CAR_Public/090116.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, January 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 11

                           Headlines

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit in La. Over "Icon" Contamination
CHEMTURA CORP: Finalizing Settlement in Conn. Securities Suit
CHEMTURA CORP: Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire Remain Pending in Ga.
CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale
ICT GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in Pa. Alleging W.A.R.N. Act Violations

INVENTIV HEALTH: Settlement Talks in "Weisz" Suit Still Ongoing
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Suits Remain Pending in N.Y.
J2 GLOBAL: Internet Facsimile Suit in California Remains Stayed
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in New Jersey
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Constellation Energy Merger

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: April 14 Hearing Slated for $7.25M Suit Deal
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Proposed Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
PCH OPERATIONS: Faces Va. Hospital Workers' Labor-Related Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in "Marshall" Action Still Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: Dismissed from "Bush" Action Last August 2008

PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
RESURRECTION HEALTH: Settles Ill. Lawsuit by Uninsured Patients
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to Include Persons Into Deal Pending
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: AARP Joins as Co-Counsel in Minn. Litigation
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in "Hohider" Suit Pending with 3rd Circuit

UNITIL CORP: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Damages, Halt to Operations
YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Consolidates Competing Fraud Lawsuits


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SATYAM COMPUTER: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
WAMU MORTGAGE: Schoengold Sporn Announces Securities Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at 1175 State Street Site Commences
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OIG Says TVA Overbilled on Cleanup Contract
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Robbins Furniture Site Set for Demolition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Buffalo Official Criticizes Removal Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disputes Delay Jack's Bean Cleanup Project

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Still Has $65Mil Liabilities at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Facing 10,048 Actions at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Still Pursuing Insurance Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No New Developments in Ohio Action v. Chase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $12M Assumption for Litigation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Entered in Arbogast Case on Dec. 12
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bogan Suit v. 87 Companies Filed on Dec. 23
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby Engineer's Family Set to Claim Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morin Pleads Innocent to Cleanup Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Decides on Dursley Engineer's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. College, Charity to Pay Asbestos Fines
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irlam Man Wins Payout From Lancashire Steel
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers Allowed Access to Grace Documents
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Middle School Undergoes Pipe Repairs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Olson Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard Scientifics' Bid v. Murano Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Inspect Kent Firms Starting Feb. '09
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Cowra, NSW, Public Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mullen Worker Seeks Help in Payout Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Concern Closes Schools in Tazewell

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Vinco Facility to Cost $30,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASU to Pay $96,000 for Handling Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Out of 10 Manchester Schools Have Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Urged to Revive Action v. 3 Firms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dollar General Store Cleanup to Cost $7,750

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Litigators' Meetings Slated for Feb., March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered in Austin T. Levy School
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wilson Sues Former Counsel in Federal Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vt. Asbestos Mine Meeting Held on Jan. 12
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plumbers, Firemen & Teachers Still at Risk

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Iowa High School to Resume Cleanup in March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Debris Cleanup at Dargaville Site Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Mo. School May Start in March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Dueitt's Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Issues Ruling on Haggerty Case

ASBESTOS ALERT: Plant Insulation Co. to Pay $4.3M in Damages


                           *********

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit in La. Over "Icon" Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer CropScience, formerly know as Aventis CropScience is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Louisiana  that was
filed by a group of crawfish processors and buyers who blame a
rice pesticide made by the company as a culprit in the killing
crawfish, Richard Burgess of 2TheAdvocate reports.

The case comes 10 years after the introduction of the pesticide
Icon in south Louisiana, where crawfish are often farmed in the
same fields as rice.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed in state court in
St. Landry Parish but has been moved to federal court, according
to 2TheAdvocate.

2TheAdvocate reported that Icon, which has been taken off the
market, was a treatment used on rice seeds before planting.

Farmers argued that the pesticide devastated crawfish being
raised in the same fields as rice.  They cited production
numbers that dropped by more than half the year that Icon was
introduced.

Attorneys argue that the makers of Icon did not conduct thorough
tests to determine the effects of Icon on crawfish and concealed
what information was known about the effects.

The lawsuit claims that as recently as 2006, tests showed that
components of the pesticide still remained at harmful levels in
south Louisiana rice and crawfish fields.

However, the pesticide maker has argued that the drop in
crawfish production was caused by an extensive drought.

The buyers and processors are seeking damages for lost income
and lost market share associated with the declining numbers of
crawfish, reports 2TheAdvocate.


CHEMTURA CORP: Finalizing Settlement in Conn. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the tentative $21-million settlement in the
consolidated securities fraud lawsuit captioned "In Re Crompton
Corp Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-cv-01293-EBB," are
being finalized by the parties, according to Chemtura Corp.'s
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its
former officers and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants),
and certain former directors of the company's predecessor, Witco
Corp., on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  It was brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or
acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and
October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.

The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability
under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Section
20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Crompton Individual Defendants.

The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which motion is now fully
briefed and pending.  The former directors of Witco Corp. filed
a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which motion is pending.

On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.

On April 30, 2008, the parties entered a memorandum of
understanding to settle the lawsuit.  Under the proposed
settlement, the defendants will pay or cause to be paid $21
million and deny any wrongdoing or liability.

The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, Judge Ellen Bree Burns, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nancy@snlaw.net)
        Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. (jnobel@snlaw.net)
        Schatz & Nobel
        One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
        Hartford, CT 06103
        Phone: 860-493-6292
        Fax: 860-493-6290

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com)
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299

         Andrew J. Frackman, Esq. (afrackman@omm.com)
         O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10033
         Phone: 212-326-2000
         Fax: 212-326-2061

              - and -

         Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. (tdgoldberg@dbh.com)
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7383
         Fax: 203-977-7301


CHEMTURA CORP: Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire Remain Pending in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. continues to face several purported class-action
lawsuits in connection with a fire that struck its Conyers,
Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004.

The company and certain of its former officers and employees
were named as defendants in five putative state class action
suits filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia pertaining to the fire.  These lawsuits seek
recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
suffered as a result of the fire (Class Action Reporter, May 4,
2007).

Of the five putative state class-action lawsuits, the plaintiffs
in two cases voluntarily dismissed theirs, leaving three
lawsuits remaining.

These remaining putative state class-action lawsuits, as well as
the putative class-action suit pending in federal district court
seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly
arising from the fire.

Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale
County, Georgia and the Martin case in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  The Martin case also
seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as
well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief.

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

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a producer of
specialty chemicals and polymer products, and a supplier of home
pool and spa chemicals in the U.S.


CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corp. continues to pursue settlement of several
purported antitrust class-action lawsuits involving the sale of
urethanes and urethane chemicals, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Chemtura Corp. and its subsidiary, Uniroyal Chemical Company,
Inc. -- now merged into Chemtura Corp. -- were named as
defendants in certain indirect purchaser antitrust class-action
lawsuits filed in state courts involving the sale of urethanes
and urethane chemicals.

The complaints in these actions principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for urethanes and urethane chemicals, sold in the U.S. in
violation of certain antitrust statutes and consumer protection
and unfair or deceptive practices laws of the relevant
jurisdictions and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who
paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result
of such alleged anticompetitive activities.

There are currently 16 state complaints pending.

On Sept. 12, 2008, the company received final court approval of
a settlement agreement covering 4 of these actions.

In addition, the company has reached a settlement agreement
covering the remaining 12 complaints, all of which are pending
in a coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Francisco.

Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a global
producer of specialty chemicals and polymer products and
supplier of home pool and spa chemicals.  The products are used
in a variety of markets, including automotive, transportation,
construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for
durable and non-durable goods, electronics and the home pool and
spa chemical markets.  The segments of the company include
Polymer Additives, Performance Specialties, Consumer Products,
Crop Protection, and Other.


ICT GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in Pa. Alleging W.A.R.N. Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Workers Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, GoErie.com reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 9, 2009 by Charles E. Smith
under the caption, "Smith v. ICT Group, Case No. 1:09-cv-00006-
SJM."

Mr. Smith, who was lost his job in December, claims the size of
the company and the number of people it permanently laid off in
Erie -- approximately 100 -- constituted a "mass layoff" under
the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,
According to the GoErie.com report.

He also claims in the suit workers were entitled to notice that
they were eligible for assistance under the W.A.R.N. Act and
that ICT was required to provide to laid-off workers 60 days
worth of wages and other benefits for the period between Dec.
30, 2008, and Feb. 28, 2009.

The plaintiff is seeking that pay, as well as reimbursement for
his legal fees, reports GoErie.com.

The suit is "Smith v. ICT Group, Case No. 1:09-cv-00006-SJM,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, Judge Sean J. McLaughlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lawrence C. Bolla, Esq. (lbolla@quinnfirm.com)
          Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, Inc.
          2222 West Grandview Boulevard
          Erie, PA 16506-4508
          Phone: (814) 833-2222
          Fax: (814) 835-2076


INVENTIV HEALTH: Settlement Talks in "Weisz" Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No.
GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a
business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- are continuing to
engage in settlement discussions, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in
the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer
Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug
store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies.

The suit alleged, among other claims, violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the
operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance
programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs.

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris
as a defendant to the lawsuit.  A subsequent amendment to the
complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class
representative to the purported class action.

After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's
various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical
manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the
case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as
the remaining defendants in the action.

In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended
complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in
eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach
of privacy claims.  The plaintiff's class allegations were
stricken as improper with leave to amend.

An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008.
The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims
and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper.  These
motions were denied.

In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted.

As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris:

       -- violation of the CMIA;
       -- breach of fiduciary duty;
       -- unjust enrichment; and
       -- breach of privacy.

On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment
on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.  Adheris intends to join
in these arguments.  This motion currently is set to be heard on
Oct. 3, 2008.

On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60-
day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation.  The agreement included taking off calendar all
pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days.  The
parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing
for mediation (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 10, 2008).

inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a
provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life
sciences and healthcare industries.  The company supports a
range of clinical development, communications and
commercialization activities that are critical to its customers'
ability to complete the development of drug products and medical
devices and commercialize them.  inVentiv provides services to
over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global
pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and
payors.  The company's service offerings reflect the changing
needs of its clients as their products move through the late-
stage development and regulatory approval processes and into
product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Securities Fraud Suits Remain Pending in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial Inc. continues to face two purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, asserting substantially
similar claims.

                     Citiline Litigation

On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on
behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

                    Christenson Litigation

On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007
public offering.

The complaint names the company and certain of its current
executive officers as defendants.  It alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
December 2007 public offering.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering.

The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuits, no class has been certified and discovery has not yet
commenced, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a
finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry.
The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and
corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine
real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital,
corporate net lease financing and equity.  It has two primary
lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing.  Its
primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the
interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease
income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease
corporate tenant lease properties.  The lending business
primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans
that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have
maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years.  The company's corporate
tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and
others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit-
worthy customers.


J2 GLOBAL: Internet Facsimile Suit in California Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit against j2 Global Communications,
Inc., that alleges the company has attempted to monopolize and
monopolized the market for Internet facsimile services to home
and small offices, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
remains stayed.

The suit was filed by Justin Lynch on June 29, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
claims relate in substantial part to the patent infringement
actions by the company against various companies.

The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys fees
and costs.

On Aug. 24, 2007, the company filed an answer to the complaint
denying liability.  The case has been stayed, subject to the
plaintiff filing a request to lift the stay.  The plaintiff has
not filed a request to lift the stay, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Justin Lynch v. j2 Global Communications Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04304-DDP-AJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dean D.
Pregerson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq. (mjt@wtwlaw.us)
          Wexler Toriseva Wallace
          1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Phone: 916-568-1100


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Faces Gender Discrimination Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 14, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Lockheed
Martin (NYSE:LMT) has been sued in federal court in a class
action for sex discrimination.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of the plaintiff and the class by Console Law Offices LLC.  The
complaint alleges that women are being denied professional
advancement opportunities in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

     Plaintiff filed the class action suit on behalf of herself
and all current and former female management level employees who
have been denied upper management level positions outside of the
Human Resources, Communications and Ethics departments.  This
includes women nationwide who have been affected by Lockheed
Martin's discriminatory practices since March 1, 2006.

     The lead plaintiff, Carol Bell, a veteran of the company,
asserts that she and other females employed by Lockheed Martin
face a "glass ceiling bias" that prevents them from being
considered for upper management level positions.

     Moreover, according to the suit, the women that do hold
these senior leadership positions are primarily relegated to
"traditionally female" departments, such as the Human Resources,
Ethics, and Communications.

     The complaint alleges that in the rare case when women are
able to obtain senior positions, they are paid less than the men
who previously held the same position.

     According to the complaint, it is Lockheed Martin's
practice to not post openings for positions Director-level and
above (contrary to its policy for lower-level positions which
are posted).

     The complaint also alleges that in regard to these
management positions, Lockheed Martin does not have an
application or a formal interview process and instead makes
promotion decisions in secret meetings behind closed doors in
which women often are not present.

     Plaintiff also alleges that Lockheed Martin denies women
leadership and mentoring opportunities.  Plaintiff alleges that,
in contrast, male employees with lesser qualifications and
experience find themselves on a fast track to being promoted.

     The suit seeks an order that Lockheed Martin establish fair
employment practices in which promotion and hiring are
concerned, an injunction that would bar the corporation from any
acts of discrimination in the future and compensatory and
punitive damages.

     The suit is captioned, "Bell v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
Civil Action No. 08-cv-06292," which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

For more details, contact:

          Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq.
          Jennifer Grissom, Esq.
          Console Law Offices LLC
          Phone: 215-545-7676
          e-mail: info@consolelaw.com


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Faces Suits Over Constellation Energy Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. faces lawsuits over the merger
with Constellation Energy Group, Inc., according to its Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Beginning Sept. 18, 2008, six shareholders of Constellation
Energy have filed lawsuits in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland challenging the proposed merger.

Four of those lawsuits were brought as shareholder class actions
and two were brought as shareholder derivative actions.

The four shareholder class-action suits claim that Constellation
Energy and members of its board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders in agreeing to the proposed
merger.

One of these four shareholder class-action suits also names the
company as a defendant, alleging that it aided and abetted
members of Constellation Energy's board of directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties.

The two shareholder derivative actions allege that members of
Constellation Energy's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the company in agreeing to the proposed
merger and that MEHC aided and abetted members of the board of
directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

The shareholder class actions and shareholder derivative actions
claim that the merger consideration is inadequate and does not
maximize value for shareholders, that the sales process leading
up to the merger was unreasonably short and procedurally flawed,
and that unreasonable deal protection devices were agreed to
that ward off competing bids and coerce shareholders into
accepting the merger.

There are two shareholder class actions pending in the U.S.
District Court of the District of Maryland arising out of the
proposed transaction between Constellation Energy and MEHC.  The
company is a defendant in both complaints.

On Sept. 19, 2008, MEHC, Constellation Energy and MEHC Merger
Sub Inc. signed an Agreement and Plan of Merger, which provides
that Merger Sub will merge with and into Constellation Energy.
As a result of the merger, Constellation Energy will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the company.

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. -- http://www.midamerican.com/
-- is a public utility with electric and natural gas operations.
The Company is primarily engaged in the business of generating,
transmitting, distributing and selling electric energy and in
distributing, selling and transporting natural gas.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: April 14 Hearing Slated for $7.25M Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
will hold a fairness hearing on April 14, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed $7.25 million settlement in the matter, "In Re:
Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:04-cv-
00330-ODS."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Ortrie D. Smith in
the Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse, 400 E. 9th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

The Kansas City Business Journal previously reported NovaStar
Financial, Inc. has agreed to pay $7.25 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit.  The
settlement agreement, filed on Dec. 8, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri, includes no
admission of wrongdoing by Kansas City-based NovaStar (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2008).

Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar securities
class action complaint were filed against the company and three
of its executive officers (Class Action Reporter, June 19,
2008).

On Aug. 23, 2004, Judge Ortrie D. Smith issued an order
consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re
NovaStar Financial Securities Litigation," and appointed lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  The lead plaintiffs filed their
consolidated class action complaint on Nov. 12, 2004.

The consolidated complaint generally alleged that the defendants
made public statements that were misleading or failed to
disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters.

The complaint names as defendants:

     -- the company;

     -- Lance W. Anderson, president, and chief operating
        officer;

     -- Michael L. Bamburg, senior vice president and chief
        investment officer;

     -- Scott Hartman, chairman of the board and chief executive
        officer; and

     -- Rodney E. Schwatken, vice president, secretary,
        treasurer, and controller.

The plaintiffs purported to bring the consolidated action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
and sellers of put options on the company's common stock during
the period Oct. 29, 2003, through April 8, 2004.

According to the complaint, NovaStar fostered an aggressive-
growth culture throughout the class period.  NovaStar touted its
rapid growth in earnings, production, and its securities
portfolio and highlighted the increasing number of NovaStar-
affiliated branch offices.

The suit notes that in 2003, the company had reported that it
had doubled the number of branch offices in operation and that
its earnings had more than doubled in 2003 to $112 million.

The suit is "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, Judge Ortrie D. Smith,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          (jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-607-6871
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               -- and --

          William W. Wickersham, Esq.
          Entwitle & Cappucci, LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: 212-894-7200

Representing the defendants are:

          Erin Bansal, Esq. (ebansal@orrick.com)
          William F. Alderman, Esq. (walderman@orrick.com)
          Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Proposed Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Openwave Systems
Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," is subject
to court approval, according to Openwave Systems, Inc.'s Nov. 7,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
before the Honorable Denise Cote, at the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom
11B, New York, NY 10007 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 17, 2008).

                         Case Background

Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four
substantially similar securities class-action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Openwave and four current and former officers
of the company.

The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002,
through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period,
the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and
issued materially false and misleading statements in the
company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner
in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of
action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and a second against the individual defendants for violation of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern
District of California where the related shareholder derivative
class actions are pending.

On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the
four securities class action suits into a single action
captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master
File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  The consolidated and amended
complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including:

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,

     * KPMG LLP,

     * Merrill Lynch,

     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and

     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for
violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out
of the company's 2005 public offering.  It seeks money damages,
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company is required under contracts with the individual
defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for
attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead
plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead
counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the
class.

On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  On Oct. 31,
2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted
under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against
whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to
dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against
certain of the officer and director defendants.

However, the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted
against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer
defendants was denied.

As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan
Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed
as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit.

The remaining defendants are the company, certain former
officers of the company, and certain former and current
directors of the company.

The parties commenced discovery with respect to class
certification and the merits.  On June 23, 2008, the lead
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.  On July 18,
2008, the company filed its opposition to the lead plaintiff's
motion, and all of the individual defendants joined in that
opposition.

On Oct. 24, 2008, while the motion for class certification was
pending and discovery was ongoing, the lead plaintiff and
defendants reached an agreement to settle the action.

On Nov. 5, 2008, the court entered a preliminary order approving
the settlement.  The settlement will be funded in part by
insurance and in part by the company.  The settlement is subject
to court approval.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, the company accrued
for a legal settlement of $20.0 million, offset by a $15.0
million receivable from the insurance carriers, leaving the net
amount of $5.0 million as the company's estimate of its
settlement cost.

The suit is "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation
(Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-554-1463
          Fax: 212-554-1444

               - and -

          Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Phone: 212-351-3905
          Fax: 212-351-5243

               - and -

          Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com)
          Sidley Austin LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-839-5300
          Fax: 212-839-5599


PCH OPERATIONS: Faces Va. Hospital Workers' Labor-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PCH Operations, LLC d/b/a R.J. Reynolds-Patrick County Memorial
Hospital, the former owner of Patrick County Memorial Hospital,
along with its former bosses Steve Womack and Gene Woodward are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit from a group of hospital
workers.

Scott Leamon of WSLS10 reported that the current and former
employees claim they're owed substantial wages and benefits for
work performed for the hospital's previous owner.

According to a lawsuit filed in Patrick County Circuit Court by
attorney John Fishwick, Esq., the group claims they have not
been paid what was owed to them, since a number of the employees
were let go on Oct. 29, 2008, reports WSLS10.

WDBJ7.com reported that the employees are claiming that Patrick
County Memorial Hospital, which up until recently was managed by
North Carolina-based PCH Operations, not only fired them without
warning last October, but also didn't give them a final
paycheck.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the previous owners weren't
paying employee benefits even though money was coming out of
employee checks.

Mr. Fishwick told WDBJ7.com, "Well, we think the total is over
$200,000 that's owed to folks for paychecks, health premium that
weren't paid, and for 401K payments that weren't made, and for
not purchasing uniforms that they took money out for, a very
significant amount of money."


PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in "Marshall" Action Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the purported class action,
"Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc.," which was filed with
the Superior Court of the state of Delaware for New Castle
County.

On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals
filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
similarly situated consumers.

The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et
seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances
nationwide, and service fees.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005.
It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its
motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted that stay
on May 11, 2005.

On June 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for
breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed all claims arising under the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act.  It also dismissed all claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing
that relate to Company's charges for service fees.

The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the breach of
contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims
as they relate to the Company's charges to consumers to cover
taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances.

The plaintiffs have stated their intent to seek leave to amend
their complaint.

On Aug. 28, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend their complaint to assert additional claims for breach
of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing
alleging that the company included a hidden fee within its room
rate charge.  The plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on Sept. 12, 2008, and the company answered that
complaint on Sept. 26, 2008.

The parties are presently conducting discovery, according to the
company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Dismissed from "Bush" Action Last August 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported consumer class-action lawsuit entitled, "Bush, et
al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et al.," was dismissed against
Priceline.com, Inc. without prejudice on Aug. 6, 2008.

The putative class action complaint was filed on Feb. 17, 2005,
with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by Ronald
Bush and three other individuals on behalf of themselves and
other allegedly similarly situated California consumers against
the company and several other defendants.

The complaint alleges that each of the defendants engaged in
acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 17200
relating to their respective disclosures and charges to
customers to cover taxes under the ordinances of the City of Los
Angeles and other California cities, and service fees.

The complaint seeks restitution, relief for alleged conversion,
including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of
a constructive trust.

On July 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
adding claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of
contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered
that motions challenging the amended complaint would be
coordinated with any similar motions filed in the City of Los
Angeles action.

Since that time, the Company has provided limited discovery and
opposed the plaintiffs' motion to compel further discovery.

On July 11, 2008, the plaintiffs proposed a draft second amended
complaint that withdraws claims against certain defendants,
including the company, but not others.  The company has not
opposed the proposed amendments, according to its Nov. 7, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits over hotel occupancy taxes, according to the
company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

A number of cities and counties have filed putative class
actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly
situated cities and counties within the same respective state
against the Company and other defendants, including, but not in
all cases:

       -- Lowestfare.com Incorporated and Travelweb LLC, both of
          which are subsidiaries of the Company;

       -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

       -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

       -- Hotwire, Inc.;

       -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

       -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
          Services Group, Inc.);

       -- Expedia, Inc.;

       -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

       -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

       -- Orbitz, Inc.;

       -- Orbitz, LLC;

       -- Site59.com, LLC;

       -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

       -- Travelocity.com LP; and

       -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.

Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages,
disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and
other relief.

Such actions include:

   -- City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.

   -- City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
      Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
      Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.

   -- City of Jefferson, Missouri v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.

   -- City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

   -- The City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v.
      priceline.com Incorporated, et al.

   -- The Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
      Incorporated, et al.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


RESURRECTION HEALTH: Settles Ill. Lawsuit by Uninsured Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resurrection Health Care Hospitals has reportedly settled a
class action lawsuit in Illinois that alleged uninsured patients
were charged excessively more than insured patients, Liza Roche
of the Pioneer Press Online reports.

The system is one of the area's largest health providers and
includes Saint Francis Hospital in Evanston and West Suburban
Medical Center in Oak Park, as well as a number of medical
centers in Chicago, according to the Pioneer Press Online.

The lawsuit contended that Resurrection Hospitals charged
uninsured patients unreasonable rates for the medical services
they provided and, as a result, breached contracts with its
patients, violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Businesses Practices Act.

The Pioneer Press Online reported that Resurrection Health
System has denied all of the allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability and damage of any kind but agreed to modify their
billing structure and reduce the charges to all uninsured
patients in order to avoid the cost of protracted litigation.
Moreover, charitable financial assistance will be available to
those least able to pay the hospital charges.

In a press release, George Bellas, Esq. of Clifford Law Offices,
one of the lead attorneys on the case said that about 220,000
potential claimants received notices of the settlement in the
mail, reports the Pioneer Press Online.

For more details, contact:

          Resurrection Health Care Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 56798
          Jacksonville, FL 32241-6798
          Phone: 1-877-498-8914
          Web site: http://www.resclassaction.com/


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Motion to Include Persons Into Deal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.'s motion requesting a California court
to include certain individuals in the $7.5-million settlement of
a class-action lawsuit against the company that relates to how
the company classified certain employees under California
overtime laws remains pending.

Initially, in 2001, two similar class-action lawsuits were filed
against the company.  These lawsuits were consolidated into one
action.

The consolidated action involves the issue of whether current
and former employees in the general manager and assistant
manager positions who worked in the company's California
restaurants during specified time periods were misclassified as
exempt and deprived of overtime pay.  It also asserts claims for
alleged missed meal and rest breaks.

In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to recover
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.

On March 19, 2007, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the class action representatives to settle the
matter.

Although the company denies the allegations underlying the
consolidated action, it has agreed to the proposed settlement to
avoid significant legal fees, other expenses and management time
that would have to be devoted to pursue a victory in litigation.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a settlement payment of $7.5
million in the aggregate (including attorneys' fees and costs,
fees for administering the settlement and any employer taxes).

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 23, 2007.  The settlement agreement was then approved on a
final basis by the court in June 2007.

The total settlement amount is payable in three installments.
The first $2.5 million installment was paid on Aug. 31, 2007.
The second $2.5 million installment is due on or before Dec. 28,
2008.  The third and final installment of $2.5 million is due on
or before June 28, 2010.

The company recently learned that approximately 160 current and
former employees who qualified to participate as class members
in this class action settlement were not included in the
settlement list approved by the court, and some number of these
individuals may file claims to participate in the class action.

It has filed a motion requesting the court to include these
individuals in the approved settlement and to provide that their
claims are payable out of the aggregate settlement payment, as
the company believes the parties intended when they reached a
settlement.  The matter has not yet been resolved, according to
the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
28, 2008.

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.rubios.com/-- owns,
operates and franchises restaurants.  As of March 25, 2008, the
company owned and operated 174 fast-casual Mexican restaurants,
three licensed locations, and two franchised restaurants that
offers Mexican cuisine, including chargrilled chicken, steak and
fresh seafood items, such as burritos, tacos and quesadillas
inspired by the Baja, California region of Mexico.  The company
has two wholly owned subsidiaries: Rubio's Restaurants of
Nevada, Inc., and and Rubio's Promotions, Inc.  Its restaurants
are located in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Utah.
The company's menu includes the Fish Tacos, HealthMex and Kid's
Meals.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: AARP Joins as Co-Counsel in Minn. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARP, the advocacy group for seniors, has joined as co-counsel
in a class-action age discrimination lawsuit brought against
Seagate Technology by former engineers of the company who say
they were targeted for layoffs, Julie Forster of the Pioneer
Press reports.

Three AARP litigators and support staff will join Minneapolis-
based attorneys as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, according to
the Pioneer Press report.

Commenting on the AARP backing, Beth Bertelson, Esq., one of the
attorneys in the case told Pioneer Press, "From our perspective,
it's wonderful."  She adds, "They have a long history of
advocating for older Americans and their involvement will not
only carry out their goal but will also help us in protecting
the rights of the older people involved in this case."

                         Case Background

Twenty-one employees have filed a class-action complaint on May
27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
accusing Seagate Technology, Inc. of discriminating against
workers older than 40 by firing them (Class Action Reporter,
June 4, 2007).

Named plaintiffs:

     -- James Peterson,
     -- David Olson,
     -- Paul Calcagno,
     -- Rebecca Chwialkowski,
     -- Gary Egbert,
     -- Narenda Garg,
     -- Luana Goodnough,
     -- William Grunwald,
     -- David Hurd,
     -- Rick Kehrwald,
     -- David Legut,
     -- Karen Lieberg,
     -- charles Lucas,
     -- Daniel Michael McDaniel,
     -- Theresa Raskob,
     -- Thomas Schaff,
     -- Jane Thomes,
     -- Keith Turnbull,
     -- Susan Walseth,
     -- Lee Walter, and
     -- Ronald Wrase.

They are seeking relief under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et. seq.

According to the complaint each plaintiff was terminated
pursuant to the same corporate pattern or practice, including
but not limited to:

     -- being over age 40,
     -- treated adversely,
     -- terminated in mass terminations in 2004,
     -- geographic location,
     -- similar untruthful reasons given for termination
     -- qualified for the position or positions he or she held,
        and
     -- able to perform his or her duties in a satisfactory
        manner.

The complaint further alleges that despite plaintiffs'
qualifications, Seagate subjected plaintiffs to adverse
treatment in the terms, conditions and privileges of their
employment and termination due to their age.

Specific alleged adverse treatment, pattern or practice, and
policy infected by age discrimination includes, but is not
limited to, the following:

     (a) terminating the plaintiffs' employment;

     (b) transferring older workers to jobs or departments which
         were planned to be phased out or eliminated;

     (c) consciously deciding not to comply with the Older
         Workers Benefit Protection Act;

     (d) taking responsibilities away from older employees and
         giving them to younger, less qualified employees;

     (e) claiming to "eliminate" jobs that were not eliminated;

     (f) instructing older employees to train in their younger
         replacements;

     (g) telling older employees that they lacked skills that
         they in fact had;

     (h) hiring younger employees shortly before and after
         firing the plaintiffs;

     (i) failing to transfer older employees into open
         positions;

     (j) terminating older employees with worse performance
         records that older employees;

     (k) retaining younger employees with worse performance
         records than older employees;

     (l) responding (a Seagate executive) to a question about
         criteria used for termination decisions with: "If they
         are older they do not need to be around here any
         longer.";

     (m) failing to hire, to interview and at times to even
         acknowledge the applications of qualified, terminated
         older plaintiffs for open positions;

     (n) asking (Seagate management) older employees "why don't
         you retire?";

     (o) using systemic, company-wide criteria and/or rankings
         for terminations that were subjective and that
         evidenced ageism;

     (p) excluding recently hired younger employees from the
         mass firings;

     (q) pressuring older employees to choose between retiring
         (Special Incentive Retirement Program) or firing;

     (r) transferring younger employees to "safe" positions
         before and during the terminations; and

     (s) indicating a preference for a younger workforce by
         using such terms as, "new blood" and "new degrees".

The plaintiffs claim they and other terminated Seagate employees
received a package of materials from the company, including a
Special Separation Agreement and General Release of claims which
purported to release all claims against Seagate, including
claims of age discrimination under the ADEA.

Seagate Human Resources employees asked the terminated employees
to sign the releases immediately, without allowing them to
consider it or consult with an attorney, the suit claims.

The company failed to comply with the Older Workers Benefits
Protection Act, which includes, but are not limited to:

     (1) misrepresenting the number of employees selected for
         termination;
     (2) omitting employees from the list of employees selected
         for termination;
     (3) failing to write the materials in a manner calculated
         to be understood by the average individual eligible to
         participate; and
     (4) ignoring other requirements of the OWBPA, including,
         but not limited to, failing to disclose the selection
         criteria/eligibility factors used to select the
         individuals chosen for termination.

Seagate also violated the OWBPA because plaintiffs were induced
to sign the release by Seagate's misrepresentations.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment in their
favor and against Seagate as follows:

     -- finding in favor of plaintiffs and all those similarly
        situated that Seagate violated the ADEA;
     -- finding in favor of plaintiffs and all those similarly
        situated that Seagate willfully violated the ADEA;
     -- permanently restraining Seagate from ever again
        discriminating against plaintiffs or any other
        individuals on the basis of that individual's age;
     -- awarding each of the plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
        back pay and other appropriate compensation and benefits
        under the ADEA, together with interest;
     -- restoring each of the plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs
        to positions comparable to those from which they were
        terminated or, in lieu of reinstatement, awarding each
        plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff front pay and benefits
        under the ADEA from the period remaining until that
        person's expected retirement age;
     -- awarding each plaintiff and opt-in plaintiff liquidated
        damages pursuant to the ADEA in an amount equal to that
        person's back pay and benefits award, together with
        interest thereon;
     -- declaring that plaintiffs are entitled to test the
        validity of the releases of age discrimination under the
        ADEA in a court of law without tendering back any
        benefits received, or suffering a discontinuation of
        benefits to be received, pursuant to said release,
        regardless of whether said release is ultimately
        determined to comply with the OWBPA;
     -- declaring that the release of age discrimination under
        the ADEA presented by Seagate to plaintiffs and other
        similarly situated employees of Seagate are invalid as a
        matter of law, that said releases were not and cannot as
        a matter of law be ratified, and that plaintiffs and
        other opt-in plaintiffs who signed such releases are
        entitled to keep the benefits received and to continue
        to receive said benefits while pursuing rights under the
        ADEA;
     -- awarding attorneys fees and costs as appropriate
        pursuant to the relevant statutes;
     -- awarding prejudgment interest, costs and disbursement as
        appropriate; and
     -- awarding such other and further relief as the court
        and/or jury deems equitable, appropriate and just.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

                  http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?208b

The suit is "Peterson et al v. Seagate US LLC et al., Case No.
0:07-cv-02502-MJD-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Beth Bertelson, Esq.
          Andrea R. Ostapowich, Esq.
          Bertelson Law Office
          333 Washington Ave N Ste 101
          Mpls, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-278-9832
          Fax: 612-340-0190
          E-mail: beth@bertelsonlaw.com or
                  andrea@bertelsonlaw.com

          - and -

          Dorene R. Sarnoski, Esq.
          Dorene R. Sarnoski Law Office
          333 Washington Ave N, Ste 101
          Mpls, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-359-0050
          Fax: 612-340-0190
          E-mail: dsarnoski@qwest.net


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in "Hohider" Suit Pending with 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc.'s appeal of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania's recent certification
order in the matter "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC," remains pending with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004, charging UPS with systematic
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal
law that protects persons with disabilities from employment
discrimination (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2007).

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, UPS
maintains a policy, pattern and practice of requiring employees
to provide a "full" or "100 percent" medical release, without
restrictions, before permitting employees to return to work
following a medical leave of absence.

The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in good faith
with its disabled employees to determine the extent of their
disabilities and what work the employees can perform at UPS
within the limits of their work restrictions, instead conducting
a sham investigation of the workers' medical condition, which
invariably results in a decision by UPS that the individual is
either too disabled to work at any job UPS has or not disabled
enough to warrant the protection of federal laws that require
UPS to assist the worker to return to work.  Either way UPS puts
the employee out of a job at the company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently
disabled employees in a position that will accommodate their
medical restrictions in situations where reinstating them would
not impose an undue hardship on the company.

Finally, the lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who
have filed workers compensation or discrimination claims by
refusing to let them return to work even if a 100% release is
eventually submitted, and in violation of the workers' seniority
rights under UPS' collective bargaining agreement with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS
from engaging in discriminatory employment practices in
violation of the ADA, as well as the implementation of policies
that provide equal employment opportunities for persons with
present, past or perceived disabilities.

The court certified the suit as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's petition to hear its appeal of the trial
court's recent certification order.

The appeal will likely take one year, according to the company's
Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Hohider v. United Parcel Service, et al., Case No.
2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
presiding.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com)
          312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916
          Phone: 412-281-1110
          Fax: 412-281-8481

          Donald A. Broggi, Esq. (dbroggi@scott-scott.com)
          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565

          Erin G. Comite, Esq. (ecomite@scott-scott.com)
          Anita M. Laing, Esq. (alaing@scott-scott.com)
          David R. Scott, Esq. (drscott@scott-scott.com)
          Scott & Scott
          108 Norwich Avenue, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: 860-537-5537
                 860-537-3818

               - and -

          Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
          (jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.com)
          Kimberly M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Equal Justice Foundation
          88 East Broad Street, Suite 1590
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-221-9800
          Fax: 614-221-9810

Representing defendant are:

          Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com)
          David J. McAllister, Esq. (dmcallister@reedsmith.com)
          Joseph P. McHugh, Esq. (jmchugh@reedsmith.com)
          Perry A. Napolitano, Esq. (pnapolitano@reedsmith.com)
          Reed Smith
          435 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
          Phone: 412-288-7216
                 412-288-3131


UNITIL CORP: Faces Lawsuit Seeking Damages, Halt to Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
     FITCHBURG, Jan 14, 2009 (Sentinel & Enterprise - McClatchy-
Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- A Fitchburg attorney
has filed a class-action lawsuit seeking damages from Unitil
Corp. and demanding the power company cease its operations in
the state because it allegedly mismanaged the response to last
month's storm and failed to provide adequate services.

     "The company clearly has an obligation to protect its
consumers," said Fitchburg attorney Edwin H. Howard.  "And I
think in this case they really failed."

     The suit has been filed in Worcester Superior Court, but
has not yet been served to the company, Howard said.

     Howard said he has sent Unitil a letter demanding customers
recoup damages from the storm and the company divest its holding
in the state, the first step in a class action suit. Unitil's
response to that letter, Howard said, will determine how the
lawsuit will proceed.

     Unitil officials declined to comment on the lawsuit.

     "The ice storm of 2008 was one of the most destructive
storms the region's electrical infrastructure has ever
encountered, and we understand our customers' frustrations given
the unprecedented severity of the storm and the hardships many
endured as a result," Unitil spokesman Wesley Eberle wrote in a
statement.  "We have a method for processing customer claims,
each of which is taken very seriously.

     The lawsuit states that the company had an obligation to
provide adequate and reliable service, but failed to maintain
its infrastructure and have an adequate program to cut
vegetation and trees.

     The lawsuit also alleges that the company failed to
adequately respond to the storm and mismanaged efforts to
restore power, prolonging the outage.

     It also states that Unitil's actions constituted "gross
negligence" and a breach of it's implied contracts with
customers.

     "The defendant knew or should have known the inadequacy and
unreliability of its electrical service and emergency plan and
willfully, knowingly and wrongfully permitted the same,
resulting in great hardship and loss to its business customers
and users," the suit states.

     Furthermore, the suit alleges that once the outage
commenced, the company failed to keep customers apprised of when
power would be restored. Then the company allegedly sent
unjustified "estimated" bills to customers.

     "(By) forcing them to advance funds at no interest to the
company for electricity they did not use," the suit states.
"Defendant's conduct was unfair and deceptive."

     Howard said he sent the demand letter to Unitil around Jan.
6 and said he expects a response by early February.

     The demand letter, he said, seeks a compensation program be
created in which any eligible person can file a claim for his or
her reasonable verifiable damages from the storm.

     The letter also asks that the company institute adequate
vegetation and tree cutting services, better maintain its power
system and set up a special monitor to implement and oversee
changes at the company, Howard said.

     If the company is unable to do that, the suit demands that
the company divest its holdings in Massachusetts, meaning Unitil
would leave and let another utility serve the state.

     He said the letter gives the company an opportunity to make
a reasonable offer of settlement to resolve the case short a
trial.

     "I'm anxiously waiting a response from the Utility
company," Howard said. "It's certainly our hope there will be a
dialogue started, then we'll see how it progresses."

     Howard said the company does not make a reasonable offer in
response to the demand letter, then the lawsuit could be
pursued. If a trial finds that the company is at fault, Howard
said Unitil could be held responsible for damages listed in the
suit, paying attorney's fees and any other damages determined by
a court.

     Howard, who has worked in Fitchburg for more than 30 years
and lives in Lunenburg, said he lost power for about a week and
a half during the storm and since then has fielded hundreds
calls from residents urging him to file such a suit. Howard said
he's prosecuted a handful of class action suits in the past.

     Howard said he's had initial conversations with
representatives from the four communities that have Unitil as a
provider -- Ashby, Lunenburg, Fitchburg and Townsend -- and said
he hopes to work with them on the case.

     The suit lists 13 plaintiffs as parties bringing the suit
forward, but as a class action suit, it could represent any
residents or businesses that use Unitil as a power provider in
the region, Howard said.

     Howard said a judge will ultimately decide who exactly is
part of the suit, but he said any resident or businesses
interested in seeking damages or being part of the suit does not
have to do anything.

     "Everybody's on board by operation of it being a class
action," he said.

  
YTB INT'L: Illinois Judge Consolidates Competing Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois consolidated two competing class-
action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., Ann Knef of the
St. Clair Record reports.

In general the lawsuits claim that the company operates an
illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs an illegal chain
referral sales technique in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Following a hearing in December 2008, lawyers in both cases
agreed that consolidation was appropriate.  Judge Murphy entered
his order on Jan. 6, 2009, according to the St. Clair Record.

Sanford J. Schmidt of The Telegraph reported that at a recent
hearing, Judge Murphy told the two sides he was unwilling to
hear two parallel cases at the same time.  The judge said,
"We're not going to be hearing two cases at one time."  He
added, "It makes a lot of sense to file one complaint" (Class
Action Reporter Dec. 17, 2008).

However, Judge Murphy pointed out that even if the suits were
consolidated, the earliest trial date would be in 2010.  To that
end, the judge gave the lawyers two weeks to come up with an
agreement to consolidate the cases, or he would issue an order
of his own choosing, reports The Telegraph.

Previously, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reported
that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois set a Dec. 8, 2008 status conference for two purported
class-action lawsuits against YTB International, Inc., which
alleges that the company is an illegal pyramid scheme (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2008).

One of the suits was filed by Faye Morrison and Kwame Thompson
on Aug. 8, 2008.  They seek to represent a putative class who
allege YTB operates an illegal pyramid sales scheme and employs
an illegal chain referral sales technique in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Ms. Morrison, of St. Louis and Mr. Thompson, of Atlanta, acted
as both independent marketing representatives (IMRs) and
referring travel agents (RTAs) for YTB.  Their suit seeks at
least $100 million in damages on behalf of the putative class,
the Madison County Record reports.

The two have retained Rex Carr, Christian Montroy and Michael
Marker of East St. Louis to represent them.  In addition, Jay
Kanzler, Jr., and Brian Massimino of St. Louis will assist in
representing the class.

The Madison County Record reported that the second purported
class-action suit against YTB and its subsidiaries was filed by
Jeffrey and Polly Hartman.  Their suit is almost identical to
the first case, however they are represented by different
lawyers.  They filed their lawsuit, captioned, "Hartman et al.
v. YTB International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00579-MJR-
CJP," seven days after the first one.

John Carey, Tiffany Marko and Francis "Casey" Flynn of Carey &
Danis in St. Louis represent the Hartmans, according to the
Madison County Record.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SATYAM COMPUTER: Murray Frank Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of investors who purchased American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Satyam Computer Services Ltd.
("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) during the period between
January 06, 2004 and January 06, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint alleges that the Company and its top
executives violated Sections 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 the NYSE halted trading in
the ADSs.  After trading resumed on Monday, January 12, 2009,
Satyam's ADSs fell the most ever, $7.89 or 84.39%, from the
previous trading date closing price of $9.35, to close at $1.46.

For more information, contact:

          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Phone: 212-682-1818
                 800-497-8076
          e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/


WAMU MORTGAGE: Schoengold Sporn Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY -- 01/14/09 -- Schoengold Sporn Laitman &
Lometti, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006-AR1, WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series
2006-AR2, WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-
AR3, WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4,
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR6, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR7, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR8, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR10, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR11, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR12, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR13, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR14, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR15, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR16, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR17, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR18, WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR19, Washington
Mutual Bank, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation, David Beck,
Biane Novak, Thomas Green, Rolland Jurgens, Richard Careaga and
WaMu Capital Corporation, Docket No. 09-CV-0037 (MJP).

     The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates who purchased said
certificates pursuant or traceable to the common Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 30, 2005.

     The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that
defendants made material misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offerings regarding the collateral
underlying the certificates.

For more details, contact:

          Christopher Lometti, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
          19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
          New York, New York 10038
          Phone: (212) 964-0046 or (866) 348-7700
          Fax: (212) 267-8137
          Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at 1175 State Street Site Commences
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn, N.Y.-based developer State Assets LLC, on Jan. 6,
2009, commenced asbestos cleanup at a 1175 State Street site in
New Haven, Conn., after the U.S. Department of Labor's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration charged the
Company for 18 violations for unsafe working conditions, TMCnews
reports.

In November 2008, OSHA fined the firm US$48,100 for lack of
asbestos monitoring, exposed live electrical wires and unlabeled
containers of hazardous chemicals, among other citations.

State Assets has contested the asbestos violations, but settled
the remaining 13 counts on Dec. 16, 2008, agreeing to develop a
written safety program and pay a US$10,650 fine.

According to OSHA spokesman Ted Fitzgerald, those counts had
initially carried a US$14,100 fine.

A large pile of asbestos-coated debris remains outside the old
factory. While the state Department of Environmental Protection
forced State Assets to cover the material with a tarp in June
2008, that plastic is no longer serving its purpose, covering
only small bits of the mound.

DEP case investigator Jacquelyn Holiday said the material does
not pose a risk to the public.

Project manager for the cleanup Sanjay Patel, on Jan. 6, 2009,
said had just arrived at the site and had yet to assess the
extent of the work needed.

Investigators from numerous state, federal and city agencies,
including OSHA, the federal Environmental Protection Agency's
Criminal Investigation Division and the Department of Public
Health descended on the century-old factory building at State
and James streets in June 2008, following a worker's complaint
into conditions there.

Two men interviewed claimed they had been working inside with no
masks or ventilation, chipping at the asbestos-coated tiles with
an ice-pick, and that illegal immigrants were sleeping on cots
inside the factory.

Crews had been removing old tiles and clearing the former
Universal Hotel Liquidators site for new tenants since February
2008 .

Investigators found five cots on the second floor of the
building and a pile of construction debris outside that tested
positive for asbestos. The city issued a cease-and-desist order
halting the construction and use of the factory as a residence.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OIG Says TVA Overbilled on Cleanup Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority's Office of Inspector General says it
found that TVA was overbilled by US$132,657 on an asbestos
cleanup contract, The Chattanoogan reports.

The OIG recommended that TVA seek reimbursement on the alleged
overbilling for asbestos abatement and for nuclear engineering.

The OIG audited US$25.24 million of costs billed to TVA by an
unnamed contractor for subcontract services between Sept. 30,
2002 and Dec. 31, 2007.

The subcontractors provided personnel to perform asbestos
abatement and sampling, along with removal and installation of
other insulation material at TVA nuclear plants and subsequently
in support of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Recovery
Project.

In summary, the OIG found that TVA had been overbilled
US$132,657 as a result of:

     -- Craft labor costs that were not provided for or were in
        excess of TVA's Project Maintenance and Modification
        Agreement,

     -- Duplicate billings for some materials, and

     -- Inaccurate insurance cost adjustments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Robbins Furniture Site Set for Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of Commissioners of Mower County, Minn., urged the
county engineer to set the date for the Robbins Furniture and
Design Gallery buildings' demolition, the Austin Daily Herald
reports.

The demolition activity would be simultaneous with the asbestos
cleanup in the buildings, when a contract is awarded for that
work.

Commissioner Ray Tucker made the motion and said the "earliest
possible date" be chosen.

Awarding a contract for asbestos removal was delayed a week
pending the receipt of more information.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Buffalo Official Criticizes Removal Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The inspections chief of Buffalo, N.Y., James Comerford, on Jan.
6, 2009, charged that the city's campaign to tear down decaying
buildings is being undermined by exorbitant state fees, The
Buffalo News reports.

Mr. Comerford said the state forces the city to squander
hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for fees tied to
surveying for asbestos-related problems. He called the US$1,000-
per-structure fee a "joke."

Mr. Comerford told Common Council members, "They do nothing. We
do all the work." The Council, on Jan. 6, 2009, endorsed plans
to use another US$1 million in state efficiency money to
continue Buffalo's demolition blitz.

Checking for asbestos is a critical task, Mr. Comerford said,
but he said the city does not rely on the state to do much work.
He claimed that shortly after city officials initiated
discussions with the state about finding ways to reduce or avoid
incurring costly fees, some state employees became "difficult"
to deal with at demolition sites.

Some Council members voiced concerns about the state fees.
Majority Leader Richard A. Fontana said lawmakers will likely
lobby Albany for changes as part of a 2009 "action plan" that
will be released soon.

Many city officials view Buffalo's vacant-housing crisis as one
of the city's most pressing problems. Decaying buildings can
fuel crime, cause property values to plummet, and prompt many
people to move out of the city.

In November 2008, inspections officials estimated that the
number of vacant buildings awaiting demolition has decreased to
about 7,000 from more than 10,000 a few years ago.

Mr. Comerford said Buffalo faces a "terrible situation" when it
comes the glut of empty buildings. While some progress has been
made, he told lawmakers the magnitude of the problem is
daunting.

Mayor Byron W. Brown has launched a plan that aims to tear down
1,000 blighted structures annually for five years. Another
component of the plan calls for rehabilitating 100 vacant units
each year during the same period.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Disputes Delay Jack's Bean Cleanup Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Disputes between the City of Fort Morgan, Colo., and contractor
Denver Environmental Consulting have delayed the asbestos
abatement project at the Jack's Bean Co. warehouse next to the
City Hall, The Fort Morgan Times reports.

At a Jan. 6, 2009 meeting, the Fort Morgan City Council thinks
at least part of an estimated US$110,000 in additional costs for
the asbestos abatement project on the Jack's Bean warehouse may
not be justified, and wants some answers before it agrees to pay
additional charges from DEC.

However, DEC representatives were not at the council meeting as
the council had requested. So the resolution of what amounts to
a contract dispute between the city and DEC will be delayed
until communication can be reestablished with DEC.

Denver Environmental was contracted by the city to oversee the
work done by two other contractors, Western Cleanup and Aspen
Industries, on the asbestos abatement project in preparation for
the demolition of the building.

Aspen Industries was to handle the asbestos abatement and
Western the disposal of the hazardous material and the actual
building demolition, with DEC providing environmental oversight
and monitoring required by law.

On December 2008, the council learned that additional asbestos
had been found and the project would cost an estimated
US$110,000 more than the nearly US$300,000 already allocated for
the job.

Since the original assessment of the condition of the building
was done by DEC, which was then known as L & L Environmental but
was represented by the same two principals, most council members
seemed to agree that DEC is responsible for the cost overruns.

City Attorney Jeffrey Wells noted that the city's contract with
DEC specifies that the company must get advance approval of
additional expenditures, which the company did not do, but DEC
is billing the city for more than US$22,000 in extra expenses
because the work took longer than projected.

Mr. Wells also said he believed the original contract with L &
L/DEC was awarded by former city manager Michael Nagy without a
bidding process because the company had previously assessed the
bean building several years earlier, when the abatement and
demolition were originally planned but never funded.

During the meeting, council members and city staff made clear
that they had no problem with the performance of Western Cleanup
or Aspen Industries.

City Manager Pat Merrill said, in fact, that Western and Aspen
were willing to go forward and complete the project without
additional payment, but L & L/DEC's unwillingness to proceed
without assurance of more money "essentially shut down the
project."

The council ultimately directed Mr. Merrill to negotiate with
DEC on a cost figure to get the job finished.

The additional US$110,035 projected cost breaks down to
US$35,280 to Western for disposal of an estimated 840 cubic
yards of additional asbestos; US$18,500 to Aspen for additional
abatement work; and US$56,255 to DEC for additional
environmental oversight and monitoring, which includes US$22,089
that DEC claims it is already owed for overseeing the extra work
already done on the job.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Still Has $65Mil Liabilities at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities is
still at US$65 million as of Nov. 30, 2008, the same as for the
period ended May 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan.
8, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities remained at
US$65 million as of Aug. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
17, 2008)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$462,309,000 as of Nov. 30, 2008, compared with US$494,745,000
as of May 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$478,709,000 as of Aug. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
17, 2008)

Asbestos liability (current and long-term) totaled
US$527,309,000 during the six months ended Nov. 30, 2008,
compared with US$559,745,000 during the year ended May 31, 2008.

Payments made for asbestos-related claims were US$32,436,000
during the six months ended Nov. 30, 2008, compared with
US$48,873,000 during the six months ended Nov. 30, 2007.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. operates
businesses and product lines that manufacture and sell specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives. The Company has two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable
segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Facing 10,048 Actions at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s subsidiaries faced 10,048 active
asbestos cases as of Nov. 30, 2008, compared with 11,117 cases
as of Nov. 30, 2007, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 8,
2009.

The Company's subsidiaries had a total of 11,399 active asbestos
cases as of Aug. 31, 2008, compared with a total of 10,957 cases
as of Aug. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2008)

Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally
Bondex International, Inc., face various asbestos-related bodily
injury lawsuits filed in various state courts with the vast
majority of current claims pending in six states: Texas,
Florida, Mississippi, Maryland, Illinois and Ohio. These cases
seek unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on
alleged exposures to asbestos-containing products previously
manufactured by the subsidiaries or others.

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008, the subsidiaries secured
dismissals and settlements of 1,824 cases and made total
payments of US$16.4 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$6.1 million. During the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2007, dismissals and settlements covered 292 cases and total
payments were US$26.1 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$13.8 million.

During the six months ended Nov. 30, 2008, the subsidiaries
secured dismissals and settlements of 2,025 cases and made total
payments of US$32.4 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$12.8 million. During the six months ended Nov.
30, 2007, dismissals and settlements covered 657 cases and total
payments were US$48.9 million, which included defense-related
payments of US$22.6 million.

Of the 1,824 cases that were dismissed in the quarter ended Nov.
30, 2008, about 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease
cases that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and
were administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and
may be re-filed should the claimants involved be able to
demonstrate disease in accordance with medical criteria laws
established in the state of Ohio.

During the prior fiscal year, the subsidiaries incurred higher
year-over-year, defense-related payments as a result of
implementing various changes to the Company's management and
defense of asbestos claims. The Company incurred duplicate
defense-related payments of about US$3 million during last
year's second fiscal quarter. The transition was completed
during the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.

Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to
settle or dismiss a case was about US$6,000 for the quarter
ended Nov. 30, 2008 and US$42,000 for the quarter ended Nov. 30,
2007.

There were about 1,420 non-malignancies or unknown disease cases
that were administratively dismissed during the current fiscal
quarter. Excluding those dismissed cases, the average payment
made to settle or dismiss a case was about US$25,000 for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. operates
businesses and product lines that manufacture and sell specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives. The Company has two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable
segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Still Pursuing Insurance Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of RPM International Inc. continue to
pursue asbestos-related insurance actions.

During fiscal 2004, certain of the Company's subsidiaries'
third-party insurers claimed exhaustion of coverage. Certain of
its subsidiaries have filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment, breach of contract and bad faith against these third-
party insurers, challenging their assertion that their policies
covering asbestos-related claims have been exhausted.

The coverage litigation involves insurance coverage for claims
arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos containing products
manufactured by the previous owner of the Bondex trade name
before March 1, 1966.

On March 1, 1966, Republic Powdered Metals Inc. (as it was known
then), purchased the assets and assumed the liabilities of the
previous owner of the Bondex trade name. That previous owner
subsequently dissolved and was never a subsidiary of Republic
Powdered Metals, Bondex, RPM, Inc. or the Company.

Because of the earlier assumption of liabilities, however,
Bondex has historically responded, and must continue to respond,
to lawsuits alleging exposure to these asbestos-containing
products.

The Company discovered that the defendant insurance companies in
the coverage litigation had wrongfully used cases alleging
exposure to these pre-1966 products to erode their aggregate
limits. This conduct, apparently known by the insurance industry
based on discovery conducted to date, was in breach of the
insurers' policy language. Two of the defendant insurers have
filed counterclaims seeking to recoup certain monies should the
plaintiffs prevail on their claims.

During the second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30, 2006, plaintiffs
reached a settlement of US$15 million. The settling defendant
was dismissed from the case.

In 2007, plaintiffs had filed motions for partial summary
judgment against the defendants and defendants had filed motions
for summary judgment against plaintiffs. In addition, plaintiffs
had filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by one of
the defendants.

On Dec. 1, 2008, the court decided the pending motions for
summary judgment and dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs'
motions for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants'
motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs on a narrow
ground.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss one
defendant's amended counterclaim. In light of its summary
judgment rulings, the court entered judgment as a matter of law
on all remaining claims and counterclaims, including the
counterclaim filed by another defendant, and dismissed the
action. The court also dismissed certain remaining motions as
moot.

Because the scope of the court's order is unclear, plaintiffs
and one defendant have filed motions with the court seeking
clarification and amendment of the court's memorandum and order.

Plaintiffs intend to file an appeal to the U.S. Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals and will continue to aggressively pursue their
claims on appeal.

Headquartered in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc. operates
businesses and product lines that manufacture and sell specialty
paints, protective coatings and roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives. The Company has two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment and the consumer reportable
segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: No New Developments in Ohio Action v. Chase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Corporation says that, as of Nov. 30, 2008, there have
been no new developments in an inactive asbestos lawsuit in Ohio
involving the Company.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a personal injury
lawsuit, pending in Ohio, which alleges personal injury from
exposure to asbestos contained in certain Chase products.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the
Company in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in
September 2005.

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30,
2007. However, that date was postponed and no new trial date has
been set.

Headquartered in Bridgewater, Mass., Chase Corporation makes
tapes and protective coatings used by the electronic, public
utility, and oil industries. Products include insulating and
conducting materials for electrical wire; electrical repair
tapes; protective pipe coatings; thermoelectric insulation for
electrical equipment; and moisture protective coatings for
electronics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Cites $12M Assumption for Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In its 2009 outlook summary, Colfax Corporation cited a US$12
million assumption for asbestos coverage litigation, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 9, 2009.

In its 2009 outlook summary, the Company also cited a US$7
million assumption for asbestos liability and defense costs.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the Company announced that it expects full-year
2009 net earnings in the range of US$.80 to US$.87 per share.
The range for adjusted net earnings is US$1.10 to US$1.17 per
share and excludes the impact of asbestos-related items. The
Company expects organic sales growth in 2009, which excludes the
impact of foreign exchange rate fluctuations and acquisitions,
to be in the range of one percent to three percent.

The Company expects full year 2008 net sales to be about US$605
million, an increase of 19 percent. Organic sales growth for
2008 is expected to be about 14 percent, in line with the
Company's low double-digit organic growth expectation for the
year. Orders for the year increased 15 percent to about US$670
million. On an organic basis, the Company expects orders to be
up seven percent over 2007. The backlog on Dec. 31, 2008 was
about US$331 million.

John Young, the Company's president and Chief Executive Officer,
said, "We are expecting modest organic sales growth in 2009.
While we are entering the year with a sizable backlog, we remain
cautious about the second half of the year due to the
uncertainty related to the weak global economy and its potential
impact on our end markets.

"We believe we're well positioned to execute on our long-term
strategies given our broad product portfolio, global footprint
in diverse markets and unmatched application expertise. We
believe these strengths, combined with our solid financial
condition, will enable us to perform successfully in a
challenging economic environment."

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation produces fluid-handling
solutions, including the manufacture of positive displacement
industrial pumps and valves used in global oil & gas, power
generation, marine, naval and a variety of other industrial
applications. Product brands include Allweiler, Fairmount
Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren
and Zenith.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Entered in Arbogast Case on Dec. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio County Court in West Virginia, on Dec. 12, 2008, issued
an asbestos-related ruling in the case styled styled Hubert L.
Arbogast vs. Continental Casualty Company, Trading as CNA;
Valley Supply Company and John Does 1-5.

On the eve of trial in an asbestos action in March 2004,
defendants accepted an offer they believe represented policy
limits of US$1.5 million.

During the discovery phase of a bad faith action, counsel
discovered that Valley Supply Company and Continental Casualty
Company repeatedly provided false, deceptive, and misleading
information to the amount of available insurance coverage.

It is claimed that Mr. Arbogast and others did not nor should
they have known the agents were misrepresenting available policy
limits until documents were produced.

The plaintiffs were fraudulently induced into entering a
settlement for an amount far below what was reasonable.

Case Nos. 08-C-466 through 08-C-605 has been assigned to Judge
Arthur M. Recht. Paul J. Harris, Esq., represents Mr. Arbogast.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bogan Suit v. 87 Companies Filed on Dec. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bogan, on Dec. 23, 2008, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against Mobil Oil and 86 other defendants in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The case is styled Ben Bogan vs. Mobil Oil Co. et al.

Some of the other defendants include Zurn Industries, CBS
Corporation, and Texaco Inc.

The suit does not give specifics but does state that Mr. Bogan
worked as a pipefitter at several of the defendants' Jefferson
County refineries.

Mr. Bogan, who is represented by Glen Morgan, Esq., seeks
punitive damages.

Case No. E182-942 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby Engineer's Family Set to Claim Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of locomotive engineer, 86-year-old Walter George
Cotton, of Derby, England, is set to getting compensation,
following Mr. Cotton's exposure to asbestos and subsequent
death, the Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Cotton claimed he was among several people exposed to
asbestos while working as a locomotive engineer, in Siddals
Road, Derby.

On April 2008, Mr. Cotton died after spending two years
suffering from crippling chest and shoulder pain caused by
asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma.

In August 2007, Mr. Cotton began legal action to get
compensation but the process stalled because his solicitor
struggled to find witnesses who saw him work with asbestos.

Following an appeal in the Evening Telegraph, four people came
forward who were prepared to give statements.

Mr. Cotton worked for London Midland and Scottish Railway
Company and British Railways between 1935 and 1957. He had
claimed that when he stripped down engines it caused clouds of
asbestos dust to rise into the air, covering surrounding
surfaces and the men working nearby.

It is during this work that Mr. Cotton believed asbestos
inhalation occurred.

His case is being brought against the Government claims
department as British Railways was nationalized when Mr. Cotton
was an employee.

The family's solicitor Kim Barrett said finding witnesses was a
major step forward. She said, "It was thanks to the Evening
Telegraph article that the witnesses came forward. We have a
good case now. A substantial amount of compensation is possible.
Larger pay-outs tend to happen when the widow of the deceased is
still alive as is the case here."

An inquest into Mr. Cotton's death recorded a verdict of death
due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morin Pleads Innocent to Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Morin, the superintendent of the Soldiers' Home in
Holyoke, Mass., on Jan. 8, 2009, pleaded innocent to a charge
that he led an illegal removal of asbestos from the state-run
veterans' facility, The Republican reports.

The 56-year-old Mr. Morin is also a past national commander of
the American Legion.

Mr. Morin was arraigned before Judge Constance M. Sweeney in
Hampden County Superior Court to an indictment charging him with
an "air pollution order violation." It alleges a violation of
the Clean Air Act by failure to conduct proper asbestos removal.

Mr. Morin was released on his personal recognizance. State
Assistant Attorney General Joseph D. Eisenstadt, who is
prosecuting the case, did not request bail.

The charge involves allegations that Mr. Morin directed workers
to knock down a wall with sledgehammers after he was warned it
could disturb asbestos insulation, according to the state
attorney general's office. The incident occurred during a 2007
renovation of the facility.

The case was continued for a pre-trial conference on Feb. 23,
2009. Mr. Morin, who has served, is on paid administrative leave
from his US$114,345-a-year post.

Defense lawyer David P. Hoose, Esq., urged that the public
recognize that the charge involves work at the soldiers' home in
which there no exposure of residents or workers to any danger.

Mr. Hoose said, "As to the charges, we're still a little in the
dark." He said he would wait until the prosecution turns over
its evidence "to see what it is that justifies an indictment."

The incident was investigated by the state Environmental Crimes
Strike Force, which includes officials from the Attorney
General's Office, environmental police, and the state Department
of Environmental Protection.

Edmund J. Coletta, a Department of Environmental Protection
spokesman, and Jill T. Butterworth, deputy press secretary for
the attorney general's office, confirmed work was not done near
residents. However, they said that maintenance workers for the
home were put at risk because they demolished the wall.

According to the attorney general's office, if convicted, Mr.
Morin could face a fine of up to US$25,000 and a year in jail.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Decides on Dursley Engineer's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest in Gloucester, England, heard that the death of 73-
year-old engineer Peter Blitz, of Dursley, Gloucestershire,
England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Gazette
reports.

Gloucestershire Coroner Alan Crickmore ruled that Mr. Blitz died
of the industrial disease, malignant mesothelioma.

In a statement before his death, Mr. Blitz said he had been
exposed to asbestos dust and fibers during his career as an
engineer with the Central Electricity Authority that began in
1956.

The inquest heard Mr. Blitz had been close to repairs of boiler
lagging that resulted in asbestos being handled and being freely
exposed to the resulting dust and fibers at power stations in
Poole and Rugeley in the Midlands.

At the Meaford B power station near Stone, Staffordshire, Mr.
Blitz said he had walked through a "snowstorm of asbestos dust"
during the course of his work. He moved to Oldbury power station
in 1969 when stricter regulations for handling asbestos were
being introduced and in 1992 he retired.

Mr. Blitz first complained of a shortage of breath in July 2007
and he died in Cheltenham General Hospital on Jan. 23, 2008.

Dr. Crickmore recorded a verdict of "industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. College, Charity to Pay Asbestos Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is highlighting the risks
of exposure to asbestos after the City of Bristol College and
Barton Hill Settlement Limited were fined on Jan. 8, 2009 for
exposing a group of Princes Trust volunteers and their
supervisor to asbestos' risk, according to an HSE press release
dated Jan. 9, 2009.

City of Bristol College of St. George's Road, Bristol, England,
and Barton Hill Settlement of Ducie Road, Barton Hill, Bristol,
both pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

City of Bristol College was fined GBP10,000 and ordered to pay
costs of GBP18,922.53 and Barton Hill Settlement was fined
GBP4,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP6,000, at Bristol
Magistrates Courts.

HSE prosecuted the college and charity after a team of
volunteers working in a building known as the "Dug Out" in
Barton Hill, Bristol, were exposed to asbestos-containing
material during a renovation project in February 2005. The "Dug
Out" is owned and managed by Barton Hill Settlement and the
volunteers were taking parting in a Prince's Trust Team
Programme managed by the City of Bristol.

The Princes Trust Team removed a partition wall using hand tools
and electric sanding machines, which resulted in the release of
large amounts of dust and the contamination of the premises.

Tests showed that the wall was made from Asbestos Insulation
Board (AIB) and the premises had to be isolated and expertly
cleaned-up. The issue of asbestos was not addressed in the risk
assessment for the project.

Further guidance and advice on health and safety issues relating
to asbestos is available at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irlam Man Wins Payout From Lancashire Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Broadhurst, a bookshop owner from Irlam, Salford,
England, has won compensation from the Lancashire Steel
Corporation (n/k/a Corus) for his exposure to workplace
asbestos, which led him to be diagnosed with mesothelioma in
2008, the Manchester Evening News reports.

The 82-year-old Mr. Broadhurst was exposed to asbestos while
working for Lancashire Steel in Cadishead from the 1950s to the
1970s.

Although he did not work with asbestos directly, one of Mr.
Broadhurst's jobs was to collect workers' overalls. He was made
redundant in 1974.

Mr. Broadhurst contacted Thompsons Solicitors after nurses put
him in touch with the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims'
Support Group.

Steven Dickens, from Thompsons Solicitors, said, "His suffering,
and that of countless others, could have been prevented if
employers had only taken more care in the past to protect
workers."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers Allowed Access to Grace Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald, on Dec. 17, 2008,
stated that she will allow insurers of W.R. Grace and Co. to see
confidential documents the lawyers previously shared only with
the Company, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Judge Fitzgerald disregarded an objection that nine asbestos
firms filed on Dec. 14, 2008.

Judge Fitzgerald granted Government Employees Insurance Company
(GEICO) and six other insurers access to files of asbestos
firms. Lawyers for the people of Montana will also know the
secrets.

The nine asbestos firms' attorney Sandra Esserman, Esq., of
Dallas, wrote, "Such information includes confidential
settlement data and information subject to work product
privilege objections, some of which goes to the very heart of
the manner in which the law firms conduct the representation of
their clients.

"The law firms strenuously resist this easing of confidentiality
protections." Ms. Esserman wrote that the firms provided it only
under the strictest confidentiality provisions.

Judge Fitzgerald's order allows insurers to share documents with
"counsel, consultants, accountants, experts, auditors,
examiners, financial advisors or other agents or professionals
who are working on the Chapter 11 case."

Montana needs the documents because Grace's asbestos mine in
Libby, Mont., emitted pollution that created a different set of
facts from routine asbestos cases.

Grace filed bankruptcy in 2001, in the face of mounting
liabilities from asbestos suits. In 2008, the Company proposed
to reorganize as a profitable company through a settlement
agreement with asbestos firms.

Insurers, lenders and others objected to the reorganization
plan, protesting that personal injury claimants would get more
than they deserve and everyone else would get less.

The plan would require an injunction channeling assets to a
personal injury trust fund.

Acting trustee of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Robert DeAngelis,
opposes the plan. On Dec. 22, 2008, he wrote, "The plan may not
be feasible and may violate the absolute priority rule."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Middle School Undergoes Pipe Repairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Western Middle School's principal, Stacey Gross, on Jan. 9,
2009, said that the repairs of a leaky pipe, which is believed
to contain asbestos, would not create a health risk to students
or staff, the Greenwich Time reports.

The school is located Russiaville, Ind.

Principal Gross said, "There are absolutely no issues with
asbestos, and nothing that is airborne. Believe me, if there was
an asbestos threat, we'd be out of here. I'm not going to
endanger my students, my staff or myself."

The leak was discovered after a teacher reported a lack of heat
in one of the classrooms after returning from holiday break,
Principal Gross said.

District officials have hired a licensed environmental
contractor to identify and repair a leak in the heating pipe in
the service tunnels below the school's gymnasium, said Anthony
Byrne, director of school facilities.

Under district policy, school maintenance staffers are not
allowed to make the repairs because of concerns that their work
could cause the toxic particles to become dislodged, creating a
potential hazard in schools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Olson Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas' ruling,
which favored Jeffrey A. Olson, in a lawsuit involving asbestos
filed against former employer Consolidated Rail Corporation and
American Financial Group, Inc. (collectively CRC).

The case is styled Jeffrey A. Olson, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
Consolidated Rail Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Mary J. Boyle, Colleen Conway Cooney, and Anthony O.
Calabrese, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 90790 on Dec. 18,
2008.

Mr. Olson, a career railroad worker, brought the underlying
occupational disease action CRC under the Federal Employers'
Liability Act (FELA) and the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA).

Mr. Olson alleged that his continuous exposure to various toxic
substances, including asbestos, silica, sand, and diesel
locomotive exhaust, have caused or aggravated his chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asbestosis. Of his six
causes of action, only the first claim dealt with asbestos.

The second, third, and fourth claims related to Mr. Olson's
alleged exposure to diesel, locomotive exhaust, sand, silica,
solvents, and other toxic substances. The fifth claim related to
an alleged aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The sixth
claim related to negligent assignment.

Mr. Olson alleged injuries include pneumoconiosis, asbestosis,
pleural disease, restrictive lung disease, obstructive lung
disease, emphysema, asthma, reactive airway disease, fear of
cancer, and lost wages.

Mr. Olson filed his lawsuit on Aug. 30, 2004, two days before
H.B. 292 took effect. This legislation, which extensively
revised state laws governing asbestos litigation, was enacted in
response to the legislative finding that "[t]he current asbestos
personal injury litigation system is unfair and inefficient,
imposing a severe burden on litigants and taxpayers alike."

The case was eventually set for trial on Dec. 10, 2007.

CRC appealed, raising two assignments of error. In its first
assignment of error, CRC argued that the trial court erred in
invoking the savings clause and finding that the prima facie
requirements of R.C. 2307.92 impaired Mr. Olson's substantive
rights. In its second assignment of error, CRC argued that the
trial court erred in denying its motion for an order directing
Mr. Olson to substantially comply with R.C. 2307.91 and 2307.92.

Accordingly, CRC's two assignments of error were overruled. The
judgment was affirmed.

David A. Damico, Esq., Ira L. Podheiser, Esq., of Burns, White &
Hickton, LLC in Pittsburgh, represented Appellants.

Michael H. Doran, Esq., Christopher M. Murphy, Esq., and Michael
L. Torcello, Esq., of Doran & Murphy, LLP in Buffalo, N.Y.,
represented Mr. Olson.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Safeguard Scientifics' Bid v. Murano Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos-lawsuit filed
by Arthur Murano, Jr.

The case is styled Janet Longo et al. (Arthur Murano, Jr.) v.
General Electric Co. et al. (Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.)

Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. BALFBTCV0440022257S on Nov. 26, 2008.

Mr. Murano worked as a pipefitter, a planner and a
superintendent during his years of employment at Electric Boat
Corporation from 1973 to 2002, a total of 27 years. He worked on
both the new construction of submarines and the overhauling of
same.

As a superintendent, Mr. Murano testified he "was responsible
for the safety of the people, the protection of the equipment,
following the schedule, and supervising the people ... I got to
do everything, I loved the job ... helped every trade."

Mr. Murano worked with electricians, cleaners, shipfitters,
pipefitters, grinders and machinists. He claimed that he worked
on most if not all of the submarines and has identified the 598
George Washington, 571 Nautilus, 585 Skipjack, 650 Pargo, 599
Patrick Henry, 698 Bremerton, and 699 Jacksonville as boats on
which he worked.

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

Mr. Roarke worked at Electric Boat, Groton, Conn., from 1964 to
1966, and Electric Boat, Quonset Point Shipyard from 1980 to
1993. He had identified the George Washington and Patrick Henry
as boats on which he worked during their construction. These
boats were identified, also, by Mr. Murano as boats on which he
worked.

As a result of his exposure to asbestos, Mr. Murano developed
asbestos-related lung disease and loss of long function, and x-
ray findings consistent with asbestos disease. One source of his
exposure could be traced to BACO asbestos packing used aboard
the Nautilus and other submarines on which he worked at Electric
Boat, while said subs were being built, reconditioned or
serviced.

The Court found that material issues of fact existed as to
whether the Safeguard Scientifics product containing asbestos
was present in the work environment of Mr. Murano.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Inspect Kent Firms Starting Feb. '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive, together with local
authorities, will be carrying out targeted inspections in Kent,
England, in February 2009 to make sure companies are not
exposing workers to asbestos fibers, according to an HSE press
release dated Jan. 12, 2009.

The inspection campaign will run throughout February 2009 and
letters will be sent to 1,300 premises in the county to remind
businesses of their responsibilities under the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006. The letters will pre-warn companies
of the inspection visits.

Asbestos related diseases are still the largest occupational
killers in the United Kingdom with around 4,000 deaths per year
(15 times the fatal accident rate). These figures are continuing
to rise and about 25 percent of those dying from asbestos-
related disease have worked in the building, maintenance and
repair trades at some time during their working lives.

Around 50 representatives from HSE and Kent councils will visit
businesses across the county to confirm that appropriate
measures are in place. Duty holders are normally those
responsible for repair or renovation of non-domestic buildings
such as owners, occupiers or managing agents.

Regulations require that duty holders take a number of key
actions including:

     -- Take reasonable steps to find any asbestos in the
        premises and assess the condition of these materials;

     -- Presume that materials do contain asbestos unless there
        is strong evidence that they do not;

     -- Prepare a record of the location and condition of these
        asbestos-containing materials and assess the risk from
        them;

     -- Prepare and implement a plan to manage those risks

     -- Give information on the location and condition of the
        material to anyone who is liable to disturb it;

     -- Monitor the condition of the material left in place.

     -- Review the assessment of risk periodically.

Mike Walters, HM principal inspector for HSE in Kent, said, "The
proportion of deaths from asbestos continues to increase across
the county as a result of past exposure to asbestos fibers. The
challenge for HSE and local authorities is to raise awareness
among those trades most at risk - such as plumbers, joiners,
electricians and similar and promote the proper use of sensible
precautions to stem these deaths and suffering.

"Health and Safety Inspectors will visit businesses across Kent
to raise awareness among those who are working in areas where
they are often unaware that asbestos containing materials are
present."

For more information on HSE's recent Asbestos: The Hidden Killer
campaign please go to:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/hiddenkiller/index.htm


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Cowra, NSW, Public Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The three public schools of Cowra, New South Wales, Australia,
contain asbestos, which is found in the eaves, wall linings,
ceilings, toilets, and administration offices of the schools,
the Cowra Guardian reports.

The findings came in a report to the NSW Department of Education
and Training, which conducted an audit of public institutions in
2008. The next review date is in September 2009.

All three Cowra public schools (Mulyan, Cowra Public and Cowra
High) had asbestos deemed of good condition and of low priority
in the audit.

The amounts found at Cowra were reflected across the state, with
an analysis of the report showing a small percentage of public
institutions containing no asbestos material.

The asbestos found in the schools ranged from Chrysolite (white
asbestos), Amosite (brown asbestos) and Crocidolite (blue
asbestos).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Mullen Worker Seeks Help in Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Bracken, a 58-year-old worker from Padiham, Burnley,
England, is appealing to Burnley locals to help him in an
asbestos-related compensation claim, the Burnley Express
reports.

Mr. Bracken says he was exposed to asbestos in the 1960s while
working for Burnley company Mullen and Durkin. He started work
at Mullen and Durkin, in Trafalgar Street, in the 1960s, when he
estimates 400 people were working there. His work involved
tearing out old boilers and pipework at a range of local
properties.

Mr. Bracken was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July 2008 but
started feeling the early symptoms in March 2006, getting pains
in his chest and breathlessness.

Chris Fry, of solicitors Wake Smith and Tofields, is helping Mr.
Bracken find the information he needs. Mr. Fry said, "Mullen and
Durkin dissolved in 1994, but before that worked on a number of
buildings, many public, in Lancashire.

"Understandably, John now needs to seek compensation for himself
and his family. We desperately need people to get in touch if
they can provide any information on Mullen and Durkin."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Concern Closes Schools in Tazewell
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns about asbestos caused the temporary closure of schools
in Tazewell County, Va., on Jan. 9, 2009, TriCities.com reports.

Superintendent Brenda Lawson said she decided to close the
schools for air-quality testing to ensure the buildings are
safe.

Noting that asbestos abatement was done at Cedar Bluff
Elementary during Christmas break, Ms. Lawson said, "We are
renovating five schools, five elementary schools. We have had
some concerns from some parents at Cedar Bluff relative to the
dust."

Anne Ratliff, president of the PTA at Cedar Bluff Elementary,
said she is glad school officials are taking action. She said,
"The dust in our schools is I guess what initially got us
started...but then after we got more into that we realized that
they've been cutting into some of the ceilings and things in the
classrooms that are plaster, and we were curious to find out,
just for our own sense of security, that they've taken all
precautions."

Ms. Lawson has met with the people doing the work about cleaning
up the dust generated by the US$9 million renovation project,
which includes electrical upgrades, bathroom renovations and
modern heating and cooling systems.

The elementary schools being renovated (Tazewell, North
Tazewell, Cedar Bluff, Richlands and Springville) range in age
from 41 to 76 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Vinco Facility to Cost $30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement at the Jackson Township Senior Citizens and
Handicapped Activities Center in Vinco, Jackson Township,
Cambria County, Pa., is to cost US$30,000, The Tribune-Democrat
reports.

The US$30,000 is coming from grants provided by Johnstown
Redevelopment Authority and 20 percent matching funds, said
Deborah Walter, authority program manager.

Township officials said the Center is closed until asbestos is
removed from the floors.

The Center closed on Jan. 7, 2009 and is scheduled to reopen on
Feb. 2, 2009 after new floors and carpet are installed, township
Manager David Hirko said.

The former Vinco Public School, located on Adams Avenue, was
constructed in 1927.

Larry Custer, executive director of the Cambria County
Redevelopment Authority, said that asbestos was removed from
around pipes around 15 years ago when the building was renovated
using Community Development Block Grant funds. It was not
necessary to remove asbestos from floors then because tiles were
well-carpeted.

The township has operated the Center with mostly volunteer staff
since it opened about 10 years ago, Mr. Hirko said.

The Center has about 450 members.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASU to Pay $96,000 for Handling Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona State University is to pay US$96,000 for asbestos
mishandling, in which US$44,000 comprises a fine from Maricopa
County and US$52,000 is for the ASU to sponsor a series of
seminars on asbestos handling, including one Jan. 13, 2009
seminar at the Tempe campus, the East Valley Tribune reports.

ASU is required to put on a seminar at each of its four
campuses.

The asbestos had remained harmlessly compressed into the tile
lining ASU's Memorial Union basement floor for decades. However,
in April 2006, workers ripped out more than 5,000 square feet of
asbestos-packed material without taking a single precaution.

Then workers carted the tile through the food court and upstairs
to open-air dumpsters, potentially leaving a toxic mist
throughout the university's busiest building. It was several
hours before ASU environmental safety officials realized what
was happening.

University officials deny any fault in the incident, instead
blaming the outside contractor that they argue removed the tile
without approval.

The Memorial Union asbestos release triggered the county's air
quality department to cite ASU for nine different violations.
The county alleged that the university failed to test the
material before removing it and failed to take measures to
prevent the asbestos from becoming airborne.

Scott I. MacDonald, the county's asbestos inspections
supervisor, checked on the Memorial Union incident after
receiving a complaint.

County air quality officials listed the ASU alleged violations
as "major" due to asbestos' "extremely high" toxicity,
enforcement records show. A "medium amount" of asbestos was
released into the air.

The tile removal took place when classes were not in session.

Following the Memorial Union asbestos release, ASU hired three
additional environmental safety officials to handle asbestos
issues and prevent similar hazards in the future, Terri Shafer,
a university spokeswoman, wrote in response to Tribune
questions.

Another incident took place in October 2007, when a university
building official directed workers to remove a porch roof from
the Lyceum Theater that was filled with asbestos. The Arizona
Department of Occupational Safety and Health cited the
university for a "non-serious" violation of federal safety laws
in connection with the roof removal. The asbestos release at the
Memorial Union came as the university began a project to replace
carpet.

Kristian Luce, co-owner of Hoodlums Music, which then operated
out of the ASU Memorial Union basement, said he watched the tile
removal with his business partner, Steve Wiley.

ASU had hired a contractor, Re:Source Arizona, for the project,
which had in turn hired a subcontractor, PowerTech Flooring
Removal, to clear the way for the new carpet.

On Aug. 7, 2006, PowerTech employees used a machine "designed to
remove flooring by use of rotating blades," according to a
report on the incident written by Dave Jaggers, an ASU asbestos
specialist.

Mike Matthies, then director of the Memorial Union, ordered the
contractor to begin work. Mr. Shafer said that direction did not
include removing the tile.

Mr. Luce said he and Mr. Wiley closed Hoodlums, which they moved
to a new location in south Tempe in 2008, that afternoon and
were alarmed at what they found upon returning to the shop that
evening.

ASU officials, who shut down and cleared the area where workers
removed flooring, were concerned about the impact on people like
Luce.

ASU denied that it could find any e-mail records showing that
Mr. Matthies told Re:Source Arizona to begin work. However, the
contractor provided county air quality officials with records
showing that Mr. Matthies did just that.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 9 Out of 10 Manchester Schools Have Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Figures acquired by the M.E.N. under Freedom of Information laws
indicate that nearly nine out of 10 Greater Manchester, England,
state schools contain asbestos in their buildings, the
Manchester Evening News reports.

This means that asbestos is present in 903 out of 1,043 schools.

Council chiefs say the asbestos is covered and should not
present a danger to staff and pupils. However, campaigners and
politicians want the government to carry out a national audit.

A spokesman for the National Union of Teachers described the
issue as "a ticking time bomb" because buildings can become
dilapidated and the asbestos could then be exposed.

Paul Rowen, MP for Rochdale, the former home of what was once
the world's largest asbestos production plant, promised to take
its findings to Westminster. He said, "The figures are a huge
cause for concern and the fact that nearly 90 percent of schools
are affected is shocking.

"I will be raising this at the next meeting of the Parliamentary
All-Party Group on Asbestos. We need to lobby for a national
audit and look at solutions to this on-going problem. Unless
this is tackled urgently it could be with us for decades."

Jim Dobbin, MP for Middleton and Heywood, described the
statistics as "alarming." He said, "We must ensure that no
children or staff are exposed to the risk of asbestos-related
illness. All necessary safety measures must be taken until all
asbestos is removed."

About 13,000 state schools around the country are thought to
contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Urged to Revive Action v. 3 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Edmonds, Esq., a lawyer for alleged asbestos victims,
on Jan. 13, 2009, urged the Court of Appeals of Maryland to
revive a lawsuit against three manufacturers of industrial-brake
parts, The Daily Record reports.

Mr. Edmonds said dust emitted from the brakes killed three men
who worked under the equipment at Bethlehem Steel Corporation's
mill in Sparrows Point, Md.

The manufacturers' attorneys took turns pressing the state's
high court to uphold a pre-trial judgment in their favor by
Baltimore City Circuit Judge Carol E. Smith, who said the
families could not show the workers were close enough to the
asbestos to suffer harm and could not identify the specific
company or companies that should be held liable.

Court of Appeals Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr. voiced concern about
"market-share liability" a claim brought against many
companies whose specific culpability cannot be proven but which,
it is argued, should share responsibility because they were
engaged in the activity that caused the alleged harm.

The brake products at issue in the litigation were on cranes
used to transport steel at the Sparrows Point mill. Dust emitted
from the brakes allegedly contained asbestos, which the
plaintiffs say led to the workers' deaths from lung cancer.

In 2007, a Baltimore jury awarded US$3.97 million in damages to
the families of three other men who had sued brake manufacturer
General Electric Co.

Prior to that trial, Judge Smith had issued her summary-judgment
order ending the lawsuit brought by three other families. Mr.
Edmonds, who handled both sets of cases, appealed directly to
the Court of Appeals.

At oral arguments on Jan. 13, 2009, Mr. Edmonds challenged Judge
Smith's ruling that the men, who were about 30 feet below the
cranes and the dust-emitting brakes, were not close enough to
the asbestos to be harmed.

Mr. Edmonds also argued that he had introduced enough evidence
in his pre-trial motions to link the three brake-parts
manufacturers: Square D Co., Cutler-Hammer Inc. (now Eaton
Corp.) and Pneumo Abex LLC, to the asbestos that allegedly
killed the men. He was ready to present testimony at trial
showing the companies' products were in use at the mill while
the men were working there, Mr. Edmonds added.

Steven J. Parrott, Esq., pressing Pneumo Abex's case, said
liability would be impossible to prove because no witness at the
mill can state a specific worker was exposed to dust emitted
from a specific company's brake part.

Warren N. Weaver, Esq., representing Eaton Corp., said Judge
Smith correctly concluded that the 30 feet between the workers
and the crane brakes from which the dust was emitted was too
great a distance for the asbestos to have had any harmful
effect.

Winning asbestos cases, including the General Electric case Mr.
Edmonds successfully litigated, have involved workers who were
much closer to the dust when it was emitted, said Mr. Weaver.
For example, Mr. Weaver said, pipe fitters have won asbestos
cases because they were within inches of the emission.

The families of the workers in this case have alleged only
"bystander exposure" to asbestos and do not satisfy the legal
requirement of proximity to the alleged harm, Mr. Weaver said.

The workers were William H. Johnson, who worked at the plant
from 1959 to 1990; William A. Reiter, who worked at the mill
from the 1960s through the 1980s; and Harold R. Williams, who
worked at the mill from about 1964 to 1993, Mr. Edmonds stated.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dollar General Store Cleanup to Cost $7,750
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the former Dollar General store in Portage,
Ind., is estimated at US$7,750, The Times reports.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the Board of Works awarded a new contract for
the asbestos removal at the former Dollar General store. The new
contract will save the city some US$20,000 and move forward the
demolition of the building on Central Avenue.

Interstate Environmental Services of Valparaiso was the lowest
of three bidders on the project.

In 2008, the board awarded a contract to Angel Asbestos of
Glenwood, Ill., for US$29,900. That company withdrew its
contract with the city late in 2008 leaving officials seeking
another contractor to complete the work.

Director of Public Works Craig Hendrix said the contract for
Interstate Environmental was lower because there was less work
to be done.

Mr. Hendrix anticipated the company would be able to complete
the job within three days and that demolition of the building by
G.E. Marshall of Valparaiso should begin.

The building was purchased by the city. It is located in the
city's downtown redevelopment area.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Litigators' Meetings Slated for Feb., March
----------------------------------------------------------------
HB Litigation Conferences LLC, formerly Mealey's Conferences, on
Jan. 12, 2009, announced two programs for toxic tort and
asbestos litigators, according to a PR Newswire press release
dated Jan. 12, 2009.

The first will take place on Feb. 25, 2009 in Philadelphia for
attorneys seeking an overview of causation evidence for cases
involving lead, benzene, asbestos and other toxic substances.

This one-day event, scheduled as a convenient day trip, will be
held at The Hub Cira Centre located at Philadelphia's 30th
Street Station, particularly well-situated for attorneys based
along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor or with access to quick
flights to Philadelphia.

Entitled "Introduction of General & Specific Causation Evidence
in Toxic Tort Cases," focusing on lead, benzene and asbestos,
will feature two sitting judges: the Hon. Sandra Mazer Moss,
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and the Hon. Mary Miller
Johnston, Delaware Superior Court, Wilmington. Also on the
faculty is David Egilman, M.D., Ph.D. with Brown University.

The program is being chaired by Robert Spinelli of Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna of Philadelphia and Aaron DeLuca of
DeLuca & Memeroff of Spring, Tex.

The second event, "Emerging Trends in Asbestos Litigation," will
take place March 9, 2009 to March 11, 2009 at The Four Seasons
Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif.

This event is being chaired by John Cooney of Cooney & Conway of
Chicago, Timothy Krippner of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney,
also of Chicago, and Perry Weitz of Weitz & Luxenberg of New
York.

Sponsoring partners include Cooney & Conway, Segal McCambridge,
HG, Bates White, PohlmanUSA.com Court Reporting and NERA
Economic Consulting.

For more information about the programs and the accommodations,
plus sample content in text, audio and video, please visit the
HB Litigation Conferences website at
http://www.LitigationConferences.com,write to
info@litigationconferences.com or call (484) 324-2755.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered in Austin T. Levy School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin T. Levy School officials, on Jan. 8, 2009, said that
asbestos was found in tile adhesive after a heating coil froze
and burst on Jan. 2, 2009, The Woonsocket Call reports.

Officials added that the incident took place at the school,
which is located on Harrisville Main Street, Burrillville, R.I.

According to a press release issued by Principal Laurie
Sullivan, "Fortunately, the problem was discovered by custodians
at 6:30 a.m. The system was shut down and the repair was made
that morning."

According to the press release, water leaked onto floors and
some floor tiles were damaged. The school department contacted
the Vortex Company, who visited the school on Jan. 5, 2009 and
took tile samples to assess the damage.

According to the press release, "The tile in the hallway does
not contain asbestos, but the adhesive does. The tile and
adhesive in the two classrooms that got wet both contain
asbestos."

Representatives from Trust and Clean Care of New England, an
asbestos abatement company, assessed conditions at the school on
Tuesday afternoon. An air quality testing company also visited
the school.

The school is taking the following steps: using special vacuums
to remove all broken pieces of tile from affected  areas; taping
all cracked and broken seams; using "air cleaners;" installing
carpet over the affected areas; conducting further air samples
throughout the building; and taking samples to investigate any
possible mold.

During the February 2009 vacation, the tile in the hallways and
affected areas will be removed and replaced.

According to the press release, "We are working at the direction
of experts who deal with these types of problems on a regular
basis and will make sure that any repair work is done in full
compliance with any state and federal regulations. We are
grateful for the fast response of Clean Care, OHI and the Trust
and their expertise in handling this situation. Please be
reassured that we will continue to act pro-actively to ensure
the health and safety of our students and staff at Levy."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wilson Sues Former Counsel in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Roberts Wilson, on Jan. 12, 2009, filed a lawsuit
against his former asbestos litigation partner, incarcerated
plaintiffs' attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs in federal court,
Legal Newsline reports.

The suit alleges a conspiracy that involves Mr. Scruggs, his
lawyer in a dispute with Mr. Wilson over attorneys' fees, Hinds
County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter, former state Auditor
Steven Patterson, former Hinds County District Attorney Ed
Peters and an unnamed former U.S. Senator.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is Mr. Scruggs'
brother-in-law. Joey Langston, one of Mr. Scruggs' attorneys,
has already pleaded guilty to the scheme, which he said involved
using Mr. Lott to help Mr. DeLaughter get appointed to a federal
judgeship in Mississippi by President Bush.

After what has been described as a courtesy call, however, Mr.
Lott gave his support to another candidate.

Mr. Wilson's attorney Charles Merkel, Esq., told Legal Newsline
nearly a year ago that he wanted to have all of the information
before he made his next move. Since then, Mr. Scruggs has been
sentenced to five years in prison for participating in a
judicial bribery scheme in Lafayette County.

Mr. Wilson, Alwyn Luckey, and Mr. Scruggs each had their own
stake in a group Mr. Scruggs started to file asbestos cases. Mr.
Wilson had sold his interest in more than 2,300 asbestos cases
in an agreement that was interpreted differently by the two
sides, and he filed suit against Mr. Scruggs in 1994.

Mr. Luckey was awarded US$17.5 million in his dispute with Mr.
Scruggs after a trial in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry
Davis, but Mr. Wilson received a US$1.5 million payment because
Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter's interpretation of
the contract showed no remaining balance owed to Mr. Wilson, and
that a trial would have been merely for bragging rights.

Judge DeLaughter determined this despite a recommendation by a
special master that Mr. Wilson was owed US$15 million. The
alleged bribery is said to have taken place in February 2006 or
March 2006.

Mr. Wilson claims Mr. Scruggs used those ill-gotten funds from
the asbestos settlement to fund the landmark tobacco litigation
that resulted in billions of dollars for plaintiffs attorneys
hired to represent their respective states.

Mr. Scruggs represented Mississippi, hired by then-Attorney
General Mike Moore. His work led to the 1998 Tobacco Master
Settlement Agreement, which has an estimated worth of US$246
billion for the 52 participating territories and states.

Mr. Wilson had filed suit in federal court, asking for a share
of the tobacco fees because it was his money Mr. Scruggs was
using to fund the litigation. When Judge DeLaughter ruled that
Mr. Wilson was not owed anything that argument died.

The suit says, "Scruggs, along with defendants Timothy Balducci,
Edward J. Peters, Steven A. Patterson, David Zachary Scruggs
(his son and law partner) and non-parties Joseph C. Langston and
others did enter into a conspiracy to illegally and feloniously
influence and corrupt (DeLaughter) to render a zero judgment on
asbestos fees in Scruggs' favor against Wilson so that the U.S.
District Court would be thwarted and defrauded out of its
intention to hear evidence supporting the imposition of a
constructive trust over the tobacco settlement proceeds.

"As a result of the scheme, Wilson was defrauded out of his
cause of action in the U.S District Court, his claims for
constructive trust over tobacco proceeds and the corpus of his
trust in the asbestos fees and other relief."

Mr. Scruggs is currently incarcerated for attempting to bribe
Lafayette County Circuit Judge Henry Lackey with US$50,000 for a
favorable ruling in a dispute over Hurricane Katrina attorneys
fees.

Mr. Wilson is seeking actual damages (asbestos and tobacco
fees), and feels they should be tripled because of the
defendants' conduct.

Mr. Wilson is also seeking punitive damages, attorneys fees,
sanctions, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and his
costs of litigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vt. Asbestos Mine Meeting Held on Jan. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
A public meeting concerning asbestos at a closed asbestos mine
in northern Vermont was held on Jan. 12, 2009 in Eden Central
School, Vt., Fox 44 News reports.

Wendy Davis, Vermont Commissioner of Health, said, "We did find
increased deaths from asbestos and increased hospital discharges
from asbestosis."

Vermont health leaders said cases of asbestosis appeared to be
much higher within a ten mile radius of the mine in Eden and
Lowell, than in the rest of Vermont.

Warren Earle lives even closer to the mine, where he worked for
three years. He said, "I worked on a crusher out in the quarry."
He added, "I've got a piece of property that they say is worth
US$135,000 and I can guarantee you, I'd be lucky if I get
US$35,000 for it now, all because of this report, which to me is
very incomplete and inconclusive."

Ronald McLean is also worried about what this means for property
value in Eden and nearby towns. He said, "People that want to
sell their property, out of state people are going to come and
say oh wait, you don't want to live up there, they've got
asbestosis, it's just not right."

Mr. McLean worked at the mine for 33 years. He lives nearby, and
hunted and fished near there. He said he has been healthy, but
he's heard it may have affected others.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plumbers, Firemen & Teachers Still at Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
TransWorldNews reports that many occupations, including
firefighters, plumbers, and teachers, are still a risk from
exposure to asbestos.

Few people realize the danger that asbestos still poses among
many occupations. Some believe that asbestos is a problem of the
past and is no longer a hazard. They would be surprised to learn
however that asbestos can still be found in nearly 80 percent of
structures built prior to 1978.

Asbestos was found in construction materials but was most common
in insulation, drywall, floor tiles, and many other products.
This can present a problem for different occupations that may
come in contact with asbestos while doing their job.

Firefighters come in contact with many older asbestos fixtures
in damaged homes and other structures. Depending on the material
damaged these product's hazard could be actually be exacerbated
if they are unstable.

Plumbers and HVAC technicians will likely encounter asbestos
while dealing with older piping and ducts, which were commonly
insulated with asbestos. Many of these products still exist in
homes and other buildings and could possibly present a hazard.

Among the most common structures in which asbestos was used were
municipal buildings like schools. Sustained exposure in these
buildings to staff, such as teachers can actually be harmed by
older asbestos fixtures.

For more information please contact the Mesothelioma and
Asbestos Awareness Center.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Iowa High School to Resume Cleanup in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the Indian Hills Junior High School in
Clive, Iowa, is set to resume between March 13, 2009 and March
22, 2009, DesMoinesRegister.com reports.

Administrators did not tell parents about asbestos removal at
the school this school year because the work was done when no
students were in the building, said Jeff Robbins, operations
supervisor for the West Des Moines school district.

Most of the asbestos at Indian Hills was found in floor-tile
adhesive in rooms and hallways. It must be removed before a
renovation project at the school begins this summer, Mr. Robbins
said.

The US$52,000 removal project is split into three phases, which
take place during school breaks. It began during winter break,
will resume during spring break and is expected to conclude in
the first part of summer break.

Kristin Johnson, a parent of two Indian Hills students, learned
of the asbestos removal when her children went to the school
during winter break to retrieve music books and other items from
their lockers.

Renovation at the school is expected to start in mid-June 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Debris Cleanup at Dargaville Site Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Work is ongoing to clear debris containing asbestos from the
scene of a major fire in Dargaville, New Zealand, NewstalkZB
reports.

The Dargaville public is being kept at bay from the site where
asbestos has been found after a major fire consumed four shops
and extensively damaged another one in the biggest fire the town
has seen in over 40 years.

The Kaipara District Council issued a statement on Jan. 7, 2009
saying the asbestos discovery in the debris had delayed
clearance of the site and the public was required to keep away
from the area.

The council says testing of the fire debris had confirmed the
presence of the dangerous material and it involved solid panel
fiber, which poses a lower health risk than "friable" or crumbly
asbestos.

Council, Fire Service, Northland Health and police officials,
with insurers, building owners and the Department of Labour met
to collaboratively minimize any potential health risk in the
meantime.

Kaipara mayor Neil Tiller says the discovery of asbestos is
disappointing and hopes it will not significantly delay
reinstatement of the area. He said, "It is a concern and I
apologize for any extra inconvenience but I am confident that
the situation is being handled correctly and council's
understanding is that the risk posed is minimal."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Mo. School May Start in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement work from a building in Sikeston High School
in Sikeston, Mo., could begin as early as March 2009 if
appropriate funds are available, the Sikeston Standard Democrat
reports.

In a roll-call vote of 4-2, Sikeston R-6 Board of Education
members awarded the bid to remove asbestos from C building at
the high school to Midwest Environmental Studies of Cape
Girardeau during their regular meeting last Jan. 13, 2009. Board
president Ann Jones and member Ken Stone voted against the
measure.

Midwest was the lowest bidder for the removal and disposal of
17,400 square feet of asbestos ceiling texture and hard plaster
for US$93,700; 18,000 square feet of asbestos floor tile and
sealant (two layers) for US$28,800; and thermal insulation for
US$500 for a total of US$123,000.

Superintendent Steve Borgsmiller said, "As the Board of
Education knows, we have been targeting the renovation of C
building for some time. Last year, we postponed that and then
decided to take this back up again."

Mr. Borgsmiller noted that with the board's approval (of the
bid), the project was subject to the availability of funds to
complete the entire project.

Before the final vote, Mr. Stone asked Mr. Borgsmiller when the
issue would be revisited. Mr. Borgsmiller said, "We will revisit
it again as early as March. As long as the (state) Legislature
is in session, we'll have better idea of what they may or may
not do (in regard to funding for public schools)."

Mr. Stone said his only concern was he does not know if a year
or two from now, the Board may be making an even more difficult
decision about the building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Dueitt's Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos filed by Paul R. Dueitt.

The case is styled Paul R. Dueitt, Appellant v. James B. Peake,
M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr. entered judgment in Case No. 06-3359 on
Dec. 22, 2008.

Mr. Dueitt appealed a Nov. 16, 2006, Board of Veterans' Appeals
decision denying his claims for entitlement to service
connection for asbestosis and a right knee disability. This
appeal was timely.

Mr. Dueitt served in the U.S. Army from February 1945 to
November 1946, and from September 1950 to September 1951. His
entrance and separation military examinations were normal.

An August 1956 service medical record (SMR) from the U.S. Army
Hospital at Fort Benning, Ga., noted that Mr. Dueitt complained
of pain in his right knee. There was no heat, swelling or fluid
in the joint. The SMR reported a possibility of a diagnosis of
Osgood-Schlatter disease, but stated that the diagnosis should
be ruled out.

In August 2001, Mr. Dueitt filed a claim for service connection
for asbestosis, indicating that he was exposed to asbestos at
Fort Knox and in Hawaii. A VA respiratory examination in May
2002 indicated that the examiner did not review the claims file,
and that Mr. Dueitt reported he might have been exposed to
asbestos while staying in the barracks at Fort Benning during
service. In November 2002, the St. Petersburg, Fla., regional
office (RO) denied Mr. Duiett's claim for asbestos exposure. He
appealed this decision.

In March 2003, Mr. Dueitt filed a claim for service connection
for a right knee injury. In March 2004, the RO denied service
connection for a right knee condition because the first evidence
of a right knee disability was in 1956, when Mr. Dueitt was not
on active duty.

Mr. Dueitt appealed this denial, reporting that he had trouble
with his right knee in Vietnam. He also reported that he was on
active duty in 1956 at Fort Benning, Ga., when he injured his
knee. A February 2004 private treatment report diagnosed
bilateral osteoarthritis of the knees, and the examiner stated
that he could not make a correlation between Mr. Dueitt's 1957
injury and the current arthritis in the knee. Accordingly, the
Board denied Mr. Dueitt's claims.

After consideration of Mr. Dueitt's and the Secretary's briefs,
and a review of the record, the Board's Nov. 16, 2006, decision
with regard to Mr. Dueitt's right knee injury was affirmed. The
Board's Nov. 16, 2006, decision with regard to Mr. Dueitt's
asbestosis claim was vacated and remanded.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Issues Ruling on Haggerty Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, D. Massachusetts, issued split rulings
in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James P. Haggerty, Sr.
against various defendants including Foster-Wheeler, Inc.

The case is styled James P. Haggerty, Sr., Plaintiffs v.
American Optical Corporation, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Nancy Gertner entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 08cv11979-NG on Dec. 12, 2008.

Mr. Haggerty filed suit in Massachusetts court, charging that
the defendants were responsible for his asbestos-related
disease. He sought relief on theories of negligence, breach of
warranty, and gross negligence. He claimed that the defendants
breached their duties to him in failing to exercise reasonable
care in protecting him from the effects of asbestos and failed
to warn him about its health hazards. His exposure caused him to
develop asbestosis.

Foster Wheeler has removed the case from Massachusetts court. It
claimed as its grounds the "federal contractor defense."
According to Foster Wheeler, during the time when its actions
allegedly led to Mr. Haggerty's exposure to asbestos, it was
acting under the government's instructions as a federal
contractor.

Mr. Haggerty has urgently requested that the Court remand the
case to state court, in light of the trial scheduled in
Massachusetts Superior Court for March 2009. The Court ordered
the following briefing schedule to resolve the Motion to Remand:

     -- The Court will entertain a motion to sever and remand
        the defendants who are not asserting the federal
        contractor defense. Any such motion must be filed no
        later than Dec. 29, 2008, and any parties opposing the
         motion must do so no later than Jan. 12, 2009.

     -- Every defendant who wishes to assert the federal
        contractor defense was ordered to submit some evidence
        colorably supporting the defense no later than
        Jan. 5, 2009.

     -- Mr. Haggerty may submit a reply brief no later than
        Jan. 20, 2008. The Court will hold a status conference
        and a hearing on the motions on Feb. 5, 2009, at 3:00
        p.m., as noted on the docket for this case.

     -- The defendants shall limit their submissions to
        probative evidence bearing on each element of the
        federal contractor defense.

The Court further ordered that the parties' briefs address
whether a colorable federal defense as to one claim is
sufficient to permit federal officer removal. In addition, if
Mr. Haggerty argues that he has specifically disclaimed any
cause of action that relies on the involvement of a federal
officer, the parties are ordered to address that issue as well.

David A. Jagolinzer, Esq., of The Ferraro Law Firm in Miami,
represented the Plaintiffs.

April M. Luna, Esq., Katharine S. Perry, Esq., of Adler, Pollock
& Sheehan PC in Boston, Mark O. Denehy, Esq., of Adler Pollock &
Sheehan PC in Providence, R.I., represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Plant Insulation Co. to Pay $4.3M in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco jury, on Jan. 6, 2009, ordered Plant Insulation
Company to pay more than US$4.3 million in damages to the
families of three Bay Area industrial pipefitters who died of
asbestos-caused lung cancer, The Mercury News reports.

Concord, Calif., resident William C. Hearn's widow and son will
receive US$1.29 million as part of a verdict reached by the
jury, according to Paul and Hanley, a Berkeley-based law firm.

The jury found that Plant Insulation was 59 percent at fault for
Mr. Hearn's death, the law firm said. Mr. Hearn was exposed to
asbestos while working at various industrial sites.

The company was also found liable for the deaths of James
Harris, of Sacramento County, who worked as a pipefitter at Bay
Area oil refineries, and Sebastopol resident George Wetch, who
worked at chemical plants and oil refineries in Contra Costa
County.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Plant Insulation Company
1330 64th St.
Emeryville, Calif.
94608 United States
Tel: (800)447-5268, (510)654-7363
Fax: (510)654-4167

Description:
Plant Insulation Company is a construction materials and
machinery company that specializes in roofing siding and
insulation materials.


                            *********

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  * * *