CAR_Public/090327.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 61

                           Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Litigation in West Virginia State Court
BANK OF AMERICA: More Pension Funds Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
EMERSON POWER: Faces Suit in New York Over TCE Contamination
ERNST & YOUNG: Conn. Woman Files Suit Over $3.5B Ponzi Scheme
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Ernst & Young Settles Ala. Lawsuit for $109M

INDIANA: Eleven Refineries, Plants Sued for Harmful Emissions
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit in Canada Over Kids Cough Medicine
KEY ENERGY: "Gonzales" Labor Suit Remains Pending in California
KEY ENERGY: Settlement Paid to Expired Option Holders in Dec.
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: "Oubre" Attorneys Intervene in "Orrill" Case

MCKESSON CORP: RPWB Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Kans. Lawsuit
MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Denies Certification Bid in Vioxx Lawsuit
NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: June 18 Hearing Set for $15M Settlement
PPL CORP: Montana Power Shareholders' Lawsuit Remains Pending
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Tentative Settlement Reached in Paxil Case

TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal to Junked Suit Over DPPA Breach Pending
TORCHMARK CORP: Discrimination Suit v. Unit Closed on Jan. 22
TORCHMARK CORP: Robertson Appeal Dismissed by High Court in Dec.
TORCHMARK CORP: Vesta Securities Suit Settlement Okayed in Dec.
WELLPOINT INC: AMA Files Physicians' Litigation in California

WEST PUBLISHING: Settles Minn. Ex-Employees' Overtime Wages Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Murray Frank Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ING GROEP: Murray Frank Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing

INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Klafter Olsen Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grenier Lawsuit v. GM, Ford Motor Remanded
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Still Has 2 Third Party-Payor Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Have Asarco LLC Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Units Facing 67 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Cites $3.443B Gross Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims v. Roper Ind. Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Records $152MM for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL Still Records $2.6M in 2008 for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. XL Capital Drop to 1,546 in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 34,730 Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in JELD-WEN Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seltmann's Action v. Watts, Others Remanded
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viad, RFPC's Summary Judgment Bids Granted
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Reserves $143.3Mil for A&E at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northern States Has $13.84MM ARO at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Has $3.8Mil Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace's Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Party to Grace's Cases in Canada
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has Senn v. Hickey Case in N.J.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Lawsuit Launched on Feb. 6

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Has 180 Cases in Md. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Has $786.9M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Lorillard Filter Cases Set for Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Upholds Ruling in Vanderbilt Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Goodyear Summary Judgment

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dupuis Action v. Chevron Filed on March 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bestoff to Pay GBP3T for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Grace Worker Warned of Risks in 1976
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 44% of Japan Victims Get Payout, Study Says
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Density Noted in 1 of 5 Korean Sites

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Revives Ratliff Case v. Norfolk
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Enforces CAA Program Provisions in Ga.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy of Planet Toys Filed on March 18
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arrest Warrant Issued for DeLeon in Boston
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maltese Locals Seek Payout From U.S. Firms

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Passaic City Seeks More Info Before Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Firm Sued for Failing to Pay Penalty
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX, MeadWestvaco Summary Judgment Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in ConRail Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $1Mil for Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Apartments Incurs $105T Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $45.25M Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Against Entergy Drop to 500

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Co. Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $38Mil for Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ravenstahl Seeks $300T for Asbestos Matters
ASBESTOS ALERT: Mass. Company to Pay $18T for Cleanup Violations


                           *********

AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Litigation in West Virginia State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Charleston, WV (PRWEB) March 25, 2009 -- Attorney Harry
Bell, Jr., of Bell & Bands, PLLC (http://www.belllaw.com)in
Charleston, West Virginia, has filed a class action against
American International Group, Inc. (AIG) and its subsidiaries
currently pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, and
entitled, "Dougherty v. Cerra, et al., CA No. 08-C-2080,"
assigned to Judge Tod Kaufman.

     Attorney Bell said, "Considering AIG's financial state and
the astronomical federal bailout funds it received, its decision
to pay over $165,000,000 in bonuses to a select group of top
executives who are responsible for over $40 billion in losses is
absolutely insane, reckless and totally reprehensible."

     In regard to the West Virginia teachers' suit, Attorney
Bell said, "Over 14,000 teachers and school service personnel in
West Virginia are deeply interested in the debacle that is their
retirement accounts.  Their individual financial well-being was
and continues to be placed at risk due to highly-leveraged,
high-risk credit default swaps of collateralized debt
obligations by AIG.  That is bad enough, but the recent bonus
payments show a total disconnect from reality on the part of
AIG."

     Attorney Bell went on to point out some of the facts of the
situation.  He said, "Here you have AIG being a large part of
the problem for the credit financialmeltdown in the country over
the last year and a half, yet they have the audacity to believe
that their senior management is entitled to millions of dollars
in bonuses."

     Attorney Bell added, "Instead of offering to make good on
promises to ensure the retirement future of West Virginia
teachers and school service personnel, who we now know were
taken advantage of by AIG, because those promises were false, by
paying some of that unbelievably huge amount of bonus money to
those who are far more deserving, victims of a scam, AIG has
chosen to handsomely reward its own personnel for what the
entire country knows is a 'job undone.'"

     The claims against the West Virginia Consolidated Public
Employees Retirement Board are being defended by a policy of
insurance purchased through the West Virginia State Board of
Risk and administered and handled by AIG.  In this regard,
Attorney Bell said, "Does anyone find it terribly ironic that
AIG, which in large part caused this mess, nationally and
locally, is also providing a defense to the State of West
Virginia and the State Auditor who participated in this fiasco
regarding teachers' retirement funds? Rather than stepping
forward, either as a named individual entity or in providing the
insurance coverage for the Auditor and Retirement Board to
attempt to fix the situation, AIG is instead continuing to claim
it did nothing wrong in the way these retirement accounts have
been handled, while at the same time paying these exorbitant,
unearned bonuses with government bail-out money."

     Attorney Bell stated, "West Virginia teachers and school
service personnel get ripped off, AIG gets paid fees by the
State for providing a defense on behalf of the Auditor and the
Retirement Board, and it also pays thousands of dollars to
defend itself. Then it obtains government bailout funds and pays
out hundreds of millions to internal cronies.  I cannot wait to
see this case heard by a jury and have AIG executives from Wall
Street come to West Virginia to try to defend their actions."


BANK OF AMERICA: More Pension Funds Seek Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Another group of public pension funds are seeking lead plaintiff
status in a class-action lawsuit against Bank of America Corp.,
alleging that the bank failed to disclose material information
related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., The Canadian
Press reports.

The funds include the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio;
the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System; the Teacher
Retirement System of Texas; a fund represented by PGGM
Vermogensbeheer B.V., the Dutch national fund for the health
care and social sector; and one of the largest Swedish national
pension funds, according to The Canadian Press report.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray in a press statement said,
"We believe that Bank of America executives had material
information that raised serious reservations about the deal but
they did not disclose this information to shareholders."

The pension funds said they should serve as lead plaintiff in
the case by virtue of the significant losses they suffered,
which totaled $274 million during the class period beginning
July 21, 2008, and ending on Jan. 20, 2009.

The motion for lead plaintiff status was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, reports
The Canadian Press.

Reuters previously reported that the California Public
Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and California State
Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) sought to lead a a class-
action lawsuit against Bank of America, that accuses the company
of mis-stating or omitting crucial information about the
financial health of acquired investment bank Merrill Lynch
(Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2009).

On March 23, 2009, the first and third largest U.S. Pension
funds filed a joint motion to the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of New York to be designated lead plaintiff in
class actions against Bank of America stemming from its merger
with Merrill Lynch, according to the Reuters report.

According to the pension fund, they were trying to protect the
retirement security of their over 2 million members, reports
Reuters.

On Feb. 20, 2009, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Bank of
America Corp. between July 21, 2008 and Jan 20, 2009 (Class
Period) and who were damaged thereby, including all persons who
acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable to a false
and misleading registration statement and prospectuses
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with BofA's Oct. 7, 2008 secondary common stock
offering (Offering), and further, including persons who owned
BofA stock on October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote on
BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
pursuant to a false and misleading proxy statement (Merger
Proxy) (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2009).

The complaint charges BofA, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding both
the Company's and Merrill Lynch's business and financial
results.  Defendants concealed BofA's and Merrill Lynch's
failures to properly value their mortgage-related assets and
BofA's failure to engage in proper due diligence in determining
the fairness of its proposed deal with Merrill Lynch.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $38.13 per share on Oct. 1, 2008, and then retaining
value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock market
collapsed in early October 2008.  It was at this time that BofA
sold 455 million shares of its common stock at $22 per share in
the Offering, which raised some $10 billion.

Then, on Jan. 16, 2009, BofA announced its first quarterly loss
in 17 years.  BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss for the fourth
quarter of 2008 and slashed its dividend from $0.32 to a penny a
quarter.  In addition to its own losses, BofA reported that
Merrill Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth quarter of
2008 indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion.  BofA further
confirmed that it would receive an additional $20 billion in
assistance from the U.S. Government.  Between Jan. 15 and 20,
2009, BofA's stock lost a dramatic 50% of its value, declining
from $10.20 per share on Jan. 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per
share on Jan. 20, 2009.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, and/or which were omitted from the
Registration Statement and/or from the Merger Proxy, were as
follows:

       -- both the Company and Merrill Lynch failed to
          adequately reserve for mortgage-related exposure,
          causing their balance sheets and financial results to
          be artificially inflated;

       -- the Company and its advisors had failed to engage in
          proper due diligence in assessing the fairness of the
          deal with Merrill Lynch;

       -- the Company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch would have
          disastrous results on the Company's capital position
          and overall operations;

       -- Merrill Lynch had not substantially decreased its risk
          exposure to troubled mortgage-related assets;

       -- the significant deterioration of Merrill Lynch's
          financial position, including its substantial fourth
          quarter 2008 loss, were sufficient to trigger
          termination of the merger;

       -- the Company had to approach the U.S. Government for
          additional funding and financial guarantees in
          December 2008 in order to complete its acquisition of
          Merrill Lynch; and

       -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to
          withstand the significant deterioration in the
          subprime market and, as a result, BofA would be forced
          to seek government funding in order to raise
          significant amounts of additional capital.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BofA during
the Class Period and who were damaged thereby, including all
persons who acquired BofA common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the
Offering and/or who owned BofA stock on Oct. 10, 2008 and were
entitled to vote on BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch pursuant to
the Merger Proxy (Class).

For more details, contact:

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


EMERSON POWER: Faces Suit in New York Over TCE Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Power Transmission Corp., Emerson Electric Co.,
Borgwarner, Inc., and Burns International Services Corp. are
facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by South
Hill, New York residents, Briana Padilla of The Ithacan reports.

The residents claim that the companies leaked trichloroethylene,
or TCE, which has lowered property values and put their health
at risk, according to The Ithacan report.

The suit was filed on Sept. 24, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York, under the caption,
"Anderson et al v. Emerson Power Transmission Corporation et
al., Case No. 5:08-cv-01016-NAM-GJD."

Listed as plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Anderson, Kathleen M.
O'Connor, Christopher Babcox, Heather L. Bissel, Molly M.C.
Brewerton, Stephen R. Paisley, Kimberly Faye Budd, Linda
Carpenter, William Carpenter, Leslie Carpenter Hardman, Nancy
Couto, Joseph Martin, Elise Criscitello, John Criscitello, Nonny
De La Pena, Kevin T. Lambert, Kenneth M. Deschere, Regina P.
Deschere, Brian James Deschere, Jonathan Peter Deschere, Efrat
Scharf Forget, Jairo Geronymo, Kathryn C. Grace, Kristen Grace,
Brendan Wyly, Barbara P. Hall, Ronald W. Hall, Margaret M.
Hammond, John P. Oakley, David W. Henderson, Daina Taimina,
Lelde Taimina, Margaret Jamieson, Judy M. Jensvold, Harry E.
Shaw, Alfred F. June, Jr., Doris M. June, David June, Christine
A. Farrelly, Allison Kaiser, Stephen Kaiser, Afroditi Katsikis,
Katherine Katsikis, Ruth Katz, Joseph Kaye, Gary Lindenbaum,
Katherine Lockwood, Timothy Weber, Harold Mills, Roberta M.
Moudry, Christian F. Otto, Joyce Muchan, Daphine Scharf Muench,
Jane Padelford, Lynn A. Parment, William L. Parment, Becky
Richmond, Philip Sapirstein, Allison Trdan, Nava Scharf, Stanley
Scharf, Florence B. Smith, Henry Smith, Shawn Smith, Kent Smith,
Marcia Smith, Janet Snoyer, Manisha Snoyer, Richard Srnka, Maria
Thomadaki, Susan T. Tingey, David Watkins, Susan Watkins, Jason
Wentworth, Kenneth Young and Madeline Young.

In their suit, South Hill residents claim that BorgWarner, Inc.
knew chemicals used at the Morse Chain site had begun to impact
the environment, according to The Ithacan.

Advisories issued by the Tompkins County Health Department in
1962, 1966, 1968 and 1969 regarding oil discharges and illegal
waste disposal were cited in the suit.

"The defendants’ release of toxic and hazardous environmental
contaminants ... was reckless, wanton and malicious, and in
conscious flagrant disregard and indifference for human life and
the rights of plaintiffs," the suit states, The Ithacan reports.

The suit is "Anderson et al v. Emerson Power Transmission
Corporation et al., Case No. 5:08-cv-01016-NAM-GJD," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York,
Judge Norman A. Mordue, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ellen Relkin, Esq. (erelkin@weitzlux.com)
          Weitz, Luxenberg Law Firm
          180 Maiden Lane
          17th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-558-5715
          Fax: 212-363-2721

Representing the defendants is:

          Suzanne O. Galbato, Esq. (galbats@bsk.com)
          Bond, Schoeneck Law Firm
          One Lincoln Center
          Syracuse, NY 13202-1355
          Phone: 315-218-8000
          Fax: 315-218-8100


ERNST & YOUNG: Conn. Woman Files Suit Over $3.5B Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ernst & Young, Acorn Capital Group, Stewardship Credit Arbitrage
Fund, and Stewardship Investment Advisors, and Marlon Quan are
faing a purported class-action suit filed by a Connecticut woman
over losses from investments in the alleged consumer electronics
fraud supposedly masterminded by Wayzata businessman Tom Petters
and run though the Minnetonka business Petters Co. Inc., David
Phelps of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status for investors who lost
millions of dollars through what authorities have described as a
$3.5 billion Ponzi scheme.

One of the defendants, Mr. Quan, is described as the founder,
principal owner and chief executive of Acorn Capital and the
founder, sole owner and managing member of Stewardship
Investment Advisors, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune
report.

According to the suit, "Quan is an investment manager purporting
to have over 18 years of experience in investment banking."  It
further states, "Quan claims to be a specialist in debt and
equity financing who has participated in over $6 billion in
transactions."

The plaintiff, Susan Quinn, alleges the funds failed "to ensure
the legitimacy" of the short-term Petters notes they held, which
were supposed to be secured by consumer electronics equipment
that never existed.

The complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Minneapolis
Star Tribune states, "While a simple telephone call to any of
Petters' supposed 'retail customers' would have immediately
revealed that the subject notes were entirely bogus, defendants
performed no due diligence whatsoever, despite their fiduciary
duties to plaintiff and other class members."

Ernst & Young, the suit states, performed audits "that were so
superficial and perfunctory that it failed to detect that
approximately 60 percent of the assets reflected in the fund's
financial statements were a complete and total sham," reports
the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The lawsuit estimates the size of the class to be several
hundred investors and losses in the area of "tens of millions of
dollars."

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that Ms. Quinn had $1.8
million invested with the arbitrage fund, which invested in Mr.
Petters through Acorn, according to the complaint.  The suit
does not state the size of losses experienced by Quinn.

The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary responsibility and
negligence, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune report.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Ernst & Young Settles Ala. Lawsuit for $109M
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The law firm of
Labaton Sucharow LLP, along with Co-Counsel Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, announced that they have reached a
settlement of $109 million with Ernst & Young LLP in a
securities class action against HealthSouth Corporation.

     The action, entitled, "In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities
Litigation," is being prosecuted for the benefit of a class of
investors led by, among others, Lead Plaintiffs the New Mexico
State Investment Council and the Educational Retirement Board of
New Mexico.  The action is pending before the Honorable Karon O.
Bowdre in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, and the proposed settlement requires
Court approval.

     Lead Plaintiffs alleged that, during a period of several
years, the defendants manipulated their accounting in various
ways, which caused HealthSouth's financial statements to be
materially false and misleading causing investors to overpay for
HealthSouth's securities and suffer hundreds of millions of
dollars of damages.

     Lead Plaintiffs alleged the following accounting errors and
irregularities against Ernst & Young LLP (E&Y):

       -- E&Y knew that HealthSouth's financial statements were
          materially overstated.

       -- E&Y failed to conduct audits of HealthSouth that were
          in compliance with Generally Accepted Auditing
          Standards.

       -- E&Y did not test a single nonstandard journal entry or
          test the general ledger of HealthSouth.

       -- E&Y permitted HealthSouth to impose scope limitations
          on its audit of the Company.

     Thomas A. Dubbs, Senior Partner at Labaton Sucharow LLP,
stated that "We are pleased with this settlement, which is one
of the largest settlements ever obtained against an outside
auditor in a class action securities fraud case."

     Lead Plaintiffs previously settled with former defendant
HealthSouth Corporation in January 2007 for $445 million.

For more details, contact:

          Jennifer Bankston (jbankston@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 212-907-0659


INDIANA: Eleven Refineries, Plants Sued for Harmful Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
     GARY, Ind., March 25, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --
Lawsuit claims air quality around East Chicago schools poses a
significant threat to children.

     A group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit against 11
of Lake County, Indiana's worst air-pollution emitters including
United States Steel (NYSE: X: 23.25, n.a., n.a.%) and
ArcelorMittal USA Inc. (NYSE: MT: 20.9919, 0, 0%) claiming the
companies foul the region's air with toxic pollutants to such a
degree that children in the area could face life-long
development and health issues.

     Parents filed the suit after a series of studies revealed
children in Lake County - which includes the heavily
industrialized cities of East Chicago and Gary - are exposed to
higher levels of airborne toxins including cadmium, manganese
and lead than elsewhere in the United States.

     The studies show exposure to these toxic emissions during
childhood can lead to increased risk of cancer, damage to
developing lungs and other organs, damage in the development of
the respiratory, nervous, endocrine and immune systems, as well
as behavioral problems, and mental disabilities.

     "The plight of these children is nothing short of a
healthcare crisis for those living in this area," said lead
attorney and HBSS managing partner Steve Berman.

     The Political Economy Research Institute, joined by USA
Today, concluded that the air quality in Lake County, Indiana is
among the worst in the country, and that school-aged kids in the
region inhale or ingest more toxins than nearly any other area
in the U.S.

     According to the research, of air quality outside 127,800
schools nationwide, four of the schools in East Chicago, Indiana
- including Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Benjamin Franklin
Elementary School, East Chicago Lighthouse, and Eugene Field
Elementary School - ranked in the first percentile, the most
toxic air in the nation.

     No East Chicago school ranks above the sixth percentile in
the study, the suit states.

     Berman noted that children are at an increased risk of the
effects of airborne toxins and need long-term medical
monitoring.

     "A child, running and playing can take in as much as 50
percent more air through their lungs than an adult doing the
same activity," Berman noted.  "We have no way of knowing the
long-term effects of these contaminants."

     "Air they breathe today could cause asthma or lung cancer
10 years down the line," Berman added.

     Berman also noted that the population of Lake County is
economically disadvantaged, with about 12 percent of the
residents living below the poverty line.

     "Most people in Lake County don't have the ability to pull
up their stakes and move away to find a healthy place to raise
their kid; they are stuck there," Berman added.  "Regardless of
how poor they are, we think Lake County children should have the
right to breathe air that won't make them ill, or worse."

     Ron Kurth, a parent from Lake County city Crown Point filed
the suit in Lake County Superior Court on behalf of all the
region's residents whose children have attended Lake County
schools.  In addition to medical monitoring, the suit asks the
court to order a public awareness campaign about the dangers of
these chemicals, air quality monitoring throughout Lake County
and a citizen advisory board to allow continued input on the
medical monitoring program.

     Additional defendants in this case include Dover Chemical
Corporation, The Marley-Wylain Company, Pollution Control
Industries, Rhodia Inc., UGN Inc., Union Tank Car Company, and
HARSCO Corporation (NYSE: HSC: 22.49, 0, 0%).

For more details, contact:

          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          Phone: (708) 776-5600
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/lakecounty
          e-mail: lakecounty@hbsslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit in Canada Over Kids Cough Medicine
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Quebec consumer group has launched a class-action suit against
eight major pharmaceutical companies that make cough and cold
medication for children, CTV Montreal reports.

Option consommateurs says studies prove cough and cold
medications are great for big kids (like adults), but not so
great for kids under 6.

The companies named in the lawsuit are:

    * Johnson & Johnson
    * Novartis
    * Pfizer
    * Procter & Gamble
    * Ratiopharm
    * Wyeth
    * Trillium
    * Vita Health

"It's not new," Stephanie Poulin, a lawyer for Option
consommateurs tells CTV Montreal.  She adds, "We've retraced
that since as long as 1997, that scientists stated that the
cough and cold products are ineffective for children under 6
years old.  This is the reason why we've filed this class action
because we believe those companies promoted those products, led
people to believe that they were effective."

The group is asking consumers to hold onto any packaging that
looks like it is marketed for use for children, and to contact
them with that information, reports CTV Montreal.

For more information, you can go to http://www.option-
consommateurs.org/.


KEY ENERGY: "Gonzales" Labor Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in Ventura County, California Superior Court
alleging labor laws-related violations, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed back in September 2005 under the caption,
"Gonzales v. Key Energy Services, Inc."  It generally alleges
that the company did not pay its hourly employees for travel
time between the yard and the wellhead and that certain
employees were denied meal and rest periods between shifts.

On September 17, 2008, the Company reached an agreement in
principle, subject to court approval, to settle all claims
related to this matter for $1.2 million. In 2005, it recorded a
liability for this lawsuit, and the subsequent settlement of
this matter in 2008 did not have a material impact on its
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Key Energy Services, Inc. -- http://www.keyenergy.com/-- is an
onshore, rig-based well servicing contractor in the U.S. that
provides a range of of well services to major oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies, including
rig-based well maintenance, workover, well completion and
recompletion services, oilfield transportation services, cased-
hole electric wireline services and ancillary oilfield services,
fishing and rental services and pressure pumping services.


KEY ENERGY: Settlement Paid to Expired Option Holders in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. completed payments to the class in the
expired option holders' suit, in accordance with the terms of
the settlement, in December 2008.

In September 2007, Belinda Taylor filed a lawsuit in the 11th
Judicial District of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of herself
and all similarly situated current and former employees who held
vested options that expired between April 28, 2004 and the date
that the company became current in its financial statements
("Expired Option Holders").

The suit, as amended, alleged that the company breached its
contracts with the Expired Option Holders, and breached its
fiduciary duties and duties of good faith and fair dealing in
the pricing of stock options it granted to those Expired Option
Holders.

On March 6, 2008, the parties agreed to settle all pending
claims with all Expired Option Holders, excluding those
terminated for cause and those who have previously filed suits
against the company, for approximately $1.0 million, which
includes all taxes and legal fees.  The court entered a final
order approving the settlement on Aug. 25, 2008, and dismissed
the case.

In December 2008, the payments to the class, pursuant to the
terms of the settlement, were completed, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Key Energy Services, Inc. -- http://www.keyenergy.com/-- is an
onshore, rig-based well servicing contractor in the U.S. that
provides a range of of well services to major oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies, including
rig-based well maintenance, workover, well completion and
recompletion services, oilfield transportation services, cased-
hole electric wireline services and ancillary oilfield services,
fishing and rental services and pressure pumping services.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: "Oubre" Attorneys Intervene in "Orrill" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs attorneys in the matter "Geraldine Oubre et al v.
Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan," filed an appeal of the settlement
in another class-action suit, "Toni Swain Orrill v. Louisiana
Citizens," which had both named Louisiana Citizens Property
Insurance Corp. as a defendant, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-
Picayune.

The "Oubre" attorneys intervened in the "Orill" case because
they said that it improperly infringed on their case in
Jefferson Parish, which was certified as a class action first,
according to The Times-Picayune report.

The Times-Picayune reported that Jefferson Parish Judge Henry
Sullivan ordered Louisiana Citizens on March 25, 2009 to pay
$92.8 million to 18,573 policyholders around the state whose
Hurricane Katrina claims were not adjusted on time, formally
placing a dollar value on the judgment he issued on March 26,
2009.

Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune previously reported that
Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge Kern Reese ruled on
March 19, 2009 that the $35 million settlement brokered the
"Orill" Class-action suit should stand (Class Action Reporter,
March 23, 2009).

In a previous report, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune
reported that attorneys in "Oubre" class-action lawsuit against
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. had asked a
Jefferson Parish judge last January to award more than $90
million in penalties to policyholders whose 2005 hurricane
claims were not adjusted on time (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
13, 2009).

The "Oubre" litigation was filed in the 34th Judicial District
Court in Jefferson Parish while the "Orill" litigation was filed
in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

In general, both lawsuits are alleging that Louisiana Citizens
took too long to pay off policyholders' claims after the 2005
hurricanes that hit the state.


MCKESSON CORP: RPWB Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Kans. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Charleston, SC (PRWEB) March 25, 2009 -- Richardson,
Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC (RPWB) Member James L. Ward,
Jr., announces that the firm has been appointed Co-Lead Counsel
on behalf of a variety of state and local government entities in
class action litigation against McKesson Corporation, captioned,
"Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas v.
McKesson Corporation et al., (Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-11349-
PBS)."

     The Honorable Patti B. Saris of the United States District
Court in Boston, Massachusetts appointed RPWB as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP in a
suit that alleges drug wholesaler McKesson conspired to inflate
the average wholesale price (AWP) of hundreds of brand-name
prescription drugs.  RPWB as Co-Lead Counsel will oversee and
coordinate all aspects of the case for the plaintiffs.  The
named plaintiffs are the State of Oklahoma; the State of
Montana; the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County,
Kansas; the City of Baltimore, Maryland; the City of Panama
City, Florida; Anoka County, Minnesota; the City of Columbia,
South Carolina; and the City of Goldsboro, North Carolina. (Case
No. 1:08-CV-11349-PBS)

     Pharmacies are reimbursed by many state and local
government prescription drug plans based on the AWP of each drug
as published by First DataBank, Inc.  The suit alleges that
McKesson and First DataBank inflated the AWPs of hundreds of
brand-name drugs, which resulted in government entities being
overcharged by hundreds of millions of dollars in excessive drug
reimbursements from 2001 to present.

     Co-Lead Counsel will be assisted by a Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee comprised of McCulley McCluer PLLC and Kotchen & Low
LLP.

For more details, contact:

          Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC (RPWB)
          PO Box 879
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Phone: 1-888-293-6883
          e-mail: inquiry@rpwb.com
          Web site: http://www.rpwb.com/


MERCK & CO: N.J. Court Denies Certification Bid in Vioxx Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey state court denied plaintiffs' request to certify a
class of consumers who sought reimbursement for out-of-pocket
Vioxx costs from Merck & Co., Inc.

Applying New Jersey law, Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee
ruled that proceeding with a classwide trial of plaintiffs'
claims would be "unfair" and "unmanageable."

She added: "The decision of whether to prescribe a medication is
made upon a host of individualized factors, including other risk
factors the plaintiffs possessed and whether other drugs were
effective in relieving the plaintiffs' pain."

"We are pleased that the court agreed this was not an
appropriate case to proceed as a class action," said Ted Mayer
of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, outside counsel for Merck.


NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: June 18 Hearing Set for $15M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Utah will hold a
fairness hearing on June 18, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. for the proposed
$15 million settlement of the matter, "Roffe v. NPS
Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00570-PGC."

The hearing will be held before the Judge Dale. A. Kimball of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 350 South Main
Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-2180.

Steven Oberbeck of The Salt Lake Tribune previously reported
that NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. settled consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit that was pending with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah (Class Action Reporter,
March 24, 2009).

Under the terms of the settlement agreement filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah, investors who purchased
NPS stock between August 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006, will share in
a $15 million fund to be set up by the company, according to The
Salt Lake Tribune report.

In 2006, NPS Pharmaceuticals and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in several purported securities fraud class-
action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009).

The suits were:

     -- "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "Baird v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.;"

     -- "McCormick v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.;" and

     -- "Skubella v. NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al."

All lawsuits contain substantially identical allegations and
allege that between August 2005 and May 2006, the defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning the company's
market prospects for its proprietary drug, PREOS(R), in
violation of federal securities laws.  PREOS is for the
treatment of osteoporosis.

By order dated Sept. 14, 2006, the court consolidated the four
separately filed lawsuits into one action.  By order dated Nov.
17, 2006, the court appointed lead plaintiff and counsel for the
proposed class.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff and its counsel filed a
consolidated amended complaint asserting two federal securities
claims on behalf of lead plaintiff and all other shareholders of
the company who purchased publicly traded shares of company
between Aug. 7, 2001, and May 2, 2006.

The consolidated complaint asserts two claims:

      -- a claim founded upon Section 10(b) of the U.S.
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, and

      -- SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, which is
         asserted against all defendants, and a claim founded
         upon Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, which is asserted
         against the individual defendants.

Both claims are based on the allegations that, during the class
period, the company and the individual defendants made false and
misleading statements to the investing public concerning PREOS.

The consolidated complaint alleges that false and misleading
statements were made during the class period concerning the
efficacy of PREOS as a treatment for post-menopausal
osteoporosis, the potential market for PREOS, the dangers of
hypercalcemic toxicity as a side effect of injectable PREOS, and
the prospects of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of
NPS's New Drug Application for injectable PREOS.

The complaint also alleges claims of option backdating and
insider trading of stock during the class period.  The
consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, unspecified equitable or injunctive relief,
and an award of an unspecified amount for plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, which the court denied on July 3, 2007.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the court entered a scheduling order setting a
trial date for the action on April 20, 2009.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed its motion to certify
the class of shareholders that it seeks to represent in the
action.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the defendants filed an opposition to this
motion, and it is currently pending before the court.

On Feb. 29, 2008, lead plaintiff filed its reply brief in
support of the motion for class certification.  On March 20,
2008, the court entered a stipulation by the parties staying the
action pending mediation commencing on June 3, 2008.

Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement to settle
this matter and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with respect to the same.  The MOU memorializes the terms
pursuant to which the plaintiffs and the defendants intend to
settle the case, subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the MOU, the defendants' directors' and
officers' liability insurers will pay $15 million in resolution
of the matter and all claims asserted against the company, and
the other named defendants will be dismissed with prejudice with
no admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of any
defendant.

The company has recorded $15.0 million as Litigation receivable
and Litigation payable on its balance sheet as of Sept. 30,
2008.  The settlement is subject to negotiation of definitive
settlement documents and preliminary and final court approvals
following notices to shareholders and members of the class,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Roffe v. NPS Pharmaceutical, et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00570-PGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah, Judge Paul G. Cassell, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
         Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
         One Penn Plaza, Ste. 2805
         New York City, NY 10119
         Phone: 212-279-5050

              - and -

         Scott A. Call, Esq. (scall@aklawfirm.com)
         Anderson & Karrenberg
         50 W. Broadway, Ste. 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Phone: 801-534-1700


PPL CORP: Montana Power Shareholders' Lawsuit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by a group of
shareholders of The Montana Power Company remains pending in the
U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division, according to PPL
Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008

In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a
group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power,
the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants
of Montana Power, and PPL Montana, LLC.

Montana Power sold its generating assets to PPL Montana in
December 1999.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power
failed to obtain shareholder approval for the sale of Montana
Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in 1999, and that the
sale "was null and void ab initio."

Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the
establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both
the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from
the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to
the trust.

This lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court of Montana,
Butte Division, and the judge placed this proceeding on hold
pending the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of
which may impact this proceeding.  The judge in this case has
not established a schedule to resume the proceeding.

In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of
certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status
conference to discuss their proposal.  The judge held a status
conference in January 2008, and rejected the proposed
settlement.

PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility
holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates
electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western
U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the
northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers
electricity to nearly 5.1 million customers in Pennsylvania, the
United Kingdom and Latin America, and provides energy services
for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Tentative Settlement Reached in Paxil Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
     WASHINGTON, March 25, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via
COMTEX/ -- Persons who purchased or paid for (in whole or in
part) Paxil CR(R: 27.3, 0, 0%) and insurance companies and other
entities that reimbursed for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R:
27.3, 0, 0%) in the United States and its territories may be
eligible for relief as part of a $28 million Proposed Settlement
of the matter, "Simonet v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Case No.
06-1230," which is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.

     The lawsuit involves the drug Paxil CR, which is
manufactured and marketed by the defendant SmithKline Beecham,
also known as GlaxoSmithKline, ("GSK").  The lawsuit claims that
Paxil CR tablets manufactured between April 1, 2002 and March 4,
2005 contained a manufacturing defect that caused some of the
tablets to split apart.  GSK denies all of these claims and any
liability.

     If approved, the Proposed Settlement will provide up to $28
million to settle the claims in the lawsuit. Some of this money
will be paid to insurance companies and other entities that made
reimbursements for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R: 27.3, 0,
0%) and some of this money will be paid to consumers who
purchased or paid for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R: 27.3, 0,
0%).  The recovery available to insurance companies and other
Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") will be based on their number of
covered lives as of December 31, 2004.  Consumer class members'
recovery will be based on the number of Paxil CR(R: 27.3, 0, 0%)
tablets that they paid for or purchased, up to $150, that were
defective in that they were split before they were removed from
the container in which they were purchased.

     Potential Class Members do not need to do anything to stay
in the class.  However, they must submit a Claim Form if they
wish to obtain money from the Proposed Settlement. Claim Forms
are available by visiting the website
http://www.SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.comor by calling 1-866-458-
3186. Claim Forms must be postmarked by August 10, 2009.

     Class Members wishing to exclude themselves from or object
to the Proposed Settlement must do so as outlined in the Notice
of Proposed Class Action Settlement, available by visiting the
informational website http://www.SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.comor
by calling 1-866-458-3186.  Those wishing to exclude themselves
from the Proposed Settlement must do so no later than May 15,
2009.  Those wishing to object to the Proposed Settlement must
do so no later than July 1, 2009.  A Class Member must remain in
the Class in order to object.

     The Court has appointed the law firms Strange & Carpenter
and Salas & Co., L.C. to represent the proposed Class.  The
Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 10, 2009.  At
that time, the Court will consider the motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses, and it will decide whether the Proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

All potential Class Members are encouraged to visit
http://www.SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.comor call the Simonet
Paxil CR(R: 27.3, 0, 0%) Settlement Administrator at 1-866-458-
3186 to determine if they are a Class Member and obtain
information about their legal rights, how to file a Claim, or
how to object or exclude themselves.

For more details, contact:

          Simonet Paxil CR Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 24661
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-866-458-3186
          e-mail: info@SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.com


TORCHMARK CORP: Appeal to Junked Suit Over DPPA Breach Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs continue to appeal to the dismissal of their
purported class action litigation tagged, "Taylor v. Texas Farm
Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2-07-CV-014."

On Jan. 10, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed
against Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company and additional
unaffiliated defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas.

Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company is a subsidiary of the
company.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Driver Privacy Protection
Act (DPPA) in Globe's marketing activities.  DPPA is federal
legislation restricting the ability to obtain and use driver's
license and motor vehicle registration title information
maintained by each state.  Initially, DPPA allowed use of such
personal information for marketing activities so long as the
states provided individuals the opportunity to prohibit
disclosure of their information.  DPPA was amended effective
June 1, 2000 to provide that using or obtaining personal
information from motor vehicle records for marketing purposes is
permitted only if the state involved obtained the express
consent ("opt-in") of the person whose data is being released.

Plaintiffs, all residents and holders of Texas driver's
licenses, allege that Globe wrongfully obtained, possessed
and/or used motor vehicle record information from the Texas
Department of Public Safety after the June 1, 2000 effective
date of the "opt-in" amendment to the DPPA.  They seek, in a
jury trial, liquidated damages as provided in the DPPA for each
purported class member in the amount of $2,500 for each use of
the personal information, punitive damages, the destruction of
any personal information determined to be illegally obtained
from motor vehicle records and other appropriate equitable
relief.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting
the defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss with prejudice
all plaintiffs' claims in this litigation pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

On Oct. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which has
been subsequently amended twice, with the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to the company's Feb.
27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Discrimination Suit v. Unit Closed on Jan. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action litigation styled, "Joseph v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 08-20117 CIV –
Martinez," was closed on Jan. 22, 2009, according to Torchmark
Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Liberty National Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of the
company.

On Jan. 18, 2008, purported class action litigation was filed
against Liberty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Joseph v. Liberty National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 08-20117 CIV - Martinez) on behalf of all
black Haitian-Americans who reside in Florida (including both
naturalized and alien persons) and who have or have had an
ownership interest in life insurance policies sold by Liberty
where it is alleged that Liberty issued and administered such
policies on a discriminatory basis because of their race and
Haitian ancestry, ethnicity or national origin.

The plaintiffs alleged an intentional plan on behalf of Liberty
to discriminate against the black Haitian-American community in
the formation, performance and termination of life insurance
contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Section
1982 by target marketing and underwriting inquiries regarding
whether the applicant for insurance was Haitian, had traveled to
Haiti in the past or planned to do so at any time in the future
and, based upon such information, either denying the application
or issuing a substandard policy or in some instances it was
alleged, refusing to pay death benefits on issued policies.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory damages in excess
of $75,000, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and other relief.

After the death of one of the named class plaintiffs and the
Court's dismissal of that plaintiff's claims without prejudice,
the remaining two class plaintiffs elected to proceed with this
litigation on an individual basis.

On Jan. 22, 2009, the Court issued an Order granting Liberty's
Motion for Summary Judgment and closing the case.

A settlement has also been reached in substantially identical
class litigation filed on Sept. 17, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Joseph v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 08-1:08-cv-22580).

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Robertson Appeal Dismissed by High Court in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court, on Dec. 18, 2008, dismissed the
remaining appeal in the matter captioned "Robertson v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," which is a
consolidated class-action lawsuit filed against Torchmark Corp.
and Liberty National Life Insurance Co. over cancer policies.

The company and Liberty National were parties to the purported
class-action suit captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002 009-B," filed before the
Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama, on behalf of all
persons who currently or in the past were insured under Liberty
cancer policies, which were no longer being marketed, regardless
of whether the policies remained in force or lapsed.

The case was based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering the Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs then filed a purported class-action lawsuit,
captioned "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. CV-03-0137," against Liberty and Torchmark in
the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, on Dec. 30, 2003.

On April 16, 2004, the parties filed a written stipulation of
agreement of compromise and settlement in the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court, seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.

A fairness hearing on the potential settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.  After receipt of
briefs on certain issues and submission of materials relating to
objections to the proposed settlement to the court-appointed
independent special master, the Court reconvened the previously
continued fairness hearing on Sept. 23, 2004.

The Barbour Court, after hearing from the objectors to the
potential settlement, ordered the appointment of an independent
actuary to report back on certain issues.  The report of the
independent actuary was subsequently furnished to the special
master and the court on a timely basis.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Barbour Court entered an order and final
judgment consolidating "Roberts" with "Robertson v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, CV-92-021," for purposes of the
Roberts stipulation of settlement, and certified the Roberts
class as a new subclass of the class previously certified by
that court in "Robertson."

The court approved the stipulation and settlement and ordered
and enjoined Liberty to perform its obligations under the
stipulation.

Subject to the stipulation, Liberty and Torchmark were
permanently enjoined from:

      -- instituting, engaging or participating in, maintaining,
         authorizing or continuing premium rate increases
         inconsistent with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement temporary premium waivers in
         accordance with the Stipulation;

      -- failing to implement the new benefits procedure
         described in the Stipulation; and

      -- failing to implement the special schedules and special
         provisions of the stipulation for subclass members who
         have cancer and are receiving benefits and for subclass
         members who have no other cancer or medical insurance
         and are not covered by Medicare.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, released the
defendants, enjoined Roberts subclass members from any further
prosecution of released claims and retained continuing
jurisdiction of all matters relating to the Roberts settlement.

In an order issued Feb. 1, 2005, the court denied the objectors'
motion to alter, amend or vacate its earlier final judgment on
class settlement and certification.

The companies proceeded to implement the settlement terms.  On
March 10, 2005, the Roberts plaintiffs filed notice of appeal to
the Alabama Supreme Court.

In an opinion issued on Sept. 29, 2006, the Alabama Supreme
Court voided the Barbour County Circuit Court's final judgment
and dismissed the Roberts appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Barbour County Court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction in "Roberts" to certify the Roberts
class as a subclass of the Robertson class and to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement since "Roberts" was filed as
an independent class action collaterally attacking "Robertson"
rather than being filed in "Robertson" under the Barbour County
Court's reserved continuing jurisdiction over that case.

On Oct. 23, 2006, Liberty filed a petition with the Barbour
County Circuit Court under its continuing jurisdiction in
"Robertson" for clarification, or in the alternative, to amend
the Robertson final judgment.

Liberty sought an order from the Circuit Court declaring that
Liberty pay benefits to Robertson class members based upon the
amounts accepted by providers in full payment of charges.

A hearing was held on Liberty's petition on March 13, 2007.  On
March 30, 2007, the Barbour County Circuit Court issued an order
denying Liberty's petition for clarification and modification of
"Robertson," holding that Liberty's policies did not state that
they will pay "actual charges" accepted by providers.

On April 8, 2007, the Court issued an order granting a motion to
intervene and establishing a subclass in "Robertson" comprised
of Liberty cancer policyholders who are now or have within the
past six years, undergone cancer treatment and filed benefit
claims under the policies in question.

Liberty filed a motion with the Barbour County Circuit Court to
certify for an interlocutory appeal that Court's order on
Liberty's petition for clarification in Robertson on April 17,
2007.  An appellate mediation of these issues was conducted on
Aug. 9, 2007.

On Oct. 16, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court entered orders,
based upon the conclusion by the parties of the appellate
mediation, staying the proceedings for a writ of mandamus,
reinstating the cases on the appellate docket, and remanding the
cases to the Barbour County Circuit Court to implement the
parties' settlement agreement.

A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held by the
Barbour County Circuit Court on Jan. 15, 2008.  Subsequent to
this hearing, an order approving the settlement agreement was
approved by the Barbour County Circuit Court but was thereafter
vacated by that Court due to technical errors in the printing of
the original order.

A corrected order finally approving the settlement was entered
on May 6, 2008.  Prior to the entry of the corrected order,
notice of appeal was filed by one objector.

On July 29, 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the
remaining appeal in "Robertson," but reinstated that appeal on
Sept. 22, 2008.  Appellate mediation was ordered with respect to
this appeal, and on Sept. 30, 2008, a settlement was reached in
appellate mediation which resulted in a dismissal order in the
objector's litigation issued by the Barbour County Circuit Court
on Oct. 16, 2008.  The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the
remaining appeal on Dec. 18, 2008.  The trial court's May 6,
2008 order finally approving the second class settlement in
Robertson is therefore in full force and effect, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TORCHMARK CORP: Vesta Securities Suit Settlement Okayed in Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, on
Dec. 12, 2008, approved the final settlement of a consolidated
derivative securities class action litigation, which names
Torchmark Corp. as a defendant.

On March 15, 1999, Torchmark was named as a defendant in
consolidated derivative securities class action litigation
involving Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (In Re: Vesta
Insurance Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98-
AR-1407-S).

The amended consolidated complaint in this litigation alleged
violations of Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by the defendants Vesta, certain present and former Vesta
officers and directors, KPMG, LLP (Vesta's former independent
public accountants) and Torchmark and of Section 20 (a) of the
Exchange Act by certain former Vesta officers and directors and
Torchmark acting as "controlling persons" of Vesta in connection
with certain accounting irregularities in Vesta's reported
financial results and filed financial statements.

Unspecified damages and equitable relief were sought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Vesta equity securities
between June 2, 1995 and June 29, 1998.

A class was certified in this litigation on Oct. 25, 1999.

In September 2001, Torchmark filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was denied by the District Court on Jan. 10,
2002.

On April 9, 2003, the District Court issued an order denying the
class plaintiffs' motion to strike certain of Torchmark's
affirmative defenses, holding that Torchmark could not be held
jointly and severally liable with Vesta under the securities law
without an affirmative jury determination that Torchmark
knowingly committed a violation of the securities laws.

Vesta, its officers and directors, its insurance carriers and
KPMG settled their portions of the litigation with class
plaintiffs in 2001; Torchmark did not. Subsequently, in May
2003, Torchmark instituted separate litigation against KPMG
which was resolved in March, 2006.

In April, 2006, class plaintiffs, "In Re Vesta Insurance Group
Securities Litigation," filed a motion in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama renewing their claims
against Torchmark based upon an allegation of control person
liability. This matter was set for trial in the District Court
on Oct. 2, 2006 and was stayed pending resolution of an
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit filed by class plaintiffs.

On April 30, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in the
interlocutory appeal affirming the District Court's denial of
class plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Torchmark's affirmative
defenses under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA).  The Eleventh Circuit concluded that substantive
controlling person liability under the federal securities law
remained the same and survived the proportionate liability
scheme established by PSLRA.  The Court found that damages
allocated against a controlling person found liable for a
securities law violation were based upon the proportionate
liability provisions in the PSLRA.

A trial date of Sept. 8, 2008 was set in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

The parties reached a settlement of the Vesta litigation on
Sept. 15, 2008.  On Sept. 25, 2008, the District Court issued an
order preliminarily approving the settlement and directed the
giving of notice thereof to the class members.

According to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, after a final settlement hearing, the
District Court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
With Prejudice approving the final settlement on Dec. 12, 2008.

Torchmark Corp. -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries,
markets primarily individual life and supplemental health
insurance and annuities, to middle income households throughout
the U.S.  The company operates in two segments: insurance, which
includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


WELLPOINT INC: AMA Files Physicians' Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
     LOS ANGELES, March 25, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via
COMTEX/ -- In an expansion of its ongoing effort to expose and
prohibit an industry-wide health insurance scheme to defraud
patients and physicians of proper reimbursement, the American
Medical Association announced it is among several medical
societies that filed a class action lawsuit against WellPoint,
Inc., the largest health insurer in the U.S.

     The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, alleges
that WellPoint colluded with others to underpay physicians for
out-of-network medical services, resulting in patients paying an
excessive portion of the medical bill.  The AMA filed similar
class action lawsuits last month against Aetna Health, Inc. and
CIGNA Corporation.

     "Physicians will not tolerate an apparent conspiracy that
allows health insurers to play by their own rules without regard
to patients, or the legitimate costs required to care for them,"
said AMA President Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D.

     The three AMA lawsuits claim that each insurance company
conspired with Ingenix, a unit of United Health Group, on a
price fixing scheme that relied on an obscure database to set
artificially low reimbursement rates for out-of-network care.  A
year-long investigation by the New York attorney general
confirmed that the Ingenix database is intentionally rigged to
allow insurers to shortchange reimbursements.

     "The AMA's work to remove the cloak of secrecy from the
Ingenix database promises to benefit patients and physicians by
reforming the corrupt system for paying out-of-network medical
bills," said Dr. Nielsen.  "Now that the underlying scheme has
been exposed, health insurers are doing the right thing by
cutting their ties with the flawed Ingenix database.  However,
serious damages resulting from prior use of the Ingenix database
still need to be addressed."

     In addition to seeking reforms for the invalid payment
systems used by Aetna, CIGNA and WellPoint, the AMA and
partnered medical societies also seek relief for physicians who
were seriously harmed by the insurers' long-term use of the
flawed Ingenix database.

     The Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical
Societies is supporting the WellPoint lawsuit in partnership
with the California Medical Association, Connecticut State
Medical Society, Medical Association of Georgia and North
Carolina Medical Society.

     To view the individual legal complaints filed against
Aetna, CIGNA or WellPoint, please visit the AMA Litigation
Center website: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ab0.


WEST PUBLISHING: Settles Minn. Ex-Employees' Overtime Wages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Publishing settled a class-action lawsuit brought by two
former legal-research employees who sued the company for
allegedly not paying overtime wages, the Minneapolis Star
Tribune reports.

Plaintiffs Paul Egtvedt and Nicole Anderson formerly worked as
reference staff attorneys for Westlaw, an online legal research
service within West, a Thomson Reuters business with major
operations in Eagan, Minn. and headquarters in New York.

Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that their lawsuit alleged
that the company violated state and federal labor laws by not
paying overtime to employees who routinely worked more than 40
hours a week.

The plaintiffs sued individually and on behalf of more than 150
reference attorneys and attorney trainees, claiming that those
employees routinely worked before and after their scheduled
shifts and on weekends, reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The former employees are seeking unpaid wages and attorney costs
and fees.

Their complaint was filed on March 24, 2009 in Dakota County
District Court in Hastings by plaintiffs' attorney Charles
Firth, Esq. of Minneapolis -- even though a settlement has been
reached -- because the settlement of a class action suit must be
approved by a judge, reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Once the settlement is approved, other current and former
employees will be contacted to claim their share of the money
under what's called an "opt in" collective action, according to
court documents, obtained by the Minneapolis Star Tribune.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARCLAYS BANK: Murray Frank Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (No.
09-cv-2668), against Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays Bank" or the
"Company"), Barclays PLC ("Barclays"), certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters, on behalf of a class of
purchasers or acquirers of the Barclays Bank American Depositary
Shares, Series 2, representing 6.625% Non-Cumulative Callable
Dollar Preference Shares, Series 2, (the "Preferred Stock")
pursuant to the Company's public offering in April 2006 (the
"Offering").

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading registration statement,
prospectuses, and other documents. These documents failed to
disclose risks that:

       -- Barclays' portfolio of mortgage-related securities was
          impaired to a much larger extent than had been
          disclosed;

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

       -- Barclays' internal controls were inadequate to prevent
          the Company from improperly reporting its mortgage-
          related investments; and

       -- Barclays was not as well-capitalized as represented
          and would have to continually raise additional
          capital, which would dilute current holders and those
          investors purchasing the Preferred Stock in the
          Offering.

For more information, contact:

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


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Johnson Bottini Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Mar 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- On March 17,
2009, Johnson Bottini, LLP ("Johnson Bottini") filed a class
action lawsuit (the "Complaint") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Century Aluminum Company ("Century
Aluminum" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CENX), pursuant to and/or
traceable to a materially false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's January 28,
2009 Secondary 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 of a large accounting
restatement the Company made for three fiscal quarters of 2008.

     Specifically, the Registration Statement was materially
false and/or misleading because the 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 disclosed the truth and
shocked the market when the Company filed an Interim Report on
Form 8-K with the United States Securities & Exchange Commission
which disclosed that the Company would restate its interim
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended
September 30, 2008.

     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 approximately 63% of the value
of the Company's shares from the time of the Offering less than
two months earlier.

For more information, contact:

          Frank A. Bottini, Esq. (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
          Derek Wilson, Esq. (derekw@johnsonbottini.com)
          Johnson Bottini, LLP
          Phone: 619-230-0063


ING GROEP: Murray Frank Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Mar 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Murray, Frank &
Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (No.
09-cv-2667), against ING Groep N.V. ("ING" or the "Company"),
certain of its affiliates, officers and directors, and
underwriters, on behalf of a class of purchasers or acquirers of
6.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities ("Securities")
issued pursuant to or traceable to the Company's June 2007
public offering (the "Offering").

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading registration statement,
prospectuses, and other documents.

     These documents failed to disclose risks that:

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

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

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

       -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and,
          notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the
          Offerings, the Company would have to raise an
          additional EUR 10 billion by selling equity in the
          Company to the Dutch government.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

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


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., March 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Insight Enterprises, Inc. ("Insight Enterprises" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:NSIT) between January 30, 2007 and February
6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona.

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

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

       -- that the Company was improperly accounting for trade
          credits;

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

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

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

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     WEST HARTFORD, Conn., March 25, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via
COMTEX) -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has
significant experience representing investors in prosecuting
claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who
purchased the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. ("Insight"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NSIT: 3.03, 0, 0%) between January
30, 2007 and February 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Insight and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
making materially false statements.

     Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Insight was improperly accounting for trade credits;

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

       -- Insight lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- as a result, the Company's financial statements were
          materially false and misleading.

     On Feb. 9, 2009, Insight revealed that it would restate its
previously reported earnings as a result of its historical
accounting treatment of aged trade credits.

     Insight also announced that it expects to restate financial
statements included in the Company's most recently filed Annual
Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, and in
the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first three quarters
of fiscal year 2008.  On this news, shares of Insight fell $2.85
to close at $3.05 per share.

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/insightenterprises


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Klafter Olsen Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RYE BROOK, N.Y., March 25, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) --
Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, which has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors and
consumers, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Insight Enterprises, Inc. ("Insight" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: NSIT: 3.03, 0, 0%) and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Insight from
Jan. 30, 2007 through Feb. 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     Defendant Insight is a provider of information technology
hardware, software, and services to large enterprises, small- to
medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions
throughout the world.

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
federal securities laws by publicly disseminating materially
false and misleading financial statements that the Company has
recently admitted violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

     Specifically, on Feb. 9, 2009, Insight shocked the market
when it revealed for the first time that its historical
accounting treatment of certain aged trade credits has been
improper since 1996.  As a result, Insight announced that it
expects to materially reduce its retained earnings as of
December 31, 2004 by $50-$70 million and to otherwise restate
its financial statements for 2007 and the first three quarters
of 2008.  In response to that announcement, Insight's stock
price plunged from a close of $5.90 per share on February 6 to
$3.05 per share on February 9 -- a decline of 48%.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Klafter
          Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Phone: 914/934-9200
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.com


INTREPID POTASH: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., March 25, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an April 20, 2009 deadline
to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc.
("Intrepid Potash" or the "Company") (NYSE: IPI: 19.26, 0, 0%)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Prospectus and Registration
Statement (collectively the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Company's Initial Public Offering on April 21,
2008 (the "IPO").  The shareholder lawsuit is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

     The Complaint charges Intrepid Potash and certain of the
Company's current and former executive officers with violations
of federal securities laws.

     Intrepid Potash engages in the production and marketing of
muriate of potash in the United States.

     The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
that the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO")
had not received a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado,
or a M.S. degree from Loyola Marymount University, as
represented in the Registration Statement.

     On Feb. 11, 2009, the Fraud Discovery Institute revealed
that Intrepid Potash's President and COO had misrepresented his
educational qualifications in the Registration Statement issued
in connection with the Company's IPO.  In response to this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined $1.52 per share, to close
on Feb. 11, 2009, at $22.00 per share, which represented a
cumulative loss of approximately 31% of the value of the
Company's shares since its IPO just months earlier.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grenier Lawsuit v. GM, Ford Motor Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware remanded an asbestos lawsuit filed
by Roland Leo Grenier, Sr. against General Motors Corporation
and Ford Motor Company for a Superior Court judge to reconsider
admissibility of plaintiffs' experts' opinions.

The case is styled General Motors Corporation and Ford Motor
Company, Defendants, Appellants v. Roland Leo Grenier, Sr.,
Plaintiff, Appellee.

Judges Myron T. Steele, Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger, Jack
B. Jacobs, and John W. Noble entered judgment in Case Nos. 453,
2007 and 578, 2007 on Feb. 4, 2009.

Mr. Grenier worked as an auto mechanic for 38 years. During that
time, he developed mesothelioma. As an auto mechanic, he worked
with products manufactured and supplied by General Motors
Corporation and Ford Motor Company.

Mr. Grenier is one of several plaintiffs who brought an action
in the Superior Court, alleging that dust from brake shoes and
other friction products manufactured by GM, Ford, and numerous
other defendants, caused either asbestosis, mesothelioma, or
lung cancer.

GM and Ford joined Chrysler LLC's pretrial motion in limine to
exclude the plaintiffs' general causation experts. One Superior
Court judge decided all of the pretrial motions ("motion
judge"), and another oversaw Mr. Grenier's trial ("trial
judge").

The jury found GM and Ford strictly liable and found GM acted
negligently, allotting 70 percent responsibility to GM, 16
percent to Ford, and two percent each to seven other friction
product manufacturers (Abex, Bendix, BorgWarner Inc., Daimler
Chrysler, Hk. Porter, Johns Manville Corporation, and Maremont).

In this appeal, GM and Ford alleged that the motion judge abused
his discretion by denying their motions to exclude Mr. Grenier's
and the other plaintiffs' unreliable and, therefore, irrelevant
expert testimony.

The Supreme Court concluded that the motion judge erroneously
characterized the record evidence underlying his decision to
deny GM and others' motion to exclude the plaintiffs' experts'
opinions.

The Supreme Court remanded for the motion judge to reconsider
the admissibility of the plaintiffs' experts' opinions.

Christian J. Singewald, Esq., White & Williams LLP, Wilmington,
Del.; Eileen Penner, Esq., pro hac vice (argued) for appellants.

Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Esq., Weiss & Saville, P.A.,
Wilmington, Del.; Kevin D. McHargue, Esq., pro hac vice (argued)
for appellee.

Joseph J. Rhoades, Esq., and A. Dale Bowers, Esq., in
Wilmington, Del., argued for the Concerned Scientists.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liggett Still Has 2 Third Party-Payor Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, as of Dec.
31, 2008, still faced two Third-Party Payor Actions, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

Liggett, as of Sept. 30, 2008, faced two Third-Party Payor
Actions. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been filed by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for
funding of corrective public education campaigns relating to
issues of smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking
cessation programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of
cigarettes; restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Several federal circuit courts of appeals and state appellate
courts have ruled that Third-Party Payors do not have standing
to bring lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, relying
primarily on grounds that plaintiffs' claims were too remote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to consider plaintiffs'
appeals from the cases decided by five federal circuit courts of
appeals.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company
that manufactures and sells cigarettes in the United States
through Liggett Group LLC, develops reduced risk cigarette
products through Vector Tobacco Inc., and acquires more
operating companies and real estate properties through New
Valley LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Have Asarco LLC Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation's direct and indirect parent
corporations, including Americas Mining Corporation and Grupo
Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., still are parties to various litigation
(including asbestos-related) involving Asarco LLC.

In August 2002, the U.S. Department of Justice brought a claim
alleging fraudulent conveyance in connection with AMC's then-
proposed purchase of the Company from Asarco. That action was
settled under a Consent Decree dated Feb. 2, 2003. In March
2003, AMC purchased its interest in the Company from a
subsidiary of Asarco.

In October 2004, AMC, Grupo Mexico, Mexicana de Cobre S.A. de
C.V. and other parties, not including the Company, were named in
a lawsuit filed in New York State court in connection with
alleged asbestos liabilities, which lawsuit claims that AMC's
purchase of the Company from Asarco should be voided as a
fraudulent conveyance. The lawsuit filed in New York State court
was stayed as a result of the August 2005 Chapter 11 bankruptcy
filing by Asarco.

However, on Nov. 16, 2007, this lawsuit, after being removed to
federal court, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville, Tex., for
resolution in conjunction with a new lawsuit filed by Asarco,
the debtor in possession.

On Feb. 2, 2007 a complaint was filed by Asarco, the debtor in
possession, alleging many of the matters previously claimed in
the New York State lawsuit, including that AMC's purchase of the
Company from Asarco should be voided as a fraudulent conveyance.
In June 2008 the lawsuit was concluded in Brownsville, Tex.

The constructive fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed;
however the actual fraud and the aiding and abetting the breach
of fiduciary duties counts were favorable to plaintiffs. The
court's decision did not determine the damage amount. Grupo
Mexico has stated they will appeal the ruling.

In late December 2004 and early January 2005, three purported
class action derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (New Castle County) relating to the merger
transaction between the Company and Minera Mexico. On Jan. 31,
2005, the three actions were consolidated. The complaint alleges
that the merger was the result of breaches of fiduciary duties
by the Company's directors and was not entirely fair to the
Company and its minority stockholders. The case is currently in
the early stages of discovery.

In 2005, certain subsidiaries of Asarco filed bankruptcy
petitions in connection with alleged asbestos liabilities. In
July 2005, the unionized workers of Asarco commenced a work
stoppage.

In August 2005, Asarco filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex. Asarco's bankruptcy
case is being joined with the bankruptcy cases of its
subsidiaries.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Southern Copper Corporation produces
copper, molybdenum, zinc and silver. Its mining, smelting and
refining facilities are in Peru and Mexico and it conducts
exploration activities in those countries and Chile.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Units Facing 67 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, as of Dec. 31, 2008,
faced 67 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 2, 2009.

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois
Public Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company,
Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced three suits, UE had 25
suits, CIPS had 31 suits, CILCO had 10 suits, and IP had 36
suits.

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named, along with
numerous other parties, in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming
varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been
filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is
significant; as many as 161 parties are named in some pending
cases and as few as six in others. However, in the cases pending
as of Dec. 31, 2008, the average number of parties was 68.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric
generating plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco,
and former CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company.

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent
subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at
trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, six asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims. Beginning in 2007, 90 percent of cash
expenditures in excess of the amount included in base electric
rates are recoverable by IP from a trust fund established by IP.
At Dec. 31, 2008, the trust fund balance was US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.

If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base rates, IP
will contribute 90 percent of the difference to the fund. Once
the trust fund is depleted, 90 percent of allowed cash
expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered through
charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company and its utilities faced 65
pending asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
28, 2008)

Headquartered in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributes
electricity to 2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost
one million customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility
subsidiaries: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public
Service Company, Central Illinois Light Company, and Illinois
Power Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Cites $3.443B Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserves for
liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense were
US$3.443 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared
with US$3.864 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross asbestos reserve for losses and loss
expenses amounted to US$3.4 billion during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$3.927 during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company's net asbestos reserves for liability for unpaid
claims and claims adjustment expense were US$1.2 billion during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.545 billion
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net asbestos reserve for losses and loss expenses
amounted to US$1.244 billion during the nine months ended Sept.
30, 2008, compared with US$1.533 billion during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The gross asbestos IBNR (incurred but not reported) included in
the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense
was US$2.301 billion at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$2.701
billion at Dec. 31, 2007.

The net asbestos IBNR included in the liability for unpaid
claims and claims adjustment expense was US$939 million at Dec.
31, 2008, compared with US$1.145 billion at Dec. 31, 2007.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 639 claims opened, 219
claims settled, 1,203 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved,
and 5,780 claims at the end of the year.

As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 656 claims opened, 150
claims settled, 821 claims dismissed or otherwise resolved, and
6,563 claims at the end of the year.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos claims was a gross of
5.2 years at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 7.1 years at Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos claims was a net of
3.7 years at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 5.6 years at Dec. 31,
2007.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. is
a holding company involved in insurance and insurance-related
activities in the United States and abroad. The Company's
primary activities include both General Insurance and Life
Insurance & Retirement Services operations. Other significant
activities include Financial Services and Asset Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Claims v. Roper Ind. Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's
2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and it said it believes it has valid
defenses to those claims.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. designs,
manufactures and distributes energy systems and controls,
scientific and industrial imaging products and software,
industrial technology products and radio frequency products and
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transatlantic Records $152MM for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.'s (TRH) net loss reserves, which
include amounts for risks relating to environmental impairment
and asbestos-related illnesses, totaled US$152 million at Dec.
31, 2008, compared with US$124 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

The amounts included US$28 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$25
million at Dec. 31, 2007 for losses occurring in 1985 and prior.

As Transatlantic Reinsurance Company (TRC), the major operating
subsidiary of the Company, commenced operations in 1978, most of
TRH's environmental and asbestos-related net loss reserves arose
from contracts entered into after 1985 that were underwritten
specifically as environmental or asbestos-related coverages
rather than as standard general liability coverages, where the
environmental or asbestos-related liabilities were neither
clearly defined nor specifically excluded.

Headquartered in New York, Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. operates
through its subsidiaries, Transatlantic Reinsurance, Putnam
Reinsurance and Trans Re Zurich. The companies offer reinsurance
for property/casualty products, including general liability,
medical malpractice, architects' and engineers liability,
automobile liability, and surety lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBL Still Records $2.6M in 2008 for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. has recorded in its financial
statements a liability of US$2.6 million related to potential
future asbestos abatement activities at its Properties.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2009.

Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns,
develops, acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional
shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and office
properties. Its properties are located in 27 states in the
United States and in Brazil.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. XL Capital Drop to 1,546 in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital Ltd, as of Dec. 31, 2008, reported 1,546 open claim
files for potential asbestos exposures, according to the
Company's annually report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2009.

During 2008, the Company reported 257 new claims and resolved
427 claims.

The Company had 1,716 open claims filed for potential asbestos
exposures as of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, March 13,
2008)

The Company's gross unpaid losses and loss expenses for asbestos
and environmental exposure claims were US$281,992,000 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$324,848,000 for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net unpaid losses and loss expenses for A&E
exposure claims were US$111,860,000 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, compared with US$120,656,000 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2007.

Incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance, was
US$73.5 million in 2008 and US$73.1 million in 2007.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, XL Capital Ltd provides
global insurance and reinsurance coverages to industrial,
commercial and professional service firms, insurance companies
and other enterprises on a worldwide basis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Faces 34,730 Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, which faced asbestos litigation for
about 20 years, was a defendant in 34,730 lawsuits as of Dec.
31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

Also, 33,489 of these lawsuits have been brought on behalf of
plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm (MARDOC) and seek
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally
allege that they formerly worked in the maritime industry and
sustained asbestos-related injuries from products that the
Company ceased manufacturing in the mid-1970s.

The MARDOC cases are managed and supervised by a federal judge
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

In the MARDOC cases in the MDL, the District Court in May 1996
dismissed all pending cases filed without prejudice and placed
them on an inactive administrative docket. To reinstate a MARDOC
case from the inactive docket, plaintiffs' counsel must show
that the plaintiff not only suffered from a recognized asbestos-
related injury, but also must produce specific product
identification evidence to proceed against an individual
defendant.

During 2002, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the District
Court allow discovery in 15 cases. Prior to this discovery,
plaintiffs' counsel indicated that they believed that product
identification could be established as to many of about 100
defendants named in these MARDOC cases. To date, in this
discovery, the Company has not been identified as a manufacturer
of asbestos-containing products to which any of these plaintiffs
were exposed.

With regards to the 1,241 remaining non-maritime cases as of
Dec. 31, 2008, the Company has defended these cases based upon
either lack of product identification as to the Company
manufactured asbestos-containing product and lack of exposure to
asbestos dust from the use of General Cable product. In the last
20 years, the Company has had no cases proceed to verdict. In
many of the cases, the Company was dismissed as a defendant
before trial for lack of product identification.

To date, the Company resolved the claims of 11,307 plaintiffs.
The cumulative average settlement through Dec. 31, 2008 has been
about US$475 per case.

The Company had accrued on its balance sheet, on a gross basis,
a liability of US$5 million (as of Dec. 31, 2008) and US$5.2
million (as of Dec. 31, 2007) for asbestos-related claims and
had recorded insurance recoveries of about US$500,000.

The net amount of US$4.5 million (as of Dec. 31, 2008) and
US$4.7 million (as of Dec. 31, 2007) represents the Company's
best estimate in order to cover resolution of future asbestos-
related claims.

As of Sept. 26, 2008, the Company was a defendant in 34,731
asbestos-related cases, of which 1,249 were non-maritime cases
and 33,482 were maritime cases. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21,
2008)

Headquartered in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable
Corporation develops, designs, manufactures, markets,
distributes and installs copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire
and cable products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in JELD-WEN Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, issued split
rulings in JELD-WEN, inc.'s case involving asbestos against Mary
and Gordon Van Brunt.

The case is part of In re Grossman's, Inc., et al., Debtors.

The case is styled JELD-WEN, inc., f/k/a Grossman's Inc.,
Appellant v. Mary Van Brunt and Gordon Van Brunt, Appellees.

U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. entered judgment in
Civil Action No. 08-427-JJF on Feb. 5, 2009.

Pending before the District Court was an appeal filed by JELD-
WEN, the successor-in-interest to Grossman's Inc., GRS Holding
Company, Inc. and GRS Realty Company, Inc., as reorganized
debtors, of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered
by the Bankruptcy Court on June 9, 2008.

This action was commenced by JELD-WEN as an adversary proceeding
in the Bankruptcy Court seeking:

-- A permanent injunction enjoining the Van Brunts from
   prosecuting claims against JELD-WEN in an action filed by the
   Van Brunts in a New York state court,

-- A determination that the Van Brunts' state court claims have
   been discharged in the context of the Grossman's bankruptcy,
   and

-- An award of damages.

In May 2007, the Van Brunts' filed state law claims against
JELD-WEN and 57 other defendants, alleging that Mrs. Van Brunt
developed mesothelioma in March 2006, as a result of her
exposure to products containing asbestos that were manufactured
by the defendants and acquired by the Van Brunts nearly 30 years
earlier during a home remodeling project.

The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's June 9, 2008
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as they related to the
state law warranty claims. The District Court affirmed in all
other respects.

Christopher M. Alston, Esq., of Foster Pepper PLLC in Seattle,
and Frederick B. Rosner, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP in
Wilmington, Del., represented Jeld-Wen, Inc.

Sander L. Esserman, Esq., Cliff I. Taylor, Esq., of Stutzman,
Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka, P.C. in Dallas, and Daniel K.
Hogan, Esq., of The Hogan Firm in Wilmington, Del., represented
Mary Van Brunt and Gordon Van Brunt.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seltmann's Action v. Watts, Others Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted Dorothy Seltmann's Motion to Remand an asbestos-related
lawsuit filed against Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and other
defendants.

The case is styled Dorothy Seltmann, et al., Plaintiff v. A.W.
Chesterton Co., et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered judgment in
Case No. C 08-5015 SBA on Feb. 4, 2009.

This matter came before the Court on Mrs. Seltmann's Motion to
Remand.

Mrs. Seltmann is the widow of Eldon Seltmann, who allegedly
became ill and died as a result of workplace exposure to
asbestos. Mrs. Seltmann brought this action together with her
children, Christina Ann, Thomas Lee and James Ray
Seltmann (Plaintiffs).

Mr. Seltmann allegedly was exposed to asbestos for decades,
beginning with his service as a reservist for the U.S. Navy
(1961-1964), Navy civilian employment at the Hunter's Point
Naval Shipyard in San Francisco (1964-1973), Navy civilian
employment at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo (1973-
1995) and including his lifelong mechanical repair work on his
personal vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in State court (Alameda County
Superior Court) on Sept. 11, 2008. Watts, one of 64 defendants,
was served with the complaint and summons on Oct. 3, 2008, and
removed the case to federal court on Nov. 3, 2008.

Plaintiffs timely filed a motion to remand for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to comply with the procedural
requirements of the removal statute.

Watts failed to meet the procedural requirements for removal and
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand was granted. The Court
declined to exercise its discretion to award fees and costs
incurred litigating the removal and denied Plaintiffs' request.

The case was remanded to the Superior Court for Alameda County,
Oakland Division.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viad, RFPC's Summary Judgment Bids Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
granted Viad Corporation and Railroad Friction Products
Corporation's Motions for Summary Judgment in an asbestos-
related suit filed by George Corson and Freda Jung Corson.

The case is styled Kurns, et al., Plaintiffs v. A.W. Chesterton,
et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered judgment in
Civil Action No. 08-2216 on Feb. 3, 2009.

This case involved state law tort claims brought by the Corsons,
alleging that Mr. Corson had been exposed to asbestos products
over the course of his 28-year career as a machinist/welder for
the Milwaukee Road Railroad. The lawsuit asserted that Mr.
Corson, who passed away subsequent to the filing of the
complaint, contracted mesothelioma through exposure to
defendants' products.

On June 13, 2007, plaintiffs initiated suit in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas against 59 defendants. On Jan. 29,
2008, Mr. Corson died from mesothelioma. On May 13, 2008, the
case was removed to this Court. As the remaining plaintiff, Mrs.
Corson seeks in excess of US$50,000 in compensatory and punitive
damages.

The only remaining defendants are RFPC and Viad. Mrs. Corson
alleged that RFPC manufactured/sold brake pads containing
asbestos that were installed by Mr. Corson. She further alleges
that Viad was a successor in interest to Baldwin Locomotive,
which manufactured/sold engine valves, also installed by Mr.
Corson.

The District Court granted both Viad and RFPC's Motions for
Summary Judgment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argo Reserves $143.3Mil for A&E at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross loss reserves
for asbestos and environmental claims were US$143.3 million as
of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$157.72 million as of Dec. 31,
2007.

The Company's gross A&E-related loss reserves were US$149.8
million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$169.5 million as
of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims were US$125.4
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$141.4 million as
of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net A&E-related loss reserves were US$131.1
million as of Sept. 30, 2008, compared with US$158.6 million as
of Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company, through its subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Company,
is exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through
claims filed against its direct insureds, as well as through its
position as a reinsurer of other primary carriers. Argonaut
Insurance Company has direct liability arising primarily from
policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s which pre-
dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure.

Total reserves for Run-off Lines as of Dec. 31, 2008 were
US$528.8 million, net of reinsurance, including reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims of US$125.4 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,409
pending A&E claims, 1,335 claims closed during the year, and 527
claims opened during the year. Total gross A&E payments were
US$22.8 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 5,217
pending A&E claims, 1,756 claims closed during the year, and 723
claims opened during the year. Total gross A&E payments were
US$39.4 million.

Headquartered in Pembroke, Argo Group International Holdings,
Ltd. is an underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance
products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Northern States Has $13.84MM ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Company's asset retirement obligation
related to steam production asbestos was US$13,844,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

The Company's ARO related to common general plant asbestos was
US$1,079,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Northern States Power Company is
an operating utility engaged in the generation, purchase,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in Minnesota,
North Dakota and South Dakota. The wholesale customers served by
the Company comprised nine percent of its total sales in 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire Has $3.8Mil Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company's direct and assumed asbestos and
environmental loss reserve was US$3.8 million at Dec. 31, 2008,
compared with US$5 million at Dec. 31, 2007.

In addition, the Company had ceded A&E loss reserves of
US$600,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$1.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2007.

Headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United Fire & Casualty
Company is in the business of writing property and casualty
insurance and life insurance. The Company reports its operations
in two business segments: property and casualty insurance and
life insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Involved in Grace's Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is still involved in the bankruptcy
proceedings of W. R. Grace & Co.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury
Claimants (ACC) and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property
Damage Claimants appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the Grace Bankruptcy case to resolve all current and future
asbestos-related claims made against the Company and its
affiliates.

The Settlement agreement will also resolve the fraudulent
transfer claims and successor liability claims, as well as
indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
and affiliated companies in connection with the Cryovac
transaction.

The Cryovac transaction was a multi-step transaction, completed
on March 31, 1998, which brought the Cryovac packaging business
and the former Sealed Air Corporation's business under the
common ownership of the Company.

The parties to the agreement in principle signed the definitive
Settlement agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the
terms of the agreement in principle. On June 27, 2005, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where the Grace
Bankruptcy case is pending, signed an order approving the
definitive Settlement agreement.

On Sept. 19, 2008, Grace, the ACC, the Asbestos PI Future
Claimants' Representative (FCR), and the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders (Equity Committee) filed, as co-
proponents, a plan of reorganization and several exhibits and
associated documents, including a disclosure statement, with the
Bankruptcy Court.

Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and the PI Settlement
Disclosure Statement have been filed with the Bankruptcy Court
from time to time, with the most recent version having been
filed on Feb. 27, 2009.

The Company is reviewing the PI Settlement Plan on an ongoing
basis to verify that it complies with the Settlement agreement.
While confirmation hearings on the PI Settlement Plan are
currently scheduled for June 2009 and September 2009 (with
potential pre-trial conferences currently scheduled in July
2009), the Company does not know whether or when a final plan of
reorganization will become effective or whether the final plan
will be consistent with the terms of the Company's definitive
Settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation's
largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink
films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors
and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. The Company's
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak
foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Party to Grace's Cases in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to be a party to W. R. Grace &
Co.'s asbestos-related lawsuits in Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in
the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench. W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.—Conn. are
also named as defendants.

The claim was brought as a putative class proceeding and seeks
recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/
or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

Another proceeding was filed in January 2005 in the Manitoba
Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified
subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney
General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the
recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly
provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the
class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional
putative class proceedings had been brought in various
provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from
the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including Grace
and W. R. Grace & Co.—Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by
any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment
(except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of
Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.—Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto, recognizing
the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving
Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other
affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions
and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc.
related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement
Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the
Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay
to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its
Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had
the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions.

Representative counsel for the plaintiffs have filed a motion in
the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding to lift the
stay and enable the Canadian litigation to proceed in order to
establish the validity and amount of their claims. The Canadian
Court has entered an order extending the stay until April 1,
2009.

A global settlement of these Canadian actions, save and except
for claims against the Canadian government, has been finalized
and will be funded entirely by Grace (Canadian Settlement).

The Canadian Settlement will, unless amended, become null and
void if a confirmation order in the Grace U.S. bankruptcy
proceeding is not granted prior to Oct. 31, 2009. The Canadian
Court issued an Order on Oct. 17, 2008 approving of the Canadian
Settlement, and released its detailed reasons for that order on
Oct. 23, 2008.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation's
largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink
films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors
and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. The Company's
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak
foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Has Senn v. Hickey Case in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to be involved in the case
styled Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372), filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).

This lawsuit, filed on Sept. 15, 2003, seeks class action status
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002. The lawsuit named the Company and five
current and former officers and directors of the Company as
defendants.

The Company is required to provide indemnification to the other
defendants, and accordingly the Company's counsel is also
defending them. On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff
Miles Senn's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for
approval of his choice of lead counsel.

The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations
against the defendants. The principal allegations are that
during the above period the defendants materially misled the
investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. GAAP by failing to properly account
and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos
claims arising from past operations of Grace.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

Headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation's
largest product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink
films, absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors
and supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. The Company's
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak
foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Lawsuit Launched on Feb. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled William and Barbara Church vs.
Asbestos Corporation, LTD et al. (Case No. RG09434913) was filed
on Feb. 6, 2009 against California Water Service Group and other
defendants in Alameda County, Calif.

The complaint alleges personal injury from plaintiff's exposure
to asbestos. The complaint states negligence, false
representations, strict liability, premise/owner liability and
loss of consortium causes of actions. The Complaint does not
state any amount of damages.

In the past few years, the Company has been named as a co-
defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits. The Company has
been dismissed without prejudice in two of these cases.

In Case No. BC360406, reported in the Company's prior year
annual report, the Court has approved a confidential settlement
between the Company, the plaintiff and his heirs. The settlement
was paid for by the Company's contractor and its insurance
policy carriers.

Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service
Group's business is conducted through its subsidiaries. The
business consists of the production, purchase, storage,
treatment, testing, distribution and sale of water for domestic,
industrial, public and irrigation uses, and for fire protection.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pepco Still Has 180 Cases in Md. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2008, faced about 180
asbestos-related lawsuits in the State Courts of Maryland,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

Of those cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and
indemnification under the terms of the Asset Purchase and Sale
Agreement between the Company and Mirant under which the Company
sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining
suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) about US$360 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company continued to face 180 pending
asbestos cases in the State Courts of Maryland. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 14, 2008)

In 1993, the Company was served with Amended Complaints filed in
the state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore
City and Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing,
consolidated proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury
Asbestos Case."

The Company and other corporate entities were brought into these
cases on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that the Company was negligent in not
providing a safe work environment for employees or its
contractors, who allegedly were exposed to asbestos while
working on the Company's property. Initially, a total of 448
individual plaintiffs added the Company to their complaints.

While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each
plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4
million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against the Company, and significant numbers of
cases have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to
dismiss, numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for
summary judgment, the Company has had about 400 of these cases
successfully dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the
plaintiff or by the court.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc.
distributes electricity to about 1.9 million customers and
natural gas to 122,000 customers in Delaware, Maryland, New
Jersey, and Washington, DC, through its utility subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Has $786.9M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental losses were US$786.9 million during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$922.8 million during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's gross reserves for A&E exposures were US$854.2
million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$652.2 million during the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company's net reserves for A&E losses were US$749.1 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$827.4
million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's net reserves for A&E reserves were US$808.2
million during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008,
compared with US$558.1 million during the three and nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

With respect to asbestos only, at Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$734.1 million (or 93.3
percent of total A&E reserves), of which US$533.2 million was
for assumed business and US$200.9 million was for direct
business.

Headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda, Everest Re Group, Ltd.
offers specialized underwriting in several areas, including
property & casualty, marine, aviation, and surety, as well as
medical malpractice, directors and officers liability, and
professional errors and omissions liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seven Lorillard Filter Cases Set for Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of Feb. 20, 2009, seven asbestos-
related Filter Cases are scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2009.

Trial dates are subject to change.

As of Nov. 1, 2008, two of the asbestos-related Filter cases
were scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7, 2008)

Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary,
Lorillard Tobacco Company, by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited
period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco
is a defendant in 26 such cases.

The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco.

Since Jan. 1, 2007, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of about US$14 million in payments of
judgments and settlements to finally resolve 70 claims.

In the only case tried since Jan. 1, 2007, a jury in the
District Court of Bexar County, Tex., returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco during September 2008 in the case of Young v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company.

Headquartered in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. produces
cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of the
domestic cigarette market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Upholds Ruling in Vanderbilt Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky upheld the ruling of the
Anderson Circuit Court, which favored Johnny Franklin and Flora
Franklin in an asbestos suit involving R.T. Vanderbilt Company,
Inc.

The case is styled R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Appellant v.
Johnny Franklin; Individually; and Johnny Franklin,
Administrator of the Estate of Flora Franklin, Appellee.

Judges Janet L. Stumbo, Kelly Thompson, and Daniel T. Guidugli
entered judgment in Case No. 2007-CA-002103-MR on Feb. 6, 2009.

Vanderbilt appealed from a judgment entered against it in favor
of Mr. Franklin, individually, and as administrator of the
estate of Flora Franklin in the amount of US$4,090,000 for the
death of Mrs. Franklin caused by her exposure to asbestos.

Mrs. Franklin died during the pendency of the action and Mr.
Franklin, as administrator of her estate, was substituted as a
party.

Mrs. Franklin was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in June
2004. In September 2004, the Franklins filed a complaint against
31 defendants alleging that Mrs. Franklin's mesothelioma was
caused by asbestos fibers.

In the initial complaint, the Franklins alleged that Mrs.
Franklin was exposed to asbestos from Mr. Franklin's clothing
worn during his work at General Electric Appliance Park and her
past employers, Florida Tile, where she worked from 1968 through
1973, and General Electric Plastic, where she worked from 1973
through 1999.

Other defendants were entities that allegedly sold or provided
asbestos-containing products to Mrs. Franklin's employers,
companies that performed construction work at her places of
employment, and companies that allegedly manufactured, sold, or
placed in the stream of commerce asbestos-containing products.
Although Vanderbilt supplied talc used as an ingredient in
Florida Tile's products, it was not named as a party until May
31, 2006.

A three-week jury trial was held against Vanderbilt and three
remaining defendants, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor
Company, and Pneumo Abex. General Motors and Pneumo Abex settled
during the trial.

The jury assessed damages of US$5,200,000 and allocated 70
percent of the fault to Vanderbilt. The jury also awarded
US$450,000 in punitive damages against Vanderbilt.

Because there was evidence that Vanderbilt misrepresented that
its product contained asbestos and that knowledge was within the
exclusive knowledge of Vanderbilt, the Appeals Court affirmed
the jury's finding.

Bethany A. Breetz, Esq., Michael D. Risley, Esq., Matthew W.
Breetz, Esq., Jamie K. Neal, Esq., of Louisville, Ky., Stephan
G. Amato, Esq., John N. Billings, Esq., of Lexington, Ky., H.
Lane Young, II, Esq., Peter R. York, Esq., and Eric Ludwig,
Esq., of Atlanta, represented R.T. Vanderbilt Company Company,
Inc.

Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., and Corey Ann Finn, Esq., of
Louisville, Ky., represented the Franklins.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Goodyear Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
which granted summary judgment to The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company, in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Clayton and Mary Adams
and continued by Cheryl Boley.

The case is styled Clayton Adams, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Colleen Conway Cooney, Sean C. Gallagher, and Mary J.
Boyle entered judgment in Case No. 91404 on Feb. 5, 2009.

In June 2007, the Adams couple sued Goodyear and numerous other
defendants alleging causes of action for negligence, strict
liability, breach of warranties, loss of consortium, statutory
products liability, punitive damages, and fraudulent concealment
that related to Mrs. Adams' asbestos exposure.

Ms. Boley was substituted as the personal representative of the
Adams estate. In May 2008, Ms. Boley amended the complaint
naming her as the Executrix of the Adams estate and added
wrongful death as the ninth claim for relief.

Mr. Adams worked at Goodyear from 1973 to 1983. While at
Goodyear, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products and
brought asbestos home on his clothing that Mrs. Adams washed.
She was diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2007 and died in
July 2007.

In December 2007, Goodyear moved for summary judgment. In
February 2008, Mr. Adams opposed Goodyear's motion, individually
and as the Executor of Mary's Estate, arguing that their claim
against Goodyear was for negligence and not premises liability.
After a hearing, the trial court granted Goodyear's motion. The
trial court also certified that there was no just reason for
delay.

Ms. Boley now appealed. The judgment was affirmed.

John D. Mismas, Esq., Thomas W. Bevan, Esq., and Patrick M.
Walsh, Esq., of Bevan & Associates, LPA in Northfield, Ohio
represented Cheryl Boley.

Richard D. Schuster, Esq., Matthew M. Daiker, Esq., Timothy B.
McGranor, Esq., Gary J. Saalman, Esq., and Nina I. Webb-Lawton,
Esq., of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP in Columbus, Ohio,
represented The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dupuis Action v. Chevron Filed on March 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Melvin Dupuis, of Groves, Tex., on March 20, 2009,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Chevron Corporation
and its predecessor, Texaco Inc., in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Dupuis' family alleges that he was exposed to asbestos
fibers through his work as a laborer, insulator helper,
machinist helper, stillman and press operator at Texaco in its
Port Arthur, Tex., facility. He died on Oct. 27, 2005.

The Dupuis family alleges the companies acted with malice and
with gross neglect for exposing Mr. Dupuis to asbestos and
failed to take the necessary engineering, safety, industrial
hygiene and other precautions and provide adequate warning and
training.

The family seeks unspecified punitive and exemplary damages,
plus interest, costs and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., represents the Dupuis family.

Case No. E183-594 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bestoff to Pay GBP3T for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Didcot Magistrates' Court, on March 23, 2009, issued a
GBP3,000 fine and ordered Bestoff Services Ltd. to pay
GBP2,091.70 and a GBP15 surcharge for exposing to workers to
asbestos, the Oxford Mail reports.

Bestoff, of Chorleywood, Hertfordshire, England, pleaded guilty
to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act
1974.

The charges followed a breach of health and safety legislation
at a construction site in Abingdon between Feb. 1, 2008 and Feb.
5, 2008.

The Company carried out an asbestos survey on a site at Unit 27,
Nuffield Way, Abingdon, in February 2008 and reported the site
contained no asbestos. Two members of staff began work on the
site on March 2008 and part of their job involved removing
panels of fibrous board.

Several days later, the site manager became suspicious about the
pieces of fibrous panels that had been removed and they were
analyzed. Results showed they contained asbestos.

On March 27, 2008, an additional survey was carried out, in
which the survey identified asbestos-containing materials in
several areas throughout the building, including the areas where
the two men had been working.

Health and Safety Executive inspector Karen Morris said, "This
incident shows the importance of carrying out asbestos surveys
before refurbishment work starts. In this case, the main
contractor did the right thing by engaging a specialist asbestos
surveying company, but was let down by them.

"It is vital that asbestos surveys are accurate and can be
relied upon, in order to prevent this kind of inadvertent
exposure."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former Grace Worker Warned of Risks in 1976
----------------------------------------------------------------
In his testimony, Robert Locke, a former W. R. Grace & Co.
employee, said he warned supervisors of asbestos hazards in
1976, when studies showed consumer products were releasing high
concentrations of asbestos, The Associated Press reports.

Mr. Locke was fired from the Company in 1998. The Missoulian
newspaper reported his testimony on its Web site on March 23,
2009.

Grace and five one-time company officials are accused of
endangering the community of Libby, Mont., by mining asbestos-
laced ore, and doing so in violation of federal law.

Mr. Locke has been named an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the
environmental crimes case against Grace, and federal charges
could still be forthcoming based on his trial testimony. He has
been involved in litigation against the construction products
giant for more than a decade.

Investigators from the Department of Justice contacted Mr. Locke
in November 2004. He said, "I was concerned about my own
criminal liability from my involvement with the Company. I was
on a list of criminal conspirators." However, he has since
turned down immunity offers from federal prosecutors, and
decided to testify at the trial regardless.

Mr. Locke began working for Grace in 1974 and was given several
promotions, finishing his career in the construction division as
global vice president and chief technical officer. He worked
with defendant Robert Bettacchi to oversee the Company's health,
safety and environmental issues.

Mr. Locke said he was assigned to various "fiber-reduction"
programs as government agencies like the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration began tightening asbestos regulations. He
said, "Things were getting hot with OSHA (Occupational Safety
and Health Administration). It would have put us out of
business. There was no way we could comply."

Grace tried taking measures to cut down on asbestos exposure at
expanding plants throughout the country, but Mr. Locke said the
measures (dust pickup kits and clean sweepers) were not
effective.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 44% of Japan Victims Get Payout, Study Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to statistics compiled by Tokyo-based Ban Asbestos
Network Japan (BANJAN), about 44 percent of Japanese people who
have died of mesothelioma received compensation or other relief,
The Mainichi Daily News reports.

BANJAN is a network of civic groups and labor unions.

It is also estimated that seven percent of those who developed
lung cancer have received any support.

According to the figures, 10,042 people died from mesothelioma
between 1995 and 2007, of which 2,393 were approved for workers'
compensation, and 2,069 received non-workers' compensation
relief, for a total of 4,462, or 44.4 percent.

Over the years, 18 percent to 69 percent of those who died from
mesothelioma had never received any kind of relief, and the
older the data, the lower this rate was found to be. In 2004,
during which there were 953 mesothelioma deaths, the rate was
51.8 percent.

BANJAN estimates that twice the number of people who died of
mesothelioma have died from asbestos-caused lung cancer based on
the views of internationally renowned experts, bringing the
figure to about 20,000 for the years 1995 to 2007. Of those,
1,477 received workers' compensation or other forms of relief, a
rate of 7.4 percent. This rate ranged from 2 to 15 percent
between 1995 and 2007.

Organizations representing patients suffering from asbestos-
related illnesses attribute the low figure to affected parties
being unaware of available services and other pertinent
information and also the strict requirements in obtaining
recognition for asbestos-related illness. These organizations
are calling for revisions to the Asbestos Health Damage Relief
Law.

BANJAN obtained the number of mesothelioma deaths from a
population survey report conducted by the Ministry of Health,
Labor and Welfare. By the end of 2008, the organization
collected related data like the number of general laborers,
sailors, former Japan National Railways workers and civil
servants who have been approved for workers' compensation, and
information about those who were ineligible for workers'
compensation but received services or restitution under the law.

In 2008, the Ministry of the Environment began a program to
inform families of the government's relief policies.

BANJAN director Sugio Furuya said, "It is crucial that the
government set a relief rate goal, and to extend deadlines for
compensation and relief applications until those goals are met."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Density Noted in 1 of 5 Korean Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Korea's Environment Ministry, on March 22, 2009, said that
one in five demolition sites throughout the country had between
1.34 and 67 times higher asbestos density in the air than
permissible, The Chosun Ilbo reports.

The Ministry study said 31 out of 155 demolition sites exceeded
the permissible 1 particle per 100 cc of air.

Paik Nam-won said, "Exposure to even the slightest amount of
asbestos is risky. The result of the study is especially
alarming as residents near the construction sites and passersby
are exposed to a high density of asbestos."

Paik Nam-won, who is an honorary professor of the Seoul National
University, was commissioned by the Environment Ministry to
carry out the study.

The use of asbestos is completely banned from January 2009.
However, experts estimate that 80 to 90 percent of old buildings
that are being remodeled or demolished at the moment contain
asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Court Revives Ratliff Case v. Norfolk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, on March 12, 2009,
revived an asbestos exposure lawsuit filed by Freda Ratliff, on
behalf of her husband Sparrell Ratliff, against Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, The West Virginia Record reports.

The Appeals Court reversed statewide asbestos judge Arthur Recht
of Wheeling, W.Va., who ruled in 2007 that Mr. Ratliff released
all claims when he accepted early retirement.

Justice Robin Davis wrote that the Federal Employer's Liability
Act of 1908 voids any contract that exempts a common carrier
from liability for injury.

Mr. Ratliff started working for the former Norfolk and Western
Railway in 1947, at the age of 23. He worked as an engineer on
steam locomotives in many West Virginia counties.

In 1986, Mr. Ratliff received an early retirement letter that
promised health and welfare coverage until age 65, a US$35,000
separation allowance, and a US$10,000 death benefit. Norfolk
Southern advised him that it would require total and absolute
release of any claims arising from the employment relationship.

Mr. Ratliff applied to retire and Norfolk Southern approved. He
signed a release that identified the US$35,000 as consideration
for the release. He died in 2005.

Mrs. Ratliff sued Norfolk Southern, claiming negligence and
violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Federal
Safety Appliance Act.

The railroad moved for summary judgment, claiming Mr. Ratliff
released all claims. Mrs. Ratliff moved for summary judgment
too, claiming the release was void.

Judge Recht held a hearing and decided to conduct a jury trial
solely on the subject of the intent of the parties in entering
into the release. That pleased neither side. Both sides renewed
their summary judgment motions.

Judge Recht granted the railroad's motion, declaring the release
"very specific." He found "no evidence that the release was not
intended to comprehend the alleged occupational injury." He
wrote that "the plaintiff filed an affidavit saying that she and
Mr. Ratliff never discussed the meaning and effect of the
release." He ruled that US$35,000 was sufficient consideration.

On appeal, the Justices decided that Mrs. Ratliff could release
FELA claims only in the context of a bargained settlement.

Richard Shapiro, Esq., of Virginia Beach, Va., and Michael
Giertz, Esq., of Wheeling, W.Va., represented Mrs. Ratliff. Luke
Lafferre, Esq., of Huntington, W.Va., represented Norfolk
Southern.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Enforces CAA Program Provisions in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on March 20,
2009 that it has assumed the responsibility for implementation
of provisions of the Clean Air Act Asbestos Program in Georgia,
according to an EPA press release dated March 20, 2009.

Because of budget constraints, Georgia has discontinued asbestos
inspections, complaint follow-up, and enforcement. By mutual
agreement between Georgia and EPA, the State will continue to
process notifications for asbestos renovation, encapsulation
and/or demolition, issue asbestos contractor licenses, and
approve asbestos supervisor training courses.

EPA will conduct inspections and enforcement of asbestos
abatement renovation, disposal, and demolition projects for
commercial, public, industrial and certain types of multi-family
residential structures.

EPA has established programs to collect information related to
the asbestos violations. When necessary, EPA will pursue federal
enforcement in cases where violations are found. The law allows
for fines of up to US$37,500 per day, for each violation.

EPA's requirements for working with asbestos are those found in
the Clean Air Act's National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bankruptcy of Planet Toys Filed on March 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Planet Toys, Inc., on March 18, 2008, filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition in New York, Reuters reports.

Planet Toys faces a potential asbestos-related class action
lawsuit over its "CSI" fingerprint kits.

In 2008, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization sued the
Company and CBS Corporation, claiming they sold toy crime-scene
kits based on the CBS series "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation"
that contained asbestos.

Planet Toys pulled the kits from the market over ADAO's claims
and said multiple tests had shown no traces of asbestos.
According to court papers, plaintiffs in the case have a March
30, 2009 deadline to file a motion to certify the class.

The case is styled In re: Planet Toys Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 09-11227.

The suit seeking class action status is styled Morris v. Planet
Toys, Inc. et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, No. 08-00592.

In its petition, Planet Toys listed assets in the range of US$1
million to US$10 million and liabilities in the range of US$10
million to US$50 million.

Under Chapter 7, a bankrupt company typically liquidates and
does not reorganize itself.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arrest Warrant Issued for DeLeon in Boston
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed federal judge issued an arrest warrant for Albania
DeLeon, a Massachusetts business owner, who was convicted of
falsifying training records of asbestos workers, the Boston
Herald reports.

The 39-year-old Ms. DeLeon was found guilty of selling fake
safety training certificates to illegal immigrants who did
asbestos removal and failing to pay federal employment taxes for
them.

Ms. DeLeon, of Salem, N.H., was scheduled to be sentenced on
March 23, 2009 in U.S. District Court in Boston. However, a
spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office said Ms. DeLeon did
not appear.

Prosecutors say Ms. DeLeon operated a certified asbestos
training school and temporary employment agency in Methuen,
Mass.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Maltese Locals Seek Payout From U.S. Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Families of former dockyard workers from Malta are pursuing
claims against a number of American shipping firms over asbestos
poisoning, Times of Malta reports.

On March 24, 2009, these families were briefed by GWU (General
Workers Union) officials and an American lawyer who are
representing them in those asbestos-related cases.

Mitchell Cohen, Esq., pointed out that many of these companies
have now filed for bankruptcy, rather than meet the compensation
claims. However, the relatives could still be entitled for some
of their funds.

The meeting was attended by some 45 family members of dockyard
workers, some of whom became victims of asbestos-induced cancer.

"We are seeking compensation not as much for the money as to see
that justice is done" a 19-year-old whose father has been
diagnosed with cancer told the meeting.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Passaic City Seeks More Info Before Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Passaic, N.J., seek more information before they
begin the removal of asbestos at a historical downtown tower,
which is a city landmark, WiredPRNews.com reports.

As reported by the Herald News on NorthJersey.com, the City of
Passaic is seeking answers to questions on a contractor bid and
the work schedule for the removal of asbestos from the tower.
Concerns have been raised on whether the project will interfere
with business patronage or pose a public safety risk.

President of the City Council Gary Schaer, is quoted as stating
of the matter, "I am very hopeful that the company can provide
the answers that we need."

Mr. Schaer is further quoted as stating of a renovation project
for the landmark, "We've waited a long time for [renovation of]
this building to happen... We recognize and know that it's vital
to Passaic, not only to the downtown area but to the city."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Firm Sued for Failing to Pay Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office, on March
20, 2009, filed a complaint in Suffolk Superior Court against a
Weymouth company and its president for failing to pay a
US$108,000 civil administrative penalty assessed by the
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), according to
Mass. AG press release dated March 20, 2009.

The assessed penalty was for violations of numerous
environmental laws at properties in Middleboro and Wareham. The
complaint seeks up to three times the amount of the assessed
penalty.

Ms. Coakley said, "The law requires that individuals and
companies properly dispose of hazardous materials. Our office is
committed to enforcing the law to protect the public health and
safety of our environment and communities. When individuals fail
to comply with environmental laws in the Commonwealth, MassDEP
may assess an appropriate fine.

"Our office will hold accountable individuals and companies who
fail to comply with environmental regulations and who in bad
faith fail to pay administrative fines lawfully assessed by
MassDEP."

MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt said, "The best way to avoid
paying a penalty is a simple one – stay in compliance with
environmental regulations. But for those cases where a penalty
is properly assessed, timely payment is required by law. We will
not let scofflaws ignore their debt to the Commonwealth or to
the environment."

In the complaint filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the Attorney
General's Office alleges that George Clements and C & O
Enterprises, Inc. also known as North American Environmental
Services, Inc., failed to pay a properly assessed penalty for
abandoning asbestos-containing waste material at a Middleboro
property and hazardous waste at a property in Wareham.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants exhibited bad
faith and refused to accept responsibility for either the proper
disposal of the hazardous materials or the costs incurred for
the proper disposal of the hazardous materials.

MassDEP originally made numerous unsuccessful attempts to bring
the defendants into compliance. On March 17, 2004, MassDEP
assessed a US$108,000 civil administrative penalty, which the
Defendants did not appeal. Clements has ignored repeated efforts
to collect the penalty.

The asbestos-containing materials and hazardous wastes have
since been cleaned up from the two properties.

Assistant Attorneys General Betsy Harper from Attorney General
Martha Coakley's Environmental Protection Division is handling
the case. Steve Spencer of the Department of Environmental
Protection Strike Force is working on the matter for MassDEP.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX, MeadWestvaco Summary Judgment Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Alabama upheld the ruling of the St. Clair
Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of
MeadWestvaco Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., in
asbestos litigation filed by Sheila Henderson on behalf of her
husband, Tony R. Henderson.

The cases are styled:

-- Sheila Henderson, as personal representative of the estate of
   Tony R. Henderson, deceased v. MeadWestvaco Corporation and
   CSX Transportation, Inc.

-- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Sheila Henderson, as personal
   representative of the estate of Tony R. Henderson, deceased.

-- MeadWestvaco Corporation v. Sheila Henderson, as personal
   representative of the estate of Tony R. Henderson, deceased.

Judges Champ Lyons Jr., Sue Bell Cobb, Thomas A. Woodall, Lyn
Stuart, Patricia M. Smith, Michael F. Bolin, Tom Parker, Greg
Shaw, and Glenn Murdock entered judgment in Case Nos. 1070522,
1070497, and 1070509 on March 20, 2009.

Mrs. Henderson appealed from a summary judgment in favor of CSX
and MeadWestvaco on her claim seeking damages for the alleged
wrongful death Mr. Henderson. CSX and MeadWestvaco both filed
cross-appeals.

Mr. Henderson was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2004. He was
exposed to asbestos as a teenager when he worked for the Cement
Asbestos Products Company (CAPCO). CAPCO made pipe from cement,
silica, and asbestos at a plant in St. Clair County near Mr.
Henderson's family home. CAPCO closed the plant in 1984.

Mr. Henderson worked for CAPCO part-time during high school in
the late 1960s preparing pallets for reuse. He also worked for
CAPCO full-time during the summers of 1971 and 1972 while he was
in college. Mr. Henderson's primary duty in 1971 and 1972 was to
unload from railroad cars operated by Seaboard Coastline, a CSX
predecessor, packages of raw asbestos fibers that were delivered
to the plant.

Mr. Henderson was directly exposed to asbestos when he unloaded
the railcars.

Mr. Henderson first developed symptoms of mesothelioma, a cough
and fluid on his lungs, in September 2004, 32 years after his
last exposure to asbestos at CAPCO. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma in mid-October 2004. He died as a result of the
disease on Feb. 1, 2006.

In March 2005, the Hendersons filed a personal-injury action
against CSX, Bill Vann Company, Inc., and several other entities
in the State Court of Fulton County, Ga., seeking damages for
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. Mr. Henderson died
while the Georgia action was pending.

Mrs. Henderson voluntarily dismissed the Georgia action on June
16, 2006. On the same day she dismissed the Georgia action, Mrs.
Henderson filed an independent action in the St. Clair Circuit
Court against CSX, Bill Vann Company, Inc., MeadWestvaco, and
several fictitiously named defendants.

MeadWestvaco removed the action to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama in July 2006, and the case was
remanded to the St. Clair Circuit Court in August 2006. After
remand, CSX and MeadWestvaco each moved for a summary.

On July 3, 2007, the trial court denied the motions as to the
statute of limitations, CSX's duty, and MeadWestvaco's
relationship with CAPCO. The trial court, however, entered a
summary judgment in favor of CSX and MeadWestvaco.

After Mrs. Henderson's post-judgment motion was denied and the
trial court had entered a summary judgment as to Bill Vann
Company, Inc., she filed a timely appeal to this Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in ConRail Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas, which administratively dismissed the asbestos claims of
Jack E. Riedel, Danny R. Six, and Josephine Weldy in litigation
involving Consolidated Rail Corporation.

The case is styled Jack E. Riedel, Danny R. Six, Josephine
Weldy, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, et
al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Sean C. Gallagher, Mary Eileen Kilbane, and Ann Dyke
entered judgment in Case Nos. 91237, 91238, 91239 on March 19,
2009.

ConRail, American Premier Underwriters, Inc., and Norfolk
Southern Railway Corporation (collectively, "the Railroads"),
appealed the ruling of the trial court, which administratively
dismissed the asbestosis claims of Mr. Riedel, Mr. Six, and Mrs.
Weldy as representative of the estate of Jack Weldy
(collectively "Plaintiffs"), and severed the remaining claims.

Plaintiffs filed occupational disease claims under the Federal
Employers' Liability Act ("FELA") and the Locomotive Inspection
Act ("LIA") against the Railroads. They alleged various
pulmonary injuries, which occurred from their occupational
exposure to various toxic substances.

The first cause of action related to exposure to asbestos; the
second, exposure to diesel locomotive exhaust; the third,
exposure to sand and silica; the fourth, exposure to solvents
and other toxic substances; the fifth, aggravation of pre-
existing conditions; and the sixth, negligent assignment.

In addition, Mrs. Weldy made a wrongful death claim for her
husband, Jack Weldy, based on his Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary
Disease and his occupational exposure to diesel exhaust. Under
each cause of action, Plaintiffs alleged injuries that included
"pneumonconiosis, asbestosis, pleural disease, restrictive lung
disease, obstructive lung disease, emphysema, asthma, reactive
airway disease," fear of cancer, and lost wages.

The trial court required that plaintiffs make a prima facie
showing in accordance with R.C. 2307.92(B) as to their asbestos-
related claims or stand to have the asbestos claims
administratively dismissed.

Plaintiffs offered evidence to make their prima facie case,
which evidence was challenged by the Railroads. The trial court
granted the Railroads' motion for administrative dismissal as to
the asbestos-related claims, but severed the remaining claims
pertaining to substances other than asbestos.

The Railroads appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in
ruling that the administrative dismissal provisions of H.B. 292
(R.C. 2307.93) did not apply to the non-asbestos claims, and in
permitting the non-asbestos claims to be severed.

The Railroads claimed that the court should have
administratively dismissed all the claims under R.C. 2307.93(C).

Patrick C. Booth, Esq., David A. Damico, Esq., Ira L. Podheiser,
Esq., and Megan L. Zerega, Esq., of Burns, White & Hickton, LLC
in Pittsburgh, represented Mr. Riedel, Mr. Six, and Mrs. Weldy.

Michael H. Doran, Esq., and Michael L. Torcello, Esq., of Doran
& Murphy, LLP in Buffalo, N.Y., represented Appellants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $1Mil for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2008, accrued US$1
million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at its City National Plaza property, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 23, 2009.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, the Company accrued a total of US$2.3
million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at City National Plaza (US$2.1 million) and
Brookhollow (US$200,000). (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008)

Headquartered in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a
real estate company that owns, acquires, develops and manages
primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential
properties on a nationwide basis. Its properties are in Southern
California and Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia; Northern
Virginia; Houston, Texas; and Austin, Tex.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Baymeadows Apartments Incurs $105T Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelter Properties IV's investment property, Baymeadows
Apartments in Jacksonville, Fla., during the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, incurred about US$105,000 for asbestos abatement,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2009.

Baymeadows Apartments incurred about US$105,000 of asbestos
abatement during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

In October 2007, Baymeadows Apartments incurred damages of about
US$282,000 from a severe storm. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, the Company incurred about US$176,000 of cleanup expenses,
including the abatement costs.

All of the asbestos related work was complete as of Dec. 31,
2008.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company received
insurance proceeds of about US$272,000 and wrote off
undepreciated damaged assets of about US$35,000, resulting in a
casualty gain of about US$237,000.

In addition, during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
received about US$32,000 to cover lost rents.

Headquartered in Greenville, S.C., Shelter Properties IV
operates and holds real estate properties for investment. In
1982 and 1983, during its acquisition phase, it acquired five
existing apartment properties. The Company continues to own and
operate one investment property.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending v. Entrx Corp. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faced 271 pending asbestos cases as of Dec.
31, 2008, compared with 222 cases at Dec. 31, 2007, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2009.

At Sept. 30, 2008, the Company faced 248 pending asbestos-
related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2008)

Prior to 1975, the Company sold and installed asbestos-related
insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of
personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure.

The asbestos-related cases, which have been initiated naming the
Company (primarily its subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation) as a defendant, have fluctuated from 265 in 2004,
to 199 in 2005, to 232 in 2006, to 163 in 2007, and to 187 in
2008.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 109
defense judgments and dismissals, 29 plaintiff judgments and
settled cases, and 138 total resolved cases. Total indemnity
payments were US$7,582,550; average indemnity paid on plaintiff
judgments and settled cases were US$261,467; and average
indemnity paid on all resolved cases were US$54,946.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company recorded 292
defense judgments and dismissals, 53 plaintiff judgments and
settled cases, and 345 total resolved cases. Total indemnity
payments were US$7,974,500; the average indemnity paid on
plaintiff judgments and settled cases were US$150,462; and
average indemnity paid on all resolved cases were US$23,114.

Direct defense costs per resolved claim increased from US$8,514
in 2003 to US$44,359 in 2008. The weighted average defense cost
per resolved claim from 2005 through 2008 was US$18,233.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The
Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation
Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Records $45.25M Receivable at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation included US$45,250,000 of asbestos insurance
coverage receivable as an asset on its Dec. 31, 2008 balance
sheets and US$36 million on its Dec. 31, 2007 balance sheets.

The Company estimates that there will be 877 asbestos-related
injury claims made against it after Dec. 31, 2008. The 877, in
addition to the 271 claims existing as of Dec. 31, 2008, totaled
1,148 current and future claims.

The Company projects the probable future indemnity to be paid on
those claims after Dec. 31, 2008 to be equal to about US$24
million. The Company projected the probable future defense costs
to equal about US$21.25 million. Accordingly, the Company's
total estimated future asbestos-related liability at Dec. 31,
2008 is US$45.25 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company projects that about 154 new
asbestos-related claims will be commenced and about 188 cases
will be resolved in 2009, resulting in an estimated 237 cases
pending at Dec. 31, 2009. The Company estimates that an
aggregate of 723 new cases will be commenced after Dec. 31,
2009. Accordingly, the Company projects the cases pending and
projected to be commenced in the future at Dec. 31, 2009, will
be 960 cases.

The Company estimates its liability for current and future
asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2009 to be about US$38
million. This amounts to a US$7.25 million reduction from the
US$45.25 million liability the Company estimates as of Dec. 31,
2008, or a US$1,812,500 reduction per quarter in 2009.

The Company has determined that the minimum probable insurance
coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury claims
significantly exceeds its estimated future liability for such
claims of US$45.25 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 and US$36 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

Although defense costs are included in its insurance coverage,
the Company expended US$128,000 in 2008 to administer the
asbestos claims and defend the ACE Lawsuit.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The
Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation
Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACE Insurance Lawsuit Ongoing v. Metalclad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation says that an asbestos insurance lawsuit filed
by ACE Property & Casualty Company and other parties is still
ongoing against Company subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation.

On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National Insurance Company of
Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company (which are
all related entities) filed a declaratory relief lawsuit (ACE
Lawsuit) against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other
liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding coverage issues,
but is centrally focused on issues involving whether historical
and currently pending asbestos lawsuits brought against
Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate" limits of
liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary
recovery from Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit is principally about
coverage responsibility among the several insurers, as well as
total coverage.

The ACE Lawsuit may result in the Company incurring costs in
connection with obligations it may have to indemnify Allstate
under a settlement agreement.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in
October 2005, asked the court to determine the Company's
obligation to assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the
ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification obligations in
the settlement agreement.

If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's
asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would
have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it
defends up to US$2.5 million in the aggregate.

If Allstate is not required to provide indemnity, the Company
would have no liability to Allstate. The Company has accrued
US$375,000 as a potential loss in connection with the Allstate
matter.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The
Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation
Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Suits Against Entergy Drop to 500
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries faced about
500 asbestos exposure lawsuits involving about 6,000 claimants,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

Company subsidiaries faced about 600 asbestos-related lawsuits
involving about 8,000 claimants. (Class Action Reporter, March
14, 2008)

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts
primarily in Texas and Louisiana, primarily by contractor
employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, against
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. and Entergy Texas, Inc.
and to a lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as
premises owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged
exposure to asbestos.

Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well.
Negotiations continue with insurers to recover reimbursements.

Headquartered in New Orleans, Entergy Corporation is an energy
company engaged in electric power production and retail electric
distribution operations. The Company delivers electricity to 2.7
million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to be a defendant in
pending asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Company has been named in 148 pending lawsuits that allege
injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
2008 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In addition, to date, the Company has secured dismissals with
prejudice in 103 lawsuits and without prejudice in 110 lawsuits.
The Company is currently in discussions for similar dismissal of
several other lawsuits, and has not been found liable or paid
any material sum of money in settlement in any case.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities.

Headquartered in Roseland, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation
designs and manufactures highly engineered, advanced
technologies for the defense, energy, commercial aerospace, and
general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Manitowoc Co. Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to face asbestos-related
lawsuits in which it is one of numerous defendants, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2009.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is
a multi-industry, capital goods manufacturer in two principal
markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice Equipment.
For the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had net sales of
about US$4.5 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $38Mil for Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's long-term reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$38 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$29 million as of Dec. 31, 2007, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 25, 2009.

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims
was US$25,250,000 as of Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 5, 2008)

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$7.25 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$7 million
as of Dec. 31, 2007.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$5.5 million as of Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter,
Dec. 5, 2008)

Headquartered in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides
insulation installation, maintenance and removal services, and
asbestos abatement services, primarily on the West Coast. The
Company provides these services through Metalclad Insulation
Corporation to industrial, commercial and public agency clients.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ravenstahl Seeks $300T for Asbestos Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, on March 24, 2009, asked City
Council to accept US$300,000 from a state oversight agency to
help train building inspectors to check for asbestos in
structures set for demolition, the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette
reports.

The Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority recommended the
training and is supplying the funding. The training is meant to
speed the process and reduce the cost of demolitions of
abandoned houses.

The administration announced that it will begin training Fire
Bureau personnel in building code enforcement and will provide
building inspectors with cars. They now use personal cars on
their neighborhood rounds, and the city reimburses them based on
mileage.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Mass. Company to Pay $18T for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) assessed a US$18,137 penalty on Environmental Source
Corporation for violations of state asbestos regulations,
according to a MassDEP press release dated March 24, 2009.

In April 2008, MassDEP personnel responded to a complaint and
conducted an inspection of an asbestos siding removal project
being conducted by the company at a residence in Westborough,
Mass.

MassDEP inspectors observed numerous violations at the site, and
noted numerous pieces of dry, shattered asbestos-containing
materials uncontained on the ground at the residence.

Lee Dillard Adams, deputy director of MassDEP's Central Regional
Office in Worcester, said, "Licensed asbestos contractors are
fully aware that the prescribed regulatory work procedures are
critical to the protection of their workers, public health and
the environment. Failure to strictly adhere to all required work
practices inevitably results in significant penalty exposure and
escalated cleanup, decontamination, and monitoring costs."

Under the terms of the negotiated settlement, MassDEP assessed
an US$18,137 penalty, but suspended US$8,637 provided the
Company does not have repeat violations for one year.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Environmental Source Corporation
181 Canal St.
Lawrence, Mass., 01840
Phone: (978) 681-7888


                            *********

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  * * *