CAR_Public/090220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 20, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 36

                           Headlines

BECTON DICKINSON: Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit Still Pending
BECTON DICKINSON: Opposing Healthcare Workers' Certification
BOEING CO: Bid for Leave to Appeal "Spano" Certification Pending
BOEING CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Wichita Facility to Spirit
BOEING CO: Summary Judgment Motions in ERISA Suit Still Pending

CANO PETROLEUM: Securities Fraud Litigation Ongoing in New York
D.R. HORTON: Appeal to RESPA Violations Suit Dismissal Pending
D.R. HORTON: Calif. Home Buyers' Deception Suit Remains Pending
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Settlement of Ancillary Products Suits Okayed
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Revokes Class Status in Vista Suit
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: February 27 Final Hearing Set for Settlement
OPNEXT INC: Consolidated N.J. Securities Fraud Suit Stayed
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Finalizing Proposed Notice of Consolidated Suit
RETROFOAM CANADA: Faces CDN$500M Lawsuit Over Banned Substance

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuit Over 2008 Stock Offering
STANDARD OIL: Gas Stations File Suit For Return of Federal Taxes
STANFORD GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
STATE FARM: Faces Tex. Suit Over Business Interruption Proceeds


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Ala.
CUSHING MLP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
ING GROEP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INTREPID POTASH: Glancy Binkow Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Litigation


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Has $8M Accretion Expense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Involved in Insurance Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Has $380.2M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Faces 157 Pending Claims at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing 27,000 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Coverage Lawsuit Ongoing v. BorgWarner
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illegal Dumping Found in Cooma, Australia
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Reading Locals' Deaths Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Deal Reached to Aid Plaques Sufferers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oakes Plant Manager Death Linked to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hammersmith Locals Cite 4 Cases in 3 Months
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 559 Cases as of Dec.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,833 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Cites $25M Payment for Former Operation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $125M Charges at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.538B Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $877Mil NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Involved in Travelers Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,951 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.709B

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $3.5M for Cleanup in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Judgment Reversed in Polanco Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Filed on Feb. 2–6 in Madison Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 Suits Filed on Jan. 26-30 in Madison
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RICO Breach Action Filed in Miss. on Feb. 9

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woods' Suit Filed v. Union Carbide in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Faces 2,700 Respirator Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Cites $35Mil Aearo Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Reserves $105M for Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Awaits Judge's Assignment in Continental

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa, Units Still Facing "Premises" Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Cites $93.6M Adjustment at 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites Liability at $59.4M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites 502 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Have Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25T Claims Pending v. Fairmont in 6 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONSOL Energy Has Cases in Pa., Ill. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argument Heard in St. Louis Case on Feb. 17
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burnley Ex-Builder's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oley Valley School Gym Cleanup Costs $36T

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DENR Probes Disposal of Hazards in Benguet
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 22% of Kent Sites Cited for Safety Progress
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Report Indicates Kier Breached Safety Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former T&N Employees to Keep Gov't. Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brown Questioned on Reversing Lords' Ruling

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal Motion in Ekweani Lawsuit Granted
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Ok'd in Rahmanizad Case in Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records $16.64M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMSF Lawsuit v. Halliburton Company Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marion Memorial to Cost $301,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miller v. Illinois Central Filed on Feb. 13
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kavanagh to Pay GBP4T for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Molloy Denies Grace Change-of-Venue Motion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 99T at Dec. 31


                           *********

BECTON DICKINSON: Consolidated N.J. Antitrust Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against
Becton, Dickinson and Co. remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

                  Direct Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported
class-action complaints brought on behalf of direct purchasers
of the company's products, such as distributors, alleging that
the company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the company's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Louisiana Wholesale Drug company, Inc., et. al. vs.
        Becton Dickinson and company" (Civil Action No. 05-
        1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
        on March 25, 2005;

     2. "SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
        Co." (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Sept. 6, 2005;

     3. "Dik Drug company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
        Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     4. "American Sales company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
        Dickinson & Co." (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
        District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
        filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     5. "Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
        and company" (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District
        Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
        Oct. 26, 2005.

The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug company and Dik
Drug company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the
caption "In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

                Indirect Purchaser's Litigation

Becton Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported
class-action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
Becton Dickinson's products, alleging that the company violated
federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     1. "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
        company" (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
        Greenville, Tennessee), filed on June 7, 2005;

     2. "Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
        and company" (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
        Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     3. "Medstar v. Becton Dickinson" (Case No. 06-CV-03258-
        JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey),
        filed on May 18, 2006; and

     4. "The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
        Dickinson and company" (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
        District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
        on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class-action complaint on behalf of indirect
purchasers, captioned "International Multiple Sclerosis
Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & company, Case No.
2:07-v-10602," filed on April 5, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn
by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action suits seek
monetary damages.

All of the antitrust class-action suits have been consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


BECTON DICKINSON: Opposing Healthcare Workers' Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co., continues to oppose class
certification in the pending product liability class-action
lawsuits commenced by healthcare workers, including pursuing all
appropriate rights of appeal, according to the company's Feb. 9,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company and other manufacturer and several medical product
distributors are named defendants in product liability class
action lawsuits commenced by healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected
with any disease.

Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have
sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by Becton Dickinson and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and treatment.

In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the
healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish.  The
plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions.

Becton Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in
eight similar suits, each of which has either been dismissed
with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.  Currently, there are
two pending suits in Ohio and South Carolina.

The Ohio case, "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case No.
98CVB075616," was filed in Franklin County Court on Sept. 21,
2006.  The Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court's
class certification order.  The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for a determination of whether the class can be
redefined.

The South Carolina case -- "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al."
(Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas,
South Carolina) -- was filed on Nov. 25, 1998, on behalf of an
unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action
certification under the laws of this state in state court.

Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a medical
technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and
sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory
equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare
institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories,
industry and the general public.


BOEING CO: Bid for Leave to Appeal "Spano" Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co.'s petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order in an excessive 401(k) fee lawsuit is
pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Oct. 13, 2006, Boeing was named as a defendant in the
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing
Company Voluntary Investment Plan, alleged that fees and
expenses incurred by the Plan were and are unreasonable and
excessive, not incurred solely for the benefit of the Plan and
its participants, and were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive, and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
Boeing has opposed.

On Sept. 10, 2007, the court issued an order staying class
certification motion pending resolution by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit of a related case, "Lively v.
Dynegy, Inc."

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint, which added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant, and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of "Lively v. Dynegy, Inc.," was lifted on April 3,
2008, after notification that the Lively case had been settled.

On April 16, 2008, the plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint that would add investment performance
allegations (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2008).

Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois sanctioned the excessive 401(k)
fee lawsuit against Boeing Co. as a class action.  He said the
class action litigation would be made up of nearly 190,000 plan
participants, Fred Schneyer writes for the PlanAdviser.

Judge Herndon turned aside Boeing's claim that the case should
not be granted class action status because the allegations the
company paid excessive plan fees would require participant-by-
participant consideration—making it too difficult to judge the
merits of the case collectively.

In addition, Judge Herndon said class certification was
appropriate because the lawsuit involved the common issue of
whether the defendants selected imprudent and improper
investment options for the plan.  The court also noted that the
lawsuit raised the common issue of whether the administrative
fees paid by the plan were reasonable.

The court rejected the defendants' contention that the class
should not include future or past participants.  "[T]he Court
finds that the inclusion of future class members is appropriate
here because Plaintiffs request an injunction prohibiting the
continuation of current practices; and this injunctive relief,
if granted, would affect not just present participants, but
future participants as well," Judge Herndon wrote.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000 based
on the ERISA statute of limitations.  The plaintiffs opposed
this motion and the motion is currently pending before the
court.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs opposed this motion and it is
currently pending before the court of appeals, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Spano et al. v. Boeing Company, The et al., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00743-DRH-DGW," filed in the U. S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge David R. Herndon
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Daniel V. Conlisk, Esq. (DConlisk@uselaws.com)
         Schlichter, Bogard et al.
         Generally Admitted
         100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-621-6115

Representing the defendants are:

         Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. (lgolumbic@groom.com)
         Groom Law Group, Chartered
         1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1200
         Washington, DC 20006
         Phone: 202-861-6615
         Fax: 202-659-4503

              - and -

         Lisa Demet Martin, Esq. (lmartin@bryancave.com)
         Bryan Cave
         211 North Broadway
         One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
         St. Louis, MO 63102
         Phone: 314-259-2000
         Fax: 314-259-2020


BOEING CO: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of Wichita Facility to Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face an alleged class-action lawsuit
involving the company's sale of the Wichita facility to Spirit
Aerospace, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

The case, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, is brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and, in general, claims
that the company has not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification
motions for the class of employees who did not go to work for
Spirit.

No further updates regaring the case were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


BOEING CO: Summary Judgment Motions in ERISA Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The cross-motions for summary judgment in a consolidated class-
action lawsuit against The Boeing Co., which alleges violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, are still
pending.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW (United Auto Workers) Local 1069
retirees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that recently
announced changes to medical plans for retirees of UAW Local
1069 constituted a breach of collective bargaining agreements
under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act and
Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that the company has
the legal right to make changes to these medical benefits.

On June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that
the company's case be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.  The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

The UAW, Oct. 26, 2007, filed a motion to file a second amended
complaint in which it sought to drop the retirees' claim for
vested lifetime benefits based on successive collective
bargaining agreements and instead allege that the current
collective bargaining agreement is the sole alleged source of
rights to retiree medical benefits.  The company opposed the
motion.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the court granted the motion to amend the
complaint on the condition that the lifetime retiree benefits
claims are to be dismissed with prejudice.

In addition, both parties filed motions for class certification
on Nov. 16, 2007, and filed briefs on class certification on
Feb. 28, 2008.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008 (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2008)

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court certified a class of retirees for
the vested lifetime benefits claims and the claims pertaining to
the current collective bargaining agreement.  The summary
judgment motions pending before the court, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The Company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the Company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development
organization focused on technologies, processes and the creation
of new products.


CANO PETROLEUM: Securities Fraud Litigation Ongoing in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The outside directors and underwriters of Cano Petroleum, Inc.
continue to face a purported securities fraud class-action
lawsuit in New York.

On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd;
Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and
the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities
laws.

The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action.  The
lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public
offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding
Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially
false and overstated Cano's proved reserves.

Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action.

No further developments were reported in the company's Feb. 9,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The Company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.  Cano's proved oil and
natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by
Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants.
As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple
completions.  On September 10, 2008, the Company had total
acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which
was considered developed acres.  Cano sells its crude oil and
natural gas production to several independent purchasers.


D.R. HORTON: Appeal to RESPA Violations Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by the plaintiff in a dismissed purported
class-action suit, entitled "Yeatman et al. v. D.R. Horton,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00081-BAE-GRS," remains pending.

The suit was filed against D.R. Horton, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The suit, commenced by John R. Yeatman on June 15, 2007, also
names as defendant D.R. Horton's mortgage company -- DHI
Mortgage Co.  Mr. Yeatman, who claims that he was forced to use
the company's affiliated mortgage service to buy his home so
that the company could get discounts and incentives, is seeking
class-action status for his suit.

The complaint specifically seeks certification of a class
alleged to include persons who, within the year preceding the
filing of the suit, purchased a home from the company and
obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the affiliated
mortgage company subsidiary.

The suit alleges that the company violated Section 8 of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act by effectively requiring its
homebuyers to use its affiliated mortgage company to finance
their home purchases by offering certain discounts and
incentives.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief.

On April 23, 2008, the Court granted the company's request and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008).

The appeal is currently pending, according to the company's
Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Yeatman, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:07-cv-00081-BAE-GRS," filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Georgia, Judge B. Avant Edenfield,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq. (TWithers@gcpwlaw.com)
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


D.R. HORTON: Calif. Home Buyers' Deception Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit in California that accuses D.R.
Horton, Inc. and Western Pacific Housing of illegally forcing or
deceiving homebuyers into financing their houses through DHI
Mortgage Co., at uncompetitive prices, is at the early stages of
litigation, according to D.R. Horton's Feb. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On March 24, 2008, a putative class-action suit, entitled "James
Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.," was filed by five
customers of Western Pacific Housing, Inc. -- one of the
company's wholly owned subsidiaries -- against the company,
Western Pacific Housing and the company's affiliated mortgage
company subsidiary, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The complaint seeks certification of a class alleged to include
persons who, within the four years preceding the filing of the
suit, purchased a home from the company, or any of its
subsidiaries, and obtained a mortgage for such purchase from the
company's affiliated mortgage company subsidiary.

The suit alleges that the company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Sections 16720, 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code by effectively
requiring its homebuyers to apply for a loan through its
affiliated mortgage company.

It also alleges that the homebuyers were either deceived about
loan costs charged by the company's affiliated mortgage company
or coerced into using its affiliated mortgage company, or both,
and that discounts and incentives offered by the company or its
subsidiaries to buyers who obtained financing from its
affiliated mortgage company were illusory.

The action seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

According to the April 2, 2008 edition of The Class Action
Reporter, the plaintiffs request:

     -- disgorgement and restitution to plaintiffs and all
        class members;

     -- actual damages and treble damages to plaintiffs and
        all class members;

     -- attorneys' fees and the costs of suit incurred;

     -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and

     -- equitable and injunctive relief (Class Action Reporter,
        Aug. 28, 2008).

The suit, "James Wilson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc., et al.,
Case No: 08 CV 592 BEN RBB," is filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. (norm@bamlawlj.com)
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232

Representing the defendants is:

          John T. Brooks, Esq. (jtbrooks@luce.com)
          Luce Forward Hamilton and Scripps
          600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101-3372
          Phone: 619-236-1414
          Fax: 619-232-8311


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Settlement of Ancillary Products Suits Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corp.'s settlement agreements resolving several
lawsuits in Alabama and Georgia concerning the company's sales
practices related to ancillary products currently or formerly
sold by the company in those states have been approved,
according to the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The company is a party to litigation in Alabama and Georgia in
which allegations are made with respect to the company' sales
practices, primarily the sale of motor club memberships
currently or formerly sold in those states.

"Annette Rush v. Village Auto Insurance Company, Inc. (now known
as First Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc.)" was
filed on October 26, 2005, as a putative class action in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

"Margaret Franklin v. Vesta Insurance Corp., et al.," was filed
on July 14, 2006, as a putative class action in the Circuit
Court of Bullock County, Alabama.

"Keisha Milbry Monday, et al. v. First Acceptance Corp., et
al.," was filed on February 13, 2007, in the Circuit Court of
Bullock County, Alabama.

"Solomon and Catherine Warren, et al. v. First Acceptance Corp.,
et al.," was filed on November 9, 2007, in the Circuit Court of
Barbour County, Alabama.

The suits generally allege that the company implemented a
program to convince its consumers who purchased automobile
insurance policies to also purchase motor club memberships or
that it charged its consumers billing fees associated with the
company's products that were not properly disclosed, and seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, to avoid the uncertainty, risks
and costs of further litigation, the company has entered into a
settlement agreement effective Sept. 10, 2008 with the
plaintiffs in the Georgia litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the
plaintiffs in the Georgia litigation were divided into two
classes:

       -- persons insured by the Company on Sept. 1,
          2008 who purchased an automobile club membership with
          their automobile insurance; and

       -- persons insured by the Company prior to
          Sept. 1, 2008 who purchased an automobile club
          membership with their automobile insurance.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, each class member who
was insured by the Company on Sept. 1, 2008 will receive a
premium credit equal to 100% of the amounts he or she paid for
automobile club memberships and deferred billing fees against
the premium for a new or renewal automobile insurance policy (as
applicable) for up to twelve months of liability or uninsured
motorist coverage issued by the Company prior to Dec. 31, 2009,
unless he or she elects, prior to Dec. 31, 2008, to receive
instead of the premium credit a reimbursement certificate that
provides for cash reimbursement of up to a maximum total payment
of $50 for any rental or towing expenses incurred by the class
member on or before Dec. 31, 2009 as a result of the disablement
of his or her vehicle because of an accident.

Each class member who was insured by the Company prior to Sept.
1, 2008 will receive a reimbursement certificate that provides
for cash reimbursement of up to a maximum total payment of $50
for any rental or towing expenses incurred by the class member
on or before Dec. 31, 2009 as a result of the disablement of his
or her vehicle because of an accident, unless he or she elects,
prior to Dec. 31, 2008, to receive instead of the reimbursement
certificate, a premium credit equal to 100% of the amounts he or
she paid for automobile club memberships and deferred billing
fees against the premium for a new automobile insurance policy
for up to twelve months of liability or uninsured motorist
coverage issued by the Company prior to June 30, 2010.

Any premium credits issued to class members will be prorated
over a twelve-month term not to extend beyond June 30, 2011, and
the class member will be entitled to the prorated premium credit
only so long as he or she keeps their insurance premiums current
during the twelve-month term.

No benefits will be available to class members until Jan. 1,
2009.   The company has also agreed to strengthen its
disclosures to customers of all relevant fees, charges and
coverages.

In addition, the company has agreed to pay $3.8 million in fees
and expenses for the attorneys for the Georgia plaintiffs and
pay all costs associated with the administration of the
settlement.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the court,
and the Company expects the court to hold a hearing to consider
the settlement in November 2008.

The company has also agreed upon preliminary settlement terms
with the plaintiffs in the Alabama litigation.  The preliminary
settlement terms provide for benefits to the Alabama plaintiffs
substantially similar to the benefits to be paid to the Georgia
plaintiffs, and a payment of $2.5 million in fees and expenses
for the attorneys for the Alabama plaintiffs.

The settlement of the Alabama litigation is subject to the
negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and approval of
the settlement agreement by the applicable courts.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Superior Court for Fulton County, Georgia
approved the settlement of the case styled, "Annette Rush v.
Village Auto Insurance Company, Inc. (now known as First
Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc.)" that was pending
in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the class action
litigation pending against the Company in Alabama.  The Circuit
Court of Bullock County, Alabama approved the terms of the
Alabama settlement.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the plaintiff class in the Georgia
litigation included approximately 176,500 members who were
insured by the company on or prior to Sept. 1, 2008 that
received a reimbursement certificate, approximately 10,000
members who were insured by the company that received the
premium credits and approximately 3,900 members who were not
actively insured by the company that received the premium
credits.  Based on the company's analysis of the premium credits
available to these members, it has accrued approximately $4.7
million as of Dec. 31, 2008 associated with the estimated
utilization of available premium credits for Georgia plaintiffs
who were insured by the company on Dec. 31, 2008 and received
the premium credits.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company estimates that the plaintiff
class in the Alabama litigation will include approximately 2,300
members who will be insured by the company on March 6, 2009 that
will be eligible to receive the premium credits.  Based on its
analysis of the premium credits available to these members, the
company has accrued approximately $0.5 million as of Dec. 31,
2008, associated with the estimated utilization of available
premium credits the company believes will be issued to those
plaintiffs in the Alabama litigation who will receive the
premium credits.

The company is in discussions with its insurance carriers
regarding coverage for the costs and expenses incurred relating
to the litigation settlements.

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


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts is pending.

In April 2008, six purported class-action complaints were filed
against the company, certain of its current and former officers,
and certain of its directors.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, press releases and other public statements.

The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  They seek, among other
relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed
lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel.

On Nov. 28, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by
the lead plaintiffs and contained similar allegations as the
earlier complaints.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Plaintiffs opposition to the company's
motion to dismiss is due to be filed in April 2009.  A class has
not been certified in the actions, according to the company's
Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/--
provides outsourcing services for private education lending in
the U.S.  It meets the demand for private education loans by
providing national and regional financial institutions and
educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan
marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of
design, implementation and securitization services for student
loan programs.  The Company is engaged on loan programs for
undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the
primary and secondary school market.  The Company is engaged in
program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and
application, loan origination and disbursement, loan
securitization and loan servicing.


MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Revokes Class Status in Vista Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
decertified a class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp.
for the alleged deceptive promotion of its flagship software,
Windows Vista, John Letzing of MarketWatch reports.

In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote
that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate
remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting
class-wide causation is decertification."  Judge Pechman
specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price
inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to
the MarketWatch report.

Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft
has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for
Plaintiffs' individual claims."  In essence, the ruling forces
plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports
MarketWatch.

                         Case Background

Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that
Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
in a class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's
marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system
in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).

The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8,
2008).

In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC
makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they
would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista,
called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista
Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false
designation drove up demand for personal computers and,
therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed
against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
if they are not.  The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the
2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft
to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report.

However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman did dismissed
plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into
buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought.  She instead
allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up
prices.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's
decision.

In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008,
the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify
the class.  "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove
any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves
for summary judgment," the company's filing reads.

In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft
dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most
basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain
features, including the Aero interface.

Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home
Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of
Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that
Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a
distinct budget edition."  They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home
Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical
matter."

In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have
calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of
its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that
that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs
because of the program, reports seattlepi.com.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: February 27 Final Hearing Set for Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In
re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309
(DLC))," is scheduled for Feb. 27, 2009, according to Openwave
Systems, Inc.'s Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

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

                         Case Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

     * several current and former Openwave officers and
       directors,

     * KPMG LLP,

     * Merrill Lynch,

     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     * Lehman Brothers Inc.,

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

     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Nov. 5, 2008, the court entered a preliminary order approving
the settlement.  The settlement will be funded in part by
insurance and in part by the company.  The settlement is subject
to court approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2009).

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, on Dec. 5,
2008, the company contributed $5.0 million and the insurance
carriers contributed $15.0 million to the settlement fund.  This
$20.0 million estimated liability was recorded in the fiscal
quarter ending June 30, 2008, with a corresponding $15.0 million
recorded in Insurance receivable for legal settlement on the
consolidated balance sheet, and $5.0 million recorded in Legal
settlement costs on the consolidate statement of operations.

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

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

Representing the defendants are:

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

               - and -

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


OPNEXT INC: Consolidated N.J. Securities Fraud Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against
Opnext, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey remains stayed pending the submission of a joint status
report on April 30, 2009.

On Feb. 20, 2008, a putative class action captioned, "Bixler v.
Opnext, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:08-cv-00920," was filed against
the company and certain of its directors and officers, alleging,
inter alia, that the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations in violation of federal
securities laws.

On March 7 and 20, 2008, two additional putative class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the the
District of New Jersey, similarly alleging, inter alia, that
federal securities laws had been violated by virtue of alleged
material misrepresentations in the company's registration
statement and prospectus.

These two additional complaints, captioned, "Coleman v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01222," and "Johnson v. Opnext,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01451," respectively, named as
defendants the company, certain individual defendants, the
company's auditor, and the underwriters of the IPO.

Motions were filed by several of the company's present and
former shareholders seeking:

     -- to consolidate the "Bixler," "Coleman," and "Johnson"
        cases;

     -- to be appointed lead plaintiff; and

     -- to have their counsel appointed by the Court as lead
        counsel for the putative class.

On May 22, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the
three cases under Civil Action No. 08-920 (JAP).

On July 30, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.  The underwriter defendants filed an answer to
the consolidated complaint on Oct. 21, 2008.

On Nov. 6, 2008, Opnext's auditor was voluntarily dismissed from
the action by plaintiff without prejudice.  Hitachi, which was
added as a defendant in the Consolidated Complaint, filed a
motion to dismiss on Dec. 22, 2008.  As of Feb. 9, 2009, the
date of this Form 10-Q filing, the Court had not ruled on
Hitachi's motion.

The parties, save for Hitachi, have agreed to early mediation.
In light of that, the court has stayed all proceedings in this
matter, including discovery, pending the parties' submitting a
joint status report to the court on April 30, 2009, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The consolidated suit is "Bixler v. Opnext, Inc., et al. Case
No. 3:08-cv-00920," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Judge Joel A. Pisano, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
          The Rosen Law Firm, PA
          236 Tillou Road
          South Orange, NJ 07079
          Phone: 973-313-1887

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. (jsarnelli@ldgrlaw.com)
          Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-632-3000
          Fax: 973-923-0858

Representing the defendants are:

          John M. Falzone, III, Esq. (john.falzone@lw.com)
          Latham & Watkins, LLP
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: 973-639-7099

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com)
          Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Esqs.
          210 Summit Avenue
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: 201-391-7000


PRESTIGE BRANDS: Finalizing Proposed Notice of Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., are in the process of finalizing
the proposed notice of the pending class action lawsuit.

The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was
filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors on Aug. 3, 2005.  The cases were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of
the company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005, and Nov.
15, 2005.

The plaintiffs also named as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering.

The district court has appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on Dec.
23, 2005, filed a consolidated class action complaint asserting
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter with
regard to:

     -- the accounting issues described in the company's press
        release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and

     -- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
        of the company's products was declining and that the
        company was planning to withdraw several products from
        the market.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

Pursuant to the company's request, the court, in a pretrial
ruling on July 10, 2006, dismissed claims that the management
acted fraudulently.  The court also dismissed all claims against
the company and the individual defendants arising under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the common stock of the company pursuant to, or
traceable to, the company's initial public offering on or about
Feb. 9, 2005, through Nov. 15, 2005.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties to the action engaged in mediation
to explore the terms of a potential settlement of the pending
litigation.  However, no settlement agreement was reached during
mediation (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2008).

On Jan. 16, 2009, after unsuccessful mediation, the Court
ordered that notice of the pending class action lawsuit be sent
to all persons who purchased the company's common stock between
Feb. 9, 2005 and Nov. 15, 2005 pursuant or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering.  The parties are in the
process of finalizing the proposed notice, according to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Charles L. Brieant presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

               - and -

          Russell James Gunyan, Esq. (rgunyan@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7267
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants are:

          Todd R. David, Esq. (todd.david@alston.com)
          Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: 404-881-7357
          Fax: 404-527-8717

               - and -

          John Gueli, Esq. (jgueli@shearman.com)
          Shearman & Sterling LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4744
          Fax: 212-848-7179


RETROFOAM CANADA: Faces CDN$500M Lawsuit Over Banned Substance
--------------------------------------------------------------
RetroFoam Canada has been named in a CDN$500-million class-
action lawsuit for distributing insulation containing a banned
substance, Tyler Kula of The London Free Press reports.

The London Free Press reported that RetroFoam is said to contain
urea formaldehyde, a banned substance in Canada for nearly 30
years.

Sutts, Strosberg LLP is organizing the lawsuit on behalf of
anyone who owned, had an interest in, or occupied a property in
which RetroFoam was installed, according to The London Free
Press report.

Approximately 700 homes in Ontario, including 170 in Lambton and
Chatham-Kent, were insulated with RetroFoam within the past 18
months, reports The London Free Press.

For more details, visit http://www.retrofoamclassaction.com/.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Lawsuit Over 2008 Stock Offering
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces a purported securities class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 9, 2009.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class-action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants Rigel, Inc., certain of its
officers, its directors and the underwriters for the company's
February 2008 stock offering.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
defendants related to the results of a Phase II clinical trial
of the company's product candidate R788.

The plaintiff seeks damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the Stock Offering, an award of its
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of
the company's common stock during the period between Dec. 13,
2007 and Oct. 27, 2008, including purchasers in the Stock
Offering.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory/
autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The company's
research focuses on intracellular signalling pathways and
related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  Rigel
has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and
market its product candidates.  The company has internal product
development programs in inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, such
as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as
well as partnered product development programs relating to
asthma and cancer.


STANDARD OIL: Gas Stations File Suit For Return of Federal Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Oil of Connecticut faces a purported class-action suit
in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut that is
seeking for the return of federal taxes, Martin B. Cassidy of
Greenwich Time reports.

The suit was filed by two gas station owners from Stamford and
Shelton who alleged that Standard Oil wrongfully included the
taxes in the price of gasoline it charged them.

In the suit, Michael Faugno, owner of Woodway Texaco in Stamford
and Monty Blakeman, owner of Monts Mart in Shelton, claim that,
since January 2005, the supplier imposed an 18.4 cent per gallon
tax on about 5 million gallons of ethanol-blended gas bought by
the two stations, even though a federal tax break reduced the
tax to 13.3 cents a gallon for gasoline containing the corn-
based additive.

According to the suit, "The defendant had actual knowledge that
the federal gasoline tax was less than 18.4 cents a gallon, and
if it did not have actual knowledge, it should have known the
actual amount of taxes due in the exercise of reasonable
diligence."

The suit seeks damages to reimburse the gas stations the tax
they paid, injunctive relief barring Standard from overcharging
for fuel, and blocking Standard from operating competing gas
stations.

The gas station owners are represented by Stamford attorney John
Morgan, Esq. of Barr & LaCava.  Mr. Morgan told Greenwich Time
that the plaintiffs will pursue class-action status, and request
a list of other customers from Standard to try to determine
whether other station owners also overpaid Standard.  They will
also request records to determine whether Standard regularly
sold gas to its own franchise stations at a lower price and with
the appropriate tax credit, Mr. Morgan adds.

"The first step is to find out what happened and how many people
or stations are involved and who the other parties might be,"
Mr. Morgan said.

For more details, contact:

          Barr & LaCava
          Phone: 877-293-6717
          Fax: 203-357-8397
          Web site: http://www.infolaw.com/


STANFORD GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Stanford Group Co., along with several others, are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in Texas alleging securities
fraud, Bill Lodge of 2TheAdvocate reports.

Three investors in Texas and a fourth in Oklahoma are seeking
class-action status for a multibillion-dollar civil suit in
Houston against Baton Rouge promoter Jason Green and others
associated with financier R. Allen Stanford.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Stanford, two
of his associates and three of his companies on Feb. 16, 2009 in
Dallas for alleged fraud in the sale of $8 billion in
certificates of deposit at a bank on the Caribbean island of
Antigua.  Other frauds allegedly were tied to the sale of $1
billion in mutual funds, according to 2TheAdvocate report.

2TheAdvocate reported that on Feb. 17, 2009, the investor suit
appeared in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  It was filed by Jerry Adams, of Stillwell, Okla., who
alleged he was misled by Mr. Stanford, Mr. Green and others as
to the security of his $600,000 investment.  Other plaintiffs in
the suit are, Michael Hicks, of Wimberley, Texas, who made
similar allegations about his $500,000 nest egg; and Houston
residents Milton Jerald Edrington ($400,000) and Ben Gomez
($250,000).

The plaintiffs are asking Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore to declare
their suit a class-action case, reports 2TheAdvocate.

The suit named several entities as defendants:

       -- Stanford Group Co.,
       -- Stanford Financial Group,
       -- Stanford International Bank, LTD,
       -- Stanford Holding, Inc.,
       -- Stanford Capital Management, LLC,
       -- R. Allen Stanford,
       -- James Davis,
       -- Laura Pendergest-Holt,
       -- Jay Comeaux,
       -- Jason Green, and
       -- Ben Gomez.

The suit alleges Stanford used "impressive, but fictitious,
performance results" to entice investors to place their money
with his programs, 2TheAdvocate reported.

The suit is "Adams et al. v. Stanford Group Company et al., Case
No. 4:09-cv-00474," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George M. Fleming, Esq.
          (george_fleming@fleming-law.com)
          Fleming & Associates
          1330 Post Oak Blvd
          Ste. 3030
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: 713-621-7944
          Fax: 713-621-9638


STATE FARM: Faces Tex. Suit Over Business Interruption Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Lloyds faces a purported class-action suit by Orange
County business owners who are claiming that the insurance
company stiffed them on business interruption proceeds in the
weeks following Hurricane Ike, David Yates of the Southeast
Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed by Marcia Delarue filed on Feb. 10, 2009 in
Orange County District Court, under case no. A090075.

Court document obtained by the Southeast Texas Record show that
Ms. Delarue's business was covered by a State Farm insurance
policy, which offered loss of income proceeds if her business
was interrupted.

According to the suit, "On Sept. 13, 2008, Hurricane Ike roared
ashore inflicting severe damage along the Texas Gulf Coast.  In
the process, Ike damages the property where Delarue's law office
is located," reports the Southeast Texas Record.

Ms. Delarue states in her suit that due to the amount of damage
and lack of basic services in Orange County, it took 68 days to
restore her business.

The suit states, "Delarue's office was not repaired, (and) her
computer systems … including an internet connection … were not
fully operational until Nov. 28, 2008, 68 days after the Orange
County mandatory evacuation order was issued."

When she submitted her claim for 68 days of lost business, State
Farm paid Ms. Delarue "only for the period of time the Orange
County mandatory evacuation order was in effect," giving her a
total of eight days of payable coverage, according to the suit.

The Southeast Texas Record reported that Ms. Delarue alleges
State farm's policies "wrongfully shortchange the business
interruption insurance payments owed to the thousands of Texas
citizens business owners" who have suffered loss of income as a
result of Hurricanes Rita, Gustav and/or Ike.

She is suing for the 60 remaining days she claims State Farm
owes her, injunctive relief, and all court costs.

The class is represented by Mitchell Toups, Esq. and other
attorneys from the Weller, Green, Toups & Terrell law firm in
Beaumont and by the Coffman Law Firm, according to the Southeast
Texas Record report.








                   New Securities Fraud Cases

COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Suit in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:54:33 GMT -- SAN DIEGO -- (Business
Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin
Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/colonial/)today announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of
purchasers of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial")
(NYSE:CNB) common stock during the period between January 23,
2008 and January 27, 2009 (the "Class Period").

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

     Colonial operates as the holding company for Colonial Bank,
National Association, which provides commercial banking, wealth
management services, mortgage banking, and insurance services in
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Nevada and Texas.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial results, and
concealed the Company's failure to properly account for its
troubled loan portfolio and goodwill.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Colonial's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $16.06 per share in February 2008.

     On January 27, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
announced its fourth quarter and full year 2008 financial
results, including a net loss of $825 million for the quarter
due, in substantial part, to a $575 million goodwill impairment
charge, a $415 million charge to write off troubled assets and
an increase to its loan loss reserve.  Colonial further
disclosed that its receipt of funds from the U.S. Treasury's
Capital Purchase Program was conditioned upon the Company
raising an additional $300 million in equity.  On this news,
Colonial's stock dropped from $1.58 per share on January 27,
2009 to $0.85 per share on January 28, 2009, a one-day decline
of over 46% on unusually large volume.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

       -- the Company was failing to adequately reserve for
          mortgage-related exposure, causing its balance sheet
          and financial results to be artificially inflated;

       -- the Company was failing to write down impaired
          goodwill, causing its balance sheet and financial
          results to be artificially inflated;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting its loan
          reserves and goodwill;

       -- the Company's exposure to troubled assets was not
          isolated to its residential construction portfolio,
          but extended to its other loan portfolios, including
          its commercial construction portfolio;

       -- the Company's exposure to the problems in the real
          estate market had not been limited by the actions the
          Company had taken in 2006;

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the real
          estate market and, as a result, Colonial would be
          forced to suspend its dividend and raise additional
          capital, including seeking assistance from the U.S.
          Government;

       -- given the increased volatility in the real estate
          market, the Company had no reasonable basis to make
          projections about its non-performing assets, its net
          charge-offs and its ability to liquidate its troubled
          loan portfolio, and, as a result, the Company's
          projections issued during the Class Period about its
          results for 2008 were at a minimum reckless; and

       -- the U.S. Government's approval to provide Colonial
          with $550 million in funding as announced on December
          2, 2008 was conditioned upon Colonial raising an
          additional $300 million in capital from outside
          sources.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Colonial common stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/colonial/


CUSHING MLP: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:29:17 GMT -- BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/18/09
-- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
all persons who purchased the shares of Cushing MLP Total Return
Fund (the "Fund") (NYSE: SRV) during the period between
September 1, 2008 and December 19, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The complaint accuses Swank Energy Income Advisors, LP,
Swank Capital LLC, Jerry V. Swank, Mark W. Fordyce, CPA, Brian
R. Bruce, Ronald P. Trout and Edward N. McMillan of violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Company Act of 1940 by virtue of the Company's failure to
disclose during the Class Period that the full value of a $49.1
million deferred tax asset was included in the Fund's stated net
asset value without establishing an appropriate valuation
reserve against the risk that the Fund could or would never
utilize or recognize the deferred tax asset.

     According to the complaint, on December 19, 2008, when the
Fund wrote down the value of the $49.1 million deferred tax
asset to zero, the value of the Fund's shares declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


ING GROEP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:34:34 GMT -- NEW YORK -- (Business
Wire) On February 17, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who acquired the 7.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital
Securities (the "Securities") of ING Groep N.V. ("ING" or the
"Company") [NYSE:IDG] pursuant to a registration statement and
September 2007 Prospectus (as defined in the Complaint,
collectively, as the "Offering Documents") issued in connection
with the Company's September 2007 offering of the Securities
(the "Offering") against ING, its senior insiders, the
investment banks that underwrote the Offering and ING's auditor
pursuant to §§11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
[15 U.S.C. §§77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o] (the "Class").

     The case name is styled, "Harold H. Powell Trust v. ING
Groep N.V., et al."

     As detailed in the Complaint, ING sold the Securities at
$25 per share for proceeds of approximately $1.5 billion.  The
Offering Documents incorporated ING's financial results for 2005
and 2006 as well as quarterly reports through September 2007.

     The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents, however,
omitted material information, namely, that:

       -- Defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage-
          related securities, were impaired to a much larger
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

       -- Defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets;

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting the
          value of its assets; and

       -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and,
          notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the
          Offering, the Company would have to raise an
          additional EUR10 billion by selling equity in the
          Company to the Dutch government in order to prevent
          ING's total collapse.

     After the Offering, ING announced EUR2 billion in
impairment charges associated with its exposure to bad loans,
mortgage-related securities and other "pressurized" assets,
causing the price of the Securities issued in the Offering to
decline.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of the Securities was artificially inflated during the
Class Period.  In ignorance of the false and misleading nature
of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the
other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of the Securities.  Had plaintiff
and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would
not have purchased said Securities, or would not have purchased
them at the inflated prices that were paid.

For more details, contact:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


INTREPID POTASH: Glancy Binkow Files Colo. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, Feb 18, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
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 Colorado on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid Potash" or the
"Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering (the "IPO") on April 21, 2008 (the "Class").

     The Complaint charges Intrepid Potash, as well as a current
and a former executive officer of the Company with violations of
federal securities laws. Intrepid Potash engages in the
production and marketing of muriate of potash in the United
States.

     The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus and Registration
Statement (collectively the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Company's IPO, contained false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

       -- that the Company's President and Chief Operating
          Officer ("COO") had not received a B.A. degree from
          the University of Colorado or a M.S. degree from
          Loyola Marymount University, as represented in the
          Registration Statement; and

       -- that the Company's President and COO had
          misrepresented his academic credentials in violation
          of the Company's Code of Business Conduct.

     On February 11, 2009 investors were shocked by a report on
the market issued by the Fraud Discovery Institute revealing
that the Company's President and COO had affirmatively lied and
misrepresented his educational qualifications in the
Registration Statement issued in connection with Intrepid
Potash's IPO.  In response to this news, shares of the Company's
stock declined $1.52 per share to close at $22.00 per share on
February 11, 2009.  This closing price on Intrepid Potash
represented a cumulative loss of $10.00, approximately 31.25%,
of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just
months earlier.

     After the market closed on February 11, 2009, Intrepid
Potash issued a press release disclosing that the Company's
President and COO was resigning and confirmed that the
statements contained in the Company's Registration Statement
about the educational qualifications of the Company's President
and COO were false and that the "misrepresentation of his
academic credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of
Business Conduct."

For more details, contact:

          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


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Law Firms File Securities Fraud Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 18, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following
statement was issued today by the law firms of Labaton Sucharow
LLP and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

     On August 4, 2008, Plaintiffs New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employers Retirement
Plan ("Plaintiffs"), institutional investors represented in the
case by Labaton Sucharow and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check, filed a Complaint in the King County Superior Court for
the State of Washington alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by Washington Mutual, Inc., Washington Mutual
Bank, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., Washington Mutual Mortgage
Securities Corp., WaMu Capital Corp., and certain Individual
Defendants (No. 08-2-26210-3 SEA).

     The Complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of WaMu
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the "Certificates") between
January 26, 2006 and November 1, 2007 (the "Class Period") that
were issued pursuant and/or traceable to a Registration
Statement that WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2005, as
supplemented on January 3, 2006 (collectively: the "Registration
Statement").

     The Certificates at issue in the Complaint are related to
the following Trusts: WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2006-AR1 through Series 2006-AR19 and WaMu Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates Series 2007-HY1 through Series 2007-HY7.

     On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision
declared Washington Mutual Bank insolvent and appointed the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") as its Receiver,
and on September 26, 2008, Washington Mutual Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.  On December 16, 2008, Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint in King County Superior Court that
excluded Washington Mutual Inc. as a defendant in the case, but
retained the allegations from the initial Complaint against all
other defendants.

     On January 29, 2009, the FDIC, as Receiver for Washington
Mutual Bank, filed a Notice of Removal, removing Plaintiffs'
case from the King County Superior Court to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
action is now entitled New Orleans Employees' Retirement System
v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for
Washington Mutual Bank, et al. (No. 2:09-cv-00134-RSM).

     On January 12, 2009, the Boilermakers National Annuity
Trust Fund ("Boilermakers") filed a Complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws against Washington
Mutual Bank and other defendants, on behalf of all purchasers of
Certificates from certain of the above identified Trusts in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (No. 2:09-00037-MJP).  On January 14, 2009, the
Boilermakers published notice of their action to investors,
which provided a deadline to seek Lead Plaintiff status in that
case by March 16, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Alan I. Ellman, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (888) 753-2796 or (212) 907-0700
          e-mail: info@labaton.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706
          e-mail: info@btkmc.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Has $8M Accretion Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority, during the first quarter of fiscal
2009, recorded a remaining accretion expense of US$8 million
related to coal-fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants,
asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

During the first quarter of 2009, the Company's total asset
retirement obligation (ARO) liability increased US$32 million
due to accretion. The nuclear accretion expense of US$24 million
was deferred and charged to a regulatory asset.

During the first quarter of 2008, the Company's total ARO
liability increased US$30 million due to accretion. The nuclear
accretion expense of US$23 million was deferred and charged to a
regulatory asset.

The remaining accretion expense of US$7 million, related to
coal-fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and
PCBs, was expensed during the first quarter of 2008.

Headquartered in Knoxville, Tenn., Tennessee Valley Authority is
a publicly owned power producer in the United States, with more
than 35,000 MW of generating capacity. Its facilities include 11
fossil-powered plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear
plants, and six combustion turbine plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Fin'l. Involved in Insurance Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other insurers, The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 12, 2009.

The lawsuits assert that insurers had a duty to protect the
public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed
unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their
policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases.

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: EnPro Ind. Has $380.2M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted
to US$380.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$437.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company press
release dated Feb. 12, 2009.

Current asbestos liability amounted to US$85.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$86.9 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted
to US$239.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$311.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2007. Current asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$70 million as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$14.8 million during the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$30.9 million
during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos-related expenses amounted to US$52.1 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$68.4 million during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc.
produces sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound
bearings, compressor systems and components, diesel and dual-
fuel engines and other engineered products for use in critical
applications by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Faces 157 Pending Claims at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 157 pending asbestos-related claims during
the year ended Nov. 30, 2008, compared with 160 claims during
the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
12, 2009.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.

Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill., and
San Francisco. Since 1998, more than 200 of these asbestos
lawsuits have been resolved with the majority being dismissed.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2008, the Company recorded 33
claims filed, 31 claims dismissed, and five claims settled.
Aggregate settlement costs were US$246,000 and average
settlement costs were US$49,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2007, the Company recorded 57
claims filed, 43 claims dismissed, and eight claims settled.
Aggregate settlement costs were US$72,000 and average settlement
costs were US$9,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases were
US$500,000 for fiscal year 2008, US$900,000 for fiscal year
2007, and US$500,000 for fiscal year 2006.

Headquartered in Rancho Cordova, Calif., GenCorp Inc.
manufactures aerospace and defense systems with a real estate
segment that includes activities related to the entitlement,
sale, and leasing of the Company's excess real estate assets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing 27,000 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. faced about 27,000 pending asbestos-related
product liability claims as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
42,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
12, 2008.

Of the 27,000 outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2008, about 16,000
are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.

The Company (or parties it is obligated to indemnify) continues
to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury actions. The Company said it believes that its
involvement is limited because, in general, these claims relate
to a few types of automotive friction products that were
manufactured many years ago and contained encapsulated asbestos.

In 2008, of about 17,500 claims resolved, 210 claims (1.2
percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or
on behalf of the Company. In 2007, of about 4,400 claims
resolved, 194 claims (4.4 percent) resulted in any payment being
made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June
2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of
the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the
Company to access the next available layer of insurance
coverage.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a
funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$50.1
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received US$14.2 million in cash from
insurers. The outstanding balance of US$35.9 million is expected
to be fully recovered.

Timing of the recovery is dependent on the final resolution of a
declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2007, insurers owed
US$20.6 million in association with these claims.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$34.7 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$34.7 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action.
At Dec. 31, 2007, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$39.6 million.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
automotive systems and components, primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-
vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other
OEMs of commercial trucks, buses and agricultural and off-
highway vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Coverage Lawsuit Ongoing v. BorgWarner
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to be a defendant in an asbestos-
related declaratory judgment action brought by Continental
Casualty Company and related companies (CNA).

The suit was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill., against the Company and certain of its other
historical general liability insurers.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims. The lawsuit seeks to determine
the extent of insurance coverage available to the Company
including whether the available limits exhaust on a "per
occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to determine how the
applicable coverage responsibilities should be apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of
making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs
pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold
the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable
coverage. Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the
issue is reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
automotive systems and components, primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light-
vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, vans and
light-trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other
OEMs of commercial trucks, buses and agricultural and off-
highway vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illegal Dumping Found in Cooma, Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooma-Monaro Shire Council says illegally dumped asbestos
has been discovered in commercial rubbish bins in and around the
town of Cooma, New South Wales, Australia, ABC News reports.

Jeff Tate, the Council's resource and waste officer, says he
believes it is coming from a house renovation in the area. He
says asbestos poses a serious threat to anyone who comes near
it.

Mr. Tate added, "Asbestos that isn't correctly packed or handled
becomes a hazard especially for the guys that are emptying the
skips and removing it to the landfill."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3 Reading Locals' Deaths Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inquests heard that the deaths of three tradesmen from Reading,
England, were linked to exposure to asbestos, the Reading
Evening Post reports.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford confirmed that
Joe Flurry, Victor Smith, and Brian Pasmore all died as a result
of asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma. Mr. Bedford said, "I am
dealing with cases like these all too frequently, which shows
how prevalent this awful disease is."

Mr. Flurry, a 65-year-old plumber from Tilehurst, died at Royal
Berkshire Hospital (RBH) on Nov. 10, 2008, after suffering a
tumor in his right lung.

The inquest heard how Mr. Flurry had worked for various
companies dating back to the 1960s and would often come home
covered in the deadly dust. He had also reported sawing and
drilling through asbestos guttering and pipe work for water
tanks.

In a statement before his death, Mr. Flurry said he had "clear
recollections of asbestos dust flying everywhere as he was
drilling things."

Consultant pathologist Dr. Colin McCormick's post mortem
examination at RBH confirmed the primary cause of death was a
pulmonary embolism due to deep vein thrombosis resulting from a
malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Pasmore left school in 1968 to work as a carpenter and
joiner. He spent years doing maintenance and repair jobs in the
Berkshire area, including building fume cabinets out of the
harmful substance for a science complex.

Before he died, Mr. Pasmore said he had not been given any
safety equipment while working with the substance and was not
made aware of the dangers.

Symptoms of malignant mesothelioma did not emerge until 2003,
after the 55-year-old Mr. Pasmore was treated for pneumonia. He
underwent two successful spells of chemotherapy and radiotherapy
but his condition deteriorated in 2007 after suffering a
relapse, and he died in the Duchess of Kent House in Liebenrood
Road on Nov. 1, 2008.

However, toolmaker Mr. Smith's case was less clear-cut as there
was no evidence he had any exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Smith died at RBH on Sept. 20, 2008, three months after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma. The 83-year-old worked as a
toolmaker for a refrigeration company in Sussex during the war
years and then moved on to making fiberglass moulds for boats.

Mr. Smith went to his doctor at Tudor House surgery in Wokingham
in June 2008 complaining of shortness of breath and pneumonia,
and tests revealed a tumor on his right chest wall. A post
mortem examination confirmed the cause of death was bronchial
pneumonia caused by mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Deal Reached to Aid Plaques Sufferers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A deal has been reached to allow pleural plaques victims to get
compensation, the Western Mail reports.

Pleural plaques, which is thickening of scar tissue on the
lungs, affects thousands of former workers in workplaces from
power stations to shipyards.

Members of Parliament and trade unions have been pressing for
the decision to be reversed ever since, and the Scottish
Executive has already introduced a new compensation scheme.

On Feb. 11, 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "It's very
important we get a resolution. The Secretary for Justice [Jack
Straw] has been looking at this matter and talking with his
colleagues right across government about the implications of
what we can do and I can assure you there will be an
announcement very soon."

In October 2007, the House of Lords ruled that the disease
should no longer qualify for compensation from the United
Kingdom Government.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oakes Plant Manager Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Wilfred Swift, a former power
station manager from Oakes, Huddersfield, England, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports.

The 84-year-old Mr. Swift started his career as an electrical
fitter, later working his way up to becoming manager of a power
station. The inquest heard that throughout his career, Mr. Swift
was exposed to asbestos and protective clothing had not been
available.

Mr. Swift began to feel unwell late in 2008 and a biopsy
confirmed that he was suffering from acute mesothelioma. He was
admitted into Kirkwood Hospice, Dalton, but his condition
quickly deteriorated and he died there on Nov. 27, 2008.

Coroner Roger Whittaker said a claim had been settled on Mr.
Swift's behalf, just before he died.

Mr. Whittaker recorded that Mr. Swift died as a result of an
industrial disease. He said, "Having viewed Mr. Swift's work
history and the fact that a claim was settled, there is a direct
link to his exposure to asbestos in the workplace and his cause
of death. Throughout his employment no protective clothing had
been made available."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hammersmith Locals Cite 4 Cases in 3 Months
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four safety incidents concerning asbestos on an H&F Homes estate
were recorded within three months, increasing asbestos fears in
Hammersmith, England, the London Informer reports.

A resident said recently that, in April 2008, an asbestos water
tank from a flat was dumped in the bulk refuse area nearby. He
said a caretaker was told to move it by his manager but fearing
for his health, he refused.

In May 2008, an asbestos tank was left in the bin room of
Desborough House for at least seven weeks, despite a caretaker
having informed his manager.

In June 2008, there were two further incidents. A smashed
asbestos tank was found in a communal dustbin outside Churchward
and Fairburn House. Days later, a tank was dragged from a flat
in Fairburn House leaving a clear trail across the road to Ivatt
Place, where it was dumped inside the building.

Fairburn House resident Charlie Treloggan said he thinks that
more should be done to warn people. He said, "I think it's a
disgrace. Leaseholders should tell their tenants, or they might
start breaking up the water tanks and end up with asbestosis."

An H&F Homes spokesman said, "We are aware there is asbestos
present in Desborough House, as there is in almost every
building in the country built around the same time, and it poses
no danger to residents unless it is in an exposed condition or
disturbed.

"We have a robust asbestos management plan in place and carry
out regular inspections of the communal areas."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 559 Cases as of Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of December 2008, faced
559 asbestos-related cases, according to parent company Celanese
Corporation's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 13, 2009.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, as of June 30, 2008, faced 611
asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, 66 new cases were filed
against the Company, 137 cases were resolved, and four cases
were added after further analysis by outside counsel.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation produces chemicals
and advanced materials. The Company produces acetyl products,
which are intermediate chemicals for nearly all major
industries, and produces high performance engineered polymers
that are used in a variety of high-value end-use applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,833 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,833 asbestos-
related claims at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 1,781 claims at
Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 13, 2009.

The Company faced 1,860 asserted asbestos-related claims at
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with 1,903 claims at Sept. 30, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008)

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 494 claims filed and 442
claims settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved. At Dec. 31,
2007, the Company recorded 376 claims filed and 570 claims
settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos. The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to
work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines
that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters were US$251 million at Dec. 31,
2008, compared with US$270 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Of the obligation at Dec. 31, 2008, US$208 million was related
to unasserted claims while US$43 million was related to asserted
claims. At both Dec. 31, 2008 and 2007, US$17 million was
included in current liabilities.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the factors used in the
study, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle
asbestos claims may range from about US$230 million to US$275
million. However, the Company said it believes that the US$251
million recorded at Dec. 31, 2008, is the best estimate of the
Company's future obligation for the settlement of asbestos
claims.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation is a holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the
Company engages in the freight rail transportation business. At
Dec. 31, 2008, the Company and its subsidiaries had about 40,000
employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Cites $25M Payment for Former Operation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd. says that discontinued operations results reflect the
net accrual of the last two asbestos payments of US$25 million
each, which are due in 2010 and 2011, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 13, 2009.

The Company expects its EBIT (earnings before interest and
taxes) margin to exceed nine percent in 2009 and 9.5 percent in
2010.

Cash flow from operations in the fourth quarter amounted to
US$1.4 billion, roughly the same as a year earlier. Included in
fourth-quarter cash from operations is the outflow of US$25
million paid as part of the Company's asbestos agreement.

For the full year, cash flow from operations increased to US$4
billion, reflecting higher earnings and improved net working
capital management. Full-year cash flow from operations included
asbestos-related payments of US$100 million.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland ABB Ltd provides power and
automation technologies to utility, industrial, and commercial
customers. Power products include transmission and distribution
components and turnkey substation systems. Automation
technologies are used to monitor and control equipment and
processes in industrial plants and utilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $125M Charges at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$125 million in
asbestos-related charges, net of insurance, during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$100 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

In 2009, the Company expects cash spending for asbestos claims
to be about US$171 million and its cash receipts for related
insurance recoveries to be about US$4 million.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.538B Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.538 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$1.405 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 13, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.455 billion as of Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 24, 2008)

Long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$1.086 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$960 million as of Sept. 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2008)

The Company recorded accrued asbestos-related liabilities of
US$171 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$250 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been
identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in
the vast majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries fall into two
general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $877Mil NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability
for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos
claims of US$877 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and US$939 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company recorded an insurance receivable corresponding to
the liability for settlement of pending and future asbestos
claims of NARCO of US$880 million as of Sept. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2008)

The Company owned North American Refractories Company (NARCO)
from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high
temperature bricks and cement) that were sold to the steel
industry in the East and Midwest. Less than two percent of
NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO
retained all liability for all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002,
NARCO filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against Honeywell. The stay has remained in
effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan of Reorganization without modification
and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in
favor of NARCO and the Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008. In August 2008,
insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007 of
US$1.1 billion.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection. Substantially all settlement payments
with respect to current claims have been made. About US$100
million of payments due under these settlements is due only upon
establishment of the NARCO trust.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Involved in Travelers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is still involved in litigation
with Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company over insurance
claims related to the Company's former subsidiary North American
Refractories Company (NARCO).

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers sued the Company and
other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of New York,
County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-related
asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage issued by
Travelers and other insurance carriers.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and has filed counterclaims in the Superior Court of New
Jersey seeking declaratory relief with respect to this coverage.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed in the New
York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the
appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos
liabilities to triggered policies.

The Court's ruling is subject to appeal.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,951 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business faced 51,951 unresolved asbestos claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 51,658 claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Bendix noted 4,003 claims
filed and 3,710 claims resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2007, Bendix noted 2,771 claims filed and 8,221 claims resolved.

Bendix faced 51,890 asbestos-related claims in the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2008)

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.

From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has resolved about
117,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 127
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 12 trials resulting
in adverse verdicts. Two of these adverse verdicts were reversed
on appeal, three claims were settled and the remaining has been
or will be appealed.

Of the unresolved claims in the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
Company recorded 5,575 claims related to mesothelioma and other
cancers and 46,376 other claims. Of the unresolved claims in the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 5,011 claims
related to mesothelioma and other cancers and 46,647 other
claims.

About 45 percent of about 52,000 pending claims at Dec. 31, 2008
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment. About 52,000 pending claims also include claims
filed in jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi
that historically allowed for consolidated filings.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$578 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and
US$517 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company has about US$1.9 billion of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and potential future Bendix
related asbestos claims, of which US$156 million (at Dec. 31,
2008) and US$197 million (at Dec. 31, 2007) are reflected as
receivables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.709B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s total asbestos-related
liabilities for one former and one current business were
US$1.709 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

These entities are the Company's former North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) and the Company's current Bendix
friction materials business.

Of the US$1.709 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
US$578 million related to Bendix and US$1.131 billion related to
NARCO.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's NARCO and
Bendix liabilities totaled US$1.655 billion, of which US$517
million related to Bendix and US$1.138 billion related to NARCO.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's insurance
recoveries for NARCO and Bendix asbestos liabilities were
US$1.033 billion, of which US$156 million related to Bendix and
US$877 related to NARCO.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company's insurance
recoveries for NARCO and Bendix asbestos liabilities were
US$1.136 billion, of which US$197 million related to Bendix and
US$939 million related to NARCO.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. The
Company serves customers with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $3.5M for Cleanup in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. had capital expenditures of about
US$3.5 million in 2008 under a cleanup plan involving asbestos,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 13, 2009.

The Company estimates that its capital expenditures will be
about US$2.5 million in 2009 and 2010 under this plan.

The Company has adopted a plan for the testing, repair, and
removal, if necessary, of underground fuel storage tanks at the
Company's locations in North America. This plan includes any
necessary remediation of tank sites and the abatement of any
pollutants discharged.

The Company's plan extends to the upgrade of wastewater handling
facilities, and any necessary remediation of asbestos-containing
materials found in the Company's facilities.

The Company had capital expenditures of about US$3.5 million in
2007 under an environmental cleanup plan, which also provided
for asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2008)

Headquartered in Atlanta, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. is a
bottler and distributor of Coca-Cola products. The Company
accounts for 18 percent of worldwide sales of Coca-Cola's
beverages. The Company also bottles and distributes other
beverages, including Canada Dry and Dr Pepper, Nestea, bottled
waters, and juices.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maremont Judgment Reversed in Polanco Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Paulding County,
reversed the Paulding County Common Pleas Court ruling, which
granted summary judgment in favor of Maremont Corporation, in an
asbestos suit filed by Connie Polanco. The cause was remanded.

The case is styled Connie Polanco, on her Own Behalf and as
Personal Representative on Behalf of the Estate of Ynacio
Polanco, Decedent, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Asbestos
Corporation, Ltd., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Stephen R. Shaw, Vernon Preston, and Richard M. Rogers
entered judgment in Case No. 11-07-13 on Jan. 12, 2009.

Mrs. Polanco, individually and as personal representative of the
estate of Ynacio Polanco, appealed the Jan. 8, 2007 ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of Maremont.

This matter stemmed from the employment of Mr. Polanco by
Maremont. From 1966 until 1979, Mr. Polanco was employed by
Maremont, a brake manufacturing plant in Paulding County, Ohio.
On April 14, 2002, Mr. Polanco died due to mesothelioma.

On April 14, 2003, Mrs. Polanco filed a wrongful death and
survivorship complaint against Maremont and 36 other defendants.
In her complaint, Mrs. Polanco alleged that Mr. Polanco died in
April 2002 from mesothelioma. She argued that Mr. Polanco was
exposed to asbestos as part of his employment with Maremont
between 1966 and 1979.

In August 2006, Maremont filed a motion for summary judgment. In
October 2006, Mrs. Polanco filed a memorandum in opposition to
Maremont's request for summary judgment. In December 2006, she
supplemented her opposition to Maremont's motion for summary
judgment with more documents.

In January 2007, the trial court granted summary judgment in
Maremont's favor. Thereafter, Mrs. Polanco appealed the judgment
of the trial court to the Appeals Court.

In October 2007, the Appeals Court dismissed the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because multiple defendants had not been
dismissed and remained as parties to the litigation in the trial
court. Subsequently, the trial court amended the Jan. 9, 2007
decision, making it a final appealable order. Mrs. Polanco now
appealed.

Accordingly, as the Appeals Court found genuine issues of
material fact, Mrs. Polanco's assignment of error was sustained.
Therefore, the Jan. 9, 2007 judgment of the trial court granting
summary judgment in favor of Maremont was reversed and remanded
for trial.

Richard E. Reverman, Esq., and Kelly W. Thye, Esq., represented
Appellants.

Randall L. Solomon, Esq., and Edward D. Papp, Esq., represented
Maremont Corporation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10 Suits Filed on Feb. 2–6 in Madison Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 2, 2009 through Feb. 6, 2009 week, 10
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County, Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These claims are:

-- In Case No. 09-L-0089, Malcolm and Josephine Beasley
   claims Mr. Beasley developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a production worker, shaft roller, serviceman,
   curved hoses worker, yarn spinner, raw material
   supplier, worker in the transportation department,
   truck driver, jointer department worker and brake and
   clutch worker from 1959 until 1995. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates represents the
   Beasleys. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines,
   Esq., R. Craig Bullock, Esq., J. Kyle Beale, Esq., and
   Sara A. Morton, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston
   will serve of counsel.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0091, Helen J. Dunne-Dunajski of
   Michigan, a secretary, accounting clerk and part-time
   bookkeeper at Paragon Oil Refinery from 1950 until
   1980, claims mesothelioma. The suit also
   alleges she was exposed to asbestos fibers from 1921
   until 1941 through her father, who worked as a
   maintenance man for a high-rise apartment building and
   who performed home repair and maintenance. She was also
   exposed through her husband, Vincent Dunne, who worked
   as an industrial chemist from 1942 until 1956 and as
   industrial chemist and metallurgist from 1956 through
   the 1970s. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert
   Rowland, Esq., of Goldenbert, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Dunne-
   Dunajski.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0079, Alton Echols of Alabama, a
   construction laborer and carpenter, service station
   attendant and mechanic and brick mason at various
   locations throughout Alabama from 1944 until 1987,
   claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill
   Price, Esq. of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Echols.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0083, Richard and Patti Gilberg of
   Wisconsin claim Mr. Gilberg developed mesothelioma
   after his work at a salvage yard doing derailment work
   and after his work at lumber yards. The suit says Mr.
   Gilberg was also exposed through his father who worked
   as a trackman and road master. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
   Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Alton, Ill., represent the Gilbergs.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0086, Samuel and Arolone Gurtner of
   Wisconsin claim Mr. Gurtner developed mesothelioma
   after his work from 1952 until now as a laborer, sign
   installer, sheet metal worker, owner of Top O' The
   Morning, and volunteer fireman. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
   and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Alton, Ill., represent the Gurtners.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0084, Edwin and Evelyn Johnson of
   Oklahoma claim Mr. Johnson developed mesothelioma after
   his work from 1944 until 1946 as a laborer in the U.S.
   Army, from 1946 until 1948 as a machine operator at
   Kimball's Feed Mill, from 1948 until 1958 as a laborer
   at a gas station and from 1948 until 1985 as an
   equipment operator and foreman at Woodard County Road
   Commission. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
   represent the Johnsons.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0102, Sylvia Langager of Missouri
   claims mesothelioma on behalf of a recently deceased
   man, Thelmar Sophus "Jake" Langager, who worked from
   1972 until 2008 as a truck driver, painter, plumber and
   laborer at various locations. Michael R. Bilbrey, Esq.,
   Timothy P. Hulla, Esq., and James R. Stever, Esq., of
   the Law Offices of Michael R. Bilbrey in Edwardsville,
   Ill., represent Ms. Langager.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0085, William Oswald of Illinois, a
   painter, lather, sanitation worker and truck driver at
   various locations throughout Illinois from 1955 until
   1989, claims mesothelioma. John A. Barnerd, Esq., and
   Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Oswald.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0085, Howard M. and Viola Simmons of
   California claims Mr. Simmons developed lung cancer
   after his work from 1943 until 1945 as a laborer in the
   U.S. Navy and from 1941 until 1985 as a laborer at
   Shell Oil. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
   of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
   represent the Simmons couple.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0094, Dorothy Wooten of Illinois
   claims lung cancer on behalf of her recently deceased
   husband, Jimmy Wooten. According to the suit, Mr.
   Wooten worked from 1954 until 1989 as a laborer and a
   barber at various locations throughout Illinois. Brian
   J. Cooke, Esq., Drew Sealey, Esq., and Karoline
   Castens, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mrs. Wooten.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 13 Suits Filed on Jan. 26-30 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the Jan. 26, 2009 through Jan. 30, 2009 week, 13
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The following claims were filed:

-- In Case No. 09-L-0077, Lee and Betty Bowers of Kansas
   claim Mr. Bowers developed mesothelioma after his work
   from 1962 until 2002 as a mechanic and truck driver at
   various locations throughout Illinois. Shane F.
   Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., represent the Bowers couple.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0066, Leroy and Norma Clark of Florida
   claim Mr. Clark developed mesothelioma after his work
   from 1951 until 1992 as a laborer, carpenter, forklift
   operator and foreman. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul
   M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent the Clarks.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0067, Barbara Sue Dreher claims
   mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
   husband, Norbert Dreher. The suit says Mr. Dreher
   worked as a carpenter throughout Illinois, Missouri and
   Kansas from 1960 until 1996. Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
   John A. Barnerd, Esq., and Trent B. Miracle, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
   Dreher.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0060, Leroy and Marjorie Ducommun of
   New Mexico claim Mr. Ducommun developed multiple
   myeloma after serving in the U.S. Navy from 1944 until
   1946 and after working as a pipefitter and welder from
   1948 until 1985. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
   represent the Ducommuns.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0062, Carl and Denise Gold of Kentucky
   claim Mr. Gold developed mesothelioma after working as
   a boilerman for the U.S. Navy from 1966 until 1972.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori,
   Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the
   Golds.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0063, Patricia and Albert Lazowski of
   Illinois claim Mrs. Lazowski developed mesothelioma
   after her work as a laborer from 1958 through the
   1970s. The suit says she was also exposed to asbestos
   through her husband, who worked as a laborer for 23
   years. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent
   the Lazowskis.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0068, Holger Lochheed of Texas, hotel
   business owner, pilot, restaurant business owner and
   worker, assistant general manager, general manager and
   delivery truck driver from 1957 until 2007, claims
   mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., Christopher
   J. Levy, Esq., John A. Barnerd, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Lochheed.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0054, Walter Malisani of Colorado, a
   machinist apprentice, machinist and maintenance worker
   from 1954 until 2000 claims mesothelioma. Timothy F.
   Thompson Jr., Esq., and Stephanie Lyons, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr.
   Malisani.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0059, Pat and Patricia Montgomery of
   Kentucky claim Mr. Pat developed mesothelioma after
   helping his father on a family farm from 1951 until
   1957. At various times, Mr. Montgomery was also exposed
   to asbestos as a laborer, mechanic, plastic molder,
   pipe fitter, driller, miner, and mechanical millwright.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Montgomerys.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0056, Donald and Marlene Peters of
   Illinois claim Mr. Peters developed benzene related
   non-Hodgkins lymphoma through his work as a laborer
   from 1952 until 1992. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
   Ill., represent the Peters couple.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0061, Estill L. and Hessie Shepherd of
   Michigan claim Mr. Shepherd developed lung cancer after
   his work at various times as a molder, U.S. Army
   laborer, bartender, welder, and fabricator. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates of Alton, Ill., represent the Shepherds.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0055, Christine Warner of Tennessee
   claims her recently deceased mother, Irene Marsh,
   developed mesothelioma because of her work as a sales
   and seamstress at House of Fashions in Memphis, Tenn.,
   from 1959 until 1993. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
   and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Ms.
   Warner.

-- In Case No. 09-L-0076, Jane White of Missouri claims
   mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased husband, Gary
   White. According to the suit, Mr. White worked at
   various times as a boiler operator in the U.S. Navy, as
   a welder, as a laborer at B & H Transport, as a laborer
   at Import Auto Transport, and as a laborer for his
   asphalt repair service. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq. of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
   Ill., represent Mrs. White.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RICO Breach Action Filed in Miss. on Feb. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Service Industries (a/k/a North Brothers), on Feb. 9,
2009, filed a suit over asbestos and Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) breaches in Holmes County
Circuit Court, Miss., The West Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed against Ray Harron, a West Virginia
radiologist, his son Andrew Harron, and other defendants. Other
defendants named are N&M Inc., Charlie Heath Mason, Molly Ruth
Netherland, Christopher Linn Taylor, and yet unnamed John Doe
defendants 1-20.

The suit says, "The primary cause of this action is a widespread
unlawful enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity across state lines and a conspiracy to engage in
racketeering activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts for
at least the past 10 calendar years. The predicate acts include
mail fraud and wire fraud ..."

The suit also says that since 1995, the defendants "have schemed
to generate false medical test results, false medical reports
and false diagnoses to substantiate tens of thousands of
personal injury cases filed against plaintiff and other
similarly situated companies or bankruptcy trusts involving
allegations of asbestos related disease."

NSI says the defendants engaged in this "unlawful scheme for the
purpose of monetary gain by creating fraudulent medical
documentation to make the individuals that they recruited and
'screened' appear to suffer from asbestos-related disease to
extract money from plaintiff and others through the court system
and/or claims settlements."

The defendants' screenings typically included the generation of
exposure histories, chest x-rays, accompanying reads by
physicians, physical exams, pulmonary function tests and
diagnoses by Ray Harron and other defendants for personal injury
law firms.

The suit says the defendants spent more than US$1.5 million
"aggressively marketing" their screening services to their law
firm and attorney "customers" and on mass advertisements
soliciting individual subjects for screening.

NSI says it has paid millions of dollars to settle asbestos-
related claims supported by the defendants' false medical
evidence.

Mason and Netherland together ran N&M Inc. (a medical test
screening company) from Pascagoula, Miss., but it operated in
others states. The company was dissolved in 2007. The suit says
Mr. Taylor worked for N&M. He solicited law firms and recruited
screening subjects.

Ray Harron, whose last known address is Bridgeport, W.Va., was a
certified B-reader of x-rays. Andrew Harron, is a Wisconsin
physician and a certified B-reader.

The complaint also provides background on how the defendants
allegedly began providing these screenings and details U.S.
District Judge Janis Jack's 2005 reprimand against trial lawyers
during a 2005 silicosis tort case. Judge Jack's findings
triggered investigations by a congressional committee, federal
prosecutors in New York and the Texas attorney general.

NSI seeks joint and several compensatory damages, punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, reimbursement of court costs,
expenses and attorney fees.

Jackson, Miss., attorneys Marcy B. Croft, Esq., Walter G.
Watkins Jr., Esq., and Ashley E. Calhoun, Esq., the Denver trio
of David M. Setter, Esq., John M. Seebohm, Esq., and Jeanette S.
Eirich, Esq., represent NSI.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Woods' Suit Filed v. Union Carbide in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Earl Woods, on Feb. 2, 2009, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against Union Carbide Corporation and other defendants
in Galveston County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas
Record reports.

Other defendants include BP NGL, Amoco Corporation, The Dow
Chemical Company, Chevron Corporation, Shell, and Texaco Inc.
join Union Carbide as defendants.

Robert Earl Woods says his relative, Willie E. Woods, died two
years ago from lung cancer, which Robert Earl Woods links to the
decedent's 20-year work in the refining, petrochemical and
construction industries.

Court papers explain Willie E. Woods was employed as an
insulator and his duties required him to be around "asbestos-
containing materials and other toxic substances."

The defendants are accused of numerous offenses including but
not limited to negligence, misrepresentation, and civil
conspiracy.

The estate seeks restitution for impairment, disfigurement,
pain, suffering, and mental anguish in addition to expenses
arising from previous medical treatment and the subsequent
funeral and interment.

The Houston-based law firm of Williams, Kherkher, Hart, Boundas
LLP represents the Woods estate.

Galveston County 122nd District Court Judge John Ellisor is
presiding over Case No. 09CV0133.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Faces 2,700 Respirator Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of Dec. 31, 2008, faced respirator mask and
asbestos lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
about 2,700 individual claimants, a decrease from about 8,750
individual claimants with actions pending at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company faced respiratory mask lawsuits (including asbestos)
that purport to represent 3,960 individual claimants as of Sept.
30, 2008, a reduction from about 4,700 individual claimants with
actions pending at June 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
14, 2008)

For more than 25 years, the Company has defended and resolved
the claims of hundreds of thousands of individual claimants
alleging injuries from occupational dust exposures.

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently
pending against the Company allege use of some of its mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts found in
products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the
workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as
well as products manufactured by other defendants, or
occasionally at Company premises.

In many of these lawsuits and claims, the Company is named as a
defendant with multiple co-defendants where no product the
Company manufactured is identified or where the Company is
ultimately determined not to have manufactured the products
identified by the plaintiffs.

The Company's defense of this litigation has resulted in
dismissals of many claims without any payment by the Company,
and jury verdicts for the Company in seven of the eight cases
tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004
and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the one jury
verdict adverse to the Company.

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in
37 percent of the 1,013 lawsuits that were pending against the
Company at the end of 2008 in all jurisdictions.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Safety, Security and Protection
Services; Consumer and Office; Display and Graphics; and Electro
and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company employed
79,183 people, with 33,662 employed in the United States and
45,521 employed internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Cites $35Mil Aearo Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies unit, as of Dec. 31,
2008, has recorded US$35 million as an estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the
stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo. Aearo
manufactures and sells various products, including personal
protection equipment, like eye, ear, head, face, fall and
respiratory protection products.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, settlements, and judgments is
currently shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot,
American Optical and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their
insurers (Payor Group).

Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO
Safety" brand and owned the AO Safety Division of American
Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the
individual plaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.
With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Safety, Security and Protection
Services; Consumer and Office; Display and Graphics; and Electro
and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company employed
79,183 people, with 33,662 employed in the United States and
45,521 employed internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Reserves $105M for Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of Dec. 31, 2008, had reserves for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities of US$105 million (excluding Aearo
Technologies reserves), according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 17,
2009.

As a result of the costs of defending itself and the greater
cost of resolving claims of persons with malignant conditions,
the Company increased its reserves for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities by US$25 million in 2008, all in the fourth quarter.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation
was US$193 million.

The Company's respirator mask or asbestos liabilities were
US$126 million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$121
million as of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14,
2008)

The Company increased its receivables in the fourth quarter of
2008 for insurance recoveries related to respirator
mask/asbestos litigation by US$6 million and received payments
under the Company's insurance program of US$13 million in the
fourth quarter of 2008 (bringing the total recoveries in 2008 to
US$145 million).

The Company currently has agreements in place to receive another
US$18 million over the next two quarters in connection with the
respirator mask/asbestos receivable.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Safety, Security and Protection
Services; Consumer and Office; Display and Graphics; and Electro
and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company employed
79,183 people, with 33,662 employed in the United States and
45,521 employed internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Awaits Judge's Assignment in Continental
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is awaiting the assignment of a judge to an asbestos-
related declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of
the Company's insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental
Insurance Co. – both part of the Continental Casualty Group).

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with the declaratory
judgment action disclaiming coverage for respirator
mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent US$14 million of a US$193 million
insurance recovery receivable. The action was filed in Hennepin
County, Minn., and names the Company and over 60 of its
insurers.

At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota
Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of
that decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the
proper venue of that case is Ramsey County.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with the following businesses: Industrial and
Transportation; Health Care; Safety, Security and Protection
Services; Consumer and Office; Display and Graphics; and Electro
and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company employed
79,183 people, with 33,662 employed in the United States and
45,521 employed internationally.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alcoa, Units Still Facing "Premises" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries, as premises owners, still face
active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a
result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various Company
facilities.

In addition, an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along
with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern
complaint where the company's involvement is not evident. Since
1999, several thousand of those complaints have been filed.

To date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every
case that was actually placed in line for trial.

The Company, its subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have
had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide
coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies
provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for
varying locations.

The Company said it believes that between its reserves and
insurance it is adequately covered for its known asbestos
exposure related liabilities, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
17, 2009.

Headquartered in New York, Alcoa Inc. produces and manages
primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum, and alumina combined,
through its active and growing participation in all major
aspects of the industry: technology, mining, refining, smelting,
fabricating, and recycling.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Cites $93.6M Adjustment at 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s asbestos adjustments were US$93.6
million during the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, compared
with US$1.2 million during the third quarter of fiscal year
2008, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 17, 2009.

The asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of future
Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with an
Amended Final Funding Agreement that was signed with the New
South Wales Government on Nov. 21, 2006 and approved by the
Company's security holders on Feb. 7, 2007.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create
products for residential and commercial construction, including
siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and
roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites Liability at $59.4M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s current asbestos liability was
US$59.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 17, 2009.

Asbestos-related workers' compensation (under current
liabilities) was US$5.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, long-term asbestos liability was US$1.068
billion and long-term asbestos workers' compensation liability
was US$59.3 million.

Under current assets as of Dec. 31, 2008, asbestos-related
restricted cash and cash equivalents were US$18.4 million,
asbestos-related restricted short-term investments were US$54.7
million, and asbestos insurance receivable was US$10.6 million.
Under current assets, asbestos-related workers' compensation was
US$10.6 million and asbestos-related deferred income taxes were
US$12.4 million.

Under long-term assets as of Dec. 31, 2008, asbestos insurance
receivable was US$133.1 million, asbestos-related workers'
compensation was US$59.3 million, and asbestos-related deferred
income taxes were US$288.5 million.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create
products for residential and commercial construction, including
siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and
roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites 502 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. had 502 open asbestos-related
claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to
a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 17, 2009.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF) provides
compensation payments for Australian asbestos-related personal
injury claims against Amaca Pty Ltd, Amaba Pty Ltd, and ABN 60
Pty Limited (Liable Entities).

The claims data are reflective of these Australian asbestos-
related personal injury claims against the Liable Entities.

During the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded
462 new claims and 483 closed claims. The average settlement
amount per settled claim was AUD188,858 and the average
settlement amount per case closed was AUD168,525.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create
products for residential and commercial construction, including
siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and
roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Have Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries still face
various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of
exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at the Company's
facilities, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 17, 2009.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
EIP segment, which at the time of the spin-off included EnPro
Industries, Inc. and Coltec Industries Inc.

At that time, two Coltec subsidiaries were defendants in
personal injury claims relating to alleged asbestos-containing
products sold by those subsidiaries prior to the Company's
ownership.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro,
Coltec or its subsidiaries.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that it has
substantial legal defenses against these and other such claims.

In addition, the agreement between EnPro and the Company that
was used to effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies
aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and
general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies
systems and products to the global defense and space markets.
Products and services are sold to customers in North America,
Europe and Asia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25T Claims Pending v. Fairmont in 6 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
An industrial supplies distributor, Fairmont Supply Company,
which is a CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, faced about 25,000
asbestos claims in state courts in six states, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 17, 2009.

These states are: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, and New Jersey.

Because a very small percentage of products made by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or
plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont.

While Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in
certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products,
the availability of that indemnity or contribution is unclear at
this time and, in recent years, some of the manufacturers named
as defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, payments by
Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not been material.

Headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa., CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal
mining company, with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves,
mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois
Basin. The Company produces about 65 million tons of coal
annually.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CONSOL Energy Has Cases in Pa., Ill. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. is facing a limited number of asbestos cases
in Pennsylvania and Illinois, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
17, 2009.

All involve claims that the plaintiffs developed asbestos-
related disease as a result of working with or around asbestos
containing products used at mines operated by subsidiaries of
Consolidation Coal Company or CONSOL of Kentucky.

The Company has raised a number of defenses including lack of
jurisdiction and that it is not properly named as a party since
the Company did not own or operate the mines at which the
alleged exposures occurred.

Discovery is still in the early stages in each matter.

Headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa., CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal
mining company, with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves,
mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois
Basin. The Company produces about 65 million tons of coal
annually.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argument Heard in St. Louis Case on Feb. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson, on Feb. 17, 2009, heard
arguments in the penalty phase of an asbestos case against the
City of St. Louis, STLtoday.com reports.

Penalties could range from civil fines to ordering the City to
identify and remediate the contamination.

Judge Jackson ruled on the case in September 2008. At that time,
she found that the City had violated the U.S. Clean Air Act when
it used the so-called "wet method" to remove asbestos from homes
it was demolishing to make way for a new runway at Lambert
Airport.

A group of residents in the suburb of Bridgeton sued the City
over its mishandling of the demolition, which started in 2000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burnley Ex-Builder's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 63-year-old Gerard Brennan, a
builder from Burnley, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, the Burnley Express reports.

Mr. Brennan was admitted to Pendleside Hospice on Jan. 29, 2009
after falling ill. He died on Feb. 5, 2009. It is believed he
faced many years of exposure to asbestos during his working life
as a builder.

The inquest was adjourned as Dr. Zuhair Twaij, consultant
pathologist at Burnley General Hospital, wanted to carry out
further histological tests.

The inquest was adjourned by East Lancashire Coroner Mr. Richard
Taylor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oley Valley School Gym Cleanup Costs $36T
----------------------------------------------------------------
It costs US$36,000 to remove asbestos from Oley Valley High
School's auxiliary gymnasium, the Reading Eagle reports.

A contractor began removing the material on Feb. 10, 2009. The
school is located near Reading, Pa.

Superintendent Dr. Jeffrey F. Zackon said that workers
renovating the gym discovered asbestos in glue that had bonded
wood and cork in the flooring.

Dr. Zackon said, "Immediately, we started air-quality tests and
found no air-quality problems. The glue is not friable
(airborne)."

Air in the high school is being tested constantly, and the
auxiliary gym has been sealed off from the rest of the building.
Dr Zackon added that no illnesses have been reported because of
the asbestos.

Oley Valley's US$993,000 renovation project involves replacing
floors in the auxiliary and main gymnasiums and adding new
bleachers.

The auxiliary gym was built in 1972.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DENR Probes Disposal of Hazards in Benguet
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources
is probing Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.'s old lease sites in
Benguet after the Company was found disposing of asbestos
insulation panels in Mankayan, The Philippine Daily Inquirer
reports.

LCMC admitted to burying six truckloads of asbestos debris
there, said Neoman dela Cruz, Cordillera director of the Mines
and Geosciences Bureau. He said the Company's penalty would be
based on the volume of buried asbestos debris that came from
Metro Manila.

The Mine Rehabilitation Fund Committee has been studying whether
LCMC can access its trust fund so it could clean up the dump in
Barangay Sapid in Mankayan, Mr. dela Cruz said.

In a Feb. 9, 2009 letter to the DENR, LCMC's environment manager
Rolando Reyes reported that 8.78 metric tons of asbestos debris
had been "resurfaced, repackaged and hauled out" to a facility
in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, on Oct. 8, 2008.

According to an MGB report sent to Environment Secretary Lito
Atienza, LCMC had acknowledged that it had exported waste
containing "suspected/presumed asbestos ceiling and insulation
materials" to Mankayan in 2007. The report indicated that the
municipality had been aware of this activity.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Alex Luis, sanitary engineer of the
Environmental Management Bureau, led MGB and health officials in
testing Mankayan's soil and water where the asbestos was
unearthed, upon the request of Mayor Manalo Galuten.

A Feb. 4, 2009 letter to LCMC from the Occupational Safety and
Health Center, an attached agency of the Department of Labor and
Employment, had assured the firm that the soil was free of
asbestos contaminants.

A law banning asbestos' use or sale in the Philippines is still
pending before the Senate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 22% of Kent Sites Cited for Safety Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive issued improvement notices to 22
percent of the sites it visited in Kent, England, Contract
Journal reports.

HSE inspectors visited 151 Kent sites, including Thanet,
Canterbury, Dartford, and Dover, and issued 33 improvement
notices. It also issued two prohibition notices. The measures
are part of a campaign to remind business of their
responsibilities under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

Regulations require that companies take a number of measures
including:

-- Taking reasonable steps to find asbestos on the
   premises and assess the condition of the materials;

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

-- Preparing a record of the location and condition of the
   asbestos-containing materials and assessing the risk of
   them;

-- Preparing and implementing a plan to manage the risks;

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

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

Mike Walters, HM principal inspector of the HSE in Kent said,
"It is disappointing to note that 25 percent of the premises are
failing significantly in their duty which has resulted in
enforcement notices being served.

"Duty holders need to check if they are taking reasonable steps
to ensure that asbestos is adequately managed in their
premises."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Report Indicates Kier Breached Safety Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
A report says that construction firm Kier Group plc violated
safety rules with the improper disposal of asbestos in South
Harrow, England, the Harrow Observer reports.

The revelation is contained in a report into the incident that
remained confidential until pressure by the opposition Labour
party, which originally flagged up the problem, forced Harrow
Council to make it public.

Workers refurbishing a property in Brookside Close ripped out
floor tiles and toilet cisterns and simply dumped them in an
open skip, rather than arranging a specialist licensed waste
contractor to collect it.

These tossed materials were deemed "low risk," the tiles were
thermoplastic and the cisterns Bakerlite, and a "neglible risk
to the public."

The report says, "As a result of accepted poor site management
and inadequate quality control measures undertaken by Kier in
Area 6 (Brookside Close), operatives did not receive appropriate
asbestos related information.

"This failure by the site manager of Kier was in clear
contravention of the Company's and Harrow Council's health and
safety policy."

It was known that before the asbestos-dumping took place, Kier
had sacked an area manager responsible for Brookside Close and
neighboring streets "as a direct consequence of his failure to
work within their health and safety policy."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former T&N Employees to Keep Gov't. Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom Government is allowing former Turner and
Newall employees, who developed asbestos-related diseases, to
keep their full Government compensation alongside that paid by
the Company's administrators, Wigan Today reports.

T and N is the parent company of Turner Brothers.

The Government had previously recovered the lump sums paid out
under the Pneumoconiosis (Workers' Compensation) Act to those
suffering from the chest diseases, if they subsequently received
the reduced compensation from the firm's successors.

The Government compensation scheme was introduced as an interim
measure because of a legal impasse which had been blocking T and
N's own payments offer.

Since the collapse of T and N's American parent, Federal-Mogul
Corporation, some former employees who developed crippling
illnesses like mesothelioma have been receiving reduced
compensation from T and N Trusts set up to help victims
worldwide.

The former Turner Brothers asbestos firm off Leigh Road once
employed more than 2,000 staff. Later, the plant produced
colliery conveyor belting and closed in the mid-1980s.

Tinned foods giant Heinz, and the Clarington Forge-owned spade-
makers Bulldog Tools of Ince, are both also locked in asbestosis
compensation battles with the families of employees who
subsequently fell ill with the disease.

In the North West, 272 surviving people are diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brown Questioned on Reversing Lords' Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, answered
questions over whether or not sufferers of asbestos-related
pleural plaques would see an overturning of legislation, Norwich
Union reports.

A House of Lords ruling said that those who suffer from pleural
plaques were not entitled to compensation, despite the fact that
the condition develops from exposure to asbestos, which can
increase the risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer.

Yorkshire MP Mick Clapham told Mr. Brown that it was important
that a resolution was reached over the situation.

The Health and Safety Executive warned that many tradesmen are
unaware of the fact that more people die each year from
workplace asbestos-related diseases than from road accidents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dismissal Motion in Ekweani Lawsuit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, granted the
Howard Board of Education and Diane Mikulis' motion to dismiss a
case involving asbestos filed by Ijeamaka Ekweani and her
daughter Elonna Ekweani.

The case is styled Ijeamaka Ekweani, et al. v. Board of
Education of Howard County, et al.

District Judge Catherine C. Blake entered judgment in Civil No.
CCB-07-3432 on Dec. 31, 2008.

Elonna Ekweani studied at Jeffers Hill Elementary School, a
public school in Howard County, Md., from November 1992 until
her graduation in 1998.

Upon enrolling in Jeffers Hill, Elonna Ekweani began suffering
from continual respiratory ailments stemming from her asthma.

Subsequent to her departure from Jeffers Hill, Elonna Ekweani
and Ijeamaka Ekweani learned that "hazardous, toxic conditions"
existed there, including "lack of windows and lack of adequate
ventilation due to defective and substandard design and
construction, substandard air quality, toxic mold, asbestos and
other environmental conditions."

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants knew of the
conditions and took no action to abate them. The plaintiffs also
contended that the defendants were aware of Elonna Ekweani's
condition while she was a student at Jeffers Hill and failed to
take any corrective action, such as transferring her to another
school.

On Dec. 21, 2007, plaintiffs filed a complaint, alleging that
the Board and Ms. Mikulis, Chairman of the Howard County Board
of Education, violated Elonna Ekweani's civil rights and
committed various state torts by failing to abate the conditions
at Jeffers Hill that caused Elonna Ekweani's injuries.

On May 14, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the majority of
plaintiffs' claims. In their opposition, the plaintiffs sought
leave to amend the complaint.

The motion to dismiss filed by the Board and Ms. Mikulis was
granted.

All claims brought by Ijeamaka Ekweani on her individual behalf
were dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment Ok'd in Rahmanizad Case in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California,
affirmed the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's judgment in
an asbestos case involving Herschel Rahmanizad and the Montecito
Condominium Homeowner's Association (HOA).

The case is styled Montecito Condominium Homeowner's
Association, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant v.
Herschel Rahmanizad, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Presiding Justice Joan D. Klein and Associate Justices Patti S.
Kitching and Richard D. Aldrich entered judgment in Case Nos.
B199493, B200982 on Jan. 23, 2009.

Mr. Rahmanizad lives in unit 310 of a condominium building on
Beverly Glen Boulevard, which is operated by the HOA. On July
15, 2003, a water leak in the condominium directly above unit
310 resulted in water damage to Mr. Rahmanizad's unit.

Mr. Rahmanizad permitted a restoration company into the unit to
dry the carpet and permitted Hillman Environmental Group to
inspect the unit in October 2003. In November 2003, Hillman
reported that Mr. Rahmanizad's unit contained "visible microbial
growth on the walls in the hallway closet and on the walls and
on the ceiling in the bathroom."

Hillman recommended "microbial remediation and asbestos
abatement [to include removal of, at] a minimum, the visibly
microbially contaminated materials and the wet and water damaged
materials ..., as well as any additional areas discovered during
the remediation."

The HOA asked Mr. Rahmanizad to move from his unit so the
remediation could be performed. Mr. Rahmanizad denied his unit
had any mold and refused to vacate unless the HOA paid his
relocation expenses.

The HOA submitted a claim to its insurance carrier for the
damage to the building caused by the water. The HOA allocated
US$14,148.74 of the insurance payment to Mr. Rahmanizad's unit.
Of that amount, US$8,043.74 was earmarked to install new
drywall, carpet, tile and fixtures.

On April 21, 2004, the HOA sued Mr. Rahmanizad for injunctive
and declaratory relief. The HOA took Mr. Rahmanizad's default on
the complaint.

On Dec. 17, 2004, at Mr. Rahmanizad's expense, Envirocheck,
Inc., inspected unit 310 and found no abnormal airborne fungal
spore conditions. However, the HOA refused to place reliance on
the report because it had been redacted to omit the name of the
inspector.

The trial court set aside the default and on Jan. 20, 2005, Mr.
Rahmanizad filed a cross-complaint for conversion, claim and
delivery, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust and money
had and received with respect to US$8,043.74 of the insurance
proceeds held by the HOA.

On March 28, 2005, the HOA filed a motion to compel inspection
of unit 310. Mr. Rahmanizad opposed the motion to compel.

On April 22, 2005, Mr. Rahmanizad and the HOA agreed to have
Hillman inspect the unit a second time. On April 28, 2005,
Hillman reported it had found no "visible microbial growth" or
"moisture damage."

On Jan. 12, 2006, the HOA gave notice of motions for summary
judgment on its complaint and on Mr. Rahmanizad's cross-
complaint. The HOA asserted Mr. Rahmanizad had no defense to the
HOA's complaint because the HOA had the right to enter the unit
to perform necessary repairs at no expense to Mr. Rahmanizad.

The HOA sought summary judgment on Mr. Rahmanizad's cross-
complaint on the ground Mr. Rahmanizad was not entitled to the
insurance proceeds. On June 1, 2006, the trial court denied the
HOA's motions for summary judgment. On Nov. 22, 2006, Mr.
Rahmanizad filed a motion for summary judgment on the HOA's
complaint.

On Feb. 22, 2007, the trial court adopted its tentative ruling
which granted Mr. Rahmanizad's motion for summary judgment.

On March 12, 2007, at a bench trial on Mr. Rahmanizad's cross-
complaint against the HOA for the insurance proceeds allocated
to unit 310, the trial court received numerous exhibits into
evidence.

On April 2, 2007, the trial court granted judgment in Mr.
Rahmanizad's favor on the HOA's complaint and granted judgment
in favor of the HOA on Mr. Rahmanizad's cross-complaint. On May
29, 2007, Mr. Rahmanizad appealed the judgment in favor of the
HOA on Mr. Rahmanizad's cross-complaint, entered April 2, 2007.

The HOA filed a motion seeking to be declared the prevailing
party and for attorney fees and costs in the amount of
US$92,335.25. Mr. Rahmanizad also filed a motion seeking to be
declared the prevailing party in the litigation and for an award
of attorney fees as in the amount of US$35,088.50.

On July 26, 2007, Mr. Rahmanizad appealed the trial court's
ruling on the post judgment order entered June 26, 2007. On Aug.
16, 2007, the HOA filed a cross appeal from the appeal filed
July 26, 2007.

By order dated Sept. 24, 2007, the Appeals Court granted the
HOA's motion to consolidate the appeals.

The judgment was affirmed.

Craig M. Fields, Esq., of Glickfeld, Fields & Jacobson,
represented Montecito Condominium Homeowner's Association.

Jeffrey F. Sax, Esq., of the Law Offices of Jeffrey F. Sax,
represented Herschel Rahmanizad.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Records $16.64M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$16,644,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$19,341,000 at
Dec. 30, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,341,000 at Sept. 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2008)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$4,632,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$4,303,000 at
Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$19,416,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$19,149,000
at Dec. 30, 2007.

The Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$4,632,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$4,303,000
at Dec. 30, 2007.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products
for applications including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMSF Lawsuit v. Halliburton Company Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund's (AMSF) lawsuit
involving asbestos filed against Halliburton Company remains
stayed in federal district court pending the outcome of an
appeal.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission
initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's
change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction
projects and related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were
filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named
as defendants several of the Company's present or former
officers and directors.

The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon
the Company in April 2003. As a result of a substitution of lead
plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. The
Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the Company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered
dismissal of the claims against all individual defendants other
than the Company's Chief Executive Officer . The court ordered
that the case proceed against the Company's CEO and Halliburton.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.

AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's
motion and the order denying class certification is currently on
appeal.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company offers services
and products to customers through its two business segments for
the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. The
Company serves major, national, and independent oil and gas
companies throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Records No Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company, at Dec. 31, 2008, had not recorded any
liability associated with asbestos-related indemnifications,
according to its annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had
previously been named as defendants in asbestos- and silica-
related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company offers services
and products to customers through its two business segments for
the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. The
Company serves major, national, and independent oil and gas
companies throughout the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marion Memorial to Cost $301,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to officials of Marion, Ill., asbestos removal and
demolition of the Marion Memorial Hospital cost about
US$301,000, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center
reports.

On Feb. 16, 2009, the City Council voted on bids for both
asbestos removal and the demolition of the Marion Memorial
Hospital. Council members approved bids for the work to be done
by two individual companies.

The Company that will be conducting the asbestos abatement work
is Champion Environmental Services and is based out of Gilbert,
Ill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miller v. Illinois Central Filed on Feb. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
James A. Miller, on Feb. 13, 2009, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against Illinois Central Railroad Company in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Mr. Miller alleged he had contracted an asbestos-related disease
while working for Illinois Central. According to the suit, he
worked for Illinois Central from 1946 until 1951 as a machinist
apprentice and machinist. Throughout his work in, on and around
locomotive boilers, he was exposed to asbestos dust or fibers.

Because of his exposure, Mr. Miller claims he has contracted an
asbestos-related disease, has suffered great pain, extreme
nervousness and mental anguish and believes his illness is
permanent in nature.

In Case No. 09-L-0079, Mr. Miller has also incurred medical
costs, has sustained a loss of earnings, has experienced a
diminished ability to render services, society, affection,
counseling and support to his family and has experienced a
shortened life expectancy.

According to the suit, Illinois Central was negligent by failing
to warn Mr. Miller of the true nature and hazardous effects of
asbestos-containing products. The Company also negligently
failed to provide instructions or a method for the safe use of
asbestos-containing products.

In the three-count suit, Mr. Miller seeks a judgment in excess
of US$50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems
appropriate.

William P. Gavin, Esq., (Gavin Law Firm in Belleville, Ill.), H.
Seward Lawlor, Esq., and Kip A. Harbison, Esq., (Glasser and
Glasser in Norfolk), and Willard J. Moody Jr., Esq., (Moody,
Strople, Kloeppel and Higginbotham) in Portsmouth, represent Mr.
Miller.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kavanagh to Pay GBP4T for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Edward Kavanagh, a building contractor from Ipswich,
Suffolk, England, on Feb. 18, 2009, was issued a total fine of
GBP1,000 and ordered to pay GBP1,500 towards court costs, the
Evening Star reports.

The 39-year-old Mr. Kavanagh had admitted to dumping 60 to 70
tons of asbestos in the ground.

Mr. Kavanagh was employed to demolish six pig pens at the former
Shepherd and Dog piggery in Nacton. The roofs were corrugated
bonded asbestos. However, on Aug. 22, 2007, he was seen burying
most of it on site in three trenches.

South East Suffolk Magistrates' Court was told Mr. Kavanagh and
his workers were witnessed smashing the roofs and creating dust,
which covered caravans and cars on nearby land. None of the
workers were wearing protective equipment.

District Judge David Cooper heard how the area near some Bronze
Age burial mounds, which is now a car park for new office
buildings, will need to be monitored to make sure it is not
disturbed and does not pose a risk for the future development of
the site.

Judge Cooper said that Mr. Kavanagh had been honest and the
financial advantage from his actions was nil, but his actions
had "showed a total lack of regard for the environment and
safety of others."

After the hearing, Environment Agency officer Darren Smith said,
"Once asbestos has been smashed and is in the ground it is very
difficult to remove it safely.

"This is an example of really bad practice on Mr. Kavanagh's
part and we hope that others will learn from his lesson."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Molloy Denies Grace Change-of-Venue Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, on Feb. 18, 2009, denied W.
R. Grace & Co.'s request to file a motion for change of venue in
a case over a vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont., the Billings
Gazette reports.

The case involves public exposure to asbestos that caused
hundreds of deaths and illnesses in the Libby area, where the
Company used to operate a vermiculite mine.

Judge Molloy had earlier denied a September 2005 request to move
the trial.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the Grace defendants filed a motion asking
Judge Molloy's permission to file another change-of-venue
request.

Judge Molloy denied the request, "subject to renewal in the
event that a fair and impartial jury cannot be seated."

The trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 19, 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Goodyear Drop to 99T at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recorded 99,000 asbestos-
related claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with 117,400 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2009.

The Company faced 118,200 pending asbestos cases during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2008)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by
the Company or present in certain of its facilities.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 4,600 new
claims filed and 23,000 claims settled or dismissed. Asbestos
payments amounted to US$20 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company noted 2,400 new
claims filed and 9,000 claims settled or dismissed. Asbestos
payments amounted to US$22 million.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 72,100 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering
into a settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, totaled US$325 million through Dec. 31, 2008 and US$297
million through Dec. 31, 2007.

In 2008, a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court to retroactively
apply an Ohio state law resulted in the dismissal of about
20,000 cases.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$132
million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$127 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$71 million at Dec. 31,
2008 and US$76 million at Dec. 31, 2007. At Dec. 31, 2008, the
Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and related
defense costs was US$61 million, compared to US$51 million at
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company had recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims
of US$65 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared wit US$71 million at
Dec. 31, 2007. Of these amounts, US$10 million at Dec. 31, 2008
and US$8 million at Dec. 31, 2007 were included in Current
Assets as part of Accounts receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at Dec. 31, 2008, it had
about US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies. Some of these excess policies
provide for payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity
limits.

A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$65 million insurance receivable recorded at
Dec. 31, 2008. The Company also had about US$15 million in
aggregate limits for products claims, as well as coverage for
premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs,
available with the Company's primary insurance carriers through
coverage-in-place agreements at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires. The Company's 2008 net sales were US$19.5
billion, and it had a net loss in 2008 of US$77 million. The
Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes tires
for most applications. It also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications.


                            *********

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  * * *