CAR_Public/090501.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 85

                           Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeal to Ruling in "Marcoux" Still Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: LaFlamme Claimants Agreed to Dismiss in Feb.
CIB MARINE: Final Order Dismissing Ruedi's Suit Entered in Feb.
CIB MARINE: "Lewis" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in 4Q 2008
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Expects Final Approval of Settlement in 2Q 2009

DILIGENT BOARD: To Defend Claims Over Losses for Non-Disclosure
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Judge Returns Blackwell Case to State Court
HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Toxic Trash in Iraq
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Violations Suit
MAXIM TEP: Defending Damages Suit Over Delhi Field Contamination

MONEY MART: Attorney Makes Opening Statement in Payday Loan Case
NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Domain Names
PEPSIAMERICAS INC: Law Firm Announces Filing of Delaware Lawsuit
PEPSI BOTTLING: Investors Sue Over Proposed PepsiCo Takeover
PFIZER INC: Calif. Court Approves Bextra, Celebrex Settlement

PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Defends Suits Over Antitrust Inquiries
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Girard Gibbs Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RITE AID: Settlement Agreement w/ Store Managers Inked in March
SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Advertisement Guarantee
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Units Face New Complaint in Indiana Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson & Perkinson Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
MRU HOLDINGS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Finkelstein & Krinsk Announces Filing
OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,822 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Multi-Party Actions Still Ongoing v. Badger
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Int'l. Still Faces Lawsuits in Miss.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AICF Advises of Insufficient Payout Funds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Expends $10Mil for Bankruptcy Matters
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMSF's Lawsuit v. Halliburton Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton to Get $85M Recoveries in 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $36M Net Litigation Charges

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $873Mil NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oral Arguments in Travelers Set for May 14
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,791 Pending Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.721B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $1.55B Long-Term Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific's March 31 Liability at $210M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Cites $52MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Delay Payout Law Denied on April 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Closed Mines in Korea to Undergo Inspection

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt Says Sterlite Could Purchase Asarco
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Told to Disclose E-Mails on Quigley
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Harron Ongoing in Wheeling Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Delays USOC Headquarters Completion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Carden Suit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Has 25T Claims in 7 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Island Creek Faces Exposure Action in W.Va.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26 Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Minerals Tech.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 102,577 Actions Ongoing v. ITT at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Still Faces 14T Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Cites $4Mil Litigation Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Facing 425 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $142M Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Celanese Corp. Units Drop to 549

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suits in Miss. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: D.C. Court Upholds Ruling in Ashland Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Chamber Calls for Litigation Reforms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Portion of Tacoma Stimulus Set for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judicial Forum Set for June 3 in New York
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VA Hospital Employees "Exposed" to Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found at CBI Building Roof in N.Y.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Wallaga Lake Community
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Cadbury Factory's Roof Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ritz Carriage House Slated for Demolition
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Gov't. Drops Action v. Grace Executive
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin, Units Still Subject to Exposure Cases


                           *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeal to Ruling in "Marcoux" Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal filed by the plaintiffs from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York's ruling in the matter
"Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01376-NG-KAM," which names American Airlines Inc. as a
defendant, remains pending.

The suit, filed by Ann M. Marcoux, names as defendant:

      -- the Association of Professional Flight Attendants;

      -- the Union that represents the company's flight
         attendants; and

      -- American Airlines, Inc.

The suit asks on behalf of all of the company's flight
attendants or various subclasses damages allegedly resulting
from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to
as the Restructuring Participation Agreement.

The RPA was one of three labor agreements that the company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the Association
of Professional Flight Attendants and American Airlines relating
to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual
APFA members, including:

      -- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
         Disclosure Act and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws;
         and

      -- violation by the APFA of its duty of fair
         representation to its members, violation by American of
         provisions of the Railway Labor Act through
         improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or
         changing their vote for ratification, and violations of
         the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
         of 1970.

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to
American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of
the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and
the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the
APFA of a breach of its constitution).

On Aug. 20, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the
purported class of flight attendants. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 22, 2008)

A final adverse court decision invalidating the RPA and awarding
substantial money damages would have a material adverse impact
on American Airlines, according to the company's April 16, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Nina Gershon,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Emily Maruja Bass, Esq. (eb@basslaw.us)
         Law Offices of Emily Bass
         25 Washington Street, Suite 305
         Brooklyn, NY 11201
         Phone: 718-522-9705
         Fax: 718-522-9707

              - and -

         Martin Garbus, Esq. (mgarbus@dglaw.com)
         Mark J. Rachman, Esq. (mrachman@dglaw.com)
         Davis & Gilbert, LLP
         1740 Broadway, 21st floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800
         Fax: 212-468-4888

Representing the defendants are:

         Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr., Esq.
         (treinert@morganlewis.com)
         Melissa C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         (mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com)
         Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. (sshaulson@morganlewis.com)
         Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
         101 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10178
         Phone: 212-309-6000
         Fax: 212-309-6273


AMERICAN AIRLINES: LaFlamme Claimants Agreed to Dismiss in Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class-action lawsuit styled,
"LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al.," agreed to dismiss their
claims against American Airlines, Inc., in February 2009.

The company faced two purported class-action lawsuits over
allegations that the company violated U.S. antitrust laws by
illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and Germany, respectively.

The suits were filed on March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008,
under the captions:

       -- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444
          (N.D. Cal.);" and

       -- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-
          1079 (E.D.N.Y.)."

The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking
trebled money damages and injunctive relief. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008)

The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect service against the
company, and it is unclear whether they intend to pursue their
claims.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the LaFlamme plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
their claims against the company without prejudice.

In the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their claims or
the LaFlamme plaintiffs re-file claims against American
Airlines, the company will vigorously defend these lawsuits,
according to its April 16, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml– is
the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp.  All of American's common
stock is owned by AMR.  American is a scheduled passenger
airline.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, American provided
scheduled jet service to approximately 170 destinations
throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe
and Asia.  In addition, American has capacity purchase
agreements with two wholly owned subsidiaries of AMR, American
Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. and two
independently owned regional airlines, which do business as the
American Connection (the American Connection carriers).  The AMR
Eagle and American Connection carriers provide connecting
service from eight of American's high-traffic cities to smaller
markets throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.
American is also a scheduled air freight carriers, providing a
range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its
system.


CIB MARINE: Final Order Dismissing Ruedi's Suit Entered in Feb.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final order dismissing the class-action suit filed by former
employee John Ruedi in accordance with the settlement was
entered in February 2009.

Mr. Ruedi's suit accused CIB Marine of fraudulent and negligent
concealment and intentional interference with a business
relationship.

The suit claims the company concealed information about
financial problems, with the plaintiffs contending they were
hurt by not having that information.

On Aug. 14, 2008, a settlement conference was held in the Dennis
Lewis and John Ruedi matters.  As a result of that settlement
conference, the remaining defendants reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs in both suits to settle those cases.  The general
terms of the settlement involved the payment by CIB Marine of
approximately $3.4 million, together with an additional amount
paid by CIB Marine's and individual defendants' insurers,
inclusive of costs, and the defendants' agreement to
certification of a plaintiff class for purposes of participating
in the settlement (all persons who purchased CIB Marine's stock
between Jan. 21, 2000 and April 12, 2004), in exchange for which
all claims against CIB Marine, its insurer and the individual
defendants in both lawsuits would be dismissed.

The parties' agreement to settle the cases was subject to a
number of conditions including the final approval of the terms
of the settlement in the Lewis case by the court in that case.
Those conditions were satisfied in the fourth quarter of 2008
and an order was entered dismissing the Lewis case.  In December
2008, CIB Marine paid the agreed upon amount to settle both
cases. An order has been entered in the Lewis case dismissing
the claims against CIB Marine and the individual defendants.  No
appeal has been taken from the approval of the settlement in the
Lewis case.  A final order dismissing the Ruedi case in
accordance with the settlement was entered in February 2009.

As part of the settlement of the Ruedi and Lewis cases, CIB
Marine, the individual insureds, and the insurer executed mutual
releases discharging all parties of all liability or obligations
on existing or future claims under the policy or claims for
recovery from any insured, according to CIB's April 15, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. -- http://www.cibmarine.com--
formerly Central Illinois Bancorp, is a multi-bank holding
company.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, CIB Marine owned and operated
three commercial banking organizations: Central Illinois Bank,
Marine Bank and Citrus Bank, N.A. CIB Marine offers a range of
banking services through its bank subsidiaries.  These services
include a range of loan products, such as commercial loans,
commercial real estate loans, commercial and residential
construction loans, one- to four-family residential real estate
loans, consumer loans and commercial and standby letters of
credit; accepting demand, savings and time deposits, providing
commercial paper and repurchase agreements, and providing other
banking services.  As of Dec. 31, 2007, CIB Marine had one
wholly owned operating nonbanking subsidiary, CIB Marine
Information Services, Inc.


CIB MARINE: "Lewis" Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in 4Q 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities fraud lawsuit by Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and
other alleged shareholders of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc.,
against the company was dismissed during the fourth quarter of
2008.

On June 3, 2005, a first consolidated complaint was filed by
Dennis Lewis, a shareholder, and other alleged shareholders of
CIB Marine, with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois against CIB Marine, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and KPMG, LLP.

The filing consolidated two actions that had been filed in
January 2005:

     -- one filed by Mr. Lewis with the U.S. District Court for
        the Central District of Illinois; and

     -- another filed with the U.S. District Court for the
        Central District of Illinois by Elaine Sollberger, a
        purported shareholder, whose claims were voluntarily
        dismissed in connection with the consolidation, and have
        not been reasserted in the consolidated complaint.

The plaintiffs sought to maintain the action as a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of CIB
Marine between April 12, 1999, and April 12, 2004, claiming
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by CIB Marine and other defendants and liability of
certain defendants other than CIB Marine and KPMG under Section
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act as controlling
persons.

The substance of the complaint is that the financial condition
of CIB Marine was overstated with the result that members of the
purported class acquired their CIB Marine stock at inflated
prices.

The plaintiffs seek money damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.

The court granted CIB Marine and several other defendants'
motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, where the action is now pending.

Several defendants moved to dismiss the action on various
grounds.  On Oct. 12, 2006, the court denied CIB Marine's motion
to dismiss, granted in part the motions to dismiss filed by the
individual defendants and granted the motion to dismiss filed by
KPMG.

CIB Marine and the individual defendants have filed answers to
the pending complaint denying any liability.  An additional
person has moved to intervene as a plaintiff in the action.

In light of a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that
addressed the pleading standards that must be satisfied by the
plaintiff in a case such as this one, on July 16, 2007, CIB
Marine and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, or in the alternative, a motion for
reconsideration of the ruling on the motion to dismiss, seeking
dismissal of the action on the ground that the plaintiffs have
not satisfactorily pleaded one of the essential elements of
their cause of action.  That motion has been fully briefed and
no date has been set for a decision.

On Nov. 10, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a further amended
complaint as to KPMG, which KPMG moved to dismiss.  On Aug. 13,
2007, the court granted KPMG's motion and dismissed the action
as to it.

As a result of the filing of the initial motions to dismiss, all
discovery in this action was stayed automatically.

The plaintiffs moved to vacate that stay of discovery, which all
defendants opposed based on KPMG's pending motion to dismiss the
further amended complaint filed by plaintiffs against KPMG.

In granting KPMG's motion to dismiss, the court noted the
pendency of the motion for judgment on the pleadings described
above and ruled that the stay of discovery will remain in place.

The plaintiffs filed a separate motion for a limited lift of the
stay of discovery, which CIB Marine and the individual
defendants opposed in their response filed on Sept. 11, 2007.

In denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court
denied the motions to vacate the stay as moot, i.e., with the
denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings discovery may
proceed. (Class Action Reporter, April 11, 2008)

On Aug. 14, 2008, a settlement conference was held in the Dennis
Lewis and John Ruedi matters.  As a result of that settlement
conference, the remaining defendants reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs in both suits to settle those cases.  The general
terms of the settlement involved the payment by CIB Marine of
approximately $3.4 million, together with an additional amount
paid by CIB Marine's and individual defendants' insurers,
inclusive of costs, and the defendants' agreement to
certification of a plaintiff class for purposes of participating
in the settlement (all persons who purchased CIB Marine's stock
between Jan. 21, 2000 and April 12, 2004), in exchange for which
all claims against CIB Marine, its insurer and the individual
defendants in both lawsuits would be dismissed.

The parties' agreement to settle the cases was subject to a
number of conditions including the final approval of the terms
of the settlement in the Lewis case by the court in that case.
Those conditions were satisfied in the fourth quarter of 2008
and an order was entered dismissing the Lewis case.  In December
2008, CIB Marine paid the agreed upon amount to settle both
cases.  An order has been entered in the Lewis case dismissing
the claims against CIB Marine and the individual defendants.  No
appeal has been taken from the approval of the settlement in the
Lewis case.  A final order dismissing the Ruedi case in
accordance with the settlement was entered in February 2009.

As part of the settlement of the Ruedi and Lewis cases, CIB
Marine, the individual insureds, and the insurer executed mutual
releases discharging all parties of all liability or obligations
on existing or future claims under the policy or claims for
recovery from any insured, according to CIB's April 15, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit is "Lewis et al. v. Straka et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-
01008-LA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Judge Lynn Adelman presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kristi L. Browne, Esq.
         The Patterson Law Firm
         33 N LaSalle St.
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: 312-223-1699
         e-mail: tep@pattersonlawfirm.com

              - and -

         James W. Gardner, Esq.
         Douglas J. Phebus, Esq.
         Lawton & Cates
         10 E Doty St. – Ste. 400, P.O. Box 2965
         Madison, WI 53701-2965
         Phone: 608-282-6200
         e-mail: lawtoncates@lawtoncates.com

Representing the company are:

         Allan Horwich, Esq. (ahorwich@schiffhardin.com)
         John C. Martin, Esq. (jmartin@schiffhardin.com)
         Schiff Hardin LLP
         Sears Tower, 233 S Wacker Dr - Ste 6600
         Chicago, IL 60606-6473
         Phone: 312-258-5618
         Fax: 312-258-5700


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Expects Final Approval of Settlement in 2Q 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval of the settlement of a consolidated
purported class-action lawsuit in California is expected by the
end of the Dave & Buster's, Inc.'s second fiscal quarter in
2009, according to the company's April 16, 2009 Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Feb. 1, 2009.

Initially, two class actions were filed against the company and
one of its subsidiaries in the State of California, alleging
violations of California regulations concerning mandatory meal
breaks and rest periods.

These two cases have been consolidated and coordinated because
the potential class members are virtually identical. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2008)

An agreement in principal to settle this dispute has been
reached and final court approval of the settlement is expected
by the end of the company's second fiscal quarter in 2009.

Dave & Buster's, Inc. -- http://www.daveandbusters.com-- is an
operator of restaurant/entertainment complexes.  Each
entertainment complex offers an array of entertainment
attractions.  The company's menu includes a variety of food and
beverage offering.  Its complexes cater primarily to adults aged
21 to 44 and operate seven days a week, typically from 11:30
a.m. to midnight on weekdays and 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on
weekends.  Its average complex is approximately 51,000 square
feet in size.  The average size of its complexes opened in
fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2008 was approximately 35,000 square
feet.  The company's menu places emphasis on meals, including
gourmet pastas, steaks, sandwiches, salads, and a selection of
desserts.  The company's locations offer an array of amusements
and entertainment options, including Million Dollar Midway games
and Traditional games.


DILIGENT BOARD: To Defend Claims Over Losses for Non-Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diligent Board Member Services, Inc. intends to defend the
purported class-action claims alleged by Wakefield Associates
law firm over the company's failure to disclose its involvement
with EnergyCorp in its Initial Public Offering document.

In November 2008, Wakefield Associates law firm sent a letter to
the company's shareholders seeking contributions towards the
costs of pursuing a class action lawsuit against the company,
McDouall Stuart (lead organizing broker in the company's New
Zealand IPO) and the company's Board of Directors.

The letter claims that losses have been suffered by investors
due to the failure to disclose former Diligent director Brian
Henry's involvement in the 1980s with EnergyCorp, a New Zealand
company that collapsed approximately 20 years prior to the IPO,
in the IPO offering document.

In December 2008, Wakefield Associates made a demand for
repayment of the subscription price paid (NZD1.00) by
shareholders the firm purported to represent.

The company, in consultation with its legal advisors, has
concluded that the allegations contained in the letter have no
legal merit, according to the company's Form 10-12G/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 16,
2009.

Diligent Board Member Services, Inc. --
http://www.boardbooks.com/-- is engaged in developing and
selling an online software application called Diligent
Boardbooks, which is a Web-based portal that directors and
administrative staff use to compile, update and examine board
materials prior to and during board meetings.  The Boardbooks
product features an on-screen interface that resembles a book
and displays documents in single Web-viewable pages, from a
secure central database.  The software is accessed via the
Internet and is a point and click system that gives directors
the ability to navigate throughout the entire virtual book.  The
Company provides the Boardbooks service to over 170 companies
and 4,500 users. On January 1, 2008, the Company acquired
Diligent Board Member Services (NZ) Ltd. Its subsidiaries
include Diligent Board Member Services (NZ) Ltd. and Diligent
Boardbooks Limited.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Judge Returns Blackwell Case to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma returned to state court a class-action
lawsuit against Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and Phelps
Dodge Corp. that was filed by residents of Blackwell over a
defunct smelter operation that they believe is the cause of
environmental contamination in the area, Marie Price of The
Journal Record reports.

Defendant companies such as Freeport-McMoRan Copper, Phelps
Dodge Corp. and others had moved the case to federal court,
asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 and other federal laws including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or
CERCLA, according to The Journal Record report.

The defendants have asked U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton to
reopen the case and stay the effect of his remand order pending
an appeal.

The federal class-action law extends federal-court jurisdiction
to class-action cases in which at least one plaintiff class
member is diverse from one defendant and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, reports The Journal Record.

However, the federal law has a "local controversy" exception,
which Heaton concluded is met in the Blackwell case, which he
said met the definition of "a controversy that uniquely affects
a particular locality to the exclusion of all others."

Judge Heaton acknowledged that federal courts have exclusive
original jurisdiction over CERCLA claims, but said the federal
law does not completely pre-empt state law claims. In their
original action, the Blackwell plaintiffs assert state common
law claims and sought both monetary and equitable relief.  Judge
Heaton also concluded that the plaintiffs' claims, while
critical of the Blackwell site cleanup, do not constitute a
challenge to a CERCLA cleanup for purposes of triggering the
federal court's jurisdiction, The Journal Record reported.

"While this case presents a number of close and difficult
questions, the court concludes defendants have not established a
basis for federal jurisdiction under any of the theories they
have identified," Judge Heaton wrote, reports The Journal
Record.

Originally, the state court suit was was filed in early 2008 at
Kay County, Oklahoma on behalf of four residents of Blackwell,
Oklahoma.  It was later removed at the defendants' request to a
federal court in Oklahoma City (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11,
2009).

Blackwell is a town of 7,000 located in north-central Oklahoma.
The community is contaminated with 58 million pounds of lead,
arsenic, and other toxins left behind by the Blackwell Zinc
Smelter, at one time the largest smelter of its type in the
world.  As successor-in-interest to the company that owned the
smelter, Freeport-McMoRan is legally responsible for any related
contamination (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008).

The state court suit, is entitled, "Coffey, et al. and Others
Similarly Situated v. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.,
Phelps Dodge Corporation, et al., Case No. CJ-2008-68."   It
demands that the defendants thoroughly and completely clean all
property contaminated by the smelter waste and provide for a
medical-monitoring program open to all Blackwell residents.  The
law firm of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP is one of several
attorneys representing the Blackwell residents.


HALLIBURTON CO: Faces Lawsuit in Ill. Over Toxic Trash in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Co., KBR, Inc. and two of its Kellogg Brown & Root
units are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois
from U.S. Army soldiers who say they were poisoned while serving
in Iraq by smoke and ash from the burning of toxic trash,
Bloomberg reports.

KBR and Halliburton, hired by the U.S. government to manage
waste disposal at U.S. military sites in Iraq, burned lithium
batteries, munitions boxes, medical waste and human corpses in
open-air pits from which the toxins were emitted, sickening the
men, a complaint filed in an Illinois court said.

"Every type of waste imaginable was and is burned in those
pits," U.S. Army soldiers David Lackey and Randall Robinson said
in their complaint, which was filed on April 28, 2009.

The lawsuit seeks class-action, or group, status on behalf of
soldiers and employees of all nationalities who worked for
government contractors and were sickened by the smoke and ash
from the pits, according to the Bloomberg report.

Kelly Kennedy of AirForceTimes.com previously reported that KBR,
Inc., and its parent company, Halliburton Co. are facing several
class-action lawsuits in seven states on behalf of service
members and civilians who say they were sickened by the open-air
burn pits on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan (Class
Action Reporter, April 30, 2009).

The lawsuits, including a wrongful death suit, were filed after
a Military Times story that ran last October showed that the
burn pit at Joint Base Balad, the biggest U.S. base in Iraq,
burned everything from petroleum products to dioxin-releasing
plastic water bottles to amputated limbs.

More than 150 people contacted Military Times with similar sets
of symptoms ranging from respiratory problems to lymphoma and
leukemia, according to the AirForceTimes.com report.

Kerry Baker, associate national legislative director for
Disabled American Veterans, put out a call to all service
members and veterans who believed they had been sickened by the
burn pits so that he could see if DAV should push for automatic
service-connected disability benefits for veterans who had been
exposed, just as is done with Vietnam vets who were exposed to
Agent Orange.

AirForceTimes.com reported Director Baker worked with lawyer
Elizabeth Burke, Esq. of Burke O'Neill LLC to connect veterans
who wanted to be included in a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuits, filed in Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina and Wyoming, name
21 plaintiffs.

In a prepared statement, Ms. Burke said, "KBR knew or should
have known that operating vast open-air burn pits jeopardized
the health and safety of thousands of Americans.  KBR showed an
utter disregard for the safety of the troops when they chose to
use open-air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other
safer methods of waste disposal."

According to AirForceTimes.com, the U.S. Department of Defense
contracted out waste disposal to KBR. However, service members
operate some of the burn pits at smaller bases, and military
field manuals offer guidance about how to operate those burn
pits, calling them a "short-term" solution in a war zone.

In an interview with AirForceTimes.com, Ms. Burke said that
environmental health experts who looked at possible chemical
exposures were astonished by how the symptoms matched up.

According to the lawsuits, "These for-profit corporations
callously exposed and continue to expose soldiers and others to
toxic smoke, ash and fumes.  These exposures are causing a host
of serious diseases, increased risk of serious diseases in the
future, death and increased risk of death."

Several service members have died since returning from Iraq, and
their family members believe their illnesses were caused by the
burn pits, reports AirForceTimes.com.

The lawsuits accuses the defendants of negligence, battery,
nuisance, emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct,
negligent training and hiring, breach of duty to warn and breach
of contract.  In two cases, the lawyers accuse KBR of wrongful
death.

The suits ask for monetary damages for physical injuries, lost
wages, emotional distress, pain and suffering.  It asks that KBR
lose all revenue and profits it gained in the waste-disposal
contract, and it also asks for legal expenses, according to the
AirForceTimes.com report.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. faces a purported class-action lawsuit by
a New York lawyer who alleges that the department store chain
allegedly did not honor its advertised practice of matching
competitors' prices.

Attorney Warren S. Dank, Esq., alleges in a $300 million class-
action lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck and Co. that while the
chain said it would match any competitor's prices on one of its
products, one store manager refused to match a cost on a flat-
screen television, according to a New York Post report.

Mr. Dank, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unspecified
number of other dissatisfied Sears customers, said his incident
took place at a Sears in the New York borough of Queens.

He alleges while the Sears store manager did agree to lower the
$3,600 cost of the television to a $2,800 price offered by a
competitor, the unidentified manager refused to match a $2,400
price Mr. Dank found in another store's advertisement.

After an appeals court ruled in February that Dank's 2007 suit
did not qualify as a class-action suit, Dank was left to appeal
the ruling and move forward alone.

"I'm doing this single-handedly," he told the Post. "No one else
pushed it this far to go on a crusade."


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Klehr Harrison Files WARN Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, on April
24, 2009, filed a multi-count class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, titled,
"Lakita Blair, et al. v. Infineon Technologies, AG, Infineon
North America Corp., and Qimonda AG, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-
295," on behalf of over 2,000 employees who were laid off by
subsidiaries of the Defendants, Infineon Technologies AG,
Infineon Technologies North America Corp., and Qimonda, AG.

     The lawsuit alleges that Defendants are alter egos or joint
employers of the Plaintiffs and thereby liable for damages
arising out of the layoffs.

     The complaint raises claims on behalf of virtually all
former Qimonda Richmond and Qimonda North America employees for
various causes of action including, the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, unpaid severance, wages,
bonuses, and deferred compensation.

     "Infineon should be liable for violating the law and
failing to pay the employees their earned and well-deserved
compensation and benefits.  We believe the claims could easily
exceed $40 million dollars," said Charles A. Ercole, a partner
at Klehr Harrison.

For more details, contact:

          Charles A. Ercole, Esq. (cercole@klehr.com)
          Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP
          Phone: (215) 569-4282
          Web site: http://www.klehr.com


MAXIM TEP: Defending Damages Suit Over Delhi Field Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Tep, Inc. continues to defend the class-action lawsuit
captioned, "Raymond Thomas, et al. vs. Ashley Investment
Company, et al.," pending in the 5th Judicial District Court for
Richmond Parish, Louisiana.

In the suit, numerous present and former owners of property are
seeking damages in an unspecified amount for alleged soil,
groundwater and other contamination, allegedly resulting from
oil and gas operations of multiple companies in the Delhi Field
in Richmond Parish, Louisiana over a time period exceeding 50
years.

Originally consisting of 14,000 acres upon discovery of the
field in 1952, the company acquired an interest in leases
covering 1,400 acres in 2006.

Although the suit was filed in 2005, and was pending when the
company acquired its interest in 2006, as part of the
acquisition terms, the company agreed to indemnify predecessors
in title, including its grantor, against ultimate damages
related to the prior operations, with the exception of Sun Oil,
which is now Anadarko.

As part of the company's purchase terms, a Site Specific Trust
Account was established with the State of Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources intended to provide funds for remediation
of the lands involved in its acquired interest.

Principal defendants in the suit, in addition to the company,
include its indemnities including McGowan Working Partners, MWP
North La, LLC., Murphy Exploration & Production Company, Ashley
Investment Company, Eland Energy, Inc. and Delhi Package I, Ltd.

Maxim has paid over $500,000 to pay legal fees and remediation
costs.  The central issue is contamination of the groundwater at
the Delhi Field.  Plaintiffs are landowners that claim the
groundwater is polluted and needs to be extracted from the
ground through a pumping process and disposed of remotely.
Plaintiff has made a settlement offer to the company of $6
million, which was rejected.  The plaintiffs made a second
settlement offer of $3 million.  The company counter offered to
pay for the remediation but no cash in addition to the
remediation costs under 29-B standards.  No settlement has been
reached.  A trial date has been set for July 1, 2009.

The company, with the legal fees and remediation already done
and in process, believes its future exposure will be only legal
bills and minor remediation.  The company granted McGowan
Working Partners a first mortgage position on the field as they
have been representing the company in the litigation and
overseeing the remediation and they are a party the company
agreed to indemnify when it purchased the field from them.  The
company says its total exposure based upon information currently
available is $750,000, which is accrued, according to the
company's April 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Maxim Tep, Inc. -- http://www.maximtep.com-- is an oil and
natural gas exploration, development and production (E&P)
company geographically focused on the onshore United States.
The company is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


MONEY MART: Attorney Makes Opening Statement in Payday Loan Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for Money Mart and its U.S. parent company, Dollar
Financial Group, Inc. opened its case in a multi-million-dollar
class-action trial by stating that Money Mart did not charge
illegal interest rates when it responded to public demand in the
mid-'90s by introducing "fast cash advance loans," Betsy Powell
of The Toronto Star reports.

The class-action suit alleges Money Mart and Dollar Financial,
breached section 347 of the Criminal Code by charging and
collecting fees and interest at an effective annual interest
rate in excess of 60 percent on its so-called payday loans.

However, lawyer Paul Morrison, who represents Money Mart, says
customers could repay those loans on or before the borrowers'
next scheduled payday, thereby avoiding extra charges.  While
those charges could exceed 60 per cent, they do not constitute
interest payments, the company maintains, according to The
Toronto Star report.

"We say cheque-cashing fees and item fees are not payable for
advancing of credit so do not fall under the definition of
interest under 347," Mr. Morrison said.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies is presiding over the
trial, which is expected to last six weeks, The Toronto Star
reported.

The total settlement sought on behalf of 264,000 plaintiffs in
Ontario who received a "fast cash advance" or payday loan
between Aug. 19, 1997, and Sept. 9, 2007, is $224 million plus
interest.

The Toronto Star reports that the defense plans to call company
executives as well as authors of public-opinion surveys to show
the company's customer base is not poor and uneducated as
portrayed in the statement of claim filed by lawyers on behalf
of the plaintiffs, Mr. Morrison said.

Money Mart representatives in court distributed 2007 survey data
showing the average "payday" loan customer is 39.  More than
half, 51 percent, have completed post-secondary education and 42
per cent reported a household income of less than $50,000 a
year, which is about the provincial average, reports The Toronto
Star.


NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Settles Calif. Litigation Over Domain Names
--------------------------------------------------------------
Network Solutions, Inc. settled a class-action lawsuit stemming
from its controversial practice of reserving domain names
queried on its web site, according to a posting at
domainnamewire.com.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a complaint was filed by plaintiff Chris
McElroy against Network Solutions and Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Case No. CV 08-01247).  A first
amended complaint was filed by Chris McElroy and Todd Matzke on
April 14, 2008.

A second complaint was filed in the Court by plaintiff James Lee
Finseth against Network Solutions on March 5, 2008 (Case No. CV
08-01537), and a first amended complaint was filed on April 18,
2008.

According to a notice, the two cases were deemed related cases
and are hereinafter referred to as the "Litigation."  Through
the respective and operative complaints in the Litigation, the
plaintiffs allege on behalf of a putative class comprised of
certain users of Network Solutions' domain name services that
Network Solutions, through its Customer Protection Measure,
committed unfair business practices prohibited by California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq,, fraud,
deceit and negligence and benefited from unjust enrichment
during the Class Period, Dec. 14, 2007 through March 15, 2008.

A settlement was recently reached in the litigation.  On April
3, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

A copy of the settlement notice is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c3f

For more details, contact:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner
          Alfredo Torrijos
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213.217.5000
          Fax: 213.217.5010
          e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Whalen, Esq.
          Paul A. Traina, Esq.
          Gregory P. Waters, Esq.
          Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, P.C.
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-552-3800
          Telecopier: 310-552-9434
          Web site: http://www.elllaw.com


PEPSIAMERICAS INC: Law Firm Announces Filing of Delaware Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of
PepsiAmericas, Inc. (NYSE: PAS) in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the company by PepsiCo, Inc.

     The case is pending in The Delaware Court of Chancery
against certain officers and directors.  The goal of the lawsuit
is to seek the highest possible offer for the public shares.

For more information, contact:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net)
          Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
          261 Old York Road, Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: 215-886-1900


PEPSI BOTTLING: Investors Sue Over Proposed PepsiCo Takeover
------------------------------------------------------------
     Investors in the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (NYSE:PBG)  and
PepsiAmericas, Inc. (NYSE: PAS) have each filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of current investors, who purchased the Pepsi
Bottling Group, Inc. (NYSE:PBG) / PepsiAmericas, Inc. (NYSE:
PAS) stock prior to the announcement of the proposed takeover by
PepsiCo, Inc against the board of directors and others over
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of their attempt
to sell Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. / PepsiAmericas, Inc. to
PepsiCo, Inc.

     Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. and PepsiAmericas, Inc. (NYSE:
PAS) were each sued by an investor who claims PepsiCo Inc.'s
$29.50-a-share buyout offer for Pepsi Bottling and PepsiAmericas
at $23.27 per share undervalues each stock.  According to court
papers both investors allege that the offer by PepsiCo is unfair
and inadequate because the value of Pepsi Bottling Group and
Pepsi Americas common stock is each materially higher than the
amount offered.  Several investigations were announced in
connection to the fairness of the offer price, in light of the
recent performance and future prospects of PepsiAmericas and
Pepsi Bottling Group, and the process the Board undertook to
review the PepsiCo offer.

     PepsiCo Inc. announced to buy the bottling operations Pepsi
Bottling Group and PepsiAmerica. PepsiCo is offering $29.50 in
cash and stock for each share of Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc
(NYSE:PBG), valuing the company at about $6.4 billion and $23.27
per share for PepsiAmericas, valuing the company at about $2.9
billion.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that each
board of directors violated and breaches their fiduciary duty
owed to the shareholders of Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. and
PepsiAmericas, Inc.  The stocks of Pepsi Bottling Group and
PepsiAmerica increased, hitting levels that were significantly
above the implied acquisition price.  Pepsi Bottling Group
shares were recently as high as $31.99 per share and shares of
PepsiAmericas, Inc. traded as high as $25.10 per share.  PepsiCo
currently owns 33% of Pepsi Bottling and 43% of PepsiAmericas.
Two PepsiCo, Inc. executives sit on the board of directors of
Pepsi Bottling Group.  Combining Pepsi with its two main
bottlers (Pepsi Bottling Group and PepsiAmerica) would give
Pepsi control of about 80% of its North America beverage
distribution volume.

     Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc is located in Somers, NY and had
$13.591 billion in total revenue in 2007 and $13.796 billion in
2008 with a net income of $532million in 2007 and $162 million
in 2008.  The shares of PepsiBottling Group had a 52-week high
of $34.33 per share and reached an all time high in 2007 with
over $41.72 per share. PepsiAmericas, Inc is located in
Minneapolis, Minn. and had $4.479 billion in total revenue in
2007 and $4.937 billion in 2008 with a net income of $212.10
million in 2007 and $226.40 million in 2008.  The shares of
PepsiAmericas, Inc had a 52-week high of $26.25 per share and
reached an all time high in 2007 with over $34.78 per share.


PFIZER INC: Calif. Court Approves Bextra, Celebrex Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
     A federal court in San Francisco has granted preliminary
approval to a proposed settlement with Pfizer, Inc. related to
the marketing of the prescription drugs Bextra and Celebrex.

     The settlement in the case called, "In re Bextra and
Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability
Litigation, No. 05-CV-01669, MDL No. 1699," which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, will provide a Settlement Fund of $89 million to
benefit a class of consumers and insurance companies or other
entities (also called Third-Party Payors) that paid for either
medicine before July 29, 2005.

     The lawsuit, which does not concern safety risk of either
drug, claims that Pfizer falsely advertised Bextra and Celebrex
as having greater benefits than less expensive pain medications,
causing consumers and other entities to pay a greater price for
Bextra and Celebrex than they would otherwise have paid for less
expensive alternatives or no medications at all.  The lawsuit
also claims that the advertising was not consistent with the
drugs' Food and Drug Administration approved labeling.  Pfizer
denies any wrongdoing and denies all of the claims in the
lawsuit but is settling this lawsuit to avoid the cost and
expense of further litigation.

     Consumers who paid for Bextra and/or Celebrex on or before
July 29, 2005 are included in the Proposed Settlement.  Third-
Party Payors that paid or reimbursed for all or a percentage of
the cost of Bextra and/or Celebrex on or before July 29, 2005
can also make a recovery under the Proposed Settlement.  Third-
Party Payors include insurance companies, union health and
welfare plans, and self-insured employers.

     Consumers and Third-Party Payors that wish to remain in the
Settlement and file a claim will be bound by the Court's orders
and will give up the right to sue the defendants on their own.
Claim forms must be postmarked by October 23, 2009.

     The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on September
25, 2009 at 10 a.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses.

For more information, contact:

          Bextra and Celebrex Claims Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 24675
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-800-547-9360
          Web site: http://www.BextraCelebrexSettlement.com/


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: Unit Defends Suits Over Antitrust Inquiries
---------------------------------------------------------------
PlainsCapital Corp.'s subsidiary, First Southwest Company (FSC),
defends a series of class-action lawsuits filed as a result of
antitrust investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

FSC has received subpoenas from the SEC and the DOJ in
connection with an investigation of possible antitrust and
securities law violation, including bid-rigging, in the
procurement of guaranteed investment contracts and other
investment products for the reinvestment of bond proceeds by
municipalities.

The investigation is industry-wide and includes approximately 30
or more firms, including some of the largest U.S. Investment
firms.

FSC is cooperating with these investigations.

As a result of these investigations, FSC has been named as a co-
defendant in a series of class action lawsuits and in some
lawsuits brought by individual municipalities which seek to
attach themselves based upon the SEC and DOJ investigation.

No further details regarding the class action lawsuits were
disclosed by the company in its Form 10-12G filing with the SEC
on April 17, 2009.

PlainsCapital Corp. -- http://www.plainscapital.com-- is the
21st largest privately held financial services company in the
U.S. with 137 locations in 23 states and 2,170 employees.
PlainsCapital Corporation is parent company to PlainsCapital
Bank with $4 billion in assets; First Southwest, the third-
ranked public finance advisory firm and investment bank in the
U.S.; national mortgage company PrimeLending; and Hester Capital
Management, an Austin-based asset management firm.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Girard Gibbs Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP is reminding investors who
acquired Prudential Financial, Inc. 9% Junior Subordinated Notes
(NYSE: PHR) that May 11, 2009 is the deadline to petition the
Court for appointment of lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey.  Any investor who
purchased Prudential-issued 9% Preferred Notes in connection
with the company's June 2008 initial public offering of the
Securities may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff in
the case.

     The lawsuit charges Prudential and others with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 for making false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and prospectus
documents filed with the SEC.

     Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Registration
Statement failed to disclose:

       -- Prudential's goodwill associated with certain
          subsidiaries was more impaired than had been
          disclosed;

       -- Prudential's asset-backed securities collateralized
          with subprime mortgages were more impaired than had
          been disclosed;

       -- defendants had not properly recorded for losses of
          impaired assets; and

       -- Prudential lacked adequate internal controls.

     Ultimately, Prudential announced huge write-downs
associated with its exposure to subprime mortgages and the
goodwill on the Company's books associated with certain of its
subsidiaries, causing the price of the Securities to decline
dramatically.

For more details, contact:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
          Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
          Regina A. Sandler, Esq. (ras@girardgibbs.com)
          Girard Gibbs LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (866) 981-4800
          Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/prudential.asp


RITE AID: Settlement Agreement w/ Store Managers Inked in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corp., in March 2009, entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit brought against
it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California for alleged violations of California wage-and-hour
law.

The plaintiff alleged that the company improperly classified
store managers in California as exempt under the law, making
them ineligible for overtime wages.

The plaintiff sought to require the company to pay overtime
wages back to May 9, 2001, to the class of more than 1,200
current and former store managers.

The company says that store managers were and are properly
classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of California
law.

On March 27, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle with the plaintiff under which, subject
to approval of the court, the company will resolve this lawsuit
for $6.9 million.

The company anticipates obtaining final court approval of the
settlement in the fall of 2009, according to its April 17, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Rite Aid Corp. -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is a retail
drugstore chain in the United States.  The company operates its
drugstores in 31 states across the United States and in the
District of Columbia.  In its stores, the company sells
prescription drugs and an assortment of other merchandise, which
it calls front-end products.  Front end products include over-
the-counter medications, health and beauty aids, personal care
items, cosmetics, household items, beverages, convenience foods,
greeting cards, seasonal merchandise and numerous other everyday
and convenience products, as well as photo processing.  It
offers approximately 3,000 products under the Rite Aid private
brand.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Advertisement Guarantee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sears, Roebuck and Co. is facing a lawsuit filed by attorney
Warren S. Dank, Esq., of New York who claims that the department
store chain allegedly did not honor its advertised practice of
matching competitors' prices, the New York Post reports.

Mr. Dank alleges in a $300 million class-action lawsuit against
Sears, Roebuck and Co. that while the chain said it would match
any competitor's prices on one of its products, one store
manager refused to match a cost on a flat-screen television, the
New York Post reported.

Mr. Dank, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of an unspecified
number of other dissatisfied Sears customers, said his incident
took place at a Sears in the New York borough of Queens.

He alleges while the Sears store manager did agree lower the
$3,600 cost of the television to a $2,800 price offered by a
competitor, the unidentified manager refused to match a $2,400
price Mr. Dank found in another store's advertisement, according
to the New York Post report.

After an appeals court ruled in February that Mr. Dank's 2007
suit did not qualify as a class-action suit, Mr. Dank was left
to appeal the ruling and move forward alone.

"I'm doing this single-handedly," Mr. Dank told the New York
Post.  "No one else pushed it this far to go on a crusade."


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Units Face New Complaint in Indiana Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement's subsidiaries, Veolia Water North America
Operating Services and Veolia Water Indianapolis (VWI), face an
amended complaint in the consolidated putative class-action
lawsuit in Indiana, according to the company's April 16, 2009
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

In April 2008, two of the company's subsidiaries, Veolia Water
North America Operating Services and VWI, were named as
defendants in two putative class action lawsuits filed in
Indiana state courts, which have since been consolidated, in
which the plaintiffs have alleged that the meter-reading
practices used by VWI for Indianapolis customers were
inconsistent with VWI's contract with the local water authority
and state consumer protection law.

The plaintiffs have claimed that VWI billed customers on the
basis of estimates of water usage, rather than actual usage,
more frequently than the contract permitted, resulting in
overcharges that, while later credited to the customers,
deprived the customers of their money for a period of time.
They have also claimed that the methodology used to estimate
water usage was flawed and not approved under relevant
regulations.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of similarly
situated residential water customers.

On Jan. 13, 2009, the court granted without prejudice a motion
to dismiss filed by Veolia Water North America Operating
Services and VWI.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against Veolia Water North America Operating Services and VWI,
and also named the water authority of the city of Indianapolis
as defendant.

Veolia Environnement -- http://www.veolia.com/-- is a provider
of 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.  Its operations are conducted through four divisions:
water, environmental services, energy services and
transportation.  Its principal operating subsidiaries in each
division include Veolia Eau Compagnie Generale des Eaux (water),
Veolia Proprete (environmental services), Dalkia (energy
services) and Veolia Transport (transportation).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Horwitz Horwitz Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law, on April 27,
2009, filed a class action lawsuit in United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of General Electric Company
through and including December 16, 2008 and February 27, 2009,
who were damaged thereby, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The Complaint alleges that on December 16, 2008, the
Company stated that GE was maintaining its annual dividend at
$1.24 in 2009.  Moreover, on January 23, 2009, GE's Chairman and
CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, again stated that GE would maintain its
quarterly $.31 per share dividend for 2009.  In direct
contradiction to these statements, however, on February 27,
2009, GE announced it was cutting the dividend to $.10 per
share.  The next day, GE shares fell from $8.51 per share to
$7.60 per share.

     The plaintiff alleges that GE and Immelt violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 4, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Schwartz, Esq. (mschwartz@hhplawny.com)
          Frank Schirripa, Esq. (fshirripa@hhplawny.com)
          Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis, Attorneys at Law
          Phone: 212-404-2200, or via e-mail at or.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Johnson & Perkinson Announces N.Y. Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Johnson & Perkinson hereby announces the filing of a class
action lawsuit naming General Electric Company (NYSE: GE).  The
action, docket numbered 09-CIV-4152, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements regarding the safety of the GE dividend, a priority
to maintain the dividend, and that the dividend represented a
good shareholder return, which caused GE's securities to trade
at artificially inflated prices.  The statements and omissions
were materially false and misleading in that they assured
investors that the dividend could be maintained without
straining the company, and failed to timely disclose the
material adverse facts that Defendants would need to cut the
common stock dividend in 2009 in light of GE's financial
condition.

     Individuals, families, trusts or other entities that
purchased GE common stock between January 23, 2009 and February
27, 2009 (the Class Period) inclusive, and have substantial
losses, have the opportunity to participate as Lead Plaintiffs
in the currently pending class action litigation against the
Company.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 4, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Eben F. Duval, Esq.
          Johnson & Perkinson
          1690 Williston Road
          P.O. Box 2305
          South Burlington, Vermont 05403
          Phone: 1-888-459-7855
          Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com


MRU HOLDINGS: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased the securities of MRU Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS:
UNCLQ) (formerly NASDAQ: UNCL) between July 9, 2007 and
September 19, 2008, inclusive.

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

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

       -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which
          the Company issued in its first student loan
          securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim
          of the broker-dealers;

       -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker-
          dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student
          loans on favorable terms;

       -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became
          known, the terms of future securitizations by the
          Company would not be favorable to the Company; and

       -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS
          market as a result of manipulation by the broker-
          dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital
          to originate loans, making the Company's business
          model untenable.

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

For more details, contact:

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


OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Finkelstein & Krinsk Announces Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased shares of the Oppenheimer
Pennsylvania Municipal Fund between November 28, 2005 and
November 28, 2008.

     The complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Fund,
Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and trustees
violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company
Act of 1940 by departing from the stated investment premise and
otherwise injured Fund shareholders.  The Pennsylvania Fund is a
municipal bond fund yielding interest income exempt from federal
and Pennsylvania income taxes.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses misled investors about
the Fund's investment objectives, policies and the underlying
risk by characterizing its investments as consistent with
preservation of capital.  In fact, the Fund lost over 33% of its
net asset value ("NAV") in 2008 compared with an average peer
group loss of approximately 9.5%.  The complaint alleges that
capital preservation was disregarded as the Fund significantly
increased exposure through excessively risky strategies not
properly disclosed to investors.

     Specifically, the overarching principle of capital
preservation was compromised by concentrating large positions in
low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an independent rating
agency and by portfolio concentration in high risk securities
including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and Inverse Floaters.

     Plaintiff is seeking to recover damages on behalf of all
investors in Pennsylvania who purchased or held shares between
November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Toll free: 877-493-5366
          Fax: 619-238-5425
          e-mail: jrk@classaction.com


OPPENHEIMERFUNDS INC: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or held shares of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund
(NASDAQ: OPIGX) (NASDAQ: OIGBX) (NASDAQ: OPBCX) offered by
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. between April 27, 2007 to February 2,
2009, inclusive.

     The lawsuit alleges that OppenheimerFunds, along with other
defendants, violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting the Fund's
investment strategy and omitting material facts from the
Registration Statements/Prospectuses issued in connection with
the offerings of April 27, 2007 and April 29, 2008.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges the Fund was promoted
as being a conservative, stable bond fund, primarily investing
in investment-grade debt securities.  The complaint further
alleges that in 2007 the Fund began to seek alternative
investments in the hopes of seeing higher returns, including
dramatically increasing its use of derivative instruments and
purchasing highly unstable mortgage-related and corporate bonds.
According to the complaint, this change in investment strategy
was not properly disclosed and conflicted with the Fund's stated
objectives.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 22, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          Phone: (888) 508-6832
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Facing 1,822 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,822 unresolved
asbestos claims at March 31, 2009, compared with 1,827 claims at
March 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23,
2009.

The Company faced 1,833 asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31,
2008, compared with 1,781 claims at Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009)

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded 90 claims filed and 101 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved. During the three months ended March 31,
2008, the Company recorded 163 claims filed and 117 claims
settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.

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

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

The Company recorded US$247 million at March 31, 2009 as accrued
obligations for both asserted and unasserted asbestos matters,
compared with US$266 million at March 31, 2008.

Of the March 31, 2009 obligation, US$204 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$43 million was related to asserted
claims. At March 31, 2009, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities. The recorded liability was not discounted.

In addition, defense and processing costs, which are recorded on
an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded
liability. The Company is primarily self-insured for asbestos-
related claims.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the factors used in the
study, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle
asbestos claims may range from about US$225 million to US$270
million. However, the Company said it believes that the US$247
million recorded is the best estimate of its future obligation
for the settlement of asbestos claims.

Based in Forth Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation's primary subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, operates
one of the largest North American rail networks with about
32,000 route miles in 28 states and two Canadian provinces. BNSF
Railway transports products and commodities including Consumer
Products, Coal, Industrial Products and Agricultural Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Multi-Party Actions Still Ongoing v. Badger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. is still a defendant in numerous multi-
claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 23, 2009.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated
into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's
products.

No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured
or sold by the Company and a number of cases have been
voluntarily dismissed.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries still face
various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a result of
exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its facilities,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2009.

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

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were
defendants in personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to
the Company's ownership.

The Company said that it is possible that asbestos-related
claims might be asserted against the Company on the theory that
it has some responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities
of EnPro, Coltec or its subsidiaries. A limited number of
asbestos-related claims have been asserted against the Company
as "successor" to Coltec or one of its subsidiaries.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into its premises and certain historical products,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2009.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Int'l. Still Faces Lawsuits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to face asbestos-related lawsuits in
Mississippi courts.

In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second
Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District),
Miss.

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

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

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

Most of these cases are under an informal stay of discovery
issued by a Special Master presiding over these matters while
discovery is conducted for a designated group of plaintiffs,
several of which involve the Company. To date, written discovery
and plaintiff depositions have taken place in seven cases
pending against the Company.

No further activity will occur in these cases until they are
selected for trial. Currently, none of the cases pending against
the Company in Mississippi has been set for trial.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AICF Advises of Insufficient Payout Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. and the New South Wales Government,
on April 23, 2009, were advised by the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund (AICF) that its Board has determined that it
is reasonably foreseeable that, within two years, the available
assets of the AICF are likely to be insufficient to fund the
payment of all reasonably foreseeable liabilities.

The advice was contained in a notice issued by the AICF under
the Amended and Restated Final Funding Agreement (AFFA). The
Company notes that the Board of AICF has proposed discussions
with both the NSW Government and the Company to consider the
potential for alternative funding arrangements contemplated in
the AFFA.

The Company advises that, while it is available to participate
in the discussions requested by the AICF, it is not in a
position to make contributions to the AICF beyond the
obligations set out under the terms of the AFFA.

The Company considers that the potential shortfall in the AICF
is regrettable, but contributions to the AICF have been affected
by the decline in the Company's cash flow as a result of the
unprecedented downturn in the United States housing markets.

James Hardie CEO, Louis Gries, commented that "New housing
construction in the U.S. has fallen over 75 percent, from its
peak of more than two million houses in late 2005-early 2006, to
just over 500,000 in March 2009. For the first nine months of
fiscal year 2009, the Company derived about 75 percent of its
net sales in the US."

Under the AFFA, the Company's contributions are set at a maximum
of 35 percent of its annual net operating cash flow, including
reductions for company contributions to the AICF and tax
payments. Subject to the cash flow cap, the Company's
contributions are intended to create a two to three-year funding
buffer in the AICF.

In view of the Company's payments of AUD118 million (US$110
million) to the AICF during FY 2009, the previously announced
AUD153 million (US$102 million) settlement to the Australian Tax
Office, other expenditures on corporate legacy issues, and
reduced cash flows attributable to the downturn in U.S. housing
markets, the Company is not expected to make a contribution to
the AICF in FY 2010 under the terms of the AFFA.

Future funding for the AICF continues to be linked under the
terms of the AFFA to the long-term financial success of the
Company, especially its ability to generate net operating cash
flow. The Company continues to focus on optimizing its financial
results in very difficult markets.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Expends $10Mil for Bankruptcy Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expenses related to W. R. Grace & Co.'s Chapter 11 proceedings,
net of filing entity interest income, were US$10 million in the
first quarter of 2009, compared with US$18.4 million in the
prior year quarter, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 24,
2009.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S.
operating subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.—Conn., filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware in order to resolve the Company's asbestos-related
liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization and several associated documents, including a
disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. The Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co-
proponents of the Plan.

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are not
co-proponents of the Plan. The Plan is consistent with the terms
of the previously announced settlements of the Company's
asbestos personal injury liability and claims related to its
former attic insulation product. The Plan also requires the
establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which all present and future asbestos-
related claims would be channeled.

On March 9, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving
the disclosure statement, approving forms and procedures for
voting on the Plan, setting May 20, 2009 as the voting deadline
and the deadline for filing Plan confirmation objections, and
scheduling confirmation hearings on the Plan in June and
September 2009.

Most of the Company's noncore liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance was US$500 million as
of each during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos contingencies were US$1.7
billion as of each during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and
the year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

Based in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and
other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the
manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide-range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction.


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

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission initiated an investigation in connection with the
Company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term
construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks that
followed, 20 similar class actions were filed against the
Company.

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of
the Company's present or former officers and directors. The
class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon
the Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of
lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.

The Company settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of March 31, 2009, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter.

Based in Houston, Halliburton Company provides products and
services to the energy industry. The Company serves the upstream
oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir,
from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to
drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and
completion, and optimizing production through the life of the
field.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton to Get $85M Recoveries in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company expects to receive payment of about US$85
million in insurance recoveries for its asbestos-related
insurance settlements during the second half of 2009, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2009.

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

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

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

At March 31, 2009, the Company had not recorded any liability
associated with these indemnifications.

Based in Houston, Halliburton Company provides products and
services to the energy industry. The Company serves the upstream
oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir,
from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to
drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and
completion, and optimizing production through the life of the
field.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $36M Net Litigation Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, amounted to US$36 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$28 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

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

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

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Records $873Mil NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability
for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos
claims of US$873 million as of March 31, 2009 and US$877 million
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

NARCO (North American Refractories Company) is a former Company
subsidiary. At March 31, 2009, a significant portion of this
coverage is with insurance companies with whom the Company has
agreements to pay full policy limits based on corresponding
Honeywell claims costs.

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

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

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for May
21, 2009. No assurances can be given as to the time frame or
outcome of this appeal.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008
of US$1.1 billion.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection. Substantially all settlement payments
with respect to current claims have been made.

About US$100 million of payments due under these settlements is
due upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oral Arguments in Travelers Set for May 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. says that oral arguments in a case
filed by Travelers Casualty and Insurance Company against the
Company and other insurance carriers are scheduled for May 14,
2009.

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

NARCO (North American Refractories Company) is a former Company
subsidiary.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
March 31, 2009.

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

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed in the New
York action on a critical choice of law issue concerning the
appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related asbestos
liabilities to triggered policies. The trial court's ruling has
been appealed.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,791 Pending Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business faced 51,791 unresolved asbestos claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with 51,951 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through March 31, 2009, the Company has resolved about
118,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 127
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 13 trials resulting
in adverse verdicts. Two of these adverse verdicts were reversed
on appeal, three claims were settled and the remainder has been
or will be appealed.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, Bendix recorded
670 claims filed and 830 claims resolved. During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, Bendix recorded 4,003 claims filed and 3,710
claims resolved.

About 45 percent of the pending claims at March 31, 2009 are on
the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in some
jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment.
These pending claims also include claims filed in jurisdictions
such as Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that historically
allowed for consolidated filings.

In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs were permitted to file
complaints against a pre-determined master list of defendants,
regardless of whether they have claims against each individual
defendant. Many of these plaintiffs may not actually intend to
assert claims against the Company.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$588 million at March 31, 2009 and
US$578 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$165 million at March
31, 2009 and US$156 million at Dec. 31, 2008 are reflected as
receivables in the Company's consolidated balance sheet.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO Liability Recorded at $1.721B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., during the three months ended
March 31, 2009, recorded asbestos liabilities of US$1.721
billion, of which US$588 million related to its Bendix friction
materials business and US$1.131 billion related to its former
subsidiary NARCO (North American Refractories Company).

The Company, during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
recorded insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities of
US$1.038 billion, of which US$165 million related to Bendix and
US$873 million related to NARCO.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Cites $1.55B Long-Term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.550 billion as of March 31, 2009, compared
with US$1.538 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 24, 2009.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$1.034 billion as of March 31, 2009,
compared with US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International Inc.
serves customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific's March 31 Liability at $210M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos liability was US$210
million during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$261 million during the three months ended March 31,
2008.

The current asbestos liability was US$12 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$11 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure
to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases,
the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures. Additionally,
most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount
of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at March
31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation is still subject to occupational
claims including asbestos-related asbestosis and other
respiratory diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to
repetitive motion.

These claims are often being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 24, 2009.

Based in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation controls a
major freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Company.
Norfolk Southern Railway transports raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods in the Southeast, East, and Midwest
and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of
the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Cites $52MM Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, had reserved US$52 million
in total for asbestos bodily injury claims.

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

As of March 31, 2009, about US$14 million of the US$52 million
related to 164 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050.

Based in Chicago, Exelon Corporation is a utility services
holding company that operates through subsidiaries in the
following operating segments: Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
Commonwealth Edison Company; and PECO Energy Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Delay Payout Law Denied on April 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Glennie, on April 27, 2009, denied four insurers' plea
seeking an interim interdict to prevent an asbestos compensation
law coming into force until a legal challenge could be heard in
court, to block a law affecting asbestos victims,
NEWS.scotsman.com reports.

These insurers are AXA UK plc, Norwich Union, Royal & Sun
Alliance, and Zurich Insurance. They argued that the legislation
on "pleural plaques" was in breach of the European Convention on
Human Rights.

In his ruling, Lord Glennie said the insurers had shown a prima
facie case – but not "a particularly strong one."

A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said, "We
are pleased that the judge recognizes that the Scottish
Government has a case to answer."

Plans to seek a judicial review would still go ahead and the
ruling would have no bearing on the outcome of that, the
spokesman added.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Closed Mines in Korea to Undergo Inspection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Korea's Ministry of Environment, on April 27, 2009, said that it
will examine the density of asbestos in soil, water and
elsewhere in villages near 22 closed mines nationwide by April
2010, The Korea Times reports.

Environments within four kilometers of the mines will be
examined to detect asbestos. The Ministry will also conduct
health checks on residents and former miners.

Places where there used to be asbestos-pulverizing facilities
are also subject to the examinations. The measures will continue
until 2012.

The decision comes as some residents of Hongseong and Boryeon,
in South Chungcheong Province, have been diagnosed as suffering
from various diseases allegedly linked to inhaling asbestos.

Hongseong Medical Center said in 2008 that 41 residents from
five towns in the province with closed mines were diagnosed with
lung disease since 2000 - seven of whom were diagnosed with lung
cancer, which proved fatal for three of them.

Early in 2009, Environment Minister Lee Maan-ee visited the
locations and promised to look for ways to help patients. The
authorities decided to bring soil from other regions to cover
and improve the earth there.

Chungcheong environmental groups have often raised suspicions
that more people have been affected by asbestos. Recently, a
series of incidents involving the material - talcum powder
containing asbestos, and toxic blue asbestos detected at the
reconstruction site of the former headquarters building of
Samsung among others - have raised public concern.

Cho Han-yong of the Korea Asbestos Environment Association said,
"Japan and some others countries have acknowledged the lethality
of asbestos and started compensating those exposed to it
unintentionally. The test results should lead to long-awaited
compensation and increased awareness."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidt Says Sterlite Could Purchase Asarco
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Richard Schmidt, on April 22, 2009,
approved a request from Asarco LLC's court-approved board to
sign a sale contract with Sterlite Industries Ltd., the
Associated Press reports.

Judge Schmidt says that Sterlite can acquire Asarco for US$1.1
billion in cash and a US$600 million note.

However, that will start competition with Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de
C.V. of Mexico City, which owned Asarco but lost control after
Asarco filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2005.

Grupo Mexico has said it would pay US$1.3 billion to reassume
control — a move Asarco officials oppose. Sterlite offered
US$2.6 billion in 2008 but withdrew the bid when copper prices
plunged.

Asarco is able to accept a higher offer until its reorganization
plan receives final approval.

Sterling initially said that Judge Schmidt would have to approve
its offer by April 15, 2009 but the judge said he needed more
time before ruling.

Earlier in April 2009, another federal judge in Texas ordered a
Grupo Mexico subsidiary to return stock in a Peruvian mining
company once owned by Asarco. The stock and damages assessed
amounted to about US$6 billion.

Asarco's debts include more than US$5 billion in claims for
asbestos-related environmental cleanup and damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer Told to Disclose E-Mails on Quigley
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, on April 24, 2009,
ordered Pfizer Inc. to disclose some documents and e-mails about
its Quigley unit's bankruptcy to an unnamed tort-victims group
that claims the companies acted improperly to avoid asbestos
liabilities, Bloomberg reports.

In his ruling, Judge Bernstein ruled that some material sought
by the committee, serving an estimated 34,000 people, must be
disclosed. The remainder of the requested material is protected
by attorney-client confidentiality.

The victims group has asked that Quigley's four-year-old
bankruptcy case be dismissed, saying Pfizer and Quigley acted in
"bad faith," bought votes from creditors and created a
reorganization that does not provide for future claims for
asbestos-related illnesses.

Quigley used to make asbestos-containing heat shields. The
committee claimed Pfizer "embarked on an improper and
inequitable scheme" to protect against asbestos liability by
putting Quigley into bankruptcy, according to court papers.

The case is styled In re Quigley Co., 04-15739, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Harron Ongoing in Wheeling Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit involving asbestos and filed against Bridgeport, W.V.-
based radiologist, Ray Harron, is ongoing in federal court at
Wheeling, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

On April 3, 2009 in federal court at Jackson, Miss., Mr. Harron
alleged slander and defamation against a business that quoted
U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi in a
racketeering and fraud suit against him.

Edward Blackmon Jr. of Canton, Miss., wrote that National
Service Industries injured Mr. Harron's good name and reputation
with false and malicious allegations.

On April 21, 2009 in federal court at Wheeling, Mr. Harron
argued that he could not prove Judge Jack wrong because he was
not a party in her court.

Judge Jack found in 2005 that Mr. Harron and other radiologists
reversed thousands of diagnoses from asbestosis to silicosis.
The reversals offended Judge Jack, a former nurse.

Now, Harron elects to stick with the original theory of double
disease.

Judge Jack did not identify any specific incorrect X-ray
reading, Jerald Jones of Clarksburg wrote. Doctors told Congress
both diseases could occur in the same person, he wrote.

In a March 11, 2009 deposition for the case at Wheeling, Mr.
Harron said, "I am not here to pick a fight with Judge Jack." In
that case, CSX Transportation sought to recover damages from Mr.
Harron and Pittsburgh lawyers for the cost of defending and
settling asbestos claims.

U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp allowed CSX to pursue a
claim against Mr. Harron over X-ray reports on a single
plaintiff, Earl Baylor.

Magistrate Judge James Seibert has set an evidentiary hearing
May 1, 2009 at Wheeling.

In the Mississippi case, National Service Industries sued Mr.
Harron, his son Andrew Harron, asbestos screening company N&M
Inc. and individuals who ran it.

National Services Industries filed the suit at Holmes County
courthouse in Lexington in February 2009, and N&M owners removed
it to federal court. The Harrons did not consent to removal.
They moved for remand to Holmes County.

On March 26, 2009, Andrew Harron's lawyer, Precious Martin Sr.,
Esq., of Jackson, Miss., answered the claim with a counterclaim.

In another federal case at Jackson, National Services Industries
seeks damages from radiologist Jay Segarra and former owners of
Respiratory Testing Services.

Sixty days after National Services Industries sued, no one had
answered.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Delays USOC Headquarters Completion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup delayed by two months the completion of the
U.S. Olympic Committee's (USOC) headquarters in Colorado
Springs, Colo., Asbestos.com reports.

The offices are set to open in late September 2009 rather than
July 30, 2009 as originally planned. The cleanup process at the
two-story facility was more extensive than expected, said David
Schneider, an official with LandCo Equity Partners, the
developer involved in the project.

Christopher Dann, spokesman for the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division,
said serious concerns have surfaced during the abatement. He
noted that the containment of asbestos was inadequate and
asbestos was disturbed by a demolition worker in an area that
was supposed to be clean.

The project then underwent re-evaluation and the state issued a
year-long permit for the work, rather than the 30-day permit
originally issued. According to Mr. Dann, the state is confident
that the work currently conducted at the building is safe.

USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel said that the September 2009
completion date for the new offices "would not be a problem for
us," adding that as long as the project is complete by December
2009, USOC does not envision any complications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Carden Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
which favored Aetna Life Insurance Company, in an action
involving asbestos filed by Larry Carden.

The case is styled Larry Carden, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Aetna
Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.

Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, M. Blane Michael, and Rebecca Beach
Smith entered judgment in Case No. 07-2165 on March 11, 2009.

In paying Mr. Carden monthly benefits under a long-term
disability plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Aetna, the insurer and
administrator of the plan, offset workers' compensation benefits
that Mr. Carden received for an illness unrelated to his
disability.

Aetna relied on its reading of the plan's offset provisions and
the plan language giving it discretion to interpret the plan.

The district court concluded that Aetna's determination was
consistent with the language of the plan and that therefore its
interpretation was not unreasonable. It accordingly concluded
that "Aetna is entitled to offset Plaintiff's long-term
disability benefits by the workers' compensation benefits which
he received."

Challenging Aetna's reading of the plan, especially in light of
Aetna's financial conflict of interest, Mr. Carden appealed.

Mr. Carden, a power plant operator for Duke Energy Corporation
since 1966, began experiencing symptoms of episodic vertigo
(causing imbalance and dizziness) in 1982. In April 1997, he
ceased working as a result of this condition and made a claim
under Duke Energy's long-term disability plan. Aetna accepted
Mr. Carden's application and began paying him monthly disability
benefits.

Unknown to Aetna, Mr. Carden made a workers' compensation claim
against Duke Energy a few months later, in August 1997, alleging
that he was suffering from asbestosis "as a direct and proximate
result of his employment" with Duke Energy. Although Duke Energy
contested the claim, asserting that Mr. Carden had not been
"exposed to the hazards of asbestos," it ultimately entered into
a settlement agreement with Mr. Carden in May 1999 for a lump
sum payment of US$53,248, of which US$39,936 was allocated to
Mr. Carden's "alleged permanent impairment" and US$13,312 to
attorneys' fees. Duke Energy also agreed to pay future medical
expenses relating to asbestosis.

Robert Edward Hoskins, Esq., of Foster Law Firm, L.L.P. in
Greenville, S.C., represented Mr. Carden.

Thomas Edward Vanderbloemen, Esq., of Gallivan, White & Boyd,
P.A. in Greenville, S.C., represented Aetna Life Insurance
Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Supply Has 25T Claims in 7 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, industrial supplier
Fairmont Supply Company, faced about 25,000 asbestos claims in
state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Jersey and Illinois, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2009.

Fairmont faced about 25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in
six states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, and New Jersey. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20,
2009)

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

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of that indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some
of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.
Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases.

For the three months ended March 31, 2009 and March 31, 2008,
payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases have not
been material.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Island Creek Faces Exposure Action in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Island Creek Coal Company, a CONSOL Energy Inc. subsidiary, is
named in one single-plaintiff asbestos case in West Virginia in
which the plaintiff claims to have been exposed to asbestos
products while working at a coal mine operated by Island Creek.

Discovery has been stayed until the case is set for trial.

The Company has also been sued in a single plaintiff FELA
(Federal Employer Liability Act) case in Pennsylvania. The
Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss in that case in which it
maintains that the plaintiff has failed to plead facts
sufficient to satisfy jurisdictional requirements.

The Company said it believes that it is not responsible for
these claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26 Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Minerals Tech.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. continues to face 26 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2009.

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

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuit to date. The
aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of asbestos
and silica cases since inception was about US$100,000, the
majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the
terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in 1992.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 102,577 Actions Ongoing v. ITT at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced 102,577 open
asbestos claims, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27,
2009.

The Company faced 103,006 open asbestos-related claims as of
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 102,568 claims as of Dec. 31, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.
These claims allege that the Company's products sold prior to
1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party, e.g., a
gasket, which contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury
or do not identify any Company or Goulds product as a source of
asbestos exposure. During the first quarter of 2009, the Company
resolved 1,583 claims. Most of these claims were dismissed, with
settlement on a modest percentage of claims. The average amount
of settlement per claim has been nominal.

Additionally, a large majority of all defense and settlement
costs have been covered by insurance. Within the past several
years, the Company has negotiated coverage-in-place agreements
with its more significant insurance carriers.

The Company's estimated accrued costs, net of expected insurance
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims were
US$28.7 million as of March 31, 2009 and US$27.6 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

During the first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded 1,154 new
claims filed.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation designs,
manufactures, and sells engineered products and the provision of
related services. Its businesses are aggregated and organized
into three principal business segments: Defense Electronics &
Services, Fluid Technology, and Motion & Flow Control.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Still Faces 14T Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of March 31, 2009, still faced about
114,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2009.

For over 30 years, the Company has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to
allegations by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for
injuries involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation
products, known as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning
Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh. Accordingly, in the first quarter of
2000, the Company recorded an after-tax charge of US$35 million
for the write-off of all of its investment in PC.

The Company's obligation under a 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement
at Dec. 31, 2008 was US$162 million less than the amount that
would have been due under a 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement.

Of the total obligation of US$732 million under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2009, US$484 million is
reported as a current liability and the present value of the
payments due in the years 2010 to 2023 totaling US$248 million
is reported as a non-current liability in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet.

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: Corning Inc. Cites $4Mil Litigation Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated, in the first quarter of 2009, recorded
charges of US$4 million (US$2 million after-tax) to adjust the
asbestos litigation liability for the change in value of the
components of an Amended Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC)
Plan.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and PCC which might arise from PCC products or
operations (the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the
parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they
had made substantial progress on an amended plan of
reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues
raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003
Plan.

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability
that the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished. The
proposed settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of
cash payments, recorded at present value on Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company will have the option to contribute shares rather
than cash, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not
number of shares. As a result, the estimated asbestos litigation
liability is no longer impacted by movements in the value of
Corning common stock.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims
that may be or have been raised against the Company, which has
recorded an additional amount for those claims in its estimated
asbestos litigation liability.

Based in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated creates and makes
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and
life sciences. Products include glass substrates; ceramic
substrates and filters; optical fiber, cable, hardware &
equipment; optical biosensors; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Facing 425 Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced
active asbestos cases involving about 3,025 plaintiffs,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in about 450
active cases involving about 3,050 plaintiffs.

About 2,600, or about 86 percent, of these claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive
numbers of plaintiffs. Of these claims, about 1,550 are pending
in Mississippi and about 1,050 are pending in Texas.

Most of the claims filed in 2009, 2008 and 2007 involve
individual or small groups of claimants.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of about 190
plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma. The
potential for damages against defendants may be greater in cases
in which the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company recorded 90 claims dismissed,
settled and resolved and 65 new claims. The amount paid to
resolve claims was US$3 million. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 400 claims dismissed, settled and resolved and
450 new claims. The amount paid to resolve claims was US$13
million.

Based in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation produces
and sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and
tubular, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in
North America also include real estate management and
development, transportation services and engineering and
consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Has $142M Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestos and
environmental claim reserves were US$142.6 million at March 31,
2009, compared with US$145 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves were US$180.9 million at
March 31, 2009, compared with US$172.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
March 31, 2009 (Dec. 31, 2008)

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inactive Quaker Unit Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Company is still a
defendant in lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos exposure,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2009.

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

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

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

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

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary has
challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being
brought against the subsidiary. In response to this challenge,
two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and
release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 (US$15
million) and in the first quarter of 2007 (US$20 million).

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007, the second of
which was received in the first quarter of 2008, and the third
of which was received in the first quarter of 2009.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Actions v. Celanese Corp. Units Drop to 549
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain U.S.-based subsidiaries of Celanese Corporation
(Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc.) are defendants in 549
asbestos cases, as of March 31, 2009.

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

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, 16 new cases were
filed against the Company and 26 cases were resolved. Because
many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the Company is
subject to claims significantly in excess of the number of
actual cases.

The Company has reserves for defense costs related to claims
arising from these matters.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Faces Suits in Miss. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still a defendant in lawsuits
filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling
mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's case, allowed such
drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its offshore drilling
rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Based in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides
contract drilling services to the energy industry around the
globe and deals in offshore drilling with a fleet of 45 offshore
rigs currently consisting of 30 semisubmersibles, 14 jack-ups
and one drillship.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at March 31, 2009, continues
to be a defendant in 1,400 claims wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at
various locations.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in 1,400 asbestos-
related claims. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

Through March 31, 2009, the Company has been named a defendant
in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,300 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through March 31, 2009, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$2.4 million
for liability and related expenses.

Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and
construction provider and major process technology licensor. The
Company provides conceptual design, technology, engineering,
procurement, fabrication, construction, commissioning and
associated maintenance services to customers in the energy and
natural resource industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are parties to, or
targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings
related to exposure to asbestos.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 29, 2009.

Based in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Company manufactures
and sells chemicals, plastics, and fibers. The Company has 11
manufacturing sites in seven countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint, Units Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries continue to be co-
defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company
anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas
LP, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
NRG Texas LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend
those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance
maintained by the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs
of such defense from the purchaser.

Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a public utility
holding company. Its operating subsidiaries own and operate
electric transmission and distribution facilities, natural gas
distribution facilities, interstate pipelines and natural gas
gathering, processing and treating facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: D.C. Court Upholds Ruling in Ashland Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which favored
Ashland, Inc., in an insurance case involving asbestos.

The case is styled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and
Certain London Market Insurance Companies, Appellants v.
Ashland, Inc., Appellee.

Judges Eric T. Washington, John R. Fisher, and Warren R. King
entered judgment in Case No. 07-CV-1004 on March 12, 2009.

Appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain
London Market Insurance Companies (collectively, the "London
Insurers"), appealed the trial court's decision affirming an
arbitrator's award in favor of appellee, Ashland, Inc.

The arbitrator ruled that a Coverage-in-Place Agreement (CIP
Agreement) between the parties placed a US$10 million cap on
payments owed by the London Insurers to Ashland in any given
year. The arbitrator also ruled that under the CIP Agreement,
the London Insurers were required to pay interest on any
payments rolled over based on the cap.

Riley Stoker Corporation, a manufacturer of industrial boilers
and a subsidiary of Ashland, has been named as a defendant in
thousands of lawsuits that allege bodily injuries arising from
exposure to asbestos contained in commercial boilers
manufactured, installed, maintained and/or repaired by Riley
Stoker.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provided the primary insurance
for Riley Stoker's asbestos products claims, while the London
Insurers provided all or most of the excess insurance. In 1996,
Ashland approached the London Insurers regarding insurance
coverage for asbestos claims upon exhaustion of Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company's primary coverage.

On April 21, 1998, the London Insurers and Ashland entered into
a CIP Agreement regarding insurance coverage for asbestos claims
against Riley Stoker.

In 2001, the London Insurers determined that Ashland's billing
statements under the CIP Agreement for that year might reach the
US$10 million cap for the first time. On Dec. 20, 2002, the
London Insurers informed Ashland that it would invoke the CIP
Agreement to roll forward all payments due in 2002 in excess of
the US$10 million limit to the next year.

On July 21, 2004, Ashland invoked the CIP Agreement and filed a
Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association.

Judge Williamson issued his final Award of Arbitration on Dec.
13, 2006, denying the London Insurers' motion for
reconsideration and incorporating the Interim Award in its
entirety.

The London Insurers commenced the instant action in the Superior
Court on March 13, 2007, seeking to modify in part Judge
Williamson's Final Award. Ashland filed an opposition to the
London Insurers' application for relief and moved for
confirmation of the Final Award. The London Insurers filed a
reply brief, after which Ashland filed a surreply. The trial
court granted Ashland's motion and confirmed the Final Award on
July 30, 2007. It thereafter denied the London Insurers'
application to modify the arbitration award with regard to the
interest issue on Aug. 6, 2007.

The London Insurers appealed from both of these orders.

P. Andrew Torrez, Esq., Martin S. Himeles, Jr., Esq., Robert M.
Flannery, Esq., and Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr., Esq.,
represented Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and Certain
London Market Insurance Companies.

John M. Sylvester, Esq., Jeffrey A. Vitek, Esq., David T. Case,
Esq., and Brendon P. Fowler, Esq., represented Ashland, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Chamber Calls for Litigation Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on April 29, 2009, released a
letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder highlighting
widespread evidence of asbestos litigation fraud and the
necessity of immediate and serious intervention, according to a
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform press release dated
April 29, 2009.

In the letter, Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said,
"Wrongdoers continue to escape prosecution and are not being
held accountable for conduct that has inflicted unwarranted
economic damage to companies and their employees, undermined the
integrity of our civil justice system and deprived the truly
sick of compensation for their injuries.

"It is unfathomable to the business community that federal
prosecutors could ignore this conduct, especially when it is
revealed repeatedly and openly around the country."

To protect the integrity of the U.S. civil justice system, Mr.
Donohue called on the Department of Justice to "prioritize and
complete its investigations of asbestos litigation fraud" that
appear to have "been allowed to languish without criminal
prosecutions against those responsible for committing perhaps
the largest systematic litigation fraud in this country's
history."

The letter also cited evidence of longstanding, pervasive
corruption on the part of plaintiffs' attorneys in asbestos
litigation, including:

-- A March 2009 West Virginia state court case, which revealed
   "disturbing allegations that asbestos plaintiffs' lawyers
   enabled and tacitly encouraged their client to forge asbestos
   diagnoses by providing him with a cash advance and preprinted
   diagnosis forms without a signature" as well as falsifying
   names, addresses and phone numbers;

-- A February 2009 civil RICO lawsuit in Mississippi "alleging
   massive racketeering activities against doctors and
   plaintiffs' lawyers for manufacturing asbestos claims;"

-- An Ohio state court judge who, in 2007, barred one of the
   country's top asbestos plaintiffs' firms from his court,
   stating the firm told "lies upon lies upon lies" in an
   asbestos case there;

-- A Michigan state court judge who disqualified the findings of
   an asbestos doctor who had diagnosed more than 7,000 asbestos
   plaintiffs. In November 2007, the judge found the diagnoses
   "unreliable" after the doctor failed the test that certified
   physicians to read x-rays for lung disease and had submitted
   nearly identical reports for all his diagnoses;

-- A January 2009 New York state ruling to revoke the medical
   license of Dr. Ray Harron, who diagnosed more than 51,000
   people with asbestos-related diseases and thousands more with
   silica-related diseases. Grounds for revocation included
   "negligent and fraudulent practices" and "perpetrating a
   fraud on the courts." One month later, a federal judge
   presiding over multi-district asbestos litigation in
   Philadelphia also disqualified Dr. Harron as an expert in
   thousands of claims; and

-- An alarming increase in asbestos cases in Madison County,
   Ill., long considered the worst asbestos and mass tort
   jurisdictions in the country. Cases there hit a low of 266 in
   2006, but spiked to more than 600 cases filed in 2008.

Asbestos litigation fraud has negatively impacted the U.S.
economy, having caused 84 bankruptcies and costing 60,000 jobs,
according to the Chamber.

In addition, the alleged widespread fraud in asbestos litigation
has, in many cases, Mr. Donohue said that it has "delayed
justice and compensation for thousands of men and women who were
truly injured by asbestos containing products."

The complete letter from Mr. Donohue to AG Holder can be viewed
at:

http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/images/pdf/agholder.pdf


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Portion of Tacoma Stimulus Set for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tacoma Housing Authority in Tacoma, Wash., proposes to spend
parts of the US$4 million in federal stimulus funds on asbestos
abatement and renovations for seven housing projects that are
home to low-income senior citizens and disabled individuals,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The funds will also go towards the redevelopment of an
additional 140 units.

THA Executive Director Michael Mirra feels that the funds are
being put to a good use, and supports the community's need for
quality, affordable housing for people living on a low or fixed
income.

The projects will stimulate the economy because of the number of
trained workers that will need to be hired to work on the
renovations and asbestos abatements. The projects are expected
to employ up to 150 workers.

Repairs will cost an estimated US$2.5 million. The repairs will
include new water pipes and awnings, repairs or replacement of
roofs, siding and parking lots, and asbestos abatement.

THA estimates work on these projects will begin within the next
120 days.

The overall package is officially known as the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and includes US$4 billion for
repairing public housing nationwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judicial Forum Set for June 3 in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judges and attorneys handling asbestos lawsuits will gather in
New York on June 3, 2009 for a conference and webcast on
effectively managing this massive litigation and fostering a
better understanding of asbestos trusts, according to an HB
Litigation Conferences LLC press release dated April 28, 2009.

The program, entitled the "Judicial Forum on Asbestos," is being
produced by HB Litigation Conferences LLC, formerly Mealey's
Conferences.

The chairmen are Perry Weitz, Esq., of Weitz & Luxenberg of New
York and John Cooney, Esq., of Cooney & Conway of Chicago, both
prominent asbestos plaintiff attorneys. Selection of the defense
chair is underway.

As of April 28, 2009, HB has confirmed participation by the
following judges: Hon. Sherry Klein Heitler, New York State
Supreme Court, Appellate Term; Hon. Sandra Mazer Moss,
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; Hon. Mark Davidson, Harris
County, Houston; Hon. Daniel Stack, Circuit Judge, Madison
County, Edwardsville, Ill.; Hon. James McBride, California
Superior Court in San Francisco.

The agenda continues to be developed, but so far the panel will
address state and federal cooperation in the litigation,
operational and disclosure issues surrounding the trusts, an
overview of the hottest areas of the litigation, jury selection,
managing juror issues, and much more.

Judges taking part in the event will address, along with the
attorney participants: managing massive caseloads, motions to
consolidate, private agreements, standstill agreements,
differentiated case management ideas, preference vs. non-
preference, expedited cases, wrongful death vs. death, two-
disease states, non-malignancy cases, cancer vs. non-cancer
cases and more.

For more information about the "Judicial Forum on Asbestos,"
write to HB Litigation Conferences LLC at
info@litigationconferences.com, call (484) 324-2755, or visit
the "Conferences" section at www.LitigationConferences.com.

    Contact:  Sharon Boothe, Vice President
    Email:    sharon.boothe@litigationconferences.com
    Phone:    (484) 324-2755 x208
    Website:  www.litigationconferences.com


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: VA Hospital Employees "Exposed" to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Employees of the VA Medical Center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., claim
the hospital endangered their health by leaving asbestos pipe
insulation in place throughout the hospital's basement,
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Dwight Statum has been employed at the VA for 30 years as a
mechanic working on air conditioners. Now, he claims he has
pictures of what he calls the VA's dirty secret. The pictures
show white asbestos covering pipes in the VA basement.

Mr. Statum is concerned that he and other VA employees will now
develop a deadly, asbestos-related disease such as pleural
mesothelioma.

Mr. Statum says when he had to repair a pipe covered with
asbestos, the VA did not give him proper protective equipment or
safety instructions.

Mr. Statum submitted pictures of the asbestos problem to the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA
investigators cited the VA hospital for six asbestos violations.

OSHA says the VA failed to "determine employee exposure to
asbestos" and "failed to notify employees of the location and
quantity of asbestos."

The VA is currently conducting air quality tests. Hospital
officials have stated that so far, all air tests have been
negative for asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found at CBI Building Roof in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was discovered at a roof located on Building A of the
Center for Business and Industry in Watertown, N.Y.,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

Patrick J. Currier, an architect with Aubertine & Currier,
revealed that the roof everyone thought had been completely
replaced in 1997 had in fact been a patch job.

In 1997, the complex underwent US$1.3 million in renovations,
including renovations on the roofs and siding of the four
industrial center buildings.

Officials estimate that the cost of a complete replacement in
2009 could cost around US$800,000.

Mr. Currier's roof survey also found that asbestos material was
present in some of the older patches on the roof. This means
that an asbestos survey will need to be conducted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Wallaga Lake Community
----------------------------------------------------------------
Experts say that the presence of asbestos at an Aboriginal
community in Wallaga Lake, on the south coast of New South
Wales, Australia, poses a serious threat to residents, The Age
reports.

The asbestos lies on front lawns, underneath a community
building and in the local tip.

A pre-school is just meters from dumped asbestos sheeting, and
children in the town use pieces of asbestos as Frisbees, unaware
of the risk of doing so.

Speaking on SBS Television's Living Black program on April 27,
2009, Barry Robson, president of the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation of Australia, said it was the most serious situation
he had ever seen in a community.

At least seven houses containing asbestos were demolished
between 1995 and 1999, Living Black stated.

One of several Aborigines employed by the federal government to
undertake the demolitions said he did not wear protective
clothing, nor did anyone else.

Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin told Living
Black she had ordered an expert assessment of the site and was
working with state and local authorities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Cadbury Factory's Roof Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The cleanup of asbestos at the roof of the Cadbury factory in
Dunedin, New Zealand, is ongoing, the Otago Daily Times reports.

Cadbury communication manager Daniel Ellis told the Otago Daily
Times that the roof on the four-storey building was being
replaced as part of the factory's NZD51 million upgrade.

The spokesman said asbestos was commonly used in buildings of
the factory's age and "a specialist asbestos removal company"
had been engaged to remove the material and dispose of it.

The factory is being converted into a "center of excellence" and
a portion of the roof is being raised to allow for a new, larger
caramel cooker.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ritz Carriage House Slated for Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Burin, the city manager in Elmira, N.Y., authorized the
demolition of the Ritz Carriage House, which was known to
contain deadly asbestos, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness
Center reports.

Mr. Burin argued that demolition of the house posed no health
risk, as the asbestos was "non-friable," meaning it cannot be
broken down into small pieces under pressure.

In many cases, authorities find it is safer to conduct asbestos
removal prior to a demolition in order to ensure public safety.

The asbestos in the Ritz Carriage House was located in the roof
shingles. In addition to shingles, asbestos may also be found in
common building materials including floor and ceiling tiles,
pipe and boiler insulation, and some paints.

Mr. Burin stated that he did not think the debris was harmful,
and stated that the city followed procedure by watering the
building down while demolishing it.

Elmira has also hired a licensed hauler to remove the debris.
Debris will have to be disposed of in a designated landfill to
avoid further exposure to asbestos fibers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Gov't. Drops Action v. Grace Executive
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors are dropping their case against Robert C.
Walsh, one of the five former executives of W. R. Grace & Co., a
firm accused of asbestos-related environmental crimes in Libby,
Mont., Montana's News Station reports.

Mr. Walsh, a former senior vice president for the Company, had
been charged with conspiracy and defrauding the federal
government. He worked for the Company until 1994. Prior to that,
he was head of the Company's construction products division and
also head of Specialty Chemicals for the Company.

Prosecutors had accused Mr. Walsh of knowing details of the
health hazardous affecting workers at the Libby mine and at an
Ohio processing plant.

However, on April 27, 2009, prosecutors admitted they did not
have enough evidence against Mr. Walsh and could not prove his
guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Judge Donald Molloy accepted the request and dropped the charges
against Mr. Walsh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Olin, Units Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2009.

Based in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation has two segments: Chlor
Alkali Products and Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products makes and
sells chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite,
hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide. Winchester makes sporting ammunition, reloading
components, small caliber military ammunition and components,
and industrial cartridges.


                            *********

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  * * *