CAR_Public/090313.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 51

                           Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Suit Over Cash Balance Pension Plan in Discovery
DAIMLER AG: Suits Over Alleged Defects in Vehicle Models Pending
DAIMLER AG: Price-Fixing Suit v. Mercedes-Benz Settled in 2008
DAIMLER AG: Defending Remaining Antitrust Suits v. Mercedes-Benz
DAIMLER AG: Antitrust Suit v. Mercedes-Benz Pending in Canada

DAIMLER AG: DDC Defends Suits Over Dealer Agreements in Michigan
DAIMLER AG: DDC to Appeal Ruling on Retired Employees' Motion
DAIMLER AG: Seeks to Junk Amended Complaint on Apartheid Claims
DELAWARE: Federal Judge Dismisses Death-Row Inmates' Lawsuit
FAIRFIELD SENTRY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit Over Madoff Fraud

GENENTECH INC: Shareholders Withdraw Motion To Enjoin Roche Bid
HCA INC: Menorah, Overland Park Hospitals Settle ADA Litigation
INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement
MBIA INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Bond-Insurance Business Split
NOVARTIS VACCINES: Settles Calif. Shareholders' Lawsuit For $30M

SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Kansas Fraud Litigation Over Nextel Merger
TENET HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Pay $85M to Settle Overtime Claims

* Value of 2008 Securities Class Action Settlements Cut by Half


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing
CORUS BANKSHARES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
INTREPID POTASH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Robbins Umeda Files Colo. Securities Suit
PERRIGO CO: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

SPRINT NEXTEL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
SPRINT NEXTEL: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 39 Suits Ongoing v. Noble Corp. at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.933B Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. ENSCO Int'l.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Still Has 26 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere Subject to Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Facing 163 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aaron Lawsuit Ongoing v. Hercules Offshore
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Still Facing 8,100 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor Co. Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lockheed Martin Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Facing 9 Workers' Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $145Mil
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $398.7Mil in 2008

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Facing Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $114Mil 2008 Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Berkley Has $39.64MM Reserves in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Texas Courts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Boshko Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northeast Utilities Has $22.6M Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation, BGE Face 513 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $360.7M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Facing 105 Lawsuits in Miss., Calif.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Has 6 Pending Cases in State Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Still Facing Welding Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.W. Grainger, Inc. Facing 2,200 Plaintiffs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $10.3MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $20.3M for A&E Coverages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs No Material Amounts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $82.5M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Lawsuit Filed v. 44 Firms on Feb. 26

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Lawsuits Filed in Madison on Feb. 23–27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial to March 9 W.R. Grace Suit Delayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. to Release Midtown Plaza Cleanup Funds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RAF Worker Gets GBP200,000 in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Droitwich Local's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holmes Family Wins $2.6M in Case v. UNARCO
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alpough's Action v. 31 Firms Filed in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Seeks Protection in North Dakota
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSI Suits v. Radiologists Ongoing in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $401.1M in Losses & ALAE

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Increases Reserves by $36.2M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Cites $1.03B Carolinas Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Suits Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NiSource Cites $5.4M for Settlements in '08
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Grace's Case Continued on March 10

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global, Units Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Western Auto Facing Injury, Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Records $648Mil Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, 2 Units Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Pending v. Inactive Quaker Unit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrues $23.76M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 55 Cases Pending v. Tenaris Unit at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Units Facing Miss. Lawsuits


                           *********

ALLIANT ENERGY: Suit Over Cash Balance Pension Plan in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative-class action lawsuit filed against Alliant Energy
Corp.'s Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan) is in the
discovery phase.

The complaint, filed in February 2008, alleges that Plan
participants who received a lump sum distribution prior to their
normal retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which
they were entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) because the Plan applied an
improper interest crediting rate to project the cash balance
account to their normal retirement age.

The purported class includes all persons vested or partially
vested in the Plan who received a lump sum distribution of the
cash balance formula benefit since January 1998.

In August 2008, the court denied the Plan's motion to dismiss
the action, and the parties are proceeding with discovery.

No further developments on the case were reported by the company
in its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a
public utility holding company.  The Company has four primary
first tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power
and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).


DAIMLER AG: Suits Over Alleged Defects in Vehicle Models Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various legal proceedings, including class-action lawsuits, are
pending against Daimler AG alleging defects in different vehicle
models.

Some of these proceedings are filed as class-action lawsuits
that seek repair or replacement of the vehicles or compensation
for their alleged reduction in value, while others seek recovery
for damage to property, personal injuries or wrongful death.

Adverse decisions in one or more of these proceedings could
require the company to pay substantial compensatory and punitive
damages, or undertake service actions, recall campaigns or other
costly actions.

No specific details regarding these legal proceedings were
disclosed in the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: Price-Fixing Suit v. Mercedes-Benz Settled in 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
The price-fixing class-action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC (MBUSA), and its wholly-owned subsidiary Mercedes-Benz
Manhattan, has been finally settled, according to Daimler AG's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Mercedes-Benz is a business segment of Daimler AG.

A class action lawsuit was filed in 2002, against MBUSA and
Mercedes-Benz Manhattan in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleged that those companies participated in a price
fixing conspiracy among Mercedes-Benz dealers.

Without admitting liability and to avoid further expense and
risk of litigation, MBUSA and Mercedes-Benz Manhattan reached a
settlement with plaintiffs in the amount of US$9.5 million which
has received court approval.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: Defending Remaining Antitrust Suits v. Mercedes-Benz
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daimler AG will continue to defend itself in the remaining state
court antitrust class-action suits to the extent that they are
pursued against the company's North American subsidiaries
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc.

Purported class-action lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust
law were instituted against Mercedes-Benz USA and Mercedes-Benz
Canada, as well as other motor vehicle manufacturers, their
operating subsidiaries, the National Automobile Dealers
Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

Some complaints were filed in federal courts in various states
and others were filed in state courts.

Most of the actions against Mercedes-Benz Canada were dismissed
on jurisdictional grounds.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to prevent
the sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in Canada
in order to maintain new car prices at artificially high levels
in the U.S.

They seek injunctive relief and treble damages on behalf of
everyone who bought or leased a new vehicle in the U.S. Since
Jan. 1, 2001.

The federal court actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine for purposes of
pretrial proceedings and the state cases filed in California
have been consolidated in the California Superior Court in San
Francisco County.

The actions pending in the Federal Court and the California
court have been voluntarily dismissed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: Antitrust Suit v. Mercedes-Benz Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
Ontario, Canada alleging violation of Canadian Antitrust laws is
pending against Daimler AG's North American subsidiaries
Mercedes-Benz Canada, Inc., and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, along
with other vehicle manufacturers.

The complaint alleges that since 2005, the companies conspired
with agencies of the Canadian government to prevent or lessen
competition in the importation of U.S. versions of their
respective brand vehicles into Canada by artificially requiring
modifications to U.S. vehicles to be brought up to Canadian
vehicle safety standards.

They seek CDN$250 million in compensatory damages and CDN$25
million in punitive damages.

The Company says it does not believe that it has engaged in any
unlawful conduct and will continue to defend the lawsuit,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: DDC Defends Suits Over Dealer Agreements in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Diesel Corp. (DDC), one of Daimler AG's affiliates,
continues to defend putative class actions over DDC dealer
agreements in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.

In February 2005, two putative class-action lawsuits were
brought against DDC and its distributors (including two DDC
subsidiaries) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The cases arise from the decisions of certain truck
manufacturers (International, Volvo and Paccar) to stop offering
DDC engines in their trucks and the alleged resulting decision
of DDC not to renew the dealer agreements of those
International, Volvo and Paccar dealers who were no longer able
to offer DDC engines in the trucks they sold.

Plaintiffs in the first action seek to represent a class of
former Detroit Diesel dealers whose DDC dealer agreements were
allegedly terminated or not renewed.

Plaintiffs in the second action seek to represent a class of
Detroit Diesel dealers whose dealer agreements were allegedly
initially replaced with truck maintenance agreements and then
subsequently terminated or not renewed.

Plaintiffs in both actions allege that DDC and its distributors
entered into group boycott and price-fixing conspiracies to
restrict the plaintiffs' ability to perform warranty repairs on
the DDC engines and to charge increased prices to plaintiffs for
replacement parts for DDC engines.

Plaintiffs in both cases seek unspecified treble damages,
declaratory relief and attorneys' fees.

In November 2005, both cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In late 2006, plaintiffs sought and received approval for
partial settlement with six of the defendant distributors.
Under the terms of the partial settlement, the six settling
distributors established a US$1 million settlement fund and
agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in providing information
requested in both actions.

The case remains pending against DDC and the non-settling
distributors.

In April 2007, plaintiffs moved the court to certify a class
comprising all remaining former DDC dealers that had their
dealer status terminated, non-renewed or modified after Feb. 1,
2001.

DDC denies the allegations, according to the company's Feb. 27,
2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: DDC to Appeal Ruling on Retired Employees' Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Diesel Corp. (DDC), one of Daimler AG's affiliates,
plans to appeal the decision granting the retired DDC employees'
motion for summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

Former employees who retired from DDC between 1993 and 2004
filed a class action complaint against the company in October
2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

The complaint alleges that the company is obligated to provide
lifetime retiree health care benefits at no cost to class
members, and that the company's notification to have them
contribute toward the cost of their healthcare insurance
beginning in 2006 (to the extent such cost exceeds a limit
previously negotiated with the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW)) is invalid.

The court granted a preliminary injunction in December 2005,
that prohibits the company from requiring such contributions
while the lawsuit is pending.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the
injunction in January 2007.

Cross motions for summary judgment were filed and oral argument
was held in May 2008, in the U.S. District Court.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment and denied DDC's motion for summary
judgment, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DAIMLER AG: Seeks to Junk Amended Complaint on Apartheid Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the amended purported class action
complaints asserting claims relating to the practice of
apartheid in South Africa remains pending, according to Daimler
AG's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Several lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, were
filed in 2002, against a large number of companies from a wide
variety of industries and different countries asserting claims
relating to the practice of apartheid in South Africa.

One of the putative class action lawsuits named Daimler AG as a
defendant.

The lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York for pretrial purposes.

On Nov. 29, 2004, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by
a group of defendants, including Daimler.

Upon plaintiffs' appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit partly vacated the District Court's decision on Oct. 12,
2007, and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings.

In January 2008, the defendant group filed a petition for a writ
of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  The
Supreme Court lacked a quorum to hear the case and, by operation
of the rules, affirmed the Court of Appeals as if by an equally
divided court.

In November 2008, plaintiffs filed two amended purported class
action complaints with the District Court against a smaller
number of companies.  Both amended complaints name Daimler AG as
a defendant.

In December 2008, a group of defendants, including Daimler AG,
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

Daimler AG -- http://www.daimler.com/-- is the parent company
of the Daimler Group.  The Group develops, manufactures,
distributes and sells a wide range of automotive products,
mainly passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.  It also provides
financial and other services relating to its automotive
businesses.  The company has four segments: Mercedes-Benz Cars,
Daimler Trucks, Daimler Financial Services and Vans, Buses,
Other.  The company offers its automotive products and related
financial services primarily in Western Europe and in the NAFTA
region, which consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
During the year ended December 31, 2008, the Company had three
subsidiaries: Daimler North America Corporation, DCFS USA, LLC
and Mercedes-Benz do Brasil Ltda.


DELAWARE: Federal Judge Dismisses Death-Row Inmates' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware has thrown out a class-action lawsuit by
Delaware's death-row inmates, who allege that the state's method
of execution could result in unnecessary and unconstitutional
suffering.

However, while Judge Robinson handed the state a legal victory
with her ruling, she did not lift the hold she had placed on all
executions in Delaware.

In her order, Judge Robinson indicated the stay on executions
would remain in place while the plaintiffs appeal her ruling to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Robinson ordered the hold on executions in May 2006,
shortly after the Philadelphia Community Defender's Office filed
the lawsuit, which is entitled, "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case
No. 1:06-cv-00300-SLR."

The suit was filed in May 2006, less than two weeks before a
scheduled execution of Robert W. Jackson, who was convicted and
sentenced to death for the 1992 ax murder of 47-year-old
Elizabeth Girardi during a burglary of her Hockessin home (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 2, 2007).

Mr. Jackson's lawsuit questions the chemicals used in lethal
injections -- supposed to be nearly instantaneous -- and the
training of people who carry them out (Class Action Reporter,
July 28, 2006).

Specifically, the suit questions whether lethal injection is
truly quick and a humane way to die.  It alleges that some
prisoners actually die a slow, lingering death by suffocation.

The suit has placed an indefinite and unofficial hold on state's
death penalty, including Mr. Jackson's execution.

In February 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware granted class-action status to the suit (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 27, 2007).

In an eight-page opinion, Judge Sue L. Robinson basically
included all state inmates facing the death penalty into a suit,
which charges that lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel
and unusual.

The suit is "Jackson v. Taylor et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00300-
SLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware under Judge Sue L. Robinson.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael Wiseman, Esq. (Michael_Wiseman@fd.org)
          Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
          Capital Habeas Unit, Federal Court Division
          Defender Association of Philadelphia
          Curtis Center, Suite 545 West, 601
          Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, U.S.
          Phone: (215) 928-0520
          Fax: (215) 928-0825


Representing the defendants is:

          Loren C. Meyers, Esq. (loren.meyers@state.de.us)
          Department of Justice, State of Delaware
          820 N. French Street, 8th Floor
          Carvel Office Building, Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 577-8500


FAIRFIELD SENTRY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit Over Madoff Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Wed., 11 March 2009 21:39:33 GMT - NEW YORK - (Business
Wire) 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
shares of Fairfield Sentry Limited ("Fairfield Sentry Limited"
or the "Fund") during the period March 11, 2004, through and
including December 10, 2008 (the "Class Period") against the
Fund, Fairfield Greenwich (Bermuda) Ltd., Fairfield Greenwich
Limited, Fairfield Greenwich Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,
Jeffrey H. Tucker, Andres Piedrahita, Jan Naess, Peter P.
Schmid, Amit Vijayvergiya, Walter M. Noel, Jr., Citco Fund
Services [Europe] B.V., and Citco Global Custody N.V. (the
"Class").

     The case name is styled, "The Knight Services Holdings
Limited v. Fairfield Sentry Limited, et al."

     This case arises from a massive, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") through his
investment firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC
("BMIS"), and others, and which was facilitated by defendants
named herein.

     The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning, among other
things, the Fund's reported net asset value, the manner in which
the Fund's assets were invested, the extent of the defendants'
due diligence of Madoff and BMIS, and the true state of
supervision and oversight over the Fund's assets.

     Defendants caused and permitted $7.3 billion of the Fund's
total assets to be handed over to Madoff to be "invested" for
the benefit of plaintiff and the Class.  Plaintiff's investments
with the Fund were decimated as a direct result of the fraud
perpetrated by Madoff and BMIS and the complete failure of
PricewaterhouseCoopers to perform adequate audits and create its
annual audit reports in conformance with generally accepted
auditing standards despite the existence of a myriad of "red
flags" indicating a high risk to Fairfield Sentry from
concentrating its investment exposure in Madoff.

     On December 10, 2008, Madoff informed certain senior BMIS
employees (reported to be his sons) that BMIS' investment
advisory business was an utter fraud.  Madoff also stated that
he estimated the losses from this fraud to be approximately $50
billion.  On December 11, 2008, SEC and criminal charges were
brought against Bernard Madoff.  He was arrested and admitted to
a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent that "there is
no innocent explanation" for BMIS' losses and that he "paid
investors with money that wasn't there."

     One of Madoff's client's was defendant Fairfield Sentry
Limited, which, unknown to Plaintiff and other class members,
and notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, failed to
monitor or supervise the investments made with Madoff and BMIS,
and failed to perform adequate due diligence.  Investors who
entrusted their savings are now ruined.  Indeed, scores of
charities were destroyed and have either closed their doors or
canceled their proposed grants.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Daniel W. Krasner, 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


GENENTECH INC: Shareholders Withdraw Motion To Enjoin Roche Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Genentech, Inc. who filed a purported class-
action suit against the company over an unsolicited proposal
from Roche Holdings, Inc. (RHI) to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the company have agreed to withdraw their
injunction motion David Bario of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

The plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their injunction motion
now that Roche and Genentech board members are offering more
details on the post-tender offer rights of Genentech's board and
shareholders, according to the Am Law Litigation Daily report.

On July 21, 2008, the company announced that it received an
unsolicited proposal from RHI to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the company's Common Stock not owned by Roche at a
price of $89 in cash per share (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 19,
2008).

In August 2008, a group of shareholders filed a class-action
lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, to block the takeover
attempt, naming Roche, Genentech, and seven corporate officers,
reports Am Law Litigation Daily.

Am Law Litigation Daily reported that the suit contended, in
part, that a preexisting agreement between the companies
threatened the rights of shareholders in the event of a merger.

The lawsuit generally assert class-action claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty based in part on allegations that, in connection with
Roche's offer to purchase the remaining shares, some or all of
the defendants failed to properly value Genentech, failed to
solicit other potential acquirers, and are engaged in improper
self-dealing (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 10, 2008).

Several of the suits also seek the invalidation, in whole or in
part, of the July 1999 Affiliation Agreement between Genentech
and RHI (Affiliation Agreement), and an order deeming Articles 8
and 9 of the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation invalid or inapplicable to a potential transaction
with Roche.


HCA INC: Menorah, Overland Park Hospitals Settle ADA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     March 11, 2009 (The Kansas City Star - McClatchy-Tribune
Information Services via COMTEX) -- Two area hospitals will
modify their facilities as part of a settlement of class-action
litigation in Florida against HCA Inc.-owned hospitals under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

     Menorah Medical Center and Overland Park Regional Medical
Center have agreed to make alterations to accommodate
individuals with mobility, visual or hearing impairments.

     The settlement is one of many entered into by HCA-owned
hospitals across the country in the last several years.

     Amy Leiker, a spokeswoman for Menorah, said the changes
called for by the settlement "are relatively simple" and involve
such things as moving handrails, repositioning plumbing fixtures
and installing additional wheelchair ramps.

     She said the costs of the changes won't be known until the
settlement receives final approval and work begins on the
modifications.

     "However, with that said, we are committed to complying
with the agreement and with the ADA," she said.

     A legal notice that ran in The Kansas City Star on Friday
said the alterations would extend to public restrooms, parking
and other public areas at the hospitals. The settlement does not
call for money damages.

     Miami attorney David E. Marko, who represents lead
plaintiff Access Now Inc., a disability-rights organization,
said the settlement "will result in the hospitals removing
barriers to access over the next five years."

     "With compliments to HCA, they haven't shied away from
their obligations," he added. "At the end of the day, they
deserve credit for having entered into an agreement that will be
approved by the court."

     The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Florida about
eight years ago on behalf of individuals with disabilities, as
defined by the ADA.


INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 5, 2009 hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No.
GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a
business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- has been set.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60-
day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through
mediation.  The agreement included taking off calendar all
pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days.  The
parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing
for mediation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2009).

On Feb. 8, 2009, the remaining parties to the Weisz action
entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Weisz
Settlement").  Under the terms of the Weisz Settlement, which
has been preliminarily approved by the court but remains subject
to final court approval after a fairness hearing, Adheris would
agree to refrain from knowing participation in any refill
reminder programs, targeted mailings or notifications regarding
medical conditions of specific California residents except those
residents who have expressly opted in to the communication or as
otherwise permitted by California law.  Adheris currently does
not conduct significant business in California of the type
encompassed by Weisz Settlement.

The company's insurer, AIG, is defending this action under
reservation of rights, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The hearing to consider final approval of the Weisz Settlement
is scheduled for June 5, 2009.

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


MBIA INC: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Bond-Insurance Business Split
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBIA, Inc. is facing a purported class-action suit in New York
that was filed by hedge funds that are challenging the company's
decision to split its bond-insurance business, Jody Shenn of
Bloomberg reports.

The suit captioned, "Aurelius Capital Master Ltd., et al v. MBIA
Inc., et al, Case No. 09 Civ. 2242" was filed on March 11, 2009
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  It is alleging that the move hurts owners of about $240
billion of debt while benefiting stock investors, executives and
some policyholders, according to the Bloomberg report.

The reorganization, in which MBIA stripped $5.4 billion of
assets and its U.S. municipal business from a unit that now
mainly insures only structured-finance bonds, "represents the
height of insidious greed," according to the Aurelius Capital
Management and Fir Tree Partners funds, the hedge funds behind
the lawsuit.

Bloomberg reported that MBIA, the largest bond insurer by
outstanding guarantees, last month won the right to split its
public-finance and structured-finance businesses after record
mortgage losses that cost the company its AAA ratings.

The suit seeks to reverse the split, which Armonk, New York-
based MBIA has said is needed to resume writing new municipal
insurance.  It also seeks class-action status.

The funds allege in the suit that "the federal government is one
of the largest victims of this looting," after the U.S. agreed
to share losses on some banks' assets and injected capital into
more lenders, reports Bloomberg.

That MBIA didn't make its U.S. municipal-only unit, created out
of a dormant division renamed National Public Finance Corp.,
into a subsidiary of its structured-debt business suggests the
company itself isn't confident that the latter is "solvent,"
according to the hedge funds' complaint, a copy of which was
obtained by Bloomberg.


NOVARTIS VACCINES: Settles Calif. Shareholders' Lawsuit For $30M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California gave final approval to a $30
million securities class-action suit settlement between Novartis
Vaccines & Diagnostic Inc. and its shareholders, bringing to a
close five years of litigation over the company's failed flu
vaccine, Law360 reports.

On March 11, 2009, Judge Walker signed off on the settlement and
dismissed the action with prejudice, according to the Law360
report.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces Kansas Fraud Litigation Over Nextel Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Nextel Corp. is the target of a potential class-action
lawsuit that alleges it misrepresented its business and
financial results surrounding the Nextel merger in ways that
pushed its stock artificially high, Washington Business Journal
reports.

On March 10, 2009, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class-action suit has been commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of
purchasers of Sprint Nextel Corp. common stock during the period
between Oct. 26, 2006 and Feb. 27, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
March 12, 2009).

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  As a result of
defendants' false statements, Sprint stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

In December 2004, Sprint Corporation and Nextel Communications
("Nextel") announced that they would merge.  The merger was
completed on Aug. 12, 2005, with Sprint Corp. buying Nextel for
$37.8 billion.  The merger, the complaint alleges, turned out to
be a disaster, as the Company has had difficulties in combining
the resources of the two companies due to culture clashes and
technological issues.

However, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly assured
the market that the Company was poised for a turnaround and was
focused on improving its core operations.  As late as the summer
of 2007, defendants continued to play down and conceal Sprint's
problems with its network and with its customer service issues
and subscriber base.  Beginning in early Fall 2007, Sprint
finally began to acknowledge that its initiatives were not
working and that the Company was experiencing a serious
deterioration in its subscriber base, due both to a slow down in
new growth and a massive defection of its current subscribers to
its competitors.

On Feb. 28, 2008, before the market opened, the Company reported
disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2007 financial
results, including a net loss for the quarter of $29.5 billion
or $10.36 diluted loss per share.  On this news, Sprint's stock
collapsed $0.86 per share to close at $8.09 per share.

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's CDMA business was not as healthy as
          represented;

       -- the Company would be unable to complete its migration
          of its entire customer base to a uniform billing
          platform by 2007 from the multiple legacy platforms,
          thus continuing to cause customer service problems and
          having a negative effect on the Company's voluntary
          churn rate;

       -- the Company had not taken the proper steps to address
          its customer service issues;

       -- the Company failed to disclose known trends and
          uncertainties as required by SEC regulations
          concerning the loosening of its credit standards for
          its CDMA network and its failure to take the proper
          steps to address customer service issues, which would
          have a negative effect on the Company's operations in
          the future;

       -- the Company was not adequately reserving for its
          impaired goodwill associated with Nextel or its
          allowance for bad debts related to subprime
          subscribers in violation of GAAP, causing its
          financial results to be materially misstated;

       -- the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity
          concerns and ratings downgrades than it had previously
          disclosed;

       -- the Company was failing to integrate the CDMA network
          and the iDEN network; and

       -- given the increased volatility in the subprime market,
          the intense competition in the wireless industry and
          the problems facing Sprint due to its failure to
          integrate legacy Sprint and legacy Nextel operations,
          the Company's projections issued during the Class
          Period about its earnings for 2007 and 2008 were at a
          minimum reckless.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period.  However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the
Company's shares fell more than 65% from their Class Period
high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Sprint common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, 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/sprintnextel/


TENET HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Pay $85M to Settle Overtime Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corp. agreed to pay $85 million to settle
claims that nurses and other 12-hour-shift employees were denied
extra pay after a change in California law entitled them to
overtime, Courtney Perkes of The Orange County Register reports.

The suit was brought by Don Pagaduan, a respiratory therapist
from Mission Viejo, who worked at Fountain Valley Regional
Hospital when the law took effect in 2000, accoridng to The
Orange County Register report.

In general, the lawsuit alleges that the company's pay practices
since 2000 for California-based 12-hour shift employees violate
California overtime laws by virtue of the alleged failure to
include certain payments known as Flexible (or California)
Differential payments in the regular rate of pay that is used to
calculate overtime pay (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008).

These payments are made to 12-hour shift employees when they do
not work a shift that is exactly 12 hours.  The company contends
that these differential payments need only be included in the
regular rate of pay when they actually are paid (as opposed to
merely being potentially payable), and that they always are
included in the regular rate calculation in these circumstances.

The suit is seeking back pay, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees.

The Orange County Register reported that statewide, roughly
23,000 current and former Tenet hospital employees qualify for
cash payments.  Attorneys declined to disclose amounts, but Mr.
Pagaduan said he's heard the ranges are from $150 to $30,000.

Mr. Pagaduan, whose share of the settlement is $5,000, plus a
yet-to-be determined amount as the class representative,
originally filed his suit in the Orange County Superior Court
back in 2003, however it was later coordinated in the Los
Angeles Superior Court along with other similar cases, reports
The Orange County Register.

A judge has given preliminary approval to the settlement and a
hearing to finalize is set for May 2009, according to The Orange
County Register report.


* Value of 2008 Securities Class Action Settlements Cut by Half
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:09 AM (Business Wire) -- The
value and number of federal securities class action settlements
declined in 2008, according to Securities Class Action
Settlements: 2008 Review and Analysis, an annual report by
Cornerstone Research.

     The average settlement value fell by slightly more than 50%
from $62.7 million in 2007 to $31.2 million in 2008.  This
decline reflects a sharp drop in multi-billion-dollar
"megasettlements," which have been far more common in recent
years.  The decline in the total number of settlements was a
more modest 10%, from 110 in 2007 to 99 in 2008.  This decline
is unlikely to signal a continuing trend.  The ongoing financial
crisis has caused an increase in litigation activity that could
have an impact on settlement volume within the next year or two
as cases associated with the subprime collapse and liquidity
crisis begin to be resolved.

Commentary

     Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with
Cornerstone Research, made the following observations about the
report:

    * "This decline in the number of securities class action
settlements does not come as a surprise.  The inventory of cases
waiting to be settled had been depleted by recent vigorous
settlement activity.  New litigation didn't pick up the slack,
at least until the recent uptick in lawsuits caused by the
financial market meltdown.  Settlement figures may well bounce
back over the next few years as cases associated with
potentially large damages related to the current financial
collapse work their way through the judicial system."

    * "Settlements of pending actions against TARP recipients
will raise novel public policy issues.  Taxpayer dollars will,
one way or another, fund these settlements.  This simple fact
could set off a debate about whether taxpayers should pay for
these settlements, and about the effectiveness of the class
action litigation mechanism altogether."

Laura Simmons, Assistant Professor at the College of William &
Mary Mason School of Business and coauthor of the report, made
the following observations:

    * "We anticipate the financial crisis will have an impact on
existing and future lawsuits.  This distressed economic
environment could play out in several different ways,
potentially affecting both the amount of settlements as well as
the speed at which cases are settled."

    * "One of the most intriguing developments was the finding
that corporate financial restatements, which increased in number
following Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), no longer serve as an important
predictor of settlement amounts.  Our findings are consistent
with other research indicating that in the post–Sox environment,
investors have viewed restatement announcements as less
significant events."

Key Findings

    * The median amount for cases settled in 2008 was $8
million.  While this figure is lower than 2007's all-time high
single-year median of $9 million, it represents an increase over
the median for all the cases settled from 1996 through 2007.

    * The average length of the class period in 2008 reached a
new high of over 800 days.  This is nearly a year longer than
the average for all prior settlements through 2007, which was
518 days.

    * Average estimated damages of $1.5 billion for all cases
settled in 2008 fell below levels, adjusted for inflation, of
approximately $2 billion for settlements in 2003–2005 and were
significantly lower than the stratospheric high of over $6.5
billion recorded in 2006.

    * The percentage of cases involving estimated damages in
excess of $1 billion, otherwise known as "mega-damages," fell to
20%, the lowest rate in five years and well below the peak of
35% for 2006 settlements.

    * Despite lower estimated damages, median Disclosure Dollar
Losses—the dollar value decrease in the defendant firm's market
capitalization at the end of the class period—for cases settled
in 2008 was one of the highest among post–Reform Act settlement
years at $110 million.  It was second only to the median of $134
million for cases settled in 2007.

    * Institutional investors continue to actively participate
in securities class actions and served as lead plaintiffs in
more than 60% of settlements in 2008.  Cases involving public
pensions as lead plaintiffs are associated with significantly
higher settlements.

    * Reversing a recent trend, the number of cases involving
companion derivative actions in 2008 decreased to 40% compared
with 55% in 2007 and 45% in 2006.  Derivative actions tend to be
associated with larger class action cases and significantly
higher settlement amounts.

    * In 2008, accounting-related allegations, specifically
alleged violations of GAAP, were included in almost 70% of
settled cases.  Cases with GAAP allegations had larger
settlement amounts and a higher percentage of estimated damages
compared to cases not involving accounting allegations.

Professor Grundfest and Professor Simmons are available to speak
to the media about Securities Class Action Settlements: 2008
Review and Analysis.  The full text of the report is available
at the Cornerstone Research website
(http://securities.cornerstone.com).



                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, N.Y., March 11, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has been retained to file a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Century Aluminum Company ("Century Aluminum" or the "Company")
stock issued pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with Century Aluminum's January 28, 2009 secondary
public stock offering (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges Century Aluminum, certain of the
Company's executive officers and directors, and the underwriters
of the Offering with violations of federal securities laws.

     Century Aluminum, through its subsidiaries, produces
primary aluminum in the United States and internationally.  The
Company offers molten aluminum, as well as standard-grade ingot,
extrusion billet and other value-added primary aluminum
products.

     The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and/or misleading because defendants failed to
disclose that the Company issued $929 million of Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock in July 2008 on a net basis as an
operating activity -- when the transaction should have been
presented on a gross presentation basis as both an operating
activity and a financing activity to reflect the cash receipts
and disbursements associated with the transaction.

     On March 2, 2009, Century Aluminum shocked the market when
the Company filed an Interim Report on Form 8-K with the SEC
which disclosed that the Company would restate its interim
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008, to reflect cash flows related to the
preferred stock issued in July 2008, which was not presented on
the consolidated statement of cash flows in accordance with the
Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 95 "Statement of Cash Flows."

     In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined more than 24% per share, to close at $1.67 per share on
March 2, 2009.  This closing price of Century Aluminum
represented a cumulative loss of $2.61, or approximately 60%, of
the value of the Company's shares at the time of its Secondary
Offering less than two months earlier.

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

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jfruchter@aftlaw.com)
          Arthur J. Chen, Esq. (achen@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655


CORUS BANKSHARES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     March 11, 2009 05:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- NEW YORK
-- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
("Coughlin Stoia")(http://www.csgrr.com/cases/corus/)announced
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of Corus Bankshares, Inc. ("Corus" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:CORS) common stock during the period between
January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint charges Corus and its Chief Executive Officer
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     Corus operates as the holding company for Corus Bank, N.A.,
which offers various banking products and services.  The Company
primarily engages in generating deposits and originating loans.
Corus' loan portfolio is primarily comprised of commercial real
estate loans, including condominium construction and conversion
loans; residential real estate loans; and other commercial
loans.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
Corus' press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose:

       -- that Corus was failing to recognize losses on its
          condominium loans in accordance with generally
          accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

       -- that Corus and/or its affiliates was purchasing
          condominiums in developments Corus had financed in an
          attempt to:

               -- inflate the appraised values of condominiums
                  to delay having to recognize losses on
                  financing for such condominiums;

               -- inflate developers' sales figures to increase
                  the likelihood of successful future sales; and

               -- create the illusion of successful sales
                  histories in order to inflate appraisal values
                  for the condominiums to ensure inflated future
                  prices for the condominiums; and

       -- that Corus was involved in detailed and in-depth
          negotiations with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
          and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency
          regarding its deteriorating pool of condominium loans.

     According to the complaint, on January 30, 2009, Corus
released partial financial results for fiscal 2008 and stated
that "Corus is suffering from the extraordinary effects of what
may ultimately be the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression."  Upon this announcement, shares fell nearly 47% to
close at $.59 per share on February 2, 2009, on heavy trading
volume in excess of two million shares.

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

For more details, contact:

         David A. Rosenfeld, 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/corus/


INTREPID POTASH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 11, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On March 10,
2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of
Colorado, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("IPI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) the
date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on April 21, 2008
(the "IPO"), and all purchasers traceable thereto (the "Class
Period") against IPI, certain officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the IPO pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77k, 77l and 77o] (the
"Class").

     The case name is styled, "Arnone v. Intrepid Potash, Inc.,
et al."

     The Complaint asserts that the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus (together "Offering Materials")
contained both material misstatements and omissions, which
Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment.  The
representations made in the Offering Materials were materially
false and misleading because at the time of the IPO, Defendant
Patrick L. Avery did not possess the credentials claimed in the
Prospectus.  Specifically, Mr. Avery, the Company's President
and Chief Operating Officer did not receive a B.A. degree from
the University of Colorado.  Furthermore, he did not receive an
M.S. degree form Loyola Marymount University.  The Offering
Materials asserts that both of these facts are true in violation
of the Company's Code of Business Conduct.

     The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants could
have - and should have - discovered the material misstatements
and omissions in the Offering Materials prior to its filing with
the SEC and distribution to the investing public.  Instead, they
failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly
inadequate due diligence investigation.

     As a result of the dissemination of the false and
misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market
price of the IPI 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 IPI securities.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth,
they would not have purchased said IPI securities, or would not
have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, 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


OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: Robbins Umeda Files Colo. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, March 11, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Robbins Umeda LLP ("Robbins Umeda") announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of
Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund, Inc. ("Champion Fund" or the
"Fund") (OPCHX) (OCHBX) (OCHCX) (OCHNX) (OCHYX) offered by
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. ("OppenheimerFunds") between November 1,
2006 and December 31, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The Champion Fund is an open-ended, fixed income mutual
fund managed and marketed by Defendant OppenheimerFunds.  The
complaint charges the Champion Fund, OppenheimerFunds and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and breach of contract.

     The Fund was a typical conservative high income fund until,
beginning in late 2006 or 2007, and unknown to investors, the
Fund altered investment policies and began taking on excessive
risks in hopes of gaining higher returns.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that Oppenheimer
portrayed the Fund as a diversified, higher-yielding fund that
avoided undue risk.  In actuality, the Fund was substantially
more risky than represented because:

       -- the Fund took massive bets on risky derivatives,
          including total-return swaps and credit default swaps,
          and

       -- the Fund was over-concentrating its investments in
          volatile mortgage-backed securities.

     Moreover, the Fund failed to disclose to investors that its
managers had changed the Fund's fundamental investment policies
to focus on these risky investments.

     The complaint asserts claims based upon untrue statements
of material facts contained within the Fund's Registration
Statement and Prospectus materials that mislead investors into
believing that the Fund was diversified and avoided undue risks.

     Investors have suffered substantial damages - in the
hundreds of millions of dollars - in connection with losses in
the Fund's value that resulted from undue risks undertaken by
the Fund that were not disclosed in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus materials.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or held shares of the Champion Fund
between August 7, 2006 and December 9, 2008 (the "Class
Period").

For more details, contact:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Robbins Umeda LLP
          Phone: (800) 350-6003
          e-mail: caseinfo@robbinsumeda.com
          Web site:
          http://www.robbinsumeda.com/PDF/Oppenheimercpt.pdf


PERRIGO CO: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, Conn., March 11, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Perrigo Company ("Perrigo" or the
"Company") between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Perrigo and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements regarding the Company's
exposure to at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities
("ARS").

     In January and February of 2008, auctions of ARS began to
fail, limiting the ability of holders to sell these securities.

     Nevertheless, Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of
redeeming its $18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008 when
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), the bank that
underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo, declared bankruptcy.

     On November 6, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period,
defendants reported the "fair value" of Perrigo's ARS as
$14,500,000, but concealed the impact of Lehman's bankruptcy on
Perrigo's ARS.  Then on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed
that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo and
that the Company was writing off the entire value of its ARS,
wiping out over a third of Perrigo's earnings.  On this news,
Perrigo's stock price fell 18%.

For more details, contact:

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


SPRINT NEXTEL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 5:47 a.m. PT, Wed., March 11, 2009 – MarketWire --
BALA CYNWYD, PA -- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces
that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased common stock of Sprint Nextel Corporation
("Sprint" or the "Company") (NYSE: S) between October 26, 2006
and February 27, 2008 (the "Class Period").  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Sprint.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90
          e-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


SPRINT NEXTEL: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     HARTFORD, Conn.--(Marketwire - March 11, 2009) - The law
firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience
representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities
fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of
Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint" or the "Company") (NYSE: S)
between October 26, 2006 and February 27, 2008, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Sprint and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results.

     Specifically, defendants concealed the following:

       -- the Company's CDMA business was not as healthy as
          represented;

       -- Sprint would be unable to complete migration of its
          entire customer base to a uniform billing platform by
          2007 from multiple legacy platforms;

       -- Sprint had not taken steps to address customer service
          issues;

       -- Sprint failed to disclose known trends and
          uncertainties concerning the loosening of its credit
          standards for its CDMA network and its customer
          service issues;

       -- Sprint was not adequately reserving for impaired
          goodwill associated with the Nextel merger or its
          allowance for bad debts related to subprime
          subscribers;

       -- Sprint had far greater exposure to liquidity concerns
          and ratings downgrades than previously disclosed; and

       -- Sprint was failing to integrate the CDMA network and
          the iDEN network.

For more details, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK, Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. and its subsidiaries still face asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were
acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously
owned businesses of the Company which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new
owners of those businesses have agreed to indemnify the Company
against these claims (Indemnified Claims). The Indemnified
Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such
sellers and new owners.

These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the
future. However, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy
liquidation in 2007.

To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as
a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

Headquartered in Paoli, Pa., AMETEK, Inc. manufactures
electronic instruments and electromechanical devices with
operations in North America, Europe, Asia and South America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 39 Suits Ongoing v. Noble Corp. at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at Jan. 31, 2009, had 39 asbestos-related
lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 27, 2009.

At Oct. 31, 2008, the Company faced 39 asbestos-related or other
personal injury lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008)

The Company is party to various lawsuits that are incidental to
its operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount
of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corporation is an
offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The
Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 63
mobile offshore drilling units located worldwide. This fleet
consists of 13 semisubmersibles, four dynamically positioned
drillships, 43 jackups and three submersibles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Cites $1.933B Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's gross reserves for asbestos claims
were US$1.933 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$2.053 billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.24
billion at Sept. 30, 2008. The Company's asbestos reserves, net
of insurance recoverables, were US$709 million at Sept. 30,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2008)

The Company's net reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.288
billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.302
billion for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2008 IBNR (incurred-but-not-reported) represented 64
percent of total net asbestos reserves, one point lower than at
Dec. 31, 2007. IBNR provides for reserve development of known
claims and future reporting of additional unknown claims from
current and new policyholders and ceding companies.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 601 new
claims, closed 1,077 claims, had 8,780 pending claims, and
closed 800 claims without payment.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 876 new
claims, closed 795 claims, had 9,256 pending claims, and closed
364 claims without payment.

Reinsurance recoverables include US$227 million from Lloyd's of
London at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$240 million at Dec.
31, 2007.

Lloyd's of London, through the creation of Equitas Limited,
implemented a restructuring plan in 1996 to solidify its capital
base and to segregate claims for years prior to 1993. The
recoverable from Equitas Limited syndicates is spread among
thousands of Lloyd's of London investors who have unlimited
liability.

The reinsurance recoverables valuation allowance was reduced by
US$46 million in 2007 related to Equitas Limited's improved
financial position as a result of its obtaining reinsurance
coverage with National Indemnity Company.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business mainly in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Still Disputes Aqua-Chem Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company still disputes former subsidiary Aqua-
Chem, Inc.'s (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) claims over Aqua-
Chem's demands for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket
asbestos litigation-related expenses.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-
Chem. A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside
suppliers. Several years after the Company sold this entity,
Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a
component of some of the gaskets.

In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it
believed the Company was obligated for certain costs and
expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem
demanded that the Company reimburse it for about US$10 million
for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses. Aqua-Chem also
demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation to
Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are
excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for
which there is no insurance.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers
of Aqua-Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-
Chem and the Company reached settlements with several of the
insurers, including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into
an escrow account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.

The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for one-hundred percent of Aqua-
Chem's losses up to policy limits. The Georgia litigation
remains subject to the stay agreement.

Headquartered in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Company manufactures,
distributes, and markets nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and
syrups in the world. The Company markets four of the world's top
five nonalcoholic sparkling brands, including Diet Coke, Fanta
and Sprite.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. ENSCO Int'l.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International, Inc. and certain current and former
subsidiaries still face asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi
courts.

In August 2004, the Company and the subsidiaries were named as
defendants in three multi-party lawsuits filed in the Circuit
Courts of Jones County (Second Judicial District) and Jasper
County (First Judicial District), Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims,
the Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending
in Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

Most of these cases currently are under an informal stay of
discovery issued by a Special Master presiding over these
matters while discovery is conducted for a designated group of
plaintiffs, several of which involve the Company.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in seven cases pending against the Company. No further
activity will occur in these cases until they are selected for
trial. Currently, none of the cases pending against the Company
in Mississippi has been set for trial.

Discovery is still ongoing and, therefore, available information
regarding the nature of all pending claims is limited.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
eight other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in various other jurisdictions.

Headquartered in Dallas, ENSCO International Incorporated is an
offshore contract drilling company. As of Feb. 17, 2009, its
offshore rig fleet included 43 jackup rigs, two ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible rigs and one barge rig. The Company also has six
ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rigs under construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Still Has 26 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. continues to face 26 pending
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials. To date, two asbestos cases have
been dismissed. One new asbestos case was filed in the fourth
quarter of 2008.

Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be
found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any.
Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company
or its subsidiaries.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.

Headquartered in New York, Minerals Technologies Inc. is a
resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces
and markets specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic
mineral products and supporting systems and services. The
Company has two reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and
Refractories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deere Subject to Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company is still subject to various unresolved legal
actions which arise in the normal course of its business, the
most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including
asbestos-related liability), retail credit, software licensing,
patent and trademark matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company makes farm
equipment. The Company also produces construction, forestry,
industrial, and lawn-care equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Facing 163 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced 163 pending asbestos claims as of Dec.
31, 2008, compared with 175 pending claims at Dec. 30, 2007,
according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 188 pending asbestos claims as of Sept. 28,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Of the 163 claims pending as of Dec. 31, 2008, 55 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 104 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and four claims (or about 2.5 percent of
the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these four claims, one claim alleges compensatory and
punitive damages of US$20 million; one claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs; and
two claims allege compensatory damages of US$65 million and
punitive damages of US$60 million. These four claims name
between nine and 76 defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was able to
have 83 claims dismissed and settled claims. For the fiscal year
ended Dec. 30, 2007, about 59 claims were dismissed and 12 were
settled. Most costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number
of cases that have been settled.

Those settlements totaled US$1.5 million in 2008, compared with
US$2 million for the full year 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: Aaron Lawsuit Ongoing v. Hercules Offshore
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. is still a defendant in asbestos-related
litigation styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company
et al. filed in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial District,
Jones County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent.
The Company acquired TODCO in July 2007.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels
and other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and
strict liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed
by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served
against specific defendants.

As of Feb. 26, 2009, about 700 questionnaires were returned and
the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire
reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the
respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and
its former parent which could lead to claims against either
company.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming those defendants against whom they had a direct claim as
identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.

To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their
amended complaints.

Headquartered in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides
shallow-water drilling and marine services to the oil and
natural gas exploration and production industry globally. The
Company has six business segments: (1) Domestic Offshore, (2)
International Offshore, (3) Inland, (4) Domestic Liftboats, (5)
International Liftboats and (6) Delta Towing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Still Facing 8,100 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,100 asbestos-related claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 8,200 claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company faced 8,100 asbestos-related claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14,
2008)

The Company has been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a
number of lawsuits filed in the United States by persons
alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants allege
exposure to asbestos at facilities that the Company owns or
formerly owned or from products that it formerly manufactured
for specialized applications.

Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against the
Company have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by the
Company.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 200
claimants with claims closed during period and 100 claimants
with claims opened during period.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 700
claimants with claims closed during period and 300 claimants
with claims opened during period.

Headquartered in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a
specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing,
manufacturing and selling value-added products. Products serve
end markets including aerospace, adhesives, automotive and
industrial coatings, construction, chemical intermediates, inks,
mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Motor Co. Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to be a defendant in various
actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged
exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos.

Asbestos was used in brakes, clutches, and other automotive
components from the early 1900s.

Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health
problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component
parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos
products in the Company's facilities, or asbestos aboard its
former maritime fleet.

Most of the asbestos litigation the Company faces involves
individuals who worked on the brakes of its vehicles over the
years.

Most of the cases pending against the Company do not specify a
dollar amount for damages and in many of the other cases the
dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum.

Most of these cases involve multiple defendants, with the number
in some cases exceeding 100. Many of these cases also involve
multiple plaintiffs; the Company is often unable to tell from
the pleadings which of the plaintiffs are making claims against
the Company (as opposed to other defendants).

Headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., Ford Motor Company produces
cars and trucks. In 2008, the Company's total ongoing Automotive
operations sold about 5,407,000 vehicles at wholesale throughout
the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lockheed Martin Still Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation continues to be a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos integrated into its premises and certain historical
products, according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any currently manufactured products. The
Company has been successful in having a substantial number of
these claims dismissed without payment. The remaining resolved
claims have settled for amounts that are not material
individually or in the aggregate.

A substantial majority of the asbestos-related claims have been
covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin Corporation is a
global security company that researches, designs, develops,
manufactures, integrates, and sustains advanced technology
systems and products. The Company also provides management,
engineering, technical, scientific, logistics, and information
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong World Facing 9 Workers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. has nine pending asbestos-
related workers' compensation claims, and a subsidiary in the
United Kingdom has 11 employer liability claims involving
alleged asbestos exposure, according to the Company's 2008
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Company's plan of reorganization, which was
confirmed by order dated Aug. 18, 2006, became effective, and
the Company emerged from Chapter 11.

Before Dec. 6, 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant
in personal injury cases and property damage cases related to
asbestos-containing products. On Dec. 6, 2000, the Company filed
a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code to use the court-supervised reorganization
process to achieve a resolution of the Company's asbestos-
related liability.

Two of the Company' domestic subsidiaries also commenced Chapter
11 proceedings at the time of the Filing. The Company's other
direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates, including
Armstrong Wood Products Inc. (formerly Triangle Pacific Corp.),
WAVE (Armstrong's ceiling grid systems joint venture with
Worthington Industries, Inc.), Armstrong Canada and Armstrong
DLW AG were not a part of the Filing and accordingly the
liabilities, including asbestos-related liability if any, of
those companies arising out of their own activities were not
resolved in the Company's Chapter 11 Case except for any
asbestos-related liability that also relates, directly or
indirectly, to the pre-Filing activities of the Company.

Upon the Company's Plan becoming effective on Oct. 2, 2006, the
Asbestos PI Trust was created for the purpose of addressing and
resolving the Company's personal injury (including wrongful
death) asbestos-related liability. As of Oct. 2, 2006, all
present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims
against the Company, including contribution claims of co-
defendants, arising directly or indirectly out of the Company's
pre-Filing use of or other activities involving asbestos were
channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust.

The Company has no recorded liability for asbestos-related
personal injury claims as of Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

On Oct. 2, 2006, under the Plan becoming effective, the Company
transferred to the Asbestos PI Trust rights arising under
liability insurance policies issued to the Company with respect
to asbestos-related personal injury claims. As of Oct. 2, 2006,
resolution of asbestos-related personal injury insurance matters
is the responsibility of the Asbestos PI Trust. As part of
accounting for emergence, AWI reflected the transfer of these
rights to the Asbestos PI Trust. Therefore, there is no recorded
insurance asset in respect of asbestos claims as of Dec. 31,
2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Asbestos-related personal injury claims against the affiliates
and subsidiaries of AWI covered by the POR will be channeled to
the Asbestos PI Trust to the extent those claims directly or
indirectly relate to the manufacturing, installation,
distribution or other activities of the Company or are based
solely on its ownership of the subsidiaries or other affiliates.
Currently, one asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit against
a subsidiary of the Company allegedly arising out of those
independent activities is pending. This claim will not be
channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust under the Plan. The
subsidiary denies liability and is aggressively defending the
matter.

In addition, workers' compensation claims brought against the
Company or its subsidiaries or other affiliates will not be
channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust. These claims remain subject
to the workers' compensation process.

Headquartered in Lancaster, Pa., Armstrong World Industries,
Inc. produces flooring products and ceiling systems for use
primarily in the construction and renovation of commercial,
institutional and residential buildings. The Company also
designs, manufactures and sells kitchen and bathroom cabinets in
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $145Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestos and
environmental claim reserves were US$145 million at Dec. 31,
2008, compared with US$158.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net A&E claim reserves were US$147.3 million at
Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$172.4 million at
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$190.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$176.6 million at
Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

Net asbestos reserves were US$108.6 million at Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$121.9 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Gross asbestos
reserves were US$133.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$149.4 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Chicago, Old Republic International Corporation
is an insurance underwriter. It conducts its operations through
regulated insurance company subsidiaries organized into three
major segments, namely, its General (property and liability
insurance), Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance Groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Reserves $398.7Mil in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s asbestos and environmental
reserves were US$398.7 million, net of insurance receivable, at
the end of 2008, compared with US$422.8 million, net of
insurance receivable, at the end of 2007.

The Company's property and casualty group's A&E reserves were
US$405.9 million, net of reinsurance recoverable. (Class Action
Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company's gross A&E reserves were US$466 million at the end
of 2008, compared with US$486.4 million at the end of 2007.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's three year survival ratio was
9.7 times average paid losses for the asbestos reserves and 9.3
times average paid losses for the total A&E reserves.

Excluding amounts associated with the settlements of asbestos-
related coverage litigation for A.P. Green Industries and
another large claim, the Company's three year survival ratio was
8.2 and 8.1 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves and
total A&E reserves, respectively.

The Company tracks its A&E claims by policyholder. In 2008, the
Company had 108 asbestos policyholders with no payments and had
83 asbestos policyholders with payments. In 2007, the Company
had 83 asbestos policyholders with no payments and had 115
policyholders with payments.

Amounts paid (net of amounts received from reinsurers) for A&E
claims, including loss adjustment expenses, were US$2.6 million
in 2008 and US$46.9 million in 2007.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group,
Inc. engages in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale
of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a
variety of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Facing Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s insurance company subsidiaries
and its 100 percent-owned subsidiary, American Premier
Underwriters are parties to litigation and receive claims
alleging injuries and damages from asbestos, environmental and
other substances and workplace hazards.

Great American Insurance Company and certain other insurers were
parties to coverage litigation (arising from claims alleging
asbestos exposure resulted in bodily injury) under insurance
policies issued during the 1970s and 1980s to Bigelow-Liptak
Corporation and related companies, subsequently known as A.P.
Green Industries, Inc.

A.P. Green sought to recover defense and indemnity expenses
related to those claims from a number of insurers, including
Great American.

In February 2002, A.P. Green filed petitions for bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (In Re Global
Industrial Technologies, Inc., et al, filed Feb. 14, 2002).

In 2003, Great American Insurance Company entered into an
agreement, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court, for the
settlement of coverage litigation related to A.P. Green asbestos
claims. The settlement of US$123.5 million (Great American has
the option to pay in cash or over time with 5.25 percent
interest) has been fully accrued and allows up to 10 percent of
the settlement to be paid in AFG Common Stock.

The settlement agreement is conditioned upon confirmation of a
plan of reorganization that includes an injunction prohibiting
the assertion against Great American of any present or future
asbestos personal injury claims under policies issued to A.P.
Green and related companies.

During 2007, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the A. P. Green Plan
of Reorganization, which includes the injunction required by
Great American's settlement agreement. Certain parties appealed
the confirmation on issues that management believes are
ancillary to the Great American settlement.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group,
Inc. engages in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale
of traditional fixed, indexed and variable annuities and a
variety of supplemental insurance products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cincinnati Fin'l. Has $114Mil 2008 Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried US$114 million of net
loss and loss expense reserves for asbestos and environmental
claims as of year-end 2008, compared with US$123 million as of
year-end 2007.

These amounts constitute 2.8 percent (in 2008) and 3.1 percent
(in 2007) of total loss and loss expense reserves as of these
year-end dates.

The Company said it believes its exposure to A&E claims is
limited, largely because its reinsurance retention was
US$500,000 or below prior to 1987. The Company also
predominantly was a personal lines company in the 1960s and
1970s when asbestos and pollution exclusions were not widely
used.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, commercial lines grew as a
percentage of the Company's overall business and its exposure to
A&E claims grew accordingly.

Between 2006 and 2008, total A&E reserves decreased 11.6
percent.

Headquartered in Fairfield, Ohio, Cincinnati Financial
Corporation markets property casualty insurance. At year-end
2008, the Company had 4,179 associates, with 2,984 headquarters
associates providing support to 1,195 field associates.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W. R. Berkley Has $39.64MM Reserves in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental
claims were US$39,646,000 at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$41,590,000 at
Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment
expenses relating to A&E claims were US$56,957,000 at Dec. 31,
2008 and US$60,836,000 at Dec. 31, 2007.

Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported A&E claims
were about US$440,000 in 2008, US$7,029,000 in 2007, and US$3
million in 2006. Net paid losses and loss expenses for reported
A&E claims were about US$2,384,000 in 2008, US$2,912,000 in
2007, and US$2,980,000 in 2006.

Headquartered in Greenwich, Conn., W. R. Berkley Corporation is
an insurance holding company and commercial lines writer. The
Company operates in five segments: Specialty lines of insurance,
Regional commercial property casualty insurance, Alternative
markets, Reinsurance, and International.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., still faces 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related claims at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's 2008 annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Crown Cork & Seal, at Sept. 30, 2008, faced about 50,000 open
asbestos claims, which excludes about 19,000 inactive claims.
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008)

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90
days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered
by a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement
with carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork
became self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the
Company has no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

During 2008, Crown Cork received 3,000 new claims and settled or
dismissed 3,000 claims. During 2007, Crown Cork received 4,000
new claims and settled or dismissed 4,000 claims. During 2006,
Crown Cork received 5,000 new claims and settled or dismissed
5,000 claims.

The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2008 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The
outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2008 also exclude about 19,000
inactive claims.

During 2008, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of US$25
million to increase its accrual, made asbestos-related payments
of US$25 million, settled claims totaling US$15 million,
including amounts to be committed to be paid in future periods,
and had outstanding accrual of US$201 million at the end of the
year.

During 2007, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of US$29
million to increase its accrual, made asbestos-related payments
of US$26 million, settled claims totaling US$15 million,
including amounts to be committed to be paid in future periods,
and had outstanding accrual of US$201 million at the end of the
year.

The Company estimates that its probable and estimable asbestos
liability for pending and future asbestos claims and related
legal costs is US$201 million at the end of 2008, including
US$137 million for unasserted claims and US$1 million for
committed settlements that will be paid in 2009.

Historically (1977-2008), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964. However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for
settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells packaging products for consumer goods.
Products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company operated 139 plants
along with sales and service facilities throughout 41 countries
and had about 21,300 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Texas Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
like Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation,
which applies to future claims and pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value of the
predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's
assets.

In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a
grant of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state
constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork
& Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by
the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court.

A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis
County, Tex., (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third
District, at Austin, Tex., has been reversed on appeal on state
constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the
statute.

Although the Company said it believes that the Texas legislation
is constitutional, there can be no assurance that the
legislation will be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells packaging products for consumer goods.
Products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company operated 139 plants
along with sales and service facilities throughout 41 countries
and had about 21,300 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions Ongoing v. Crown Cork in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate
merger to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation
limits the successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired
company's asset value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company’s adjusted asset value.

In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to
retroactive application. On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed, due to the plaintiff's lack of standing,
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases
against Crown Cork raising federal and state constitutional
challenges to the amended statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton,
Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA 2006).

This decision remains subject to appeal to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells packaging products for consumer goods.
Products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company operated 139 plants
along with sales and service facilities throughout 41 countries
and had about 21,300 employees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Boshko Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff
Monte J. Boshko's motion for summary judgment in a case
involving asbestos filed against Bently Nevada, LLC, General
Electric Company and Jeffrey M. Gordon.

The case is styled Monte J. Boshko, Plaintiff v. Bently Nevada,
LLC, General Electric Company, Jeffrey M. Gordon, John Does 1-10
(said names being fictitious) and ABC Companies 1-10 (said names
being fictitious), Defendants.

District Judge Joel A. Pisano entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 07-4624 (JAP) on Jan. 28, 2009.

Mr. Boshko was employed by GE and Bently Nevada, a subsidiary of
GE, for 19 years, collectively. As a field based project
manager, his job included supervising contractors, managing the
financial reporting for projects, and maintaining contacts with
customers.

From 2002 through 2007, Mr. Boshko developed a pattern of
erratic work performance. He would perform poorly and then
improve after he was threatened with termination. During the
2006, his performance began to deteriorate once again. On
multiple occasions throughout the year, Mr. Gordon admonished
Mr. Boshko for failing to perform his basic job
responsibilities.

Mr. Boshko was assigned to act as the site project manager for a
project at Florida Power & Light's Wyman Station Facility in
Maine. While he was in charge of the overall project, GE field
engineer, Tracy Tuttle, was responsible for ensuring that Mr.
Boshko's had access to the machine and the necessary parts. Mr.
Tuttle's team disassembled and moved pieces of the machine to
assist Plaintiff in completing the upgrade. When Mr. Boshko was
finished, Mr. Tuttle's team reassembled the generator.

There were asbestos warnings prominently displayed on the
generator in many locations. Additionally, FP & L warned that
the underside of the lagging surrounding the generator had
material containing asbestos sprayed on its surface. On April 2,
2007, Mr. Boshko underwent mandatory safety training and was
instructed to report any incident involving "presumed asbestos
containing material" to John Downing or Todd Bayreuther,
employees of FP & L.

On April 5, 2007, millwrights, acting under Mr. Tuttle's
authority, disassembled the turbine generator's lagging and
performed additional maintenance. Mr. Boshko was not present
while the lagging was removed. The next day, Mr. Boshko observed
a millwright using a shop vacuum, without filters, to clean the
floor beneath the area where the lagging had been previously
located.

Mr. Boshko believed, based on his training and experience, that
the millwright was vacuuming pieces of asbestos insulation off
of the floor. He further believed that vacuuming material
containing asbestos would cause the asbestos to become friable
and expelled into the air.

Mr. Boshko understood that this conduct violated OSHA
regulations. He claimed that he informed Mr. Tuttle about the
incident and that Mr. Tuttle told him not to say anything. Mr.
Boshko, however, did not inform anyone from FP & L about the
possible asbestos exposure as required by FP & L safety
procedures. Additionally, he claimed that he informed Mr. Gordon
about the incident during a conference call on April 12, 2007.

Mr. Boshko was terminated from GE on July 13, 2007. He contended
that his poor performance was due to Defendants failure to
accommodate his alcohol related disability and/or he was
terminated because they retaliated against him after he reported
the asbestos exposure incident.

On Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Boshko filed an eight count complaint
against Defendants. On Aug. 1, 2008, Mr. Boshko moved for
partial summary judgment. Defendants opposed Mr. Boshko's motion
and asserted a cross motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of all claims.

Ronald A. Berutti, Esq., and George A. Champion, Esq., of Weiner
Lesniak LLP in Parsippany, N.J., represented Monte J. Boshko.

Sean P. Lynch, Esq., and Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq., of Morgan,
Lewis & Brockius LLP in Princeton, N.J., represented Bently
Nevada LLC, General Electric Company and Jeffrey M. Gordon.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northeast Utilities Has $22.6M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast Utilities' consolidated asbestos asset retirement
obligation liabilities were US$22.6 million at Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$21.3 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's consolidated asbestos ARO asset was US$2.7 million
at both Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

The Connecticut Light and Power Company's asbestos ARO
liabilities were US$12.6 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$11.8 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

CL&P's asbestos ARO asset was US$1.6 million at both Dec. 31,
2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire's asbestos ARO
liabilities were US$8.3 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$7.7 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

PSNH's asbestos ARO asset was US$900,000 at both Dec. 31, 2008
and Dec. 31, 2007.

Western Massachusetts Electric Company's asbestos ARO
liabilities were US$1.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$1.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

WMECO's asbestos ARO asset was US$200,000 at both Dec. 31, 2008
and Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Berlin, Conn., Northeast Utilities is a public
utility holding company. The Company is engaged primarily in the
energy delivery business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Constellation, BGE Face 513 Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and subsidiary Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company face 513 asbestos-related claims, according
to the Company's annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

About 513 individuals who were never employees of BGE or the
Company have pending claims each seeking several million dollars
in compensatory and punitive damages.

Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims that have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a minority has
been resolved for immaterial amounts.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is
an energy company that includes a merchant energy business and
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, a regulated electric and gas
public utility in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $360.7M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s asbestos-related gross unpaid and
loss adjustment expenses were US$360.7 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$339.3 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid losses and LAE were
US$346,267,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2008, compared with US$269,959,000 for the nine and three months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid and LAE expenses were
US$230.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$222.4 million.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid losses and LAE were
US$216,125,000 for the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2008, compared with US$170,270,000 for the nine and three months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

Included in the Company's reserves are amounts related to
asbestos-related illnesses and environmental impairment, which,
net of related reinsurance recoverables, totaled US$260.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and US$256.9 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$41
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 and US$63 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2008 is eight years. The
underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related liabilities is
eight years and for environmental-related liabilities is five
years.

The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec.
31, 2008 was 1,672, amounting to US$204.8 million in gross case
losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims
accounted for 11.6 percent of the gross case reserves, with an
average reserve of US$2.4 million. The number of asbestos
claims, with case reserves, as of Dec. 31, 2007 was 1,554,
amounting to US$216.8 million in gross case losses and LAE
reserves. The largest 10 reported claims accounted for 14.9
percent of the gross case reserves, with an average reserve of
US$3.2 million.

Gross case reserves decreased in 2008, as newly reported claims
and additional reported reserves on existing claims were less
than claim payments in the year. The asbestos open claim count
increased by 118, or 7.6 percent, during calendar year 2008.

Based on an aggregation of claims by insured, the Company's 10
largest insured involvements accounted for 36.9 percent of its
gross case reserves as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 42.3
percent as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Net losses and LAE for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 for asbestos
claims were increased by US$41 million, principally attributable
to loss emergence greater than expectations during the period.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is
an underwriter of reinsurance. The Company offers both treaty
and facultative reinsurance to property and casualty insurers
and reinsurers. It also writes insurance business through its
offices throughout the United States and in London.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Facing 105 Lawsuits in Miss., Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is facing 105 lawsuits in
different jurisdictions, with the greatest number filed in
Mississippi and California state courts, alleging injury or
death as a result of exposure to asbestos.

The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of
defendants and do not identify any particular Watts products as
a source of asbestos exposure. To date, the Company has obtained
a dismissal in every case before it has reached trial because
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure
to any Watts products.

The Company faced 100 cases filed primarily, but not
exclusively, in Mississippi and New Jersey state courts alleging
injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class
Action Reporter, March 14, 2008)

Headquartered in North Andover, Mass., Watts Water Technologies,
Inc. manufactures valves used to maintain the quality,
conservation, and control of water in residential, commercial,
industrial, and municipal settings. The Company also makes
backflow preventers, drainage products, filtration systems, and
water pressure regulators.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Inc. Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is still subject to a number of lawsuits initiated
by a significant number of claimants alleging health problems as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries.

Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.
A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with
the number of each in some cases exceeding 200 defendants from a
variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

During 2008, voluntary dismissals were initiated on behalf of
635 plaintiffs and are in process. The Company was dismissed
from an additional 74 cases.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. produces
automotive emission control and ride control products and
systems. The Company serves both original equipment vehicle
manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chiquita Has 6 Pending Cases in State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. faces six asbestos-related
cases in various stages of activity in state court, according to
the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Over the last 22 years, a number of claims have been filed
against the Company on behalf of merchant seamen or their
personal representatives alleging injury or illness from
exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned
ships at various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s.
The claims are based on allegations of negligence and
unseaworthiness.

In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants,
including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing
asbestos, as well as other ship owners. Over the past 10 years,
25 state court cases have been settled and 40 state court cases
have been resolved without any payment.

In addition to the state court cases, there are about 5,310
federal court cases that are currently inactive (MARDOC cases).
The MARDOC cases are managed under the supervision of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Federal
Court).

In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all then-
pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to provide
evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to asbestos.
Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against
the Company have also been administratively dismissed.

The MARDOC cases are subject to reinstatement by the Federal
Court upon a showing of some evidence of asbestos-related
disease, exposure to asbestos and service on the Company's
ships. While seven MARDOC cases have been reinstated against the
Company, one of the cases has been dismissed and there has been
little activity in the remaining six reinstated cases to date.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Chiquita Brands
International, Inc. markets and distributes bananas and other
fresh produce sold under the Chiquita and other brand names in
more than 90 countries and of packaged salads sold under the
Fresh Express and other brand names primarily in the United
States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Tool Still Facing Welding Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Tool Works Inc. and its subsidiaries, Hobart Brothers
Company and Miller Electric Mfg. Co., still face lawsuits
alleging injury from exposure to welding consumables, according
to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The plaintiffs in these suits claim unspecified damages for
injuries resulting from the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to
asbestos, manganese and toxic fumes in connection with the
welding process.

Headquartered in Glenview, Ill., Illinois Tool Works Inc. is a
multinational manufacturer of a diversified range of industrial
products and equipment with 875 operations in 54 countries.
These 875 businesses are internally reported as 60 operating
segments to senior management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.W. Grainger, Inc. Facing 2,200 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., as of Feb. 3, 2009, is named in cases filed
on behalf of about 2,200 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and silica, according to the
Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Jan. 14, 2008, the Company was named in cases filed on
behalf of about 2,800 plaintiffs in which there was an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and silica. (Class Action
Reporter, March 7, 2008)

The Company has been named, along with numerous other
nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos. These lawsuits typically assert
claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to
asbestos as a consequence of products purportedly distributed by
the Company.

In 2008, lawsuits relating to asbestos and silica and involving
about 660 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company,
typically based on the lack of product identification.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., W.W. Grainger, Inc.
distributes facilities maintenance products and provides
services and related information used by businesses and
institutions primarily in the United States, Canada and Mexico
to keep their facilities and equipment running.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $10.3MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos reserves, net of
insurance and excluding pools, was US$10.3 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$11.3 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for all direct
business written by the Company's property and casualty
companies related to asbestos, environmental damage and toxic
tort liability, included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were
US$18.5 million in 2008, US$19.4 million in 2007 and US$24.7
million in 2006, net of reinsurance of US$13.9 million in 2008,
US$11.1 million in 2007 and US$13.8 million in 2006.

The Company's A&E-related gross reserves for loss and LAE
expenses were US$20 million at Sept. 30, 2008. The Company's A&E
net reserves for loss and LAE were US$13.4 million at Sept. 30,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008)

A&E reserves decreased by US$900,000, during 2008, primarily due
to a favorable cash recovery from a reinsurer on a prior year
environmental claim. During 2007, the Company reduced its A&E
reserves by US$4.5 million.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of US$58.4 million
in 2008, US$56.9 million in 2007 and US$57 million in 2006.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, it continues to be
subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
(ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.
The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years.

The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10
years.

Headquartered in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc.'s primary business operations include insurance products
and services in three property and casualty operating segments.
These segments are Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Other
Property and Casualty.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $20.3M for A&E Coverages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's reserve for unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expense includes US$20.3 million of net reserves at
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's reserve for unpaid losses and LAE includes US$20.4
million of gross reserves at Dec. 31, 2008.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance of certain general liability and commercial multiple
peril coverages assumed by Capitol Indemnity Corporation between
1969 and 1976.

Capitol Indemnity exited this business in 1976.

Headquartered in New York, Alleghany Corporation engages in the
property and casualty and surety insurance business. The Company
also owns about 33 percent stake in Homesite Group Incorporated,
a national, full-service, mono-line provider of homeowners
insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: M&F Worldwide Incurs No Material Amounts
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of Dec. 31, 2008, has not incurred and
does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-
related claims not subject certain arrangements (Remaining
Claims).

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC. Substantially all of these
contingent claims are the financial responsibility of third
parties and include various environmental and asbestos-related
claims. As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and
does not expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts
related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses,
all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988
sale, those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-
containing friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many
as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various
personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure
to asbestos. Under indemnification agreements, the Original
Indemnitor has ultimate responsibility for all the remaining
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through
August 1998 and for certain asbestos-related claims asserted
thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement
(Transfer Agreement).

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not
transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement,
all of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related
claims are managed and paid by others.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp.'s Harland Clarke business
makes checks and related products, forms, treasury supplies and
related delivery and fraud-prevention services. Harland
Financial Solutions provides lending and mortgage origination
and servicing applications, business intelligence solutions, and
customer management software for community banks and credit
unions. Mafco Worldwide makes licorice extract, used for
flavoring candy and tobacco products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PartnerRe Has $82.5M A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd.'s net reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses
at Dec. 31, 2008 included US$82.5 million that represents
estimates of its net ultimate liability for asbestos and
environmental claims.

The Company's net reserve for unpaid losses and loss expenses at
Dec. 31, 2007 included US$87.7 million that represents estimates
of its net ultimate liability for A&E claims.

The gross liability for those claims at Dec. 31, 2008 was
US$92.2 million, of which US$85.6 million relate to U.S.
casualty exposures arising from business written by PartnerRe SA
and PartnerRe U.S.

The gross liability for those claims at Dec. 31, 2007 was
US$97.8 million, of which US$89.1 million relate to U.S.
casualty exposures arising from business written by PartnerRe SA
and PartnerRe U.S.

Headquartered in Pembroke, Bermuda, PartnerRe Ltd. is an
international reinsurance group that provides reinsurance
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Partner Reinsurance
Company Ltd., Partner Reinsurance Europe Limited and Partner
Reinsurance Company of the U.S. The Company also offers
alternative risk products that include weather and credit
protection to financial, industrial and service companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris Lawsuit Filed v. 44 Firms on Feb. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Julia Harris vs. A.W.
Chesterton et al. was filed on Feb. 26, 2009 in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The plaintiff, on behalf of her deceased husband's estate, is
suing 44 makers/distributors/users of asbestos products for
allegedly conspiring to inflict her husband with an asbestos-
related illness.

The plaintiff is seeking punitive and exemplary damages, plus
damages for Anthony Harris' mental anguish, lost wages, medical
expenses and impairment.

Lou Thompson Black, Esq., represents Mrs. Harris.

Judge Bob Wortham will preside over Case No. A183-387.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Lawsuits Filed in Madison on Feb. 23–27
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 23, 2009 through Feb. 27, 2009, 25 new
asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-0174) Jean Angell of Tennessee, a
   knitter, clerical worker, teacher and receptionist,
   claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
   J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Ms. Angell.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0176) Wilma Frances Boswell of Missouri
   claims lung cancer. She claims she was exposed to
   asbestos fibers through her husband, who was a steel
   worker at Granite City Steel Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
   and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent
   Mrs. Boswell.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0168) Jeaneen Boyd of Arizona claims
   mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Jaward
   Boyd, Sr., who was as a communication systems worker,
   manager, supervisor of operations and planning,
   insurance agent, relief supervisor, engineer
   technician, engineer tech supporter, staff engineer and
   customer service representative. Christopher R. Guinn,
   Esq., and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Boyd.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0162) Frank Bury of Illinois, a drill
   operator, laborer and nail maker, claims lung cancer.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Bury.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0180) Dewey and Brenda Cardwell of New
   Mexico claim Mr. Cardwell developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a mechanic, truck driver, laborer and
   salesman. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq.,
   and Courtney Harashe, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent the Cardwells.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0163) Glenna Combs of Michigan, a
   laborer for Enamelum, an assembler at DeDoes, and a
   laborer at Hughes Manufacturing, claims mesothelioma.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Ms. Combs.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0186) John Esayian of Wisconsin, a pin
   setter, janitor's helper, laborer, drafter, cleaner and
   coroner, claims mesothelioma. Nicholas J. Angelides,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents
   Mr. Esayian.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0175) Frank Gallo of California, a
   laborer, assembly line worker, grocery store manager,
   car salesman and car lot owner, claims mesothelioma.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Gallo.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0187) John Gant of Texas, a laborer and
   carpenter at various locations in Illinois, Texas and
   Mississippi claims mesothelioma. John A. Barnerd, Esq.,
   and Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Gant.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0173) Kathryn George of Wisconsin, a
   nurse, nurse's assistant and mail sorter claims
   mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Ms. George.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0172) Phyllis Gray of Illinois claims
   colon cancer on behalf of her recently deceased
   husband, Billy W. Gray, who worked as a painter. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Gray.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0184) Jill Halter of Virginia claims
   mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased father,
   Edmund Milauckas, who worked from 1950 until 1995 as an
   engineer and consultant. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., and Drew
   Sealey, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mrs. Halter.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0179) Marjorie Horsley of Kentucky
   claims mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
   father, Donald Horsley, who worked as a maintenance
   worker, laborer, utility worker and owner of a grocery
   store at various locations. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and
   Paul M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
   Ill., represent Ms. Horsley.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0171) Mildred Jordan of Florida claims
   lung cancer on behalf of her recently deceased husband,
   Ernest Jordan, who worked as an electrician. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
   Jordan.

-- (Case No. 09-L0169) Margaret Machingo of Virginia
   claims mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
   father, Wayne Cupp, who worked as a machinist. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
   Machingo.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0159) Dixie McPherson of Virginia claims
   her recently deceased husband, Edward McPherson,
   developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
   McPherson.

-- (Case No. 09-L0161) George Mikkola of Massachusetts, a
   landscaper, computer system specialist and computer
   programmer, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq.,
   and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Mikkola.

-- (Case No. 09-L0183) Peter and Erma Nikkila of Missouri
   claim Mr. Nikkila developed mesothelioma after his work
   as a laborer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
   represent the Nikkilas.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0158) Tom J. O'Connor of Illinois claims
   his recently deceased father, John J. O'Connor,
   developed mesothelioma after his work as an engineer
   and general foreman. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
   J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Tom J. O'Connor.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0160) Genevieve Robinson of Washington
   claims her recently deceased husband, Alfred J.
   Robinson Jr., developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a roofer, riverter, carpenter, laborer, mechanic,
   machinist and engineer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton,
   Ill., represent Mrs. Robinson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0181) Terry and Kay Stephens of Michigan
   claim Mr. Stephens developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a fireman, boiler tender, laborer, boiler,
   turbine operator and maintenance man. John A. Barnerd,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents
   the Stephens couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0170) William Sternberger of Indiana
   claims mesothelioma on behalf of his recently deceased
   wife, Geraldine Sternberger, who worked as a dental
   assistant. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
   Mr. Sternberger.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0157) Frances Tinsley of Michigan, a
   postal worker, sterilizer, cleaning service worker,
   security guard and clerk, claims mesothelioma.
   Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., Christopher J. Levy, Esq.,
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., and John A. Barnerd, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms.
   Tinsley.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0177) Helen Wallace of Missouri claims
   lung cancer on behalf of her recently deceased husband,
   Dale Edwin Wallace, who worked at Ford Motor, Olin
   Glass and McDonnel Douglas. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
   and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent
   Mrs. Wallace.

-- (Case No. 09-L-0185) Therese Brown-Wright of Indiana
   claims mesothelioma on behalf of her recently deceased
   husband, Larry Wright, who worked as a brakeman and
   laborer. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Brown-Wright.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial to March 9 W.R. Grace Suit Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A juror's illness delayed the trial to an asbestos-related case
involving W. R. Grace & Co. that was scheduled on March 9, 2009,
The Associated Press reports.

With the jury absent, defense lawyers sought to exclude the
expert testimony of another government witness.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy excused jurors for the morning
to determine if an alternate juror would need to be selected.
However, he told lawyers to meet back in the courtroom after
lunch, the Missoulian newspaper reported on its Web site.

Grace and five individual defendants filed a motion on March 8,
2009 to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Aubrey Miller, an
investigator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a
key witness for the prosecution.

The defense was successful earlier in limiting the testimony of
another key witness, Paul Peronard, who served as the EPA's
onsite coordinator in Libby after the town's asbestos
contamination came to light a decade ago.

Grace's lawyers said Dr. Miller, as with Mr. Peronard, should
not be allowed to discuss issues of public endangerment because
"it does not fit the legal issue that the Government hopes to
prove through its introduction at trial" -- that the defendants
placed others in imminent danger by causing releases of asbestos
into the air after Nov. 3, 1999, the Missoulian reported.

Grace and five of its one-time officials are charged with a
federal conspiracy involving Clean Air Act violations and
obstruction of justice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. to Release Midtown Plaza Cleanup Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Governor David A. Paterson, on March 9, 2009, announced that New
York State would make funds available for asbestos abatement at
Midtown Plaza in Rochester, N.Y., and added that the State will
seek contractor bids for work to be financed by the State's
US$55 million commitment, Media Newswire Reports.

Governor Paterson said, "Ridding Midtown Plaza of asbestos is an
essential step toward realizing the potential of Midtown Rising,
a project that will help transform downtown Rochester. The
commencement of the asbestos removal clears a major hurdle
standing in the way of the City's renewal.

"This area will be transformed into an urban mixed-use
development and include the national headquarters for PAETEC
Communications. I am committed to working with my partners in
government and the private sector to see this project through
and to see Rochester revitalized."

With the release of the funds, Empire State Development (ESD),
the State's chief economic development agency, will oversee
contracts for one of the largest abatement jobs in the history
of the region. Asbestos removal costs associated with the site
have been the single most significant barrier to private
investment and redevelopment of the city’s downtown core.

The Midtown Plaza complex contains about 1.5 million square feet
of building area, including four main buildings, a two-level
retail shopping mall (organized around the public atrium space),
a 1,820-space underground parking garage, and a series of
"Skyway" pedestrian bridges connecting the complex to adjoining
buildings. Midtown Plaza sits at the very center of downtown
Rochester.

Governor Paterson has been working closely with the City of
Rochester on the Midtown project with the goal of revitalizing
downtown. The site's deterioration over a number of years has
affected all of the property in downtown. Without the State
funding, the City will be left with 1.5 million square feet of
abandoned retail and office space that cannot be redeveloped
because of the asbestos contamination and other problems.

The asbestos project will take about 10-12 months, and at its
peak will create up to 200 jobs at working double shifts on the
site for six months.

Once the site is cleared, the State and City have committed to
deliver a portion of the site to one of the region's fast
growing companies, PAETEC Communications Inc., for the
development of its new national headquarters building by 2012.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RAF Worker Gets GBP200,000 in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unidentified Royal Air Force (RAF) worker was recently
awarded asbestos compensation of GBP200,000, Russell Jones &
Walker reports.

The man was diagnosed in the summer of 2007 with mesothelioma.
He had been exposed to asbestos while working as a laborer's
mate for one of the companies which subsequently became part of
Cape firm. His role involved mixing asbestos to insulate boiler
pipes.

The man said, "It was a hard job but it paid well. I was only
doing it for the summer before joining the RAF. I had no idea
that it would lead to me becoming ill so many years later."

The man said that he is glad the claim has been settled in his
lifetime.

Recently, the Mirror made a number of calls on the United
Kingdom government over asbestos-related disease sufferers. For
example, it said that those people who are unable to trace the
insurers of the bosses responsible for exposing them to asbestos
should receive "fair and equal" compensation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Droitwich Local's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Worcestershire, England, coroner Geraint Williams recorded an
open verdict after Wendy Stevens, of Droitwich Spa, England,
died as a result of asbestos exposure, the Worcester News
reports.

The 65-year-old Mrs. Stevens died on Oct. 31, 2008, at home in
Littleton Road, Droitwich, after suffering from a lung disease
caused by asbestos exposure. Her family recounted the time she
worked as a history teacher at Bromsgrove College, where major
construction work was being done to the building.

Mrs. Stevens' son Guy Stevens said, "They closed half the
building off and were doing the work during term time. I think
there was polythene on the doors."

However, Mr. Williams could not be sure the woman's lung disease
was caused by this particular exposure. He said at the inquest
on March 4, 2009, "I cannot say it is more likely than not to
have been ingested at work."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holmes Family Wins $2.6M in Case v. UNARCO
----------------------------------------------------------------
A McLean County, Ill. jury awarded US$2.6 million to the family
of Jean Holmes, who died of asbestos-related disease, the
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Mrs. Holmes, of Bloomington, Ill., died in 2006 at the age of
93, leaving behind two sons, Roger and John Holmes, who filed
the lawsuit. The Holmes' case lasted for three weeks before the
jury decided to rule in favor of the deceased woman.

According to court records, Mrs. Holmes developed mesothelioma
as a result of laundering her husband's clothing. Donald Holmes
was employed with Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (now known
as UNARCO) from 1962 to 1963, where he was exposed to asbestos.
Mr. Holmes transferred fibers to his home on his clothing,
resulting in Jean Holmes' secondhand exposure.

Lawyers for Mrs. Holmes argued that she was unaware of the
dangers of being exposed to asbestos and that neither she nor
her husband was warned by her husband's employer about the
serious health consequences associated with exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alpough's Action v. 31 Firms Filed in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus Alpough filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in the 60th
District Court in Dallas against 31 defendant corporations,
which he accuses are responsible for his contracting
mesothelioma, JusticeNewsFlash.com reports.

Mr. Alpough has previously sued all the named defendants
claiming they are responsible for his non-malignant asbestos
related disease because he was continuously exposed to asbestos
containing products while he worked as a laborer, welder and
supervisor.

Mr. Alpough's lawyer filed the supplementary lawsuit in District
Court citing a 2000 Texas Supreme Court decision. The high court
ruled a plaintiff can file an additional lawsuit for asbestos
related cancers if their asbestos related illnesses later become
cancerous.

The suit claims the companies failed to warn Mr. Alpough and
their employees of the hazards of asbestos exposure. The
companies provided laborers with inferior protective respirator
masks which contributed to Mr. Alpough's now fatal health
problems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Seeks Protection in North Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., which has not done business in
North Dakota since 1997, is calling for legislators to enact a
law to protect them from asbestos liability since they are an
"innocent" corporation, GrandForksHerald.com reports.

Several other states have passed similar laws at the request of
Crown Cork. However, a Grand Forks, N.D., lawyer who has spent
decades representing asbestos-related claimants called House
Bill 1430 unconstitutional and a "Trojan horse."

David C. Thompson and other opponents and supporters of the bill
testified at a two-hour hearing on March 4, 2009 hosted jointly
by the Senate Industry, Business and Labor Committee and the
Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Thompson introduced a former construction worker, Ray Ehrens
of Mandan, who was diagnosed a year ago with mesothelioma. The
bill passed the House on a 53-41 vote on Feb. 11, 2009.

The Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce supports the bill,
backing Crown Cork's contention that it has unfairly been made
to pay out more than US$600 million in asbestos-related expenses
since the 1960s because it merged with another company in 1963
that had once made asbestos products.

Company representatives said Crown Cork owned a dormant asbestos
division of Mundet Cork Co. for three months and said Crown Cork
never made asbestos in the three months it owned the division.

Michael Rowley, Crown's assistant secretary and assistant
general counsel, said, "At the time, they (Crown) didn't realize
there was any asbestos liability."

A lobbyist representing both Crown and the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), testified, saying ALEC and the Council
of State Governments have backed model legislation in the states
similar to HB 1430.

The lobbyist, Mark Behrens, said the bill is an issue of
fundamental fairness and the company has been "brought to the
brink of bankruptcy" by asbestos claims.

Other opponents testifying included the North Dakota AFL-CIO
president, Dave Kemnitz, who said he has asbestos scarring in
his lungs from his years working as an electrician and said
workers were no adequately warned about asbestos in the 1960s
and 1970s.

Al Austad, representing North Dakota trial lawyers, said the
bill will unfairly cause North Dakotans, including school
districts whose buildings contain asbestos, to bear costs that
Crown should bear.

Mr. Austad said the dangers of asbestos were known among
manufacturers as long ago as 1949 and Crown "knew or should have
known" when it bought Mundet in 1963 that it was taking on the
asbestos liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSI Suits v. Radiologists Ongoing in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Service Industries' lawsuits against two radiologists
(in Lexington, Miss., state court filed on Feb. 9, 2009) and
three others (in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Miss., filed on
Feb. 12, 2009) are ongoing.

In the state complaint, Marcy Croft of Jackson reserved 20 John
Doe docket spaces for law firm defendants, and in her federal
suit she listed that many targets and more. She chose Michael
Fitzgerald, Esq., of Virginia as first target, naming him as a
defendant in the federal suit.

The state suit alleges that N&M Inc. ran a racket that
manufactured asbestos claims, and the federal suit alleges a
racket at Respiratory Testing Services.

The federal suit claims NSI lost US$80 million to the
Respiratory Testing Services racket.

The state suit connects N&M to radiologists Ray Harron and son
Andrew Harron.

The federal suit connects Respiratory Testing Services to
radiologists Ray Segarra, James Ballard and Phillip Lucas.

In February 2009 at federal court at Wheeling, W.Va., District
Judge Frederick Stamp denied a motion to dismiss Ray Harron from
a lawsuit over asbestos suits.

In that case CSX Transportation seeks damages from the
Pittsburgh firm of Peirce, Raimond and Coulter, and from Ray
Harron.

CSX moved on March 3, 2009 to compel Ray Harron to produce
records of his X-ray income.

CSX counsel David Bolen, Esq., of Huddleston Bolen in
Huntington, W.Va., wrote, "Such compensation would be admissible
at trial to demonstrate Harron's motive to continue receiving
income from the lawyer defendants and other law firms."

The motion seeks W-2 income slips of Ray Harron's employees. Mr.
Bolen wrote that employees could testify about Ray Harron's
misconduct.

The motion seeks invoices from Ray Harron to Peirce.

Magistrate James Seibert set a March 18, 2009 hearing on the
motion.

Ray Harron also faces a parallel suit in Pittsburgh, where
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty denies responsibility for Peirce's
defense or potential judgment against him at Wheeling.
Lumbermens Mutual argues that its policy did not cover
racketeering.

Ray Harron moved in January 2009 to dismiss the insurer's claim
against him.

Lumbermens lawyer Louis Long, Esq., of Pittsburgh answered in
February 2009 that depending on the outcome at Wheeling, Ray
Harron could assert a claim against Lumbermens Mutual.

Pressure on Mr. Segarra increased on Feb. 24, when a federal
judge responsible for about 90,000 asbestos suits stripped him
of physician patient privilege.

District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia ordered Mr.
Segarra and radiologists Laxminaraya and Richard Bernstein to
answer defense subpoenas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $401.1M in Losses & ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holding Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos and environmental exposures
were US$401.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$442.8 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007,
according to the Company's 2008 annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos exposures
were US$312,140,000 for the three and nine months ended Sept.
30, 2008, compared with US$326,686,000 for the three and nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 14,
2008)

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for A&E exposures
were US$523.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$580.1 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos
exposures were US$395,628,000 for the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$410,184,000 for the three
and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 14, 2008)

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 71 asbestos claims opened
during the year, 135 claims closed during the year, and 337
policyholders open at the end of the year.

At Dec. 31, 2007, the Company had 48 asbestos claims opened
during the year, 47 claims closed during the year, and 401
policyholders open at the end of the year.

Gross asbestos reserves were US$387.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008,
and $428.1 million at Dec. 31, 2007. Asbestos reserves, net of
reinsurance, were US$301.9 million, at Dec. 31, 2008 and
US$333.6 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.
is a national commercial property and casualty insurance
company. The Company writes commercial coverage including
workers' compensation, general liability, commercial automobile,
property, commercial multi-peril, accident and health and other
lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Increases Reserves by $36.2M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s total latent reserves (including
asbestos) were increased by US$36.2 million in 2008, US$54.5
million in 2007, and US$33.9 million in 2006.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008, the Company
increased its asbestos reserves by US$25.5 million. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

In 2008, the increase was primarily due to the settlement of an
asbestos-related lawsuit.

In 2007, US$24.3 million of the increase was in asbestos
reserves, US$22.2 million was in environmental reserves and US$8
million was in other latent reserves. The strengthening of
asbestos reserves was partly due to developments related to one
asbestos policyholder.

In 2006, the increase in total latent reserves was primarily due
to developments related to one asbestos policyholder.

Headquartered in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.
is a national commercial property and casualty insurance
company. The Company writes commercial coverage including
workers' compensation, general liability, commercial automobile,
property, commercial multi-peril, accident and health and other
lines of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Duke Energy Cites $1.03B Carolinas Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled about US$1.031 billion
as of Dec. 31, 2008 and US$1.082 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The amounts are classified in Other within Deferred Credits and
Other Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities.

The Company recognized US$1.044 billion in asbestos-related
reserves for its Duke Energy Carolinas as of Sept. 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008)

The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC on its
electric generation plants prior to 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention
of US$476 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the
self insurance retention on its insurance policy during the
second quarter of 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit
will be reimbursed by the Company's third party insurance
carrier.

The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance
recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments
is US$1.099 billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of about US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008 and US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007 related to this
policy are classified in the Consolidated Balance Sheets in
Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also
been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation has
3.9 million electricity customers and about 500,000 gas
customers in the U.S. South and Midwest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Suits Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power &
Light Company, faced 114 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of
both Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007.

IPL faced about 113 pending asbestos-related lawsuits as of
Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008)

The suits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming from
exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly
located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a "premises
defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or
install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked
for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims.
Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

IPL has settled a number of asbestos related lawsuits for
amounts which, individually and in the aggregate, were not
material to IPL's results of operations, financial condition, or
cash flows. Historically, settlements paid on IPL's behalf have
been comprised of proceeds from one or more insurers along with
comparatively smaller contributions by IPL.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s
principal subsidiary is Indianapolis Power & Light Company, a
regulated electric utility with its customer base concentrated
in Indianapolis. The Company's business consists of the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric
energy conducted through IPL.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NiSource Cites $5.4M for Settlements in '08
----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc.'s subsidiary, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, performed retirement activities associated with a
landfill and asbestos removal resulting in settlements of US$5.4
million for 2008.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's 2008 annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


COMPANY PROFILE:
NiSource Inc.
801 East 86th Avenue       
Merrillville, Ind.
46410
Tel. No.: (877) 647-5990

Description:
The Company's subsidiaries provide natural gas, electricity and
other products and services to about 3.8 million customers
located within a corridor that runs from the Gulf Coast through
the Midwest to New England.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Grace's Case Continued on March 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed against W. R.
Grace & Co. and five of its former officials continued on March
10, 2009, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

It took Judge Donald Molloy 14 words to respond to Grace lawyers
who wanted to prevent a crucial government witness from
testifying. Judge Molloy wrote, "Defendant's joint motion to
exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Aubrey Miller is denied."

Dr. Miller explained to the jury precisely how he reached the
conclusion that Libby, Mont., was contaminated with asbestos
fibers from the vermiculite in Grace's closed mine.

This, Dr. Miller concluded, presents an imminent health hazard
that could lead to continued disease and death in the small town
in the state's mountainous northwest corner.

Lead prosecutor Kris McLean doled the questions out. Dr. Miller,
who was assigned as medical officer for the Environmental
Protection Agency in the team first sent to Libby, cited study
after study that showed the asbestos that contaminated the town
was different, more toxic, more friable or more easily disturbed
than other types of asbestos fibers.

Dr. Miller, who is now medical adviser for bioterrorism to the
commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, referred to
Grace correspondence from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that showed
the Company and some of the very same officials on trial were
told of the dangers of the asbestos tainting their vermiculite.

Dr. Miller read portions of other studies from the Company's own
scientists and other more recent work that reported that
dangerously high concentrations of lethal fibers were easily
released.

Grace lawyers charged that Mr. McLean was using Dr. Miller to
get into evidence documents and exhibits disallowed when On-
Scene Coordinator Paul Peronard and pulmonologist Alan
Whitehouse, the lung specialist who treated many of Libby's
residents, testified.

David Krakoff, the lawyer for Grace medical director Henry
Eschenbach, charged that the government was using Dr. Miller's
testimony as a "drive-through of the entire fraud case through
this one witness."

David Bernick, Esq., Grace's top lawyer, asked Judge Molloy,
"How in the world are we going cross-examine this witness? We'll
be up all night figuring that out."

Dr. Miller said he concluded that there was -- and is -- an
imminent health hazard that could lead to continued disease and
death in and near Libby.

Mr. Krakoff renewed his complaints about Dr. Miller's testimony
and asked the judge to restrict what the jury can consider.
Judge Molloy told him to make a motion and he would consider it.

An identical motion was filed by the defense on March 10, 2009,
asking Judge Molloy to strike all the testimony given by Dr.
Whitehouse.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to face asbestos personal injury
lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an
injury for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused
the injury underlying the lawsuits.

Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products
were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for
asbestos lawsuits. The Company also said it believes some of the
potential liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by
indemnity agreements with other parties.

The Company's uninsured settlement payments for past asbestos
lawsuits have not been material.

Headquartered in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells compressor products. The Company also
makes vacuum and fluid transfer products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNH Global, Units Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNH Global N.V. and its subsidiaries are party to various legal
proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including
asbestos-related matters.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 3, 2009.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, CNH Global N.V.
makes agricultural equipment and construction equipment. Its
farm equipment includes tractors, harvesters, sprayers, and hay
balers. The Company also makes light-industrial and construction
equipment including backhoes, excavators, forklifts, wheel
loaders, and telescopic handlers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. continues to be a defendant in numerous
multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third
parties, and integrated into or sold with a very limited number
of the Company's products.

The Company is defending itself against these claims. In these
suits, no claimant has demonstrated exposure to products
manufactured or sold by the Company and that a number of cases
have been voluntarily dismissed.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and
markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and
control technologies serving markets worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Western Auto Facing Injury, Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s Western Auto subsidiary has been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 4, 2009.

The Company and some of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in many of these lawsuits.

The plaintiffs have alleged that these products were
manufactured, distributed and sold by the various defendants. To
date, these products have included brake and clutch parts and
roofing materials. Many of the cases pending against the Company
or its subsidiaries are in the early stages of litigation.

The damages claimed against the defendants in some of these
proceedings are substantial. Additionally, some of the
automotive parts manufacturers named as defendants in these
lawsuits have declared bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs'
ability to recover monetary damages from those defendants.

The Company may enter into discussions regarding settlement of
these and other lawsuits, and may enter into settlement
agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interests
of the Company's shareholders. The Company said it believes that
most of these claims are at least partially covered by
insurance.

Headquartered in Roanoke, Va., Advance Auto Parts, Inc. operates
within the United States automotive aftermarket industry, which
includes replacement parts (excluding tires), accessories,
maintenance items, batteries and automotive chemicals for cars
and light trucks (pickup trucks, vans, minivans and sport
utility vehicles).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Motors Records $648Mil Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's liability recorded for asbestos-
related matters was US$648 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$637
million at Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 5, 2009.

The Company's asbestos-related liability was US$660 million at
Sept. 30, 2008 and US$531 million at Sept. 30, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The reserve balance between Sept. 30, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007
increased primarily as a result of a US$349 million increase in
the reserve for probable pending and future asbestos claims,
which was partially offset by a reduction in the reserve for
existing claims of US$251 million resulting from fewer claims
and lower expenses than previously estimated.

Headquartered in Detroit, General Motors Corporation develops,
manufactures, and markets vehicles worldwide through its four
automotive segments: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin
America/Africa/Mid-East, and GM Asia Pacific.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gorman-Rupp, 2 Units Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gorman-Rupp Company and two of its subsidiaries continue to
be involved in asbestos-related litigation.

Numerous business entities in the pump and fluid handling
industries, as well as a multitude of companies in many other
industries, continue to be targeted in a series of lawsuits in
several jurisdictions by various individuals seeking redress to
claimed injury as a result of the entities' alleged use of
asbestos in their products.

Most of these cases are against Patterson Pump Company. The
allegations in the lawsuits involving the Company and its
subsidiaries are vague, general and speculative, and most cases
have not advanced beyond the early stage of discovery.

In certain situations, the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
the Company and its subsidiaries from some of the lawsuits after
the plaintiffs have acknowledged that there is no basis for
their claims. In other situations, the Company and its
subsidiaries have been dismissed from some of the lawsuits as a
result of court rulings in favor of motions to dismiss and
motions for summary judgment.

In 25 cases, the Company and its subsidiaries have entered into
nominal economic settlements recommended and paid for by
insurers, coupled with dismissal of the lawsuits.

Insurers of the Company have engaged legal counsel to represent
the Company and its subsidiaries and to protect their interests.

Headquartered in Mansfield, Ohio, The Gorman-Rupp Company
designs, manufactures and sells pumps and related equipment
(pump and motor controls) for use in water, wastewater,
construction, industrial, petroleum, original equipment,
agriculture, fire protection, heating, ventilating and air
conditioning (HVAC), military and other liquid-handling
applications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits Still Pending v. Inactive Quaker Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation continues
to be a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5,
2009.

The Company acquired the subsidiary, which sold certain products
containing asbestos, in 1978. The subsidiary discontinued
operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the
proceeds from insurance settlements received.

To date, most of these claims have been disposed of without
payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the
subsidiary. It is currently projected that the subsidiary's
total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is about
US$12.2 million (excluding costs of defense).

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has
challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being
brought against the subsidiary.

In response to this challenge, two of the three carriers entered
into separate settlement and release agreements with the
subsidiary in late 2005 for US$15 million and in the first
quarter of 2007 for US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007, and the second of
which was received in the first quarter of 2008.

The subsequent installments are contingent upon whether or not
Federal asbestos legislation is adopted by the due date of each
annual installment.

During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and the
remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27 percent of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on
behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily
injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may
choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding
the application of the policy limits.

The Company also said it believes, that if the coverage issues
under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers.

Headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation
develops, produces, and markets formulated chemical specialty
products for various heavy industrial and manufacturing
applications. The Company offers and markets chemical management
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrues $23.76M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was
US$23,758,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$22,651,000
as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6,
2009.

Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor
Products, Inc. manufactures engine management and air-
conditioning replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket.
Products include ignition and electrical parts, emission and
engine controls, voltage regulators, sensors, ignition wires,
and distributor caps and rotors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 122 Lawsuits Pending v. IntriCon at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is still a defendant in about 122 asbestos
lawsuits as of both Dec. 31, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2007, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 10, 2009.

These suits allege plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued Heat
Technologies segment which was sold in March 2005.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970-1973, have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a defense
under those policies.

The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this
situation.

The Company still faced 122 asbestos-related lawsuits as of
Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

Headquartered in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation
designs, develops, engineers and manufacturing body-worn devices
and electronic products. Products include micro-miniature
injection-molded plastics, microelectronics, micro-mechanical
assemblies and complete assemblies, primarily for bio-telemetry
devices, medical equipment, hearing instruments, electronics,
professional audio and telecommunications devices and computers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 55 Cases Pending v. Tenaris Unit at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris, S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of Dec. 31, 2008,
faced 55 pending asbestos claims, of which none are covered by
insurance, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Total asbestos claims pending against Dalmine were 61 claims (of
which one was covered by insurance), as of Sept. 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

Dalmine is currently subject to 16 civil proceedings for work-
related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its
manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In
addition, another 39 asbestos related out-of-court claims have
been forwarded to Dalmine.

During 2008, nine new claims were filed, four claims were
adjudicated, out of which four were paid, no claim was dismissed
and six claims were settled. Aggregate settlement costs to date
for the Company are EUR6.9 million (US$9.6 million).

Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims not yet settled is about EUR17 million (US$23.7
million).

Headquartered in Luxembourg, Tenaris, S.A. was incorporated on
Dec. 17, 2001, as a holding company in steel pipe manufacturing
and distributing operations. The Company holds, either directly
or indirectly, controlling interests in various subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Units Facing Miss. Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to be defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed by several hundred
persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named
defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended
complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in
filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship
with subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant.

Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none of the
plaintiff complaints naming the Company are included in the
first 60 (Group I). The initial discovery of Group I resulted in
certain dismissals with prejudice, two dismissals without
prejudice and two withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs
remaining in Group I.

Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21, 2008.

Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in one
suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a company
Parker Drilling acquired in 1996.

No amounts were accrued at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides
contract drilling and drilling-related services. Since beginning
operations in 1934, the Company has operated in 53 foreign
countries and the United States.


                            *********

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  * * *