CAR_Public/090109.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, January 9, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 6

                           Headlines



AT&T INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Assistance to NSA
AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Mass. Court Issues Discovery Order in "Turnley"
BECKMAN COULTER: Calif. Ex-Worker's Labor Suit Remains Pending

CAMBREX CORP: Parties to Appeal Awards in Generic APIs Lawsuit
CENTURYTEL INC: Faces La. Overtime Pay Suit by Former Employee
CEPHALON INC: Lawsuits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug Remain Pending
CEPHALON INC: Pursuing Dismissal of PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Suit Over Servicemember's Interest Rates

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of NEGI in Del.
KINDER MORGAN: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Dismissed Last Feb.
KINDER MORGAN: Ruling on Royalty Interests Suit Entered in Oct.
KINETIC CONCEPTS: Merger Suit Deal Still Pending Final Approval
LEAR CORP: In Talks Over Final Settlement of ERISA Suit in Mich.

LEAR CORP: No Appeal Filed on Junked Del. Stockholders' Lawsuit
MBIA INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MBIA INC: Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: April 3 Hearing Set for $17.5M Agreement
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Consumer Suit in Calif. Over DVD Rentals


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Holzer Holzer Announces N.M. Securities Suit Filing
EMCORE CORP: Izard Nobel Announces N.M. Securities Suit Filing
HORIZON LINES: Roy Jacobs Announces Del. Securities Suit Filing
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
SATYAM COMPUTER: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing

SATYAM COMPUTER: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 New Cases Filed in Madison on Dec. 22-26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. University Dorm Repairs Cost $650,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Concerns Close St. Louis Post Office
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MACK Group Completes Cleanup in N.J. Boiler
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Homebase & HSE Advise Tradesmen on Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bergeron Action v. Chevron Filed on Dec. 22
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remodeling at Gonzales County Jail Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Detected in 15 Tweed Public Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 2 of A.B. Davis Classrooms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Ministry Drafts New Regulations Bill

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Runcorn Resident Seeks Payout for Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legal Malpractice Case v. Simmons Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in SCS Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Dunesland's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Reaser Case in Fla. Still in Effect

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard's Motion Denied in Perkins Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard's Motion in Oliver Action Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Reverses Ruling in Westinghouse's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. SC Affirms GlobalSantaFe Mandamus Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Waycross School to Cost $111,000

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas' Suit v. 58 Companies Filed in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: All Clear Warns Public on Bldg. Materials
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huyton Local Files Suit v. Knowsley Council
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kempthorne's Room Renovation Costs $236,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Sailors Still Exposed to Hazards

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Parent Demands Safe Cleanup at School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 639 Actions Filed in Madison County in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard at Adams Elementary Found on Jan. 5
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chesapeake School Fail at Air Quality Tests
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montana Officials Call for Asbestos Funding

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Korea Governor Urges for Special Act
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Meetings on Vt. Mine Slated for Jan. 12, 13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey Identifies Risks at Scotland School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tests Show No Risks at Edlington's Vicinity
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at London Leisure Center Pool

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kostrzewa Favored in Claim Against Suffolk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spilmon's Bid to Remand Granted in Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in MDL 875 Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Wrights
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in Weible Action


                           *********

AT&T INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Alleged Assistance to NSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. continues to face suits over alleged assistance to the
National Security Agency, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008

Initially, 24 pending lawsuits were filed alleging that the
company and other telecommunications carriers unlawfully
provided assistance to the NSA in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of Sept. 11,
2001.

In the first filed case, "Hepting et al. v. AT&T Corp., AT&T
Inc. and Does 1-20," a purported class action filed before the
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants have disclosed and are
currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which the plaintiffs were a
party.

The plaintiffs seek damages, a declaratory judgment, and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and
other federal and California statutes.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The U.S.
Government asserted the "state secrets privilege" and related
statutory privileges and also filed a motion asking the court to
dismiss the complaint.  The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss.

Both the company and the U.S. government filed interlocutory
appeals.  The case was argued before a panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in August 2007.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the court remanded the case to the district
court without deciding the issue in light of the passage of the
FISA Amendments Act.

In July 2008, the President signed into law, the FISA (Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act of 2008 (the Act),
a provision of which addresses the allegations in these pending
lawsuits (immunity provision).  The immunity provision requires
the pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney General
certifies to the court either that the alleged assistance was
undertaken by court order, certification, directive, or written
request or that the telecom entity did not provide the alleged
assistance.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification
and asked the court to dismiss all of the lawsuits pending
against the telecommunications companies.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
certification and motion to dismiss arguing that the Act is
unconstitutional and, alternatively, that the government failed
to meet its burden of justifying dismissal.

San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T, Inc. -- http://www.att.com/-- is
a provider of telecommunications services in the U.S.  It offers
its services and products to consumers in the U.S., and services
and products to businesses and other providers of
telecommunications services worldwide.  The services and
products that it offers vary by market, and include wireless
communications, local exchange services, long-distance services,
data/broadband and Internet services, video services,
telecommunications equipment, managed networking, wholesale
services and directory advertising and publishing.  Its
traditional wireline local exchange subsidiaries operate in 22
states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Kansas,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin (22-
state area).


AVX CORP: Property Damage Suit Still Pending in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged migration of
certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to
neighboring properties remains pending, according to the
company's Nov. 5 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the South Carolina State Court on Nov. 27,
2007, by certain individuals seeking certification as a class-
action suit, which has not yet been determined.

In essence, the suit claims that property value had been
negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants
from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, June 16,
2008)

AVX Corp. -- http://www.avx.com/-- is a worldwide manufacturer
and supplier of a line of passive electronic components and
related products.  Virtually all types of electronic devices use
the Company's passive component products to store, filter or
regulate electric energy.  AVX's passive electronic component
products include ceramic and tantalum capacitors, film
capacitors, varistors and non-linear resistors manufactured in
its facilities throughout the world and passive components
manufactured by Kyocera Corp. of Japan (Kyocera), its majority
stockholder, which owns approximately 71% of AVX's outstanding
common stock.  The Company also manufactures and sells
electronic connectors and inter-connect systems, and distributes
and sells certain electronic connectors manufactured by Kyocera.
The Company has three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera
Electronic Devices Resale and Connectors.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Fla. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
dismissed a purported securities fraud class-action suit against
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and four of its current and former
officers, which alleges the bank and its executives
intentionally misled investors about problems with commercial
real estate and land development loans, Brian Bandell of the
South Florida Business Journal reports.

The attorneys for lead plaintiff State Boston Retirement System,
a government pension fund, filed an emergency motion on Jan. 2
for a phone hearing, in the hopes that the judge would spell out
how to protect the identities of confidential witnesses so it
can file an amended complaint, reports the South Florida
Business Journal.

However, the South Florida Business Journal reported that on
Jan. 5, 2009, Judge Ursula Ungaro denied the motion, saying that
the confidential witnesses -- allegedly seven former
BankAtlantic employees -- must disclose how they knew of the
bank's internal loan documents and meetings.  The judge has not
been told who the witnesses are.

Judge Ungaro had already dismissed the complaint on Dec. 11,
2008, saying it relied too heavily on nonspecific information
from confidential witnesses, according to the South Florida
Business Journal.

In her Jan. 5, 2009 opinion, the judge wrote, "As one court
stated, a court 'must be able to tell whether a confidential
witness is speaking from personal knowledge or merely
regurgitating gossip and innuendo.'"  She added, "The
plaintiff's amended complaint must allow the court to make this
determination."

                         Case Background

The suit was filed by Joseph C. Hubbard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C. Toalson, Jarrett S.
Levan and Alan B. Levan on Oct. 29, 2007 (Class Action Reporter
Dec. 7, 2007).

It alleges that during the purported class period of Nov. 9,
2005 through Oct. 25, 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and the
named officers knowingly and/or recklessly made
misrepresentations of material fact regarding BankAtlantic and
specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and allowance for
loan losses.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks unspecified damages.

The suit is "Joseph C. Hubbard, et al. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-61542," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Ursula Ungaro,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-915
          Fax: (310) 201-916
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
          830 Third Avenue 10th Floor
          New York Ave, NY 10022
          Phone: 212.317.2300

          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Phone: 215.638.4847
          Fax: 215.638.4867

          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 310.209.2468
          Fax: 310.209.2087
          E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

               - and -

          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Phone: 561.391.4900
          Fax: 561.368.9274
          E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Mass. Court Issues Discovery Order in "Turnley"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued
on Dec. 8, 2008 a discovery order in a purported racial
discrimination class-action lawsuit against Bank of America,
N.A. (BOA) and its subsidiary, Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc. (BAI).

The Nashua Telegraph reported that the federal court issued a
discovery order addressing the issue of job histories in a
litigation entitled, "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America
Investment Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG,"

The order clarifies that employees who are considering taking
legal action for discrimination -- and putting their prior
compensation and work history at issue -- will be allowing their
former employer to find out detailed information of how well
they actually did in prior and current jobs, according to the
Nashua Telegraph report.

As part of that litigation, Bank of America served 10 third-
party subpoenas on plaintiffs' former employers, current
employers, and three other business entities seeking a variety
of documents about their work performance.

The plaintiffs argued to the court that the information sought
should be prohibited because it would not reasonably lead to
admissible evidence, was calculated to invade the plaintiffs'
privacy, and would subject the plaintiffs to unwarranted
intrusion, annoyance, harassment and embarrassment.

The court ultimately prohibited discovery of evidence relating
to positions held by the plaintiffs with former employers, where
job positions were not comparable to the job positions at issue,
reports the  Nashua Telegraph.

However, it allowed the discovery to happen with regards to all
other documents.  The permitted discovery included documents
involving the plaintiffs' independent contractor relationship
with employers, their compensation, and performance in working
in the financial services field in comparable positions.

The discovery order though does not permit the employer to use
that information for anything other than litigation, accoridng
to the  Nashua Telegraph.

                         Case Background

The suit, "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May
18, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007).

Listed as plaintiffs in the suit are:

      -- Richard Turnley, III,
      -- Baron H.C. Finlayson,
      -- Coleen Alecia Hinds,
      -- Mark Anthony Brown, and
      -- Timothy Johnson, II.

In general, the complaint is alleging that defendants
discriminated against African-American brokers and bankers in
promotion, compensation, mentoring and other employment
opportunities.

It specifically alleges that defendants regularly discriminated
against black bankers and financial advisers, teaming them with
other black bankers or advisers and steering more lucrative
clients to white employees.

As a result of this practice, allegedly, "African Americans face
greater difficulty in developing their business, career and
income," according to the complaint.

The complaint seeks cover people who worked as bankers or
brokers for the defendants from April 2003 to present.  It also
seeks a halt to the alleged improper practices, back pay, and
compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit was filed on behalf of all African-Americans who were
or are employed at BOA or BAI as premier bankers and/or
financial advisors at any time from April 1, 2003 to the
present, and alleges that, among other things, BOA and BAI
discriminate against African-American premier bankers and
financial advisors on the basis of race with respect to, among
other things, compensation, work and territorial assignments,
promotion, training and mentoring, resources, and business
opportunities.

In response to the complaint, defendants BOA and BAI brought
motions to transfer the action to Georgia, to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under the Massachusetts anti-discrimination
statute and to stay discovery in the action.

The Court denied each of defendants' motions in an Order dated
Nov. 29, 2007.  Accordingly, plaintiffs may now begin
prosecuting this action in Massachusetts.

In addition, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a First Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other
things, adds as a named plaintiff a Massachusetts resident who
worked for BAI in Boston and also adds claims under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq.
on behalf of class members.

The Amended Complaint includes previously filed allegations that
BOA and BAI regularly discriminate against African-American
bankers and financial advisors by, among other things, engaging
in "racial steering" with respect to work assignments, including
the allegations that BAI and BOA management told employees who
complained about the allegedly racist practices that clients are
more "comfortable" dealing with members of their own race. The
Amended Complaint also adds new allegations, including that BAI
and BOA management said that African-American client pools were
not a "lucrative market," and not "sophisticated," "competent,"
or "savvy."

The suit is "Turnley et al. v. Banc of America Investment
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10949-NG," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
Judge Nancy Gertner.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ellen J. Messing, Esq.
         Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky PC
         50 Congress Street, Suite 1000
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-742-0004
         Fax: 617-742-1887
         E-mail: mail@mrwemploymentlaw.com


BECKMAN COULTER: Calif. Ex-Worker's Labor Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit alleging that Beckman Coulter,
Inc. violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code
and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

On Aug. 16, 2007, a former employee of the company filed a
lawsuit in Orange County California Superior Court, entitled
"Davila v. Beckman Coulter."  The lawsuit asserts claims on the
plaintiff's own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class
of former and current Beckman Coulter employees.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
violated certain provisions of the California Labor Code and
applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders
with respect to meal breaks and rest periods, the payment of
compensation for meal breaks and rest periods not taken, the
information shown on pay stubs, and certain overtime payments.
It also alleges that the company engaged in unfair business
practices.

The plaintiff is seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and
attorneys' fees, and seeks to certify the suit on behalf of the
company's non-exempt California employees.

Recently, six additional former employees have sought permission
from the court to be added as class representatives (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008).

Beckman Coulter, Inc. -- http://www.beckman.com/-- is a
manufacturer of biomedical testing instrument systems, tests and
supplies that simplify and automate laboratory processes.  It
designs, manufactures and sells systems, services, reagents and
supplies to clinical and life science laboratories worldwide.


CAMBREX CORP: Parties to Appeal Awards in Generic APIs Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties will appeal the awards in the matter, "In Re
Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation," a purported
class-action complaint that names Cambrex Corp., as a defendant.

Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Gyma Laboratories of America, Inc.,
including the company and its subsidiary Profarmaco S.r.l.
currently known as Cambrex Profarmaco Milano S.r.l. have been
named in purported class action complaints brought by private
plaintiffs in various state courts on behalf of purchasers of
the active pharmaceutical ingredients ("APIs") in generic form.

The complaint make allegations similar to those raised in the
Federal Trade Commission complaint and seeking various forms of
relief including treble damages.

All of these cases have been resolved except for one brought by
three health care insurers known as "In Re Lorazepam &
Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation."

In April 2003, Cambrex reached an agreement with Mylan under
which Cambrex would contribute $12,415,000 to the settlement of
litigation brought by a class of direct purchasers which has
been fully paid as of Sept. 30, 2008.  In exchange, Cambrex and
Profarmaco received from Mylan a release and full indemnity
against future costs or liabilities in related litigation
brought by purchasers, as well as potential future claims
related to this matter.

In February 2008 the District Court, in the In Re Lorazepam &
Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation, entered judgment after trial
against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of $8,355,000,
payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award
against each of Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the amount of
$16,709,000.

In October 2008, the District Court ruled that Mylan, Gyma and
Cambrex were also subject to a total of approximately $7,000,000
in prejudgment interest.

Cambrex expects any payment of the judgment against it to be
made by Mylan under the indemnity, according to the company's
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Cambrex Corp. -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is a life sciences
company engaged primarily in the custom development and
manufacture of pharmaceutical ingredients derived from organic
chemistry.  Products and services are supplied globally to
generic drug companies.  Cambrex primarily supplies its products
and services to pharmaceutical and generic drug companies.  The
Company's products consist of active pharmaceutical ingredients
(APIs) and pharmaceutical intermediates for use in the
production of prescription and over-the-counter drug products
and other fine custom chemicals derived from organic chemistry.


CENTURYTEL INC: Faces La. Overtime Pay Suit by Former Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Centurytel, Inc., and Centurytel of Missouri LLC are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Louisiana based on claims by a
former CenturyTel worker who alleges that the company has
underpaid employees at its call centers, T.J. Greaney of The
Columbia Daily Tribune reports.

The suit was originally filed on March 20, 2008 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  However,
on June 17, 2008, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana in Monroe, La., near
CenturyTel's national headquarters in Baton Rouge, La.

In general, the suit alleges CenturyTel systematically violated
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by making employees come in
before their shifts to prepare to take phone calls and perform
unpaid tasks such as booting up computers, logging on to the
company network, opening computer programs and reading company
memoranda, The Columbia Daily Tribune reported.

The suit brought by Arin McLean, a former call center worker,
also alleges employees were regularly required to handle phone
calls that lasted past the time they were supposed to clock out
and were asked to work through lunch hours without compensation.

According to the suit, despite these extra time burdens,
employees at the call centers were required to fill out time
sheets reflecting they only worked 40 hours in a given week.

The Columbia Daily Tribune reported that in an answer to the
complaint filed on April 2008, CenturyTel attorneys dispute
nearly all of the plaintiff's claims, saying, "The company never
willfully disregarded the Fair Labor Standards Act; the statute
of limitations ran out on some or all of McLean's claims; and
any 'omission' of pay occurred in 'good faith' and in conformity
with federal guidelines."  They also claims that the plaintiff,
Ms. McLean, was exempt from overtime pay provisions.

However, Ms. McLean's attorneys believe the omissions were not
in good faith and say the money amounts to more than just a drop
in the bucket, reports The Columbia Daily Tribune.

The case names CenturyTel call centers in San Marcos, Texas;
Shreveport, La.; Kaprell, Mont.; La Crosse, Wis.; and Monroe,
La., as possible locations where these wage practices occurred.

It is an "opt-in" lawsuit, meaning employees who believe they
were wronged must sign a letter asking to be part of the class,
according to The Columbia Daily Tribune.


The suit is "McLean v. Centurytel of Missouri, L L C et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-00865-RGJ-MLH ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Robert G.
James, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq. (dameron@sshwlaw.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson
          460 Nichols Rd Ste 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7137
          Fax: 816-714-7101

               - and -

          Todd C. Werts, Esq. (werts@learandwerts.com)
          Lear & Werts
          910 E. Broadway Ste B
          Columbia, MO 65201
          Phone: 573-875-1991
          Fax: 573-875-1985

Representing the defendants are:

          Donald J. Anzelmo, Esq.
          (danzelmo@snellingslawfirm.com)
          Snellings Breard et al
          P.O. Box 2055
          Monroe, LA 71207
          Phone: 318-387-8000
          Fax: 318-387-8200

               - and -

          Gustavo Edelberto Cuadra, Esq. (gcuadra@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson
          2001 Ross Ave Ste 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: 214-880-8100
          Fax: 214-880-0181


CEPHALON INC: Lawsuits Over "Actiq" Cancer Drug Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to face several class-action
complaints over its ACTIQ cancer drug, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The company markets and sells ACTIQ, the only appropriate
medical use of which is the management of breakthrough cancer in
patients with malignancies who are already receiving and who are
tolerant to opoid therapy for their underlying persistent cancer
pain (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2007).

In other words, the FDA approved ACTIQ for a narrow class of
patients: cancer patients whose pain could not be managed with
other narcotic based drugs.

In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class-action complaints filed on behalf of entities that claim
to have purchased ACTIQ for uses outside of the product's
approved label in non-cancer patients.

The complaints allege violations of various state consumer
protection laws, as well as the violation of the common law of
unjust enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and treble damages, with interest, and
disgorgement of profits.

In May 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also allege violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2008).

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


CEPHALON INC: Pursuing Dismissal of PROVIGIL Patent Deal Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc.; Barr Laboratories Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA; and Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd. continue to pursue the dismissal of lawsuits filed over
their PROVIGIL patent case settlements.

Initially, certain private parties brought a number of civil
antitrust complaints, purportedly filed as class-action suits
against the defendants.  The suits claim, among other things,
that the patent litigation settlements concerning PROVIGIL
violate the antitrust laws of the U.S. and certain state laws.

The suits have been recently consolidated into one complaint on
behalf of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a
separate complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other
indirect purchasers of PROVIGIL.

A separate complaint filed by an indirect purchaser of PROVIGIL
was filed in September 2007.

The plaintiffs in all of the actions are seeking monetary
damages and equitable relief.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaints in
November 2006 and those motions are still pending (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 20, 2008).

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is an
international biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and marketing of products to treat human
diseases.  The company's focuses its efforts in four core
therapeutic areas: central nervous system disorders, pain,
cancer and addiction.  In addition to conducting an active
research and development program, it markets six products in the
U.S. and number of products in countries throughout Europe.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Suit Over Servicemember's Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
in New Jersey charging it of failing to grant members of the
armed forces the discounted interest rates that they are
entitled to by law, Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
U.S. Navy reservist Michael Fourte, who had a $680,000 mortgage
with Countrywide when he was called to active duty in September
2006.

ConsumerAffairs.com reported that the Soldiers and Sailors
Credit Relief Act (SCRA) provides that when a servicemember is
called to active duty, his or her lenders are required by law to
immediately reduce the interest rate on mortgages, car loans,
credit card and other debts to 6 percent when the servicemember
provides written notification and a copy of the mobilization
orders.

However, Mr. Fourte claims that Countrywide ignored his pleas
for a reduction in the interest rate on his mortgage and on a
home-equity line of credit when he notified them that he had
received orders calling him to active duty, as required by the
SCRA.  Instead, Countrywide allegedly said its policy was to
wait until the servicemember had actually entered active duty,
reports ConsumerAffairs.com.

Mr. Fourte, a recent law school graduate, said he advised
Countrywide that its policies were in violation of the law but
was ignored.

The suit charges that in December 2006, while Mr. Fourte was
deployed overseas, Countrywide sent him a letter contesting his
claim that he was on active duty.  Mr. Fourte said he provided
the documentation but in February 2007, Countrywide increased
the interest rate on his mortgage to 8.25 percent, according to
ConsumerAffairs.com.

The suit is "Fourte v. Country Wide Home Loans, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-01363-pgs-es," filed in the  U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Peter G. Sheridan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Barry J. Gainey, Esq. (bgainey@gaineyandmckenna.com)
          Gainey & McKenna, Esqs.
          666 Godwin Avenue
          Suite 230
          Midland Park, NJ 07432
          Phone: (201) 689-9000

Representing the defendant is:

          William T. Marshall, Jr., Esq. (wmarshall@zeklaw.com)
          Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 618-9100


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of NEGI in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Icahn Enterprises, L.P., continues defending a purported
stockholder derivative and class-action lawsuit, styled "Andrew
T. Berger v. Icahn Enterprises LP, et al., Case No. 3522-VCS,"
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
National Energy Group, Inc., as a nominal defendant, as well as
against Icahn Enterprises L.P., and various individuals,
including one of Icahn Enterprises' current directors.  Icahn
Enterprises indirectly beneficially own 50.1% of NEGI's
outstanding common stock.

The suit alleges, among other things, that certain of NEGI's
current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to NEGI and its stockholders in connection with
NEGI's previously announced Nov. 21, 2006 sale to NEG Oil & Gas,
LLC, or NEG Oil & Gas, of NEGI's former unconsolidated non-
controlling 50% limited liability company interest in NEG
Holding, LLC, as a result of the exercise by NEG Oil & Gas of
its contractual redemption option under the operating agreement
governing NEG Holding (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008).

Since the redemption of NEGI's former interest in NEG Holding,
NEGI has had no business operations and its principal assets
consist of its cash and short-term investment balances, which
currently aggregate approximately $47.8 million.

On March 14, 2008, the stockholders voted to approve the
liquidation and dissolution of NEGI. NEGI filed a Form 15 with
the SEC on March 26, 2008 deregistering its securities under the
Exchange Act.

As a result, NEGI's status as a public company has been
suspended. No cash distributions will be made to NEGI's
stockholders until the NEGI board determines that NEGI has paid,
or made adequate provision for the payment of, its liabilities
and obligations, including any liabilities relating to the
lawsuit.

Icahn Enterprises L.P. -- http://www.icahnenterprises.com/--
formerly American Real Estate Partners, L.P. is a holding
company owning subsidiaries engaged in the operating businesses,
which includes Investment Management, Metals, Real Estate and
Home Fashion.


KINDER MORGAN: Natural Gas Purchasers' Suit Dismissed Last Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled, "Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, individually
and as Representative of Others Similarly Situated v.
Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et. al., No. 04-327-2," was dismissed
in its entirety last Feb. 29, 2008, according to Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

On Oct. 8, 2004, plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the Circuit
Court, Miller County Arkansas, against numerous defendants
including Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.; Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.; Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; KM Texas
Pipeline, L.P.; Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; Kinder
Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline,
L.P.; Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC; Tejas Gas, LLC; and MidCon
Corp. (the "Kinder Morgan defendants").

The complaint purports to bring a class action on behalf of
those who purchased natural gas from the CenterPoint defendants
from Oct. 1, 1994 to the date of class certification.

The complaint alleges that CenterPoint Energy, Inc., by and
through its affiliates, has artificially inflated the price
charged to residential consumers for natural gas that it
allegedly purchased from the non-CenterPoint defendants,
including the Kinder Morgan defendants.

The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's
purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non-
CenterPoint defendants, including the Kinder Morgan defendants,
sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non-regulated affiliates at
prices substantially below market, which in turn sells such
natural gas to commercial and industrial consumers and gas
marketers at market price.

The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On June 8, 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the
Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
over any Arkansas plaintiffs' claims that consumers were
overcharged for gas in Arkansas and mandated that any such
claims be dismissed from this lawsuit.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court clarified its
previously issued order and mandated that the trial court
dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.  On Feb. 29, 2008, the
trial court dismissed the case in its entirety.

The APSC has initiated an investigation into the allegations set
forth in the plaintiffs' complaint.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum
products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural
gas. The company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


KINDER MORGAN: Ruling on Royalty Interests Suit Entered in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico, on
Oct. 16, 2008, entered judgment on the jury verdict in the case
captioned J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio
Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other private
royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon
Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2
Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL.

Kinder Morgan CO2 is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners LP.

The case involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan
CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty on the true and proper settlement value of
compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit
during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter,
"Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC
N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012 (Feerer Class Action)."

The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying
royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer
Class Action.

Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this
matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the
Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was
denied.  Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New
Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
trial court.  The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further
review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New
Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review.

In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking further
review.  The Petition was denied in December 2007.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.

The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.  The jury returned a verdict finding that
Kinder Morgan did not breach the settlement agreement and did
not breach the claimed duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury
also found that Kinder Morgan breached a duty of good faith and
fair dealing and found compensatory damages of $0.3 million and
punitive damages of $1.2 million.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the
verdict, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals.  The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum
products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural
gas.  The company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


KINETIC CONCEPTS: Merger Suit Deal Still Pending Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a purported class-action lawsuit over a merger
agreement between Kinetic Concepts, Inc. and LifeCell Corp.
remain pending final court approval.

On April 14, 2008, a purported stockholders' class-action
complaint was filed by a stockholder of LifeCell in the Chancery
Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Somerset County,
naming LifeCell, its directors and KCI as defendants.

The complaint alleged causes of action against the defendants
for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition of LifeCell by KCI.  The complaint sought an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of this transaction.

On May 9, 2008, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding, pursuant to which the case will be resolved.  The
MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs against the
defendants in connection with the proposed acquisition, and
includes no admission of wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the MOU, LifeCell filed amended disclosures
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2008,
regarding the Offer and the Merger.

The settlement outlined in the MOU is subject to, among other
things, final court approval and a final judgment by the court
dismissing the action with prejudice on the merits (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 12, 2008).

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.kci1.com/-- is a global
medical technology company that manages advanced wound care and
therapeutic surfaces.  The company designs, manufactures,
markets and services a range of products, which include advanced
wound healing and tissue repair; pulmonary care and post cardiac
arrest complications in the intensive care unit (ICU); bariatric
care, and wound treatment and prevention.  The advanced wound
care systems incorporate the V.A.C. Therapy technology.  Its
therapeutic surfaces, including specialty hospital beds,
mattress replacement systems and overlays, are designed to
address pulmonary complications associated with immobility.  KCI
has an infrastructure designed to meet the specific needs of
medical professionals and patients across all healthcare
settings, including acute care hospitals, extended care
organizations and patients' homes, both in the U.S. and abroad.


LEAR CORP: In Talks Over Final Settlement of ERISA Suit in Mich.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit
against Lear Corp. are negotiationg the terms of the full
settlement agreement, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008

A former Lear employee filed the purported class-action suit in
April 2006 before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the company, certain members of its
board of directors, members of its Employee Benefits Committee,
and certain members of its human resources personnel.

The suit alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act with respect to the company's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

In the second quarter of 2006, the company was served with three
additional purported class action ERISA lawsuits, each of which
contained similar allegations against it, the members of its
Board, members of its EBC and certain members of its senior
management and its human resources personnel.

The court subsequently consolidated the four lawsuits as "In re:
Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation."  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint, which alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties substantially similar to those alleged in the four
individually filed lawsuits.  The consolidated complaint
continued to name the same defendants, but added certain other
current and former members of the EBC.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants in
connection with the administration of Lear's retirement savings
plans for salaried and hourly employees.

The fiduciary duty claims are largely based on allegations of
breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and of
over-concentration of plan assets in the company's common stock.

The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of the
plans and all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the plans from Oct. 21, 2004, to the present and seek to
recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.  The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the defendants asked to have
all defendants and all counts in the consolidated complaint
dismissed.  The court denied this dismissal motion during the
second quarter of 2007.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be completed
by April 30, 2008.

During the first quarter of 2008, the parties exchanged written
discovery requests, the defendants filed with the court a motion
to compel the plaintiffs to provide more complete discovery
responses, which was granted in part and denied in part, and the
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification.

In mid-April 2008, the parties entered into an agreement to stay
all matters pending mediation.  The mediation took place on May
12, 2008, but has not resulted in a settlement to date.

The defendants took the named plaintiffs' depositions in June
2008.  Discovery closed on June 23, 2008, and the defendants
filed their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 7, 2008.

The plaintiffs have requested additional time for discovery, and
the court has not yet ruled on that request (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008).

On Sept. 25, 2008, the parties informed the court that they had
reached a settlement in principle.  The parties currently are
negotiating the terms of the full settlement agreement and class
notification, court approval and other related filings.

The suit is "Malloy v. Lear Corp., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-
11735-JCO-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Judge John Corbett O'Meara presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com)
          Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC
          32121 Woodward Avenue
          300 Balmoral Centre
          Royal Oak, MI 48073-0999
          Phone: 248-554-6306

Representing the defendant is:

          Thomas G. McNeill, Esq. (TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com)
          Dickinson Wright
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226-3425
          Phone: 313-223-3500

  
LEAR CORP: No Appeal Filed on Junked Del. Stockholders' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit, which
sought to block billionaire investor Carl Icahn's acquisition of
Lear Corp., did not appeal the Delaware Court of Chancery's
dismissal of the fourth amended complaint, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Previously, the company agreed to a $2.31-billion buyout offer
from the Icahn-controlled American Real Estate Partners LP.  The
transaction involves Mr. Icahn paying $36 per share for the Lear
shares he does not already own.

Between Feb. 9 and Feb. 21, 2007, certain stockholders filed
three purported class-action lawsuits before the Delaware Court
of Chancery against the company, certain members of its board of
directors, and American Real Estate Partners and certain of its
affiliates.

These lawsuits were then consolidated into a single action.  The
amended complaint in the consolidated suit generally alleged
that the Agreement and Plan of Merger among lear and AREP Car
Holdings Corp. and AREP Car Acquisition Corp. unfairly limited
the process of selling the company and that certain members of
the company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Merger Agreement and acted with conflicts
of interest in approving the Merger Agreement.

The amended complaint in the consolidated action further alleged
that Lear's preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the
Merger Agreement were misleading and incomplete, and that Lear's
payments to AREP as a result of the termination of the Merger
Agreement constituted unjust enrichment and waste.

On Feb. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed yet another amended
complaint.  In June 2007, the Delaware court issued an order
entering a limited injunction of Lear's planned shareholder vote
on the Merger Agreement until the company made supplemental
proxy disclosure.  That supplemental proxy disclosure was made
and approved by the Delaware court on June 18, 2007.

Accordingly, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the Delaware court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, leaving
only derivative claims against the Lear directors and AREP based
on the payment by Lear to AREP of a termination fee pursuant to
the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiffs were also granted leave to
file an interim petition for an award of fees and expenses
related to the supplemental proxy disclosure.

On April 14, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining claims in the fourth amended complaint.  A hearing on
both the defendants' dismissal motion and the plaintiffs'
interim fee petition was held on June 3, 2008.

The Delaware court granted the plaintiffs' interim fee petition,
awarding the plaintiffs $800,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008).

On Sept. 2, 2008, the Delaware court issued a written ruling
granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs had
until Oct. 2, 2008, to appeal that ruling and did not file a
notice of appeal.

Lear Corp. -- http://www.lear.com/-- is a worldwide supplier of
automotive interior systems based on net sales.  It supplies
automotive manufacturers with complete automotive seat systems,
electrical distribution systems and various electronic products.
Lear also supplies automotive interior components and systems,
including instrument panels and cockpit systems, headliners and
overhead systems, door panels and flooring and acoustic systems.


MBIA INC: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MBIA, Inc., defends a consolidated amended class-action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

On Jan. 11, 2008, a putative shareholder class action suit,
captioned "Schmalz v. MBIA, Inc. et al., No. 08-C V-264," was
filed against the company and certain of its officers.  The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased MBIA stock between Jan. 30, 2007, and Jan. 9, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It
also alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's exposure to losses
stemming from the Company's insurance of CDOs and RMBS,
including its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities,
which allegedly caused the company's stock to trade at inflated
prices.

The defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint has been
extended pending the resolution of lead counsel status, motions
for consolidation, and the possible filing of an amended or
consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 25 and March 6, 2008, two more putative shareholder
class action suits were filed against MBIA and certain of its
current and former officers.  These suits are entitled,
"Teamsters Local 807 Labor Management Pension Fund v. MBIA Inc.
et al., No. 08-CV-1845," and "Kosseff v. MBIA, Inc. et al., No.
08-CV-2362."  Both were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The allegations of the Teamsters and the Kosseff complaints are
substantially similar to the allegations in the Schmalz
complaint, except that the class period in the Teamsters
complaint runs from Oct. 26, 2006, to Jan. 9, 2008.

The Schmalz, Teamsters and Kosseff complaints were consolidated
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
as "In re MBIA, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:08-cv-
00264-KMK."  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 15, 2008).

On Oct. 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in "In re MBIA, Inc. Securities Litigation" alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, as lead plaintiff,
seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased MBIA
stock between July 2, 2007 and Jan. 9, 2008.

The amended complaint alleges that defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C.
Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements with respect to the Company's exposure to losses
stemming from the Company's insurance of CDOs containing RMBS,
specifically its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities,
which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at inflated
prices.

Defendants' answers or motions to dismiss were due on Dec. 15,
2008, according to the company's Nov. 5, 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 MBIA, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
7:08-cv-00264-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Kenneth M. Karas,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kurt Michael Hunciker, Esq. (kurt@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1400
          Fax: 212-554-1444

          Marvin Lawrence Frank, Esq. (mfrank@murrayfrank.com)
          Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-682-1818
          Fax: 212-682-1892

               - and -

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


MBIA INC: Ruling on Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling remains pending on the motion appealing the dismissal
of a purported class-action lawsuit entitled "In re MBIA Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-3514," which was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

                        Case Background

Initially, several class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against MBIA Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).

The suits were:

      -- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3514) (filed April 4, 2005);

      -- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
         3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005);

      -- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636;
         S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005);

      -- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No.
         05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and

      -- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc.,
         et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed
         April 26, 2005).

The suits also named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the
company's chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C.
Dunton, the company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri,
the company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice
president of the company and the company's former chief
financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's
controller.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Section
10(b)of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives
for a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's
stock during the period from Aug. 5, 2003, to March 30, 2005.

Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include,
among other things, violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and the defendant's
failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts:

      -- that the company, during the class period,
         over-leveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against
         possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
         guaranteeing risky structured financings;

      -- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income
         by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as
         advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted
         for over the life of the bonds insured;

      -- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment
         received from Converium Re (then called Zurich
         Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time
         was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery
         for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan;

      -- that as result, MBIA financial statements were
         materially overstated by $60 million;

      -- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and
         portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the
         secondary market that were attracting prices lower than
         their stale credit ratings would dictate;

      -- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's
         practice to defer recognizing problems rather than
         providing layers of excess collateral, other
         underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed
         prowess at restructuring;

      -- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the
         loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and
         Research Foundation bond issuance, with a
         retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance
         recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of
         the future AHERF interest and principal payments, which
         resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in
         pretax income that year -- $565 million over what the
         income figure would have been without resort to the
         reinsurance;

      -- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
         Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest,
         performing but troubled policies from its existing
         portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any
         quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by
         getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet
         in order to make its financial results appear better;
         and

      -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the company.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading
statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with purchases by members of the putative class of
the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the
class period.

On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order
consolidating these five cases into one action under the
caption, "In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05-cv-
3514," and named as lead plaintiffs in the case:

      -- the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and

      -- the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement
         System.

The defendants, including the company, filed motions to dismiss
the consolidated case on various grounds.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed
the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that the claims are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  The Court did
not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the company
and the other defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a  notice of appeal on March 14, 2007.
They have appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  The plaintiffs argued that the
dismissal should be reversed on several grounds (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 15, 2008).

The appeal has been fully briefed and is scheduled to be argued
on Oct. 31, 2008.

The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Nov. 5, 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 MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Louis L. Stanton,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

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

Representing the defendants are:

          Steven Klugman, Esq. (sklugman@debevoise.com)
          Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000
          Fax: 212-909-6836

               - and -

          Steven Robert Peikin, Esq. (peikins@sullcrom.com)
          Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-558-7228
          Fax: 212-558-3588
   

RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: April 3 Hearing Set for $17.5M Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will hold a
fairness hearing on April 3, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed
$17.5 million settlement in the matter, "In re Rhythms
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-cv-35-JLK-CBS."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable John L. Kane in
Courtroom A802, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901
19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589.

                         Case Background

The suit involves all persons who purchased the common stock of
Rhythms NetConnections, Inc. between January 6, 2000 and April
2, 2001, inclusive.

In this lawsuit, Lead Plaintiff asserts that certain former
officers and directors of Rhythms NetConnections Inc. (former
NASDAQ symbol "RTHM"), during the period between January 6, 2000
and April 2, 2001, made false and/or misleading statements
regarding, among others, Rhythms' reported subscriber line
count, growth, and financial condition.  The company itself is
not a named defendant in the action because it filed for
bankruptcy protection in August of 2001 (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 27, 2006).

For more details, contact:

          In re Rhythms Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 9327
          Dublin, OH 43017-4227
          Phone: (800) 495-6949
          Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com

          Timothy J. Burke, Esq. (tburke@ssbla.com)
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard #2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: 310-209-2468
          Fax: 310-209-2087

               - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com/


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., seeks to dismiss the consolidated
and amended securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Initially, on March 13, 2008, a purported shareholder class-
action lawsuit, captioned "Waterford Township Police Fire
Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al.," was filed, naming the company and certain of its officers
as defendants.

The litigation alleges that the company made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in its
disclosures leading up to its Nov. 2, 2007 press release
immediately preceding the American Association for the Study of
Liver Diseases meeting, all in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5).

On April 18, 2008, a further class action complaint based on the
same factual allegations and naming the same defendants, but
including further allegations of insider trading violations
during the class period by three of the company's officers, was
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

These complaints were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May
29, 2008.  A consolidated and amended complaint was filed on
July 21, 2008, and seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 26,
2008).

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
Sept. 25, 2008.

In its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008,
the company says the claims, including the insider trading
claims (all of which are based on trades that were made pursuant
to plans entered into before the beginning of the class period
under Rule 10b5-1), are without merit and intends to contest
them vigorously.

The suit is "Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System
v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-
10414-RGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Richard G. Stearns, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

          John C. Blessington, Esq.
          (john.blessington@klgates.com)
          K & L Gates LLP
          One Lincoln Street
          State Street Financial Center
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-261-3108
          Fax: 617 261-3175


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Consumer Suit in Calif. Over DVD Rentals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. have been named in a
purported consumer class-action lawsuit accusing the two
companies of trying to build a monopoly for online DVD rentals,
Reuters reports.

In a complaint filed on Jan 2, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs, led by
San Francisco-based Andrea Resnick.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan.
2, 2009, under the caption, "Resnick et al v. Walmart.com USA
LLC et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00002-MEJ."  It alleges that the
companies unreasonably restrained trade, sending up prices,
according to the Reuters report.

Named as plaintiffs in the suit are: Andrea Resnick, Gary
Bunker, John Haley, Amy Latham, Eric Roslansky and Kevin
Simpson.  The defendants were Walmart.com USA LLC, Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., and Netflix, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that the two companies agreed in 2005 that
Wal-Mart would close its online rental business and refer
customers to Netflix, which in turn would promote Wal-Mart's DVD
movie sales, Reuters reported.

The agreement enabled Netflix to maintain monopoly power and led
rival Blockbuster, Inc. to raise subscription rental prices,
according to the suit.

The suit is "Resnick et al v. Walmart.com USA LLC et al., Case
No. 3:09-cv-00002-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Maria-Elena James,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Paul Alexander, Esq. (alexanderp@howrey.com)
          Howrey LLP
          1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor
          East Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Phone: (650) 798-3555


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Holzer Holzer Announces N.M. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     ATLANTA, GA, Jan 07, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico against Emcore Corporation
("Emcore" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of Emcore common stock who
purchased or sold between June 12, 2007 and March 17, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
to the public in its press releases and in its Securities
Exchange Commission filings.

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Emcore misrepresented or
failed to disclose certain problems with production capacity and
its SunCube prototype.

     The lawsuit further alleges the Company violated GAAP
provisions when accounting for the value of the Company's
claimed order backlog.

For more details, contact:

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


EMCORE CORP: Izard Nobel Announces N.M. Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, CT, Jan 07, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The
law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the
"Company") between June 12, 2007 and March 17, 2008, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Emcore and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial condition.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Emcore's public
statements regarding its order backlog were false and misleading
because they overstated the value of the order backlog in
Emcore's terrestrial solar energy division.

     Those misstatements and omissions, resulted in an
artificially inflated price for Emcore's common stock during the
Class Period.

     On March 18, 2008, the price of Emcore's common stock
dropped over 23% on news that Emcore's largest customer, Green
and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78 million of
Emcore's $86 million backlog in terrestrial solar technology,
would not be able to afford those transactions.

For more details, contact:

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


HORIZON LINES: Roy Jacobs Announces Del. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK - (Business Wire) Roy Jacobs & Associates
announces that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Horizon Lines Inc. ("Horizon" or the
"Company" NYSE:HRZ) securities during the period commencing
March 2, 2007 and continuing through April 25, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges Horizon and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.

     Horizon is a container shipping and logistics company.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants misled investors as
to Horizon's profitability and artificially inflated its stock
price, by entering into improper price-fixing agreements with
competitors, in violation of federal antitrust laws.

     On April 17, 2008, Horizon shocked investors when the
Company revealed it was the subject of an antitrust
investigation being conducted by the United States Department of
Justice (the "DOJ") Antitrust Division.

     On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.53 per
share, or 19.36 percent, to close on April 17, 2008, at $14.70
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Then, on April 25, 2008, the Company reported Horizon's
financial results for the 2008 fiscal first quarter ended March
23, 2008, and revised downward the Company's earnings guidance
for the 2008 fiscal year.

     This news caused the Company's shares to decline $3.83 per
share, or 23.10 percent, to close on April 25, 2008, at $11.25
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     Subsequently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ issued a press
release announcing that four shipping executives -- including
three Horizon employees -- had agreed to plead guilty for their
roles in a conspiracy to eliminate competition and fix shipping
charges for shipment to Puerto Rico.

For more details, contact:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          Phone: 1-888-884-4490
          e-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, Jan. 7, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Dyer & Berens LLP
today announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
on behalf of purchasers of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral
Systems" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ISYS) securities between
April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint charges Integral Systems and four of its
senior officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 for making and/or allowing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

       -- Integral Systems improperly recognized revenue;

       -- as a result, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- the Company's financial results were not prepared in
          accordance with GAAP;

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

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

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

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

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

     In reaction to this news, shares of Integral Systems
declined $6.38 per share, or more than 28%, to close on December
11, 2008 at $15.92 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          (888) 300-3362
          (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


SATYAM COMPUTER: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Satyam
Computer Services Ltd. (NYSE: SAY) ("Satyam" or the "Company")
between January 6, 2004 and January 6, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Satyam and certain of its
executives violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements.

     On January 7, 2009, the Company's CEO B. Ramalinga Raju
sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the
Securities & Exchange Board of India acknowledging a "multi-
year" fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures
were systematically falsified.

     According to the letter, Raju admitted to having inflated
the amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1
billion, incurring liability of $253 million on funds arranged
by him personally, and overstating Satyam's September 2008
quarterly revenues by 76% and profits by 97%.

     As a result of this disclosure, the Company's ADRs fell
$8.42, or 90%, prior to the opening of the New York Stock
Exchange, which has suspended trading in Satyam's ADRs.

For more details, contact:

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


SATYAM COMPUTER: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BOCA RATON, Fla., Jan 7, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP announces that it filed a
class action lawsuit on January 7, 2009 on behalf of purchasers
of the American Depository Shares of Satyam Computer Services
Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") during the period January 6,
2004 through January 6, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The action is pending in Manhattan federal court, Case No.
09-CV-00093.

     The complaint alleges that the Company and its top
executives violated the Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
financial statements.

     On January 7, 2009, the Company's CEO B. Ramalinga Raju
sent a letter to the Satyam Board of Directors and the
Securities & Exchange Board of India acknowledging a "multi-
year" fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures
were systematically falsified. According to the letter, Raju
admitted to having inflated the amount of cash on the Company's
balance sheet by nearly $1 billion, incurring liability of $253
million on funds arranged by him personally, and overstating
Satyam's September 2008 quarterly revenues by 76% and profits by
97%.

     As a result of this disclosure pre-market activity in the
stock indicates a loss of roughly 90% of its value.

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 New Cases Filed in Madison on Dec. 22-26
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Dec. 22, 2008 through Dec. 26, 2008, a total
of 13 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These claims are:

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1209, Cordelia Ann Brooks of Georgia
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
        husband, James Brooks. The suit says Mr. Brooks worked
        from 1963 until 2005 as a draftsman, machinist,
        contract mechanical worker, heating installer,
        ventilation installer, air conditioning installer,
        repairman, and maintenance technician at various
        locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mrs. Brooks.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1207, Waintheus L. Brown of Texas
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased
        mother, Betty Jean Brown. According to the suit, Mrs.
        Brown worked from 1971 until 1999 as a practical nurse,
        certified nurse's aid, and janitor at various
        locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mr. Brown.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1215, Gary and Debra Crosby of Ohio
        claim Mr. Crosby developed mesothelioma from his work
        as a salesman, engineer, supervisor, specialist,
        training coordinator and machinist from 1974 until now.
        Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
        Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent
        the Crosbys.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1208, Jerri Fitzwater of Indiana
        claims lung cancer on behalf of her recently deceased
        father, Billie A. Berlin. According to the suit, Mr.
        Berlin worked from 1956 until 1996 as a material
        handler and fork truck driver at various locations.
        Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
        SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
        Fitzwater.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1211, Karen Jeppesen of Wisconsin
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
        husband, Gerald Jeppesen. According to the suit, Mr.
        Jeppesen worked from 1967 until 1996 as a maintenance
        worker and systems operations technician at various
        locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Mrs. Jeppesen.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1210, Jacqueline Jones of Missouri,
        who worked in clerical positions from 1973 through this
        year, claims mesothelioma. Ms. Jones was also exposed
        to asbestos fibers through her first ex-husband who
        worked as a laborer at Anheuser-Busch and would carry
        the fibers home with him on his clothing, according to
        the complaint. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Drew Sealey,
        Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
        Ms. Jones.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1212, Larry and Louise McDaniels claim
        Mr. McDaniels developed mesothelioma from his work as a
        machinist mate, equipment attendant, power plant helper
        and operator, powerhouse operator and a shade tree
        mechanic from the 1950s until now. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
        of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
        represents the McDanielses. 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 served of counsel.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1203, Donald McDonald, a worker from
        1960 until 2007, claims lung cancer. Richard L. Saville
        Jr., Esq., Robert J. Evola, Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq.,
        and David J. Page, Esq., of Saville, Evola and Flint in
        Alton, Ill., represent Mr. McDonald.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1206, Raymond Penrod III of Nevada
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased
        father, Raymond Penrod II. According to the suit, Mr.
        Penrod II worked as a laborer from 1962 until 1964 at
        various locations. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
        Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
        represent Mr. Penrod III.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1216, Joseph and Patsy Stahl of
        Wisconsin claim Mr. Stahl developed mesothelioma from
        his work as a military police officer and sheet metal
        worker from 1951 until 1997. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
        Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
        Alton, Ill., represent the Stahls.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1219, Doit Walsh of Illinois, a
        construction carpenter from 1955 to 1985 at various
        locations throughout Illinois, claims mesothelioma. T.
        Barton French Jr., Esq., of French and Mudd in St.
        Louis represent Mr. Walsh.

     -- In Case No. 08-L-1201, Lillian H. Yeomans of Florida
        claims mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband,
        William E. Yeomans. According to the suit, Mr. Yeomans
        served in the U.S. Navy from 1932 until 1936 and worked
        as a blower, scheduler, courier, carpenter, remodeler,
        builder, finishing worker and finishing carpenter from
        1936 until at least 1954. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
        and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
        Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent
        Mrs. Yeomans.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. University Dorm Repairs Cost $650,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of asbestos at a dorm in Western Washington
University in Bellingham, Wash., has driven repairs at the dorm
to cost US$650,000, The Bellingham Herald reports.

A few students returning to the University after the holiday
break are facing the prospect of having to salvage and then move
their water-damaged belongings.

Thirty-two students have been displaced because of a flood at
the Gamma Hall dormitory caused by a radiator pipe that broke
and flooded 16 rooms on four floors.

The US$650,000 price tag is large because the 1962 building had
asbestos in the walls and sheetrock, meaning the entire building
had to be gutted.

Asbestos is considered safe until it is cut into. Crews usually
would cut away and replace the water-damaged wall sections, but
because of the asbestos, all the walls and floors have to be
replaced.

Crews hope to have the damage repaired by the end of January
2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Concerns Close St. Louis Post Office
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 2, 2009, a U.S. Post Office near West Port Plaza in
Maryland Heights, Mo., closed after a St. Louis County health
officer suspected that asbestos was released during an adjoining
office's renovation, STLtoday.com reports.

Craig LeFebvre, a spokesman for the county Health Department,
said workers renovating an address next door to the post office
on Congressional had discovered asbestos.

Mr. LeFebvre said a temporary partition could not seal the area,
so the inspector asked that the post office be closed. He said
postal officials and the building owner were cooperating.

Loretta Tolliver, a regional manager of customer relations, said
the Postal Service had hired a specialist to examine the air
quality.

Ms. Tolliver said the Postal Service will reopen the post office
when safety can be verified. In the meantime, she urged
customers to use the post office at 331 North New Ballas Road in
Creve Coeur.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MACK Group Completes Cleanup in N.J. Boiler
----------------------------------------------------------------
The MACK Group, LLC completed the remediation and cleanup of an
asbestos contaminated boiler room in New Jersey, according to a
MACK Group press release dated Jan. 3, 2009.

MACK was selected to perform the project based on their expert
level of asbestos contractor services, their professional
reputation, their attention to safety and schedule as well as
their economical approach to asbestos removal services.

Prior to asbestos abatement activities, a 10-day notification
was submitted. In addition, the area was properly secured to
prevent unauthorized entry and all necessary containment
measures were installed.

The boiler room was located at a parking garage in Northern New
Jersey and had various amounts of asbestos containing materials
(ACM) including insulation and gaskets. Due to poor maintenance,
the ACM had become friable and contaminated debris throughout
the room.

MACK's task was to carefully remove and abate all ACM in an
expeditious manner. Proper wetting, removal and handling
techniques were employed to safely remove the asbestos
containing materials. Wetting of all friable ACM and bagging the
ACM using poly-wrapping was conducted under negative air
conditions.

The transportation of asbestos and ACM was in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 7:26-3.5(d) and by registered New Jersey solid waste
vehicles. ACM was then properly disposed at a licensed landfill.

The project was a complete success as it was accomplished on
schedule, without injury or incident and within the client's
budget.

The Mack Group, LLC operates nationwide providing various
contracting and consulting services. These services include
asbestos abatement, asbestos consulting, asbestos removal,
concrete surface preparation and floor covering removal
services.


COMPANY PROFILE:

The MACK Group, LLC
1500 Kings Hwy. N., Ste 209
Cherry Hill, N.J. 08034
Tel: 973-759-5000
Fax: 973-759-5554
Web: http://www.mackgrp.com


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Homebase & HSE Advise Tradesmen on Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Homebase, a home
improvement retailer, joined forces to warn tradesmen of
asbestos' dangers, abeceder reports.

The Homebase team, which installs bathrooms and kitchens in the
Wakefield area, supports the HSE's Asbestos: The Hidden Killer
campaign. The campaign was launched in October 2008 and aims to
reduce the rising death rate from asbestos-related disease by
educating those in the trade about the danger that asbestos
presents to them.

Figures issued by the HSE on Jan. 3, 2009 revealed that across
the country as a whole 20 tradesmen die from asbestos-related
diseases every week, and this number is set to increase.

Recently released HSE figures for all occupations show that more
than 2,564 people died of mesothelioma in Yorkshire and the
Humber between 1981 and 2005. About 1,275 of these deaths were
in West Yorkshire and 155 of them in Wakefield alone.

HSE's Head of Operations for Yorkshire and Humber Gill Spurrier
said, "We need to educate tradesmen about how asbestos and its
dangers are relevant to them. We want them to change the way
they work so that they don't put their lives at risk."

Mr. Spurrier added, "Exposure to asbestos is the biggest single
cause of work-related deaths, with around 4,000 people a year
dying from asbestos-related disease. The overall number of
deaths is rising because a large number of workers who have
already been exposed to asbestos dust around 40 years ago will
go on to develop mesothelioma, a terminal cancer or other
asbestos related diseases."

Annually, 1,000 of the 4,000 now dying are tradesmen.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bergeron Action v. Chevron Filed on Dec. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit against Chevron and Gulf Oil by Gliese
Bergeron's four sons was filed, on Dec. 22, 2008, in Jefferson
County District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Kyle, Dan, Ted, and Mark Bergeron claim that the mesothelioma
with which their father was diagnosed was wrongfully caused.
They claim their father died on Oct. 31, 2008.

In the suit, the plaintiffs say their father worked in 1942 and
from 1946 until 1983 as a pipefitter, operator, truck driver,
insulator and maintenance planner at Chevron and Gulf Oil.

Mr. Bergeron's sons seek unspecified exemplary and punitive
damages, plus interest at the legal rate, costs and other relief
to which they may be entitled.

Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq. of Provost and Umphrey in Beaumont, Tex.,
represent the Bergerons.

Case No. B182-900 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Remodeling at Gonzales County Jail Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Work, including asbestos-related, on the remodeling of the jail
(built in 1976) in Gonzales County, Tex., is ongoing, The
Gonzales Inquirer reports.

Gonzales County Judge David Bird said that workers continue to
make progress on the building.

One of the setbacks came early in the process when it was
discovered there was asbestos in the building, in which an
asbestos management company had to be hired as well as a cleanup
company. Total cost for the asbestos abatement was around
US$25,000 and it set the project back a full week.

The asbestos abatement was focused on the drywall and the glue
used to hold down the old tiles. Judge Bird said it was "just
around that time" in the 1970s when asbestos came to the
forefront.

Once the asbestos was removed, work then began to do a complete
remodel of the inside of the building.

Two new bathrooms will be added in the building. Everything in
the bathrooms had to be removed because of the asbestos.

The work on the jail, which closed in 2004 when the new jail was
constructed on Sarah DeWitt Drive, is being supervised by T.R.
Stulting, a county employee and an independent contractor.

Commissioners Dell Whiddon and Donnie Brzozowski are supervising
the project. All four county commissioners are providing workers
to help with the project. The commission set aside US$75,000 for
the remodeling project.

However, Judge Bird said because of the asbestos, it is likely
that number will be higher when it is complete.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Detected in 15 Tweed Public Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a New South Wales Department of Education and
Training (DET) report, asbestos is present in 15 public schools
and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions in
Tweed, Australia, the Tweed Daily News reports.

These schools are:

     -- Tweed River High School,
     -- Tweed Heads Public School,
     -- Tyalgum Public School,
     -- Murwillumbah Public School,
     -- Murwillumbah East Public School,
     -- Murwillumbah High School,
     -- Murwillumbah Campus (TAFE),
     -- Kingscliff High School,
     -- Kingscliff Public School,
     -- Uki Public School,
     -- Burringbar Public School,
     -- Crystal Creek Public School,
     -- Murwillumbah South Infants School,
     -- Cudgen Public School, and
     -- Banora Point Public School.

In the DET report, more than 2,200 schools in NSW were found
with some form of asbestos.

Murwillumbah South Infants and Crystal Creek schools have been
given specific site management plans to deal with their
asbestos.

The plan for Crystal Creek Public School details a toilet block
with potential buried asbestos cement fragments. For
Murwillumbah South Infants School, the sub-floor of the office
has disused fibrous cement with a low-risk and control priority.

The registers for individual schools reveal the location of any
known asbestos-containing materials on school grounds.

NSW DET deputy director-general Alastair Hunter said the vast
majority of materials containing asbestos are safe. He said no
school students or staff members are in danger because the low-
level asbestos poses no health risk if left undisturbed and in a
sound condition. The asbestos was found mostly in ceilings,
walls and floors.

The asbestos registers are available at all Tweed public schools
or online at www.det.nsw.edu.au.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 2 of A.B. Davis Classrooms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been discovered in two classrooms for special
education at the A.B. Davis Middle School in Mount Vernon, N.Y.,
LoHud.com reports.

The classrooms were scheduled to be closed on Jan. 5, 2009 due
to damage caused by a leaking heating vent coil on Dec. 24,
2008, a spokeswoman for the Mount Vernon School District said on
Jan. 4, 2009.

The water leak, discovered on Dec. 25, 2008, began in the
guidance suite on the second floor and dripped through the floor
into the classrooms, passing through fireproofing material
containing asbestos.

Niche Analysis conducted air quality. The district hired
Infinity Environmental Services to secure the areas, which will
remain sealed until the firm completes the abatement and more
testing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Israel Ministry Drafts New Regulations Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel's Environmental Protection Ministry advocates a new bill
that will formalize regulations to prevent exposure to asbestos,
HAARETZ.com reports.

The new bill was drafted after Environmental Protection Ministry
officials realized that they had partial authority to deal with
asbestos, which was widely used in the past for insulation.

The bill provides that the use of asbestos will no longer be
permitted in Israel and that within up to 10 years; the use of
all crushable asbestos will be halted. Moreover, the import of
asbestos and its byproducts will be prohibited.

A memorandum on the proposed bill provides a gradual reduction
in the still permitted uses of asbestos and its immediate
removal from any public structures and industrial enterprises.

The bill also proposes to establish a fund to deal with asbestos
stockpiles. Eitanit, the company that up until a decade ago
manufactured asbestos at its Nahariya plant, will finance half
of the fund.

Once it becomes law, the bill will allow for stiff fines of
hundreds of thousands of shekels to be imposed on those
responsible for asbestos damage, and even assigning criminal
responsibility and issuing punishments of up to two years in
jail to those who continue to import, manufacture or use the
substance.

According to the Environmental Protection Ministry's assessment,
hundreds of millions of square meters of built-up areas contain
asbestos compounds.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Runcorn Resident Seeks Payout for Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Lipke, of Runcorn, England, seeks compensation for his
workplace exposure to asbestos from Workcover Queensland, as two
of his employees have since ceased operations, the Southern Star
reports.

The 72-year-old Mr. Lipke has gone public about his asbestos-
related cancer in a one-man campaign to force action over the
lethal substance.

Mr. Lipke began work with the Williams Motor Company at Nambour
and later moved to Mt. Isa to work for Holden distributor Barkly
Motors, with whom he remained until the late 1970s. He regularly
changed brake and clutch parts lined with asbestos.

Mr. Lipke said, "We'd remove the brake drums and blow the
(asbestos) dust out of them. I can't blame anyone because Barkly
Motors didn't know it was a problem. No one knew. If it was a
safety issue, there's no doubt they would have taken steps to
prevent it (employees inhaling asbestos fibres)."

Williams Motor and Barkly Motors have since closed down.

Mr. Lipke's lawyer Roger Singh, of Shine Lawyers, said he had
overseen up to 25 asbestos-related compensation claims over the
past six years, and they were becoming more frequent.

They mainly involved people who worked in the plumbing,
building, power, and ship-building industries, but would soon
include those who had incorrectly handled asbestos-laced fibro
sheeting while completing do-it-yourself home renovations.

Mr. Singh said, "The estimate is that asbestos illnesses and
cancers are going to start to peak around 2020."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Legal Malpractice Case v. Simmons Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A legal malpractice case against John Simmons, Esq., in which
the case involves asbestos, is ongoing in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Simmons, who faces trial on a widow's malpractice claim,
boasts that he obtained US$100,000 from W.R. Grace & Co. after
the statute of limitations ran out, plus US$214,000 from other
businesses despite "sketchy product identification."

Mr. Simmons offered these examples in hopes of winning summary
judgment and escaping a trial that Madison County Circuit Judge
Barbara Crowder has set for Feb. 9, 2009. She held a hearing on
summary judgment Dec. 16, 2008 and continued it to Jan. 30,
2009.

The Lakin Law Firm represents plaintiff Judy Buckles, who in
2006 sued SimmonsCooper and the firm where he used to work,
Hopkins Goldenberg.

Mrs. Buckles hired Mr. Simmons in 1999, when he worked at
Hopkins Goldenberg, to represent the estate of her late husband
Charles Buckles, she claims. When Mr. Simmons left Hopkins
Goldenberg, he retained her case and others.

Roy Dripps of the Lakin firm alleges in Mrs. Buckles' complaint
that Hopkins Goldenberg entered into secret agreements with
asbestos defendants to classify claims of clients and settle
them "in accordance with predetermined figures of money for each
such classification."

The complaint stated that Hopkins Goldenberg settled claims "for
amounts of money which were manifestly inadequate and which bore
no reasonable relationship to the actual loss sustained by the
clients."

The complaint added that Hopkins Goldenberg "fabricated,
exaggerated, or otherwise manipulated the bookkeeping" and
wrongly ascribed advanced costs to Mrs. Buckles, and that
Hopkins Goldenberg settled groups of claims without obtaining
consent of each client.

Mr. Simmons failed to provide timely, aggressive and zealous
representation to Mrs. Buckles, according to Mr. Dripps.

For Mr. Simmons, A.J. Bronsky of St. Louis moved in 2007 for
summary judgment. Mr. Bronsky attached an affidavit.

Mr. Simmons wrote that he negotiated settlements with A. W.
Chesterton, Durabla, GAF and Georgia Pacific, amounting to
US$214,000, with "sketchy product identification."

Mr. Bronsky noted that Mr. Simmons continues seeking bankruptcy
payouts for Mrs. Buckles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in SCS Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin upheld the Circuit Court of
Milwaukee County's ruling, which entered an adverse judgment
against SCS of Wisconsin, Inc., in a suit over asbestos removal
filed by the State of Wisconsin.

The case is styled State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
T.J. McQuay, Inc., Defendant, SCS of Wisconsin, Inc., Defendant-
Appellant.

Judges Patricia S. Curley, Ralph Adam Fine, and Joan F. Kessler
entered judgment in Case No. 2007AP2449 on Nov. 25, 2008.

SCS contracted with Patrick Cudahy, Inc. to perform demolition
work on Buildings L and LX at the Cudahy facility. It began its
demolition work in April 2004. SCS's contract with Cudahy
specifically excluded all asbestos abatement work. To perform
the asbestos abatement work, Cudahy entered into a separate
contract with T.J. McQuay, Inc.

Saji Villoth, an asbestos specialist with the Department of
Natural Resources at the time of the events that led to this
lawsuit, testified that he conducted an inspection at the Cudahy
site around 2:30 p.m. on May 17, 2004.

Mr. Villoth saw that walls and sections of the roof on Building
L of the Cudahy complex had been demolished. He observed what he
believed was asbestos-containing material.

No McQuay crew members were present at the time of Mr. Villoth's
inspection on May 17, 2004. However, SCS employees were working
at the site. Mr. Villoth said that SCS's crane operator, Roy
Kaisler, told him that the transite came from the fourth floor
of Building L.

McQuay's crew had concluded its work for the day. Craig
Deutekowski, McQuay's supervisor for portions of the Cudahy job,
was later called to the site to meet with Mr. Villoth on May 17,
2004.

Mr. Villoth testified that contrary to the applicable
regulations, regulated asbestos-containing material was not
removed prior to the demolition work at the Cudahy site.

The State filed suit, alleging that SCS and McQuay did not
comply with the administrative regulations. The State sought
forfeitures for McQuay's and SCS's violations.

McQuay did not file an answer, and the State obtained a default
judgment against it in the amount of US$33,912.50. SCS denied
the State's allegations against it, argued that it was not
responsible for the asbestos abatement work, and demanded a jury
trial.

The trial court granted the State's motion to strike SCS's
demand for a jury trial based on its conclusion that SCS failed
to show the action met either of the two prongs required by
Village Food.

Following a court trial, judgment was entered against SCS in the
amount of US$58,867.50, roughly US$25,000 in excess of the
amount of the default judgment against McQuay. SCS appealed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Rulings Issued in Dunesland's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos
filed by the Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society against the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources and other individuals.

The case is styled Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society, an
Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff v. The Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo entered judgment in Case No. 06
C 2880 on Nov. 25, 2008.

In May 2006, Dunesland sued the IDNR and other individuals,
claiming that they violated Dunesland's First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by refusing to display, in display racks
located in certain areas of Illinois Beach State Park, an
informational pamphlet Dunesland prepared on how to avoid
asbestos exposure at the Park.

Dunesland's four-count complaint sought a declaratory judgment
(Count I); injunctive relief (Counts II and III); and monetary
damages (Count IV).

In August 2006, Defendants moved to dismiss Dunesland's
complaint.

The District Court granted defendants' motion in part,
dismissing IDNR from the case and dismissing Dunesland's claims
for damages and declaratory relief against the individual
defendants in their official capacities. The District Court
denied the remainder of defendants' motion.

In the cross-motions for summary judgment, Dunesland sought
partial summary judgment on counts II-IV of its complaint, while
defendants sought summary judgment on all counts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Reaser Case in Fla. Still in Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division ruled that the stay in the asbestos case styled Robert
Reaser and Christine Reaser, Plaintiffs v. A.W. Chesterton, Co.,
et al., Defendants, was in effect.

District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered judgment
in Case No. 8:08-cv-1323-T-33TGW on Nov. 25, 2008.

This case involved asbestos. On Sept. 19, 2008, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional
transfer order ("CTO") covering this case. The CTO indicated,
"It appears that the actions on this conditional transfer order
involve questions of fact that are common to the actions
previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and assigned to Judge [James T.] Giles."

At least one of the parties to this action had opposed transfer
of this case for consolidated proceedings, and the Panel was in
the process of determining whether it was appropriate to
transfer this case.

The District Court stayed the matter until such time as the
Panel has dispositively ruled as to whether this case will be
transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard's Motion Denied in Perkins Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Tyler
Perkins.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Tyler Perkins) v. General
Electric Co. et al. (Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.).

Judge David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case No. CV044002257
on Nov. 13, 2008.

Mr. Perkins was a pipefitter from on or about 1961 to 1962, a
pipefitter inspector from 1964 to 1970 at Electric Boat
Corporation in Groton, Conn., and a radiographer from on or
about 1964 to 1970 at the Electric Boat facility in Quincy,
Mass. He returned to Electric Boat, Groton in 1977 and again in
1980 as an inspector where he has remained to the present, a
total of 40 years at Electric Boat.

As a pipefitter, Mr. Perkins would cut and carry pipe to where
it would be in place for welders to "tack in hangers." He
recalled working around asbestos-containing products,
specifically "gaskets" while working on the Lafayette.

It was apparent that Calvin Hopkins was working aboard the
Lafayette, Alexander Hamilton and the Nathan Hale with Mr.
Perkins and places the defendant's asbestos-containing product
Baco stuffing on board these submarines while Mr. Perkins was
working on them.

As "Baco asbestos packing" is a product of the defendant and was
being used to "insulate and pack and seal wiring and cable into
Baco stuffing tubes," while Mr. Perkins was aboard these subs, a
material issue of fact existed as to whether this defendant
contributed to creating an atmosphere containing asbestos which
proved deleterious to Mr. Perkins' health while he worked.

The court found that material issues of fact existed for the
trier of fact to determine in this case.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard's Motion in Oliver Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Roosevelt Oliver.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Roosevelt Oliver) v.
General Electric Co. et al. (Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.)

State Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV044002257S on Nov. 18, 2008.

Mr. Oliver worked as a welder at Electric Boat Corporation from
on or about 1961 to 1987, and as a shipboard escort from 1987 to
1995, in all about 34 years. He worked on the new construction
and overhaul of submarines in all their compartments, and in the
vicinity of many other tradesmen, including electricians,
cleaners, shipfitters, pipefitters, grinders and machinists.

Mr. Oliver worked next to cleaners as they used air hoses to
clean the boats and flush out asbestos debris produced by other
trades in the course of their work.

Although Mr. Oliver was unable to identify any boats that he
worked on by name or number, he stated that he worked on many of
the boats that were undergoing construction or repair at
Electric Boat during his years of working there.

Affidavits made it clear that Mr. Oliver worked on submarines
that contained the defendant's asbestos products. "Baco asbestos
packing" is an asbestos-containing product sold and marketed by
the defendant to Electric Boat.

The presence of asbestos and the fact that other trades were
working with this product while Mr. Oliver was present aboard
these submarines, a material issue of fact existed as to whether
this defendant contributed to creating an atmosphere containing
asbestos particles which proved deleterious to Mr. Oliver's
health while he worked.

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

Accordingly, Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment as against Mr. Oliver was denied.

Embry & Neusner in Groton, Conn., represented Janet Longo and
the other plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SC Reverses Ruling in Westinghouse's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the Hampton County
Circuit Court's ruling, which ruled in favor of Thomas E.
Skinner, in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against
Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The matter was remanded.

The case is styled Thomas E. Skinner, Respondent v. Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, Appellant.

Judges John Kittredge, Jean Hoefer Toal, John H. Waller Jr.,
Costa M. Pleicones, and Donald W. Beatty entered judgment in
Case No. 26560 on Nov. 3, 2008.

Mr. Skinner filed this workers' compensation claim on June 7,
2004, for pulmonary problems and related injuries allegedly
caused by inhalation of asbestos dust and toxic fumes while
employed with Westinghouse.

A single commissioner awarded Mr. Skinner a lump sum of
US$119,159.66 and the full amount of causally-related medical
bills, past and future. Westinghouse appealed to the commission.
The commission affirmed the order and award of the single
commissioner on July 18, 2006.

Westinghouse filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court on
Aug. 2, 2006. Westinghouse did not serve the commission until
Oct. 16, 2006, more than 30 days after the filing of the appeal
in circuit court. The circuit court held the service on the
commission was untimely and stripped the circuit court of
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The circuit
court dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court held that circuit court erred in holding that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as a result of
Westinghouse's failure to serve the Workers' Compensation
Commission within 30 days of the filing of the appeal.

Donald L. Van Riper, Esq., of Collins & Lacy in Greenville,
S.C., represented Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

Jeffrey T. Eddy, Esq., of Charleston, S.C., represented Thomas
E. Skinner.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. SC Affirms GlobalSantaFe Mandamus Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas granted GlobalSantaFe Corporation's
motion for mandamus relief in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed
by John B. Lopez.

The case is styled In re GlobalSantaFe Corporation, Relator.

Justice Don Willett entered judgment in Case No. 07-0040 on Dec.
5, 2008.

In May 2003, Mr. Lopez sued GSF under the Jones Act, alleging
injuries from exposure to asbestos and silica while employed by
GSF aboard a vessel. He filed his Jones Act suit in state court
in the 55th district court of Harris County.

Two years later, Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies
Code became effective, adopting unique procedures for personal-
injury actions alleging injuries from silica and asbestos.

Although Mr. Lopez alleged injuries from both asbestos and
silica, GSF filed a notice of transfer to the silica MDL
pretrial court, and this mandamus action concerned that court's
decision to remand the case to the trial court where it was
originally filed.

Contending that Mr. Lopez did not file a report complying with
Chapter 90, GSF filed on Dec. 2, 2005, a notice of transfer to
the silica MDL pretrial court.

Mr. Lopez responded, arguing Chapter 90 was preempted by the
Jones Act and urging the MDL pretrial court to remand the case
to the trial court. The MDL pretrial court agreed.

GSF sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals, which also
sided with Mr. Lopez by holding that "chapter 90 is preempted by
federal law." GSF now sought mandamus relief in the Supreme
Court directing the MDL pretrial court to vacate its remand
order.

The Supreme Court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus and
directed the MDL pretrial court to vacate its remand order, and
to conduct further proceedings in a manner consistent with this
opinion.

John B. Hall, Esq., Christopher Benjamin Dove, Esq., and David
R. Walker, Esq., represented Global Sante Fe Corporation.

John Milton Black, Esq., Ian P. Cloud, Esq., and Justin Ryan
Goodman, Esq., represented John B. Lopez.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Waycross School to Cost $111,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the old Bailey Street School in Waycross,
Ga., is estimated at US$111,000, The Florida Times-Union
reports.

The City plans to demolish the old Bailey Street School for a
renewal project that could cost it about US$200,000.

At a Jan. 5, 2009 work session, City Manager Pete Pyrzenski
presented an assessment by Spectrum Enterprises Inc. of
Woodstock, Ga., that laid out the costs: US$111,000 for asbestos
removal alone or US$200,000 with demolition included.

Mr. Pyrzenski said, "We hope to get that building demolished and
open up the area to a pubic-private partnership that would build
new low-income residential homes."

City commissioners want to declare an urban redevelopment area
on five acres surrounding the school. The designation would
allow the city to apply for state housing grants.

Mr. Pyrzenski said the city could obtain a loan to finance the
school demolition and apply for a state grant to recoup the
cost.

The city would know by September 2009 if it qualified for the
grant, said Waycross Community Improvement Director Jonathan
Lynn.

Waycross has a court order to tear down the school because it is
dilapidated. City Attorney Scott Crowley said that Trustees of
the Bailey Street School own the property.

Mr. Pyrzenski said the city hopes to negotiate for ownership,
but at the very least, property owners could be responsible for
the asbestos removal and demolition costs.

Commissioner Norman Davis said if the school poses a health
hazard, he wants to see it brought down as quickly as possible.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas' Suit v. 58 Companies Filed in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Clements, on Dec. 29, 2008, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit on behalf of Lola Thomas against 58 defendant
corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The 58 defendants in Ms. Clements' suit include A.O. Smith
Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co., American Optical Corp., Bechtel
Corp., Westinghouse, Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Fluor
Maintenance, Foster Wheeler Ltd., General Electric Company,
Georgia-Pacific LLC, Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, Kelly-Moore
Paint Company Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, 3M Company,
Uniroyal, Goodrich Tire Co., Union Carbide Corporation, and Zurn
Industries.

The suit alleges Mrs. Thomas was exposed through her husband's
employment as a mechanic and laborer where he was required to
work with and around asbestos containing materials.

The suit alleges Mr. Thomas' exposure "caused him to indirectly
expose his wife, Lola Thomas, in which she suffered from
asbestos-related diseases and other industrial dust diseases
caused by breathing the asbestos-containing products."

Ms. Clements now seeks damages under Pustejovsky v. Rapid-
American Corp., the 2000 Texas Supreme Court ruling that a
victim may file an additional suit for asbestos-related cancer
if he develops a second illness from the same cause at a later
date.

The complaint states that Mrs. Thomas already sued or settled
claims for non-malignant asbestos-related disease with one or
more defendants.

Ms. Clements seeks unspecified exemplary and actual damages,
plus pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and other relief to
which she may be entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of
Provost and Umphrey in Beaumont, Tex., represent Ms. Clements.

Case No. B182-947 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson of
the 60th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: All Clear Warns Public on Bldg. Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------
All Clear Environmental, a hazardous materials removal and
demolition company, seeks to warn the public about hidden
asbestos in construction that occurred after the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ban in 1989, according to an All
Clear press release dated Jan. 5, 2009.

Shaheen Ahmed said, "Despite the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out
Rule, many properties built after that year still incorporate
dangerous levels of asbestos. This is primarily due to the use
of building materials that were fabricated abroad. Every
property, regardless of age, needs to be inspected when
renovation or demolition occurs."

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the
governing board for pollution control in Southern California,
has also recently recognized this hazard.

Mr. Ahmed and business partner Larry Enos have seen the dangers
firsthand. All Clear's staff has over 100 years of combined
experience in handling hazardous materials, abatement, and
remediation.

As a licensed, bonded and insured Environmental Specialty
Contractor, the staff has worked diligently to make Southern
California's schools, workplaces and homes safer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huyton Local Files Suit v. Knowsley Council
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed 48-year-old terminally-ill mother from Huyton,
England, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Knowsley
Council, claiming that exposure to asbestos at the Bowring
Comprehensive school gave her mesothelioma, the Liverpool Echo
reports.

The woman was a pupil at the Western Avenue school between 1972
and 1978.

The school had an open plan layout. However, when noise from
other classes affected the quality of teaching and learning, the
classrooms were enclosed using materials which allegedly
produced asbestos dust.

The woman's Liverpool-based solicitors, John Pickering and
Partners LLP, will tell a judge asbestos dust allegedly released
during classroom renovation in the 1970s was to blame for the
cancer she was diagnosed with in spring 2007.

The case against the Council has been lodged with Liverpool
District Registry in Vernon Street and is expected to be heard
early in 2009.

Ruth Davies, of John Pickering, said, "I can confirm we will be
representing our client and seeking damages against Knowsley
council for personal injury."

The case comes after the Echo published details of a council
report confirming the GBP150 million renovations of Knowsley's
secondary schools by 2010.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kempthorne's Room Renovation Costs $236,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The renovation of outgoing U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne's office bathroom in Washington, D.C., including
asbestos and lead paint removal, handicapped access, a
refrigerator and shower, and wood paneling to match the rest of
the office, cost US$236,000, The Olympian reports.

A Department of Interior spokeswoman says the work, which came
in US$26,000 under the approved estimate, was overseen by the
General Services Administration to make sure it was "appropriate
and costs were reasonable."

The project is part of a US$243 million remodel of the 72-year-
old Main Interior Building, to be completed in 2013.

Senator Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is President-elect Barack Obama
choice as the new Interior secretary.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Australian Sailors Still Exposed to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Years after asbestos was banned, Australian sailors continue to
be exposed to asbestos, as the Royal Australian Navy still uses
asbestos-contaminated parts, The Age reports.

A report seen by Australian Defence Force chiefs imply that
thousands of sailors and civilian contractors are likely to have
come into contact with asbestos.

The ADF could face fines of more than AUD100 million for
breaches of work safety laws and the cost could soar by millions
more dollars if sailors, as predicted, contract lung cancer or
other diseases as a result of their exposure.

Reports seen by The Age show nearly 250,000 parts held in naval
stores are suspected of containing asbestos. Hundreds of those
parts, including gaskets, hoses and even compressed asbestos
sheeting, are still being issued to ships and bases across the
country in breach of state and federal laws.

The report said, "It can be assumed there have been over 350
issues of 775 asbestos items to operational units and ship
repair organizations since Dec. 31, 2003 (when asbestos use was
prohibited)."

Thousands of parts still sit on shelves at the ADF's main
warehouse at Moorebank, in Sydney, many of them unmarked as
containing asbestos, and still being sent to ships and bases.

A Defence spokesman told The Age the ADF did not accept the
finding that "thousands" had been exposed and said the potential
fines figure of AUD100 million was "purely speculative."
However, he conceded that asbestos parts had been issued in
breach of bans.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has condemned as "unacceptable"
the ADF's handling of the problem.

The Defence Materiel Organisation warned, "To date 45 items have
been confirmed as containing asbestos. All units, ships and
establishments are to check if stockholdings are held for the
items listed...the asbestos eradication program is ongoing and
there is likely to be additional candidates identified."

A ban on the use of and import of asbestos-containing materials
in Australia came into force on Jan. 1, 2004. However, the ADF
requested and won an exemption to continue using chrysotile
asbestos parts until 2007 on two strict provisos: that the parts
were "mission-critical" - meaning their absence would ground
equipment and jeopardize a mission - and that no non-asbestos
replacement parts could be found.

On December 2008, the exemption was controversially extended
until 2010 by the Government's Safety and Compensation Council,
despite fierce expert opposition, and even grave reservations
from within the ADF.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions said every other industry
in Australia had rid itself of asbestos in the required time and
that the ADF should not be afforded special treatment.

The Asbestos Diseases Society of Victoria said the exemption
could result in the deaths of between 10 and 30 defense
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Parent Demands Safe Cleanup at School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle L. Cormier, a mother of seven-year-old twins who are
pupils of the South Street Elementary School in Fitchburg,
Mass., said that she will push school officials to ensure that
future maintenance projects are done safely at the school, The
Worcester Telegram reports.

On Jan. 5, 2009, Mrs. Cormier told the School Committee she
thought more attention should be given to an incident, in which
300 students and 30 staff members were inside the school when
asbestos tiles were improperly removed before Thanksgiving.

Principal William Terrill said he was unaware the maintenance
project was going on that day. When the district's maintenance
supervisor learned of the potential of an asbestos release at
the school, he notified the Board of Health right away, Mr.
Terrill added.

The tiles were found to contain less than two percent asbestos,
and air quality and swipe tests done several days later showed
there was no asbestos release from the tiles in the school, Mr.
Terrill said.

After the incident, environmental specialist Brian R. McGrath
from Woodard and Curran in Dedham walked through areas of the
school known to contain asbestos. He was accompanied by state
officials and Joanne L. Soczek, the environmental health and
safety officer at Fitchburg State College.

Ms. Soczek also provided custodial staff with training regarding
removal and containment of hazardous materials.

The Department of Environmental Protection and Division of
Occupational Safety was also notified.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 639 Actions Filed in Madison County in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Circuit Clerk's Office said that 639
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in 2008, compared with 455
in 2007, The Telegraph reports.

The number compares to the peak of 953 in 2003, when tort reform
groups started an effort to reduce the number of suits filed in
Madison County, which business groups call a "plaintiffs'
paradise."

Circuit Judge Dan Stack, who oversees the docket for asbestos
cases, said informal discussions with lawyers on both sides of
asbestos suits reveal that the increase nationwide, and in
Madison County, may be the result of greater awareness of the
health problems associated with the substance.

Lawyers have said that the medical profession also has linked
asbestos to new types of cancer - namely, esophageal and lung
cancers. Previously, asbestos was linked to mesothelioma.

Many suits are also filed by people with asbestosis. Others
merely exposed to the substance but not yet showing symptoms
also have filed suits to ensure that they receive medical
monitoring of any potential asbestos-related health problems.

The increase in asbestos-related suits caught the eye of the
American Tort Reform Foundation, a business-backed lobbying and
public awareness group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard at Adams Elementary Found on Jan. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Work crews, on Jan. 5, 2009, found asbestos discovered asbestos
at the Adams Elementary School in Oklahoma City, Okla., The
Oklahoman reports.

Administrators made arrangements for students to go to class at
Roosevelt Middle School after state Labor Department officials
determined the building was unsafe, said Kathleen Kennedy,
school district spokeswoman.

Parents can drop off students at Adams and the district will bus
them to Roosevelt.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chesapeake School Fail at Air Quality Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality tests found elevated levels of asbestos on Jan. 8,
2009 at the Crestwood Middle School in Chesapeake, Va., The
Virginian-Pilot reports.

Students were evacuated from the school on Jan. 6, 2009 after
one of six air quality tests performed at the school came back
too high, said school spokesman Tom Cupitt.

The school's 620 students were taken to Oscar Smith High School
where they spent the rest of the day in the auditorium.

Built in 1954, Crestwood was undergoing the first major
renovations to its air-conditioning and heating system when
workers discovered pipes covered with asbestos underneath some
of the ceiling tiles, Mr. Cupitt said.

Many older buildings have pipes covered with asbestos, but the
pipes usually lie undisturbed, and the asbestos fibers do not
get into the air.

Once the pipes were uncovered, the division was required to call
in a company to perform air-quality tests, Mr. Cupitt added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montana Officials Call for Asbestos Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Montana asbestos-related agencies are appealing to
Governor Brian Schweitzer to provide state funding to help keep
their agencies afloat through 2009, The Western News reports.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer's office is hearing about the issue's
importance to Lincoln County through a recent letter and a
pending community petition.

Tanis Hernandez, outreach coordinator with the Center for
Asbestos Related Disease (CARD), said, "If the state doesn't
step up to the plate, these agencies will end. The more people
the governor knows are impacted by this funding, the better off
the community will be in getting the money allocated to
asbestos-related health care."

At a Dec. 11, 2008 Community Advisory Group (CAG) meeting,
Lincoln County representatives Chas Vincent and Jerry Bennett
said it is of vital importance that the governor hear residents'
concerns.

Brad Black, Lincoln County health officer said, "What it is
about is our public health. We are asking the governor to
incorporate this money into the budget, emphasizing the critical
need of the health of Libby residents."

On Dec. 23, 2008, CAG sent a letter to Gov. Schweitzer
requesting that US$3.25 million be included into the biennium
budget to continue asbestos-related health funding.

The Libby Asbestos Medical Plan (LAMP) was originally funded by
a US$2.75 million settlement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and W. R. Grace & Co. over access issues to
the mine site. In 2007, Mr. Vincent pushed a US$2 million
asbestos funding measure through the house, which was eventually
signed by the governor to the tune of US$1.5 million.

Gov. Schweitzer came to Libby and presented the check to the
County Board of Health to aid county agencies. During the visit,
Gov. Schweitzer said he will work to maximize health
reimbursements.

Benefiting from the boost were the LAMP and Asbestos-Related
Diseases Network (ARD-Net) agencies, which supplement health-
care costs not covered by the W.R. Grace-Libby Medical Plan.

Ms. Hernandez said LAMP picks up the bill for these costs and
works in conjunction with ARD-Net to provide in-home assistance.
She added ARD-Net will run out of funds in June 2009 and LAMP
sometime this year.

Mr. Vincent is urging Lincoln County residents to contact the
governor. He said his counterpart Mr. Bennett would introduce a
bill into the 61st legislative session requesting line item
funding specifically for asbestos-related care in the county.

Mr. Bennett has until Jan. 17, 2009 to submit the bill, and he
has expressed a commitment to work with the governor to make the
funding measure a success.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: South Korea Governor Urges for Special Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Wan-koo, the governor of South Chungcheong Province in South
Korea, on Jan. 7, 2009, announced the province will seek
legislation of a "Special Act on Asbestos Hazards" to resolve an
asbestos issue, The Chosun Ilbo reports.

Many residents of five villages near asbestos mines in the
province are confirmed to have developed lung diseases.

Gov. Lee said, "Asbestos hazards should be approached from
various aspects, including water quality, soil, air, and
ecosystem restoration, not to mention the residents' health. The
Province will come up with a draft bill at the earliest time and
urge the government and political circles to enact a special
law."

The province will cooperate with three other local authorities
(Gyeonggi, Gangwon, and North Gyeongsang Provinces) where
asbestos mines are located, while establishing a committee and
task force in the province itself to deal with asbestos hazards.

Of 21 asbestos mines in South Korea, 15 are located in South
Chungcheong Province (seven in Hongseong, four in Boryeong,
three in Taean, and one in Cheongyang), three in Gyeonggi
Province, two in North Gyeongsang Province, and one in Gangwon
Province.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Meetings on Vt. Mine Slated for Jan. 12, 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Vermont State Health Department has set Jan. 12, 2009 and
Jan. 13, 2009 as the dates of two public meetings, which aim to
cover health threats posed by a closed asbestos mine in northern
Vermont, the Times Argus reports.

The first meeting is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at
the Eden Central School. On Jan. 13, 2009, a meeting will be
held at the Lowell Graded School.

The meetings in Lowell and Eden were postponed in December 2008
due to bad weather.

The Department now plans to hold the meetings in the two towns
to discuss a new study that shows a connection between people
living near the mine and asbestos-related illnesses.

The study found that people living within 10 miles of it had a
higher rate of some ailments than those in the rest of the
state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Survey Identifies Risks at Scotland School
----------------------------------------------------------------
A survey identified potential asbestos risks underneath the
stage of the Crawforddyke Primary School in South Lanarkshire,
Scotland, the Lanark Gazette reports.

A further blow to teachers and pupils was that equipment stored
there could not be recovered.

Writing in the December 2008 school newsletter, headteacher
Marjorie Maule stated, "Air tests have been conducted and have
confirmed that the school is safe for both pupils and staff.
This is part of the asbestos management process which is
implemented across the authority. This was a setback to us
initially because we felt we had lost so many resources.

"The area under the stage was a wonderful storage space and we
accessed it constantly as a storage facility for sports goods,
nursery furniture and a host of other items."

Concerns about potential asbestos discovery are huge, as
breathing in air containing asbestos fibers can lead to
diseases, mainly cancers of the lungs and chest lining.

A spokesperson for South Lanarkshire Council said that, in
common with councils across the United Kingdom, a number of
South Lanarkshire Council primary schools were known to have
asbestos-containing materials present.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tests Show No Risks at Edlington's Vicinity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tests show that a new school in the grounds of the fire-ravaged
Edlington School in Doncaster, England, and the nearby leisure
center were free of asbestos particles, the Doncaster Free Press
reports.

However, nearby houses in Tait Avenue are still being tested,
council chiefs have revealed. Contamination has also been
discovered in the pedestrian access to the new school and a
temporary road is being laid.

Sir Thomas Wharton Community College, which replaces the 40-
year-old comprehensive, is due to open.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at London Leisure Center Pool
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found at the pool of the Seven Islands Leisure
Center in the Southwark borough of London, southlondon-
today.co.uk reports.

The pool, which is used by up to 1,500 swimmers a week, will not
reopen until at least February 2009. The pool was shut down in
November 2008 after its boiler packed up.

However, the South London Press has learned that repair work has
been delayed after asbestos was discovered in the boiler room.
It means experts have had to be called in to remove the
potentially fatal material before repairs can continue.

Liberal Democrat and Conservative-controlled Southwark has
stressed there is no heath risk to members of the public as a
result of the asbestos find.

Southwark's executive member for leisure, Councilor Lewis
Robinson, said, "We restricted access to the area as soon as we
were alerted to the asbestos, and prior to that only a small
number of authorized staff would have been allowed to enter the
boiler area.

"The inspection also confirmed that there is no risk from
asbestos in any other part of the building, which means there is
no risk in any part of the building accessible to the public. It
is extremely unlikely that they would have been affected, but of
course we are offering support and medical referrals to any
staff who have concerns."

The pool is operated by leisure contractor Fusion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kostrzewa Favored in Claim Against Suffolk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts reversed the Superior Court
Department's ruling, which granted summary judgment in favor of
Suffolk Construction Company, Inc., in a suit involving asbestos
abatement filed by Jaroslaw and Ryszard Kostrzewa.

The case is styled Ryszard Kostrzewa, administrator v. Suffolk
Construction Company, Inc.

Judges James McHugh, David A. Mills, and Gabrielle R. Wolohojian
entered judgment in Case No. 07-P-1450 on Dec. 18, 2008.

Suffolk was the general contractor for a project to renovate the
Saltonstall Building at 100 Cambridge Street in Boston. Suffolk,
in turn, subcontracted with North American Site Developers, Inc.
to perform demolition and abatement work on the project,
including asbestos abatement.

NASDI further subcontracted with Superior Abatement Inc. to
perform the asbestos abatement work on the project. Mr.
Kostrzewa was employed by Superior as an asbestos worker.

Asbestos abatement took place in contained areas to which access
was restricted to licensed asbestos removal or air quality
monitoring workers.

On May 31, 2002, Mr. Kostrzewa and a coworker, Zdzislaw Zylinski
(who was also employed by Superior), were removing asbestos
within a containment area. The men were working on scaffolding
that was about 20 feet high and mounted on wheels.

Mr. Kostrzewa was injured when the scaffolding on which he was
working fell. Suffolk did not own and had not erected the
scaffolding. When the men wanted to move the scaffolding to work
on a new spot, they would either have someone on the ground push
it or, using the wall or ceiling, they would themselves pull or
push the scaffolding to the new location.

In either case, so as to save time, they did not dismount from
the scaffolding. At the time of the accident, Mr. Kostrweza was
trying to move the scaffolding on which he and Mr. Zylinski were
standing.

On Feb. 2, 2005, Mr. Kostrzew brought this suit against Suffolk,
alleging negligent supervision. Summary judgment was granted in
favor of Suffolk on the ground that Suffolk had not exercised
sufficient control over Superior's work to owe a duty to Mr.
Kostrzewa.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment.

John B. Flemming, Esq., represented Ryszard Kostrzewa.

Emily L. Dwyer, Esq., represented Suffolk Construction Company,
Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spilmon's Bid to Remand Granted in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, in an asbestos lawsuit,
styled Marion Spilmon, et al. Plaintiffs v. Allis-Chalmers
Corporation Product Liability Trust, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered judgment in Case No. C-
08-4873 MMC on Dec. 17, 2008.

Before the Court was plaintiffs' motion to remand, filed Nov.
24, 2008. No opposition had been filed.

On Sept. 11, 2008, the Spilmons filed the complaint in the
instant action in state court, alleging state law claims arising
out of exposure to asbestos.

On Oct. 24, 2008, Foster Wheeler LLC removed the action to
district court on the ground that said it was "acting under an
officer or agency of the United States within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. s 1442(a)(1)."

No other defendant had joined in Foster Wheeler's notice of
removal or asserted any other ground for removal jurisdiction.
On Nov. 24, 2008, the Spilmons dismissed their complaint against
Foster Wheeler.

Accordingly, the Spilmons' motion to remand was granted and the
action was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Francisco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion Denied in MDL 875 Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied
certain defendants' motion in an asbestos-related case styled In
re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI).

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in MDL Docket
No. 875 on Dec. 18, 2008.

MDL no. 875 involves issues relating to personal injuries
allegedly caused by asbestos products. It currently consists of
about 59,000 cases and 3.5 million claims consolidated for
pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation and transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On May 31, 2007, in order to facilitate the resolution of this
case, the court entered Administrative Order No. 12, requiring
submission of certain information as to each pending plaintiff
in MDL 875 to a database established by the court.

The deadline for complying with Administrative Order No. 12 was
Dec. 1, 2007. Administrative Order No. 12 initially applied to
all cases filed before Dec. 1, 2007, but the sweep of the order
was later extended to cover all cases filed before Oct. 3, 2008.

Certain defendants in the individual cases had filed this motion
seeking the entry of a show cause order requiring each plaintiff
in MDL 875, who had failed to comply with the requirements of
Administrative Order No. 12, to show cause why their claim
should not be dismissed. Defendants also proposed that any
plaintiff who fails to respond to the requested order to show
cause have their cases dismissed.

These defendants were:

     -- A.R. Wifley & Sons, Inc.;
     -- Accurate Felt & Gasket Co., Inc.;
     -- Allied Glove Corporation (sometimes sued as Nationwide
        Glove Corporation);
     -- Amsted Industries, Inc.;
     -- Bondex International, Inc.;
     -- CertainTeed Corporation;
     -- Cooper Alloy Corp.;
     -- Crossfield Products Corp.;
     -- Eastern Safety Equipment Company, Inc. (sometimes sued
        as Aearo Company);
     -- Flexo Products, Inc.;
     -- Gardner Denver, Inc.;
     -- General Electric Co.;
     -- Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
     -- The Gorman-Rupp Company;
     -- Gulf Coast Marine Supply Company;
     -- Pulsafeeder, Inc.;
     -- Viking Pump Company;
     -- Warren Rupp, Inc.;
     -- Illinois Tool Works Inc.;
     -- Ingersoll-Rand Company;
     -- Lawrence Pumps, Inc.;
     -- Magnetrol International Incorporated;
     -- Marine Specialty Company, Inc.;
     -- Mueller Steam Specialty;
     -- National Service Industries, Inc. f/d/b/a North Bros.
        Company;
     -- Owens-Illinois, Inc. d/b/a O-I;
     -- Pecora Corporation;
     -- Pneumo Abex, LLC;
     -- Rogers Corporation;
     -- Sager Glove Corp.;
     -- Aurora Pump Company;
     -- BIF;
     -- DeZurik, Inc.;
     -- Layne & Bowler Pump Group;
     -- Marsh Instruments;
     -- Standard Equipment Company, Inc.;
     -- Terex Corporation;
     -- Terex Cranes, Inc.;
     -- The American Crane Corporation;
     -- Turner Supply Company;
     -- Union Carbide Corporation;
     -- Amchem Products, Inc.;
     -- Warren Pumps, LLC;
     -- "Yeoman's Chicago Corporation" (also erroneously served
        for "Chicago Pump Company" and/or "Morris Machine
        Works/Morris Pumps"); and
     -- Yuba Heat Transfer.

It was ordered that these defendants' motion for entry of a show
cause order was denied without prejudice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Reverses Ruling to Favor Wrights
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County's ruling, which granted summary
judgment in favor of Asten Johnson, Inc. (successor to Asten
Group, Inc.), in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Raymond and
Theresa Wright. The matter was remanded.

Judges John T. Bender, Christine L. Donohue, and Robert A.
Freedberg entered judgment in Case No. No. 2805 EDA 2007 on Dec.
19, 2008.

Mr. Wright was employed as an electronic engineer with Scott
Paper and on occasion worked in the paper manufacturing plant in
Chester, Pa. Asten manufactured asbestos-containing dryer felts
used in the paper manufacturing process.

In January 2005, Mr. Wright was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The
Wrights sued a number of parties, including Asten, alleging that
Mr. Wright's workplace exposure to asbestos caused his
mesothelioma. During the pendency of the action, Mr. Wright died
from the disease.

Asten ultimately moved for summary judgment contending that Mrs.
Wright failed to cite sufficient evidence to establish that Mr.
Wright inhaled asbestos fibers shed from Asten dryer felts. The
trial court granted summary judgment for Asten by order dated
July 9, 2007, and docketed July 10, 2007.

Mrs. Wright filed notice of appeal on July 19, 2007, and she
thereafter filed a statement of errors in compliance with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. In turn, the
trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925.

The Superior Court concluded that there was sufficient record
evidence to withstand summary judgment. Accordingly, the
Superior Court reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded
the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in Weible Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued split rulings in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed against various defendants by
Sara Jane Weible on behalf of her late husband, William Weible.

Judges John T. Bender, Christine L. Donohue, and Robert A.
Freedberg entered judgment in Case No. 2802 EDA 2007 on Dec. 19,
2008.

Mrs. Weible appealed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County's orders granting summary judgment in favor
of Borg-Warner Corporation, Brake & Clutch Company of
Philadelphia, Carlisle Companies Incorporated, and McCord
Corporation.

In June 2005, Mr. Weible was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The
Weibles sued various companies, including Borg-Warner, B & C,
Carlisle, and McCord, alleging that Mr. Weible's exposure to
asbestos caused his mesothelioma. During the pendency of the
action, Mr. Weible died from the disease.

Borg-Warner, B & C, Carlisle, and McCord ultimately moved for
summary judgment contending that Mrs. Weible failed to adduce
sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Weible inhaled
asbestos fibers shed from their respective products.

The trial court granted summary judgment for each of the four
companies by orders dated July 9, 2007, and docketed July 10,
2007.

Mrs. Weible filed notice of appeal on July 19, 2007, and she
thereafter filed a statement of errors in compliance with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. In turn, the
trial court issued an opinion under Rule 1925.

The Superior Court concluded that there was sufficient record
evidence against Borg-Warner, B & C, and Carlisle to withstand
summary judgment.

The order granting summary judgment to Borg-Warner was reversed.
The order granting summary judgment to B & C was reversed. The
order granting summary judgment to Carlisle was reversed. The
matters of Borg-Warner, B & C, and Carlisle were remanded. The
order granting summary judgment to McCord was affirmed.


                            *********

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 2009.  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  * * *