CAR_Public/090424.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 80

                           Headlines

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit v. Partnership Pending in Florida
ARKEMA INC: Reaches $10M Settlement in Hydrogen Peroxide Case
BELL MOBILITY: NWT Court Denies Dismissal Bid Against 911 Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Defends Hugo Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BFC FINANCIAL: Farington's Contract Breach Suit Pending in Fla.

BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Action in Fla.
BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Defends "Almonor" Suit Over ERISA Violations
CLEARWIRE US: Faces Wash. Suit Over Deceptive Advertising, ETF
ENCANA CORP: Continues to Face $30M "Gallo" Complaint in Calif.

J.P. JEANNERET: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
KNIGHT INC: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Still Ongoing
KNIGHT INC: Royalties Suit v. CO2 Unit Set for October 19 Trial
MONSANTO CO: Mo. Judge Denies Request in "Schoenbaum" Litigation
NATIONAL SECURITY: Units Defend Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath

PELLA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Aluminum Windows Lawsuit
REALTYSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Favors Buyers in Suit Over $149 Fee
REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Ariz. Court Hears Oral Arguments in Radar Suit
ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
SIGNATURE ALUMINUM: Faces WARN Violations Lawsuit in Delaware

STANFORD INT'L: Stephen F. Malouf, P.C. Files Investors' Lawsuit
SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Faces Investor's Litigation in California
TVI PACIFIC: Settles Claims in Ontario, Quebec Shareholder Cases
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Donor Program
VIRGINIA LOTTERY: Judge Denies "Virtual Representation" in Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Seltmann Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Voorhies' Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lifland Issues Ruling in Chateaugay Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Records $484M for Settlement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Eau Still Subject to Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Todd Pacific Filed in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Robreno Junks 444 Actions on April 8
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: School Sues N.Y. Education Dept. for $500M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Nolan Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UN Reassures Staff on Headquarters Cleanup

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Ham's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lineberry's Action v. U.S. Gov't. Dismissed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Affirms Dismissal of Mason Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in McBride Suit Commenced on April 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mitie to Pay GBP5,000 for Safety Violations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Playing Children Exposed to Risk at Walney
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. University to Use Stimulus for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Minister Seeking Cleanup at Areyonga
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NASUWT Calling for Cleanup in U.K. Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Senate Passes SB1123 Bill on Causation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alameda Locals Seek More Tests on Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thompsons Welcomes Cancer Agency's Research
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Not Included in Vt. Stimulus Grant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Cookus' Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Webb Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms ICI Americas Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Title VII Dismissal Denied in Winston Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Facing 75,266 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Mulls Appeal in James Baccus Verdict
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Gets Adverse Verdict in Woodard Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $22.3M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Cites $244.95Mil Long-Term Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records $820.44M Long-Term Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Norris Suit Appeal

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs McCarthy Partial Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Petition for Review in Pelaez Action Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Insurers Seek to Dispute Payout Ruling
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Importer Arrested for Dealing Tainted Talc
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Out-of-Court Deal Entered in Allen Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Witness in Grace Action Called on April 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1515 Tower's Demolition Halted on April 15
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cupido to Pay $52T Fine for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PEER Files Suit v. EPA over Cleanup Report
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Says Hardie Breached Corporations Law

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Orders Junking of Aidnik Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Badgett Claim
ASBESTOS ALERT: Secal Laser, Director Fined for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Wa. Contractor Fined $51,750 for Cleanup Breach


                           *********

ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Suit v. Partnership Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The action entitled, "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12," is still in the early stages of the
litigation, according to ALP Liquidating Trust's March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Effective Sept. 30, 2005, Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") completed its liquidation by contributing all of
its remaining assets to ALP, subject to all of the Partnership's
obligations and liabilities.  Arvida Company, an affiliate of
the general partner of the Partnership, acts as Administrator
(the "Administrator") of ALP.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled, "Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12," filed in the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20,
2003, plaintiffs purport to bring a class action allegedly
arising out of construction defects occurring during the
development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has
approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may
deem just and proper.

The plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the homes were
not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on
file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not
properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer
from improper shutter storm protection systems.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint.

This case has been tendered to one of the Partnership's
insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company, for
defense and indemnity.  Zurich is providing a defense of this
matter under a purported reservation of rights.

The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection
with this lawsuit.

ALP Liquidating Trust engages in liquidating the assets of
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. Arvida/JMB Partners transferred all of
its remaining assets to the trust at the time of its liquidation
in 2005.  Previously, Arvida/JMB Partners was engaged in the
development of resort and primary home communities for the
middle and upper income segments in the State of Florida, as
well as in Atlanta, Georgia, and Highlands, North Carolina.  ALP
Liquidating Trust was founded in 1987 and is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


ARKEMA INC: Reaches $10M Settlement in Hydrogen Peroxide Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have asked a federal judge to
approve $10 million in settlements between Arkema, Inc. and FMC
Corp. and direct purchasers of their hydrogen peroxide products,
which would bring an end to the class-action lawsuit over
alleged price-fixing in the market.

The plaintiffs' lawyers filed a motion on April 21, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
asking a judge to sign off on a $10 million deal reached in the
matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682."

                        Case Background

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are those who purchased Hydrogen
Peroxide (including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in
the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from
any of these defendants:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;

       -- Kemira Oyj;

       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged
conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant
manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium
percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been
(Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2008).

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants.


BELL MOBILITY: NWT Court Denies Dismissal Bid Against 911 Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northwest Territories (NWT) Court of Appeal in Yellowknife
dismissed an appeal by Bell Mobility that sought get a local
man's CDN$6-million class-action lawsuit thrown out of court,
CBC News reports.

On April 21, 2009, lawyers for Bell Mobility argued before the
appeals court that it never agreed to provide 911 service.  The
company said there was no mention of providing the emergency
service in its contract with cellphone customers, according to
CBC News.

However, that argument did not satisfy the three Court of Appeal
judges, including Justice Jean Côté, who kept returning to the
central theme of Mr. Anderson's lawsuit.  "You jolly well billed
for it," Justice Côté told Bell Mobility's lawyers in court at
one point, reports CBC News.

Thus, the judges dismissed the company's appeal without hearing
a word from Mr. Anderson or his lawyer, CBC News reported.

Cara Loverock of the Northern News Services previously reported
that the Supreme Court of the NWT dismissed a motion by Bell
Mobility to strike a CDN6 million civil class-action lawsuit
against the company (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008).

The suit, launched by James Anderson, was brought against the
cellphone provider over its charge for 911 service, which is not
provided in any community in NWT.

An Oct. 30, 2008 written decision from the Supreme Court stated
that there were grounds for the lawsuit to proceed.  Justice
R.S. Veale stated in that decision that "the plaintiff must
plead facts that disclose a cause of action and they have done
so.  The defendant raises issues of law that may be determined
after the evidence is heard," according to Northern News
Services.

Keith Landy, the Toronto-based lawyer representing Mr. Anderson,
said if Bell does not appeal, the matter is scheduled to be
heard in Supreme Court in May of 2009.

"It's gratifying the courts have seen fit to let the matter
proceed," Mr. Anderson tells the Northern News Services.

Mr. Anderson's son, Samuel, is also listed as a plaintiff and
joined the lawsuit shortly after it was originally filed.

"In my son's case he has a package (with Bell Mobility) and the
911 fee is not segregated," explains Mr. Anderson.  He also
explains that his son was added to the suit because then both
types of fees Bell charges, those that are separate and part of
a package, are included in the lawsuit, reports the Northern
News Services.


BFC FINANCIAL: Defends Hugo Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,
continues to defend a purported class-action lawsuit alleging
breach of fiduciary duties.

The action is tagged, "D.W. Hugo, individually and on behalf of
Nominal Defendant BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. vs. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., Alan B. Levan, Jarett S. Levan, Jay C. McClung,
Marcia K. Snyder, Valerie Toalson, James A. White, John E. Abdo,
D. Keith Cobb, Steven M. Coldren, and David A. Lieberman, Case
No. 0:08-cv-61018-UU," U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida

On July 2, 2008, D.W. Hugo filed a purported class-action suit
which was brought as a derivative action on behalf of
BankAtlantic Bancorp pursuant to Florida laws in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida against
BankAtlantic Bancorp and the above listed officers and
directors.

The Complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in certain lending practices
with respect to BankAtlantic's Commercial Real Estate Loan
Portfolio.

The Complaint further alleges that BankAtlantic Bancorp's public
filings and statements did not fully disclose the risks
associated with the Commercial Real Estate Loan Portfolio and
seeks damages on behalf of BankAtlantic Bancorp.

On Dec. 2, 2008, the Circuit Court for Broward County stayed a
separately filed action captioned, "Albert R. Feldman,
Derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. vs. Alan B. Levan, et al., Case No. 0846795 07,"
which attempted to assert substantially the same allegations as
in the Hugo matter, but with somewhat different state law causes
of action.  The court granted the motion to stay the action
pending further order of the court and allowing any party to
move for relief from the stay, provided the moving party gives
at least thirty days' written notice to all of the non-moving
parties, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.
BFC itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Farington's Contract Breach Suit Pending in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lashelle Farington's purported class-action suit over contract
breach and unjust enrichment is in the initial stages, according
to BFC Financial Corp.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The lawsuit is captioned, "Lashelle Farrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BankAtlantic, a
Federal Savings Bank, BA Financial Services, LLC, a Florida
limited liability corporation, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., a
Florida corporation, BFC Financial Corporation, a Florida
corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 09-006210 (11)," in the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida.

On Feb. 2, 2009, Lashelle Farington filed a purported class
action for state common law breach of contract and unjust
enrichment against BankAtlantic, several of its affiliates, and
various unnamed officers and agents.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that BankAtlantic breached
its Personal Account Depositor's Agreement by charging overdraft
fees for certain debit card purchases which allegedly did not
cause the customers' accounts to be overdrawn at time that they
were paid.  The Complaint alleges that rather than following the
applicable provisions of the agreement, BankAtlantic charged
overdraft fees for debit card purchases which occurred before
the customer's account was actually overdrawn.

On the breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff seeks to
establish a class comprised of all persons or entities with
BankAtlantic checking accounts who incurred these allegedly
improper overdraft fees on debit card transactions within the
previous 5 years.  On the unjust enrichment claim, the purported
class is the same except that the class period is within the
previous 4 years.

The Complaint does not allege any specific amount in
controversy.

This case is in the initial stages and BankAtlantic has not yet
filed any responsive pleadings.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.
BFC itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Dance" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, Woodbridge Holdings Corp.
formerly known as Levitt Corp.), continues to defend a
purported class-action complaint filed by Robert D. Dance in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

On Jan. 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class-action complaint as a putative purchaser of securities
against Woodbridge and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities law and seeking
damages.

This action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is captioned, "Dance v. Levitt
Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG."

The securities litigation purports to be brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Woodbridge's securities beginning on Jan. 31,
2007 and ending on Aug. 14, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or misleading
statements concerning Woodbridge's financial results, prospects
and condition, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form
10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.
BFC itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend "Hubbard" Action in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corp.'s subsidiary, BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc.,
continues to defend the class-action lawsuit styled, "Joseph C.
Hubbard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, vs. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., James A. White,
Valerie C. Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, and Alan B. Levan, No.
0:07-cv-61542-UU," in the U.S. District Court, Southern District
of Florida.

On Oct. 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a purported class-
action case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against BankAtlantic Bancorp and four of its current
or former officers.

The Complaint, which was later amended on June 12, 2008, alleges
that during the purported class period of Nov. 9, 2005 through
Oct. 25, 2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp and the named officers
knowingly and/or recklessly made misrepresentations of material
fact regarding BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan
portfolio and allowance for loan losses.

The Complaint seeks to assert claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks unspecified damages.

On Dec. 12, 2007, the Court consolidated into Hubbard a
separately filed action captioned, "Alarm Specialties, Inc. v.
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07—cv-61623-WPD" that
attempted to assert similar claims on behalf of the same class.

On Feb. 5, 2008, the Court appointed State-Boston Retirement
System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP to serve as lead
counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, according to the company's March 31, 2009
Form 10-K filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.
BFC itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


BFC FINANCIAL: Unit Defends "Almonor" Suit Over ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corp.,
continues to defend a purported class action alleging violations
of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"),
according to BFC Financial Corp.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The action is captioned, "Wilmine Almonor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc., Steven M. Coldren, Mary E. Ginestra, Willis N.
Holcombe, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo, David A. Lieberman,
Charlie C. Winningham II, D. Keith Cobb, Bruno L. DiGiulian,
Alan B. Levan, James A. White, the Security Plus Plan Committee,
and Unknown Fiduciary Defendants 1-50, No. 0:07-cv-61862-DMM,"
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.

On Dec. 20, 2007, Wilmine Almonor filed a purported class-action
case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against BankAtlantic Bancorp and the above-listed
officers, directors, employees, and organizations.

The Complaint alleges that during the purported class period of
Nov. 9, 2005 to present, BankAtlantic Bancorp and the individual
defendants violated the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") by permitting company employees to choose to
invest in BankAtlantic Bancorp's Class A common stock in light
of the facts alleged in the Hubbard securities lawsuit.

The Complaint seeks to assert claims for breach of fiduciary
duties, the duty to provide accurate information, the duty to
avoid conflicts of interest under ERISA and seeks unspecified
damages.

On Feb. 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

BFC Financial Corp. -- http://www.bfcfinancial.com/-- is a
holding company.  Its ownership interests include direct and
indirect interests in businesses in a variety of sectors,
including consumer and commercial banking, master-planned
community development, time-share and vacation ownership, an
Asian-themed restaurant chain and various real estate and
venture capital investments.  BFC's holdings consist of direct
controlling interests in BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and Levitt
Corporation.  BFC owns a direct investment in Benihana, Inc.
BFC itself has no significant operations other than activities
relating to the monitoring of existing investments.  BFC
operates through six segments: BFC Activities, Financial
Services and four segments within its Real Estate Development
Division.


CLEARWIRE US: Faces Wash. Suit Over Deceptive Advertising, ETF
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A lawsuit was filed on April 22, 2009 against Clearwire US,
LLC seeking certification of a class action on behalf of
Clearwire subscribers.  As alleged in the lawsuit, Clearwire
entices consumers into long-term contracts for internet and
phone service by advertising its service as a fast, reliable
"always-on" alternative to cable or DSL internet access, and as
a superior alternative to traditional land-line telephone
service.  But, according to the complaint, when those consumers
seek to cancel their Clearwire service because they discover
that, in fact, Clearwire service is slow and unreliable (or for
any other reason), the consumers learn that their long-term
contracts contain an Early Termination Fee provision pursuant to
which Clearwire charges a fee of up to $220 for canceling.

     The lawsuit alleges that Clearwire's advertising is
deceptive and that its Early Termination Fees are unlawful.

     Clearwire is a Washington-based company with its
headquarters in Kirkland, Washington.  Clearwire has claimed in
its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it
has hundreds of thousands of U.S. subscribers to its internet
service, which it offers in sixteen states.

     The complaint alleges that Clearwire engages in unfair
business practices in the imposition and collection of Early
Termination Fees.  The complaint alleges that the majority of
Clearwire's subscribers are required to enter into one or two-
year agreements.  Should a subscriber decide to cancel Clearwire
service for any reason, including lack of internet service or
moving to a location in which Clearwire service is not offered,
Clearwire charges the subscriber an Early Termination Fee.  The
complaint alleges that the Early Termination Fee constitutes an
unlawful penalty, stymies competition, and is otherwise void and
unenforceable.

     The complaint also alleges that Clearwire engages in false
advertising of its internet and telephone services.  Although
Clearwire advertises its internet service offering as a
reliable, comparable, and "always-on" alternative to cable
internet or DSL, the complaint alleges that Clearwire's internet
service is actually far inferior to cable internet and DSL, as
consumers frequently experienced service disruptions, including
dial-up speeds and lack of service entirely.  With respect to
Clearwire's telephone service, although Clearwire advertises its
telephone service as a superior alternative to traditional land-
line telephone service, the complaint alleges that Clearwire's
telephone service is far inferior to traditional land-line
service, as subscribers experience frequent service disruptions.

     The plaintiffs who have brought the lawsuit are from
various states in which Clearwire offers service, including
Washington, Hawaii, Minnesota, and North Carolina.  They seek
recovery of any Early Termination Fees paid by Clearwire
subscribers, as well as an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from
enforcing the Early Termination Fees and from further false
advertising.

     The lawsuit is captioned, "Minnick et al. v. Clearwire US,
LLC," and was filed in King County, Washington.  Plaintiffs are
represented by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Tycko & Zavareei
LLP and the Seattle, Washington law firm of Peterson Young
Putra.

For more details, contact:

          Tycko & Zavareei LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W.
          Suite 808
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          Web site: http://www.tzlegal.com/


ENCANA CORP: Continues to Face $30M "Gallo" Complaint in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     EnCana Corp. and its indirect wholly owned U.S. Marketing
subsidiary, WD Energy Services Inc. remain defendants in a
lawsuit filed by E. & J. Gallo Winery in the U.S. District Court
in California.

     The Gallo and other California lawsuits contain allegations
that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy with unnamed
competitors in the natural gas and derivatives market in
California in violation of U.S. and California anti-trust and
unfair competition laws (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

     Along with other energy companies, EnCana Corp. and WD
Energy are defendants in several other lawsuits relating to
sales of natural gas in California from 1999 to 2002, some of
which are class actions and some of which are brought by
individual parties on their own behalf.

     As is customary, these lawsuits do not specify the precise
amount of damages claimed.

     In all but one of the class actions in the U.S. District
Court and in the Gallo action, decisions dealing with the issue
of whether the scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over natural gas prices
precludes the plaintiffs from maintaining their claims are on
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

     The Gallo lawsuit claims damages in excess of $30 million.
California law allows for the possibility that the amount of
damages assessed could be tripled.


J.P. JEANNERET: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Investments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fund managers J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., and Ivy Asset
Management Corp. and Ivy's parent Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New York for
allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties in entrusting client
money with convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff, Chad
Bray of Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of two pension funds for Plumbers
and Steamfitters Local 73 by law firm Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart PC, according to the Dow Jones Newswires report.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that the law firm
of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C. filed a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, against defendants J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., John
P. Jeanneret, Paul L. Perry, Ivy Asset Management Corporation,
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, and Margolin, Winer & Evens
LLP, on behalf of all persons, other than Defendants, who
invested in Income-Plus Investment Fund, from Jan. 1, 1999 to
the present, to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations
of the federal securities laws and common law claims, including
breach of fiduciary duties (Class Action Reporter, April 23,
2009).

The case name is styled, "Local 73 Annuity Fund, et al. v. J.P.
Jeanneret Associates, Inc., et al."

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, unknown to
Income-Plus Investors, Defendants failed to perform the
necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to
perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries, and
proximately caused millions of dollars in losses by placing the
Plaintiffs' investment assets of Income-Plus in entities managed
by Bernard Madoff.

Defendants either knew or were reckless in not realizing that
the Income-Plus Investment Fund's assets that were placed with
Madoff were at risk because his enterprise was a massive Ponzi
scheme.  Defendants ignored numerous red flags, including the
abnormally high and stable positive investment results
reportedly achieved by Madoff regardless of market conditions;
inconsistencies between Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities,
LLC's publicly available financial information concerning its
assets and the purported amounts that Madoff managed for
clients; and the fact that BMIS was audited by a small, obscure
accounting firm.

Jeanneret issued an Offering Memorandum for Income-Plus
Investment Fund that was false and misleading because it falsely
stated that Jeanneret would conduct thorough due diligence with
respect to Income-Plus' investments.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Jeanneret, Ivy, and Ivy's
parent company, Bank of New York, failed to perform the
represented due diligence and oversight, and abdicated their
fiduciary duties to the investors by entrusting the Plaintiffs'
assets with Madoff.  Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant
Margolin negligently failed to conduct a proper audit of Income-
Plus' financial statements.

Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the Class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5, as well as breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and
breach of contract.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Barbara Hart (Bhart@lowey.com)
          Thomas M. Skelton (Tskelton@lowey.com)
          Vincent Briganti (Vbriganti@lowey.com)
          Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.
          White Plains Plaza One North Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601-2310
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Web site: http://www.lowey.com

  
KNIGHT INC: Discovery in "Going Private" Suits Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated discovery is ongoing in two purported class-action
lawsuits against Knight, Inc. -- formerly Kinder Morgan, Inc. --
over a proposed "Going Private" Transaction.

On May 28, 2006, Richard D. Kinder; the company's chairman and
chief executive officer together with other members of Kinder
Morgan's management; co-founder Bill Morgan; current board
members Fayez Sarofim and Mike Morgan; and investment partners
Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, American International Group
Inc., The Carlyle Group, and Riverstone Holdings LLC, submitted
a proposal to the company's Board of Directors to acquire all of
the company's outstanding common stock at a price of $100 per
share in cash.

On Aug. 28, 2006, Kinder Morgan entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Knight Holdco LLC and Knight Acquisition Co. to
effectuate the transaction at a price of $107.50 per share in
cash.

Beginning on May 29, 2006, and in the days following, eight
putative class action complaints were filed in Harris County
(Houston), Texas, and seven putative class action lawsuits were
filed in Shawnee County (Topeka), Kansas, against, among others,
Kinder Morgan, its Board of Directors, and several corporate
officers.

                   Harris County, Texas Cases

       1. "Mary Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Charles W. Battey, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner, William J. Hybl, Michael C.
          Morgan, Edward Randall III, Fayez S. Sarofim, H.A.
          True III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead, and James M.
          Stanford, Cause No. 2006-33011," filed in the 164th
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       2. "CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan, individually and on
          behalf of others similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan,
          Inc., Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery,
          H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford,
          Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall,
          III, and Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-
          39364," filed in the 129th Judicial District Court,
          Harris County, Texas;

       3. "Robert Kemp, on behalf of himself and all other
          similarly situated v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James
          Stanford, Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward
          Randall III, Douglas W. G. Whitehead, Kinder Morgan,
          Inc., GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P., AIG Global
          Asset Management Holdings Corp., Carlyle Partners IV,
          L.P., and Carlyle/Riverstone Energy Partners III,
          L.P., Cause No. 2006-33015," filed in the 113th
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       4. "Dean Drulias v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A.
          Gardner, Charles W. Battey, H.A. True III, Fayez S.
          Sarofim, James Stanford, Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A.
          Bliss, Edward Randall III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          Goldman Sachs, American International Group, Inc., the
          Carlyle Group, and Riverstone Holdings, LLC, Cause No.
          2006-34594," filed in the 333rd Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas;

       5. "J. Robert Wilson, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          Bill Morgan, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, American
          International Group, Inc., The Carlyle Group,
          Riverstone Holdings, L.L.C., C. Park Shaper, Steven J.
          Kean, Scott E. Parker, and Tim Bradley, Cause No.
          2006-40027," filed in the 270th Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas;

       6. "Sandra Donnelly, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez S. Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall III, and Douglas W.G.
          Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-33042," filed in the 61st
          Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

       7. "David Zeitz, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Richard D. Kinder, Cause No.
          2006-34520," filed in the 234th Judicial District
          Court, Harris County, Texas; and

       8. "Robert L. Dunn, Trustee for the Dunn Marital Trust,
          and the Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
          Detroit v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battey,
          H.A. True, III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford,
          Michael C. Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall
          III, and Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 2006-
          36184," filed in the 127th Judicial District Court,
          Harris County, Texas.

By order of the Court dated June 26, 2006, these cases have been
consolidated into the case captioned, "Crescente v. Kinder
Morgan, Inc., et al." in the 164th Judicial District Court,
Harris County, Texas, which challenges the proposed transaction
as inadequate and unfair to Kinder Morgan's public stockholders.

Seven of the eight original petitions consolidated into this
lawsuit raised virtually identical allegations.

One of the eight original petitions (Zeitz) challenges the
proposal as unfair to holders of the common units of Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners and listed shares of Kinder Morgan
Management.

On Sept. 8, 2006, interim class counsel filed the consolidated
petition for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting,
in which they alleged that Kinder Morgan's board of directors
and certain members of senior management breached their
fiduciary duties and the sponsor-investors aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in entering into the merger
agreement.  They seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger,
rescission of the merger agreement, disgorgement of any improper
profits received by the defendants, and attorneys' fees.

The defendants filed answers to the consolidated petition on
Oct. 9, 2006, denying the plaintiffs' substantive allegations
and denying that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

                  Shawnee County, Kansas Cases

       1. "Michael Morter v. Richard D. Kinder, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted
          A. Gardner, William J. Hybl, Michael C. Morgan, Edward
          Randall, III, Fayez S. Sarofim, H.A. True, III, and
          Kinder Morgan, Inc., Cause No. 06C 801," filed in the
          District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12;

       2. "Teamsters Joint Counsel No. 53 Pension Fund v.
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Charles W.
          Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner, William J.
          Hybl, Michael C. Morgan, Edward Randall, III, Fayez S.
          Sarofim, H.A. True, III, and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C 841," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12;

       3. "Ronald Hodge, Individually And On Behalf Of All
          Others Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J.
          Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery, H.A. True
          III, Fayez S. Sarofim, James M. Stanford, Michael C.
          Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, and
          Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 06C 813, filed in
          the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division
          6;"

       4. "Robert Cohen, Individually And On Behalf Of All
          Others Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Richard D. Kinder, Edward H. Austin, Jr., William J.
          Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles W. Battery, H.A. True,
          III, Fayez Sarofim, James M. Stanford, Michael C.
          Morgan, Stewart A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, and
          Douglas W.G. Whitehead, Cause No. 06C-864," filed with
          the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division
          6;"

       5. "Robert P. Land, individually, and on behalf of all
          others similarly situated v. Edward H. Austin, Jr.,
          Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A. Gardner,
          William J. Hybl, Edward Randall, III, James M.
          Stanford, Fayez Sarofim, H.A. True, III, Douglas W.G.
          Whitehead, Richard D. Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, AIG
          Global Asset Management Holdings Corp., GS Capital
          Partners V Fund, LP, The Carlyle Group LP, Riverstone
          Holdings LLC, Bill Morgan and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C-853," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 6;"

       6. "Dr. Douglas Geiger, individually, and on behalf of
          all others similarly situated v. Edward H. Austin,
          Jr., Charles W. Battey, Stewart A. Bliss, Ted A.
          Gardner, William J. Hybl, Edward Randall, III, James
          M. Stanford, Fayez Sarofim, H.A. True, III, Douglas
          W.G. Whitehead, Richard D. Kinder, Michael C. Morgan,
          AIG Global Asset Management Holding Corp., GS Capital
          Partners V Fund, LP, The Carlyle Group LP, Riverstone
          Holdings LLC, Bill Morgan and Kinder Morgan, Inc.,
          Cause No. 06C-854," filed in the District Court of
          Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 6;" and

       7. "John Bolton, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
          Similarly Situated v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Richard D.
          Kinder, Michael C. Morgan, Fayez Sarofim, Edward H.
          Austin, Jr., William J. Hybl, Ted A. Gardner, Charles
          W. Battey, H.A. True, III, James M. Stanford, Stewart
          A. Bliss, Edward Randall, III, Douglas W.G. Whitehead,
          William V. Morgan, Goldman Sachs Capital Partners,
          American International Group, Inc., The Carlyle Group,
          Riverstone Holdings LLC, C. Park Shaper, Steven J.
          Kean, Scott E. Parker and Tim Bradley, Case No. Cause
          No. 06C-837," filed in the District Court of Shawnee
          County, Kansas, Division 6;

By order of the Court dated June 26, 2006, the Kansas cases have
been consolidated, under the caption, "In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 06 C 801," filed with the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, Division 12.

On Aug. 1, 2006, the Court selected lead plaintiffs' counsel in
the Kansas State Court proceedings.

On Aug. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated and
amended class action petition in which they alleged that Kinder
Morgan's board of directors and certain members of senior
management breached their fiduciary duties and the sponsor-
investors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty in entering into the merger agreement.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the
stockholder vote on the merger agreement and any action taken to
effect the acquisition of Kinder Morgan and its assets by the
buyout group, damages, disgorgement of any improper profits
received by the defendants, and attorney's fees.

                   The Two Consolidated Cases

On Oct. 12, 2006, the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas
entered a Memorandum Decision and Order in which it ordered the
parties in both the "Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al."
case pending in Harris County Texas and the "In Re Kinder
Morgan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation" pending in Shawnee County
Kansas to confer and to submit to the court recommendations for
the "appointment of a Special Master or a Panel of Special
Masters to control all of the pretrial proceedings in both the
Kansas and Texas Class Actions arising out of the proposed
private offer to purchase the stock of the public shareholders
of Kinder Morgan, Inc."

By Order dated Nov. 21, 2006, the Kansas District Court
appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special
Master for In Re Kinder Morgan Inc. Shareholder Litigation case
pending in Kansas.

By Order dated Dec. 6, 2006, the Texas District Court also
appointed the Honorable Joseph T. Walsh to serve as Special
Master in the "Crescente v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al." case
pending in Texas for the purposes of considering any
applications for pretrial temporary injunctive relief.

On Nov. 21, 2006, the plaintiffs in "In Re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation" filed a third amended class action
petition with Special Master Walsh.  This Petition was later
filed under seal with the Kansas District Court on Dec. 27,
2006.  The defendants' answer to the third amended class action
petition was filed in March 2007.

Following extensive expedited discovery, the plaintiffs in both
consolidated actions filed an application for a preliminary
injunction to prevent the holding of a special meeting of
shareholders for the purposes of voting on the proposed merger,
which was scheduled for Dec. 19, 2006.

The application was briefed by the parties between Dec. 4, 2006,
and Dec. 13, 2006, and oral argument was heard by Special Master
Walsh on Dec. 14, 2006.

On Dec. 18, 2006, Special Master Walsh issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding, among other things, that "plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate the probability of ultimate success
on the merits of their claims in this joint litigation."

Accordingly, the Special Master concluded that the plaintiffs
were "not entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the holding
of the special meeting of KMI shareholders scheduled for Dec.
19, 2006."

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in January 2008.
Defendants opposed this motion, which is currently pending.

On Jan. 9, 2009, Special Master Walsh issued a Report
recommending that the class should be comprised of all holders
of Kinder Morgan, Inc. common stock, during the period Aug. 28,
2006 (the date the merger agreement was signed) through May 30,
2007 (the date the merger closed) and their transferees,
successors and assigns.  Excluded from the Class are defendants
and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related
to or affiliated with any defendant. Special Master Walsh also
recommended that Dr. Geiger and Mr. Wilson, but not Mr. Land, be
appointed as Class Representatives.  The Special Master's
recommendation is currently pending before the Kansas trial
court.

In August, September and October, 2008, the Plaintiffs in both
consolidated cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
claims against those Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s directors who did not
participate in the buyout (including the dismissal of the
members of the special committee of the board of directors),
Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Knight Acquisition, Inc.

In addition, on Nov. 19, 2008, by agreement of the parties, the
Texas trial court issued an order staying all proceedings in the
Texas actions until such time as a final judgment shall be
issued in the Kansas actions.  The effect of this stay is that
the consolidated matters will proceed only in the Kansas trial
court.

The parties are currently engaged in consolidated discovery in
these matters, according to Knight, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Knight Inc. -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- formerly Kinder
Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in
North America.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, carbon dioxide and other products, and its terminals
store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials
like coal and petroleum coke.  Knight is also an independent
provider of carbon dioxide (CO2) for oil recovery projects in
North America. principal business segments are Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America and certain affiliates, referred to
as Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Power, Express
Pipeline System, Products Pipelines-KMP, Natural Gas Pipelines-
KMP, CO2-KMP and Terminals-KMP.  On Aug. 28, 2006, the Company
entered into an agreement and plan of merger whereby it would
merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco LLC.  On
May 30, 2007, the merger closed, with Kinder Morgan, Inc.
continuing as the surviving legal entity and subsequently
renamed Knight, Inc.


KNIGHT INC: Royalties Suit v. CO2 Unit Set for October 19 Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
New trial in a purported class-action lawsuit over royalties
against Knight Inc.'s subsidiary, Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., is set to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009, according to
the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing in the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The company was formerly known as Kinder Morgan, Inc.

The case is styled, "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty
Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other
private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome
Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder
Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District
Court, Union County New Mexico)."

The case involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan
CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and proper
settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the
Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.  The
complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.  The
purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands,
the United States of America, and those private royalty
interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008.  The
plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.  The jury returned a verdict finding that
Kinder Morgan did not breach the settlement agreement and did
not breach the claimed duty to market carbon dioxide.  The jury
also found that Kinder Morgan breached a duty of good faith and
fair dealing and found compensatory damages of $0.3 million and
punitive damages of $1.2 million.  On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial
court entered judgment on the verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the
judgment and granting a new trial in the case, which is
scheduled a new trial to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009.

Knight Inc. -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- formerly Kinder
Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in
North America.  Its pipelines transport natural gas, gasoline,
crude oil, carbon dioxide and other products, and its terminals
store petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials
like coal and petroleum coke.  Knight is also an independent
provider of carbon dioxide (CO2) for oil recovery projects in
North America. principal business segments are Natural Gas
Pipeline Company of America and certain affiliates, referred to
as Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Power, Express
Pipeline System, Products Pipelines-KMP, Natural Gas Pipelines-
KMP, CO2-KMP and Terminals-KMP.  On Aug. 28, 2006, the Company
entered into an agreement and plan of merger whereby it would
merge with a wholly owned subsidiary of Knight Holdco LLC.  On
May 30, 2007, the merger closed, with Kinder Morgan, Inc.
continuing as the surviving legal entity and subsequently
renamed Knight, Inc.


MONSANTO CO: Mo. Judge Denies Request in "Schoenbaum" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The federal judge overseeing a long-running antitrust litigation
against Monsanto Co. over its genetically modified soybean seeds
and corn has rejected the plaintiffs' attempts to add patent
claims to the putative class-action case, ruling that it is too
late in the game to introduce such claims, Law360 reports.

Judge E. Richard Webber of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri denied a request brought by lead
plaintiff Hilmer Schoenbaum on behalf of himself and others in
the matter, "Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company et
al., Case No. 4:2005-cv-01108," according to the Law360 report.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Units Defend Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries
continue to defend a number of legal matters filed in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Alabama.

These actions include individual lawsuits and purported
statewide class actions, although to date no class has been
certified in any action.

These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of
hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood
exclusion found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in
certain actions other insurance companies' policies, is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or
declaratory relief.

All of these matters are in various stages of development,
according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding
company.  The Company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage,
including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile
homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of
insurance in 11 states.  The Company, through its life insurance
subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident
insurance products in six states.


PELLA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Aluminum Windows Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     In a decision released April 10, 2009, Judge Carter Holly
of the California Superior Court for San Joaquin County
certified a Class Action lawsuit (case number CV025771) against
Pella Corporation subsidiary Viking Industries.

     The class action was taken by all persons who own buildings
in California that contain Viking Series 3000 fixed, hung, and
sliding aluminum windows sold by Pella's subsidiary, Viking
Industries, between 1989 and 1999.  The class action lawsuit
covers windows installed as part of original construction and
windows purchased from retailers and dealers.  It alleges that
windows manufactured by Pella Corporation subsidiary Viking
Industries are defective and leak in their lower corners.  It,
therefore, seeks to recover the cost to replace the defective
windows.

     The plaintiffs estimate the total number of defective
windows to be in excess of 1.2 million, installed in
approximately 100,000 homes and businesses in California.  The
windows were largely sold through Home Depot, Home Base, and
Yardbirds stores.

     Stuart Eppsteiner of Eppsteiner & Fiorica, LLP, and Paul
Stevens, of Milstein Adelman & Kreger are counsel for the
plaintiffs.

     According to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Pella's subsidiary
has a potential liability of $720 million.  Pella bought Viking
Industries in 1998 and is to respond to Viking window owners'
service requests.  Stuart Eppsteiner reported, "There is no
Viking website, 800 number, or local telephone number for Viking
Industries.  Effectively Viking homeowners cannot find or
communicate with Viking and don't know that Pella is involved.
This lawsuit is the solution for these homeowners."

     Home Depot is also a defendant, as plaintiffs' counsel
understands Home Depot was the top reseller of the Viking Series
3000 windows.

     "We will work diligently toward a fair, just, and
expeditious resolution of this matter, and hope that Viking and
Pella will do likewise to assure their customers' highest
satisfaction," said Eppsteiner.

     Stuart Eppsteiner, Esq., Eppsteiner & Fiorica Attorneys,
located in San Diego, and Paul Stevens, Esq., Milstein, Adelman
& Kreger, LLP, located in Santa Monica, represent the
plaintiffs.  Kevin Cody, Esq., Ropers Majeski, San Jose, and
Paul Gary, Esq., Paul Gary & Associates, Portland, Oregon
represent Viking Industries.

For more details on the case, visit http://www.eppsteiner.com/.


REALTYSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Favors Buyers in Suit Over $149 Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
ruled in favor of 30,000 real-estate buyers who were improperly
charged a $149 fee by RealtySouth Corp., Russell Hubbard of
Birmingham News reports.

The ruling was issued on April 20, 2009, said Hare, Wynn, Newell
& Newton, the law firm representing buyers in a class-action
suit against RealtySouth, which was filed in 2004.  The fee was
instituted in 2003, attorney Don McKenna, Esq. of Hare Wynn
tells Birmingham News.

The court ruled RealtySouth collected the "administrative
brokerage commission," but performed nothing for it.  That, Mr.
McKenna said, violates the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, according to the Birmingham News report.

Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers Group
previously reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court decision that denied
class-action status to a lawsuit filed against RealtySouth over
its $149 mandatory add-on fee.

The suit was originally filed with a federal court by Vicki B.
Busby of Jefferson, Alabama.  It was intended to cover all
consumers forced to pay what the brokerage firm termed its ABC
fee -- an administrative brokerage commission.

Ms. Busby alleges in the suit that in addition to paying a
substantial commission to the Birmingham-based broker, and its
sales agent, she was also required to pay the ABC fee.

She contends that there was no evidence that the firm had
actually performed any extra services -- above and beyond the
brokerage services compensated by the commissions – and
therefore the ABC fee violated federal law.

The federal court refused to grant class-action status to the
case, which thus forced Ms. Busby to appeal the matter to the
Eleventh Circuit.

In siding with Ms. Busby, the appeals court ruled that the lower
court had erred in not considering the factual issue -- was any
specific work done to justify the extra charge? -- in making its
decision to deny the request for class-action status.  The
recent ruling brings the case back to the district court,
according to Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers
Group.

The case is the latest in a long-running battle pitting realty,
mortgage and title companies against consumers protesting so-
called junk fees and settlement sheet add-ons.


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Ariz. Court Hears Oral Arguments in Radar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Maricopa County Superior Court will hear oral arguments this
week on a purported class-action lawsuit by James G. Tavernetti
is from Phoenix and his lawsuit is against Redflex Traffic
Systems and the town of Paradise Valley, Arizona, Mike Branom of
YourWestValley.com reports.

Patrick O'Grady of the Phoenix Business Journal previously
reported that Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is facing a lawsuit
that could become a class action for allegedly using radar that
was not approved for use in the United States.

The lawsuit, which also names the town of Paradise Valley as a
defendant, was filed back in 2008 by James G. Tavernetti of
Paradise Valley.  Mr. Tavernetti claims that a ticket he
received in mid-July came from a mobile van used by Redflex
allegedly equipped with a British radar system that had not been
approved for such use by the Federal Communications Commission.

Competitor American Traffic Solutions Inc. of Scottsdale set the
lawsuit in motion when it complained about the radar's use in a
Department of Public Safety (DPS) test program, Thomas Moring,
Esq., who is representing Mr. Tavernetti and potentially seeking
class-status for the lawsuit, told Phoenix Business.  "That's
what got us the information that Redflex was using devices that
weren't certified by the FCC," he said.

Phoenix Business explains that FCC approval is required for all
speed radar devices, and the British-made system used on the DPS
speed vans was not authorized until after the ATS complaint in
early August.  It is unclear from the lawsuit, however, what
vans were responsible for issuing Mr. Tavernetti his ticket in
Paradise Valley.  Redflex also has contracts with cities
throughout the country, supplying both speed and red-light
cameras.

The report relates that the two vans used in the DPS pilot
program were removed from highways initially, but put back on
the road after the proper approvals were received.  In 2008, DPS
said it will keep its contract with Redflex for the rollout of
100 speed cameras throughout the state.

ATS has appealed that action to the Arizona Department of
Administration, the report says.

Mr. Tavernetti's lawsuit alleges Redflex was negligent and
committed fraud by using devices that were not approved in the
U.S.  The lawsuit does not specify the damages it seeks.

Mr. Moring said that while a speeding ticket from a mobile van
can run from $180 up, many people would not sue to get their
money back, which is why the lawsuit seeks class-action status.


ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. continues to be named in pending class-action
lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.

Class action litigation involving allegations that hourly
associates have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well
as allegations of unpaid overtime wages to assistant store
managers at all company stores under federal and state law,
remains pending as of Jan. 31, 2009.

No further details regarding the litigation were disclosed in
the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com-- and its
subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel and
home accessories stores in the U.S.  Its stores offer branded
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men and
women between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items,
linens, and other home related merchandise.


SIGNATURE ALUMINUM: Faces WARN Violations Lawsuit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of over 1,500
employees of Signature Aluminum, Inc., FKAWXP, Inc., American
Aluminum, LLC, and Temroc Metal, Inc., has alleged that the
companies violated the Worker Adjustment and Notification (WARN)
Act by not providing 60 days notice to the employees that they
would be laid off, CCH reports.

In February 2009, the defendants laid off the employees and, on
April 9, 2009 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.  The
suit alleges that the defendants knew long before February that
they would have to lay off the employees in advance of the
bankruptcy filing and failed to provide them with the 60 days
notice required by the WARN Act, according to the CCH report.

In mid-April, Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP
and Berger & Montague, P.C. have filed a class action lawsuit in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware,
"McIntyre v. Signature Aluminum, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
09-ap-50889," on behalf of over 1,500 employees who were laid
off by the Defendants, Signature Aluminum, Inc., FKAWXP, Inc.,
Atlantic Aluminum, LLC and Temroc Metal, Inc., in February 2009
and thereafter without receiving the notice required under
federal law.  Mr. McIntyre was a maintenance mechanic at the
Signature Aluminum / Temroc Metals facility in Hamel, Minnesota
(Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2009).

The lawsuit claims that the Defendants violated the WARN Act
which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to
employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff.  The lawsuit
seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice for
Mr. McIntyre and all other laid-off employees of Signature and
its affiliates throughout the United States.

"Signature Aluminum and the other Defendants appear to have
violated the WARN Act by failing to provide their employees
sixty days advance notice of the plant closings and mass
layoffs," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of
the attorneys for the plaintiffs.  Co-counsel for the
plaintiffs, Charles A. Ercole of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey,
Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, states, "Clearly, Signature Aluminum
had sufficient information 60 days prior to the layoff that it
could have given notice and allowed these employees to prepare
for this situation.  The employees are the last ones to know and
that is exactly what the WARN Act was meant to prevent."

Former employees of Signature Aluminum, Inc., FKAWXP, Inc.,
Atlantic Aluminum, LLC and Temroc Metal, Inc. who were part of
these layoffs can obtain additional information by calling
Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656 or Chuck A. Ercole at (215) 568-
6060, or by email at scarson@bm.net or cercole@klehr.com.  These
cases are being prosecuted by the Philadelphia law firms of
Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://www.bergermontague.com)and
Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP
(http://www.klehr.com).


STANFORD INT'L: Stephen F. Malouf, P.C. Files Investors' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C. has commenced a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Stanford
International Bank Ltd. certificates of deposit ("CDs") or
shares in SIB's Stanford Allocation Strategy proprietary mutual
fund wrap program ("SAS") between January 1, 2000 and February
17, 2009.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SIB and
other Stanford related entities and individuals fraudulently
sold CDs based upon "historical rates of return" that were, in
fact, false.  To induce investors that their CDs were safe
investments, SIB and the other defendants represented that SIB's
investments were liquid and diversified.  Nearly 80% of SIB's
investments, however, were concentrated in just two high-risk,
illiquid categories: private equity and real estate; categories
which have since suffered significant losses.

     The complaint also alleges that defendants misled investors
in SIB's SAS program, picking a handful of mutual funds that had
performed extremely well in 1999-2004 and claiming that the
returns of those high-performing funds as the historical returns
of the SAS program.  Defendants also inflated the claimed
returns of the SAS program in 2006 and 2007.

     Additionally, it is alleged that when investors became
concerned that SIB might have invested in Bernard Madoff's $50
billion Ponzi scheme, SIB sent them each a letter unequivocally
stating that "Stanford International Bank did not have any
exposure to the Madoff Fund."  Just two days before this letter
was sent, an SIB analyst informed all three of the individual
defendants, including R. Allen Stanford, that SIB had invested
in Meridian, a New York-based hedge fund that used Tremont
Partners as its asset manager.  Tremont, in turn, had invested a
portion of Meridian's - and SIB's - money with Madoff.

     On February 16, 2009, the SEC filed a complaint against
SIB, SGC, and SCM, as well as against defendants Stanford, James
M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt, accusing them of
participating in a "massive, ongoing fraud." According to press
reports, the FBI has also begun an investigation.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of SIB CDs or shares in the SAS program during the
Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices
of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C. which has expertise in prosecuting
class actions and in actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact:

          David Evans, Esq. (devans@smalouf.com)
          The Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C.
          Phone: (800) 214-2651 or (214) 969-7373
          Web site: http://www.smalouf.com/


SUN MICROSYSTEMS: Faces Investor's Litigation in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Sun Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA), on
April 20, 2009, filed a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf
of current investors of Sun Microsystems, who purchased their
shares before April 20, 2009 and continue to hold their shares,
in the Superior Court of California against Sun and its board of
directors over the announced takeover of Sun by Oracle
Corporation for $9.50 per JAVA share in cash.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Sun
Microsystems and its board of directors breached their fiduciary
duty when they attempt to sell Sun to Oracle under the present
conditions.  The stock of Sun Microsystems was trading as high
as $10.86 on August 15, 2008 and $16.32 on May 01, 2008.  The
transaction was announced on the same day and is valued at
approximately $7.4 billion, or $5.6 billion net of Sun's cash
and debt.  The Board of Directors of Sun Microsystems has
unanimously approved the transaction.

     According to a poll by the Shareholders Foundation, Inc.,
an investor advocacy group that does research to shareholder
issues and informs investors of securities class actions,
settlements, judgments, and other legal related news to the
stock market, the majority of the participants (22%) think a
price of $13-16 per Java share would be fair to Sun Microsystems
investors in case of a takeover, 7% favor a price between $4-$8,
18% favor a price between $9-$12, 14% favor a price between $17-
$20, 15% favor a price between $20-$24, 7% favor a price between
$25-28, and 18% think the price should be over $28.

     Prior to the announcement of the proposed takeover of Sun
by Oracle rumors said that Sun was in talk with IBM, but those
talked ended without a result.  Sun Microsystems had total
revenue of $13.88 Billion last year with a net income of 403
Million.


TVI PACIFIC: Settles Claims in Ontario, Quebec Shareholder Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
     TVI Pacific, Inc. has entered into an agreement to settle
all claims associated with class-action proceedings commenced in
Ontario by Joe Marcantonio and in Quebec by Florent Audette.
The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval,
has also been signed on behalf of the other defendants in those
actions, being the directors and a former officer of the
Company.

     On March 3, 2008, a statement of claim was issued (under
the Class Proceedings Act, 1992) in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice against TVI, its directors and a former senior
officer of the Company by Florent Audette, who was described in
the claim as a shareholder of TVI.  On April 10, 2008, a
different plaintiff, Joe Marcantonio, was substituted as the
representative plaintiff in the Ontario action.  A further
proposed class proceeding was commenced in the Superior Court of
Québec by Florent Audette on July 25, 2008, which was virtually
identical to the Ontario claim.  In both claims, the plaintiffs
alleged that TVI made misrepresentations in financial statements
that were restated in 2007.  The plaintiffs also alleged
impropriety in relation to the Company's historical share option
granting practices.  In their action, the plaintiffs sought,
among other things, damages in the amount of $16 million
(consisting of general and special damages of $15 million and
punitive damages in the amount of $1 million).  A Special
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company conducted an
investigation into the option allegations made by the
plaintiffs, with the assistance of legal counsel.  That
investigation, which involved personal interviews and automated
data analysis, revealed no intentional misconduct in relation to
prior grants of options by the Company; nonetheless, the Company
has agreed to implement a number of internal administrative
measures designed to strengthen internal controls in relation to
option matters.

     The Settlement Agreement contemplates a total payment of
$2.1 million (inclusive of the plaintiffs' legal costs and all
administrative expenses that may be incurred in implementing the
settlement) to members of the proposed class, in settlement of
all claims that were asserted against TVI, including claims
relating to the restatement of certain historical financial
statements by the Company in 2007.  A cash payment equal to the
settlement amount was made on March 31, 2009, by TVI's insurers,
who are also paying the Company's legal costs in this matter,
subject to a $75,000 deductible, which the Company paid early in
2008.

     In entering into the Settlement Agreement, neither TVI nor
any of the other defendants has made any admission of liability
in relation to the claims.

     The Company has been advised by its legal counsel that
applications to the Ontario and Quebec Superior Courts for
approval of the Settlement Agreement are expected to be made in
June 2009.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Donor Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) continues to
face a consolidated class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles that was filed
on behalf of a putative class of families of decedents who
donated their bodies to the UCLA's medical school for research
and training purposes as part of its willed body program.

On April 11, 2005, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, entitled, "Beverly Holmes, Kenneth Pesso, Joanne
Streek, and Robert A. McDonough, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated plaintiffs v. Regents of the University
of California, The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA,
Ernest V. Nelson, Henry G. Reid, Johnson & Johnson, NuVasive,
Inc. and does 1-1,000," (Class Action Reporter, April 18, 2006).

The complaint alleges that the head of UCLA's donor program,
Henry G. Reid, and a third party, Ernest V. Nelson, improperly
sold some of the donated cadavers to the Company and other
defendants.

Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against all
defendants:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) negligent misrepresentation,

     (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress,

     (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress,

     (7) intentional interference with human remains,

     (8) negligent interference with human remains,

     (9) violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200 and

    (10) injunctive and declaratory relief.

On May 5, 2005, the case was deemed complex and ordered to the
courtroom of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl along with other actions
filed by unaffiliated families of decedents who donated their
remains to UCLA through its willed body program.

In addition, on June 23, 2005, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit
titled "Margaret Brown-Hurst, Linda C. James, Eric V. James, Jan
James, Dawn M. James and Emma James v. Regents of the University
of California; Henry Reid, Ernst V. Nelson and Albennie E.
Nelson, dba Empire Anatomical Services; Johnson & Johnson, a
corporation; Dupuy Mitek, Inc., a corporation, fka Mitek, Inc.,"
filed an amendment complaint naming Nuasive, Inc. as a Doe
defendant.

The lawsuit generally involves the same kinds of factual
allegations and legal theories as the other related lawsuits,
and was consolidated in Judge Kuhl's chambers.

A status conference was held on July 13, 2005, at which time an
order was issued governing preliminary discovery, the adoption
of a Master Complaint for all related class action and
specifying a briefing schedule for the parties to file motions
challenging the Master Complaint.

The plaintiffs then filed a master complaint, as ordered.  The
court heard argument on the defendants' challenges to the
plaintiffs' complaint on Nov. 17, 2005.  The parties have
continued on a briefing schedule for the defendants to challenge
the plaintiff's Master Complaint.  The court heard argument on
the defendants' challenges to the plaintiffs' complaint on Dec.
5, 2005.


VIRGINIA LOTTERY: Judge Denies "Virtual Representation" in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Walter Stout of the Richmond Circuit Court thwarted an
attempt by a Roanoke law firm to have a professor suing the
Virginia Lottery serve as a "virtual representative" for all
Virginia residents, Mike Allen of The Roanoke Times reports.

Washington and Lee University associate professor Scott Hoover's
lawsuit accuses the lottery of breach of contract.  It accuses
the lottery of continuing to sell tickets for scratch games
after the top prizes that can be won by those tickets have
already been paid out.  Lottery officials say that practice
occurred in only a handful of games and ended altogether in July
2007, according to The Roanoke Times report.

The suit continues to go forward, but in November 2008, a
Richmond Circuit Court judge ruled that Mr. Hoover cannot act as
"virtual representative" for all Virginians who may have
unknowingly purchased scratch tickets for which the top prizes
were no longer available.  Class-action lawsuits are not
permitted under Virginia law, The Roanoke Times reported.

Mr. Hoover's attorney, John Fishwick, Esq., sought permission
from the judge to appeal that decision and get a ruling on the
issue from the state Supreme Court before the case goes to
trial.  Last week, the judge denied Mr. Fishwick's motion,
reports The Roanoke Times.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of Corus Bankshares, Inc.
NASDAQ:CORS] between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009,
inclusive, against the Company and certain officers and
directors, alleging fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5].

     The case name is styled, "Chan v. Corus Bankshares, Inc.,
et al."

     Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
positive press releases, statements, and quarterly financial
reports filed with the SEC that described the Company's
financial performance.

     The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- Corus and its affiliates were purchasing condominiums,
          at inflated prices, in developments that the Company
          had financed;

       -- the purchases caused artificially inflated appraisal
          values, and thus artificially inflated collateral
          asset values, for Corus-financed condominiums and
          developments;

       -- as a result of the foregoing the Company failed to
          recognize the true value of the underlying assets
          underpinning the Company's condominium loans,

       -- as a result of the foregoing the Company failed to
          properly recognize losses on its condominium loans in
          accordance with generally accepted accounting
          principles;

       -- due to the Company's deteriorating assets it was
          suffering liquidity problems,

       -- the Company's liquidity problems forced it to enter
          into negotiations with the Federal Reserve Bank of
          Chicago and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency
          regarding its deteriorating pool of condominium loans;
          and

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls.

     On January 30, 2009, the truth was revealed when Corus
issued a press release announcing partial financial results for
the fourth quarter 2008.  The Company reported a 2008 fiscal
fourth quarter net loss of $261 million ($4.85 per share) and
revealed that the Company's nonperforming assets, including non-
accrual loans and repossessed real estate, had increased to $2
billion at the end of 2008, more than double the level from the
previous quarter.  Corus further disclosed that it had received
a preliminary response indicating that its November 14, 2008
application to receive a capital infusion through the Treasury's
Troubled Asset Relief Program was likely to be rejected.  The
Company further informed that it was only able to provide
partial financial results for the fourth quarter because it was
awaiting several new appraisals, which would potentially result
in material negative adjustments to its 2008 fourth quarter
results.

     On this news, the Company's stock price dropped $0.525 per
share (47%) to close at $0.585 per share, on February 2, 2009.

     In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,
to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of
Corus securities.  Had plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Seltmann Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
split rulings in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled Dorothy
Seltmann, et al., Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton Co., et al.,
Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong entered judgment in
Case No. C 08-5015 SBA on Feb. 12, 2009.

This matter was before the Court on defendant Watts Water
Technologies' "Application for Immediate Order Vacating Order
Granting Motion to Remand to State Court," filed Feb. 4, 2009.

This is an asbestos injury action, filed in state court and
removed to federal court. Dorothy Seltmann filed a timely motion
to remand and it was noticed for Feb. 3, 2009. The Court granted
the motion to remand on the basis that Watts Water had not
complied with the procedural requirements of the removal
statute. The Court's order was signed Feb. 3, 2009, and entered
on the docket on Feb. 4, 2009.

On Jan. 29, 2009, Watts Water filed a request to stay the action
pending its transfer to the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Accordingly, the California District Court granted Watts Water's
motion to vacate and vacated the order granting Ms. Seltmann's
motion to remand.

Consequently, the following related motions were denied as moot:

     -- Watts Water's Request for Stay Pending Transfer as
        Tag-along Action in Multi-District Litigation;

     -- Watts Water's Motion for Order Shortening Time and
        Motion for Immediate Stay Upon Appeal of Order Granting
        Motion to Remand to State Court, filed Feb. 9, 2009; and

     -- Watts Water's Renewed Motion for Immediate Stay on
        Appeal of Order, filed Feb. 11, 2009.

Aaron H. Simon, Esq., Ronald James Shingler, Esq., of Simon &
Shingler LLP in Antioch, Calif., represented Dorothy Seltmann.

Paul R. Johnson, Esq., Robert D. Eassa, Esq., of Filice Brown
Eassa & McLeod LLP in Oakland, Calif., represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Denied in Voorhies' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana,
Lafayette Division, denied two motions for summary judgment in a
case involving asbestos styled, "Voorhies Supply Co., L.L.C. v.
Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. et al."

U.S. District Judge Rebecca F. Doherty entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 07-1357 on Feb. 20, 2009.

Pending before this Court were two motions for summary judgment:

-- Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Voorhies Supply
   Co., L.L.C.; and

-- Joint Motion for Summary Judgment filed by The Ohio Casualty
   Insurance and West American Insurance Company (collectively,
   "OCG") and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company
   and American Motorist Insurance Company (collectively,
   "Kemper").

Both motions were denied.

The instant litigation involved an underlying lawsuit for
personal injuries. Voorhies Supply was in the business of
supplying products and equipment to sugar mills in Iberia and
St. Martin Parishes. Elvist Tabor was an employee of several of
the sugar mills where Voorhies Supply sold products. In 2003,
Mr. Tabor was diagnosed with mesothelioma and subsequently filed
suit against Voorhies Supply and others.

Mr. Tabor worked a total of 24 years in sugar mills where
Voorhies Supply provided products which allegedly contained
asbestos, from 1978 or 1979 until 2003 when Mr. Tabor was
diagnosed with mesothelioma. However, Voorhies Supply apparently
was not aware its products might have contained any hazardous
substances until 1988 or 1989.

Settlement negotiations in the underlying state court personal
injury suit were conducted in December 2005 and again, in March
2007. During the March 2007 negotiations, Voorhies Supply had a
pending summary judgment motion with the state court.

John Blackwell, Esq., of New Iberia, La., represented Voorhies
Supply Co., L.L.C.

Robert I. Siegel, Esq., of Gieger Laborde & Laperouse in New
Orleans, La., represented West American Insurance Co., American
Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., and American Motorists
Insurance Co.

Kelley Strain Collins, Esq., of Gieger Laborde & Laperouse in
New Orleans, La., represented West American Insurance Co.

Arthur W. Landry, Esq., of New Orleans, La., represented
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. and American
Motorists Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lifland Issues Ruling in Chateaugay Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York,
entered decisions in the case styled In re Chateaugay
Corporation, Reomar, Inc. The LTV Corporation, et al. Debtors.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton J. Lifland entered judgment in Case
Nos. 86 B 11270(BRL) to 86 B 11334(BRL), 86 B 11402(BRL), 86 B
11464(BRL) on Jan. 14, 2009.

Oil States Industries, Inc., formerly known as LTV Energy
Products Company, moved for an order (i) enforcing an order of
confirmation and discharge injunction with respect to
prepetition claims asserted against Oil States in certain
asbestos litigation commenced in a California state court, and
(ii) holding the Plaintiffs in contempt under the Bankruptcy
Code (the "Motion").

Oil States moving and responsive papers provided compelling
support for their position that the Plaintiffs were subject to
and in violation of the order of confirmation and discharge
injunction. Judge Lifland agreed.

On July 17, 1986, the LTV Corporation and more than 60
subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy. On July 30, 1987, this Court
entered an order (Bar Date Order) fixing Nov. 30, 1987 as the
last date for the filing of certain proofs of claim and ordering
that the notice of the bar date (Bar Date Notice) be served on
all known holders of claims and requiring the LTV Debtors to
publish the Bar Date Notice.

On Feb. 17, 1993, this Court entered an order approving the LTV
Debtors' disclosure statement. On Feb. 26, 1993, the LTV Debtors
filed the LTV Second Modified Disclosure Statement (the
"Disclosure Statement") and the LTV Second Modified Joint Plan
of Reorganization (the "Plan"). On May 26, 1993, this Court
entered an order (the "Confirmation Order") confirming the Plan.

On or about July 21, 2008, Doris Daniels, Norman Daniels, Diana
Ferrante and Harold Daniels, individually and as successors in
interest to the Estate of Peter Daniels (Daniels Plaintiffs),
filed a complaint (Daniels' Complaint) asserting claims for
asbestos injuries allegedly suffered by Peter Daniels against
various parties, including Oil States, in the Superior Court of
the State of California (Daniels' California Asbestos
Litigation).

On or about July 31, 2008, Shirley Paris, Eugene E. Paris, Jr.,
Sheryl Paris Robinson and Dale Paris, individually and as
successor in interest to the Estate of Eugene E. Paris, Sr.,
(the "Paris Plaintiffs," together with the Daniels'
Plaintiffs, the "Plaintiffs") also filed a Complaint (the "Paris
Complaint," together with the Daniels Complaint, the
"Complaints") asserting claims for asbestos injuries suffered by
Eugene E. Paris, Sr. against various parties, including Oil
States, in the Superior Court of the State of California.

The Plaintiffs alleged that their decedents were exposed to
asbestos beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, during the course of
their employment for E.I. DuPont in California. The Plaintiffs
thus alleged that prior to the Petition Date, the decedents came
into contact with asbestos that they claimed allegedly was tied
to products manufactured by Fibercast Company, which was a
subsidiary of LTV Energy Products Company.

In 1985, Fibercast Company was sold by the LTV Debtors prior to
the commencement of the LTV Debtors' bankruptcy cases. The
Plaintiffs did not allege that the decedents were ever employees
of LTV Energy (n/k/a Oil States) or any other LTV Debtors or had
any relationship with LTV Energy, Fibercast or any of the LTV
Debtors.

By letters dated Sept. 26, 2008, Oct. 22, 2008, Nov. 5, 2008,
and Nov. 6, 2008, Oil States informed the Plaintiffs that they
were violating this Court's Confirmation Order and that failure
to immediately withdraw the Complaints would result in Oil
States filing a motion in this Court to enforce the Bar Date
Order, Confirmation Order, and discharge injunction for
contempt.

Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., by David A. Rosenzweig, Esq.,
David L. Barrack, Esq., Mark C. Haut, Esq., in New York,
represented Oil States Industries, Inc.

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, by Joseph O'Neil,
Jr., Esq., Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq., Simon E. Fraser, Esq., in
Philadelphia, represented Shirley Paris, Doris Daniels, et al.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Records $484M for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current
liabilities) was US$484 million as of March 31, 2009, compared
with US$579 million as of March 31, 2008, according to a Company
press release dated April 16, 2009.

The Company's asbestos settlement (under current liabilities)
was US$592 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$593
million as of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23,
2009)

The Company's net asbestos settlement was US$4 million during
the three months ended March 31, 2009.

First quarter 2009 net loss includes aftertax charges of US$141
million, or US$0.86 per share, for business restructuring and
US$2 million, or US$0.01 per share, to reflect the net increase
in the current value of the Company's obligation under its
proposed asbestos settlement, which is pending court
proceedings.

Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints,
coatings, chemicals, optical products, specialty materials,
glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 140
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries. Sales in 2008 were US$15.8 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veolia Eau Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement says that several present and former
indirect subsidiaries of Veolia Eau – Compagnie Generale des
Eaux in the United States face lawsuits in which the plaintiffs
seek recovery for personal injury and other damages for alleged
exposure to asbestos, silica and other potentially harmful
substances.

With respect to the lawsuits against Veolia Eau's former
subsidiaries, certain of Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries
remain liable and at times must manage the outcomes of such
claims. In addition, the acquirers of Veolia Eau's former
subsidiaries in certain instances benefit from guarantees given
by Veolia Eau or by the Company in respect of such lawsuits.

These lawsuits typically allege that the plaintiffs' injuries
resulted from the use of products manufactured or sold by Veolia
Eau's present or former subsidiaries or their predecessors.
There are generally numerous other defendants, in addition to
Veolia Eau's present or former subsidiaries, which are accused
of having contributed to the injuries.

Reserves have been accrued by Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries
for their estimated liability in these cases based on the nexus
between the injuries claimed and the products manufactured or
sold by Veolia Eau's subsidiaries or their predecessors, the
extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs,
the involvement of other defendants and the settlement history
in similar cases.

A number of such claims have been resolved to date either
through settlement or dismissal. To date, none of the claims
have been tried to a verdict.

During the five-year period ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company's
average annual costs relating to these claims have been US$2.1
million, after reimbursements by insurance companies.

Based in Paris, Veolia Environnement provides environmental
management services, which include water and wastewater
services, environmental services, energy services (excluding the
production, trading and sale of electricity, other than
production through co-generation) and transportation services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. Todd Pacific Filed in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Bodin, on April 13, 2008, filed an asbestos lawsuit on
behalf of her late father, Pedro Perez, in Galveston County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mrs. Bodin sued Todd Pacific Shipyard Corp., Great Lakes Dredge
& Dock Co. and other businesses.

Mr. Perez was a Jones Act seaman employed by Great Lakes in the
early 1960s. According to the suit, he was exposed to asbestos,
and as a result, contracted mesothelioma. His family insists
that he was unaware of the danger which asbestos carries until
his diagnosis.

The plaintiffs fault the companies for not providing Mr. Perez a
safe working environment and a sound vessel and warning him of
any potential hazards, claiming the defendants violated the
Jones Act.

Other businesses like Georgia-Pacific Corp. and Union Carbide
Corporation join Todd Pacific Shipyard and Great Lakes as co-
defendants in the case. They are accused of improperly
manufacturing, marketing, transporting, and installing the
asbestos.

Mr. Perez's estate, which is represented by Houston attorney Ian
P. Cloud, Esq., seeks damages for pain and suffering, mental
anguish, medical and funeral expenses, and loss of companionship
as well as a jury trial.

Case No. 09CV0490 has been assigned to Galveston County 405th
District Court Judge Wayne Mallia.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Robreno Junks 444 Actions on April 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno, on April 8, 2009, dismissed
444 asbestos-related lawsuits, The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Judge Robreno, responsible for about 60,000 suits from around
the nation, also set an April 21, 2009 hearing on another 686
suits. He allowed 279 claims to proceed.

Since last fall, Judge Robreno has presided over asbestos cases
by appointment of the U. S. Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation.

Judge Robreno started enforcing a rule of "one plaintiff, one
claim," which treats a claim against 100 defendants as 100
separate claims each requiring specific allegations.

Defendants asked for a blanket order dismissing about 30,000
suits that lacked specifics, but Judge Robreno preferred a rule
of "one plaintiff, one defense."

Judge Robreno invited a specific motion in each case, and the
motions started flowing. He set 12 hearings in three months, and
after the first one he signed five orders closing claims of 444
plaintiffs. He gave 18 other plaintiffs 20 days to explain why
he should not dismiss them.

Defendants withdrew motions against 30 plaintiffs.

For cases that survived, Judge Robreno required discovery plans
in 60 days.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: School Sues N.Y. Education Dept. for $500M
----------------------------------------------------------------
The students and staff of Public School 256 annex in Belle
Harbor, Queens, N.Y., filed a lawsuit against the New York
Education Department, claiming US$500 million in damages,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The plaintiffs allege that the school has taken over a decade to
remove asbestos from the building, potentially endangering both
students and staff.

According to the claim, school officials did nothing to remedy
the situation until August 2008.

Gym teacher Garry Patrylo said "[They] had full knowledge of the
condition of the building ... and yet they didn't do anything
about it."

PS 256 caters to students with autism and severe emotional
disorders from kindergarten to fifth grade.

Until August 2008, the school was owned by Temple Beth-El. The
school has now been bought by the Education Department.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Nolan Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court, on April 16, 2009, issued a ruling
in favor of the defendants in the asbestos-related suit styled
Clarence Nolan v. Weil-McLain, Business Insurance reports.

The Court ruled that jurors should have heard evidence of the
plaintiff's exposure to asbestos from other sources.

The case was filed by Clarence Nolan, who developed mesothelioma
and subsequently died after allegedly being negligently exposed
to Weil-McLain's asbestos-containing products.

A manufacturer of hearing products, Weil-McLain was the only
defendant after 11 other defendants settled or were dismissed
from the case, according to the decision.

Weil-McLain was not permitted to present evidence that the "sole
proximate cause" of death was Mr. Nolan's exposure to others'
asbestos-containing products.

In 2004, a jury awarded Mr. Nolan's widow US$2.4 million, which
was reduced by the US$1.2 million that was received previously
from the other defendants.

In its 5-1 decision on April 16, 2009, the Supreme Court held
the jury should have been permitted to hear evidence of Mr.
Nolan's exposure to other asbestos-containing products.

The case was remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UN Reassures Staff on Headquarters Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations, on April 17, 2009, reassured its staff that
the removal of asbestos during a major renovation project at
U.N. headquarters would be done safely, Reuters reports.

U.N. spokesman Farhaq Haq responded to concerns about the
removal of asbestos lining the ceiling tiles of the U.N.
building raised by Stephen Kisambira, president of the U.N.
staff union, during a rare news conference.

Mr. Kisambira said many people working at U.N. headquarters were
worried about the US$2 billion renovation project, intended to
make the building along Manhattan's East River safer, more
comfortable and greener.

Skanska USA Building, a unit of Nordic building firm Skanska, is
the construction manager and will be overseeing the asbestos
removal. Mr. Haq said ATC Associates, an independent
environmental engineering, health and safety specialist, will be
monitoring the process.

New York architect Michael Adlerstein, who is overseeing the
renovation of the United Nations, gave further details on the
work that ATC would be doing.

However, Mr. Kisambira said he still has concerns, partly
because of doubts raised by ongoing legal action involving
allegations of negligence on the part of Skanska during the
removal of asbestos from a courthouse in Salinas, Calif., in
2005-06.

Mr. Kisambira said the Salinas case was one of the reasons
people working at U.N. headquarters were nervous.

Another problem, Mr. Kisambira said, is that contractors
removing the asbestos cannot be sued in case of accidents
because of the special legal status of the United Nations, which
is technically not U.S. territory.

Mr. Adlerstein acknowledged that they could not be sued.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Ham's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
a split ruling in a case involving asbestos styled Franklin Ham
and Dana Ham, Plaintiffs v. The Continental Insurance Company
and Does 1 through 50, Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti entered judgment in Case No.
08-1551 SC on March 2, 2009.

This matter came before the Court on the Motion for More
Definite Statement and to Strike Plaintiffs' Punitive Damages
Claim and Plaintiffs' Excess Limits Claim (Motion) filed by
Continental Insurance Company. Franklin Ham and Dana Ham
submitted an Opposition and Continental submitted a Reply. The
District Court granted in part and denied in part Continental's
Motion.

According to Plaintiffs, Ecklund Insulation, Inc. exposed Mr.
Ham to asbestos from the early 1960s through the early 1970s.
The Hams alleged that Continental is the successor in interest
to Glens Falls Insurance Company and that Glens Falls insured
Ecklund in the 1960s.

The policy limit for bodily injury was US$100,000 per person and
US$300,000 per accident. Although this policy expired in
November 1966, the Hams alleged that Glen Falls issued
additional policies to Ecklund in the years subsequent to 1966.

On Aug. 11, 2006, the Hams filed an action for personal injury
in the Superior Court of San Francisco seeking recovery of
damages as a result of Mr. Ham's exposure to asbestos. On Aug.
28, 2006, the Hams filed an amendment to the complaint in the
personal injury action substituting Ecklund for the 11th Doe
defendant.

Because of the insurance policies, Ecklund tendered its defense
of the personal injury action to Continental, but Continental
did not defend Ecklund. On June 28, 2007, the Clerk of the Court
for the Superior Court of San Francisco entered default judgment
against Ecklund in the amount of US$2,671,000. On Nov. 5, 2007,
the Hams obtained an assignment from Ecklund of all causes of
action it had against Continental. Continental did not respond
to the Hams' offer to settle the claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lineberry's Action v. U.S. Gov't. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana
Division, issued a memorandum adopting the recommendation of the
U.S. Magistrate Judge to dismiss the claims, including asbestos
exposure claims, filed by Jed Stewart Lineberry.

The case is styled Jed Stewart Lineberry v. United States of
America, et al.

U.S. District Judge David Folsom entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 5:08cv72 on Feb. 27, 2009.

Mr. Lineberry, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit complaining
of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. The
District Court ordered that the case be referred to the U.S.
Magistrate Judge. The named Defendants were the United States of
America, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Bureau of Prisons
Director Harley Lappin.

Mr. Lineberry devoted much of his complaint to the conditions of
confinement in the federal prison in Seagoville, Tex., which is
located within the Northern District of Texas, where he was
confined prior to his transfer to the prison in Texarkana. He
also raised 10 separate complaints concerning the prison in
Texarkana.

The Defendants had been ordered to answer and had filed a motion
to dismiss, for summary judgment, and for change of venue.

This motion argued:

-- That Mr. Lineberry failed to exhaust his administrative
   remedies on any of his claims arising in Texarkana,

-- That Mr. Lineberry has failed to state a claim upon which
   relief may be granted,

-- The claims against Mr. Lappin should be dismissed for lack of
   subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and

-- The claims arising in Seagoville should be transferred to the
   Northern District of Texas.

Mr. Lineberry filed a response to this motion.

After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report on Feb. 3, 2009, recommending that the motion to dismiss
be granted and that all of Mr. Lineberry's claims be dismissed
with prejudice except for his claims concerning overcrowding,
improper medical or dental care, exposure to asbestos, and any
claims arising at the federal prison in Seagoville. The
Magistrate Judge recommended that these claims be dismissed
without prejudice.

Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr. Lineberry's
claims concerning the lack of screening for gang members and
illegal aliens, threats concerning the filing of grievances,
inability to take a drug class and get a year off of his
sentence, excessive prices at the prison commissary, being
required to work for inadequate pay, and lack of due process in
disciplinary hearings be dismissed as frivolous.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Court Affirms Dismissal of Mason Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld the ruling of the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, which dismissed Suzann K.
Mason's asbestos-related lawsuit filed against General Electric
Company.

The case is styled Suzanne K. Mason, personal representative of
the estate of Thomas G. Mason, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Mt. St. Joseph, Inc., an Oregon non-profit corporation; Rose,
Breedlove & McConnell, Inc., an Oregon corporation; Providence
Health System-Oregon, an Oregon non-profit corporation; and
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, a New York corporation,
Defendants and General Electric Company, a New York corporation,
Defendant-Respondent.

Judges Robert Wollheim, Rex Armstrong, and Timothy J. Sercombe
entered judgment in Case Nos. 050808090, A133639 on March 4,
2009.

Mrs. Mason, the personal representative of the estate of Thomas
Mason, brought three claims against GE under Oregon's product
liability law for Mr. Mason's death from mesothelioma. His death
was allegedly caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing
products during his work as a carpenter on a construction
project for GE in 1968.

The trial court determined that Mrs. Mason failed to plead a
strict liability claim under Oregon's product liability law,
that statutes of limitation applicable to "product liability
civil actions" did not apply to the claims, and that the claims
were therefore barred under the 10-year general negligence
statute of ultimate repose.

The trial court dismissed Mrs. Mason's claims on those bases and
entered a limited judgment. She appealed. The Appeals court
concluded that the trial court did not err and affirmed the
judgment.

Meagan A. Flynn, Esq., argued the cause for Mrs. Mason. With her
on the briefs was Preston Bunnell & Flynn LLP.

George S. Pitcher, Esq., argued the cause for General Electric
Company. With him on the brief were Williams, Kastner & Gibbs
PLLC and Christopher S. Marks, Esq., in Seattle.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in McBride Suit Commenced on April 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the asbestos suit filed by Woodrow McBride and
continued by his widow, Betty McBride, commenced on April 20,
2009 with the selection of the jury, the News Herald reports.

The trial is expected to last two weeks.

Mr. McBride, of Lynn Haven, Fla., worked at Smith Power Plant in
Southport from 1968 to 1969 and from 1975 to 1996 and at Crist
Power Plant in Pensacola from 1969 to 1975. Court records
indicate that, during that time, Mr. McBride was exposed to
asbestos during the installation and maintenance of several
boilers.

In September 2005, Mr. McBride was diagnosed with mesothelioma.
On Aug. 10, 2006, the McBrides sued A.W. Chesterton Co. and
various corporations, including Gulf Power Co. and Foster
Wheeler Ltd., which made the boilers.

On Sept. 20, 2006, Mr. McBride died at the age of 67.

Gulf Power moved to be taken off the lawsuit in 2008, saying Mr.
McBride claimed he worked with Gulf Power equipment, but there
was no evidence that the machinery contained asbestos or
contributed to his condition. It was unclear from the record
whether that motion was granted.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Broward County and
transferred by change of venue to Panama City and the
jurisdiction of Circuit Judge Hentz McClellan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mitie to Pay GBP5,000 for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
At Norwich Magistrates Court, Mitie Property Services pleaded
guilty to a breach of health and safety legislation and was
ordered to pay GBP5,000, Safety Med!a reports.

It has been reported the Mitie has apologized after a Norwich,
England, worker was placed at risk of asbestos exposure.

It was revealed that the firm did not fully asses the risks of
removing 13 asbestos-lined doors when carrying out work in
September 2007 and it neglected to give Simon Whitpen, the
employee involved, the necessary training.

Prosector Matthew Taylor told the court. "They were aware he had
no experience in working with asbestos. The parties failed to
provide equipment to prevent the spread of asbestos."

Andrew Kinnier, mitigating, gave the Company's apologies and
pointed out that Company director Andy Morton and group director
for health and safety Dick Robinson attended the court because
they took the case seriously.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Playing Children Exposed to Risk at Walney
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parents contacted the Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council after
finding out that their children were playing with asbestos
sheeting, the North-West Evening Mail reports.

Julie Silver said she was horrified to find asbestos sheeting
had been left on Walney Island, where her children play. She
said, "My kids were playing out and I don't let them play near
Channelside, so they were on the grassy area on Empress Drive. I
found out that young lads had been smashing this asbestos on the
channel and it was corrugated asbestos roofing."

Mrs. Silver showed the sheeting to a neighbor, who confirmed it
to be asbestos. She said, "I rang the council and told them, and
then went back down and saw some men pulling some of the
sheeting off a van. I asked them what they were doing and they
said they used it as crab mats. It really upset me that my kids
had been playing with it. It is so dangerous for everyone living
nearby."

Gary Ormondroyd, chief environmental health officer at the
Council in Barrow-in-Furness, England, said asbestos sheeting
should not be used as crab mats.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. University to Use Stimulus for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland State University in Portland, Ore., is set to use part
of state stimulus funds to remove asbestos and make other
improvements to their campus, Mesothelioma.com.

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the US$175 million
stimulus package on Feb. 5, 2009. One in six dollars in that
package will go to Portland State University projects, worth
around US$29 million.

Projects around campus include asbestos abatement, a revamp of
the school's steam loop system, and various classroom upgrades.

The projects are also beneficial because of the asbestos
abatement component, ensuring that students and staff will now
have a lowered risk of developing asbestos-related diseases,
including asbestosis and mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Minister Seeking Cleanup at Areyonga
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin
says she sought for the removal of asbestos from the remote
Northern Territory community of Areyonga within weeks, ABC News
reports.

Early in 2009, the Federal Government arranged for specialist
contractors to visit Areyonga to retest exposed asbestos from
collapsed buildings, after residents raised health concerns
about children playing in the rubbish.

The community was one of 73 tested for asbestos under the
intervention last year.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Macklin says contractors found the
asbestos was not dangerous if left undisturbed, but it should be
removed as soon as practical.

Ms. Macklin has told the department to remove all of the
asbestos debris in the community as soon as possible, and says
work is expected to start within two to three weeks.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NASUWT Calling for Cleanup in U.K. Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women
Teachers (NASUWT) is calling for the removal of asbestos from
schools in the United Kingdom to prevent the risk of cancer to
pupils and teachers, BBC News reports.

Health and Safety Executive figures show that 228 teachers died
from asbestos-related diseases between 1991 and 2005.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, criticized
schools and colleges, saying some were not taking their
responsibility towards staff and pupils seriously.

Carole Hagedorn, a foreign languages teacher from Essex, told
the conference about her shock at being diagnosed with
mesothelioma. She underwent 18 weeks of chemotherapy.

Hank Roberts, a teacher from Brent, accused the government of
"deliberate and knowing murder" for failing to remove asbestos
from schools.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families said the
health and welfare of pupils and staff was "absolutely
paramount."

The DCSF said the HSE gave expert advice on asbestos control -
and it advises that it is safer to carefully manage undisturbed
and undamaged asbestos, rather than remove it.

The government now requires all local authorities to carry out
regular surveys of the condition of school buildings, and report
any asbestos.

An authority must take further action where it identifies
asbestos which has been disturbed or damaged, or is likely to be
and cannot be protected. However, teachers say it is not
sufficient to take action only after asbestos could become
harmful.

New regulations introduced by the HSE in 2006 prohibit the
importation, supply and use of all forms of asbestos. Many
schools in England are now being refurbished as part of the
governments Building Schools for the Future program.

A Freedom of Information request recently revealed that 300
schools in Wales could also be affected by asbestos, and a
recent BBC investigation revealed it was in 90 percent of
schools in the south east of England.

The HSE has previously said around 1,800 people die from
asbestos-related cancer annually.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. Senate Passes SB1123 Bill on Causation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Senate, on April 16, 2009, approved Senate Bill 1123
(in a 20-11 vote), a bill that critics fear will expose
thousands of additional businesses to asbestos lawsuits, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Authored by state Senator Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, SB1123
relates to the standards of causation in mesothelioma claims.

The House version (HB 1811 by state Sen. Craig Eiland, D-Texas
City) is pending in the House Committee on the Judiciary & Civil
Jurisprudence.

The Senate bill will change established standards over the
amount of a plaintiff's asbestos exposure and requirement that
the plaintiff prove that the dose was sufficient enough to be a
substantial factor in causing mesothelioma.

Support for the bills is coming from trial lawyers and labor
unions, whose clients and members are usually lawsuit plaintiffs
claiming asbestos exposure in the workplace.

In opposition are tort reform groups and a number of the state's
businesses and industries, which usually find themselves named
as defendants in asbestos litigation.

According to a statement from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, "In
effect, SB 1123 and HB 1811 reverse established law on the
burden of proof, which does and should lie with the plaintiff.

"The new statute, instead, will place the burden of proof on a
defendant to prove that a limited exposure to asbestos
attributable to the defendant did not cause the plaintiff's
mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alameda Locals Seek More Tests on Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some residents of Alameda, Calif., are urging city officials to
carry out more environmental tests on debris from a March 29,
2009 fire at the former U.S. Navy base after they said an
independent laboratory found asbestos in a chunk that landed in
the front yard of Denise Lai's home in Pacific Avenue, the
Alameda Journal reports.

City officials said they believed the debris was not a health
hazard after they met on March 13, 2009 with representatives of
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and other agencies.

Fire Chief Dave Kapler said, "The amount of debris that possibly
contained asbestos was minimal. And asbestos isn't easily
released into the air unless it's broken up or something else
happens to it."

Officials were waiting for the final report from the air
district.

The agency noted that it did not receive any complaints during
the fire from nearby residents, despite about a seven-mile-per-
hour wind blowing ash and debris westward, according to its
initial report. The two-alarm fire gutted the former military
storage facility and burned for about 19 hours before it was
extinguished.

The three-story structure was vacant since the late 1990s and
did not have electrical power or utilities. Youths frequently
broke into the property for parties, painted graffiti and
committed other acts of vandalism.

Alameda residents reported falling ash and debris as far away as
Otis Drive, a road linking the city's main Island with Bay Farm
Island and Oakland International Airport.

The drifting smoke led firefighters to issue a health advisory
for everyone within a mile east of the building as they worked
to contain the blaze.

Ms. Lai said she had debris that landed in her front yard tested
by the Western Analytical Laboratory, based in Arleta. The
piece, measuring about two inches by one inch, contained about
10 percent non-friable asbestos, according to the report. It
came from the building's roof.

Liz Williams, who lives on a houseboat near the scene, said,
"The fear is that, even though it's non-friable asbestos, it
will be disturbed and broken apart and then it gets free. And
then it becomes microscopic particles and gets into people's
lungs."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thompsons Welcomes Cancer Agency's Research
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Thompsons Solicitors, which represented former
shipyard workers from Barrow-in-Furness, England, welcomed new
research which reconfirmed all commercial asbestos fibers causes
lung cancer and mesothelioma, the North-West Evening Mail
reports.

The report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
part of the World Health Organization, said all types of
asbestos, including white asbestos commonly used in artex and
office buildings, cause cancer.

White asbestos was used in the construction of many offices,
schools, council houses and public buildings built before the
1970s and can often still be found in them.

Ian McFall head of asbestos policy at Thompsons Solicitors,
which serves Cumbria, said, "While this report does not provide
us with new information on asbestos it does reinforce the
dangers of all types of asbestos.

"We cannot afford to be complacent about this substance, which
is responsible for more than 2,000 people every year being
diagnosed with mesothelioma in the U.K."

The IRAC identifies causes of cancer so preventative measures
can be put in place. The report is seen as the next chapter in
the prevention of asbestos-related cancers. It says the
prevailing medical evidence on asbestos causing cancer is
irrefutable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Not Included in Vt. Stimulus Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's nearly US$20 million
grant to the state of Vermont does not include asbestos
abatement, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

A portion of the money will go towards cleaning water supplies,
while the remaining millions will be allocated to deal with
emissions from diesel engines. The bulk of the money will pay
for improvements in public drinking water by reducing the amount
of pollution that enters the environment.

Absent from the list of environmental improvements is asbestos
abatement. Other states have planned to use their EPA grants for
asbestos abatement, including Montana.

Asbestos made headlines in and around Vermont after suspicions
were raised that five people had developed asbestos-related
disease and died. All five Vermonters lived near an abandoned
asbestos mine in the northern part of Vermont.

Officials say they now believe the people contracted the
diseases at their places of employment, and not from proximity
to the mine. However, an earlier study found that residents who
lived near the abandoned mine had higher-than-normal rates of
asbestosis.

The asbestos issues in Vermont mimic those of the town of Libby,
Mont., home to the now-closed W. R. Grace vermiculite mine. A
number of residents - many that worked in the mine before it
closed - have developed asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and chronic respiratory issues.

Despite an alleged lack of action on the part of the state of
Vermont, the story has brought the dangers of asbestos to the
forefront of environmental awareness in the state.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Cookus' Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, affirmed the
decision of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which ruled
in favor of Lori Ransom in an asbestos lawsuit filed by her late
father, Glade Cookus.

The case is styled Lori Ransom, Plaintiff and Respondent
Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd., Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Paul Turner, Richard M. Mosk, and Orville A. Armstrong
entered judgment in Case No. B207018 on March 4, 2009. Judge
Mosk entered a dissenting opinion.

Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd., an asbestos supplier, appealed from a
judgment on the ground there was insufficient evidence to
support the jury's determination it should be apportioned 24
percent liability for lung cancer suffered by Mr. Cookus on
theories of negligence and strict liability.

On Oct. 2006, Mr. Cookus filed a personal injury action against
Calaveras and others alleging that he has lung cancer due to
asbestos exposure. According to the complaint, Calaveras had
allegedly mined and supplied asbestos to manufacturers of cement
pipe. Calaveras answered the complaint asserting a number of
affirmative defenses including that Mr. Cookus' employers were
sophisticated users and were warned of dangers.

By the time of trial, the parties litigated negligence and two
strict products liability claims on theories of design defect
and failure to adequately warn. At the time of trial, Mr. Cookus
was still alive.

Mr. Cookus was granted trial preference due to evidence that he
was terminally ill and not expected to survive more than four to
six months.

Mrs. Ransom, as the successor in interest to Mr. Cookus, was
awarded her costs on appeal from Calaveras.

Horvitz & Levy (Lisa Perrochet, Esq., Robert H. Wright, Esq.)
and Foley & Mansfield (Douglas G. Wah, Esq., Sandy U. Liu, Esq.,
and Jennifer M. McCormick, Esq.) represented Calaveras Asbestos,
Ltd.

Paul & Hanley, Esq., Dean A. Hanley, Esq., and Gloria C. Amell,
Esq., represented Lori Ransom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Webb Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New
York, affirmed a July 24, 2007 ruling of the Workers'
Compensation Board, which ruled that Jerry Webb's death was
causally related to his occupational illness.

The case is styled In the Matter of the Claim of Muriel Webb, as
Widow of Jerry Webb, Deceased, Respondent v. Cooper Crouse Hinds
Company, Appellant.

Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent.

Judges Thomas E. Mercure, John A. Lahtinen, Bernard J. Malone
Jr., and E. Michael Kavanagh entered judgment in the case on
March 5, 2009.

In 1997, Mr. Webb was found to have a permanent partial
disability, which was apportioned 75 percent to an occupational
lung disease and 25 percent to non-compensable causes. He was
hospitalized in June 2005 in connection with his ongoing history
of upper respiratory infection and fainting spells.

Mr. Webb's treating physician, Robert Newman, indicated that
while Mr. Webb had a history of prostate cancer, a prostate
specific antigen test ruled out a recurrence or metastasis of
the cancer. Mr. Webb was discharged in August 2005 with
diagnoses of spinal abscess, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, diabetes, post-radiation status for prostate cancer,
gastroparesis and candida esophagitis.

Mr. Webb was then admitted into hospice care, and he died in
October 2005. His death certificate listed the cause of death as
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, due to or as a
consequence of asbestosis.

Following hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded
Muriel Webb, Mr. Webb's widow, death benefits, finding that Mr.
Webb's death was causally related to his occupational disease.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, prompting this appeal
by the employer.

Wolff, Goodrich & Goldman, L.L.P. in Syracuse, N.Y., (Robert E.
Geyer Jr. of counsel) in Syracuse, N.Y., represented Cooper
Crouse Hinds Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms ICI Americas Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the ruling of the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, which granted summary judgment in ICI Americas Inc.'s
favor, in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Lillian Riedel.

The case is styled Lillian Riedel, Plaintiff, Appellant v. ICI
Americas Inc., Defendant, Appellee.

Judges Myron T. Steele, Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger, Jack
B. Jacobs, and Henry DuPont Ridgely entered judgment in Case No.
156, 2008 on March 4, 2009.

Mrs. Riedel brought a negligence action in the Superior Court
alleging that her husband's employer of nearly 30 years, ICI
Americas, failed to prevent her husband from taking asbestos
home on his clothing and failed to warn her of the dangers of
asbestos exposure. She claimed these failures to act caused her
to develop asbestosis.

ICI timely moved for summary judgment. The trial judge granted
the motion on the basis that ICI and Mrs. Riedel did not share a
legally significant relationship that would create a duty ICI
owed to her.

In this appeal, Mrs. Riedel alleged that the trial judge erred
by focusing on her relationship with ICI, rather than on the
foreseeability of her harm. Contrary to her characterization of
ICI's alleged misconduct to the trial judge, Mrs. Riedel now
claimsedthat ICI acted affirmatively by releasing asbestos into
the environment.

Mrs. Riedel now described ICI's alleged negligence as "nothing
less than actively releas[ing] asbestos toxins out of its plant
and into [her] home," which would constitute acts of
misfeasance.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's grant of summary
judgment to ICI.

Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq., of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. in
Wilmington, Del., represented Lillian Riedel.

Mark L. Reardon, Esq., and Krista Reale Samis, Esq., of Elzufon
Austin Reardon Tarlov & Mondell, P.A. in Wilmington, Del.; and,
John C. Phillips Jr., Esq., and David A. Bilson, Esq. of
Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A. in Wilmington, Del.,
represented ICI Americas Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Title VII Dismissal Denied in Winston Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western Tennessee, Western Division,
denied a Title VII dismissal motion in a case involving asbestos
filed by Tomeka Winston against various defendants.

The case is styled Tomeka Winston, Plaintiff v. Cargill, Inc.,
et al., Defendant.

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered judgment in Case
No. 08-2059-STA-dkv on March 4, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Ms. Winston and eight other individuals filed
a joint pro se complaint. The Court issued an order on Jan. 29,
2008 that severed the actions and directed the Clerk to open a
new civil action for each plaintiff. Ms. Winston filed a
"Supplemental Civil Complaint" on March 17, 2008, in which she
added Smith-Doyle Contractors (SDC) as a defendant.

On March 20, 2008, the Court directed Ms. Winston to amend her
complaint. She filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2008. On
April 22, 2008, the Court entered an order dismissing Defendants
Neil Christenbury, Martin Crowder, Amanda Jordan, Tim Campbell
and Joe Sparks and to issue process for SDC and Cargill, Inc. on
Ms. Winston's Title VII claims of sex discrimination and
retaliation.

On May 22, 2008, SDC filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30,
2008, Ms. Winston filed a motion for extension of time to file a
reply to SDC's motion to dismiss. On July 2, 2008, the Court
denied Ms. Winston's motion for extension of time without
prejudice to refiling with an appropriate certificate of
consultation and proposed order.

On Aug. 6, 2008, Ms. Winston filed a motion for enlargement of
time to reply to SDC's motion to dismiss and a certificate of
consultation. On Aug. 8, 2008, SDC filed a response to Ms.
Winston's second request for an enlargement of time to respond
to the motion to dismiss. On Aug. 26, 2008, the Court denied Ms.
Winston's motion for enlargement of time to respond to the
motion to dismiss.

SDC argued that Ms. Winston's complaint fails to state a claim
for sex discrimination. SDC contended the Complaint alleged that
after receiving no response to her complaints to the union about
alleged asbestos exposure, Ms. Winston filed an EEOC charge
against Cargill.... Cargill's supervisor allegedly "contacted"
SDC, and SDC thereafter hired others (males and females) instead
of Ms. Winston.

SDC contended that the complaint failed to allege any
retaliatory intent by SDC, and "makes only the vaguest possible
reference indicating that SDC even new (sic) of her prior EEOC
charge against Cargill." In a footnote, SDC also argued that the
protected conduct that Ms. Winston asserted is her complaint of
exposure to asbestos, which is not conduct prohibited by Title
VII.

SDC also ignored Ms. Winston's complaints of exposure to
asbestos were made in an EEOC charge, and that her use of this
avenue for addressing her concerns, the mere filing of an EEOC
charge, was protected conduct.

The motion to dismiss was denied as to Ms. Winston's Title VII
claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Facing 75,266 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 75,266 asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2009, compared with 81,103 claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2009.

The Company had 74,872 asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 31,
2008, compared with 80,999 claims as of Dec. 31, 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009)

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted
847 new claims, 165 settlements, and 288 dismissals. During the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 1,041 new
claims, 337 settlements, and 600 dismissals.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 75,266 pending claims as of March 31, 2009, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 18,500 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,500 claims were pending in Texas
and about 2,100 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions
in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of
claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

To date, the Company has paid one judgment arising from an
adverse jury verdict in an asbestos matter. That payment, in the
amount of US$2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, two years
after the adverse verdict, in the Joseph Norris matter in
California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies.

Those judgment amounts are not included in the Company's
incurred costs until available appeals are exhausted and the
final payment amount is determined.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Mulls Appeal in James Baccus Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that it intends to pursue all available rights to
appeal an adverse verdict in the James Baccus asbestos claim in
Philadelphia.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received the adverse verdict in
the Baccus claim, with compensatory damages of US$2.45 million
and additional damages of US$11.9 million.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan.
5, 2009.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to pursue an appeal in the adverse verdict
in the Chief Brewer asbestos claim in Los Angeles, according to
a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2009.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Brewer claim. The amount of the judgment entered was US$679,000
plus interest and costs.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Gets Adverse Verdict in Woodard Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., on Feb. 2, 2009, received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard asbestos claim in Los Angeles, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 21, 2009.

The jury found that Company was responsible for one-half of one
percent (0.5 percent) of plaintiffs' damages of US$16,925,000.
However, based on California court rules regarding allocation of
damages, plaintiffs have requested a judgment against the
Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

The court has not yet entered judgment on the verdict, and the
Company will pursue post-trial relief once the court enters
judgment.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $22.3M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross asbestos settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled
US$22.3 million in the three-month period ended March 31, 2009
and US$$22.5 million in the three-month period ended March 31,
2008.

The gross asbestos-related settlement and defense costs incurred
(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company
totaled US$97.1 million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, US$87.5
million in the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, and US$69.1 million in
the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30,
2009)

The Company's total pre-tax receipts/payments for settlement and
defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, in the
three-month period ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 totaled a
US$2.7 million net receipt, (reflecting the receipt of US$14.5
million for full policy buyout from Highlands Insurance
Company), and a US$2.1 million net payment, respectively.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Cites $244.95Mil Long-Term Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$244,956,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$260,660,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$35.3
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$41.3 million as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company
for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred.
To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for
such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place," with nine of
its excess insurer groups.

Under such coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies
remain in force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage
for the Company's present and future asbestos claims on
specified terms and conditions that address the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations.

On March 3, 2008, the Company reached agreement with certain
London Market Insurance Companies, North River Insurance Company
and TIG Insurance Company, confirming the aggregate amount of
available coverage under certain London policies and setting
forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the
Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made.
In addition, with four of its excess insurer groups, the Company
entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and
other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling US$61.3
million in aggregate.

The most recent of these buyouts was reached in October 2008
with Highlands Insurance Company, which currently is in
receivership in the State of Texas. The settlement agreement
with Highlands was formally approved by the Texas receivership
court on Dec. 8, 2008, and Highlands paid the full settlement
amount, US$14.5 million, to the Company on Jan. 12, 2009.

The Company determined its probable insurance reimbursement rate
for the aggregate liability recorded as of Sept. 30, 2007 to be
33 percent. An asset of US$351 million was recorded as of Sept.
30, 2007 representing the probable insurance reimbursement for
those claims. The asset is reduced as reimbursements and other
payments from insurers are received. The asset was US$280
million as of March 31, 2009.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Records $820.44M Long-Term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$820,447,000 as
of March 31, 2009, compared with US$839,496,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$91 million as of
each March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2017.
A liability of US$1.055 billion was recorded as of Sept. 30,
2007 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending
or subsequently asserted through 2017. The liability is reduced
when cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and
defense costs.

The liability was US$911 million as of March 31, 2009, about 68
percent of which is attributable to settlement and defense costs
for future claims projected to be filed through 2017.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Crane Co. manufactures and provides
highly engineered industrial products and solutions to customers
in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing,
petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Norris Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky issued a split ruling in an
asbestos lawsuit filed by Charles and Mary Norris against
various defendants.

Judges Glenn A. Acree, Michelle M. Keller, and James H. Lambert
entered judgment in Case Nos. 2004-CA-000525-MR, 2004-CA-000575-
MR, 2004-CA-000645-MR on March 6, 2009.

Mr. Norris, having been exposed to asbestos in the workplace,
contracted malignant mesothelioma and, after initiating this
action, died. A Jefferson Circuit Court jury determined that
Cardinal Industrial Insulation Company, Inc., was liable to his
estate and to his widow, and awarded total damages of
US$1,117,796.30.

In addition to Cardinal, the jury apportioned liability among
asbestos products manufacturer Johns-Manville Corporation and
Mr. Norris' employer, Rohm & Haas Corporation.

The jury found two other manufacturers of asbestos-containing
products Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and John Crane, Inc.
not liable. Before the case was given to the jury, the trial
court granted a directed verdict in favor of Scientific Design
Company, Inc., an engineering firm believed by Mrs. Norris to
have incorporated asbestos products in its design of Mr. Norris'
workplace.

The Appeals Court reviewed three appeals relative to this case.
They had been consolidated for the review.

Before he passed away on June 12, 2002, the Norrises sued 13
defendants, asserting claims for negligence, strict liability,
and loss of consortium. After Mr. Norris' death, Mrs. Norris was
appointed administratrix of Mr. Norris' estate, whereupon she
amended the complaint to reflect these changed circumstances,
and to assert a claim for wrongful death.

Third-party practice brought in two more parties, Mr. Norris'
employer, Rohm & Haas, and Johns-Manville.

Scientific Design moved the trial court for a grant of summary
judgment in its favor arguing that it was not the same entity
that had performed the engineering work during the renovation of
the facility in the early 1960s. This motion was denied.

Trial was commenced against four defendants: Cardinal, John
Crane, Garlock, and Scientific Design. Before instructing the
jury, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of
Scientific Design. Subsequent to deliberating, the jury found
that John Crane and Garlock were not liable. The jury found
Cardinal liable to Mrs. Norris and the Norris estate,
apportioning liability as follows: Cardinal (20 percent), Johns-
Manville (28 percent), and Rohm & Haas (52 percent).

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment entered against Cardinal
and remanded the case for entry of an order directing a verdict
in its favor. The Appeals Court also found no error over those
claims of error asserted by Mrs. Norris and affirmed the
judgment.

Because it affirmed the directed verdict in favor of Scientific
Design, the Appeals Court declined to address Appeal No.2004-CA-
000645-MR as the arguments contained therein were moot. These
matters were remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Joseph P. Hummel, Esq., Armer H. Mahan, Jr., Esq., in
Louisville, Ky., represented Cardinal Industrial Insulation,
Co., Inc.

Kenneth Sales, Esq., Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., D. Matthew
Kannady, Esq., of Louisville, Ky., represented Mary J. Norris.

John K. Gordinier, Esq., Berlin Tsai, Esq., of Louisville, Ky.,
represented Garlock Sealing Technologies.

Max S. Hartz, Esq., in Owensboro, Ky., represented John Crane,
Inc.

Mark A. Osbourn, Esq., Christopher Piekarski, Esq., in
Louisville, Ky., represented Scientific Design Co., Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs McCarthy Partial Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Central District of California, granted
Diana W. McCarthy's motion for partial summary judgment, in an
asbestos lawsuit filed against AstenJohnson, Inc.

The case is styled Diana W. McCarthy, et al. v. AstenJohnson,
Inc.

Mrs. McCarthy is the widow of Douglas McCarthy. Plaintiffs Anna
Melissa McCarthy and Sara Amanda McCarthy are Mr. McCarthy's
surviving daughters. On Aug. 23, 2002, Mr. McCarthy died of
mesothelioma, allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos
products manufactured by AstenJohnson.

The McCarthys filed a complaint for wrongful death on March 18,
2003 in Los Angeles Superior Court. AstenJohnson removed the
action to this Court on April 30, 2003.

The McCarthy's motion for partial summary judgment was granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Petition for Review in Pelaez Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, denied Texas Property
and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association's (TPCIGA) petition
to review a Benefits Review Board ruling, in an action involving
asbestos exposure filed by Mary Pelaez on behalf of her late
husband, Paul Pelaez.

The case is styled Levingston Ship Building Co.; Texas Property
and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, Petitioners v. Mary
Pelaez, widow of Paul Pelaez; Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corp;
Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, U.S.
Department of Labor, Respondents.

Judges Jerry E. Smith, Rhesa H. Barksdale, and Edward C. Prado
entered judgment in Case No. 07-60616 on March 6, 2009.

TPCIGA sought review of an order of the Board. TPCIGA challenged
being required to pay death benefits under the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), as well as to pay
penalties, attorney's fees, and interest.

TPCIGA contended it has no liability because it was not the last
maritime employer of Mr. Pelaez, and was not liable under state
law for penalties, attorney's fees, and interest.

TPCIGA is a state-created association, which pays claims for
insolvent insurers. Levingston Shipbuilding Company's insurer is
insolvent. Accordingly, TPCIGA is Levingston's insurer.

Mr. Pelaez worked for Levingston as a ship fitter in the 1960s
and early 1970s, where he was exposed to asbestos. In 2002, he
died from that exposure. Mrs. Pelaez notified Levingston of her
husband's death on June 10, 2003 and filed for death benefits.
TPCIGA filed a notice of controversion to the claim on July 7,
2003.

TPCIGA also impleaded Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corp.,
contending it, rather than Levingston, was Mr. Pelaez's last
maritime employer. Gulf Copper denied liability.

The matter was submitted to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on
the record and without a formal hearing. The ALJ concluded Mrs.
Pelaez presented a prima facie showing that her husband's death
was compensable under the LHWCA. The ALJ then rejected TPCIGA's
contention that Gulf Copper, rather than Levingston, was the
last responsible employer.

The ALJ also imposed a 10 percent penalty against TPCIGA because
it failed to pay compensation or file a notice of controversion
within 14 days of receiving notice of Mr. Pelaez's death. TPCIGA
was also ordered to pay interest on the unpaid sums and Mrs.
Pelaez's attorney's fees.

TPCIGA appealed this decision to the Board. The Appeals Court
denied the review.

Charles D. Wheat, Esq., of Folger, Wheat & Oppermann in Houston,
represented TPCIGA.

John Dale McElroy, Esq., of Barton, Price & Mcelroy in Orange,
Tex., John R. Walker, Esq., of Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering,
Chris J. Gleasman, Esq., of the U.S. Department of Labor OWCP-
Longshore Division in Houston, Donald Shire, Esq., of the U.S.
Department Of Labor, and Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr., Esq., of the
Benefits Review Board in Washington, D.C., represented the
Respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Insurers Seek to Dispute Payout Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aviva plc, AXA UK plc, RSA Insurance Group plc, and Zurich
Global Corporate UK Limited launched a legal challenge against a
new law, which allows Scottish workers suffering from exposure
to asbestos to sue for compensation, The Herald reports.

The four insurers lodged an action for a judicial review at the
Court of Session in Edinburgh of the Damages (Asbestos-related
Conditions) (Scotland) Act, which received Royal Assent last
April 17, 2009.

The act allows claims for compensation for people affected by
pleural plaques. The insurers insist clinical evidence shows
plaques are symptomless, do not impact on health or lead to
asbestos-related diseases and the legislation overturns a House
of Lords decision made in a case in 2007.

The insurers claim the act ignores "overwhelming" medical
evidence that plaques do not cause asbestos-related conditions
like mesothelioma, overturns a fundamental U.K. legal principle
that compensation is payable only where physical harm has been
suffered through negligent exposure to a risk and fails to fully
assess the financial impact on Scottish firms.

Nick Starling, of the Association of British Insurers, said the
action had not been taken lightly and claimed the legislation
was "ill conceived" and ignored the fundamental legal principle
of negligence and clear medical evidence.

A government spokesman said it would "vigorously defend" the
challenge. He said, "We are disappointed that this action to
seek effectively to overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament
has been taken.

"The insurance companies' action may delay, but will not
ultimately defeat, our resolve to defend the rights of people
who have been negligently exposed to asbestos by their clients.
We firmly believe that our legislation is right in principle and
right in law."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Importer Arrested for Dealing Tainted Talc
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investigative unit of the Korea Food and Drug Administration
arrested Hong Suk-kwan, the president of Duksan Pure Chemicals
Company, on charges that he sold asbestos-tainted talc, the
Joong Ang Daily reports.

On April 21, 2009, the KFDA claimed Mr. Hong has imported
316,000 kilograms (696,660 pounds) of talc and sold more than
two-thirds of it to an unidentified pharmaceutical firm since
April 2005. It also said Mr. Hong received more than KPW7
million (US$5,187) from 125 companies in exchange for 8,400
kilograms of asbestos-tainted talc imported from China.

About three percent of the talc Mr. Hong imported contained
asbestos, said a KFDA official who asked to remain anonymous.

Korean law prohibits production, importation and use of goods
containing over one percent asbestos.

The KFDA said it also discovered that Duksan has been
distributing substandard talc since 1995.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Out-of-Court Deal Entered in Allen Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An out-of-court settlement agreement, concerning an undisclosed
six-figure sum, was reached in the asbestos lawsuit filed on
behalf of Great Wyrley, England-based bricklayer, Colin Allen,
the Cayman Mama reports.

Mr. Allen died in 2004 of mesothelioma, three months after he
was exposed to asbestos while working as a bricklayer.

Lawyers for Mr. Allen's family have been battling both of his
former employers, F & EV Linford Ltd and Sir Alfred McAlpine
Capital Projects Ltd., seeking damages for the asbestos related
death of Mr. Allen.

Lawyers for Mr. Allen's family allege Mr. Allen was continuously
exposed to asbestos materials while he worked in the boiler
house of the construction company, F & EV Linford, alongside
workers applying asbestos to the boiler and pipes.

The suit also accused Sir Alfred McAlpine of directly exposing
Mr. Allen to asbestos when he was a bricklayer by having him
work next to asbestos workers. The asbestos workers were
applying asbestos at a school in Metchley Lane, Birmingham, at
the time of Mr. Allen's employ.

The undisclosed monetary agreement was an effort to compensate
for the catastrophic damages and fatal injuries caused by the
direct and secondary exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Witness in Grace Action Called on April 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutors in an asbestos and environmental lawsuit against
W.R. Grace & Co. and certain of its former executives called
their final witness on April 20, 2009, the Associated Press
reports.

However, they will not rest their case until a federal judge
decides on several pending legal motions.

Dr. Richard Lemen, a former assistant surgeon general, was
called as the government's final witness against the Company,
which is charged with knowingly exposing Libby, Mont.'s
residents to asbestos.

Dr. Lemen, a retired physician from Georgia, told jurors that
asbestos-tainted vermiculite mined for decades by the Company
posed "an imminent risk" to the public, the Missoulian newspaper
reported.

Grace attorney David Bernick, Esq., who criticized Dr. Lemen for
getting paid US$350 an hour to testify as an asbestos expert,
said the doctor was alone in his theory.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said lawyers should
be prepared to argue the admissibility of 55 exhibits. However,
he told jurors their next full day would not be until April 28,
2009 when the defense intends to call its first witness.

Judge Molloy has scheduled a motions hearing and defense lawyers
are expected to argue why the charges should be dismissed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean said he would still like to
perform a redirect examination of Robert Locke, the former Grace
executive who testified for the government, but may have
committed perjury on the stand.

Mr. Locke testified earlier that he spoke with Grace defendant
Robert Bettacchi about selling contaminated mining property to a
married couple who bought the land and converted it into a tree
nursery and mushroom farm.

Mr. Locke said he tried to persuade Mr. Bettacchi not to sell
the old mine site because he knew it was contaminated with
asbestos. However, Grace attorneys say he fabricated the
conversation and said he told members of the grand jury a
different story. The defense also says Mr. Locke is biased
because he left the Company under bitter circumstances and now
has a lawsuit pending against Mr. Bettacchi.

Judge Molloy has not decided whether to let Mr. Locke take the
stand again. Defense lawyers want his testimony stricken from
the record, though Mr. Bernick has acknowledged that the witness
is "a tough bell to unring."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1515 Tower's Demolition Halted on April 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
City Construction Services Department, on April 15, 2009, halted
demolition work at an asbestos-laden, hurricane-ravaged
waterfront condominium at 1515 S. Flagler Drive in West Palm
Beach, Fla., the West Palm Beach Post reports.

City and health department officials were set to meet with
Trinity Development Group representatives on April 22, 2009 to
discuss the alleged violations and how to proceed with the
project. Trinity will have to remove the stucco exterior of the
30-story tower before imploding the building.

The Company issued a statement on April 20, 2009, saying it "is
bound by law to adhere to all city, county and state regulations
as part of the demolition of 1515 S. Flagler."

Trinity had the health department's authorization to remove
interior asbestos - from floor tiles and popcorn ceilings -
starting on April 22, 2009 or April 23, 2009. However, they
started several days early, removed an exterior section and did
so without a city demolition permit, health department and city
officials said.

The health department, which enforces state and federal asbestos
laws in the county, requires a waiting period of 10 working days
to give it time to make sure requirements for removing asbestos
have been met, they said.

On April 21, 2009, Alex Ortega, the department's asbestos
program coordinator, said, "By removing asbestos-containing
material from the building, we believe they violated federal
rules."

It's not unusual for a 40-year-old building to have asbestos,
which commonly was used in construction for its fire-retardant
properties.

Trinity, which plans to develop a US$150 million luxury tower
called The Modern on the site, will have to remove the stucco
exterior before the rest of the structure can be imploded, Mr.
Ortega added.

Multiple tests have shown the stucco contains more than one
percent asbestos, requiring that it be removed before imploding
the tower, Mr. Ortega said. Contractors hired by Trinity
submitted test results showing much lower levels of asbestos,
but those test procedures are not valid under federal rules, he
said.

Trinity officials in February 2009 overcame months of city
opposition and downsized their plans for The Modern to win city
commission approval for zoning changes the project required.

As a condition of that approval, the Company was given until
Aug. 18, 2009 to demolish the 1515 Tower, a boarded-up eyesore
vacant since the 2004 hurricanes. To extend that deadline would
require another vote of the city commission, city spokesman
Peter Robbins said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cupido to Pay $52T Fine for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Justice, on April 16, 2009, assessed a
$52,000 penalty against Kingston, Ontario-based David J. Cupido
Construction Limited, for asbestos-related safety breaches,
Wired.PRNews.com reports.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour investigated the Company for
violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA)
involving an asbestos abatement project.

The Ministry of Labour review found construction workers for
Cupido were exposed to asbestos-containing materials and
products during building renovations. The demolition project
managers failed to adequately assess the presence of asbestos in
the building before beginning the renovation project as required
by government rules and regulations.

Construction managers and supervisors are required to make sure
laborers do not disturb asbestos containing materials.

According to court documents, Cupido pleaded guilty to the
asbestos violations under OSHA law before the judge for failing
to protect workers from harmful asbestos fibers.

The judge imposed the US$52,000 fine plus an additional asbestos
injury victim surcharge which is required by the Provincial
Offences Act, a special provincial government fund to assist
victims of crime.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PEER Files Suit v. EPA over Cleanup Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
lawsuit filed on April 21, 2009, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is improperly withholding a report on whether
its cleanup in Libby, Mont., is adequate to protect the
residents of that community, the Environment News Service
reports.

PEER seeks the release of a 2006 report by EPA Office of
Inspector General investigator Cory Rumple over the safety and
completeness of EPA's removal of vermiculite contaminated with
deadly asbestos from the town of Libby.

Vermiculite mining in and near the town of Libby began in the
1920s and was continued by W. R. Grace & Co. from 1963 until
1990. The vermiculite ore mined in Libby was contaminated with
tremolite asbestos.

The report sought by PEER assesses the public health
implications of the manner in which EPA conducted the clean-up
in Libby, where an estimated 200 people have already died and
hundreds more sickened by exposure to this form of asbestos, as
well as the culpability of responsible EPA officials.

During the past two years, PEER has repeatedly requested the
document's release. In 2007, EPA contended that the report could
not be disclosed because it was part of an active law
enforcement investigation.

In 2008, the agency dropped that rationale but asserted that
even the factual portions of the report, as opposed to Agent's
Rumple's conclusions, were so sensitive that a redacted report
could not be released.

In a July 28, 2008 letter to PEER, Associate Deputy Inspector
General Mark Bialek wrote that releasing only the "summary of
information and concerns of various EPA employees and private
individuals on technical/scientific issues regarding EPA's
residential cleanup program in Libby" reported by Rumple would
still reveal the agency's "deliberative process."

The lawsuit will test pledges by President Barack Obama and
Attorney General Eric Holder of a new openness and presumption
of disclosure in administering the Freedom of Information Act.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Says Hardie Breached Corporations Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Supreme Court in New South Wales, Australia,
ruled that certain former managers and directors of James Hardie
Industries N.V. breached corporations law over the Company's
restructure and establishment of an asbestos payout trust in
2001, ABC News reports.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's case also
found that the Company and its officers made false statements or
failed to inform ASIC of important matters.

The Court has upheld ASIC's argument that the Corporations Act
was breached when Hardie's board approved a stock exchange
announcement that an asbestos compensation fund was fully funded
and provided certainty to victims.

The Court has ruled that directors, including the former
chairman Meredith Hellicar, breached their duties. The former
chief executive, Peter MacDonald, and company secretary, Peter
Shafron, also breached their duties as company officers.

It has also emerged on April 23, 2009 that there are ongoing
problems with the replacement fund that Hardie set up in 2007 in
response to the underfunding of the original trust.

Hardie says it cannot contribute more to the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund (AICF), despite the fund's warning that it may
run short of money within two years.

The fund issued a formal notification to Hardie and the New
South Wales Government, on April 23, 2009, warns them that is
possible that the fund will not be able to meet all of its
likely liabilities within the next two years.

The fund has asked the Government and Hardie to participate in
discussions about how the shortfall can be covered. However,
while the Company is willing to take part in talks, James Hardie
says it is "not in a position to make contributions to the AICF
beyond the obligations set out under the terms of the AFFA [the
original funding agreement]."

Under the funding agreement, James Hardie's contributions are
set at a maximum of 35 percent of its annual net operating cash
flow.

However, the Company says that because it paid AUD118 million to
the fund during the 2009 financial year, paid a large settlement
to the Australian Tax Office, and has been hit by the U.S. house
building collapse, it is unlikely to contribute any money to the
fund in 2010.

The Company is suggesting that the fund could pay compensation
in installments, rather than upfront, to preserve its cash
position.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Orders Junking of Aidnik Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, ordered
the dismissal of a case involving asbestos cleanup filed by Jeff
Aidnik, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel.

The case is styled Jeff Aidnik, Plaintiff v. O'Conner, et al.,
Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan entered judgment in Case
No. CIV S-07-1273 MCE EFB P on April 15, 2009.

This action proceeded on the April 17, 2008 amended complaint in
which Mr. Aidnik alleged that defendant Russell violated his
Eighth Amendment rights. The matter is now before the court on
Russell's Jan. 15, 2009 motion to dismiss on the ground that Mr.
Aidnik failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.

Mr. Aidnik alleged that on March 29, 2006, he was told to assist
in the demolition of the institutional photo lab at the
California Medical Facility. This work continued for over a
week. He was not informed that he would be working with asbestos
and lead.

A week after the work began, Mr. Aidnik was told to stop
working. As a result of handling asbestos, lead, and other
hazardous materials, he suffered respiratory distress and began
respiratory treatments along with medications. He alleged that
these actions violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Russell's Jan. 15, 2009
motion to dismiss be granted; all outstanding motions be denied;
this case be dismissed without prejudice; and the Clerk be
directed to close the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Badgett Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the
ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied service
entitlement for the cause of the death of Pauline P. Badgett's
husband, Kenneth R. Badgett.

The case is styled Pauline P. Badgett, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Frank Nebeker entered judgment in Case No. 07-1179 on
March 27, 2009.

Before the Court is the April 10, 2007 Board decision that
denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of Mr.
Badgett's death.

Mr. Badgett served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April
1943 to November 1945. His Form DD 214 reflected that he
participated in battles and campaigns in Normandy, Ardennes,
Rhineland, and Central Europe. His service records reflected
treatment for acute tonsillitis in January 1944, and
nasopharyngitis in December 1944, although a physical
examination of the nose, pharynx, and chest were negative at
that time. His separation examination did not note any diagnoses
or complaints related to his cardiovascular or respiratory
systems.

In November 1966, the VA regional office (RO) awarded Mr.
Badgett service connection for a hearing disability and scars on
his left hand. Medical records dated between 1973 and 1975
reported treatment for a septoplasty due to a nasal obstruction;
and complaints of trouble breathing after working and strenuous
activity. The physician diagnosed chronic obstructive lung
disease and advised Mr. Badgett to stop smoking.

In November 2003, Mr. Badgett filed a claim for entitlement to
service connection for residuals of exposure to asbestos,
including lung cancer. He died on Dec. 8, 2003 as a result of
exacerbation of chronic obstructive lung disease and lung
cancer.

Mrs. Badgett filed a claim for service connection for the cause
of Mr. Badgett's death in February 2004. Thereafter, the RO
sought verification that the veteran had been exposed to
asbestos. The service department responded that no corroborative
records were available. In May 2004, the RO denied Mrs.
Badgett's claim for service connection for the cause of Mr.
Badgett's death.

In April 2007, the Board issued the decision here on appeal in
which it denied Mrs. Badgett's claim. Before this Court, she
continued to argue that Mr. Badgett's exposure to asbestos
during World War II caused his lung cancer, which led to his
death. She also asserted that the Board erred in its treatment
of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the submissions of the
parties, and the Record on Appeal, the April 10, 2007 Board
ruling was affirmed.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Secal Laser, Director Fined for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Secal Laser Ltd and its managing director, Roger Lee Lavender,
were fined GBP6,666 and ordered to pay GBP11,040 costs for an
unlicensed removal of asbestos at a factory in Telford,
Shropshire, England, the Safety & Health Practitioner reports.

Mr. Lavender instructed his own employees to remove asbestos
from the firm's premises, despite knowing that a licensed
company should have carried out the work.

Local authorities had conduced asbestos surveys in June 2004 and
July 2007 and on both occasions discovered asbestos was present
in insulation boards throughout the factory. Mr. Lavender was
also informed that a licensed removal firm must remove the
asbestos immediately.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the Health and Safety Executive received a
complaint that Mr. Lavender had instructed two of his employees
to carry out the removal work. Investigators visited the site
three days later and found that the work had been completed but
there was still asbestos debris on the factory floor. Mr.
Lavender was subsequently ordered by the inspectors to hire a
licensed firm to remove the remaining debris.

Mr. Lavender appeared at Shrewsbury Crown Court on April 8, 2009
and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.8(1) and 3(2) of the Control
of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and s33(1) of the HSWA 1974.

HSE inspector, Guy Dale, told the court that the work would have
cost in the region of GBP40,000 and caused severe disruption to
the business if it had been carried out by a specialist removal
firm.

In mitigation, Mr. Lavender said he committed the offences out
of naivety and not for financial gain. He also complied with the
HSE's request to have a licensed company remove the remaining
debris.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Wa. Contractor Fined $51,750 for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Wales, a Redmond, Wash.-based contractor, was issued a
US$51,750 penalty for 14 violations of safety regulations, says
the Redmond Reporter.

Pete Schmidt, contractor compliance chief for Department of
Labor & Industries (L&I), said, "There's often a reason why the
lowest bidder is the lowest. These individuals may not be
registered, bonded, or insured – and may not be qualified to do
the work."

Mr. Wales was cited by L&I for not being a certified asbestos-
abatement contractor and for exposing his worker to serious
health hazards from asbestos. Not only was Mr. Wales not a
certified asbestos abatement contractor, he was not registered
as a contractor with L&I, nor was he licensed to be in business
in the state, and he took no steps to control contamination from
the asbestos materials.

The investigation found that the property manager had contracted
with Mr. Wales after seeing his advertisement in a weekly paper.
Mr. Wales's bid to remove the popcorn material and refinish the
ceiling was significantly lower than two other contractors who
submitted bids. It was agreed that Mr. Wales knew how to
properly remove and handle asbestos.

Mr. Wales then hired a day laborer from the Millionair Club in
Seattle and put him to work scraping the material off the
ceiling without providing him with personal protective equipment
or hazard training. The worker finished the day's work and went
home with asbestos fibers and debris clinging to his clothing
and hair.

During the course of the work, a neighbor became alarmed at
seeing the ceiling materials drifting out of the house and into
the yard and driveway and called the Puget Sound Clean Air
Agency (PSCAA).

The PSCAA came to the house and persuaded Mr. Wales to abandon
the project, and then put up barrier tape labeling the site
"Danger Asbestos Hazard." Despite that, Mr. Wales returned to
the job, ignored the barrier, and worked several more days,
according to L&I.

In the end, the property manager paid Mr. Wales in full and then
hired a certified asbestos abatement contractor to clean up the
heavily contaminated home, driveway and landscaping.


                            *********

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  * * *