CAR_Public/090508.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 90

                           Headlines

AMR CORP: AA Shareholder Files Delaware Lawsuit Over New Bylaw
BICYCLE CLUB: Faces Recreational Poker Players' Suit in Calif.
CENTURY ALUMINUM: May 8 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend N.Y. Stockholder Lawsuit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Disney Store Manager

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Unit Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
COMPRO TAX: Faces Texas Litigation Over Fraudulent Investments
COMPRO TAX: Faces Texas Suit Over Alleged Gas Purchase Scheme
CORUS BANKSHARES: May 8 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
DETROIT GENERAL: Pensioner Seeks Class Certification For Lawsuit

ELECTRONIC ARTS: NCAA Player Files Suit Over Video Game Likeness
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Complaint Pending
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Investor Files Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Law Firms Join as Co-Lead Counsel in N.J. Case
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit in Discovery

PERRIGO CO: May 8, 2009 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
PRESSTEK INC: Reaches $1.2M Settlement for N.H. Securities Suit
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Continues to Face "Baumkel" Suit in Michigan
STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ticket Prices

UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Suit Remains Pending
VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Third Suit Over Contaminated Water
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Sepulveda" Stayed Pending "Dukes"
WAL-MART STORES: Defending "Dukes" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
WET SEAL: Continues to Defend Suits Over Labor Laws Violations

XFONE INC: Unit Faces Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROCHESTER NATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
SEQUENOM INC: Abbey Spanier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
SEQUENOM INC: Law Firms Announce Calif. Securities Suit Filing
SEQUENOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Has 98,400 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Facing Aaron Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Subject to Pending Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Involved in Insurance Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.8B Net Reserve at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $369.4M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Involved in Insurance Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.84B Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Still Disputing Aqua-Chem Demands

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Records $3.3M Retirement Obligations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in U.S. Fire Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,000 Claims Ongoing v. Cytec at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Liabilities Remain at $175MM
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Cites $800M March 31 Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records $796Mil Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Cites $13.29M Liability at March 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Cites 1,103 Active Cases at March 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Recovery Receivable Reduced by $2.1M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spence & Hoke Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AbitibiBowater Facing 800 Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing 24,000 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Facing CNA Coverage Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Grace Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Still Has Miss. Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Cases at March 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Bradfords' Motion to Remand
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Jury Awards $995T to McBride Widow
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitable to Pay $500T for Exposure Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Schools Fined $35.7T for AHERA Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Startup to Get $5M to Update Piping System
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.H. Supreme Court Favors Brewery Worker
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mortlake Widow Seeks Help in Payout Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rodarmel's Family Gets $2M in Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCaig Dropped From Montana Action v. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defense Rests Case in Mont. Action v. Grace
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Thorpe Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators' Reserves at $16.83M at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $277.02M in Losses, ALAE

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Energy Future Records $867M ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over 90 Steam Main Actions Ongoing v. ConEd
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Lawsuit v. Still in Effect
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.151B Reserves at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid on A.P. Green Plan Confirmation Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Still Involved in Keasbey Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe's Plan Confirmed on February 23
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Have Inactive Cases in Tex.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Confirmation Hearing Set to June 2009

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has 1,283 Pending Accounts at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has 2,680 Respirator Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Still Has $35MM March 31 Aearo Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Cites $133M Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Case v. 3M Ongoing in Minnesota

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Faces 10,600 Cases at March 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eight Lorillard Filter Cases Set for Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Liabilities Remain at $19.64MM
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Faces 185 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Facing 9T Claims at March 31


                           *********

AMR CORP: AA Shareholder Files Delaware Lawsuit Over New Bylaw
--------------------------------------------------------------
An American Airlines shareholder filed a proposed class-action
suit against the carrier's parent company AMR Corp., contending
that a new bylaw interferes with investors' rights, Law360
reports.

Investor Felipe Andrade filed the suit on May 4, 2009 in the
Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of the company's stockholders,
upset over new language adopted unilaterally by AMR's board of
directors, according to the Law360 report.


BICYCLE CLUB: Faces Recreational Poker Players' Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five Los Angeles-area poker clubs are named in a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by two men over jackpots for players
who lose despite having strong hands, Stuart Pfeifer of The Los
Angeles Times reports.

The lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2009 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court by recreational poker players Dennis Chae and
Jeff Kim.  It claims that the players were denied a chance to
compete for "bad beat" payouts, for those who lose despite
holding strong hands, unless they played at tables where the
house collects $1 per pot, according to the LA Times report.

The plaintiffs, represented by Tym S. MacLeod, Esq., contend in
a lawsuit that the Bicycle Club, Commerce Casino, Hustler
Casino, Hollywood Park and Hawaiian Gardens casinos would not
allow them to compete for the jackpots unless they played at
tables that collected the $1-per-pot fees, even though their ads
said no purchase was required, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Their lawsuit seeks class-action status and alleges that tens of
thousands of players could become plaintiffs.  It accuses the
casinos of false advertising and unfair competition and seeks
monetary damages and an injunction ending the jackpots, The Los
Angeles Times reported.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: May 8 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Century Aluminum Company (NASDAQ: CENX), on
March 9, 2009, has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Century
Aluminum Company (Nasdaq:CENX), pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Century Aluminum Company's January 28, 2009 Secondary Offering.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 8, 2009.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that
Century Aluminum Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Offering violated federal
securities laws.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement was materially false and/or misleading because
defendants failed to disclose that Century Aluminum Company
issued $929 million of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock in
July 2008 on a net basis as an operating activity when the
transaction should have been presented on a gross presentation
basis as both an operating activity and a financing activity to
reflect the cash receipts and disbursements associated with the
transaction.  The Registration Statement incorporated by
reference the Century Aluminum Company's quarterly financial
reports, which were filed with the United States Securities &
Exchange Commission on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarters ended
March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008 and September 30, 2008.

     On March 2, 2009, Century Aluminum announced that Century
Aluminum Company filed an Interim Report on Form 8-K with the
SEC which disclosed that Century Aluminum Company would restate
its interim consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine
months ended September 30, 2008, to reflect cash flows related
to the preferred stock issued in July 2008, which was not
presented on the consolidated statement of cash flows in
accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board's
(FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 95
"Statement of Cash Flows."  In response to this news, so the
lawsuit, CENX stock declined more than 24% per share, to close
at $1.67 per share on March 2, 2009.  This closing price of
Century Aluminum represented a cumulative loss of $2.61, or
approximately 60%, of the value of the Company's shares at the
time of its Secondary Offering less than two months earlier.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Continues to Defend N.Y. Stockholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. continues to defend a
consolidated stockholder lawsuit filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

                     September Litigation

On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class-action complaint was
filed against the company and certain of its current and former
senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
company's business and operations, or omitted to state material
facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading,
causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially
inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as
amended.

The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the
misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.

The complaint seeks money damages plus interest, as well as
costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.

                      October Litigation

On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of its current and former senior
executives.

This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September
suit.  It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the
lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and
expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees.

The two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008.
The company, however, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
suit (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008).

On July 18, 2008, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the move to
dismiss the shareholders' securities fraud lawsuit.  The judge
ruled that the plaintiffs in the class action have provided
enough evidence for a trial to go forward.

No further updates regarding the case were reported in the
company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
          Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
          Phone: 610-668-7987
          Fax: 610-660-0450
          e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY, 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Disney Store Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is still facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by a former Disney Store
manager before the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

On or about July 12, 2006, Joy Fong, a former Disney Store
manager in the San Francisco district, filed the lawsuit against
the company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of Ms. Fong and
other individuals similarly situated.

The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006, denying any and
all liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended
complaint, adding a subsidiary of Disney as a defendant.

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of the lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

The case is currently proceeding against the other defendants
and, on Dec. 18, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification on the misclassification claim.

Secaucus, NJ-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of
children's merchandise under its own The Children's Place and
licensed Disney Store brand names.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company owned and operated 904 The Children's Place stores and
335 Disney Stores across North America and operated Internet
stores at http://www.childrensplace.com/and
http://www.disneystore.com/ The Children's Place is a specialty
retailer of apparel and accessories for children from newborn to
10 years of age.  During the fiscal year ended Feb. 2, 2008
(fiscal 2007), the Company opened 54 The Children's Place
stores. It also opened 15 Disney Stores in fiscal 2007.  On
March 26, 2008, Hoop Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company,
along with its subsidiaries, doing business as Disney Store
North America, filed a voluntarily petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Unit Faces FACTA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.'s subsidiary, The
Children's Place Services Company, LLC., faces a purported
class-action suit before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio over alleged violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On or about Sept. 28, 2007, Meghan Ruggiero filed a complaint
against the company and its subsidiary, Hoop Retail Stores, LLC,
on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act and seeks class certification, an award of
statutory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 25, 2008,
according to the company's June 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 3, 2008.

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.

On March 2, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the company as a defendant and to replace the company
with its subsidiary, The Children's Place Services Company, LLC,
according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Ruggiero v. The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02966-CAB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge
Christopher A. Boyko, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Phillip A. Ciano, Esq. (pac@cianogoldwasser.com)
          Ciano & Goldwasser
          460 MK Ferguson Plaza, 1500 West Third Street
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: 216-658-9900
          Fax: 216-658-9920

               - and -

          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. (dgoetz@weismanlaw.com)
          Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
          1600 Midland Bldg., 101 Prospect Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Phone: 216-781-1111
          Fax: 216-781-6747

Representing the defendants is:

          Michele Kryszak Abraham, Esq.
          (michele.abraham@thompsonhine.com)
          Thompson Hine
          3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: 216-566-5642
          Fax: 216-566-5800


COMPRO TAX: Faces Texas Litigation Over Fraudulent Investments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Compro Tax, Inc. and several of its employees are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit by individuals who are claiming
that they purchased interests in alternative energy sources on
advice from tax preparers that the securities would provide them
with tax credits, Kelly Holleran of The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

However, instead of bringing tax relief, they ended up being
audited by the Internal Revenue Service because the securities
they purchased were allegedly illegal, according to The
Southeast Texas Record report.

The suit was filed on May 1, 2009 in Jefferson County District
Court in Texas, under the caption, "Gillespie et al vs. Compro
Tax Inc. et al, Jefferson County District Court Case No. D183-
934."

In the case, which has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court, lead class plaintiff Elizabeth Gillepsie
alleges she and other Beaumont residents went to numerous Compro
tax preparers and certified public accountants from 2004 through
2008, reports The Southeast Texas Record.

Besides Ms. Gillespie, other plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are
Brian Gillespie, Roland Garza, Carrie Beth Garza, Estela Garza,
Minnie Delarosa, Augustin Delarosa Jr., Oralia Flores, Domingo
Flores, Valentin Zapata, Shawn Pichoff, Lorena Pichoff and Lidia
Rojas, all individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals.  They are all represented by Thomas L. Hunt, Esq.
of Thomas L. Hunt and Associates in Houston

The defendants listed are Compro Tax, Inc., Ronald Fontenot,
Anthony Burrell, Silas Anderson, Ursa Bookman, Clevon Harper,
Craig D. Johnson, Jacqeline Levias, Jackie E. Mayfield, Carlos
Metoyer, Yusef A. Muhammed, Joann Spooner, Gloria Toren, Edward
Trotty, Denise White, and John Does 1-51, The Southeast Texas
Record reported.

According to the complaint, the defendants are "sophisticated
federal income tax specialists that prepare federal income tax
filings for the public," and in most cases are certified public
accountants.

The suit states, "Defendants, for their own pecuniary gain,
convinced Plaintiffs collectively to file for and obtain tax
credits by the purchase of working interests in alternative
energy source development gas wells," The Southeast Texas Record
reports

It further states that the defendants convinced the plaintiffs
that the tax credits were appropriate, legitimate and derived
from actual alternative energy sources.  However, they concealed
from plaintiffs that the entire tax credit scheme was improper
and would fail immediately upon IRS examination and that the
working interests were fraudulent shams.

The plaintiffs claim Compro and its 65 defending employees are
guilty of negligence, professional malpractice, common law fraud
and violations of the Texas Securities Act and the Texas
Business and Commerce Code, reports The Southeast Texas Record.

They are seeking unspecified direct, consequential, actual and
punitive damages and equitable relief, plus pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief to
which they may be entitled, according to The Southeast Texas
Record report.

  
COMPRO TAX: Faces Texas Suit Over Alleged Gas Purchase Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Compro Tax, Inc. and several others are facing a purported
class-action in Texas by individuals who allege that preparers
from Compro Tax convinced them to buy gas to obtain tax credits
through what the preparers knew was a multi-state scheme to
defraud clients, Marilyn Tennissen of The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

Originally filed on Jan. 5, 2009 by Jimmy and Nicola Bertrand ,
the suit was removed from Judge Gary Sanderson's 60th District
Court to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
on May 1, 2009.

The federal suit is now captioned, "Bertrand vs. Denise White et
al., Case No. 1:09-cv-358-MAC-ESH," and was assigned to Judge
Marcia Crone and referred to Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines for
pre-trial proceedings.

It alleges that preparer Denise White, National Tax Inc., Compro
Tax, Inc. and Compro Tax-North advised them to purchase an
interest in Gas Recovery Partners 2 GP, according to The
Southeast Texas Record report.

The purchase was in what plaintiffs claim they believed was a
project to purchase methane gas from landfills, and were told by
Compro Tax preparers the sales qualified under the Internal
Revenue Service Code, Section 29, for credit on fuel from a non-
conventional source.

However, according to the Department of Justice, there were no
methane sales only a scheme created by two Florida men who
promoted the sham through tax preparers who acted as sub-
promoters, The Southeast Texas Record reported.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by Beaumont attorneys Ken
Lewis, Esq., Tom Peterson, Esq. and Mitch Toups, Esq., have had
their credits disallowed by the IRS, and hit with back taxes,
interest and penalties.

At the time of the original complaint, the Bertrands were
seeking total damages of $13,460, which included back taxes,
costs of tax preparation, interest and lost time, reports The
Southeast Texas Record.

However, on April 7, 2009, the plaintiffs' amended complaint
included more than 25 defendants and sought class certification
to include "any persons who had tax returns prepared by any of
the individual or Business Entity Tax Preparer Sub-Promoter
defendants in the state of Texas for any of the tax years 2004,
2005, 2006 and 2007," The Southeast Texas Record reports.


CORUS BANKSHARES: May 8 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in shares of Corus Bankshares, Inc.
NASDAQ:CORS), on March 11, 2009, filed a proposed securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Corus
Bankshares, Inc. (NASDAQ:CORS) common stock during the period
between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009 against Corus
Bankshares, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer over alleged
Federal Securities Laws violations.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 8, 2009.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Corus
Bankshares, Inc. ("Corus") and its Chief Executive Officer
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
Corus' press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009 were
materially false and misleading.

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


DETROIT GENERAL: Pensioner Seeks Class Certification For Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Detroit city employee Coletta Estes filed a motion asking
the Wayne County Circuit Court to allow the complaint she filed
against present and former trustees of the Detroit General
Retirement pension fund, to proceed as a class action on behalf
of all Detroit pensioners.

     The suit claims that numerous investments in which the
pension fund lost over $100 million "were indefensible and,
based on an even cursory inspection of the proposed investments,
a rational prudent person would not have invested in the
proposals, let alone with entrusted pension funds."

     The motion was filed before the Honorable Amy Hathaway and
arises out of a complaint filed on Friday, May 1, 2009, in which
Ms. Estes alleged gross negligence against such trustees.

     Ms. Estes' attorney, Gerard Mantese, advises that the suit
seeks an injunction requiring pension trustees to comply with
the Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act, as well as
damages for the failure to comply with the Act.  That statute
requires that trustees use due care and diligence in handling
pension money and making investments.

    Mr. Mantese may be reached at:

    Gerard Mantese
    Mantese and Rossman, P.C.
    1361 E. Big Beaver Road
    Troy, MI 48083
    248-457-9200 (office)
    248-515-6419 (cell)

    Co-Counsel John J. Conway may be reached at:

    John J. Conway, P.C.
    645 Griswold St., Ste 3600
    Detroit, MI 48226
    313-961-6525 (Office)
    313-574-2148 (Cell)


ELECTRONIC ARTS: NCAA Player Files Suit Over Video Game Likeness
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former quarterback for Arizona State University has filed a
putative class-action suit against Electronic Arts, Inc. and the
National Collegiate Athletics Association for appropriating and
using the images and attributes of college sports players in its
popular line of interactive video games in violation of NCAA
rules, which prohibit commercialization of college players,
Law360 reports.

Sam Keller, once a starting quarterback for ASU's and University
of Nebraska's football teams, filed the lawsuit on May 5, 2009
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the Law360 report.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a
consolidated purported shareholder class-action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws remains pending,
according to IAC/InteractiveCorp's April 2, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2004, 12 purported shareholder class-
action suits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against IAC and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  These cases arose out of the company's Aug. 4,
2004 announcement of its earnings for the second quarter of 2004
and generally alleged that the value of the company's stock was
artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading
due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various
problems faced by the company's travel businesses (which in 2005
were spun off into a separate public company, Expedia, Inc.).

On Dec. 20, 2004, the district court consolidated the 12
lawsuits, appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel.

On May 20, 2005, the plaintiffs in the federal securities class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.  Like its 12
predecessors, the amended complaint generally alleged that the
value of the company's stock was artificially inflated by pre-
announcement statements about the company's financial results
and forecasts that were false and misleading due to the
defendants' alleged failure to disclose various problems faced
by the company's then travel businesses.  The plaintiffs sought
to represent a class of shareholders who purchased IAC common
stock between March 31, 2003 and Aug. 3, 2004.  The defendants
were IAC and 14 current or former officers or directors of the
Company or its former Expedia travel business.  The complaint
purported to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss both the securities class-action and the shareholder
derivative suits, which the plaintiffs opposed.  On Oct. 12,
2006, the court heard oral argument on the motions.  On March
22, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order (i) granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the securities
class action, with leave to replead, and (ii) granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the shareholder
derivative suits, with prejudice.

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class-action
filed a second amended complaint.  The new pleading continues to
allege that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning problems at the company's then-travel
businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its
predecessor.  On Aug. 15, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, which motion the
plaintiffs have opposed, which motion remains pending.

The suit is "In re IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J.
Holwell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
         Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz L.L.P.
         270 Madison Avenue
         New York, NY 10016;

              - and -

         Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
         Schatz & Nobel
         One Corporate Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Phone: 860-493-6292

Representing the defendants is

         Stephen R. DiPrima, Esq.
         Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
         51 West 52nd Street
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212) 403-1382
         Fax: (212) 403-2000
         e-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Investor Files Ariz. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT), on
March 24, 2009, has filed a proposed securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) between January 30,
2007 and February 6, 2009 against  Insight Enterprises, Inc. and
certain of its current and former executive officers over
alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

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

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Insight Enterprises, Inc and certain of its current and former
executive officers violated federal securities laws by knowing
or disregarding between January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2009
that their public statements concerning Insight Enterprises'
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading.

     On February 9, 2009, Insight Enterprises, Inc. revealed its
management and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors had
determined that Insight Enterprises would have to restate its
previously reported earnings as a result of its historical
accounting treatment of aged trade credits.

     Insight Enterprises, Inc. further disclosed that the
restatement pertained to the release of certain aged trade
credits from its balance sheet to its statement of earnings
prior to the complete release of the underlying liabilities
under applicable legal requirements.

     Insight Enterprises announced that it expects to restate
financial statements included in the its most recently filed
Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31,
2007, and in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the first
three quarters of fiscal year 2008 and on this news, shares of
Insight Enterprises declined $2.85 per share, more than 48%, to
close on February 9, 2009, at $3.05 per share on unusually heavy
trading volume, so the lawsuit.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Law Firms Join as Co-Lead Counsel in N.J. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart (New York) and
Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles & Devine (Atlanta, Georgia)
have recently joined as co-lead counsel for the plaintiff in the
sex discrimination class action filed by Console Law Offices
against Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  The lawsuit alleges that
women have been denied professional advancement opportunities
and equal pay in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

     The case is brought on behalf of all current and former
female management level employees who have been denied upper
management level positions, and who have been discriminated in
compensation, including with respect to pay grade, annual and
promotional increases, merit pay increases and bonuses.  This
includes women nationwide who have been affected by Lockheed
Martin's discriminatory practices since March 1, 2006.

     The lead plaintiff, Carol Bell, a more than 20-year veteran
of the company, asserts that she and other females employed by
Lockheed Martin face a "glass ceiling bias" that prevents them
from being considered for upper management level positions.
Moreover, according to the suit, the women that do hold these
senior leadership positions are primarily relegated to
"traditionally female" departments, such as the Human Resources,
Ethics, and Communications.  The complaint alleges that in the
rare case when women are able to obtain senior positions, they
are paid less than the men who previously held the same
position.

     Plaintiffs further allege that women professionals at
Lockheed Martin are disproportionately paid less than men who
perform substantially similar work, with similar or lesser
skills and experience, and are disproportionately rated lower
than men as a result of the company's "bell curve" forced rating
systems, and women's lower selection rates for "stretch"
positions, leadership training and other advancement track
opportunities, resulting in lower compensation.

     According to the complaint, it is Lockheed Martin's
practice to not post openings for positions Director-level and
above (contrary to its policy for lower-level positions which
are posted).  The complaint also alleges that in regard to these
management positions, Lockheed Martin does not have an
application or a formal interview process and instead makes
promotion decisions in secret meetings behind closed doors in
which women often are not present.  Plaintiff also alleges that
Lockheed Martin denies women leadership and mentoring
opportunities.  Plaintiff alleges that, in contrast, male
employees with lesser qualifications and experience find
themselves on a fast track to being promoted.

     The suit seeks an order that Lockheed Martin establish fair
employment practices in which promotion, hiring and compensation
are concerned, an injunction that would bar the corporation from
any acts of discrimination in the future and compensatory and
punitive damages.  The suit is captioned, "Bell v. Lockheed
Martin Corp., Civil Action No. 08-cv-06292," and was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

For more details, contact:

          Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq
          Console Law Offices LLC
          Phone: 215-545-7676
          e-mail: info@consolelaw.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class-action complaint filed against Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California is in discovery.

Between Oct. 5 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class-action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaints allege that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to
the grants of stock options.

The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common shares during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to
Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements.

Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four
putative class actions were consolidated as a single action
entitled "In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities
Litigation."

On Aug. 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  On Oct. 18, 2007, the company filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint.  The motion
is fully briefed and was argued on Feb. 15, 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, June 19, 2008).

On Sept. 29, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part Marvell's motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The District Court gave
the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs
elected not to amend the complaint and instead will proceed with
the claims that the court did not dismiss.

The company filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 12, 2009.

Discovery has recently commenced, according to the company's
April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. provides semiconductors of analog,
mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded
microprocessor integrated circuits worldwide.  The company is
headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


PERRIGO CO: May 8, 2009 Deadline Set for Lead Plaintiff Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Perrigo Company stock, on March 11, 2009,
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Perrigo Company (NASDAQ:PRGO) common
stock during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2,
2009, against Perrigo Company and certain of its officers and
directors over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 8, 2009.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Perrigo Company and certain of its officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading
investors between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009
regarding the Perrigo Company's exposure to at least $18 million
of Auction Rate Securities held by Perrigo Company.

     In January and February of 2008, several auctions of
Auction Rate Securities began to fail, limiting the liquidity of
these securities.

     According to the complaint, Perrigo Company was left
holding $18 million of ARS when the market froze.  With few
secondary markets and virtually no liquidity, the value of most
ARS declined, even though the issuers were not in default.  One
bank after another began to redeem the ARS their clients had
purchased. Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of redeeming its
$18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008, on the day Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. declared bankruptcy.  Lehman was the
bank that underwrote and sold the ARS to Perrigo Company.

     On November 6, 2008, the defendants reported the "fair
value" of Perrigo Company's ARS as $14,500,000, but concealed
the impact of Lehman's bankruptcy on Perrigo Company's ARS, so
the lawsuit.  Then just three months later, on February 3, 2009,
defendants disclosed, for the first time, that Lehman had
underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo Company.  They also
announced that Perrigo Company was writing off the entire value
of its ARS, wiping out over a third of Perrigo Company's
earnings in the quarter and as a result of this disclosure, the
stock price of Perrigo Company (NASDAQ: PRGO) decreased 18% that
day, causing massive losses to investors, so the lawsuit.


PRESSTEK INC: Reaches $1.2M Settlement for N.H. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presstek, Inc. agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit charging that the company misled investors about
its earnings in 2006, Bod Sanders of New Hampshire Business
Review reports.

According to a preliminary order approving the settlement, a
final hearing on approving the deal is set for July 20, 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the
New Hampshire Business Review reported.

On Nov. 21, 2008, Class Action Reporter reported that Presstek,
Inc. settled a purported securities fraud class-action suit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

The company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has reached
an agreement to settle the federal securities class-action
lawsuit.  This settlement, which is subject to confirmatory
discovery and court approval, will have no material impact on
the company's 2008 operating results.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617 439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Continues to Face "Baumkel" Suit in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. continues to face a purported class-
action lawsuit in Michigan styled, "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The
Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al."

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Company, doing business as Scotts
LawnService(R), was named as a defendant in a purported class-
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan relating to certain pesticide products
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009).

In the suit, Mark Baumkel, on behalf of himself and the
purported classes, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, plus
costs and attorneys' fees, for alleged claims involving breach
of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Michigan
consumer protection act.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
     Another investor in Steel Dynamics, Inc. (NASDAQ: STDL)
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Indiana also on
behalf of common stock purchasers of the Steel Dynamics, Inc.
(Nasdaq: STLD) between January 26, 2009 and March 11, 2009,
inclusive against Steel Dynamics, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors over alleged violations of Federal
Securities Laws.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 15, 2009.

     According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Steel
Dynamics, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements regarding Steel Dynamics business and
financial results.

     The plaintiff accuses that the defendants failed to
disclose, among other things, that demand for Steel Dynamics's
products showed continuing weakness in Q1 2009, Steel Dynamics
inventories in its Flat Roll Division were at excessive levels
and were materially impaired by approximately $70 million, and
that the defendant Bates engaged in unusual insider selling and
realized proceeds of in excess of $30 million.  When defendants
disclosed the truth to the market on March 11, 2009, the price
of Steel Dynamics, common stock (Nasdaq:STLD) dropped 15% to
close at $7.25, on volume of more than 33 million shares, so the
lawsuit.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Ticket Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and several others are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit in New Jersey that claims the
company fraudulently raised prices by sending online customers
to a subsidiary reseller, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed by Kimberly Vining and Donna Crowley in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 5,
2009, under the caption, "Vining et al v. Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-02096."

In addition to Ticketmaster Entertainment, the suit also listed
as defendants, TICKETSNOW.COM, Inc., John Does (1-10) and ABC
Companies (1-5).

The plaintiffs say they paid too much for tickets to see Britney
Spears and a production of "The Wizard of Oz," according to the
AP report.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status.  It also seeks
unspecified damages and is similar to one filed this year by the
state of New Jersey over Bruce Springsteen tickets, The
Associated Press reports.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations, according to the company's
April 1, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14,
2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc. et al. cv. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com)
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com)
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue
          Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162

          James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com)
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com)
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999


VILLAGE OF CRESTWOOD: Faces Third Suit Over Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Village of Crestwood, Illinois is facing a third purported
class-action lawsuit that was filed by a woman who lost four
family members to diseases possibly linked to contaminated
water, WBBM780 reports.

The suit was filed on May 1, 2009 by former Crestwood resident
Diana Delarosa on behalf of her deceased mother, Mary Grant, and
others affected by the allegedly tainted water, according to the
WBBM780 report.

It claims that in 1986, state regulators told Crestwood
officials that a well they were using was tainted with dangerous
chemicals.  Following the notification, the suit claims village
officials told the state that it would only use the well in
emergency situations and would provide tap water from Lake
Michigan, reports WBBM780.

However, the suit alleges that the village continued to
routinely sell and supply tap water from the contaminated well
to residents and businesses and concealed information about
chemicals in the tap water.  The well in question was shut down
in 2007, WBBM780 reported.

The suit seeks to determine:

       -- whether Crestwood residents paid for tap water that
          came from the contaminated well;

       -- whether the water in question was tainted with vinyl
          chloride;

       -- whether defendants failed to disclose these facts to
          the public; and

       -- whether defendants were negligent for their conduct.

The five-count suit filed seeks certification as a class-action
complaint, the appointment of Ms. Delarosa as a representative
of the class, proof that the defendants violated the law, and
other monetary relief, according to the WBBM780 report.

Sun-Times News Group previously reported that the Village of
Crestwood, Illinois, and its past two mayors are facing a second
class-action lawsuit for allegedly endangering the public health
by allowing residents to drink water from a contaminated well
for more than 20 years (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2009).

The lawsuit, filed by Crestwood resident Kathryn Torrisi,
accuses the village, Mayor Robert Stranczek, former Mayor
Chester Stranczek and unnamed co-conspirators of concealing the
presence of chemicals in the village's tap water and
"unscrupulously" causing the tainted water to be pumped into
homes and businesses, according to the Sun-Times News Group
report.

Ms. Torrisi brings the claim on behalf of all people who paid
for and consumed tap water from the Crestwood well between 1986
and 2007, the lawsuit says.  She resided in Crestwood from 1980
to 1991 and again from 2001 to 2005 and consumed and paid
Crestwood for the tainted tap water at issue, Sun-Times News
Group reported.

The lawsuit seeks damages and establishment of a "constructive
trust" consisting of money the defendants collected from water
bills for the purpose of testing and monitoring the adverse
health effects of the contaminated water, reports Sun-Times News
Group.

Previously, CBS2 Chicago reported that a suit, filed by
Crestwood resident Joseph Marzano on behalf of "thousands" of
Crestwood residents who paid for allegedly contaminated tap
water, accuses the Village of Crestwood, Mayor Robert Stranczek,
his father, and unnamed alleged co-conspirators with "quietly"
making use of contaminated water as a way to save money (Class
Action Reporter, April 27, 2009).

That suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court, claims the
village touted their cheap water prices while covertly using
water from a well known to contain dry cleaning chemicals,
specifically vinyl chloride.

It claims that in 1986, state regulators told Crestwood
officials that a well they were using was tainted with dangerous
chemicals.  Following the notification, the suit claims village
officials told the state that it would only use the well in
emergency situations and would provide tap water from Lake
Michigan only.

However, Mr. Marzano claims the village continued to use the
"tainted" well in an effort to save money, reports CBS2 Chicago.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeal in "Sepulveda" Stayed Pending "Dukes"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit's decision in the matter, "Daniel Sepulveda,
et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al." remains stayed pending
the final disposition of the appeal in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.

The suit was originally filed in filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California back in 2004.

Generally, the suit -- involving more than 2,750 assistant
managers -- is alleging violations of California's meal break
and overtime laws.  It seeks certification of a class of
salaried managers who challenge their exempt status under state
and federal laws (Class Action Reporter, May 9, 2008).

Class certification was denied by the trial court on May 5,
2006.

On April 25, 2008, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling
in part and reversed it in part, and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a petition seeking review of
that ruling by a larger panel of the court.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the court entered an Order staying all
proceedings in the Sepulveda appeal pending the final
disposition of the appeal in "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."
Class certification has not been addressed in the other cases,
according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Daniel Sepulveda, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01003-DSF-E," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Judge
Dale Fischer, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq. (rdrexler@quislaw.com)
          Quisenberry Law Firm
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2909
          Phone: 310-785-7966

               - and -

          Steven G. Pearl, Esq. (sgpearl@sgpearl.com)
          Pearl Law Offices
          16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 625
          Encino, CA 91436-2412
          Phone: 818-995-8300

Representing the defendants is:

          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          Jones Day
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 35
          Chicago, IL 60601-1692
          Phone: 312-782-3939


WAL-MART STORES: Defending "Dukes" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender-discrimination
class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc."

The purported class-action suit was commenced in June 2001 and
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  It was brought on behalf of all past and present
female employees in all of the company's retail stores and
warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the company has engaged in a pattern
and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay,
training, and job assignments.  It seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, front pay, back pay, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for
purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or may be
subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female associates.

The company believes that the district court's ruling is
incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's petition for discretionary review
of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the court of
Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court's
certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the company filed a petition asking that the
decision be reconsidered by a larger panel of the court.  On
Dec. 11, 2007, the three-judge panel withdrew its opinion of
February 6, 2007, and issued a revised opinion.   As a result,
Wal-Mart's Petition for Rehearing En Banc was denied as moot.

Wal-Mart filed a new Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Jan. 8,
2008.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the court of appeals issued an Order granting
the Petition.  The court of appeals heard oral argument on the
Petition on March 24, 2009, according to the company's April 1,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world.  The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity.  Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International.  Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com.  Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com.  Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.


WET SEAL: Continues to Defend Suits Over Labor Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. continues to defend class-action complaints
alleging California labor law violations.

In July 2006, May 2007, September 2008, and March 2009, the
company was served with class action complaints alleging
violations under certain State of California labor laws.

In November 2006, the company reached an agreement to settle the
July 2006 class action complaint for approximately $0.3 million,
and as of Feb. 2, 2008, the company had accrued within accrued
liabilities in its consolidated balance sheet an amount equal to
this settlement amount.  The company has continued to retain
this accrued amount within accrued liabilities in its
consolidated balance sheet as of Jan. 31, 2009.

In February 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.

On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.

The company anticipates receiving the appellate decision by June
2009.

The company is defending the May 2007, September 2008, and March
2009 complaints, according to the company's April 2, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

No provisions for loss contingencies for the May 2007, September
2008, and March 2009 complaints have been accrued as of Jan. 31,
2009.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a
national specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and
accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.  As
of Feb. 2, 2008, the Company operated 494 retail stores in 47
states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.  Its products can also
be purchased online.  The Company operates two nationwide,
primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names
Wet Seal and Arden B. Wet Seal is the junior apparel brand for
teenage girls that seek trend-focused and value competitive
clothing with a target customer age of 13 to 19 years old.  Wet
Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of
affordably priced fashionable apparel and accessories.  Arden B
is a fashion brand for the feminine contemporary woman with sex
appeal.  Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 and seeks to
deliver contemporary collections of fashion separates and
accessories for various aspects of the customers' lifestyles.


XFONE INC: Unit Faces Fleisig's Damages Suit for Billed Attempts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit request styled, "Omer Fleisig vs. Israel
10 - Shidury Haruts Hahadash Ltd. and Xfone 018 Ltd.," remains
pending as of March 31, 2009.

On Dec. 16, 2008, Omer Fleisig filed a request to approve a
claim as a class-action against Xfone 018 Ltd., a 69% owned
Israel based subsidiary of Xfone, Inc., and Israel 10 Shidury
Haruts Hahadash Ltd., an entity unrelated to the company, in the
District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.

Fleisig attempted to participate in a television call-in game
show, which was produced by Israel 10, using Xfone 018's
international telecom services.

The claim alleges that although Fleisig's two attempts to
participate in the show were unsuccessful because he received a
busy signal when trying to call in, he was billed by Xfone 018
for both attempts.  Fleisig seeks damages for the billed
attempts.  He was billed approximately $2.50 for the calls. The
Class Action Request states total damages of NIS 24,750,000
(approximately $5,856,602) which reflects Fleisig's estimation
of damages caused to all participants in the game show which
(pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly received a busy
signal while trying to call in to the game during a certain
period defined in the Class Action Request.

All parties are attempting to reach an understanding regarding
the scope of the Class Action Request and its justification, if
at all, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and
managing company providing international voice, video, and data
communications services with operations in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services,
which includes local, long distance and international telephony
services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular
services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax
Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling
opportunities.  The divisions of the company include Partner
Division, Customer Service Division, Operations Division,
Administration Division, Research and Development Division and
Marketing Division.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ROCHESTER NATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against OppenheimerFunds, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the
Rochester National Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ:
ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX) from March 13, 2006 through October 21,
2008.

     The complaint filed charges Oppenheimer, the Fund and
certain of its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of
1933. The suit claims that the registration statements and
prospectuses used to sell shares in the Fund contained
materially false and misleading statements about the risks of
investing in the Fund.  The lawsuit identified the following
funds as affected: A Shares (ORNAX), B Shares (ORNBX) and C
Shares (ORNCX).

     On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus
Supplement which alerted investors of the true liquidity risks
of the Fund's investments.  The Fund closed at $6.59 per share
later that day, representing a 49% decline in value.  Plaintiffs
seek to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased
shares of Rochester National Municipals Fund from March 13, 2006
through October 21, 2008.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before May 12, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600


SEQUENOM INC: Abbey Spanier Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP filed a class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Sequenom Incorporated
(Nasdaq: SQNM), between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009,
inclusive.  The Complaint charges Sequenom and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws.

     Sequenom provides products, services, diagnostic testing,
applications and generic analysis products that translate
genomic science into solutions for biomedical research,
translational research, molecular medicine and agricultural and
livestock applications.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Sequenom's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate material adverse developments concerning Sequenom's
noninvasive SEQureDx prenatal Down Syndrome test ("SEQureDx"),
including that:

       -- clinical trial tests and data concerning SEQureDx were
          not being conducted or monitored properly;

       -- SEQureDx did not offer verifiable, statistically
          significant improvement over competing tests;

       -- due to undisclosed problems with clinical trial test
          data and results, it was not feasible that Sequenom
          would be able to bring SEQureDx to the market in 2009;
          and

       -- Company employees were mishandling test data and
          results for the SEQureDx clinical trials.

     In addition, during the Class Period, and while in
possession of this undisclosed material adverse information,
defendants completed a Secondary Offering in June 2008, selling
approximately 5.5 million shares of Sequenom stock to the public
at a price of $15.50 per share for net proceeds of more than $85
million.

     On April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a press release
disclosing that the expected launch of SEQureDx had been delayed
due to the discovery of employee "mishandling" of research and
development clinical trial data and results, which "raise[d]
significant concerns regarding the integrity of that data."  The
Company further disclosed each and all of Seqeunom's prior
public statements concerning SEQureDx test data and results were
superseded by the April 29, 2009, revelations and could no
longer be relied upon.  As a result of this news, shares of
Sequenom declined $11.29 per share, or more than 75%, to close
at $3.62 per share on April 30, 2009, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. (nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com)
          Susan Lee, Esq. (slee@abbeyspanier.com)
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 1-800-889-3701 (Toll Free)
          Web Site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Sequenom, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
that Sequenom employees mishandled test data and results
regarding a Down syndrome test.  As a result of Defendants'
false and misleading statements, Sequenom stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $27.76 per share on September 24, 2008.  This inflated
stock price permitted Sequenom to raise $92 million in a
secondary stock offering in July 2008, acquire a diagnostic
company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock than would have been
necessary absent the inflation, and commence a tender offer for
another company in an all-stock transaction.

     On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that the expected launch of
its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery by
Company officials of employee mishandling of research and
development test data and results.  As a result, the Company
could no longer rely on the previously announced test data and
results.  On this news, Sequenom's stock collapsed, dropping
more than $11 per share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day
decline of more than 75%, on volume of more than 85 million
shares.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685
   

SEQUENOM INC: Law Firms Announce Calif. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Stanley Mandel & Iola and the Braun Law Group announce the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) common stock during the period
between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009.  The lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

     Sequenom specializes in the creation of genetic analysis
products.  Among its core products is the SEQureDx Trisomy 21
Test which was designed to identify down syndrome in early stage
pregnancies.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's SEQureDx test.  On April 29, 2009,
Sequenom shocked the market by announcing that it would delay
the expected launch of its SEQureDx down syndrome test due to
the discovery by company officials of employee mishandling of
R&D test data and results.  On this news, Sequenom's stock fell
over $11 per share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day
decline of more than 75%, on volume of more than 85 million
shares.

     The Complaint alleges that Sequenom and certain of its
executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael Braun
          Phone: 310-836-6000 x 103
          e-mail: info@braunlawgroup.com
          Web site: http://www.braunlawgroup.com


SEQUENOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Sequenom, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQNM) common stock during the period from June 4, 2008
through April 29, 2009.

     The Complaint charges Sequenom and certain of its officers
with violations of federal securities laws.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented facts
concerning Sequenom's SEQureDx prenatal Down Syndrome test
("SEQureDx"), including that:

       -- clinical tests and data concerning SEQureDx were not
          being conducted or monitored properly;

       -- SEQureDx did not offer verifiable, statistically
          significant improvement over competing tests;

       -- due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests
          data and results, it was not feasible that Sequenom
          would be able to bring SEQureDx to the market in 2009;
          and

       -- Company employees were mishandling test data and
          results for the SEQureDx clinical trials.

     On April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a press release
disclosing that the expected launch of SEQureDx had been delayed
due to the discovery of employee "mishandling" of research and
development clinical trial data and results, which "raise[d]
significant concerns regarding the integrity of that data."

     The Company also stated that each of its prior statements
concerning SEQureDx test data and results were superseded by the
April 29, 2009, revelations and could no longer be relied upon.
As a result of this news, shares of Sequenom declined $11.29 per
share, or more than 75%, to close at $3.62 per share on April
30, 2009, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Tire Has 98,400 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 98,400 pending asbestos
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared
with 99,000 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded 400 new claims filed and 1,000 claims settled or
dismissed. Payments were US$5 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,600
new claims filed and 23,000 claims settled or dismissed.
Payments were US$23 million.

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

To date, the Company has disposed of 73,100 claims by defending
and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a
settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled
US$333 million through March 31, 2009 and US$325 million through
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$135
million at March 31, 2009 and US$132 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$72 million at March 31,
2009 and US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$63 million at March 31, 2009 and
US$61 million at Dec. 31, 2008. At March 31, 2009, the Company
estimates that it is reasonably possible that its gross
liabilities could exceed its recorded reserve by US$35 million
to US$40 million, about 50 percent of which would be recoverable
by the Company's accessible policy limits.

The Company had recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims
of US$66 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$65
million at Dec. 31, 2008. The Company expects that about 50
percent of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable up
to its accessible policy limits through the period covered by
the estimated liability.

Of these amounts, US$10 million was included in Current Assets
as part of Accounts Receivable at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company said it believes that at March 31, 2009, it had at
least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies.

A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$66 million insurance receivable recorded at
March 31, 2009.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with the Company's
primary insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements
at March 31, 2009.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires. The Company has 61 manufacturing facilities
in 25 countries, including the United States. It operates its
business through four operating segments: North American Tire;
Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire; Latin American Tire; and
Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Facing Aaron Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to face asbestos litigation
lawsuit titled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company et
al. in the Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss., according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2009.

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

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent
to whom TODCO may owe indemnity and other unaffiliated defendant
companies. The number of unaffiliated defendant companies
involved in each complaint ranges from about 20 to 70.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act.

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

As of April 29, 2009, about 700 questionnaires were returned and
the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire
reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the
respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and
its former parent which could lead to claims against either
company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not state in
their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.

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

It is possible that some of the plaintiffs who have filed
amended complaints and have not named TODCO as a defendant may
attempt to add TODCO as a defendant in the future when case
discovery begins and greater attention is given to each
individual plaintiff's employment background.

The Company continues to monitor a small group of these other
cases. The Company has not determined which entity would be
responsible for those claims under the Master Separation
Agreement between TODCO and its former parent.

Based in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas
exploration and production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
and internationally. It operates its business as six divisions:
Domestic Offshore, International Offshore, Inland, Domestic
Liftboats, International Liftboats, and Delta Towing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flowserve Still Subject to Pending Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a large
number of pending lawsuits that seek to recover damages for
personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing products manufactured and distributed by the Company
in the past.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any of those
products were primarily encapsulated and used as components of
process equipment, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2009.

The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the
claims are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from
other companies.

Based in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corporation provides pumps,
valves, seals, automation and aftermarket services in support of
global infrastructure industries, including oil and gas,
chemical, power generation and water management, as well as
general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Involved in Insurance Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), continues to be involved in asbestos-
related insurance lawsuits filed in various courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including St. Paul Companies Inc.
[SPC]) in state court in West Virginia.

These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were
consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, W.Va. The plaintiffs allege that the insurer
defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of
state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos
claims.

The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers. Similar lawsuits alleging
inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were
filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are
collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs
seek damages, including punitive damages.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against
TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively
referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville
Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the
prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii
Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases
filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining
certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC
based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction,
additional common law claims were filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-
sum payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar
future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a
payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying its prior orders that
all of the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and
substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC are
barred.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the bankruptcy
court's orders while vacating that portion of the bankruptcy
court's orders that required all future direct actions against
TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy court before
proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of an order
issued by the bankruptcy court prohibiting the prosecution of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions and the Common Law Claims, as
well as future similar direct action litigation, against TPC.

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, requesting
reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were
denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ
of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions
were granted.

On March 30, 2009, oral argument took place before the Supreme
Court. The parties await a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals,
primarily in the United States and in selected international
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.8B Net Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves were
US$2.853 billion at and for the three months ended March 31,
2009, compared with US$3.672 billion at and for the three months
ended March 31, 2008.

The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$3.227 billion during
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$3.785 billion
during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter,
Jan. 30, 2009)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first three months
of 2009 were US$61 million, compared with US$62 million in the
same period of 2008. About 38 percent in the first three months
of 2009 and 17 percent in the first three months of 2008 related
to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into
settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability.

In December 2008, the Company completed the sale of
Unionamerica, which comprised its United Kingdom-based runoff
insurance and reinsurance businesses.

Included in the claims and claim adjustment expense reserves
transferred to the purchaser were gross asbestos reserves of
US$330 million and net asbestos reserves of US$232 million.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals,
primarily in the United States and in selected international
markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $369.4M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability was
US$369.4 million as of March 31, 2009 and US$380.2 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$96.4 million as
of March 31, 2009 and US$85.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$227.2 million as of March 31, 2009 and US$239.5 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$75
million as of March 31, 2009 and US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.

Asbestos expenses were US$13.6 million for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009, compared with US$12.1 million for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Under change in assets and liabilities, net of effects of
acquisitions of businesses, asbestos liabilities (net of
insurance receivables were US$5.5 million for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009, compared with US$4.6 million for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008.

Under cash paid during the period, asbestos claims and expenses,
net of insurance recoveries, were US$8.1 million for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$7.5 million for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Involved in Insurance Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. continues to face
actions by asbestos plaintiffs, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2009.

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

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. is an insurance and financial services company. The Company
is organized into two major operations: Life and Property &
Casualty.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.84B Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos
liability was US$1.845 billion for the three months ended March
31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2009.

The Company's net asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$1.884 billion during the three months and year ended Dec. 31,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2009)

Paid loss and loss adjustment expense development for asbestos
claims was US$39 million for the three months ended March 31,
2009.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. is an insurance and financial services company. The Company
is organized into two major operations: Life and Property &
Casualty.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mine Safety Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits and claims, primarily product liability claims
(including asbestos-related) are asserted against Mine Safety
Appliances Company.

The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,500
lawsuits, primarily involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively,
these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,800 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company. Consistent with the experience of
other companies involved in silica and asbestos-related
litigation, in recent years there has been an increase in the
number of asserted claims that could potentially involve the
Company.

The Company said that it cannot determine its potential maximum
liability for those claims, in part because the defendants in
these lawsuits are often numerous, and the claims generally do
not specify the amount of damages sought.

Based in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company develops,
manufactures and supplies products that protect people's health
and safety. Its comprehensive lines of safety products are used
by workers in the fire service, homeland security, construction,
other industries, and the military.


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

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

In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it
believed the Company was obligated for certain costs and
expenses associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem
demanded that the Company reimburse it for about US$10 million
for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses.

Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a
continuing obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities
and expenses that are excluded from coverage under the
applicable insurance or for which there is no insurance. The
Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
the outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers
of Aqua-Chem. In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies
filed a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the
Company and 16 defendant insurance companies seeking a
determination of the parties' rights and liabilities under
policies issued by the insurers and reimbursement for amounts
paid by plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Records $3.3M Retirement Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's estimated fair value of
conditional asset retirement obligations (CAROs), including for
asbestos, at March 31, 2009 was US$3.3 million.

The Company has CAROs at several of its fabricated products
facilities. The vast majority of those CAROs consist of
incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, ceilings, or
piping) at certain of the older plants if such plants were to
undergo major renovation or be demolished.

No plans currently exist for any such renovation or demolition
of those facilities and the Company's current assessment is that
the most probable scenarios are that no material CARO would be
triggered for 20 or more years.

The Company's results for both quarters ended March 31, 2009 and
March 31, 2008 included an incremental accretion of the
estimated liability of US$100,000 (recorded in Cost of products
sold).

Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
produces fabricated aluminum products for aerospace/high
strength, general engineering and custom automotive and
industrial applications. The Company has two reportable
operating segments, Fabricated Products and Primary Aluminum and
a Corporate segment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in U.S. Fire Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco City and County Superior
Court, which denied Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP's
special motion to strike, in litigation filed by United States
Fire Insurance Company.

The case is styled United States Fire Insurance Company,
Plaintiff and Respondent v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Ignazio J. Ruvolo, Timothy A. Reardon, and Maria P.
Rivera entered judgment in Case No. A120912 on March 12, 2009.

United States Fire Insurance Company sued to enjoin Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP (Sheppard Mullin) from
representing an informal committee of asbestos creditors,
together with that committee's law firms, in a pending action to
which U.S. Fire is a party, entitled Plant Insulation Company v.
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (Plant Litigation).

U.S. Fire claimed that Sheppard Mullin has a disqualifying
conflict of interest arising out of Sheppard Mullin's former
representation of U.S. Fire in the matter of Kelly-Moore Paint
Company, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (Kelly-
Moore Litigation).

Sheppard Mullin filed a special motion to strike the complaint
(a so-called anti-SLAPP motion), contending that its legal
representation in the Plant Litigation was protected activity,
and U.S. Fire cannot show a probability that it would succeed on
the merits of its claim.

The trial court concluded that this action interfered with
Sheppard Mullin's right to petition, and thus, was protected
activity under the anti-SLAPP law.

However, the trial court went on to conclude that U.S. Fire
satisfied its burden to show a probability of success as to the
merits of its claim, and therefore denied the anti-SLAPP motion.
The Appeals Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion
that U.S. Fire's complaint arises out of protected activity, and
so affirmed the ruling denying the motion, but on other grounds.

The order denying Sheppard Mullin's special motion to strike was
affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8,000 Claims Ongoing v. Cytec at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with 8,100 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company had
100 claimants associated with claims closed. During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 200 claimants associated
with claims closed and 100 claimants associated with claims
opened.

The asbestos liability was US$50.1 million at March 31, 2009,
compared with US$51.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The insurance
receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past
payments was US$31.2 million at March 31, 2009, compared with
US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company and sells its products
to markets for aerospace, adhesives, automotive and industrial
coatings, chemical intermediates, inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Liabilities Remain at $175MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s current asbestos liabilities were US$175
million as of March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2009.

Long-term asbestos liabilities were US$285.5 million as of March
31, 2009, compared with US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Asbestos-related cash payments were US$34.8 million during the
first quarter of 2009, down from US$40.2 million during the
first quarter of 2008. The deferred amount payable for
previously settled claims was US$33 million at the end of the
first quarter and comparable to year-end 2008.

About 1,000 new lawsuits and claims were filed during the first
quarter of 2009, essentially flat with the prior year quarter.
However, the number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims declined from about 11,000 at year-end 2008 to about
9,000 as of March 31, 2009.

The reduction in pending lawsuits resulted from the dismissal of
federal court non-malignancy cases and the disposition of
inactive state court cases.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes recyclable
glass containers. The Company employs more than 23,000 people
with 80 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2008, net
sales were US$7.9 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Cites $800M March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos liabilities were
US$800 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$824
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivables were
US$657 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$658
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company is a
diversified chemical company. The Company delivers products and
services to customers in around 160 countries, to help provide
everything from fresh water, food and pharmaceuticals to paints,
packaging and personal care products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records $796Mil Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos-litigation reserve was
US$796 million at March 31, 2009, compared with US$539 million
at March 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$807
million at Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$546 million at Dec.
31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009)

The non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$440 million
at March 31, 2009, compared with US$443 million at March 31,
2008.

Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty
chemical products, services and solutions. It operates through
five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients,
Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland
Distribution.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Cites $13.29M Liability at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$13,297,000 as of March 29, 2009, compared with US$9,310,000
as of March 30, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2009.

Long-term asbestos liability was US$11,695,000 as of March 29,
2009, compared with US$9,935,000 as of March 30, 2008.

Net asbestos charges were US$8,263,000 during the three months
ended March 29, 2009, compared with US$12,075,000 during the
three months ended March 30, 2008.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace,
petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company has two segments:
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products and Energy
Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Cites 1,103 Active Cases at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
as of March 29, 2009, faced 1,103 active, unresolved asbestos
claims.

These claims were filed in California, Texas, New York,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Rhode Island and 24
other states. About 578 of these claims involve claimants
allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedents who
allegedly died from) mesothelioma.

In addition to these claims, Leslie remains a named defendant in
about 4,700 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in
Mississippi. Since 2004, the Mississippi Supreme Court has
interpreted joinder rules more strictly, and the state
legislature enacted a tort reform act under which each plaintiff
must independently satisfy venue provisions, thus preventing
thousands of out-of-state claimants from tagging onto a single
in-state plaintiff's case.

During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two
verdicts that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability
to Leslie of US$3.8 million. Although Leslie accrued a liability
during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdicts have been
appealed.

With respect to each verdict, the Company said it believes there
are strong grounds for overturning such verdict, significantly
reducing the amount of the award or for requiring a new trial.
In addition, Leslie has recorded US$600,000 in accrued interest
for both adverse verdicts.

During the three months ended March 29, 2009, there were 222
asbestos claims filed and 87 claims resolved with respect to
Leslie. For the three months ended March 29, 2009, Leslie's
gross estimated asbestos indemnity and defense costs totaled
US$9.9 million of which US$1.6 million was paid by insurance.
This compares to US$3.7 million estimated gross asbestos
indemnity and defense costs paid for the same period in 2008 of
which US$2.6 million was paid by insurance.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace,
petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company has two segments:
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products and Energy
Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Leslie Recovery Receivable Reduced by $2.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
has reduced its asbestos insurance recovery receivable by US$2.1
million in the first quarter of 2009.

During the first quarter of 2009, one of Leslie's other primary
insurers, Continental Casualty, a CNA company, informed Leslie
that indemnity payments had exhausted a three-year policy
covering Leslie from 1967 through 1970. In so claiming,
Continental expressed its belief that the policy in question
contained a single aggregate limit of US$1 million for the
three-year period rather than annual limits of US$1 million for
each of the three years.

As a result of the revised claimed coverage limit, Continental
said it believes that its allocation under the cost sharing
arrangement is now 15.44 percent, compared with the 27 percent
historically paid by Continental.

Leslie has reaffirmed its position that there are two additional
years of insurance coverage with US$1 million policy limits.

As of March 29, 2009, the Company said it believes that the
aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining on
Leslie's primary layer of insurance was US$6.1 million.

After giving effect to the Company's accrual for adverse
verdicts currently on appeal, the remaining amount of Leslie's
primary layer of insurance is US$4.1 million.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace,
petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company has two segments:
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products and Energy
Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Spence & Hoke Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiaries (Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. and Hoke, Inc.) are still facing
asbestos-related claims.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984. The Company acquired Hoke
in 1998.

Based in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and fluid control products for the industrial, aerospace,
petrochemical, and energy markets. The Company has two segments:
Instrumentation and Thermal Fluid Controls Products and Energy
Products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AbitibiBowater Facing 800 Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbitibiBowater Inc. continues to face 800 asbestos-related
claims from its predecessor, Bowater Incorporated, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 30, 2009.

AbitibiBowater faced 800 asbestos-related claims from Bowater.
(Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

Since late 2001, Bowater, several other paper companies, and
numerous other companies have been named as defendants in
asbestos personal injury actions. These actions generally allege
occupational exposure to numerous products.

These suits have been filed by about 1,800 claimants who sought
monetary damages in civil actions pending in state courts in
Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, New York,
Tennessee and Texas.

About 1,000 of these claims have been dismissed, either
voluntarily or by summary judgment.

The additions related to mill closures in 2008 include US$7
million of obligations associated with the permanent closure of
the Company's previously idled Donnacona paper mill, US$4
million associated with the permanent closure of its previously
idled Mackenzie paper mill and US$16 million associated with the
closure of the Company's Grand Falls paper mill.

These obligations include soil and groundwater testing and
remediation, capping of landfills, wharf decommissioning,
asbestos removal and removal of chemicals and other related
materials.

Based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, AbitibiBowater Inc. produces
newsprint and coated and specialty papers, market pulp and wood
products globally. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company owned or
operated 24 pulp and paper facilities and 30 wood products
facilities located in Canada, the United States, the United
Kingdom and South Korea.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Facing 24,000 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. faced about 24,000 pending asbestos product
liability claims as of March 31, 2009, compared with 27,000
claims as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 30, 2009.

Of the 24,000 outstanding claims at March 31, 2009, about 13,000
are pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.

In the first three months of 2009, of about 3,000 claims
resolved, about 43 (1.5 percent) resulted in any payment being
made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2008, of
about 17,500 claims resolved, about 210 (1.2 percent) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company.

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

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses under a
funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$52.1
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received US$14.8 million in cash from
insurers. The outstanding balance of US$37.3 million is expected
to be fully recovered. Timing of the recovery is dependent on
final resolution of a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31,
2008, insurers owed US$35.9 million in association with these
claims.

At March 31, 2009, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$36.5 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$36.5 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance
receivable and accrued liability was US$34.7 million.

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers of light vehicles
(i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross-over
vehicles, vans and light-trucks). The Company also manufactures
and sells its products into the aftermarket for light and
commercial vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Facing CNA Coverage Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers still face an asbestos-related declaratory
judgment action filed by Continental Casualty Company and
related companies (CNA).

The suit was filed in January 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill.

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned. On August 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim
order regarding the apportionment matter.

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

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

Based in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers of light vehicles
(i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross-over
vehicles, vans and light-trucks). The Company also manufactures
and sells its products into the aftermarket for light and
commercial vehicles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Grace Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which
affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's Order disallowing 44 claimants'
asbestos property damage claims against W. R. Grace & Co.

Judges Theodore McKee, D. Brooks Smith, and Jane Richards Rothe
entered judgment in Case No. 08-1044 on March 11, 2009.

Grace filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on April 2, 2001.
In April 2002, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order that
established March 31, 2003 as the "bar date," the date by which
proofs or claims must be filed.

After the bar date the law firm of Speights & Runyan filed 2,938
asbestos property damage claims against Grace. None were
personally signed by the claimants. Instead, either Daniel
Speights, Esq., or Amanda Steinmeyer, Esq., both of S & R,
signed the claims. This prompted the Bankruptcy Court to order S
& R to categorize all of its asbestos property damage claims
based "upon the authority by which it had filed the claims."

For the 44 claims at issue, claimants conceded that they
authorized S & R to bring their claims after the bar date. The
Bankruptcy Court thus entered the Order disallowing and
expunging the claims.

Claimants appealed, and the District Court affirmed. Claimants
now appealed the District Court's Order.

Janet S. Baer, Esq., Lisa G. Esayian, Esq., David M. Bernick,
Esq., Christopher Landau, Esq., Gregory L. Skidmore, Esq., of
Kirkland & Ellis, and James E. O'Neill, III, Esq., of Pachulski
Stang Ziehl & Jones in Wilmington, Del., represented the
Debtors.

Marion C. Fairey, Jr., Esq., Speights & Runyan, Daniel A.
Speights, Esq., Law Office of Daniel A. Speights in Hampton,
S.C., Christopher D. Loizides, Esq., of Loizides & Associates in
Wilmington, Del., represented Appellants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Still Has Miss. Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pride International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, since
2004, have been facing asbestos exposure suits filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

These suits were filed by several hundred individuals that
allege that they were employed by some of the named defendants
between 1965 and 1986. The complaints allege that certain
drilling contractors used products containing asbestos in their
operations and seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Based in Houston, Pride International, Inc. is an offshore
drilling contractor operating, as of April 30, 2009, a fleet of
44 rigs, consisting of two ultra-deepwater drillships, 12
semisubmersible rigs, 27 jackups and three managed deepwater
drilling rigs. The Company also has


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Cases at March 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 4,700 asbestos liability cases are pending against Tyco
International Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of March 27, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2009.

About 4,800 asbestos-related liability cases as of Dec. 26, 2008
were pending against the Company and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2009)

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on a
subsidiary's property. A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims, based principally on allegations of past
distribution of heat-resistant industrial products incorporating
asbestos or the past distribution of industrial valves that
incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets or packing. Each case
typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate
defendants.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and, as a result, have
been dismissed by the courts.

When appropriate, the Company settles claims. Although in the
past the total amount paid in any year to settle and defend all
asbestos claims has been immaterial, the Company has recently
experienced an increase in the number of lawsuits that have
proceeded to trial.

Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial in 2008 and 2009,
the Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one
case returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million,
which included both compensatory and punitive damages. The
Company has appealed the verdict.

Based in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Tyco International Ltd.
operates in the following business segments: ADT Worldwide, Flow
Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. In addition, Safety Products
manufactures products installed and serviced by ADT Worldwide
and Fire Protection Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be subject to unresolved legal
actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal
course of business.

The most prevalent of these unresolved actions involve disputes
related to product design, manufacture and performance liability
(including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues or intellectual property rights.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2009.

Based in Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar Inc. makes earthmoving
machinery supplies agricultural equipment. The Company makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power
generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells
its equipment via 3,600 locations in 180 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Bradfords' Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana granted
Thomas and Patricia Ann Bradford's Motion to Remand in a case
involving asbestos filed against Cameron International
Corporation and other defendants.

The case is styled Thomas Bradford and Patricia Ann Bradford v.
The McCarty Corporation, et al.

U.S. District Judge James J. Brady entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-746-JVP-SCR on March 12, 2009.

The Bradfords originally filed this action in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana, on Oct. 14, 2008. The petition alleged that Mr.
Bradford suffers from asbestos-related lung disease and other
related physical symptoms as a result of the negligence of the
defendants, who mined, produced, processed and/or manufactured,
installed, maintained, sold, or distributed asbestos or asbestos
containing products to which he was exposed.

Cameron International removed the action on Nov. 14, 2008,
alleging that the Bradfords had fraudulently joined two non-
diverse defendants, Anco Insulations, Inc. and McCarty
Corporation, solely to defeat diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the motion to remand by the Bradfords was granted
and the action was remanded to the Nineteenth Judicial District,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Florida Jury Awards $995T to McBride Widow
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Bay County, Fla., on April 28, 2009, awarded
US$995,600 in damages and medical bills to Betty McBride for the
wrongful asbestos-related death of her husband, Woodrow McBride,
the News Herald reports.

Trial in the case began on April 20, 2009.

The jury awarded Mrs. McBride US$245,600 for Mr. McBride's
medical bills. She also was awarded US$225,000 for past pain and
suffering and US$525,000 for future pain and suffering.

Mr. McBride filed a wrongful death lawsuit on Aug. 10, 2006,
against Foster Wheeler AG, General Electric Company and a number
of other companies that had products in two Panhandle power
plants that Mr. McBride worked in from 1968 to 1996. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2005 and died on Sept.
20, 2006 at the age of 67.

On April 28, 2009, jurors found that there was no negligence on
any of the companies' parts, but Gulf Power Company and Foster
Wheeler did have a product that was the cause of Mr. McBride's
mesothelioma.

The jury found Gulf Power to be 60 percent liable and Foster
Wheeler 25 percent liable. According to the verdict, Gulf
Power's portion of the judgment would be US$597,360.

Mr. McBride worked at Smith Power Plant in Southport from 1968
to 1969 and 1975 to 1996 and at Crist Power Plant in Pensacola
from 1969 1975.

During that time, according to court records, he was exposed to
asbestos, specifically during the installation and maintenance
of several Foster Wheeler boilers, which used asbestos as
insulation.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Equitable to Pay $500T for Exposure Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable L.P., a developer based in Des Moines, Iowa, agreed to
a US$500,000 penalty after asbestos was found in a downtown
building undergoing renovation, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The fine came after state tests showed asbestos throughout the
historic building, part of which was being renovated for luxury
condominiums. The 19-story building was built in 1924.

Bob Knapp, Equitable's owner, and the Iowa Attorney General's
office agreed to the fine on May 5, 2009 in Polk County District
Court.

The Iowa Environmental Protection Commission referred the case
to the AG's office because inspectors thought the US$10,000
maximum fine allowed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
was too small.

Iowa AG Tom Miller said the fine against Equitable was the
state's largest civil penalty for an asbestos violation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ariz. Schools Fined $35.7T for AHERA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined five Arizona
charter school operators a combined total of US$35,700 for
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) violations,
according to an EPA press release dated May 4, 2009.

In April 2007, EPA inspectors discovered the school operators
failed to conduct inspections to determine if asbestos-
containing material was present in school buildings, and all had
failed to develop asbestos management plans. The schools have
since completed inspections and have developed asbestos
management plans.

Katherine Taylor, associate director for the Communities and
Ecosystems Division in EPA's Pacific Southwest region, said,
"All schools, including charter schools, need to conduct
asbestos inspections and have asbestos management plans. We are
pleased that these schools have now conducted inspections and
put asbestos management plans into place, as asbestos in schools
has the potential for endangering the health of students,
teachers, and others, including maintenance workers."

The schools are:

-- Phoenix Advantage Charter School: The operator, Phoenix
   Advantage Charter School, Inc. was fined US$12,600. The
   school's first management plan documented over 10,000 square
   feet of assumed asbestos-containing materials. The revised
   management plan shows after more testing and abatement
   actions, the school building still contains 3,200 square feet
   of actual or assumed asbestos-containing materials.

-- The Arts Academy at Estrella Mountain and South Mountain: The
   operator, PCL Charter Schools, was fined US$10,200. The
   Estrella Mountain location was found to not have any asbestos
   containing materials, while the South Mountain location's
   management plan shows that the school contains 2,059 square
   feet of asbestos-containing materials.

-- The Hearn Academy: The operator, Ball Hearn, was fined
   US$8,800 and the school was found to contain 1,230 square
   feet of asbestos-containing materials.

-- Tucson Preparatory School: The operator, Tucson Preparatory
   Partnership, Inc., was fined US$200 for not having a
   management plan at its former location on North Oracle Road.
   An asbestos inspection conducted by the new tenants of the
   North Oracle building identified no asbestos-containing
   materials.

-- AAEC at Paradise Valley, South Mountain, and Red Mountain:
   The operator, Arizona Agribusiness & Equine Center, Inc. was
   fined US$3,900 for failing to conduct an inspection of
   Paradise Valley school and for not having management plans at
   its Paradise Valley, South Mountain, and Red Mountain
   schools. No asbestos-containing materials were identified at
   these schools.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the
management plan in their administrative office and at the
school, which must be made available for inspection by parents,
teachers, and the general public.

For more information on asbestos in schools visit:
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbestos_in_schools.html


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Startup to Get $5M to Update Piping System
----------------------------------------------------------------
The town of Startup, Wash., will receive US$5.1 million from the
U.S. Department of Health's Office of Drinking Water to upgrade
the town's asbestos-cement water pipes, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

Startup water commissioner Karen Eaton was becoming increasingly
fearful of the health impact the deteriorating water pipes under
the town could have.

The water commissioners first realized the pipes were rotten
after a series of waterline breaks. The town was forced to pay
out thousands to repair a series of breaks in the mains. The
fire department became reluctant to conduct training exercises,
in fear of doing further damage to the water system.

However, what was even more concerning was the knowledge that
asbestos in the pipes could build up to dangerous levels,
putting the town at risk.

The entire project is expected to take about two years to
complete.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.H. Supreme Court Favors Brewery Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire Supreme Court, on May 1, 2009, reversed a
ruling denying George Gamas, a former Anheuser-Busch Companies,
Inc. brewery worker, benefits for an asbestos-related lung
condition, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Gamas worked at the Merrimack, N.H., brewery for more than
20 years.

A compensation appeals' board rejected Mr. Gamas' attempt to
collect workers' compensation benefits because it said he had
waited too long to file a complaint. The Supreme Court sent the
case back for further review.

The court said that even though Mr. Gamas did not file a
complaint until 2006, he effectively put the Company on notice
two years earlier when he spoke to an Anheuser-Busch lawyer for
a separate civil suit.

The Court also said the law regarding how workers must notify
employers was ambiguous.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mortlake Widow Seeks Help in Payout Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Thatcher, the widow of Mortlake, England, brewery worker
Albert Thatcher, is calling for any of his former colleagues to
help in her claim for asbestos compensation, the Richmond-
Twickenham Times reports.

Mr. Thatcher, who died at the age of 67 from mesothelioma, spent
most of his life in Mortlake before retiring in 2006. He started
work at the former Watney's Brewery in the 1950s when he was 15.

An inquest into Mr. Thatcher's death in December 2008 recorded a
verdict of industrial disease. His wife is searching for
information about how it happened and also seeks to raise
awareness of International Workers Memorial Day held on April
28, 2009, which remembers workers who have been killed or
injured as a result of their work.

Mrs. Thatcher's solicitor Tariq Khan said, "Workers Memorial Day
is a time for reflection and to remember workers like Albert who
have been killed through simply trying to earn a living."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rodarmel's Family Gets $2M in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in McLean County, Ill., on April 30, 2009, awarded
Juanita Rodarmel's family more than US$2 million in damages over
Mrs. Rodarmel's exposure to asbestos, the Pantagraph reports.

Mrs. Rodarmel contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to
asbestos when she laundered the clothing of her first husband,
Leslie Corry, a worker at the former Union Asbestos & Rubber
Company, according to a lawsuit filed by Bloomington, Ill.,
lawyers James Wylder, Esq., and Lisa Corwin, Esq., on behalf of
Mrs. Rodarmel's family.

Mr. Corry worked at the Bloomington plant, later called UNARCO
Industries Inc., during the 1950s.

The jury also awarded US$100,000 in punitive damages against
Pneumo Abex, LLC and US$400,000 against Honeywell International,
Inc.

Attorneys for the family argued that the two companies conspired
with other firms, including UNARCO, Johns-Manville, Raybestos-
Manhattan, Owens-Illinois, Owens Corning and Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company to suppress information about the hazards of
asbestos.

The verdict was returned after a three-week trial in front of
Judge Scott Drazewski.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McCaig Dropped From Montana Action v. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, on April 30, 2009, dismissed
charges against former W. R. Grace & Co. executive William
McCaig in the environmental crimes trial faced by the Company
and several former executives, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean asked that the charges
against Mr. McCaig be dropped. Judge Molloy granted the request.

Judge Molloy dismissed former executive Robert Walsh as a
defendant earlier, also at the request of prosecutors. That
leaves three former executives and the Company as defendants in
the case alleging they knowingly allowed human exposure to
asbestos from the Company's vermiculite mine near Libby, Mont.

Lawyers for some residents blame asbestos for killing 225 people
and sickening about 2,000 in and around the community.

Several motions for acquittal are still pending, which Judge
Molloy can either rule on before the jury begins deliberations,
or reserve judgment and wait until after a verdict is returned.
If the jury convicts the Company and the three former
executives, Judge Molloy could still rule that the government
failed to prove its case. If the jury acquits, the motions would
be dismissed as moot.

Earlier on April 30, 2009, jurors heard testimony from William
Corcoran, Grace's vice president of public and regulatory
affairs.

In 2000, Mr. Corcoran wrote a letter urging the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency not to declare a federal public
health emergency due to asbestos-containing attic insulation, a
Grace product used in millions of homes.

Mr. Corcoran wrote that the Company's own product testing showed
there were no health hazards related to the product unless it
was disturbed, and he defended that assertion on April 30, 2009.

A portion of the letter is included in the indictment against
the Company as proof the Company obstructed U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency cleanup efforts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defense Rests Case in Mont. Action v. Grace
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defense lawyers for W. R. Grace & Co. and three former
executives rested their case on May 5, 2009, following one
attorney's examination of Melvin Parker, a sickened Libby,
Mont., resident, the Missoulian reports.

Mr. Parker purchased a tract of contaminated mining property
from the Company.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kris McLean, the lead prosecutor for the
government, said he intends to call one rebuttal witness. That
witness will likely be Paul Peronard, an emergency response
coordinator with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Peronard was among the first government officials to arrive
in Libby in 1999 to begin investigating reports of widespread
asbestos contamination.

On May 5, 2009, Mr. Parker was questioned by defense attorney
Thomas Frongillo, Esq., who is representing former Grace vice
president Robert Bettacchi.

Mr. Frongillo questioned the veracity of Mr. Parker's previous
testimony, specifically statements the Libby resident made about
having no knowledge of the hazardous conditions of the property
when he bought it. Mr. Frongillo concluded the examination by
accusing Mr. Parker of being an outright liar, saying he feigned
ignorance about the hazards of asbestos.

Mr. Frongillo said Mr. Parker knew all about the extent of the
contamination, and yet "decided to go forward [with the land
purchase] with your eyes wide open."

Mr. Parker bought the land in 1993 in order to build a tree
nursery with his wife, Lerah, who also has asbestos-related
disease due to the exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Thorpe Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California,
reversed a ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
which denied California Union Insurance Company's motion in an
asbestos case styled Thorpe Insulation Company, Plaintiff and
Respondent v. Century Indemnity Company, Defendant and
Appellant.

Judges H. Walter Croskey, Joan D. Klein, and Patti S. Kitching
entered judgment in Case No. No. B197747 on March 16, 2009.

Thorpe Insulation Company was a manufacturer and installer of
asbestos-containing products. Several asbestos producers and
insurers of those producers signed an agreement to collectively
administer asbestos claims (Wellington Agreement). Thorpe was a
signatory.

Under the Wellington Agreement, signatory asbestos producers
agreed to arbitrate disputes with any of their insurers that had
also signed the agreement. Thorpe subsequently brought suit
against numerous insurers.

One such insurer, Century Indemnity Company, the successor in
interest to Cal Union, sought to compel arbitration under the
Wellington Agreement, on the basis that it, too, was a
Wellington signatory.

Cal Union had not itself executed the Wellington Agreement;
instead, it considered itself a party to the Wellington
Agreement because the agreement had been executed on behalf of
the "Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Companies," of which it
was one.

The trial court denied the motion to compel on the basis that
Cal Union had failed to establish that it was a signatory to the
Wellington Agreement.

The order denying Cal Union's motion to compel Wellington
arbitration is reversed and the matter was remanded for further
proceedings.

O'Melveny & Myers (Richard B. Goetz, Esq., Paul G. McNamara,
Esq., Steven H. Bergman, Esq., and Cynthia A. Merrill, Esq.),
White & Williams and Patricia B. Santelle, Esq., represented
Century Indemnity Company.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (Michel Y. Horton, Esq., Charles J.
Malaret, Esq., and Thomas M. Peterson, Esq.) represented Thorpe
Insulation Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators' Reserves at $16.83M at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment
expense reserves for asbestos exposures were US$16,836,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$16,683,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for asbestos exposures
were US$21,732,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$21,774,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at March 31, 2009 are for:

-- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
   exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in
   the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
   paid over several years (two other large settled claims were
   fully paid in 2007);

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
   distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
   incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
   products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
   over time.

Substantially all of the Company's asbestos liability reserves
are included in its marine loss reserves.

The Company said it believes that there are no remaining known
claims where it would suffer a material loss as a result of
excess policy limits being exposed to class action suits for
insureds involved in the manufacturing or distribution of
asbestos products.

The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$8.2
million at March 31, 2009, compared with US$8.9 million at Dec.
31, 2008.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an insurance
holding company focusing on specialty products for niches within
the overall property/casualty insurance market. Its largest
product line and most long-standing area of specialization is
ocean marine insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster Has $277.02M in Losses, ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net unpaid losses and allocated
loss adjustment expense for asbestos exposures were
US$277,024,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$351,016,000 during the three months ended March
31, 2008.

The Company's net unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos and
environmental exposures were US$401.1 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with US$442.8 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009)

The Company's gross unpaid losses and ALAE for asbestos
exposures were US$372,456,000 during the three months ended
March 31, 2009, compared with US$434,194,000 during the three
months ended March 31, 2008.

Based in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a
commercial property and casualty insurance company with a
focused underwriting strategy, targeting specialty classes of
business and underserved market opportunities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Energy Future Records $867M ARO at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement liability at
March 31, 2009 was US$867 million, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2009.

These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities
and generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Energy Future Holdings Corp.
1601 Bryan Street
Dallas, Tex. 75201-3411
Tel. No.: (214) 812-4600

Description:
The Company is a holding company conducting operations
principally through its Texas Competitive Electric Holdings
Company LLC and its TCEH and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Consolidated Edison, Inc. still are defendants
in lawsuits in New York State and federal courts, wherein
plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for deaths
and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various
premises of the Utilities.

These Utilities are: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

Some suits have been resolved without any payment by the
Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,
material to them.

In 2008, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$9
million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed
or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. Con Edison of New York is
permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery
through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and
workers' compensation claims.

For the Company, the accrued liability for asbestos suits was
US$10 million at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The
regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million at March
31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$114 million at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31,
2008. The regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$37
million at March 31, 2009 and US$38 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

For Con Edison of New York, the accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$9 million at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The
regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$9 million at March
31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$108 million at March 31, 2009 and US$109
million at Dec. 31, 2008. The regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$37 million at March 31, 2009 and US$38
million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more
than 424,350 electric and gas customers in three states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Over 90 Steam Main Actions Ongoing v. ConEd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 90 lawsuits are pending against Consolidated Edison, Inc.
concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York's steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July 2007.

It has been reported that one person died and others were
injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and
mud containing asbestos. The response to the incident required
the closing of several buildings and streets for various
periods.

The cases seek unspecified compensatory and, in some cases,
punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and
business interruption.

The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The
Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it
believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident
will cover most of the costs, which the Company is unable to
estimate to satisfy its liability to others in connection with
the incident.

Based in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more
than 424,350 electric and gas customers in three states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stay in Parsons Lawsuit v. Still in Effect
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos action, pending in a West Virginia court and filed
against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., continues to
be stayed, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become
addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Based in Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc. makes
cigarettes and tobacco. Its wholly owned subsidiaries include
its operating subsidiaries, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company;
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; Lane, Limited; R. J.
Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Company, LLC,
Conwood Sales Co., LLC, Scott Tobacco LLC and Rosswil LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.151B Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos reserves were US$1.151
billion at March 31, 2009, compared with US$1.202 billion at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009.

There was no asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment
reserve development recorded for the three months ended March
31, 2009. The Company recorded US$2 million of unfavorable
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the three months ended March 31, 2008.

The Company paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance
recoveries, of US$51 million for the three months ended March
31, 2009 and US$49 million for the three months ended March 31,
2008.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid on A.P. Green Plan Confirmation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that several insurers' appeal on
the confirmation of A.P. Green's plan of reorganization is still
pending, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved
asbestos-related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P.
Green Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak
Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003. The debtor's plan of reorganization
includes an injunction to protect the Company from any future
claims.

The bankruptcy court issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007
recommending confirmation of that plan. On July 25, 2008, the
District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling.

Several insurers have appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Fin'l. Still Involved in Keasbey Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation continues to be involved in insurance
coverage litigation in New York State Court with a defendant
class of underlying plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury
claims against the former Robert A. Keasbey Company.

The action styled Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. of
Wausau et al., No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County) was filed in 2003.

Keasbey, a currently dissolved corporation, was a seller and
installer of asbestos-containing insulation products in New York
and New Jersey. Thousands of plaintiffs have filed bodily injury
claims against Keasbey.

However, under New York court rules, asbestos claims are not
cognizable unless they meet certain minimum medical impairment
standards. Since 2002, when these court rules were adopted, only
a small portion of such claims have met medical impairment
criteria under New York court rules and as to the remaining
claims, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.

The Company issued Keasbey primary policies for 1970-1987 and
excess policies for 1971-1978. The Company has paid an amount
substantially equal to the policies' aggregate limits for
products and completed operations claims in the confirmed CNA
policies.

Claimants against Keasbey allege that the Company owes coverage
under sections of the policies not subject to the aggregate
limits. In the litigation, the Company and the claimants seek
declaratory relief as to the interpretation of various policy
provisions.

On Dec. 30, 2008, a New York appellate court entered a unanimous
decision in favor of the Company on multiple alternative grounds
including findings that claims arising out of Keasbey's asbestos
insulating activities are included within the products
hazard/completed operations coverage, which has been exhausted;
and that the defendant claimant class is subject to the
affirmative defenses that the Company may have had against
Keasbey, barring all coverage claims.

The parties have the right to seek further appellate review of
the decision.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burns & Roe's Plan Confirmed on February 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAN Financial Corporation says that Burns & Roe Enterprises,
Inc.'s Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization was confirmed on
Feb. 23, 2009.

The Company has insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos
bodily injury claims against Burns & Roe, a bankrupt insured.
These disputes are currently part of coverage litigation (stayed
in view of the bankruptcy) and an adversary proceeding in In re:
Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-41610.

Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.

At the time of its bankruptcy filing, on Dec. 4, 2000, Burns &
Roe asserted that it faced about 11,000 claims alleging bodily
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a result of
construction projects in which Burns & Roe was involved.

The Company allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970. In September 2007, the
Company entered into an agreement with Burns & Roe, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed by the Bankruptcy
Court and the Future Claims Representative (Addendum), which
provides that claims allegedly covered by CNA policies will be
adjudicated in the tort system, with any coverage disputes
related to those claims to be decided in coverage litigation.

With the approval of the Bankruptcy Court, Burns & Roe included
the Addendum as part of its Fourth Amended Plan.

On March 5, 2009, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. filed a motion to
clarify and modify the confirmation order.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Units Still Have Inactive Cases in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inactive asbestos-related cases continue to be pending against
CNA Financial Corporation subsidiaries in Texas courts.

About 80 lawsuits were filed in Texas beginning in 2002, against
two CNA companies and numerous other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (e.g. Boson v. Union Carbide Corp.,
(Nueces County, Tex.)).

During 2003, several of the Texas suits were dismissed and while
certain of the Texas courts' rulings were appealed, plaintiffs
later dismissed their appeals.

A different Texas court, however, denied similar motions seeking
dismissal. After that court denied a related challenge to
jurisdiction, the insurers transferred the case to a state
multi-district litigation court in Harris County charged with
handling asbestos cases.

In February 2006, the insurers petitioned the appellate court in
Houston for an order of mandamus, requiring the multi-district
litigation court to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds. On Feb. 29, 2008, the appellate court
denied the insurers' mandamus petition on procedural grounds,
but did not reach a decision on the merits of the petition.

Instead, the appellate court allowed to stand the multi-district
litigation court's determination that the case remained on its
inactive docket and that no further action can be taken unless
qualifying reports are filed or the filing of such reports is
waived.

With respect to the cases that are still pending in Texas, in
June 2008, plaintiffs in the only active case dropped the
remaining CNA company from that suit.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Confirmation Hearing Set to June 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that a confirmation hearing on W.
R. Grace & Co.'s Plan of Reorganization is currently scheduled
to begin in June 2009.

On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W. R. Grace & Co. and
their spouses against the Company, Maryland Casualty and the
State of Montana.

This suit is styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.
and pending in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis &
Clark County, Mont.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos
at a Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont. The
Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's
pending bankruptcy.

On April 7, 2008, Grace announced a settlement in principle with
the asbestos personal injury claimants committee subject to
confirmation of a plan of reorganization by the bankruptcy
court.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has 1,283 Pending Accounts at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation recorded 1,283 pending asbestos
accounts at March 31, 2009, compared with 1,302 accounts at Dec.
31, 2008.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had 59 accounts with settlement
agreements, 240 large asbestos accounts, and 984 small asbestos
accounts. At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 57 accounts with
settlement agreements, 236 large asbestos accounts, and 1,009
small asbestos accounts.

The Company has resolved a number of its large asbestos accounts
by negotiating settlement agreements. Structured settlement
agreements provide for payments over multiple years as set forth
in each individual agreement.

In 1985, 47 asbestos producers and their insurers, including The
Continental Insurance Company, executed the Wellington
Agreement. The agreement was intended to resolve all issues and
litigation related to coverage for asbestos exposures.

Under this agreement, signatory insurers committed scheduled
policy limits and made the limits available to pay asbestos
claims based upon coverage blocks designated by the
policyholders in 1985, subject to extension by policyholders.
CIC was a signatory insurer to the Wellington Agreement.

The Company defines a large account as an active account with
more than US$100,000 of cumulative paid losses. The Company made
resolving large accounts a significant management priority.

Small accounts are defined as active accounts with US$100,000 or
less of cumulative paid losses. About 80 percent at March 31,
2009 and 81 percent at Dec. 31, 2008 of the Company's total
active asbestos accounts are classified as small accounts.

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation's core property and
casualty insurance operations are reported in two business
segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. The Company's
insurance products include commercial property and casualty
coverages. Non-core insurance products include life and accident
and health insurance; retirement products and annuities; and
property and casualty reinsurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Has 2,680 Respirator Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of March 31, 2009, faced respirator mask and
asbestos lawsuits that purport to represent 2,680 individual
claimants, similar to the number of individual claimants with
actions pending at Dec. 31, 2008.

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

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

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products
and services. It manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services,
Display and Graphics and Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Still Has $35MM March 31 Aearo Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of
March 31, 2009, has recorded US$35 million as an estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.

Aearo, as of Dec. 31, 2008, recorded US$35 million as an
estimate of the probable liabilities for product liabilities and
defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related
asbestos and silica-related claims. (Class Action Reporter, Feb.
20, 2009)

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

As of March 31, 2009, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts.

Plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

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

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products
and services. It manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services,
Display and Graphics and Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Cites $133M Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's liabilities for asbestos or respirator mask claims
were US$133 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$140
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos or respirator
mask claims were US$180 million as of March 31, 2009, compared
with US$193 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products
and services. It manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services,
Display and Graphics and Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Continental Case v. 3M Ongoing in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos insurance lawsuit filed by insurers Continental
Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. against 3M Company and
other parties is ongoing in Ramsey County, Minn.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance both part of
the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask or asbestos claims.

These insurers represent US$14 million of a US$180 million
insurance recovery receivable.

The action seeks declaratory judgment regarding the allocation
of covered costs among the policies issued by the various
insurers. It was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and names the
Company and over 60 of its insurers.

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

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that
names some additional insurers and deletes others. The case
remains in its early stages.

As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the
Company was paid US$13 million in the first quarter of 2009 and
the Company currently has an agreement in place to receive
another US$5 million in payments in the second quarter of 2009
in connection with the respirator mask/asbestos receivable.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a manufacturer,
technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products
and services. It manages its operations in six operating
business segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care,
Consumer and Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services,
Display and Graphics and Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Faces 10,600 Cases at March 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Ltd.'s subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc., as of March 27,
2009, faced about 10,600 pending asbestos liability cases,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009.

Mallinckrodt faced about 10,500 pending asbestos liability cases
as of Dec. 26, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2009)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.

The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal
injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to
products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.

Based in Dublin, Ireland, Covidien Ltd. develops, manufactures
and sells healthcare products for use in clinical and home
settings. The Company operates through four segments: Medical
Devices, Imaging Solutions, Pharmaceutical Products, and Medical
Supplies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eight Lorillard Filter Cases Set for Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of April 27, 2009, eight asbestos-
related Filter Cases are scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2009.

As of Feb. 20, 2009, seven asbestos-related Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2009)

Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary
Lorillard Tobacco Company by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited
period of time ending more than 50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco
is a defendant in 29 of those cases.

The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since Jan. 1, 2007, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
US$14.2 million in settlements to finally resolve 70 claims.

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

Based in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. manufactures
cigarettes. Brands include Newport, Kent, True, Maverick, Old
Gold, and Max. In the United States and certain U.S. possessions
and territories, the Company shipped 7.9 billion cigarettes in
the first three months of 2009 and 37.8 billion cigarettes for
full year 2008.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Liabilities Remain at $19.64MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos liabilities were at
US$19,644,000 at March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos liabilities were at US$4,632,000
at March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivables were US$19,416,000 at
March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Current asbestos insurance receivables were US$1,632,000 at
March 31, 2009, the same as for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures products for applications in markets including:
portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer
and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation,
aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Faces 185 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation faced 185 pending asbestos claims as of March
31, 2009, compared with 165 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2009.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi. Of the 185 claims
pending as of March 31, 2009, about 61 claims do not specify the
amount of damages sought, about 120 claims cite jurisdictional
amounts, and four claims (or 2.2 percent of the pending claims)
specify the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional
requirements.

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

In the three month period ended March 31, 2009, the Company was
able to have five claims dismissed and settled four claims. For
the full year 2008, about 83 claims were dismissed and four were
settled. Those settlements totaled about US$1.7 million in the
first quarter of 2009, compared with about US$1.5 million for
the full year 2008.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures products for applications in markets including:
portable communications, communications infrastructure, computer
and office equipment, consumer products, ground transportation,
aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Facing 9T Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. says that, as of March 31, 2009, it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about
9,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2009.

The number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims
pending against the Company declined more than 20 percent to
about 11,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, compared with about 14,000
pending as of year-end 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30,
2009)

The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial
number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of
exposure to dust from asbestos fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of Dec. 31,
2008, about 84 percent of plaintiffs either do not specify the
monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim
an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the
trial court. About 15 percent of plaintiffs specifically plead
damages of US$15 million or less, and 0.4 percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages greater than US$15 million but less
than US$100 million. Fewer than one percent of plaintiffs
specifically plead damages US$100 million or greater but less
than US$122 million.

The Company said it believes that as of March 31, 2009 there are
about 800 claims against other defendants which are likely to be
asserted some time in the future against the Company. The
Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits
or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of
March 31, 2009, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about
370,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of about US$7,300. Deferred amounts payable totaled
about US$33.1 million at March 31, 2009 (US$34 million at Dec.
31, 2008) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity
payment per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.47 billion through 2008, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes recyclable
glass containers. The Company employs more than 23,000 people
with 80 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries. In 2008, net
sales were US$7.9 billion.


                            *********

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  * * *