CAR_Public/090213.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 31
  
                           Headlines

CUBIC CORP: Faces Suit by U.S. Gov't. Subcontract Employees
GOOGLE INC: Notification For Copyright Settlement in Progress
HORIZON LINES: Domestic Ocean Shipping Services Suits Pending
HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
INSURANCE COMPANIES: Seek Dismissal of La.'s Road Home Lawsuit

KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in California
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lawyers Urge Judge to Consider $90M Award
MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Real Estate Scam
NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Suits in W.Va. Over DVD Rentals
PARK WEST: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Fla.

PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Decertifies Class in "Clark" Litigation
POLO RALPH LAUREN: Awaits Court Approval for Calif. Settlement
POLO RALPH LAUREN: Settlement of Club Monaco Lawsuits Approved
POLO RALPH LAUREN: To Contest Suits by Former Store Employees
TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit

TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of ARS
TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suits Over Reserve Yield Plus Fund Shares
WARNER MUSIC: Appeal to Junked Amended Complaint Pending in N.Y.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mich. Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M.
INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4,800 Cases Pending Against Tyco at Dec. 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $25M Charge at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 525 Injury Claims Ongoing v. Todd Shipyards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Has Injury Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $700T Income During 2nd Qtr.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Fines 2 Conn. Cos. for Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tewkesbury Engineer Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westpoint Schoolcare Fined for Health Risks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Aims to Remove Asbestos in Buildings

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supreme Court Rules on Nostrom Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Order in Martin Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.8Mil Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $52M Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Rockwell
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $53M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Still Facing 35T Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor's Rockwell Liability at $16Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corp. Still Facing Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites 1,867 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Has $1.884Bil Net Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simmons Cleared in Ill. Malpractice Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frye Suit v. DuPont, Others Filed in W.Va.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Crown Cork's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Issues Ruling on Sanborn Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Martin v. MGP Set for April 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 109T at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27T Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Subsidiary Faces AO Respiratory Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Pending v. BJ Services
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,183 Cases Still Pending v. Central Hudson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $1.007B Insurance at Dec. 27

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Still Facing 700 Stearns Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Unit Facing 1 Case with 3,700 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Facing 170 Suits at Dec. 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 6,100 at Dec. 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $51M Charge at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bourton Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Willcox Says Hardie Estimates Are Reliable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nelson Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Cedar Falls Schools Costs $104T

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Polk County Court Cleanup to Cost $200,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Adkinson Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Dismissed in Louden, Border Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Technologies Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wood, Collins Face Prison for Asbestos Scam

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Township to Clear Schools of Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stuart Widow Awarded GBP9,500 Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bickle Widow to Launch Wrongful Death Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Hotel to Pay GBP52T for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Widow Gets GBP703T in Payout

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Factory Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips Suit v. 27 Companies Filed in Tex.


                           *********

CUBIC CORP: Faces Suit by U.S. Gov't. Subcontract Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubic Corp. intends to defend a purported class-action lawsuit
filed in December 2008, in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District, California.

In December 2008, the company was named in the suit seeking
reclassification of certain employees working on a U.S.
Government subcontract from salaried to hourly, overtime pay,
back pay and damages under a variety of theories for violation
of California and Federal labor and employment laws.

The complaint alleges the value of these claims could exceed $5
million.

No court date has been established while the court reviews
jurisdictional issues.

Management has made an indemnification demand on the prime
contractor for damages that may arise from this action.
Management intends also to work with the U.S. Government to
rectify this litigation, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Cubic Corp. -- http://www.cubic.com-- incorporated in 1949,  
designs, develops, manufactures and installs products, which are
electronic in nature, such as equipment for use in customized
military range instrumentation, training and applications
systems, simulators, communications and surveillance systems,
surveillance receivers, power amplifiers, and avionics systems,
and automated revenue collection systems, including contactless
smart cards, passenger gates, central computer systems and
ticket vending machines for mass transit networks, including
rail systems, buses, and parking applications.  The company also
performs a variety of services, such as computer simulation
training, distributed simulation and development of military
training doctrine, as well as field operations and maintenance.
It operates in two segments: defense and transportation systems.


GOOGLE INC: Notification For Copyright Settlement in Progress
-------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Court-
ordered process of officially notifying authors, publishers, and
other copyright-holders about the landmark Google Book Search
class-action settlement is underway.

     Authors and publishers throughout the world are receiving
detailed information about their legal rights and options by
email and postal mail.  A Summary Notice is being published in
218 countries and 72 languages, which complements the mailed
notice program.  Class members should visit
http://www.googlebooksettlement.comfor complete information,  
including the Notice of Class Action Settlement, and key dates.

     The Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers,
and Google announced the proposed settlement in late October
2008.  The settlement, if Court-approved, will authorize Google
to scan in-copyright Books and Inserts in the United States,
maintain an electronic database of Books, and make various uses
of the Books as specified in the settlement.  For out-of-print
Books and, if permitted by Rightsholders of in-print Books,
Google will be able to sell access to individual Books and
institutional subscriptions to the database, place
advertisements on any page dedicated to a Book, and make other
commercial uses of Books.  At any time, Rightsholders can change
instructions to Google regarding any of those uses.  Through a
Book Rights Registry ("Registry") established by the settlement,
Google will pay Rightsholders 63% of all revenues from these
uses.  The settlement also provides for cash payments to
Rightsholders of Books and Inserts that Google scans prior to
May 5, 2009.

     Class members' rights may be affected by the settlement
even if they do not act.  Those who wish to opt out of or object
to the settlement must do so by May 5, 2009.  Claims for cash
payments for Books and Inserts scanned by May 5, 2009 must be
filed by January 5, 2010.  The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York will consider whether to grant
final approval of the settlement at a hearing on June 11, 2009.

     Complete information about the settlement is available at
http://www.googlebooksettlement.com,which is available in 36  
languages.


HORIZON LINES: Domestic Ocean Shipping Services Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc., is facing several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Alaska, Florida, Puerto Rico,
California, Oregon, and Washington over domestic ocean shipping
services, according to the company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 21, 2008.

On April 17, 2008, the company received a grand jury subpoena
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust
violations in the domestic ocean shipping business.  

Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ investigation, a
number of purported class action lawsuits were filed against the
company and other domestic shipping carriers.

Since April 22, 2008, fifty-six cases have been filed in the
following federal district courts:

       -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
          District of Florida,

       -- six in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
          District of Florida,

       -- nineteen in the U.S. District Court for the District
          of Puerto Rico,

       -- eleven in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
          District of California,

       -- two in the U.S. District Court for the Central
          District of California,

       -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Oregon,

       -- eight in the U.S. District Court for the Western
          District of Washington, and

       -- one in the U.S. District Court for the District of
          Alaska.

Each of the federal district court cases purports to be on
behalf of a class of individuals and entities who purchased
domestic ocean shipping services from the various domestic ocean
carriers.

The complaints allege price-fixing in violation of the Sherman
Act and seek treble monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct.

All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean
shipping services in the Puerto Rico tradelane were consolidated
into a single mutlidisrict litigation proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

All of the foregoing district court cases that relate to ocean
shipping services in the Hawaii and Guam tradelanes were
consolidated into a MDL proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  

One district court case remains in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Alaska, relating to the Alaska tradelane.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly    
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


HORIZON LINES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc. intends to defend against two securities
class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, naming the company and five current and
former employees, including its Chief Executive Officer, as
defendants.

The first complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2008, and the second
complaint was filed on Jan. 27, 2009, and each complaint
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock during the period from March 2, 2007 through April 25,
2008.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company made
material misstatements and omissions in connection with alleged
price-fixing in the company's shipping business in Puerto Rico
in violation of antitrust laws.

The complaints seek compensatory damages for the alleged
damages, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, according to the
company's Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 21, 2008.

Horizon Lines, Inc. -- http://www.horizon-lines.com/-- formerly    
known as H-Lines Holding Corp., is a container shipping and
integrated logistics company.  The company's subsidiaries
include Horizon Lines, LLC (HL), Horizon Logistics Holdings, LLC
(Horizon Logistics) and Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico, Inc.
HLPR).  With 21 vessels, 16 of which are fully qualified Jones
Act vessels, and approximately 22,000 cargo containers the
company provides shipping and logistics services in its markets.
The company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Horizon
Logistics, offers inland transportation through its own trucking
operations on the U.S. west coast and Alaska, and its integrated
logistics services including relationships with third-party
truckers, railroads, and barge operators in its markets.  It
ships a spectrum of consumer and industrial items ranging from
foodstuffs (refrigerated and non-refrigerated) to household
goods and auto parts to building materials and various materials
used in manufacturing.


INSURANCE COMPANIES: Seek Dismissal of La.'s Road Home Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for some of the nation's largest insurance companies
asked the U.S. District Court for the the Eastern District of
Louisiana on Jan. 30, 2009 to dismiss a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by a former Louisiana attorney general, calling it
"a bald attempt" to force insurers to increase payouts for
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Michael Kunzelman of The Associated
Press reports.

Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr.. heard arguments from lawyers on both
sides of the case, but didn't immediately rule on the companies'
request for him to dismiss the class action suit filed in 2007
by former Attorney General Charles Foti.

Lawyers for Allstate Insurance Co., State Farm Fire and Casualty
Co., and other insurers claim the attorney general's office is
trying to take over the rights to more than 155,000 policyholder
claims, to recover money the state paid out through the
federally funded Road Home homeowner grant program after the
2005 hurricanes.

However, the companies say the state already had deducted
insurance payments in calculating grant awards.

Insurers' attorneys called the suit "a bald attempt by the state
to squeeze more money out of the insurance companies" after they
already have paid out more than $40 billion to Gulf Coast
policyholders after Hurricane Katrina.

In court papers obtained by The Associated Press, company
lawyers wrote, "In the history of federal and state disaster
relief for catastrophes, there is no known precedent for what
the state seeks to do in this case."

Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell inherited the case from
A.G. Foti, who lost his bid for re-election when he finished
third in an October 2007 primary.

Insurers claim A.G. Caldwell's office is trying to act as a
"superpolicyholder" over more than 155,000 insurance policies.

However, A.G. Caldwell's office says it only has challenged
settlements between insurers and policyholders that appear to be
a "fraudulent effort to defeat the state's right to share in the
recovery of ... settlement funds."

"This litigation is intended to address this inequality,"
lawyers for A.G. Caldwell's office wrote.  "Road Home is not and
was never intended to benefit the industry as a substitute for
insurance coverage."

A.G. Caldwell's office is asking Judge Duval to forward claims
for about 157,000 grant recipients to state court.

"We're not looking to get rich off this, to get anything more
than we deserve," A.G. Caldwell attorney Bryan McMinn, Esq.  
told Judge Duval, who didn't immediately rule on that request.

Judge Duval said he expects the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the Fifith Circuit to review his decision, "however I rule,"
according to The Associated Press report.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Discrimination Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and a Kaiser doctors' group,
Permanente Medical Group of Northern California, are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court
that accuses the health maintenance organization of
discriminating against children with autism, FoxReno.com
reports.

Autism is a brain development disorder characterized by impaired
communication skills, impaired social interaction and repetitive
behavior.

The lawsuit, Lissa Anderson and her 5-year-old autistic son;
Paul Santiago and his 10-year-old autistic daughter; and an
advocacy group called Equal Coverage for Autism, claims that
Oakland-based Kaiser violates California civil rights and
business laws by refusing to provide autistic children with
speech, occupational and physical therapies.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by lawyers from Berkeley-
based Disability Rights Advocates, contend those therapies are a
necessary medical treatment for autism, but say Kaiser has told
them it does not consider the treatments to be health services
and therefore will not provide them.

Instead, the families claim, Kaiser told them to seek the
services from school districts or regional developmental
disability centers, which the families say are unable to provide
adequate treatment.

The lawsuit charges that Kaiser implements an "unlawful
corporate policy calculated to avoid the cost of providing
effective treatment to autistic children."

The suit seeks to be certified as a class-action case on behalf
of all California children with autism and their parents.  It
seeks a court order requiring Kaiser to change its practices.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Lawyers Urge Judge to Consider $90M Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in a class-action lawsuit against Louisiana Citizens
Property Insurance Corp. asked a Jefferson Parish judge last
January to award more than $90 million in penalties to
policyholders whose 2005 hurricane claims were not adjusted on
time, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune reports.

A set of motions for summary judgment in the case, "Geraldine
Oubre et al v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan," asks Judge Henry
Sullivan to find that the state-sponsored insurer of last resort
did not initiate adjustment of hurricane claims within 30 days
of being notified of storm damage, as required by law, according
to The Times-Picayune.

The Times-Picayune reported that using Citizens' own claims
logs, Gretna attorney Wiley Beevers, Esq. and his staff built a
spreadsheet to show when policyholders called to report damage
and when Citizens made appointments to send adjusters to their
homes.  His legal team found 18,573 cases in which it took more
than 30 days to start the adjustment process.

Because Citizens' own information can prove the plaintiffs'
case, the Beevers legal team said the court can wrap up the case
with a finding in their favor without waiting for a full trial,
which is set for March 2009.

The Times-Picayune reported that Citizens though urged Judge
Sullivan to reject the plaintiffs' motions for payment.  The
attorneys argue that Mr. Beevers' spreadsheet should not be
accepted as undisputed fact, because his office prepared it and
could have made judgments on what entries to select to prove his
case.  Moreover, Citizens says it found some errors in the
spreadsheet.

They also argued that the extreme conditions that prevailed
after Hurricane Katrina, when courts were closed and executive
orders made it difficult for people to enter storm-struck
parishes, should have exempted Citizens from the 30-day
adjustment timetable, reports The Times-Picayune.

The attorneys also claimed that Citizens is not an insurance
company, but rather a state-created non-profit.  They said it
serves no public purpose to hold Citizens to penalty statutes
when it is taxpayers who could ultimately have to pick up the
tab for any cost overruns.  "Citizens is not an insurer for
penalty purposes," argues attorney Jack Culotta, The Times-
Picayune reported.

No time frame is set for a ruling, according to The Times-
Picayune report.


MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Real Estate Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marcus & Millichap Co., along with several other defendants,  
is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California that
was filed by small investors who accused defendants of taking
part in an elaborate scam that fleeced individual investors out
of millions of dollars in recent years, Roger Vincent of The Los
Angeles Times reports.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Feb. 4, 2009, alleges that brokers at
Marcus & Millichap allegedly took part in a conspiracy to buy
small commercial properties, artificially inflate their values
and sell them to unsuspecting investors.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the litigation was filed as
a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 16 investors, mostly
Californians, who bought 22 properties in four states.  It seeks
as much as $70 million in compensatory damages and up to $200
million altogether with punitive damages and treble damages
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law.

Listed as plaintiffs in the case are:

       -- Eclectic Properties East, LLC,
       -- Risola Family LP II,
       -- CECA 3000, LP,
       -- Cheatham Properties, LLC,
       -- VAS Enterprises I LLC,
       -- Amnon Danus,
       -- Rivka Danus,
       -- Fred Engelberg,
       -- Linda Farrell,
       -- Joseph W. Amirkhas,
       -- Justus L. Ahrend,
       -- Susan W. Ahrend,
       -- Kevork Belikian,
       -- Sylvia S. Belikian,
       -- Mani Etemad,
       -- Susan Khoshnood,
       -- Eugenia Gagnon,
       -- Thomas H. Linden,
       -- Sylvia E. Linden,
       -- Johannes Moderbacher,
       -- Eileen Starr Moderbacher,
       -- Richard W. Siebert,
       -- Debra M. Siebert,
       -- Allen Ernest Hom, and
       -- Linda J. Call.

Aside form Marcus & Millichap, other defendants in the matter
are:

       -- Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services
          Inc.,
       -- Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage
          Company,
       -- Sovereign Investment Company,
       -- Sovereign Scranton LLC,
       -- Sovereign CC, LLC,
       -- Sovereign JF, LLC,
       -- Paul A. Morabito,
       -- Eureka Petroleum Inc.,
       -- Tibarom Inc.,
       -- Tibarom NY LLC,
       -- Tibarom PA LLC,
       -- Scranton Lube, LLC,
       -- NY Seven Lube, LLC,
       -- New York Lube Number 3, LLC,
       -- Rochester Lube, LLC,
       -- Baruk Management, Inc.,
       -- Jack Waelti,
       -- The QSR Group One, LLC,
       -- The QSR Group, LLC,
       -- The QSR Group II, LLC,
       -- PGP Valuation, Inc.,
       -- Glen D. Kunofsky,
       -- Marcus Muirhead,
       -- Alexander Mickle,
       -- Sean Perkin,
       -- Donald Emas,
       -- Andrew Lesher,
       -- Stewart Weston,
       -- Brice Head,
       -- Daizy Gomez, and
       -- Bret King.

"This scheme was employed with nearly mathematical precision and
demonstrates a formula of fraud," plaintiffs' attorney David J.
George, a partner in the San Diego law firm Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins tells The Los Angeles Times.

The suit alleges that Messrs. Morabito and Waelti bought small
franchises of Jiffy Lube and Church's Chicken, among others, and
the real estate where the businesses were located.  They then
sold the properties to a subsidiary of Marcus & Millichap and
leased them back at rents well above standard market rates, the
suit contends.  Based on those rents, the suit alleges that, the
brokerage sold the properties to investors at inflated prices.  
According to the suit, Mr. Morabito and other tenants then
closed the businesses, leaving the investors with greatly
devalued real estate, reports The Los Angeles Times.

The suit alleges that the defendants assembled a portfolio of
overpriced properties and then marketed them to buyers they
intended to deceive, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The suit is "Eclectic Properties East, LLC et al v. The Marcus &
Millichap Company et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-00511-RMW," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. (bonnys@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

Representing the defendant is:

          Michael John Hassen, Esq. (mjh@jmbm.com)
          Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro
          Two Embarcadero Center
          Fifth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 398-8080
          Fax: (415) 398-5584


NETFLIX INC: Faces Antitrust Suits in W.Va. Over DVD Rentals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walmart.Com USA, LLC are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in West Virginia that
alleges the two companies conspired to raise prices and to
eliminate competition in the DVD sales and online rental market,  
Kelly Holleran of The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virgina on Feb. 9, 2009, by Brandon and
Jennifer Walters, who claim that they paid artificially high
subscription fees to Netflix because of an agreement reached
between Wal-Mart and Netflix on May 19, 2005.

According to the complaint, before the alleged agreement, Wal-
Mart had been selling DVDs online, however, under the agreement,
Wal-Mart asserted it would stop selling DVDs online, thereby
leaving Blockbuster as Netflix's only competition, reports The
West Virginia Record.

The West Virginia Record reported that in return, the suit
states that Netflix agreed not to sell DVDs online and instead
to promote DVD sales at Wal-Mart.  It also stated, "Defendants'
Market Division Agreement effectively eliminated competition in
the Online DVD Rental Market and enabled Netflix to charge its
subscribers higher subscription prices for the online rental of
DVDS than it otherwise would have."

The lawsuit alleges that soon after the alleged agreement, Wal-
Mart placed a link to the Netflix Web site, urging its
subscribers to transfer their subscriptions to Netflix.  

It also alleges that with Wal-Mart competition out of the way,
Netflix raised its subscription price from $14.99 per month to
$17.99 per month for up to three titles.

The West Virginia Record reports that the Walters and the
putative class are asking the court to declare the agreement
between Wal-Mart and Netflix void and that the court prohibit
the companies from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

They are also seeking compensatory damages, costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest and additional relief the court deems
just, according to The West Virginia Record.

The suit is "Walters et al v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:09-cv-00110," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virgina, Judge John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William L. Bands, Esq. (wlbands@belllaw.com)
          BELL & BANDS
          P.O. Box 1723
          Charleston, WV 25326-1723
          Phone: 304/347-1700
          Fax: 304/347-1715


PARK WEST: Continues to Face Consumer Fraud Litigation in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park West Gallery, Inc., which says it sells 300,000 works
annually and earns more than $300 million in annual art sales
revenue, including through auctions on 85 cruise ships,
continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit in Florida,
alleging violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Martha Lufkin of The Art Newspaper reports.

In June 2008, Park West was sued in a consumer class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
by David Bouverat, who says he bought art from Park West on a
cruise.

The Art Newspaper reported that Mr. Bouverat, who alleges
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and other claims, says that appraisals that the gallery provided
were based on Park West Gallery's price for the art, not a
replacement price "from some unknown reputable retail art
gallery."  

The case is continuing, according to Mr. Bouverat's lawyer,
Shawn Khorrami, Esq. of Los Angeles, according to The Art
Newspaper report.


PFIZER INC: Pa. Court Decertifies Class in "Clark" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark I. Bernstein of the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District, Philadelphia granted a motion for class
decertification of the matter, "Clark v. Pfizer, Inc.," Amaris
Elliott-Engel of The Legal Intelligencer reports.

A month before the case was set for trial, Judge Bernstein
decertified the class of users of an epilepsy and neuralgia drug
seeking reimbursement from the drug's maker after being
prescribed the drug for uses not approved by federal regulators.

The Legal Intelligencer reported that the suit was actually set
to go to trial on March 9, 2009.  Judge Bernstein had previously
granted class certification to the case in 2007.  However, his
Feb. 9, 2009 ruling reverses that earlier decision.

Class representatives Gregory Clark of Philadelphia and Linda
Meashey of Annville, Lebanon County, brought claims of
misrepresentation, negligence, negligence per se and breach of
express warranty on behalf of other users of the drug Neurontin,
or the generic equivalent, gabapentin, according to The Legal
Intelligencer.

The Legal Intelligencer reported that the proposed class was
made up of people prescribed the drug for medical conditions
other than epilepsy and the management of pain associated with
herpes zoster rash outbreaks.  The plaintiffs sought a refund of
all noninsured payments for the drug.

The plaintiffs argued that defendant, Warner-Lambert Co., and
its merger partner, Pfizer, Inc., violated a federal law that
prohibits drug manufacturers from marketing Food and Drug
Administration-approved drugs for off-label uses, or uses not
approved by federal regulators, according to court papers.  The
plaintiffs claimed that the drug company defendants conducted a
campaign to promote the wider use of Neurontin and gabapentin.

Judge Bernstein wrote in his opinion that he granted Pfizer's
motion for decertification of the class because there was a
question of fact about whether each class member had benefited
or been harmed from their off-label prescriptions for Neurontin,
reports The Legal Intelligencer.

According to Judge Bernstein, "Since some class members have
benefited from the use of Neurontin and other class members have
not benefited, individual questions of fact are presented making
the case unsuitable for class resolution.  Whether an individual
class member suffered a compensable loss is an inherently
individualized question which predominates making class
resolution impracticable and nearly impossible," The Legal
Intelligencer reported.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: Awaits Court Approval for Calif. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the final settlement of two customer class-action
lawsuits in California remain subject to court approval,
according to Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On Oct. 11, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2007, two class-action lawsuits
were filed by two customers in state court in California
asserting that while they were shopping at certain of the
company's factory stores in California, the company allegedly
required them to provide certain personal information at the
point-of-sale in order to complete a credit card purchase.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a class of customers in
California who allegedly were injured by being forced to provide
their address and telephone numbers in order to use their credit
cards to purchase items from the company's stores, which
allegedly violated Section 1747.08 of California's Song-Beverly
Act.

The complaints sought an unspecified amount of statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

The company subsequently had the actions moved to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern and Central Districts of
California.

The company commenced mediation proceedings with respect to
these lawsuits and on Oct. 17, 2008, the company agreed in
principle to settle these claims by agreeing to issue $20
merchandise discount coupons with six month expiration dates to
eligible parties.  The terms of the final settlement remain
subject to court approval and the resolution of the amount of
attorneys' fees payable to plaintiffs' counsel in connection
with these lawsuits.  

In connection with this settlement, the company recorded a $5
million reserve against its expected loss exposure during the
second quarter of Fiscal 2009.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: Settlement of Club Monaco Lawsuits Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The terms of the settlement of lawsuits alleging Club Monaco
stores' violations of California wage and hour laws were
recently approved, according to Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.'s Feb.
5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

On March 2, 2006, a former employee at the company Club Monaco
store in Los Angeles, California filed a lawsuit against Polo
Ralph Lauren in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of Club Monaco
store employees who allegedly were injured by being improperly
classified as exempt employees and thereby did not receive
compensation for overtime and did not receive meal and rest
breaks.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

On Aug. 21, 2007, eleven former and then current employees of
the company's Club Monaco stores in California filed a lawsuit
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging similar claims as the
Club Monaco action in San Francisco.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

The parties to these two Club Monaco litigations agreed to
retain a mediator in an effort to resolve both matters and
recently agreed to settle all claims involving both litigations
at an aggregate cost of $1.2 million.  The terms of the
settlement were recently approved by both the Los Angeles and
San Francisco courts.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


POLO RALPH LAUREN: To Contest Suits by Former Store Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. intends to contest the class-action
lawsuit filed by four former employees of the company's Ralph
Lauren stores in Palo Alto and San Francisco, California.

On May 30, 2006, four former employees of Ralph Lauren stores
filed a lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of employees who
allegedly have been injured by not properly being paid
commission earnings, not being paid overtime, not receiving rest
breaks, being forced to work off of the clock while waiting to
enter or leave the store and being falsely imprisoned while
waiting to leave the store.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, damages for emotional distress, disgorgement of
profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The company has filed a cross-claim against one of the
plaintiffs for his role in allegedly assisting a former employee
to misappropriate company property.

Subsequent to answering the complaint, the company had the
action moved to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008.

Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is a  
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men's, women's and children's
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings.  The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.


TD AMERITRADE: No Ruling Yet on Settlement of "Elvey" Spam Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has not yet issued a ruling on the proposed settlement of a
lawsuit against TD Ameritrade Inc. that accuses the company of
illegally selling e-mail addresses to spammers.

Initially, one purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Elvey
v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-02852-BZ," was filed on
May 31, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that TDA Inc.
disclosed, inadvertently or intentionally, the e-mail addresses
of account holders to spammers, who then sent the account
holders e-mail solicitations promoting certain stocks.

The suit includes claims of alleged violations of California and
federal statutes and alleged breach of fiduciary duty and
requests injunctive and other equitable relief and damages.

As disclosed in a press release dated Sept. 14, 2007, the
company discovered and eliminated unauthorized code from its
systems that allowed access to an internal database.  The
discovery was made as the result of an internal investigation of
stock-related spam.  The company hired an independent consultant
to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of
the breach.

The consultant conducted four investigations over the last 12
months and found no evidence of identity theft.

A second lawsuit, captioned "Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.," was
filed on Sept. 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a
purported nationwide class of account holders.  The factual
allegations of this complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.

The cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re TD
Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation."

The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a
class basis subject to court approval.

A hearing on a motion requesting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement was held on June 12, 2008.  At the hearing,
one of the three plaintiffs objected to the proposed settlement.
Thus, the court entered an order denying the motion for
preliminary approval without prejudice and directed the parties
to provide supplemental information to assist the court in
evaluating the proposed settlement.

On July 10, 2008, TDA Inc. and two of the plaintiffs provided
supplemental information in response to the court's direction
and in further support of the proposed settlement.

After additional submissions were made by the parties, the Court
held a further hearing on Oct. 7, 2008.

The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the matter, according
to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The suit is "Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-
02852-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq. (skamber@kolaw.com)
          Kamber & Associates, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-920-3072
          Fax: 212-202-6364

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          Law Offices of Himmelfarb & Himmelfarb
          2757 Leonis Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: 323-585-8696
          Fax: 323-585-8198
          e-mail: Consumerlaw1@earthlink.net


TD AMERITRADE: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Sale of ARS
-----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. continues to face several purported
class-action lawsuits over the company's sale of auction rate
securities.

Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various
financial services firms by customers related to their
investments in auction rate securities.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to
customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the
ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging
such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding
Corp.

The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned, "Humphrys
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al."  The second case, filed
on April 17, 2008, is captioned, "Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp. et al."

Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased
ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008.  The complaints
seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the
proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial
services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge.  The
company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other
cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation.

The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the
motion.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the motion
in October 2008, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is  
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces Suits Over Reserve Yield Plus Fund Shares
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. faces two purported class-action
lawsuits filed in November and December 2008, with respect to
the Yield Plus Fund.  

The lawsuits are captioned, "Ross v. Reserve Management Company,
Inc. et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al.
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  

The lawsuits are on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
Reserve Yield Plus Fund.

Both complaints name as defendants a number of entities and
individuals related to The Reserve.

The company is named as a defendant in both cases and TDA Inc.
is named as a defendant in the Hamilton case.

The complaints allege claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the
fund.

The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is  
engaged in providing securities brokerage services and
technology-based financial services to retail investors and
business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a
national branch network and relationships with independent
registered investment advisors.  The company offers touch-tone
trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free
real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and
commitment on the speed of execution to its customers.  As of
Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business
of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc..  The client offerings include TD
AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone,
Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate
Services.  The products available to the clients include common
and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades,
mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management
services.


WARNER MUSIC: Appeal to Junked Amended Complaint Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal to the decision dismissing their consolidated
amended complaint against Warner Music Group Corp. remains
pending in the Southern District of New York.

Subsequent to the announcements of governmental investigations
as to whether the company's activities relating to the pricing
of digitally downloaded music violate Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, more than 30 putative class action lawsuits concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads were filed and were later
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the Southern District
of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007,
alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release
of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing
of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages.

All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  This
motion was granted on Oct. 9, 2008.  Plaintiffs appealed the
decision, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com-- is a music  
content company that classifies its business interests into two
areas: Recorded Music and Music Publishing.  The Recorded Music
business produces revenue through the marketing, sale and
licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as compact
disc's (CDs), cassettes, long playings (LPs) and digital
versatile discs (DVDs)) and digital (such as downloads and
ringtones) formats.  The Music Publishing business owns and
acquires rights to musical compositions, exploits and markets
these compositions and receives royalties or fees for their use.
The company publishes music across a range of musical styles.
The company own or control rights to more than one million
musical compositions, including a number of pop music hits,
American standards, folk songs, and motion picture and
theatrical compositions.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Mich. Court Certifies Class in Retirees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
granted class-action status to the litigation, "Ginter et al v.
Whirlpool Corporation et al.," which names Whirlpool Corp., and
Whirlpool Corp. Group Benefit Plan, as defendants, John Jennings
of the Newton Daily News reports.

The lawsuit was brought by former Maytag employees against the
company.  These employees included:

       -- Reid Ginter,
       -- Willie L. Bennett,
       -- Stephen M. Murphy,
       -- Richard Poston,
       -- Robert L. Vander Leest,
       -- Carmen Vander Leest, and
       -- Sandra Davis.

In a ruling issued in January 2009, Judge Gordon J. Quist of e
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
granted the motion to allow the case to be heard as a class-
action lawsuit, according to the Newton Daily News.

In 2008, Whirlpool announced that it intended to bring former
Maytag employees' health insurance in line with Whirlpool
workers, angering the Maytagers, who say they fought for and
earned their current health insurace, reports the Newton Daily
News.

The Newton Daily News reported Whirlpool lawyers argued that the
plaintiff's definition of those eligible for the health
insurance was "complicated and unnecessary," however, the judge
ruled otherwise, and that the definition "appears to cover all
persons who may be entitled to health benefits, while
defendants' definition excludes some of these persons."

The suit is "Ginter et al v. Whirlpool Corporation et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-00750-GJQ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, Judge Judge Gordon J. Quist,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David R. Radtke, Esq. (dradtke@kmsmc.com)
          Klimist McKnight Sale McClow & Canzano PC
          400 Galleria Officentre, Ste. 117
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Phone: (248) 354-9650

Representing the defendants is:          

          Mark Casciari, Esq. (mcasciari@seyfarth.com)
          Seyfarth Shaw LLP
          131 S. Dearborn St., Ste. 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Phone: (312) 460-5855


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

EMCORE CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Notice is
hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:EMKR), between June 12, 2007 and June 30, 2008,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Emcore and certain of the Company's
current and former executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Emcore provides compound semiconductor-based
components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic,
satellite and terrestrial solar power markets, including
concentrating photovoltaic ("CPV") systems.

     Throughout the Class Period, Emcore touted its order
backlog, which analysts, investors and other market participants
considered an indication of future profitability.  The Complaint
alleges that defendants' Class Period statements were false and
misleading or failed to disclose that, among other things:

       -- the Company's reported backlog was overstated;

       -- the Company overstated the demand for its products;

       -- the Company had improperly recognized revenue from
          transactions with customers that did not have the
          ability to pay the Company;

       -- the Company's financial results were overstated;

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

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls.

     On March 18, 2008, a report on the market by Citron
Research (the "Citron Report") shocked investors by challenging
the quality of Emcore's customers, their ability to pay for
orders placed with Emcore, and the quality of Emcore's reported
backlog.  The Citron Report asserted that Emcore's largest
customer, Green and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78
million of Emcore's $86 million order backlog in terrestrial
solar technology, did not have the ability to pay for the orders
that GGE had placed with Emcore.  Moreover, the report
questioned Emcore's claim that GGE was a "world-leading CPV
system provider" and GGE's ability to complete its transactions
or meet its agreements with Emcore.  On this news, shares of
Emcore declined $2.05 per share, more than 23%, to close on
March 18, 2008 at $6.78 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

     On June 30, 2008, a report on the market issued by research
analysts from Canaccord Adams revealed, among other things, that
upon meeting with ES Systems, one of Emcore's customers in South
Korea, the analysts believed that market expectations for
Emcore's business with ES Systems (based on Emcore's
announcements) were overstated.  On this news, shares of Emcore
declined $0.97 per share, or 13.42%, on Monday June 30, 2008,
and further declined an additional $0.68, or 10.86%, on July 1,
2008 to close on July 1, 2008 at $5.58 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.  Over this two-day period, Emcore's shares
declined by $1.65 per share, or approximately 22%.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith announces a February 16, 2009,
deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:ISYS) between April 28, 2008 and December 10,
2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The shareholder lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Integral Systems' business, operations and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Integral
Systems securities.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants' public statements were false and misleading or
failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company improperly recognized revenue;

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

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

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

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

     On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors
when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the
Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March
30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due
to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions
with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between
periods.  The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the
Company would restate its previously filed financial statements
for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008. On this
news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per share, or
28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per share, on
unusually heavy volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          

LEVEL 3 COMMS: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 11, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) between February 8, 2007 and October
23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
Level 3 engages in the communications business in North America
and Europe.  The Company's network and Internet services include
transport services, high speed Internet protocol services,
dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services, co-
location services and dark fiber services.  Between December
2005 and January 2007, Level 3 also acquired several companies.

     The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Level 3's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.  Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were
false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate that:

       -- the Company's efforts to integrate the numerous
          acquired companies were not going well;

       -- specifically, the Company was experiencing an increase
          in service activation times, which was negatively
          impacting the Company's service installation intervals
          and rate of revenue growth;

       -- the Company was also experiencing challenges in its
          service management processes that were resulting in
          longer response times to resolve customers' network
          service issues;

       -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were
          not working, and actually were further complicating
          the issues and making them worse;

       -- as a result of the above, the Company did not have
          adequate provisioning capability to convert its sales,
          or signed orders, into revenue generating service;

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the statements made by the
          defendants during the Class Period lacked a reasonable
          basis.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 revealed that the Company was
having extensive difficulties integrating the systems and
customer-service processes of the numerous companies it had
acquired, and these difficulties were causing an increase in
service activation times.  Moreover, Level 3 revised downward
the Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007
and full year 2008. On this news, shares of Level 3 declined
$1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23,
2007 at $3.28 per share.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: The Shuman Law Firm Announces Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 10, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The
Shuman Law Firm today announced that a lawsuit seeking class
action status has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of a proposed
class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RIGL)
between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Also included are those who acquired Rigel
common stock in the Company's February 2008 Secondary Offering.

     The Complaint charges that Rigel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants are alleged to have issued materially
false and misleading statements about a clinical trial (the
"Study") of a new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid
arthritis.  The Study involved 189 patients in the U.S. and
Mexico.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both
          the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients,
          which may have contributed disproportionately to the
          overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses;

       -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure
          which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk,
          and the mechanism that caused the increase was not
          well understood; and

       -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced
          increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking
          the placebo.

For more details, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 4,800 Cases Pending Against Tyco at Dec. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 4,800 asbestos-related liability cases as of Dec. 26, 2008
were pending against Tyco International Ltd. and its
subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2009.  

The Company and its subsidiaries, as of Sept. 26, 2008, faced
about 4,600 pending asbestos liability cases. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants
in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials. The Company has observed an
increase in the number of these lawsuits in the past several
years.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property. Most of the cases involve product
liability claims, based on allegations of past distribution of
heat-resistant industrial products incorporating asbestos or the
past distribution of industrial valves that incorporated
asbestos-containing gaskets or packing. Each case typically
names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and, as a result, have
been dismissed by the courts.

Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial in 2008, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million,
which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The
Company intends to appeal the verdict and said it believes that
it will ultimately be overturned.

Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, Tyco International Ltd.
makes electrical and metal products (steel tubing, pipes,
cables) for commercial construction. Its flow control unit makes
valves and related products for water, wastewater, and the oil
and gas markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Cites $25M Charge at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., in the fourth quarter of 2008, recorded a
charge of US$25 million (US$15 million, net of tax, or US$0.09
per diluted share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 2, 2009.

The Company estimates that its asbestos liability for pending
and future asbestos claims will range between US$201 million and
US$239 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the reported range was US$201 million to
US$243 million.

After the US$25 million charge, the Company's recorded liability
at Dec. 31, 2008 was US$201 million, the same as at Dec. 31,
2007.

Asbestos-related payments totaled US$25 million in 2008,
compared with US$26 million in 2007. Cases filed against the
Company declined to 3,100 in 2008 from 3,600 in 2007.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies
packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the
world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton continues to be subject to various unresolved
legal actions, including asbestos-related product liability
actions, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 4, 2009.

Headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation
produces air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power
equipment. The Company designs, manufactures, markets and
services these products for original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 525 Injury Claims Ongoing v. Todd Shipyards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation faces about 525 asbestos-related
claims, of which 14 are "malignant" and 511 are "non-malignant,"
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 5, 2009.

The Company faced 516 asbestos-related claims, of which 12 were
"malignant" claims and 504 were "non-malignant" claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at closed former facilities.

The cases generally include as defendants, in addition to the
Company, other ship builders and repairers, ship owners,
asbestos manufacturers, distributors and installers, and
equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries or illnesses
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other toxic
substances.

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, analyzing them in two different categories based on
severity of illness. Based on current fact patterns, certain
diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and fully developed
asbestosis are categorized by the Company as "malignant" claims.
All others of a less medically serious nature are categorized as
"non-malignant."

As of Dec. 28, 2008, the Company has recorded a bodily injury
liability reserve of US$5.3 million and a bodily injury
insurance receivable of US$3.9 million. This compares to a
previously recorded bodily injury reserve of US$5.4 million and
insurance receivable of US$4 million at March 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation, through
Todd Pacific Shipyards, repairs, maintains, overhauls, and
builds government-owned and commercial vessels. Services range
from minor repairs to major overhauls in dry dock at the
Company's Seattle-area shipyard. The U.S. government, through
the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard, accounts for more than 60
percent of the Company's shipyard sales.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Has Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is still a defendant in cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the
Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according
to the Company's quarterly report dated Feb. 5, 2009.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may
provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and
is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and
policies.

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro
Company manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care
products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains,
independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and
drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty
crop growers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Cites $700T Income During 2nd Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. reported an income of US$700,000 or US$0.02 per
share related to discontinued operations in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009, including an asbestos-related gain of US$500,000
related to a May 2007 settlement agreement between the Company
and Federal-Mogul Corporation, according to a Company press
release dated Feb. 5, 2009.

The amount represents primarily the recovery of previously
incurred legal fees for the defense of asbestos-related
lawsuits, and brings the Company's total amounts received under
the agreement to US$5.5 million, the maximum amount to which the
Company is entitled under the terms of the agreement.

The results of discontinued operations for the second quarter of
fiscal 2008 include a gain of US$1.4 million from the settlement
agreement with Federal-Mogul.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. makes programmable
motion control and power conditioning systems, including
variable-frequency motor drives used in overhead cranes and
elevators, power conditioners for stationary fuel cells, wind
turbines, commercial solar power, and telecommunications power
systems. The Company gets more than 80 percent of its sales in
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Fines 2 Conn. Cos. for Removal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Connecticut have reached a settlement
with Anderson-Wilcox Corp. and Cutting Edge Concepts II LLC, for
alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act due to improper
removal and disposal of asbestos at a New Haven, Conn., property
that underwent renovation in 2002, according to an EPA press
release dated Feb. 5, 2009.

The settlement requires the companies to pay a fine of
US$300,000 for the violations.

The violations occurred in the spring and summer of 2002 during
renovations at 116 Crown Street in New Haven. The property was a
vacant, commercial property dating back to the late 1800s.
Cutting Edge Concepts, the owner of the property, hired Anderson
Wilcox, a construction company, who in turn retained a
subcontractor to remove debris and perform
construction/renovation work at the 19,500 square foot masonry
structure.

Despite being aware of the likelihood that asbestos was present
throughout the basement of the building, the two companies
failed to conduct any bulk sampling of suspected material to
confirm the presence of asbestos. Nor did they follow proper
procedures for the safe removal and disposal of asbestos.

Instead, the companies instructed the subcontractor to remove
suspected asbestos-containing materials and debris from the
basement and dispose of them in standard trash dumpsters,
potentially putting workers and the public at risk. The
subcontractor was also directed to remove other building
components, including a large amount of vinyl floor tiles from
the upper floors that were believed to contain asbestos and to
dispose of them in the same open-topped dumpsters located
outside the building.

The companies failed to ensure that these tiles and at least 20
bags of asbestos-containing pipe lagging from the basement were
kept wet, as required by regulation to prevent asbestos fibers
from becoming airborne.

State officials alerted EPA to the potential violations after
receiving a tip. The activities were in violation of the federal
Clean Air Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP).

Specific violations included failure to:

     -- Thoroughly inspect the facility prior to beginning a
        renovation;

     -- Notify EPA or delegated state authority of the
        renovation;

     -- Keep asbestos adequately wet during stripping;

     -- Keep asbestos adequately wet before collection and
        containment for disposal;

     -- Properly label containers as required; and

     -- Deposit asbestos waste at a proper disposal site.

EPA's asbestos regulations help protect workers and the public
from inhaling airborne asbestos fibers. It is important for
developers and construction companies to have trained inspectors
perform thorough asbestos inspections prior to conducting
renovation or demolition work to ensure that adequate measures
are taken to protect the health of on-site workers and the
general public.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tewkesbury Engineer Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Gloucestershire, England, inquest heard that the death of 65-
year-old George Thompson, an engineering company boss, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Tewkesbury ADMAG reports.

However, on Feb. 5, 2009, County Coroner Alan Crickmore said he
could not be sure how or when Mr. Thompson was exposed to
asbestos.

Dr. Crickmore recorded an open verdict on the death of Mr.
Thompson, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, England.

Dr. Crickmore said he was satisfied Mr. Thompson died from
malignant mesothelioma. He said that it was possible that Mr.
Thompson's recollection of playing with pieces of asbestos in
the streets as a boy might account for his exposure.

The inquest heard that at the time of his death, Mr. Thompson
chairman of Helander Precision in Tewkesbury. He became at about
Christmas 2006 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Thompson was admitted to Tewkesbury Hospital on June 2, 2008
and died on June 3, 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Westpoint Schoolcare Fined for Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westpoint Schoolcare Ltd. was fined GBP1,000 and ordered to pay
GBP515 costs after admitting failing to properly assess whether
asbestos was present before starting renovation at the Manley
Park Junior School in Manchester, England, The Clitheroe
Advertiser and Times reports.

The Groton, Manchester-based company also failed to take steps
to prevent its employees being exposed to asbestos dust and
undertook work without a license.

The school identified that the ceiling tiles contained up to 50
percent brown asbestos but the Company did not act on this
information and failed to tell its employees about the asbestos
or how to work without disturbing the ceiling tiles.

The ceiling was removed despite Westpoint Schoolcare not holding
a license to do such work and without taking the necessary
precautions.

Inspector Thomas Merry said, "They had ample opportunity to
ensure the ceiling was not disturbed, and arrange for a
competent licensed contractor to remove the asbestos in a safe,
controlled manner. Unfortunately this was not done and an
employee was needlessly exposed to asbestos fibers."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Malta Aims to Remove Asbestos in Buildings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings in Malta still house some 5,000 cubic meters of
asbestos, Malta Today reports.

According to the Solid Waste Management Plan, Malta has 2,000
cubic meters of asbestos still in storage awaiting disposal,
while 5,000 cubic meters is installed in buildings that are
waiting to be dismantled.

The waste management plan blamed the private sector of failing
to export this waste, calling for a feasibility study on how
best to dispose of this waste.

A Ministry of Resources and Rural Affairs spokesperson has
insisted that most of the asbestos waste is already being
exported to foreign countries.

In Malta, there is currently no initiative to remove asbestos
from buildings, but when these buildings are refurbished and the
asbestos is dismantled, it has to be treated and disposed of in
the most environmentally sound manner.

Any storage, treatment, disposal or shipment of waste asbestos
has to be registered with the MEPA, which is the only competent
authority responsible for the management of waste asbestos.

National waste agency WasteServ offers a collection service for
asbestos resulting from households. It is also responsible for
the disposal of this waste. To provide for this service, a
contractor chosen by the public picks up the asbestos waste and
decontaminates the site from where the asbestos was taken. It
also takes the necessary measures to ensure the export and
treatment of this waste.

WasteServ pays the contractors involved EUR680 per ton. For the
past seven months, this service has cost the national waste
agency EUR30,650.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Supreme Court Rules on Nostrom Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York entered a ruling in the asbestos-related case styled Judith
Nostrom, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. A.W. Chesterton Company,
et al., Defendants, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation,
et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Judges Luis A. Gonzalez, John T. Buckley, James M. Catterson,
James M. McGuire, Rolando T. Acosta entered judgment in the case
on Feb. 3, 2009. The Supreme Court, New York County, on Jan. 29,
2008 and Feb. 5, 2009 entered rulings in the action arising out
of Ms. Nostrom's decedent's alleged exposure to asbestos in the
workplace. The Supreme Court granted defendants-respondents'
motions for summary judgment dismissing as against them Ms.
Nostrom's Labor Law s 241(6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 12-1.4(b)
(3),(4) and 12-1.6(a).

The Appellate Court affirmed the ruling.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. in New York (Jerry Kristal, Esq., of
counsel), represented Ms. Nostrom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Order in Martin Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, upheld the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky's ruling,
which granted summary judgment to three companies in an
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by David Martin on behalf of his
late father, Dennis Martin.

These companies are Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, General
Motors Corporation, and General Electric Company.

The case is styled David Martin, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, General Motors Corporation,
General Electric Company, Defendants-Appellees.

District Judge Thomas L. Ludington and Circuit Judges Eugene E.
Siler, Jr. and David W. McKeague entered judgment in Case No.
07-6385 on Jan. 27, 2009.

Dennis Martin died from malignant mesothelioma on March 22,
2002. David Martin filed a complaint based on asbestos exposure
in Kentucky state court against nine defendants. Defendants
removed the case to the Eastern District of Kentucky based on
diversity.

After various defendants settled or were dismissed from the
suit, claims remained against CG&E, GE, and GM. The claims
against CG&E and GE were based on asbestos that Dennis Martin's
father, Vernon Martin, brought home on his work clothes while
working for CG&E. The claim against GM was based on Dennis
Martin's alleged exposure to asbestos while working as a ship
mechanic from 1979 to 1984.

The district court found that David Martin did not raise an
issue of material fact regarding causation in his claim against
GM, and so granted summary judgment to GM. The district court
also granted summary judgment for CG&E and GE because the injury
to Dennis Martin was not foreseeable at the time of exposure.

David Martin appealed both orders.

The Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of GM based
on the lack of evidence connecting GM to Dennis Martin's
asbestos exposure.

The Appeals Court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of
CG&E and GE because neither knew or should have known of the
danger of secondary asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.8Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability is about US$8.8 million, which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements as of Dec. 28, 2008.

The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related aggregate
liability was about US$7.9 million, which has been reflected as
a liability in the consolidated financial statements as of Sept.
28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate
liability through March 2027 and March 2039 to range between
US$5.6 million and US$15.6 million using actuarial parameters of
continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years.

Of the US$8.8 million, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of about US$400,000 over the next 12 months.

Headquartered in Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation
manufactures and markets material handling products, systems and
services that lift, secure, position and move material
ergonomically, safely, precisely and efficiently. Key products
include hoists, cranes, actuators, chain and forged attachments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $52M Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
reserves US$52 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$50 million at Dec. 31, 2007,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 6, 2009.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, about US$14 million of this amount related
to 167 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining
US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-
related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned
by other Company subsidiaries (Commonwealth Edison Company and
PECO Energy Company).

Generation had reserved US$52 million for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims at Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 31, 2008)

Headquartered in Chicago, Exelon Corporation, a utility services
holding company, operates through its principal subsidiaries:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Commonwealth Edison Company; and
PECO Energy Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. continues to face lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and
substances in the workplace, including asbestos, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 6, 2009.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others.

Headquartered in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. makes
investment castings used in aerospace and power generation
applications. Products include jet engine parts, fluid
management valves, and deep-hole boring tools.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Pending Against Rockwell
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) continues
to face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of the Company's
products, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Feb. 6, 2009.

Thousands of claimants are in the lawsuits that name the Company
as a defendant. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

The Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by the Company's
former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the
Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and
flow control business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above
self-insured retentions, for claims arising from the Company's
former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance
carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and
future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay
the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds
are depleted.

The Company said that it believes that these arrangements will
continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims
throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an
industrial automation company. The Company's Control Products &
Solutions unit makes industrial automation products. To
complement its automation product offerings, the Company also
offers factory management software.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Has $53M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s non-current asbestos-related liabilities
were US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$54
million as of Sept. 30, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Feb. 6, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$15
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were US$8
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, the same as for the period ended
Sept. 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Still Facing 35T Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, had about
35,000 pending asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30, 2008, in
which there was no significant change in pending asbestos-
related claims during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits
brought by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has
been named in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has
been alleged, very few claimants have established that a
Maremont product caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named
defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future
claims were US$52 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$53 million as of Sept. 30, 2008. Maremont's asbestos-related
recoveries were US$36 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30,
2008.

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR) and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of
asbestos claims on behalf of its members until February 2001,
when it was reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared
settlements.

Upon dissolution of the CCR in February 2001, Maremont began
handling asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel
and has taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves
examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim.

Maremont determined that as of Sept. 30, 2008 the most likely
and probable liability for pending and future claims over the
next 10 years is US$51 million.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor's Rockwell Liability at $16Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s liability for defense and indemnity costs
associated with Rockwell Automation, Inc. asbestos-related
legacy claims was US$16 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30,
2008.

The Company, along with many other companies, has also been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of
Rockwell products many years ago. Liability for these claims was
transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the
automotive business to Meritor from Rockwell in 1997.

A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products,
and past experience has shown that most of the claimants will
never identify any of Rockwell's products. Historically, the
Company has been dismissed from the vast majority of these
claims with no payment to claimants.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$16 million at
each of Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2008.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies
integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial
truck, trailer, light vehicle and specialty original equipment
manufacturers (OEM) and certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STERIS Corp. Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is, and will likely continue to be involved
in legal proceedings and claims related to asbestos product
exposure.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2009.

Headquartered in Mentor, Ohio, STERIS Corporation develops,
manufactures, and markets infection prevention, contamination
control, microbial reduction, and surgical and critical care
support products and services for healthcare, pharmaceutical,
scientific, research, industrial, and governmental Customers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Cites 1,867 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation faced 1,867 open asbestos-related
claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 2,086 claims at Dec. 31,
2007, according to the Company's annual report for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 256 new claims and 475
settled or dismissed claims. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted
269 new claims and 460 settled or dismissed claims.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure
to asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was
US$213 million, of which US$12 million was current. Credits were
US$42 million and payments were US$10 million.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's long-term asbestos liability was
US$265 million, of which US$11 million was current. Credits were
US$20 million and payments were US$17 million.

About 17 percent of the recorded liability related to asserted
claims and about 83 percent related to unasserted claims at Dec.
31, 2008. These claims are expected to be paid out over the next
30 years.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was US$256
million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with
US$272 million in the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008)

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebr., Union Pacific Corporation's Union
Pacific Railroad Company links 23 states in the western two-
thirds of the country and serves the fastest-growing U.S.
population centers. The Company's business mix includes
agricultural products, automotive, chemicals, energy, industrial
products and intermodal. It offers long-haul routes from all
major West Coast and Gulf Coast ports to eastern gateways.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 6, 2009.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these
claims, the Company is either contractually indemnified against
liability for asbestos-related claims or believes that it has no
liability for those claims.

The Company also filed claims in the Federal-Mogul Corporation
bankruptcy proceedings to recover attorney's fees for defense of
these claims. In May 2007, the Company and Federal-Mogul entered
into a settlement agreement under which the Company is entitled
to receive amounts from a settlement trust established under
Federal-Mogul's reorganization plan and funded by insurance
proceeds.

The Company was entitled to receive 15 percent of the first
US$20 million and 10 percent of the next US$25 million of
insurance proceeds, up to a maximum of US$5.5 million, in
exchange for withdrawing its bankruptcy claims and objections to
the reorganization plan and execution of certain releases.

In January 2009, the Company received a payment of US$1 million
under the settlement agreement, which brought the total proceeds
received to date under the settlement agreement to US$5.5
million, the maximum amount to which the Company is entitled.
The condensed consolidated statements of operations for the
three- and six-months periods ended Dec. 28, 2008 include
US$500,000 of income from the settlement trust in income (loss)
from discontinued operations.

The condensed consolidated statements of operations for the
three- and six-months periods ended Dec. 30, 2007 include US$1.4
million of income from the settlement trust in income from
discontinued operations.

Several insurance carriers filed a declaratory judgment action
relating to insurance coverage for such previously acquired
businesses, seeking a determination that no coverage is
available under the policies. Federal-Mogul, the Company and
other defendants filed responsive pleadings and motions relating
to the case, and the court granted the motions to stay the
declaratory judgment action.

Some of these insurers appealed such ruling and in November
2008, the ruling was upheld on appeal.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. makes programmable
motion control and power conditioning systems, including
variable-frequency motor drives used in overhead cranes and
elevators, power conditioners for stationary fuel cells, wind
turbines, commercial solar power, and telecommunications power
systems. The Company gets more than 80 percent of its sales in
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Has $1.884Bil Net Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos-
related liability amounted to US$1.884 billion during the three
months and year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 6, 2009.

Total net losses and loss adjustment expenses incurred in
Ongoing Operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008
includes US$3 million (US$16 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008) related to asbestos and environmental claims. Total net
losses and loss adjustment expenses paid in Ongoing Operations
for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 includes US$6 million
(US$13 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008) related to A&E
claims.

Gross of reinsurance, asbestos reserves, including liabilities
in Ongoing Operations, were US$2.498 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008, US$2.625 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008, and US$2.707
billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The one year and average three year net paid amounts for
asbestos claims, including Ongoing Operations, are US$189
million and US$283 million, respectively, resulting in a one
year net survival ratio of 10.0 and a three year net survival
ratio of 6.7.

The year ended Dec. 31, 2008 included US$50 million net asbestos
reserve strengthening.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. offers personal and
commercial insurance products, including homeowners, auto, and
workers' compensation. Since 1810, the Company sells its
products through about 11,000 independent agencies and more than
100,000 registered broker-dealers. The Company is headquartered
in Hartford, Conn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Simmons Cleared in Ill. Malpractice Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, on Jan. 30, 2009,
dismissed John Simmons, Esq., and his firm from an asbestos-
related legal malpractice suit against Mark Goldenberg, Esq.,
and his firm, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Judge Crowder said no one filed opposition to a summary judgment
motion from Simmons. She continued trial from Feb. 9, 2009 to
Oct. 13, 2009.

Plaintiff Judy Buckles alleges that Mr. Goldenberg's firm
mishandled an asbestos suit she filed for the estate of her late
husband. Mr. Simmons worked for Mr. Goldenberg when she filed
her suit, and when he left he took the Buckles file with him.

Although Mrs. Buckles alleged that Mr. Simmons negligently
represented her, he answered that he reached settlements with
some defendants on "sketchy product identification." Mr. Simmons
claimed that he even settled a case that had outrun the statute
of limitations.

Judge Crowder decided on the spot what to do about Mr. Simmons,
but she will take time deciding whether to disqualify the
LakinChapman law firm from representing Mrs. Buckles.

Mr. Goldenberg seeks to oust LakinChapman because former Lakin
lawyer Gary Peel, Esq., represented the Goldenberg firm in a
related case. Representing Mr. Goldenberg, Dan Konicek, Esq., of
Chicago told Judge Crowder a law firm cannot switch sides.

Roy Dripps, Esq., of LakinChapman said Mr. Peel had limited
involvement in the case, received no confidential information
and took no part in settlement negotiations. He said Mr. Peel is
no longer with the firm or practicing law.

Mr. Konicek said he presumed Mr. Peel had confidential
information. Judge Crowder said she received a response that day
from Mr. Dripps. She said she must balance any presumptions
against Mrs. Buckles' right to choose counsel.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Frye Suit v. DuPont, Others Filed in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anise Virginia Frye, on Jan. 12, 2009, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit in Marshall County Circuit Court, W.Va., against E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company and other defendant corporations,
The West Virginia Record reports.  

Ms. Frye, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert
L. Frye, demands judgment against DuPont, jointly and severally,
in this asbestos complaint. She seeks compensatory and punitive
damages.

Leslie Ann James, Esq., represents Ms. Frye.

Case No. 09-C-5 is assigned to Circuit Judge Mark A. Karl.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Crown Cork's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, in
which the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Crown
Cork & Seal Co. in asbestos actions filed by Bruce Johnson,
Dorothy Mauger, and Dolores Stea.

Judges Kate Elliot Ford, Correale F. Stevens, John L. Musmanno,
Joan Orie Melvin, Maureen E. Lally-Green, Richard B. Klein,
Susan P. Gantman, Jack A. Panella, and Christine L. Donohue
entered judgment in Case Nos. Nos. 2954 EDA 2006, 2955 EDA 2006,
2956 EDA 2006 on Feb. 6, 2009. Judges Klein, Musmanno, Panella,
and Donohue dissented.

Mr. Johnson, Ms. Mauger, and Ms. Stea were executors of the
estates of three individuals who died of asbestos-related
mesothelioma. They sued Crown Cork and numerous other
defendants. All defendants other than Crown Cork had settled.

Crown Cork filed motions for summary judgment in all three
cases, arguing that the Statute protected Crown Cork from
liability. Appellants raised constitutional challenges to the
Statute.

The trial court rejected those challenges and granted summary
judgment to Crown Cork. These consolidated appeals followed.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's rulings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dist. Court Issues Ruling on Sanborn Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted David Sanborn and Cecilia A. Sanborn's motion to lift
the stay of an asbestos action to allow Mr. Sanborn to be
deposed.

The case is styled David Sanborn and Cecilia A. Sanborn,
Plaintiffs v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered judgment in Case No.
C 08-5260 PJH on Feb. 5, 2009.

The complaint alleged asbestos-related personal injury claims by
Mr. Sanborn and a loss of consortium claim by his wife, Mrs.
Sanborn. The Sanborns alleged that Mr. Sanborn is dying from
malignant mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos products
made by defendants during his service as an aircraft mechanic in
the U.S. Air Force from 1958 to 1985.

This action was originally filed on Oct. 6, 2008, in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County. The
Boeing Company removed the action on Nov. 20, 2008, on the basis
of federal officer jurisdiction.

Upon removing this action to federal court, Boeing filed a
Notice of Pendency of Other Proceedings.

On Nov. 24, 2008, Boeing filed notice of a tag-along action,
notifying this court that this action was a potential tag-along
action which may be subject to transfer to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The Sanborns moved to remand on Dec. 19, 2008. On Jan. 9, 2009,
the MDL Panel issued a conditional transfer order, transferring
this action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 27, 2009, the court stayed the instant action until a
final decision regarding transfer is rendered by the MDL Panel.
On Jan. 30, 2009, the Sanborns filed an administrative motion
seeking to lift the stay for the limited purpose of deposing
David Sanborn. Oppositions were filed by defendants on Feb. 2,
2009.

Other defendants in the case include United Technologies
Corporation, among others.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Martin v. MGP Set for April 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed by Daniel Martin against MGP
Ingredients, Inc. and other defendants is scheduled for trial in
April 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2008, the suit styled Daniel Martin v. MGP
Ingredients, Inc., et al. (No. 08-L-697) was filed in the
Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, Madison County, Ill.

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

The Company understands that of the original group of
defendants, the claim is being actively pursued against a lesser
number of defendants but including the Company. The claimant
alleges that in the late 1980s or early 1990s, his company was
retained to install insulation at the Pekin, Ill., facility at
the same time that the Company was conducting asbestos abatement
projects in the facility.

The claimant seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. The matter remains in discovery.

Headquartered in Atchison, Kans., MGP Ingredients, Inc. produces
ingredient solutions, distillery and other products. For the
quarter and year to date period ended Dec. 31, 2008, revenues
from products in the other segment represent less than two
percent of the Company's consolidated revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Ashland Drop to 109T at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against Ashland Inc. dropped to 109,000
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008 from 115,000 claims
during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008 and 120,000 claims during
the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of former subsidiary Riley
Stoker Corporation.

During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 1,000 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 6,000
claims dismissed. During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2007,
the Company recorded 1,000 new claims filed, 1,000 claims
settled, and 14,000 claims dismissed.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,000
new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled, and 21,000 claims
dismissed.

Asbestos reserve was US$560 million during the three months
ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$596 million during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2007. Asbestos reserve was US$572
million during the year ended Sept. 30, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$442 million, of which US$71 million relates to
costs previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$458 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and US$478 million at Dec. 31,
2007.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty
chemical products, services, and solutions. The Company operates
through five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional
Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland
Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and
Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 27T Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules Incorporated, during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, faced 27,000 open asbestos-
related claims, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 9,
2009.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, Hercules faced about 25,563 unresolved
claims, of which about 895 were premises claims and the rest
were products claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2008)

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims typically arise
from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated
pipe and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules'
former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

During the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, Hercules recorded
1,000 new claims filed and 1,000 claims dismissed. Asbestos
reserve at the end of the period was US$335 million.

In November 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of
Hercules. At that time, Hercules' recorded reserve for asbestos
claims was US$233 million for indemnity costs. The Company's
accounting policy in recording reserves for asbestos claims is
to include amounts for both projected indemnity and defense
costs. As a result, the Company recorded a US$105 million
increase to the asbestos reserve for Hercules to include
projected defense costs.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, all of the cash recovered and placed into a
trust from the settlements with certain of Hercules' insurance
carriers has been exhausted. With the addition of estimated
defense costs, the total Hercules asbestos reserve will exceed
the amount needed to obtain reimbursements pursuant to coverage-
in-place agreements with certain other insurance carriers.
Accordingly, the Company has estimated the amount of future
projected costs that will be reimbursable by such insurance and
has recorded a US$35 million receivable within the noncurrent
asbestos insurance receivable caption of the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty
chemical products, services, and solutions. The Company operates
through five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional
Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland
Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and
Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Subsidiary Faces AO Respiratory Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation is party to cases, including asbestos-related,
in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a
subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation (AO) in an
April 1990 asset purchase transaction.

The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, there were about 54,000 claimants in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, there were about 55,000 claimants in
pending cases, including asbestos-related, asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

In connection with its acquisition of the business, the
subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion
of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with
amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO
respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the
Cabot subsidiary.

As more fully described in the 2008 10-K, the Company's
respirator liabilities involve claims for personal injury,
including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of AO
respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed
or labeled.

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the
expected cash flow period, which is through 2052, and, at Dec.
31, 2008, is about US$14 million on a discounted basis (or US$24
million on an undiscounted basis).

Cash payments related to this liability were less than US$1
million for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Boston, Cabot Corporation produces carbon
black, a reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks,
cables, and coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker
of fumed metal oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which
are used as anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in
adhesives and coatings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue
to face asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 9, 2009.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates
in three business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.
Mueller Co. manufactures and sells fire hydrants, valves and
related products used in residential water and gas systems. U.S.
Pipe manufactures and sells ductile iron pipe, restrained joint
products, fittings and other products. Anvil manufactures and
sells a variety of pipe fittings, couplings, pipe hangers, pipe
nipples and related products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Pending v. BJ Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain predecessors of BJ Services Company, along with numerous
other defendants, still face asbestos lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi since
August 2004.

These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging
that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and
seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness,
negligence, and strict liability, all based upon the status of
the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer.

Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the
Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) were
dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the
Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing
products so the Company was thereby dismissed.

Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought
his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is
currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi
lawsuits.

It is possible that as many as 21 other claimants who identified
the Company or its predecessors as their employer could file
suit against the Company, but they have not done so at this
time. Minimal medical information regarding the alleged
asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two
lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, the Company is unable
to estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits.

The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained
insurance which may be available to respond to these claims. In
addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a
small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in
these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company
provided some unspecified product or service which contained or
utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at
one of the Company's facilities or customer job sites.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has
been successful in obtaining dismissals of those successor cases
without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some
remain pending at the present time.

Headquartered in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure
pumping services and other oilfield services to the oil and
natural gas industry worldwide. Services are provided through
four business segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada
Pressure Pumping, International Pressure Pumping and the
Oilfield Services Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,183 Cases Still Pending v. Central Hudson
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, as of Jan. 15, 2009, faced 1,183 asbestos
cases out of the 3,312 cases brought against it.

As of Oct. 10, 2008, of the 3,312 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, 1,183 remain pending. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 14, 2008)

Since 1987, Central Hudson has been joined as a defendant or
third-party defendant in 3,312 asbestos lawsuits commenced in
New York State and federal courts. The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits have each sought millions of dollars in compensatory
and punitive damages from all defendants.

The cases were brought by or on behalf of individuals who have
allegedly suffered injury from exposure to asbestos, including
exposure which allegedly occurred at the Roseton Electric
Generating Plant and the Danskammer Plant.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.
provides electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary
Central Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000
customers in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River
Valley, and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-
square-mile service territory that extends from New York City to
Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $1.007B Insurance at Dec. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s insurance for asbestos claims was US$1.0078
billion as of Dec. 27, 2008, compared with US$1.3317 billion as
of March 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Feb. 10, 2009.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and
Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Still Facing 700 Stearns Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (with about 6,950 claimants)
are stil pending over alleged personal injuries due asbestos
allegedly found in certain brakes and clutches previously made
by RBS Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and its predecessor
owners.

The Company faced about 700 asbestos-related lawsuits (with
about 6,950 claimants) concerning its Stearns division. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and
Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Unit Facing 1 Case with 3,700 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in one
pending multi-defendant lawsuit relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.

About 3,700 claimants are in this Prager lawsuit as of Dec. 27,
2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb.
10, 2009.

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos claims.

Prager faced two pending multi-defendant lawsuits over alleged
personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly made by Prager. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and
Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Unit Still Facing 170 Suits at Dec. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Through its successor entity, RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit still
faces about 170 asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's
report for the quarterly period ended Dec. 27, 2008.

About 1,360 claimants are in these suits. These suits are
pending in state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions
relating to alleged personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously
manufactured by Falk.

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is defending the Company in
these lawsuits under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100
percent of the costs to date.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and
Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases v. Zurn Ind. Drop to 6,100 at Dec. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of RBS Global Inc.'s Water Management's subsidiaries, Zurn
Industries, LLC, and 115 unrelated companies, as of Dec. 27,
2008, faced about 6,100 asbestos lawsuits with about 45,500
claims.

Zurn and 113 other unrelated companies faced about 6,500
asbestos related suits representing about 45,000 claims, as of
Sept. 27, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

The suits alleged damages in an aggregate amount of about
US$16.1 billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims
allege personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used
primarily in industrial boilers formerly made by a segment of
Zurn.

The Company currently estimates the potential liability for
asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn and the claims
expected to be filed in the next 10 years is about US$134
million, of which Zurn expects to pay about US$116 million in
the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the
estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Dec. 27, 2008, is about
US$277 million.

As of Dec. 27, 2008, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$134 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$277 million of insurance
coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos
liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$277 million.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is an industrial
company comprised of two key segments, Power Transmission and
Water Management. Power Transmission makes gears, couplings,
industrial bearings, flattop chain and modular conveyer belts,
aerospace bearings and seals, special components, and industrial
chain and conveying equipment. Water Management supplies
specification drainage, PEX piping, commercial brass and water
and waste water treatment and control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $51M Charge at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the year and quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2008, recorded a pre-tax charge of US$51,018,000 for
estimated costs of asbestos-related litigation, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 10, 2009.

Sales for the year were US$394,513,000 compared with
US$346,834,000 in 2007. Sales for the fourth quarter were
US$88,088,000 compared with sales of US$83,194,000 for the same
quarter of 2007.

Income (loss) from operations, including the pre-tax charge of
US$51,018,000 for asbestos costs net of estimated insurance
recoveries, equaled US$13,608,000 for the 12 months ended Dec.
31, 2008 and US$(36,526,000) for the three months ended Dec. 31,
2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bourton Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 71-year-old James Bredin, a
carpenter from Bourton, Cotswold, England, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, the Cotswold Journal reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Bredin, a carpenter and builder
retired eight-nine months before his death. His son, James, Jr.,
told the inquest Mr. Bredin did maintenance work at Sudeley
Castle, near Winchcombe, in the 1990s.

James Bredin, Jr., said, "In the Sixties, I had been present
when he cut asbestos sheets with a handsaw to fit backing plates
to fires." He said his father became unwell after his retirement
and his GP treated him for a lung infection.

During tests, a radiographer told Mr. Bredlin, Sr. that he had a
terminal disease that was later confirmed to be mesothelioma. He
died on March 23, 2008 at Cheltenham General Hospital.

Pathologist, Doctor Richard Bryan, undertook a post mortem that
found 32,421 fibers of asbestos per gram of dry lung tissue, a
"relatively low" level but higher than would be found in someone
who had never been exposed to it industrially. He gave the cause
of death as bronchial pneumonia due to mesothelioma.

Gloucestershire coroner, Alan Crickmore, recorded a verdict of
death by industrial disease on Mr. Bredin, Sr.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Willcox Says Hardie Estimates Are Reliable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Willcox, a former director of James Hardie Industries
N.V., on Feb. 9, 2009, told the New South Wales Supreme Court
that expert estimates of future asbestos disease claims were
reliable enough to set up a new compensation trust in February
2001, Fairfax Digital reports.

This was despite written advice from the Company's management in
the preceding months that future claims could not be reliably
measured.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is suing 10
former Hardie executives and directors over allegedly misleading
statements about asbestos compensation in 2001.

Mr Willcox, a non-executive director from May 1992 to October
2001, said he was satisfied with summaries prepared by Hardie
executives of reports from the actuarial firm Trowbridge
Consulting.

The court heard that in a January 2001 board paper, the then
chief executive Peter Macdonald told directors that the
potential cost of claims was "not capable of reliable
measurement."

In a December 2000 memo to directors, Mr. Macdonald wrote that
"it is not possible today to accurately estimate the total
likely asbestos cash flows."

Mr. Willcox agreed that in May 2000, he signed Hardie's
financial statements for the year to March, which contained the
statement that "James Hardie cannot measure reliably its
exposure with respect to future asbestos-related claims."

Mr. Willcox is the last of the 10 defendants to give evidence.
Four chose not to take the stand in their own defense: Mr.
Macdonald; the former general counsel Peter Shafron; and the
former non-executive directors Dan O'Brien and Greg Terry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Nelson Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old George Wilkinson,
a builder from Nelson, Lancashire, England, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, the Burnley Express reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Wilkinson was diagnosed with asbestos
disease in July 2008.

A statement from Mr. Wilkinson's his son, John, said his father
had been a builder by trade, working in construction, both
building and scaffolding. His duties had involved cleaning sites
and he had worked for the council.

John Wilkinson added that by the time his father realized he may
have been overly exposed to asbestos, it was too late.

Dr. Abdul Al-Dawoud, who carried out the post-mortem
examination, told East Lancashire Coroner Mr. Richard Taylor
that Mr. Wilkinson's employment history since the 1970s showed
that he would regularly be surrounded by asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Carlisle Joiner's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 4, 2009 inquest heard that the death of 78-year-old
Derick Davidson, a joiner from Carlisle, England, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, News & Star reports.

Mr. Davidson spent around 48 years working in the city as a
joiner and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2007.

Speaking after the inquest, William Whalen, the local secretary
of the Union of Construction, Allied Traders and Technicians
(UCATT), said. "Before he died Derick asked me to do all I could
to highlight the dangers of asbestos. He felt very strongly
about that."

Mr. Davidson, who had been retired for 16 years at the time of
his diagnosis, began his apprenticeship with Carlisle joinery
firm William Batey when he was 14 or 15. When Mr. Batey moved to
the joinery firm Michael Thompson, in Upperby, Mr. Davidson
followed and remained there until he retired in 1991.

After he moved to Michael Thompson, the court heard how the
nature of Mr. Davidson's work had changed, and he had spent more
time on building sites.

Mr. Davidson died on April 6, 2008 at the Eden Valley Hospice in
Carlisle.

Coroner John Taylor ruled that Mr. Davidson had died because of
exposure to an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Cedar Falls Schools Costs $104T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at two schools under the Cedar Falls, Iowa,
Community School District is estimated at US$104,300,
WCFCOURIER.com reports.

Waterloo, Iowa-based Advanced Environmental will complete
abatement work at Peet Junior High School (US$59,700) and Holmes
Junior High (US$44,600). Work at both schools is expected to be
finished by July 4, 2009.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the Board of Education Monday accepted the low
bids from Advanced Environmental. The bids came in more than
US$135,000 under budget. The district is using physical plant
and equipment levy dollars to finance the work.

The district received three other bids from Iowa and Illinois
businesses ranging in cost from US$49,799 to US$115,000 for
Holmes and US$65,365 to US$140,000 for Peet.

Advanced Environmental also was awarded a contract for a small
asbestos abatement project at Orchard Hill.

Abatement work will begin at both junior high schools in June
2009.

Though the asbestos abatement will mostly be completed this
summer, the floor tiles in both schools will not be replaced for
up to 18 months between the two schools.

The floors will be cleaned and sealed and look much like an
industrial technology shop floor in the interim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Polk County Court Cleanup to Cost $200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-removal project in the Polk County Courthouse in
Des Moines, Iowa, costs US$200,000, in which the project is
estimated to last five to six months, The Des Moines Register
reports.

Pro Environmental Abatement Inc. will work at night to remove
asbestos insulation from individual rooms in the courthouse. The
rooms being worked on will be sealed during the day.

Polk County Planning Specialist Bob Raker said the asbestos in
its current condition is not a health risk to people who visit
or work in the courthouse, but the work, by certified
contractors, is needed to remove all the asbestos from the 102-
year old building to prevent future problems.

Pro Environmental Abatement, a Des Moines-based company, has
completed projects in more than 30 cities across Iowa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Issues Ruling in Adkinson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
County, will affirm the Common Pleas Court ruling, which
overruled objections filed by homeowner Dianne Adkinson in a
case against furnace contractor Southtown Heating and Cooliing,
Inc.

The case is styled Dianne Adkinson, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Southtown Heating and Cooling, Inc., et al., Defendants-
Appellees.

Judges Thomas J. Grady, James A. Brogan, and Mike Fain entered
judgment in Case No. 22668 on Feb. 6, 2009.

The underlying litigation arose from dealings between Southtown
and Ms. Adkinson.

Southtown abandoned its promised work to remove an existing
furnace system from Ms. Adkinson's home in order to install a
new furnace after Southtown encountered asbestos products in the
existing system that Southtown is not licensed to remove. Ms.
Adkinson then had another contractor complete the work, using a
new furnace unit Southtown had left at the job site.

Ms. Adkinson sued Southtown on claims for relief alleging
violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA),
negligence, and other related causes. Southtown counterclaimed,
alleging fraud.

Ms. Adkinson filed a jury demand with her complaint. The case
was referred to a magistrate to preside over the jury trial.
Southtown offered evidence at trial showing that after Southtown
had told Ms. Adkinson that it was not licensed to remove
asbestos products; another contractor told her that if a
contractor lacking the required license performed the work, Ms.
Adkinson could probably get a new furnace free of charge.

The jury returned verdicts for Southtown on all of Ms.
Adkinson's claims for relief. The jury returned a verdict for
Southtown in the amount of US$2,512.52 on its fraud claim, an
amount corresponding to the value of Southtown's furnace that
Ms. Adkinson had installed by another contractor.

Ms. Adkinson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial. The magistrate
overruled both of Ms. Adkinson's alternative motions. She filed
objections to the magistrate's decision denying her motions.

The magistrate had erroneously endorsed the judgment he filed on
the jury's verdicts as a final, appealable order, and because of
that Ms. Adkinson filed an appeal to this court from the
judgment the magistrate filed. The Appeals court dismissed that
appeal for lack of a final order.

Following the dismissal, the trial court overruled Ms.
Adkinson's objections to the magistrate's decision denying her
alternative motions, and the court adopted the judgment on the
jury's verdict the magistrate had filed.

Ms. Adkinson filed a timely notice of appeal. This was an appeal
from the trial court's order overruling objections to a
magistrate's denial of motions for a new trial or for a judgment
notwithstanding a jury's verdict.

The assignments of error were overruled. The judgment of the
trial court will be affirmed.

Patrick K. Adkinson, Esq., in Dayton, Ohio, represented Dianne
Adkinson.

Christopher Epley, Esq., in Dayton, Ohio, represented
Defendants-Appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Dismissed in Louden, Border Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the Court of Appeals ruling,
which dismissed notices of appeal filed by Bertha Louden and
Mary K. Border (appellants) in asbestos cases filed against
various defendants.

The case is styled Louden, Exr., Appellant, et al. v. A.O. Smith
Corporation et al.; Goulds Pumps, Inc. et al., Appellees.

Judges Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Thomas J. Moyer, Maureen
O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell, Robert R. Cupp, Judith Ann
Lanzinger, and Paul E. Pfeifer entered judgment in Case Nos.
2007-1819 and 2007-1821 on Feb. 4, 2009. Judge Pfeifer dissented
and Judge Lanzinger concurred in part and dissented in part.

Recognizing the proliferation of asbestos cases on its docket in
1998, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas found that
"current methods in processing, serving, and storing the paper
will soon be inadequate."

To manage its asbestos docket more efficiently, the court issued
a case management order that adopted the Complex Litigation
Automated Docket system (CLAD) provided by Lexis-Nexis for
managing filings in asbestos cases. Id. In 2003, the court
switched from the CLAD system to the "File & Serve" system,
another electronic filing service provided by Lexis-Nexis. This
second order is at issue in this case.

Subsequent to the implementation of the File & Serve system,
appellants filed separate civil actions alleging that their
husbands had contracted asbestos-related disease in the
workplace. The court consolidated the two cases.

Appellees Goulds Pumps, Inc. and Ingersoll-Rand Company filed
motions for summary judgment. On April 5, 2007, the trial court
issued entries granting summary judgment to appellees.

On May 4, 2007, appellants, using the File & Serve system,
electronically transmitted notices of appeal to the clerk of
courts for the trial court for the purpose of initiating an
appeal of both summary judgments. However, the trial court clerk
did not forward the notices to the Eighth District Court of
Appeals.

On July 24, 2007, appellants filed paper copies of their notices
of appeal with the clerk of the trial court. This time, the
clerk forwarded the notices to the court of appeals. However,
the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed appellants' notices of
appeal as being untimely filed.

The Supreme Court accepted this matter as a discretionary
appeal.

The appellants' notices of appeal filed electronically were
invalid. Appellants' subsequently filed paper notices of appeal
were untimely. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court
of Appeals' judgment dismissing appellants' appeals.

Mazur & Kittel, P.L.L.C. (John I. Kittel, Esq., and Bryan M.
Frink, Esq.) and Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A. (Paul W. Flowers,
Esq.) represented appellants.

Gallagher Sharp, John A. Valenti, Timothy J. Fitzgerald, and
Holly M. Olarczuk-Smith represented appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Technologies Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation or its subsidiaries continue to
face lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos integrated into certain of the Company's products or
premises, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
11, 2009.

While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any currently-manufactured products, certain
of its historical products, like those of many other
manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos.

A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have
been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have
been dismissed without payment. The remainder of the closed
cases has been resolved for amounts that are not material
individually or in the aggregate.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., United Technologies
Corporation provides high technology products and services to
the building systems and aerospace industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wood, Collins Face Prison for Asbestos Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Wood, owner of J.W. Construction Inc., and Curtis Collins,
Mr. Wood's former employee and owner of Adirondack Asbestos,
head to federal prison for a scam that left several homes and
businesses contaminated with asbestos, the Press Republican
reports.

The pair had faced up to five years in prison and escaped a
potential $250,000 fine.

Mr. Wood was sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to
pay about US$854,000 of restitution to his former clients. He
will have to spend three years on the supervised-release
program.

Mr. Collins will serve a two-year prison term and must pay about
Mr. $115,000 in restitution. He will also have three years of
supervised release.

Mr. Wood and Mr. Collins, both of North Country, N.Y., will pay
their former customers tens of thousands of dollars in
restitution.

The pair, along with Mark Desnoyers, owner of Adirondack
Environmental Associates, conspired to hide large traces of
asbestos in homes and businesses, posing a serious health risk
to numerous area residents.

During the two-year scheme, the 59-year-old Mr. Wood and the 50-
year-old Mr. Collins made secret deals with Mr. Desnoyers to
falsify air-monitor records so their clients would be fooled
into thinking the asbestos had been safely removed.

Federal prosecutors said the scam started in 2005, shortly after
Mr. Wood was released from prison on unrelated larceny and fraud
charges and started up his Plattsburgh, N.Y.-based construction
company.

Authorities say Mr. Wood ran a "rip and run" removal scam that
intentionally left asbestos in several city homes and
businesses, including the Strand Theatre. The situation at the
Strand caused an eight-month delay in the theater's renovation
project.

Prosecutors said Mr. Wood and Mr. Collins also illegally buried
asbestos on a Willsboro farm. In 2008, both pleaded guilty to
their roles in the scheme and testified against their Mr.
Desnoyers, who was later convicted of mail fraud, making false
statements and violating the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Wood also pleaded guilty to criminal contempt for continuing
the asbestos scam while he was being prosecuted.

Mr. Desnoyers, who was convicted on all charges, will be
sentenced on March 1, 2009. He faces a maximum of 25 years to
life in prison and a possible US$1.25 million fine.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Township to Clear Schools of Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Kelliher, a spokeswoman for the Bristol Township School
district, on Feb. 10, 2009, said the District plans to begin a
five-year asbestos-removal effort in several schools during the
summer of 2009, the Bucks County Courier Times reports.

Ms. Kelliher added the school system did most of its asbestos
abatement in the 1970s when it removed all asbestos insulation
and some tile flooring. However, some asbestos-containing tiles
remain in the floors of Franklin D. Roosevelt Middle School and
the district's nine elementary schools.

Officials said Clara Barton Elementary School (in Levittown,
Pa.) and Maple Shade Elementary School (in Croydon, Pa.) are set
to undergo cleanup this summer.

During the school board's planning session on Feb. 9, 2009, it
should cost about US$52,000 for the Barton job and about
US$120,000 for the older Maple Shade.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stuart Widow Awarded GBP9,500 Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Stuart was awarded GBP9,500 in compensation after her
husband, George Stuart, died from asbestos-related disease,
NEWS.scotsman.com reports.

In December 2006, Mr. Stuart died at the age of 89 and doctors
confirmed to the court that he had developed asbestosis from
exposure to asbestos dust.

Mrs. Stuart launched the bid against the Advocate General for
Scotland, representing the ministries, at the Court of Session.

In a written judgment, Lord Brodie ruled that Mrs. Stuart was
entitled to the cash payout after the defendants admitted that
Mr. Stuart's exposure to the dust was "negligent."

Mr. Stuart began to suffer respiratory problems towards the end
of his life after previously being fit and active.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bickle Widow to Launch Wrongful Death Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Bickle, the widow of 58-year old Alan Bickle, prepares for
a legal battle to prove that asbestos caused Mr. Bickle's death,
the Chronicle reports.  

Mr. Bickle died of asbestos-related lung cancer in a South
Tyneside, England, hospice.

The 60-year-old Mrs. Bickle, who is represented by Irwin
Mitchell, said her husband believed he was exposed to asbestos
while working as a fitter/turner 25 years ago with Filtrona,
based in Jarrow, where he made cigarette filters, and before
that when he worked for Tyneside shipbuilders Hawthorn Leslie,
which no longer exists, 40 years ago.

Filtrona has denied that Mr. Bickle was exposed to asbestos at
their factory, but South Tyneside coroner Terence Carney has
already opened and adjourned an inquest into Mr. Bickle's death
from mesothelioma.

Industrial diseases expert Roger Maddocks, a partner at
Newcastle law firm Irwin Mitchell, who was instructed by Mrs.
Bickle to investigate a compensation claim against her husband's
former employers, said, "Mesothelioma is known as the silent
killer. It can remain dormant for many years during which period
the victim can appear perfectly healthy. Its diagnosis is often
a complete and shattering surprise.

"We are looking for anyone who worked at the Hawthorn Leslie
yard, in the mid to late 1960s, even if they did not know Mr.
Bickle. We are particularly keen to talk to anyone familiar with
conditions in the places he worked, in the stores, pneumatic
plant and machine shop. Witnesses are often crucial to a claim
of this nature."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Hotel to Pay GBP52T for Safety Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kensington Edwardian, a hotel in South Kensington, London,
England, is to pay a GBP52,000 penalty for exposing guests and
staff to asbestos, the London Informer reports.

At Kingston Crown Court on Feb. 5, 2009, Realco Plc, the company
that manages the Kensington Edwardian Hotel, was also ordered to
pay a council's costs of GBP11,200.

Realco has pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Health and
Safety at Work Act after inspectors found asbestos on the fourth
floor.

During a visit to the 22-bed hotel in November 2006, a
Kensington and Chelsea Council environmental health officer
became concerned when he found building work had exposed damaged
asbestos on the fourth floor.

Although the floor was unoccupied, the hotel was 40 percent full
and there was a risk that the asbestos fibers could have spread
through the ventilation system.

The court heard how Realco failed to carry out a risk assessment
before carrying out the refurbishment in September 2006.

Handing down his sentence, Judge Bining referred to the fact
that the company was obliged by legislation brought in 2002 to
survey their premises for the presence of asbestos.

Realco has subsequently carried out substantial renovation work
to the hotel, which is expected to re-open in February 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrician's Widow Gets GBP703T in Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Smith, the widow of former electrician Michael Victor
Smith, has won a GBP703,347 asbestos payout at London's High
Court, the Leicester Mercury reports.

Mr. Smith died of mesothelioma in May 2004 at the age of 52.
Mrs. Smith blamed two of her husband's former employers for his
exposure to asbestos dust.

Judge Oliver-Jones, QC, rejected Mrs. Smith's claim against
Leicestershire-based J and M Morris (Electrical Contractors)
Ltd, saying he was not satisfied Mr. Smith had been exposed to
asbestos while working for the company between 1978 and 1982.

However, Judge Oliver-Jones awarded Mrs. Smith GBP703,347
damages from the Midland Co-Operative Society Ltd, for which Mr.
Smith worked as an electrician between 1982 and 1987.

Judge Oliver-Jones said Mrs. Smith's damages claim had
originally been valued by her legal team at GBP2,750,158,
largely for her "loss of dependency" on her husband's high
earnings as an employee of real estate, construction and
infrastructure consultancy firm, EC Harris LLP.

Mr. Smith became a partner in the firm before the early signs of
his terminal illness ended his career in February 2003. He had a
senior role as an area leader for the firm and his widow's
lawyers argued that, had he kept his health, he would have been
paid more than GBP400,000, before tax, in 2008 alone.

However, in assessing his widow's damages, Judge Oliver-Jones
said Mr. Smith had been "under-performing" in his job before his
departure and the judge said it was unlikely he would have
remained an equity partner at EC Harris in the long term.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Factory Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of factory worker, Gloria
Lawrence, was linked to exposure to asbestos used in car parts,
the Evening Telegraph reports.

A mother of three, Mrs. Lawrence contracted mesothelioma while
working on starter motors and alternators. She removed parts
from scrap cars and cleaned them so they could be sold on.

After developing the disease, Mrs. Lawrence, of Linton,
Derbyshire, England, fought a battle with Derbyshire health
chiefs to receive the drug Alimta which, medics argue, can help
prolong sufferers' lives.

Health chiefs argued its benefits were unproven, and the
GBP8,000-a-year cost of treatment was prohibitive, but they
later allowed Mrs. Lawrence's treatment after a change in
national guidance.

The Feb. 10, 2009 inquest at Derby Coroner's Court heard how the
55-year-old Mrs. Lawrence was exposed to asbestos while working
at Lucas Aftermarket Operations, now TRW Ltd, formerly of
Birmingham, now of Solihull.

A statement from expert Colin Plum, of consultant engineers
Morgan, Finch and Partners, in Stoke-on-Trent, said, "There can
be no doubt that some of the starter motors and alternators upon
which the claimant worked incorporated asbestos-containing
materials.

"Starter motors contained resin-bonded chrysotile (white
asbestos). It is a matter for medical opinion whether white
asbestos would cause mesothelioma."

Linda Millband, the lawyer for Mrs. Lawrence's family, said she
had taken advice from Nottingham law firm Thompsons, experts in
personal injury. They had consulted a medical expert who
confirmed white asbestos would cause mesothelioma.

Mrs. Lawrence had worked at Lucas from 1989 to 2000. Deputy
coroner Louise Pinder said Mrs. Lawrence died of mesothelioma,
and recorded a verdict of death due to industrial disease.

Mrs. Lawrence died on Nov. 27, 2008, four months after
completing a course of Alimta.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Phillips Suit v. 27 Companies Filed in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Blake Phillips, on behalf of recently deceased relative
Omar Rucker Phillips, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against
27 defendant corporations in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Defendants include A.O. Smith Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co.,
American Optical Corp., Bechtel Corp., Westinghouse Electric
Corp., Fluor Maintenance, Foster Wheeler Constructors, General
Electric, Ingersoll Rand Co., Lockheed Martin, Uniroyal Goodrich
Tire Co. and Zurn Industries.

Curtis Phillips claims the asbestos-related disease with which
Omar Phillips was diagnosed was wrongfully caused. Curtis
Phillips claims Omar Phillips worked as a pipefitter and welder
where he was required to work with or around asbestos-containing
products and materials.

Although Omar Phillips already sued for a non-malignant
asbestos-related disease, Curtis Phillips alleges his claim is
allowable because Omar Phillips died from a different malignant
disease than what was presented in his original suit.

Curtis Phillips cites Pustejovsky vs. Rapid American Corp., a
2000 decision in which the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a
victim may file an additional suit for asbestos-related cancer
if he develops a second illness from the same cause at a later
date.

Curtis Phillips states the defendants were negligent because
they did not adequately test products before putting them into
the stream of commerce, according to the lawsuit.

Curtis Phillips seeks actual and exemplary damages within the
jurisdictional limits of the court, plus court costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest and other relief to which he may be
entitled.

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

Case No. B183-228 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th District Court.


                            *********

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  * * *