problem in March
2006.

The latest data was posted on the department's website after The
Daily Telegraph again sought the register documents under the
Freedom Of Information Act. Contractors surveyed 22,000
classrooms and "tens of thousands of other spaces" in schools to
locate the asbestos.

Education Director-General Michael Coutts-Trotter told a
parliamentary estimates committee in October 2008 that up to 70
percent of public schools contained asbestos fibers.

However, an analysis of data collected by the Government shows
the hazardous material has been found in 2266 school and TAFE
buildings.

Opposition education spokesman Andrew Stoner accused the
Government of reluctance to publish the asbestos data. He said,
"With the Federal Government rolling out new computers in
schools electrical work such as drilling walls will be
required."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Drops AUD840T Appeal in Lo Presti Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited, on Dec. 24, 2008,
dropped an appeal against a landmark ruling by the Western
Australia Supreme Court to award Antonino Lo Presti AUD840,000
in asbestos compensation, The Australian reports.

The decision ended legal proceedings that began in 2002, two
years after Mr. Lo Presti was diagnosed with the asbestosis.

Mr. Lo Presti worked at Ford car dealerships in the 1970s and
1980s.

Under a February 2008 ruling, the 59-year-old Mr. Lo Presti
became the first motor mechanic in Australia to win a successful
negligence verdict against a car company for exposure to
asbestos.

Mr. Lo Presti's family learned of the motion to drop the appeal
on Dec. 25, 2008, after Ford had contacted lawyers at Slater and
Gordon on Dec. 24, 2008, to inform them it was dropping the
appeal.

However, Mr. Lo Presti, who worked on asbestos brake linings and
used compressed air to blow out brake drums while working with
Ford, has learned the cost of his legal proceedings are still to
be settled.

Slater and Gordon's Tim Hammond said the family would seek
immediate payment of the AUD840,000, and urged Ford to "sit down
and discuss the issue of outstanding legal costs."

On Dec. 26, 2008, Ford Australia public affairs manager Sinead
McAlary said the legal costs would be determined by the courts,
because "that's the way the usual process goes."

Mr. Hammond said Ford's decision to drop its appeal had opened
the way for many car mechanics who were in a similar situation
to Mr. Lo Presti.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dobbs Ferry School Cleanup to Cost $23,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dobbs Ferry School District will spend about US$23,000 to
remove damaged asbestos from the Dobbs Ferry High School in
Greenburgh, N.Y., The Journal News reports.

During the winter recess, workers from Asbestos Corp. of America
will begin removing the material from two areas in the Dobbs
Ferry High School auditorium.

The asbestos was discovered in November 2008 during an annual
visual inspection. The auditorium was immediately locked from
the outside and sealed from the inside, said Sylvia Fassler-
Wallach, the district's director of finance and facilities.

Yonkers, N.Y.-based Asbestos Corp. was scheduled to begin work
on Dec. 26, 2008 with the removal of sections of the balcony
wall and overhanging deck where the asbestos was leaking.

Ms. Fassler-Wallach said that workers will clean up the areas
surrounding the removed sections and make any necessary repairs.
She said the work was scheduled to be completed by Dec. 30, 2008
and the Company would dispose of the asbestos. It will also
perform surface and air tests to ensure there is no
contamination.

In November 2008, Ms. Fassler-Wallach said, water seeping in
through a brick wall caused damage that allowed a bit of
asbestos to leak into two small areas of the auditorium.

Ms. Fassler-Wallach added that no staff or students were exposed
to airborne asbestos and tests conducted in the auditorium and
throughout the building turned up trace amounts of asbestos near
the damaged areas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Truck With Hazard Discovered in County Cork
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardians of the Peace of Ireland, on Dec. 24, 2008,
investigated a parked lorry, which was believed to be carrying
toxic material, possibly asbestos, RTE News reports.

The Gardai in County Cork, Ireland, attended the scene where the
lorry was parked in Kerry Pike following reports of suspicious
activity.

Gardai say no illegal dumping has taken place at Kerry Pike,
near Blarney.

No arrests have been made and the matter has been reported to
Cork County Council and the Department of the Environment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anderson Motion Denied in Grace Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, denied Anderson
Memorial Hospital's Motion for Leave to Appeal in an asbestos-
related case, which was part of W. R. Grace & Co.'s bankruptcy.

The case, which is part of Bankruptcy Case No. 01-1139, is
styled In re W.R. Grace & Co., et al., Debtors.

Senior District Judge Ronald Buckwalter entered judgment in
Misc. No. 08-118 on Nov. 13, 2008.

On Dec. 23, 1992, Anderson Memorial, represented by Speights &
Runyan, filed a class action in South Carolina state court on
behalf of certain building owners and against Grace and other
manufacturers of asbestos containing materials.

In 1994, the South Carolina court issued an order striking out-
of-state class members from the Anderson Memorial Complaint
based on the South Carolina "Door Closing Statute." Thereafter,
the South Carolina action proceeded as to buildings located in
South Carolina.

On Feb. 9, 2001, the South Carolina court certified the state-
wide class. On April 2, 2001, Grace filed its Chapter 11 peti
tion. The South Carolina court issued a final order certifying a
class of South Carolina building owners as to three of the re
maining defendants in the South Carolina proceedings, but not
Grace due to the bankruptcy stay.

By order dated April 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved an
extensive notice program and set March 31, 2003, as the bar date
for asbestos property damage claims. That order was not ap
pealed.

Thereafter, at the request of the Asbestos Property Damage Com
mittee, of which Daniel Speights of S & R is a member, the
Bankruptcy Court abated "the requirement in the Bar Date Notice
that counsel of record for asbestos property damage claimants
either (1) certify that they notified their clients of the bar
date by transmitting to them the proof of claim package or (2)
give names and addresses to Grace so Grace could notify them di
rectly."

Over 4,000 individual property damage claims were filed in re
sponse to the notice program and prior to the March 31, 2003,
bar date. About 3,000 of those claims were filed by S & R, two
of which were class proofs of claim on behalf of "worldwide" and
"statewide" building owners from the Anderson Memorial class ac
tion.

S & R did not file a motion for class certification until Oct.
22, 2005, over two and a half years past the bar date. In the
meantime, many of the claims filed by S & R were either with
drawn and/or expunged after findings that S & R lacked authority
to file on behalf of the individual claimants.

The Bankruptcy Court denied Anderson Memorial's motion for class
certification finding that Anderson Memorial failed to satisfy
the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a).

On Sept. 4, 2008, the District Court denied Anderson Memorial's
appeal. Anderson Memorial moved that the District Court recon
sider its Sept. 4, 2008, Memorandum and Order.

Upon consideration of Anderson Memorial Hospital's Motion to Re
consider Denial of Motion for Leave to Appeal, Grace's Brief in
Opposition, and Anderson Memorial Hospital's Reply Memorandum,
it was hereby ordered that Anderson Memorial's Motion for Recon
sideration was denied in its entirety.

James E. O'Neill, III, Esq., of Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young,
Jones & Weintraub in Wilmington, Del., represented the Debtors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Firm Seeks Irish Navigators in Payout Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Reading, England-based law firm of Boyes Turner seeks out
Irish navigators who were exposed to asbestos during the con
struction of tunnels in the United Kingdom in the 1960s and
1970s, the Independent.ie reports.

A compensation claim is now being mounted by the firm, which is
hoping to hear from Irishmen who migrated to the West Midlands.

The firm has been hired by the relatives of an Irishman who died
as a result of an illness related to years of asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Defendants in Elbrink Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the Marion Superior
Court's ruling, which granted summary judgment (in an asbestos
case filed by Sandra Elbrink) in favor of several defendants.

These defendants were General Electric Company, Indianapolis
Power & Light Company, Industrial Contractors Inc., Southern In
diana Gas and Electric Company Inc. (dba Vectren Energy Delivery
of Indiana Inc., United States Steel Corporation, and Whirlpool
Corporation.)

The case is styled Sandra Elbrink, on Her Own Behalf, and on Be
half of the Estate of Robert Elbrink, Appellant-Plaintiff v.
General Electric Company, Indianapolis Power & Light Company,
Industrial Contractors, Inc., Southern Indiana Gas and Electric
Company, United States Steel Corporation, and Whirlpool Corpora
tion, Appellants-Defendants.

Judges L. Mark Bailey, Patricia A. Riley, Cale J. Bradford en
tered judgment in Case No. 49A02-0711-CV-984 on Nov. 17, 2008.

As a sheet metal worker from 1965 to 2000, Robert Elbrink (San
dra Elbrink's husband) "handled and/or worked around asbestos
materials on pipes, boilers, and other equipment. He cut into
the asbestos materials during repairs and applied and removed
pipe/boiler lagging and steam pipe insulation."

In 1987 or 1988, Mr. Elbrink was diagnosed with Chronic Obstruc
tive Pulmonary Disease and emphysema. He worked until 2000,
"when his lung problems forced him to go on disability." In Jan
uary 2006, he was diagnosed with "an asbestos related disease
and/or injury, malignant carcinoma." He smoked tobacco for at
least 40 years.

In June 2006, the Elbrinks sued the Appellees and others "for
contributing to cause his lung cancer." Five of the six Ap
pellees owned premises where Mr. Elbrink was exposed to materi
als containing asbestos, including GE, IPL, SIGEGO, U.S. Steel
and Whirlpool (Premises Appellees).

Meanwhile, Mr. Elbrink worked on "multiple jobsites" where ICI
employees were also present, "installing, removing, cutting and
grinding gasket and packing material, [and] removing and replac
ing asbestos-containing insulation products."

Mr. Elbrink died in September 2007, and Mrs. Elbrink amended her
complaint to include a wrongful death action.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Ap
pellees, and ordered that the judgments were final and appeal
able.

Linda George, Esq., W. Russell Sipes, Esq., Todd Barnes, Esq.,
of George & Sipes in Indianapolis, represented Mrs. Elbrink.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in ACE Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York, upheld a Nov. 1, 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court, New
York County, which stated that comity warranted stay of proceed
ing based on first-filed action in New Jersey, in an asbestos
lawsuit involving various insurers.

The case is styled ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et
al., Plaintiffs, Allstate Insurance Company, etc., Plaintiff-Ap
pellant v. Federal-Mogul Corporation, et al., Defendants-Respon
dents, Cooper Industries LLC, et al., Defendants, Allianz Global
Corporate & Specialty AG, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Jonathan Lippman, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Milton L.
Williams, John T. Buckley, and Dianne T. Renwick entered judg
ment in the case on Oct. 30, 2008.

Insurers sought declaratory judgment determining coverage obli
gations for bodily injury claims arising out of alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing products that were manufactured, sold, or
distributed by defendants.

Defendants moved to stay action to abide action in New Jersey
involving same subject matter and many of same parties. The
Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion. Insurers ap
pealed.

In the declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court, New York
County, on Nov. 1, 2007, granted the motions of defendants Fed
eral-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc. (Feder
al-Mogul) and Magnetek, Inc. to stay the action to abide an ac
tion in New Jersey involving the same subject matter and many of
the same parties.

The insurers failed to show that the first-filed New Jersey ac
tion was vexatious, oppressive or was instituted to obtain some
unjust advantage, that New York's interests in this dispute pre
dominated over New Jersey's, or other reason for deviating from
the generally followed first-in-time rule under which "the court
which has first taken jurisdiction is the one in which the mat
ter should be determined and it is a violation of the rules of
comity to interfere."

The Appellate Division had considered the insurers' other argu
ments and found them unavailing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 More Suits Filed in Madison on Dec. 15-19
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Dec. 15, 2008 through Dec. 19, 2008, seven
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Cir
cuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These claims are:

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1196, Melvin Birch of Wisconsin, a
        repairman, laborer and assistant foreman at various
        locations throughout Illinois and Wisconsin from 1959
        until 1989, claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart,
        Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and John A. Barnerd,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mr. Birch.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1195, Richard Harp of Illinois, a
        laborer, roofer, building construction worker, switch
        man, brake man and conductor at various locations
        throughout Illinois and Missouri from 1947 until 1987,
        claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., Perry J.
        Browder, Esq., and John A. Barnerd, Esq., of
        SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Harp.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1193, Thomas Herman of Colorado, a
        hardware store clerk, warehouse worker, clerical
        worker, materials installer and materials buyer at
        various locations from 1956 until 1975, claims lung
        cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mr. Herman.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1194, Henry Janecka of Florida, a
        welder, furnace installer, wiring inspector, fireman,
        car salesman, owner of a car dealership and real estate
        salesman at various locations from 1947 until 1980,
        claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
        Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Janecka.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1200, Connie and Rex Norris of
        Arkansas claim Mrs. Norris developed mesothelioma.
        According to the complaint, she was exposed to asbestos
        through her father and former husband who would wear
        clothing with asbestos fibers home. Elizabeth V.
        Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
        Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill.,
        represent the Norrises.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1197, Gustave Reinke, Jr., of
        Massachusetts, a laborer, firefighter, heat treater,
        quality control, production control, inventory control
        engineering and drywaller/construction at various
        locations throughout Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa,
        California, Washington, Colorado, Arizona and
        Massachusetts from 1950 until 1999, claims
        mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Perry J.
        Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Reinke.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1192, Dennis Wiechens of Missouri, who
        served in the U.S. Navy from 1960 until 1964 and who
        worked as a laborer from 1965 until the 1980s, claims
        mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
        Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Wiechens.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit Filings in Jefferson, Tex. Drop by 600
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, trial lawyers filed 600 less asbestos-related lawsuits
in Jefferson County, Tex., cutting asbestos filings in half, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The Jefferson County District Clerk's Office noted 2,596 law
suits in 2007. That number dropped in 2008, as about 1,985 new
lawsuits were filed in the county's four civil courts.

In 2007, most of the asbestos and benzene lawsuits were filed by
the Provost Umphrey law firm. PU attorney Bryan Blevins, Esq.,
and Keith Hyde, Esq., combined to file around 65 asbestos and
benzene lawsuits in 2007. Mr. Blevins filed around 50 asbestos
suits. In 2008, he submitted 20 new asbestos-related filings, 30
less than 2007.

Nearly 80 asbestos suits were filed in total for 2007, whereas
there were less than 40 asbestos filing in 2008.

Perhaps one of the reasons 2008 saw around 611 less lawsuits is
that Hurricane Rita related filings were not as prolific, with
lawyers filing around 200 fewer Rita suits.

However, although asbestos and Rita suits were in decline in
2008, there was no shortage of automobile collision suits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian School Board To Adopt Plan in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Shore Regional School Board (SSRSB) in Nova Scotia,
Canada, is planning to adopt an asbestos management plan in
2009; a decade after asbestos was identified at certain of its
facilities, SouthShoreNow.ca reports.

On Dec. 22, 2008, Communications manager Dana Doiron said,
"SSRSB will present the results of its investigation and will
present the asbestos-management plan to the Department of Labour
in the first quarter of 2009."

Pinchin LeBlanc Environmental Limited's audits in 1999 had
determined the scope of the asbestos problems in local schools,
and the board says the high-priority items were addressed within
months.

However, the first of eight recommendations in the Pinchin
LeBlanc report on Centre Consolidated School said an asbestos
management program was required.

Further, the Nova Scotia Department of Labour's code of practice
for managing asbestos in buildings suggests a management plan
should be developed in writing and maintained until the
materials in question are removed from the workplace.

Jim LeBlanc, the department's director of occupational health
and safety, said, "It seems apparent from the information you
have provided that the school board does not have a process in
place for addressing the presence of asbestos within their
workplaces and that will be addressed."

In a Nov. 30, 2008 report, the Riverport and District Elementary
School (RDES) school advisory council said it would not endorse
a proposal to permanently send its students to Centre
Consolidated based partly on that facility's unaddressed
asbestos issues.

Since then, the board has made plans for an external firm to
examine previous work that has been done related to asbestos-
containing materials, determine the current status of asbestos
in the building and work with the Department of Labour on a
management plan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Work Stops Briefly at Canada Post Office
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 15 Canada Post Corporation workers, on Dec. 18, 2008, did
not report for work due to concerns about asbestos insulation
found inside the King Street, Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, post of
fice, SouthShoreNow.ca reports.

However, Canada Post spokeswoman Genevieve Latour said that six
employees did work on that day. It was the day health and safety
concerns impacted worker attendance after crews repairing ceil
ing plaster discovered asbestos.

Personnel arriving at work on Dec. 15, 2008, found water had
leaked through the roof during the weekend. Workers began
expressing concerns about the asbestos insulation when the
material was found after repairs started on Dec. 17, 2008.

Between Dec. 15, 2008 and Dec. 17, 2008, "it was business as
usual" at the Bridgewater office, Ms. Latour said.

Canada Post determined conditions were fine after launching its
own investigation and air quality tests conducted by a
Dartmouth-based environmental firm contracted by the federal
Crown Corporation indicated the air inside the building was
safe.

A renovation project at least five years ago resulted in the
removal of any asbestos thought to still be in the building.
After the repairs, it is certain that there is no trace of it
left in the work area, Ms. Latour added.

Mail delivery delays were experienced on Dec. 18, 2008 and no
mail was damaged as a result of the water leak.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingston Owner Indicted for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, on Dec. 29, 2008, said
that the Statewide Grand Jury has indicted Richard Oliver (DOB
July 16, 1947) on four felony charges involving asbestos removal
and disposal, according to a Colorado Attorney General press re
lease dated Dec. 29, 2008.

The charges include Causing or Contributing to a Hazardous Waste
Incident, Knowing Endangerment, and Bribery of a Witness.

The indictment alleges that between Jan. 1, 2008, and May 1,
2008, Mr. Oliver, through his company, Kingston Properties LLC,
engaged in the illegal removal and dumping of materials
containing asbestos during the renovation of his properties at
1920 Chester Street and 1921, 1931 and 1941 Clinton Street, in
Aurora, Colo.

According to the indictment, Mr. Oliver knowingly endangered at
least three employees by exposing them to asbestos without their
knowledge, failed to provide any warnings of the potential risks
of the work, and failed to provide them with proper protection.

According to the indictment, Mr. Oliver was advised of the
possible presence of asbestos at the Clinton Street properties
by a State-trained and certified contractor who gave him a bid
for the work in March 2008.

The State's investigation was initiated after that contractor
made a report to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, including an alleged statement made by Mr. Oliver
that he would "hire a bunch of Mexicans" to do the removal for
less.

Mr. Oliver is also accused in the indictment of offering a
monetary bribe to one of the alleged victims in return for
providing altered testimony to the Statewide Grand Jury that
would have shifted blame for the illegal activity to the
contractor who filed the complaint.

The investigation was performed by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, working in conjunction with the
Colorado Attorney General's Office, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Colorado Environmental Task Force.
The case has been filed in Adams County District Court.

No appearance dates have been set by the court at this time. Mr.
Oliver faces a possible sentence of 18 years in prison if
convicted on all counts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. AG's Office to Check Essroc Site Waste
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office is tasked to investi
gate how 22 tons of demolition waste, which could contain as
bestos, got to Essroc Cement Corp. in Nazareth, Pa., lehighval
leylive.com reports.

Essroc operates three plants along Route 248 in Nazareth and
Lower Nazareth Township.

The waste, which authorities say might include pollutants such
as asbestos, came from a school that caught fire in Newark, Pa.,
according to a police report. An Essroc representative found it
on Dec. 17, 2008 and told borough police.

No charges have been filed but Northampton County District.

Attorney John Morganelli, Esq., said the waste was left by a
Newark trucking company hired to help in the school cleanup.

Mr. Morganelli referred the investigation to the attorney
general's environmental crimes unit. A spokesman for the
attorney general said the office plans to start an investigation
soon.

An Essroc spokesman said the Company is cooperating with
authorities and is not under investigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Manx Sea Terminal Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Man's Department of Transport responded to the Unite
Union's concerns over building works on the Sea Terminal build
ing in Douglas, Isle of Man, and the presence of asbestos,
manx.net reports.

Mr. Mick Hewer has raised concerns with the department on
asbestos contamination at the Sea Terminal building. He alleged
that some members of Department of Transport staff were exposed
to asbestos contamination during the ongoing building works.

Rodney Christopher, Director of Properties for the Department of
Transport said, "At the time the Sea Terminal building was
constructed a sprayed asbestos insulation was applied to the
ceiling in specific areas. In the 1980s, this sprayed coating
was removed by a properly qualified contractor to the required
standards at that time.

"In 2006 the Department engaged the services of a Health and
Safety Executive licensed contractor to remove remaining
asbestos residue that had become apparent. Possible residues
were removed under controlled conditions using HSE recognized
methods."

Throughout the removal operations, the site was monitored by an
appointed UKAS-accredited analytical company to carry out air
monitoring; none of the air test results exceeded the control
limits.

Another UKAS accredited analytical company has also carried out
further air tests recently, which have all been satisfactory.

The Department concluded that staff involved in the building
works were not exposed to levels of asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Illawarra Region's Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 70 schools (including two new schools) in Illawarra, New
South Wales, Australia, have asbestos-containing materials, the
Illawarra Mercury reports.

Flinders Public School, which opened in 2003, and Dapto Public
School, which opened in 2004, both have demountable classrooms
on site that contain fibro-cement sheeting in eaves and
stairwells.

However, NSW's Director-General of Education Michael Coutts-
Trotter has assured parents that facilities in more than 2000
NSW public schools and TAFE campuses are "perfectly safe."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interior Work Ongoing at Fostoria Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moundsville, W.Va., City Manager Allen Hendershot says that in
terior work is ongoing at the former Fostoria Glass Factory in
Fostoria, W.Va., The Intelligencer/Wheeling News-Register re
ports.

The exterior of the structure looks the same as when demolition
ceased in 2007 due to the discovery of asbestos. However, Mr.
Hendershot said there is much activity taking place between the
walls of the factory that once employed nearly 1,000 people.

Mr. Hendershot said, "Work is continuing on the cleanup and
abatement of a cross-contaminated area in the facility that was
caused by a building collapse. The developers are working with
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection on this
phase of the project."

At a November 2008 Moundsville City Council meeting, Mr.
Hendershot advised council that abatement work at the site had
resumed in the factory interior and must be completed before
demolition can resume.

Site developer Harold Games said the initial work includes
removal of materials that are currently on the ground due to the
collapse, causing contamination from roofing material and
insulation. He said once this is completed, any asbestos in
standing buildings will be removed. Then those buildings will be
razed.

The Fostoria Glass Co. began operations in Fostoria, Ohio, on
Dec. 15, 1887, because the area was rich with cheap natural gas.
However, the supply soon ran low, causing Fostoria to move in
1891 to Moundsville, where there was an abundance of gas, coal
and other necessary glass-making materials.

In 1983, Lancaster Colony purchased the Company but closed it
for good in 1986.

The city bought the site several years ago with the intention of
again making it a viable and productive part of the community.
Officials soon after entered into a contract with Mr. Games to
demolish the former factory and develop the site for retail.

Demolition crews then began tearing down the factory. However,
asbestos was discovered in five sections of the factory early in
2007, and demolition ceased while abatement commenced.

When the city's contract with Mr. Games ended, so did the
abatement, which did not resume until after the contract with
Mr. Games, and his new company, GAB Enterprises, was signed in
August 2008.

GAB Enterprises is a company Mr. Games formed along with Lewis
Aulenbaucher and Tom Brown of Raze International, a firm that
specializes in industrial and commercial development.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Most Schools at NSW Area
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 97 percent of Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia's
government primary and high schools have asbestos inside the
walls, The Herald reports.

A Herald investigation of the NSW Education Department's new
asbestos register has found that the region's schools contain
either what is presumed to be asbestos or at least one of three
different types of the material.

All of the 13,120 reports of asbestos in Hunter schools were
found to be in good condition and deemed "low risk" by the
Education Department.

Built in 1967, Francis Greenway High School in Beresfield, had
the greatest number of asbestos listings in the Hunter Valley,
with 271 places in the school where it was either presumed to be
located or found.

Almost all TAFE campuses in the Hunter Valley contained
asbestos. Kurri Kurri Campus had 446 locations of presumed
asbestos.

The Education Department announced the completion of its
asbestos register in October 2008 but only uploaded individual
school data onto its website in December 2008 following pressure
from the Opposition.

Director-General Michael Coutts-Trotter estimated in October
2008 that 60 to 70 percent of the 301 Hunter and Central Coast
schools would contain asbestos.

However, of the 220 Hunter schools investigated by The Herald,
97 percent, or 214, had some form of asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schools Along NSW's Coast Contain Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schools in New South Wales, Australia, coastal towns like Coffs
Harbour, Bellingen and Dorrigo contain chrysotile (white
asbestos), amosite (brown asbestos), and crocidolite (blue
asbestos), The Coffs Coast Advocate reports.

The asbestos was found in toilet blocks, canteens, internal
walls and ceilings, staff rooms, libraries and clinic rooms as
part of the Department of Education and Training's asbestos
register.

However, the Coffs Coast schools that tested positive to
asbestos were found to contain low risk levels of the material
and DET maintains that if the material is left undisturbed, it
poses no health risk.

Director-general of Education, Michael Coutts-Trotter, said most
buildings built in Australia between the 1920s and the mid-1980s
have asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Ruling Upheld to Favor Georgia-Pacific
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the Metcalfe Circuit
Court's ruling, which favored Georgia-Pacific Corporation, in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Marcia Jeffries on Mary
Katherine Irwin's behalf.

The case is styled Marcia Jeffries, Executrix of the Estate of
Mary Katherine Irwin v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation.

Judges Donna L. Dixon, Kelly Thompson, and James H. Lambert en
tered judgment in Case No. 2007-CA-000879-MR on Nov. 21, 2008.

Ms. Jeffries appealed from an order and judgment entered by the
Metcalfe Circuit Court following a defense verdict in Ms. Ir
win's asbestos products liability and negligence action against
Georgia-Pacific.

Having concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Ms.
Irwin's motion for a new trial, the Appeals Court affirmed.

On April 14, 2006, Ms. Irwin filed a product liability and neg
ligence action against Georgia-Pacific claiming that she devel
oped malignant mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to as
bestos while using joint compound manufactured by Georgia-Pacif
ic. The case was tried before a jury over seven and one-half
days in February 2007.

During deliberations, the jury submitted a request to the trial
court to review the Irwin family's depositions. The jury re
turned a verdict in favor of Georgia-Pacific.

Although the jury concluded that Ms. Irwin did suffer from an
asbestos-related disease, it did not result from exposure to
joint compound manufactured by Georgia-Pacific.

Ms. Irwin filed a motion for a new trial. Attached to Ms. Ir
win's motion were affidavits from five jurors expressing their
confusion as to the proper burden of proof. After a hearing, the
court orally denied the motion for new trial. Ms. Irwin ap
pealed.

The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court properly found
that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict
and that a new trial was not warranted. The judgment of the Met
calfe Circuit Court was affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Regents in Leong Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, fa
vored The Regents of the University of California, in an as
bestos-related lawsuit filed by Gail Leong, Jaclyn Ong, and Jen
na Ong on behalf of Kip Ong.

The case is styled Gail Leong et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. The Regents of the University of California, Defendant and
Appellant.

Judges James J. Marchiano, Sandra L. Margulies, and Douglas E.
Swager entered judgment in Case No. A114650 on Nov. 19, 2008.

On Dec. 23, 2003, Ms. Leong filed an action for survival/wrong
ful death and loss of consortium against the Regents, alleging
it was liable for the death of her husband Mr. Ong, who died of
asbestos-related lung cancer in 2003.

The complaint alleged that from 1979 to 1985, Mr. Ong was ex
posed to asbestos on the University of California at Berkeley
campus while working there as a carpenter for the firm of Mayta
and Jensen.

On May 6, 2005, the Regents filed their first motion for summary
judgment. On July 8, 2005, Ms. Leong filed her opposition to the
motion for summary judgment.

On July 18, 2005, the Regents filed their reply to Ms. Leong's
opposition. On July 20, 2005, the Regents filed a supplemental
objection to Ms. Leong's evidence.

On July 22, 2005, the trial court denied the motion for summary
judgment, stating simply "The Court finds that defendant failed
to meet its burden on summary judgment."

On Nov. 4, 2005, the Regents filed a second motion for summary
judgment. On Jan. 13, 2006, Ms. Leong filed her opposition.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the Regents filed their reply brief to Ms.
Leong's opposition and objections to the evidence offered in
support of her opposition.

On Jan. 24, 2006, Ms. Leong filed a supplemental opposition to
the Regents motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 10, 2006, the
Regents' motion was assigned to a new trial judge after Ms.
Leong successfully challenged the original judge under Code of
Civil Procedure section 170.6.

On April 18, 2006, the Regents moved for attorney fees under
Code of Civil Procedure section 1038. The trial court granted
the Regents' summary judgment motion on May 15, 2006, and dis
missed Ms. Leong's claims with prejudice. On June 9, 2006, the
court denied the Regents' motion for attorney fees.

Ms. Leong appealed the order of the San Francisco Superior Court
granting summary judgment in favor of the Regents, who appealed
from the order denying its motion for attorney fees. The Appeal
Court affirmed both orders.

Gloria E. Chun, Esq., of Paul & Hanley, LLP, in Berkeley,
Calif., represented Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gary A. Watt, Esq., of McNamara Dodge Ney et al., in Walnut
Creek, Calif., represented Defendant and Appellant.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Favors Pa. General Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
reversed the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas' ruling to
favor Pennsylvania General Insurance Company in an asbestos-re
lated insurance suit involving Nationwide Insurance Company and
Continental Casualty Company. The matter was remanded.

The case is styled Pennsylvania General Insurance Co., Plain
tiff-Appellant v. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., et al., Defen
dants-Appellees.

Judges Christine T. McMonagle, James J. Sweeney, and Melody J.
Stewart entered judgment in Case No. 90619 on Nov. 20, 2008.

Pennsylvania General appealed from the trial court's judgment,
denying its claim seeking equitable contribution from Nationwide
and Continental.

This case arose out of a bodily injury suit filed on March 7,
2002 by George DiStefano against Pennsylvania General's insured,
Park-Ohio Industries Inc., and a number of other defendants in
California state court.

Mr. DiStefano alleged mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure at
various work sites in California between the 1960s and 1980s. He
testified that he had worked with asbestos-containing coils man
ufactured by Ohio Crankshaft, the predecessor to Park-Ohio, from
January 1961 through about June 1963.

Upon being served with the complaint, Park-Ohio's risk manager
and its current insurance agent initiated a search for applica
ble liability policies. Upon locating the Pennsylvania General
policies five months later, in August 2002, Park-Ohio notified
Pennsylvania General of the DiStefano claim. When Pennsylvania
General received notice of the claim, the DiStefano trial was
set for the beginning of October 2002.

In September 2002, Park-Ohio's lawyers gave Pennsylvania General
an evaluation of the case regarding settlement values and strat
egy.

On Oct. 6, 2002, Park-Ohio negotiated a settlement of the DiSte
fano claim for US$1 million in exchange for a full release and
dismissal with prejudice of the action. After the settlement, in
a letter dated Oct. 15, 2002, Mr. Rome advised Pennsylvania Gen
eral that the settlement amount appeared to be in line with oth
er mesothelioma cases in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In February 2003, Pennsylvania General informed Park-Ohio via a
reservation of rights letter that it would pay US$112,238.70 in
post-tender defense costs and US$250,000 of the US$1 million
settlement.

In September 2003, Park-Ohio filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment against Pennsylvania General. Park-Ohio asserted claims
for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith, and
sought defense costs and indemnification of the full settlement
amount in the DiStefano action from Pennsylvania General.

In October 2003, Pennsylvania General paid US$112,238.70 to
Park-Ohio as reimbursement of post-tender defense costs incurred
by Park-Ohio in the DiStefano suit, and in December 2003, Penn
sylvania General paid US$250,000 to Park-Ohio as the full per
person bodily injury limit of one of the policies at issue.

During litigation, Pennsylvania General, on numerous occasions,
again requested information about Park-Ohio's "other insurers"
from Park-Ohio. In July 2004, Pennsylvania General finally re
ceived copies of "other insurance" related documents from Park-
Ohio. On Sept. 3, 2004, Pennsylvania General wrote to Nation
wide, Continental and St. Paul/Travelers seeking equitable con
tribution for the DiStefano claim.

None of these insurers agreed to contribute, although like Penn
sylvania General, they were primary insurers of Park-Ohio, their
policies were triggered by the DiStefano claim, and the essen
tial terms, conditions and exclusions of their policies are
nearly identical to those of Park-Ohio's policies with Pennsyl
vania General.

In October 2004, Pennsylvania General filed this action for
declaratory judgment seeking equitable contribution from Nation
wide, Continental and St. Paul/Travelers for settlement and de
fense costs of the DiStefano claim.

The action was subsequently stayed pending resolution of the
Park-Ohio suit. In November 2005, Pennsylvania General settled
the Park-Ohio suit by paying the remaining US$750,000 of the
DiStefano claim, for a total payment of US$1 million.

Pennsylvania General, Nationwide and Continental subsequently
agreed to a bench trial in this case, to be decided upon the
briefs, joint stipulated facts, and joint exhibits.

Pennsylvania General's assignments of error were sustained. The
judgment of the trial court was reversed and the matter remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Rules on Cunninghams' Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, favored Betty
Cunningham on behalf of Richard Cunningham, in an asbestos-re
lated lawsuit filed against Buffalo Pumps, Inc. and Leslie Con
trols, Inc.

The case is styled Betty Cunningham et al., Plaintiffs and Ap
pellants v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. et al., Defendants and Respon
dents.

Judges Woods, Jackson, and Zelon entered judgment in Case No.
B198465 on Nov. 24, 2008.

Mrs. Cunningham appealed from the Los Angeles of Superior
Court's judgment in favor of Buffalo Pumps and Leslie Controls.
Mr. Cunningham worked aboard Navy ships for many years as a ma
chinist's mate, and contended he was exposed to asbestos dust
from defendants' products, causing him to contract mesothelioma.

The Cunninghams contended that trial court erred in:

     -- Instructing on the design defect theory of risk/benefit,
        rather than the consumer expectations test, and

     -- Using a special verdict form that improperly combined
        the theories of risk/benefit design defect and failure
        to warn.

Defendants contended that the Cunninghams failed to establish
causation, they were not liable for the defective components of
their products, and the action was barred by the sophisticated
user defense of Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43
Cal.4th 56.

The Appeals Court reversed, concluding that the trial court
erred in failing to instruct on the consumer expectations test,
and that the special verdict form was erroneous.

Waters & Kraus (Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien, Esq.)
represented the Cunninghams.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navistar Cites $34MM Liabilities at Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation's current liabilities for
litigation (including environmental, product liability, and as
bestos) were US$34 million as of Oct. 31, 2008, compared with
US$44 million as of Oct. 31, 2007.

The Company's non-current liabilities for litigation (including
environmental, product liability, and asbestos) were US$132 mil
lion as of Oct. 31, 2008, compared with US$134 million as of
Oct. 31, 2007.

Along with other vehicle manufacturers, the Company has been
subject to an increase in the number of asbestos-related claims
in recent years. In general, these claims relate to illnesses
alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component
parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the
alleged presence of asbestos in the Company's facilities.

In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of various products allegedly containing asbestos, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Ex
change Commission on Dec. 30, 2008.

Warrenville, Ill.-based Navistar International Corporation is an
international manufacturer of International brand commercial
trucks, IC Bus, LLC brand buses, MaxxForce brand diesel engines,
Workhorse Custom Chassis, LLC brand chassis for motor homes and
step vans, Navistar Defense, LLC military vehicles, and a
provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and trailers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Osborne Action v. 25 Firms Filed on Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Osborne on behalf of her late husband Michael Osborne,
on Dec. 16, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against the
A.O. Smith Corp. and 24 other defendants in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Osborne sues the defendants for allegedly exposing Mr.
Osborne to asbestos. He allegedly died of an asbestos-related
illness.

On top of exemplary damages, Mrs. Osborne is suing for her
benefactor's past and future mental anguish, lost wages, medical
expenses and impairment, plus all court expenses.

Case B182-861 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson and
Bryan Blevins, Esq., represents Mrs. Osborne.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbia Files Suit v. 3 Local Contractors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia International University's asbestos-related federal
lawsuit against contractors Environmental Engineering Company
Inc., parent company RPR & Associates Inc., and paint contractor
Hyde Drywall & Paint Inc. is ongoing, The State reports.

In the suit filed during the week of Dec. 21, 2008 through Dec.
27, 2008, a contractor failed to properly remove asbestos from
buildings owned by Columbia International. The university seeks
an unspecified amount of money.

David Ratchford, a project manager for the university, said that
the local contractors were hired in the late 1980s to remove
asbestos and do some renovations on at least six university
buildings. In some cases, he said, "They took the material out
and they put a material back in that was loaded with asbestos."

Mr. Ratchford added there is no immediate health threat and
students have been notified. He added that asbestos issues were
found during inspections of the buildings in 2007.

According to the suit, inspections found "damaged friable or
non-friable asbestos" that the defendants "either recklessly or
gross negligently installed or recklessly or gross negligently
failed to remove."

Also, the defendants failed to use "safe and asbestos free
paints, in such a way to protect asbestos escaping or being
released into the air," the suit alleges.

Mr. Ratchford said that it cost the school more than US$100,000
to remove asbestos from Memorial Residence Hall, a male
dormitory that recently underwent a US$1.4 million renovation.

Mr. Ratchford said that cleanup efforts are planned for at least
five other buildings, which are a mix of dormitory, classroom
and administrative buildings. No timetable has been set.

Mr. Ratchford added that the university, located in Columbia,
S.C., will conduct the cleanup as soon as it has the money.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Cambridgeshire Hospitals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of hospitals and GP surgeries in Cambridgeshire
County, England, contain asbestos, Mesothelioma reports.

Hspitals are required to maintain logs of the locations where
asbestos present within their buildings. The National Health
Service said the asbestos materials present in the hospitals
pose no risk to patients, staff and visitors unless damaged or
disturbed and resulted in the fibers becoming airborne.

MP Andrew Langley said there is a 2020 program for rebuilding
Addenbrooke's Hospital, which currently contains an asbestos
registry of over 3,000 entries.

Mr. Langley said the project will allow the hospital to move
away from the potentially dangerous material. However, he added
that the NHS currently has a long backlog of maintenance issues,
which could cause problems with the deterioration of asbestos
materials.

As for other Cambridgeshire hospitals, Papworth Hospital said it
conducts asbestos assessments on an annual basis while
Hinchingbrooke Hospital said the materials used in its
buildings' construction were predominantly not of the asbestos-
containing variety.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mason Kin Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Harehills, Leeds, England, resident, 83-year-old
John Mason, searches for information about his working life af
ter he died from mesothelioma, the Yorkshire Evening Post re
ports.

Mr. Mason started a compensation claim, which is now being
continued by his family, shortly before he died.

Mr. Mason's nephew, Shaun Mason, said, "It was my uncle's dying
wish for the family to continue his fight for compensation. He
wanted someone to take responsibility for his exposure to
asbestos and ultimately his death. I would urge anyone who
remembers working with my uncle to get in touch."

Mr. Mason's family believes he may have had contact with
asbestos while working for British Gas in Meadow Lane, Leeds,
during the 1950s as a boiler and furnace worker. He also worked
for CCL Systems based in Elland Road, Leeds, from 1960 to 1990.

Marion Voss of Thompsons Solicitors, said, "It is important to
build up an accurate picture of Mr Mason's exposure to asbestos.
We are exploring a number of different avenues but need more
information."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rank Flour Worker Seeks Ex-colleagues' Help
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Lavender, a 63-year-old mesothelioma sufferer diagnosed
early in 2008, is calling for the help from his former work col
leagues in his fight for asbestos compensation, the Chronicle
Live reports.

Mr. Lavender believes the exposure occurred while he was working
as a fitter's mate at the Rank Flour Mill (n/k/a Baltic art
gallery) during the 1960s and 70s.

Mr. Lavender's solicitors, industrial illness specialists Irwin
Mitchell, have released some photographs in a bid to jog some
memories. Mr. Lavender, from Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, England,
had left shortly before the picture was taken in 1982, but many
of his former colleagues will be in the snap.

Roger Maddocks, from the law firm, said, "It is a long time
since the mill was closed and since this photograph was taken,
but we hope this photo will jog some fading memories. Everyone
who was in the photo was likely to have been given a copy, so
maybe it will ring a bell with somebody. There will be those who
worked in the mill itself who may have seen Mr. Lavender working
on pipework. There will be others who have seen him at work in
the fitting shop or boilerhouse."

Mr. Lavender has picked out a joiner and two fitters he
definitely worked with, though he cannot remember their names.


                            *********

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  * * *