CAR_Public/090515.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 95

                           Headlines

BASIN WATER: Aug. 13, 2009 Hearing Set for $7M Suit Settlement
BIG 5: Appeal to Dismissal of "Zimerman" Suit Pending in Calif.
BIG 5: Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation in California Final
CASH STORE: Settles B.C. Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees, Interest
CENTERPLATE INC: June 11 Hearing Set For Conn. Suit Settlement

DAUPHIN COUNTY: Reaches $2.16M Settlement For Strip Search Suit
ENVISION EMI: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Presidential Inauguration
FUZE BEVERAGE: July 31, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.5M Settlement
GEVITY HR: Reaches Settlement For Fla. Suit Over TriNet Merger
GUIDANT CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Class in Pacemaker Lawsuit

HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Suit
HARBOUR CAPITAL: Faces N.H. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
IDEARC INC: Pa. Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
METROLINK: Calif. Judge Dismisses Motion in Derailment Lawsuit

NEW MEXICO: Attorney General Faces Lawsuit Over Cockfighting Ban
NISOURCE INC: Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claims Pending
NISOURCE INC: Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky Remain Pending
NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Administers Tawney Settlement Proceeds
PANERA BREAD: Reaches $671T Settlement For "Johns" Litigation

PFIZER INC: Sept. 25 Hearing Set For $89M Calif. Suit Settlement
PITNEY BOWES: Faces $20M Litigation in N.Y. Over Postage Meters
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Approves $11M Suit Settlement
REDBACK NETWORKS: Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Calif. Suit
ROBERT COPELAND: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Elaborate Ponzi Scheme

ROHM & HAAS: Ky. Residents Expresses Concern Over Settlements
WACHOVIA CORP: Calif. Judge Give Preliminary OK to $39M Deal


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Hymel Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Liberty Mutual Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Lloyd Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Fresenius Medical Still Stayed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Faces 10,300 Cases (42,800 Claims)

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,401 Abex Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $811.7MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $183.3M Receivable at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Still Records $8M Expense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Gets $1.061B Tax Refund Approval in '09

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,184 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,802 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $11MM Defense at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Still Has $403Mil Receivable

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Case Pending in N.Y.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Brown Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.8M Settled Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.1M ARO at March 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.1M for Cleanup at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Cites $5.4MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. AK Steel
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases v. McKesson Increase to 475
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Party to Lawsuits in Texas

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Party to Lawsuits in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Facing 777 Cases w/ 7,498 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Facing Exposure Lawsuits in 3 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Has Pending Injury Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Facing 114 Injury Cases at April 20
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Ind. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Machinist Gets $12.1MM in Compensation

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Former Execs Cleared in Libby Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Developer Charged for Exposing Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Victims to Appeal for Financial Aid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Budget Hike Approved for Mo. Court Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Worker Compensation Claim Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Blasts Waters & Kraus in Injury Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tatera Lawsuit v. FMC Reinstated on May 12
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Jury Favors Defense in Gersten Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Liberty Mutual Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 41 Pending Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Still Faces Suits in Mississippi
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,065 Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Still Has 39 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Still Facing Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Has $7.02M Claims Reserve at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $43.44M Receivables at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Party to ACE Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Accrues $375T in Allstate Case


                           *********

BASIN WATER: Aug. 13, 2009 Hearing Set for $7M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 13, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. for
the proposed $7,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Basin
Water, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. Cv-07-08359-
GW(FFMx)."

The hearing will be held before Judge George H. Wu at the U.S.
Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, Calif.

On Feb. 19, 2009, Basin Water, Inc. reached an agreement in
principle to settle a consolidated purported securities fraud
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Class Action Reporter, April 22,
2009).

On Dec. 27, 2007, and Jan. 2, 2008, two purported securities
class-action complaints were filed against Basin Water, Inc.,
Peter L. Jensen, Michael M. Stark and Thomas C. Tekulve for
violations of the Exchange Act.

These suits, which contain similar allegations, are captioned,
"Poulos v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 07-8359 GW (FFMx),"
and "Nofer v. Basin Water, et al., Case No. CV 08-0002 SGL
(JCRx)."

The suits, among other things, allege that the Basin defendants
"issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial results" because the company
"had not adequately accounted for reserves in connection with
its legacy system contracts."

The plaintiffs allege a putative class period between May 14,
2007, and Nov. 13, 2007, and do not claim a specific amount of
damages.

The lawsuits were subsequently consolidated, and on Oct. 3,
2008, a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC) was filed which
alleges that the company deliberately understated the reserves
it took for certain unprofitable contracts, and committed
various intentional violations of GAAP during a putative class
period between Nov. 14, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2008.

The suit does not state a specific amount of damages.

On Feb. 19, 2009, the company and its insurance carriers reached
an agreement in principle to settle the class action with
representatives of the class.  The settlement is still subject
to preparation of a final settlement agreement, following which
the company would intend to seek preliminary approval from the
Court so that class members can receive notice of the
settlement, providing them with the opportunity to accept its
terms or to opt out and choose whether to pursue their own
individual claims.  Following a fair period of notice to the
class, it would be the company's intention to seek final Court
approval of the settlement and the dismissal of all claims
against Basin Water.

The company denies all of the allegations in the lawsuit and
believes that its disclosures were appropriate under the law.
Nevertheless, it has agreed to settle the litigation in order to
avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.  The company does
not expect a cash effect of the settlement as the entire
settlement amount is expected to be paid by its liability
insurers, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K
filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Joy Ann Bull, Esq. (joyb@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway
          Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Daniel J. Tyukody, Jr., Esq. (dtyukody@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
          777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020


BIG 5: Appeal to Dismissal of "Zimerman" Suit Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. intends to defend the plaintiff's
appeal to the dismissal of the purported class-action suit
entitled "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et
al.," according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 29, 2009.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834."

The complaint was brought as a purported class-action lawsuit on
behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On Dec. 9, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of
Los Angeles dismissed the Zimerman case with prejudice.

On Feb. 3, 2009, the plaintiff in the Zimerman case filed a
Notice of Appeal of the dismissal.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381
stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
28, 2008.


BIG 5: Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation in California Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,"
is final, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 29, 2009.

On May 31, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego,
entitled, "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation,
et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-CU-BT-CTL."

This suit alleges violations of the California Civil Code and
California Business and Professions Code and invasion of
privacy.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of the class members,
general damages, special damages, exemplary or punitive damages,
and disgorgement of profits.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of
San Diego dismissed the Gonzalez case with prejudice.

On Feb. 20, 2009, the same court denied plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of such dismissal.

The period for appealing such dismissal has expired and the
dismissal of the Gonzalez case is final.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381
stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
28, 2008.


CASH STORE: Settles B.C. Lawsuits Over Brokerage Fees, Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (TSX: CSF), formerly
Rentcash Inc., announced it has settled two class action suits
commenced in British Columbia in 2005 and 2008 concerning
brokerage fees and interest charged to customers of The Cash
Store and Instaloans.  The BC Settlement is conditional on
receiving court approval, and follows a broader settlement
already reached and approved in Ontario.  Cash Store Financial
has one remaining class action lawsuit outstanding which applies
to customers who obtained loans in the Province of Alberta only.

     This settlement is restricted to customers who either
obtained their loans in British Columbia, or alternatively,
resided in British Columbia at certain specific time periods,
and repaid their loan and broker fees in full within prescribed
timelines.  Some members of the Class may be eligible to
participate in both the BC Settlement and the Ontario
Settlement, in which case they will have to choose under which
settlement to make a claim.  Making a claim in one settlement
renders the customer ineligible to participate in the other
settlement.

     In accordance with the BC Settlement, Cash Store Financial
will establish a settlement fund consisting of a cash and
vouchers fund in an amount equal to 20% of the total broker fees
paid by the settlement class members up to the court approval
date.  If the BC Settlement is approved, a final determination
of the total broker fees paid will be calculated.  However, the
maximum amount of the settlement fund is not expected to exceed
$14 million in cash and vouchers.

     The settlement fund will be used to make payments to the
Class using a mix of cash and vouchers.  The actual payments
made to the Class from the settlement fund will depend on the
number of class members who actually file a claim, that is, the
"take-up" rate.

     The vouchers are non-transferable and may be used to pay
either future or existing service fees on payday loans brokered
by The Cash Store or Instaloans, or can be redeemed for cash
only during the six month period which begins three years after
the vouchers are issued.  Legal fees and related costs will also
be paid from the settlement fund.

     The BC Settlement does not constitute an admission of
liability by Cash Store Financial, The Cash Store or Instaloans
and contains a full and final release of all claims that have or
could have been brought under the two actions unless class
members have specifically opted out of the settlement.  Cash
Store Financial, The Cash Store and Instaloans maintain that
they operate in compliance with all applicable federal and
provincial laws.


CENTERPLATE INC: June 11 Hearing Set For Conn. Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Superior Court of Stamford-Norwalk will hold a
fairness hearing on June 11, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed
settlement of a litigation in connection with Centerplate,
Inc.'s planned merger with an affiliate of Kohlberg & Company,
L.L.C., a leading private equity firm.

The hearing will be held at the Connecticut Superior Court of
Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, 123 Hoyt St., Stamford,
Connecticut 06905.

Centerplate, Inc. reached a settlement to the purported class-
action lawsuit styled, "Kaplan v. Williams, et al., Case No.
FST-CV-084014996," according to the company's Jan. 14, 2009 Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 21, 2009).

Counsel for the parties have agreed in principle to settle the
action and have executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated
Jan. 13, 2009, which is expected to be followed by a stipulation
of settlement.

As part of the settlement, and in exchange for a dismissal of
the lawsuit and release, the company has agreed to file with the
SEC a supplement to the previously-distributed proxy statement
and mail a copy of the supplemental proxy statement to its
investors.

This settlement, which is subject to, among other conditions,
preliminary and final Connecticut court approval after
appropriate notice and a hearing to consider the fairness of the
settlement, would resolve the claims in the currently pending
lawsuit.

The company and its officers and directors continue to deny any
liability or responsibility for the claims made in the pending
lawsuit and make no admission of any wrongdoing.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties enter into such a
stipulation.

In the event the settlement is approved, all holders of the
company's securities, from April 30, 2008 through the date of
consummation of the company's merger pursuant to the Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated as of Sept. 18, 2008 as amended on
December 23, 2008 among the Company and affiliates of Kohlberg &
Company, L.L.C., will release all claims (other than valid
appraisal demands in connection with the Merger) relating to the
transaction which were or could be brought against the Company,
its officers and directors, Kohlberg, and their respective
affiliates and agents.

The settlement is also subject to the completion of the Merger.

For more details, contact:

          Levi & Korsinsky
          39 Broadway  Suite 1601
          New York, NY  10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          e-mail: info@zlk.com
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/

               - and -

          The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 225-2677
          Fax: (610) 225-2678


DAUPHIN COUNTY: Reaches $2.16M Settlement For Strip Search Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The County of Dauphin in Pennsylvania settled a purported class-
action lawsuit over the strip searching of several out-of-state
partygoers at the county prison, The Associated Press reports.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, who were partygoers strip-
searched after authorities broke up a party on an undeveloped
island in the Susquehanna River, says the $2.16 million
settlement applies to about 9,000 people who were strip-searched
at the Dauphin County Prison while being held on minor charges,
according to the AP report.

Attorney Alan Ross says the lawsuit was prompted by the arrest
of about 50 people following a 2007 Labor Day party.  Police
broke it up after a man drowned trying to swim to the island,
reports The Associated Press.

The suit, "Reynolds et al. v. The County of Dauphin, Case No.
1:07-cv-01688-CCC," was filed by Elmer Robert Keach, III, an
upstate New York attorney, on Sept. 16, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 25, 2008).

Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are:

       -- Ashley McCormick,
       -- Devon Shepard,
       -- Herbert Carter, and
       -- Jennifer Reynolds.

More than 125 partygoers in the Labor Day weekend rave at
McCormicks Island were arrested.  At least 50 out-of-state
residents who were unable to make bail ended up in the Dauphin
County Prison.

The federal class-action suit against the county is alleging
that those detainees' civil rights were violated when they were
strip-searched at the prison.  It seeks to end the prison's
alleged practice of strip-searching people facing misdemeanor
charges.

For more details, contact:

          Alan M. Ross, Esq. (amresquire@aol.com)
          Law Office of Alan M. Ross, LLC
          2001 North Front Street
          Suite 220
          Harrisburg, PA 17102
          Phone: 717-238-6311

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          (bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com)
          Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, PC
          1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Phone: 518.434.1718

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. (charlesl@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: 202-789-3960

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq. (dlevin@lfsblaw.com)
          Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500


ENVISION EMI: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Presidential Inauguration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Envision EMI is facing a federal class-action lawsuit that was
filed on behalf of more than 15,000 students who paid thousands
of dollars to attend President Barack Obama's inauguration but
were left out in the cold, Nedra Pickler of The Associated Press
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on May 13, 2009 in Washington and alleges
that Vienna, Va.-based company promised middle school, high
school and college students across the country special access to
the inauguration, parade, and a black tie inaugural ball,
according to the AP report.

However, once the students got to Washington, they had no
tickets for the inauguration or parade.  And the balls they
attended were not official inaugural events, but staged in local
high school gyms, reports The Associated Press.

Envision said it would refund students $1 million, an amount the
lawsuit says would reimburse each attendee about $65, The
Associated Press reported.


FUZE BEVERAGE: July 31, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.5M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a hearing on
July 31, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed $4.5 million
settlement in the matter, "Ceballos et al., v. Fuze Beverage,
LLC, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC394521."

The hearing will be held in Department 311 of the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
located at 600 S. Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, California
90005.

The suit being settled claims that Fuze's marketing, advertising
and labeling of its Slenderize, Vitalize, Refresh and Tea
beverages misled consumers regarding ingredients contained in
the beverages, as well as their potential functional benefits.

It further alleges that Fuze misled consumers of its Slenderize
beverages by claiming or inferring that the product promoted
appetite suppression and/or weight loss.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Wayne Kreger, Esq.
          Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: 310-396-9600 or
                 888-835-8055 (Toll Free)
          Fax: 310-396-9635
          Web site: http://www.makinjurylawyers.com/

               - and -

          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
          P.O. Box 9341
          Minneapolis, MN 55440-9341
          Phone: 1-800-654-8874
          Web site: http://www.fuzesettlement.com/


GEVITY HR: Reaches Settlement For Fla. Suit Over TriNet Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gevity HR, Inc. agreed to settle a putative class-action lawsuit
alleging it had breached fiduciary duties to shareholders in its
merger agreement with TriNet Group, Inc., The Tampa Bay Business
Journal reports.

The company agreed to a proposed settlement on May 4, 2009 in
which all claims relating to the merger agreement and merger
would be dismissed on behalf of the settlement class, Securities
and Exchange Commission documents filed by Gevity said, reports
The Tampa Bay Business Journal.

In the proposed settlement, Gevity agreed to pay up to $290,000
fees and expenses to the plaintiff's counsel, according to The
Tampa Bay Business Journal report.

The Tampa Bay Business Journal previously reported that Gevity
HR, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Manatee
County Circuit Court in Florida alleging that the professional
employer organization breached fiduciary duties to shareholders
in its merger agreement with human resources provider TriNet
Group, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009).

Filed March 13, 2009 the putative class-action lawsuit names
Gevity, each of its directors and TriNet of San Leandro, Calif.,
claiming the merger agreement contained "preclusive deal
protection measures and allegedly unfair merger consideration,"
according to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents
filed by Gevity.

Court records show the plaintiff Judy Crump is represented by
William J. Schifino, Esq.

In the transaction announced March 5, 2009, TriNet agreed to pay
$4 a share in cash for outstanding common stock of Gevity, which
was valued around $98 million.  The transaction represented a
premium of about 97 percent above the stock's March 4 closing
price, a release from Gevity said.

The complaint seeks an unspecified award of monetary damages and
recovery of costs incurred by the plaintiff, according to the
SEC documents, copies of which were obtained by Tampa Bay
Business Journal.

The acquisition, which the boards of directors of both companies
approved unanimously, is expected to take place in the second
quarter, pending regulatory approval and the approval of Gevity
stockholders, according to Tampa Bay Business Journal.


GUIDANT CORP: Ontario Court Certifies Class in Pacemaker Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     In a decision released May 8, 2009, Justice Cullity of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a national class
action against Guidant Corporation (subsequently purchased by
Boston Scientific) on behalf of a class of 28, 443 individuals
for claims relating to allegedly defective pacemakers.
Litigation in the U.S. resulted in a settlement of $240 million
in late 2007 on behalf of approximately 8,000 plaintiffs.

     The Plaintiffs allege that the Guidant pacemakers are
inherently defective and that Guidant knew about the defects in
the pacemakers for a number of years, yet continued to market
the pacemakers.  The Claim also alleges that Guidant failed to
disclose the defects to patients, health care providers and the
regulatory authorities, including the FDA and Health Canada,
thereby placing the health and well being of the class members
in serious danger.

     In 2005 and 2006, Guidant undertook a series of recalls on
a number of its pacemakers.  The Claim seeks damages on behalf
of all persons who have been implanted in Canada with a
defective pacemaker.  In Canada, 28,433 individuals were
implanted with one of the pacemakers at issue.  At least 3,559
patients have had their pacemaker explanted.

     The following models of pacemakers are subject to the
action:

    - CONTAK TR: 1241;
    - DISCOVERY: 1174, 1175, 1273, 1274, 1275;
    - DISCOVERY II: 0481, 0981, 1184, 1186, 1187, 1283, 1284,
           1285, 1286;
    - INTELIS II: 1384, 1385, 1349, 1483, 1484, 1485, 1499;
    - MERIDIAN: 0476, 0976,1176, 1276;
    - PULSAR: 0470, 0870, 0970, 0972, 1172, 1272;
    - PULSAR MAX: 1170, 1171, 1270;
    - PULSAR MAX II: 1180, 1181, 1280;
    - VIRTUS PLUS II: 1380, 1480;
    - INSIGNIA AVT DDD: 0982;
    - INSIGNIA AVT DR: 1292;
    - INSIGNIA AVT SR: 1192;
    - INSIGNIA AVT SSI: 482;
    - INSIGNIA AVT VDD: 882;
    - INSIGNIA Entra DDD: 0985, 0986;
    - INSIGNIA Entra DR: 1294, 1295, 1296;
    - INSIGNIA Entra SR: 1195, 1198;
    - INSIGNIA Entra SSI: 0484, 0485;
    - INSIGNIA Plus DR: 1297, 1298;
    - INSIGNIA Plus SR: 1194;
    - INSIGNIA Ultra SR: 1190;
    - INSIGNIA Ultra DR: 1290, 1291;
    - NEXUS AVT DDD: 1432;
    - NEXUS AVT DR: 1492;
    - NEXUS AVT SR: 1392;
    - NEXUS AVT SSI: 1328;
    - NEXUS AVT VDD: 1428;
    - NEXUS Entra DDD: 1425, 1426;
    - NEXUS Entra DR: 1466, 1494, 1495;
    - NEXUS Entra SR: 1395, 1398;
    - NEXUS Entra SSI: 1325, 1326;
    - NEXUS Plus DR: 1467, 1468;
    - NEXUS Plus SR: 1394;
    - NEXUS Ultra DR: 1490, 1491; and,
    - NEXUS Ultra SR: 1390.

     Guidant has admitted that there is widespread
underreporting of device failures and that this underreporting
leads to an underestimation of the actual failure rates.
Further, and despite Guidant's allegations to the contrary,
Justice Cullity found that more than 400 of the pacemakers were
implanted after Guidant had identified the problem and model
numbers effected and after an advisory had been sent to
physicians.  These findings are consistent with the findings of
Guidant's own Independent Panel, which undertook a review of the
company in 2006 and confirmed Guidant's culture of secrecy,
underreporting and denial.

     Kim Orr Barristers P.C. and Lerners LLP represent the
national plaintiff class.

     Further information may be found at:
http://www.kimorr.ca/FL-Guidant_Pacemakers.html.


HANNAFORD BROS: Maine Judge Dismisses Claims in Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge D. Brock Hornby of the U. S. District Court for the
District of Maine dismissed all but one of the civil claims
brought against Hannaford Bros. over a data breach that exposed
more than 4 million credit and debit card numbers to computer
hackers, David Sharp of The Associated Press reports.

In a ruling issued on May 12, 2009, Judge Hornby ruled that only
those customers who weren't reimbursed for fraudulent charges
may sue the Hannaford Bros. supermarket chain over the data
breach, according to the AP report.

Trevor Maxwell of The Portland Press Herald previously reported
that Judge Hornby heard arguments in the purported class-action
lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009).

On April 1, 2009, Judge Hornby heard arguments from both
parties.  Attorneys for Hannaford asked the judge to dismiss the
lawsuit, which was filed against the Scarborough-based company
last year.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Judge Hornby
should certify the case as a class-action suit and let it
proceed toward trial, according to The Portland Press Herald
report.

The upcoming ruling will determine whether parts or all of the
suit will go forward, reports The Portland Press Herald.

The Morning Sentinel previously reported that case against the
Scarborough-based supermarket giant began as more than 20
individual complaints were filed in four states.  Specifically,
the massive breach that compromised up to 4.2 million credit and
debit card numbers used at 165 Hannaford supermarkets in the
Northeast and 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida sparked 14 lawsuits
in Maine, seven in Florida, one in New Hampshire and one in New
York (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).

The request to consolidate the lawsuits filed before the U.S.
District Court in Bangor, Maine, on behalf of Greg Doherty and
all others similarly situated, asserted that Hannaford was
negligent in not providing adequate data security and did not
inform customers of the breach quickly enough (Class Action
Reporter, April 21, 2008).

As recounted in earlier CAR reports, the breach occurred between
Dec. 7, 2007, and March 10, 2008, and Hannaford did not notify
the public of the breach until March 17, 2008.

The litigation seeks credit monitoring or similar protection,
unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees.


HARBOUR CAPITAL: Faces N.H. Lawsuit Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harbour Capital Corp. faces a $5 million class-action lawsuit in
New Hampshire for allegedly sending unsolicited junk faxes, Bob
Sanders of The New Hampshire Business Review reports.

The suit was filed by Menachem Raitport on May 5, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under the
caption, "Raitport v. Harbour Capital Corporation, Case No.
1:2009-cv-00156."

Mr. Raitport of the Crown Kosher Meat Market in Brooklyn,
charges that the Newington, N.H.-based business equipment
financing firm sent him at least three unsolicited faxes in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) to protect businesses from being inundated by junk faxes,
according to The New Hampshire Business Review report.

TCPA calls for a penalty ranging from $500 to $1,500 a page, but
plaintiffs' attorney Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. contends that Harbour
has sent at least 10,000 unsolicited faxes, and therefore owes
the class recipients over $5 million, The New Hampshire Business
Review reported.

For more details, contact:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. (aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com)
          Bellin & Associates LLC
          85 Miles Ave
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Phone: 914 358-5345

               - and -

          Michael J. Sheehan, Esq. (msheehan@usa.net)
          Sheehan Law Office
          3 North Spring St, Ste 101
          Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603 225-5240


IDEARC INC: Pa. Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith of Pennsylvania filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased shares
in phone directory publisher Idearc, Inc. between Aug. 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, The Dallas Business Journal reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.  It alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material
misrepresentations to the market concerning Idearc's operations,
prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Idearc securities (Class Action Reporter,
May 14, 2009).

Specifically, the suit alleges that certain Idearc shareholders
were misled by the company and executive officers who made false
statements to the investing public saying credit policies had
been tightened when in reality the law firm says the company
loosened credit polices to establish revenue that "would not be
collectable," The Dallas Business Journal reported.

When the nature of the credit policies became known, Idearc's
stock took several precipitous drops, according to a news
release from law firm's office, according to The Dallas Business
Journal report.

The law firm said it is seeking to recover damages on behalf of
class members who were hurt when the company's share price
plummeted on news that Idearc's credit policies were not in line
with previous expectations, reports The Dallas Business Journal.

For more details, contact:

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


INVESTFORCLOSURES FINANCIAL: Faces Ill. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
InvestForClosures Financial, L.L.C., and several others are
facing a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in
Illinois.

The suit, captioned, "Schaufenbuel et al v. InvestForClosures
Financial, L.L.C. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-01221," was filed
on Feb. 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by Bradley J. Schaufenbuel, Robert N.
Schaufenbuel, John Reed, IV, Sarah Reed, John Reed, III, Jan
Reed, American Mass Media Corp. and Roberta K. Clark.

Besides InvestForClosures Financial, other defendants in the
suit are ROI Developers, InvestForClosures,
InvestForClosures.com, LLC, InvestForClosures Ventures, LLC,
Sands of Gold Escrow, Sands of Gold, ROI Financial, Realty
Opportunities International Escrow 23, ROI Escrow, Realty
Opportunities International S. de R.L. de C.V., Realty
Opportunities International, ROI Mexico, Sands of Gold Estates,
Francis X. Sanchez, James D. Bourassa, Scott D. Wessel, Deana M.
Guidi, Daniel F Fitzgerald, Scott R. Slagle, Darcey L. Martin,
Tom Rodriguez and John Does 1 30.

The plaintiffs allege that various entities known as
"InvestForClosures," "ROI," or "Sands of Gold" as lead by Frank
Sanchez and Jim Bourassa sold securities in a Ponzi scheme and
stole investors' money.

The proposed class includes all persons who invested money with
Mr. Sanchez and any of the IFC entities during the period July 1
1999 through Dec. 31, 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Robert Craig Thurston, Esq. (tj@thurstonlawpc.com)
          Thurston Law Offices, P.C.
          10469 Bethel Avenue
          Huntley, IL 60142
          Phone: 847-659-8613
          Fax: 847-628-0930

               - and -

          Joel Martin Weiner, Esq. (jweiner@jweinerlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Joel M. Weiner
          579 N. 1st Bank Drive
          Suite 150
          Palatine, IL 60067
          Phone: (847) 705-3838


METROLINK: Calif. Judge Dismisses Motion in Derailment Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court Judge Emilie Elias in Los Angeles
dismissed a defense motion in a class-action lawsuit against
Metrolink over the 2005 derailment that killed 11 passengers,
Veronica Rocha of Glendale News Press reports.

The defense motion argued that if the case goes to trial, it
would set a dangerous precedent.  Attorney James Wakefield,
Esq., who is representing Metrolink in the civil proceedings,
told Judge Elias that the crossing near the scene of the crash
was similar to other right-of-way situations throughout the
nation, and so allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed would
be the equivalent of calling hundreds of railroad crossings
overtly dangerous, according to Glendale News Press report.

Eleven passengers were killed and nearly 200 others injured when
Juan Manuel Alvarez parked his Jeep Cherokee on the Metrolink
tracks near Chevy Chase Drive, close to the Glendale-Los Angeles
border, on Jan. 26, 2005.

Mr. Alvarez was sentenced last year in criminal court to serve
11 consecutive life sentences in prison after he was convicted
in June for causing the deadly train derailment, Glendale News
Press reported.

Survivors of the crash and family members of the deceased filed
a wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuit against Metrolink
after the crash.

Judge Elias, in denying Metrolink's motion, said the rail
agency's attorneys failed to address the cause of the train
derailment in their arguments.  "I don't know how to derail a
train," she said.  "I don't know what it takes to derail a
train," reports Glendale News Press.

Glendale News Press reported Attorney Jerome Ringler, Esq. Who
represents the victims, said Metrolink officials had to know
that when Mr. Alvarez parked his car on the train tracks, a
crash would occur.  Metrolink had 200 car-train accidents over
about a decade, he pointed out.


NEW MEXICO: Attorney General Faces Lawsuit Over Cockfighting Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, whose office oversees an
animal cruelty task force, is among 11 defendants in a purported
class-action suit filed by local cockfighters who are seeking
$77 million, claiming their civil rights were violated in the
state's enforcement of a 2007 law banning the bloodsport, The
Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico, challenging whether authorities had probable
cause to make arrests and euthanize roosters during raids at New
Mexico farms.  It also alleges authorities wrongfully entered
private property and improperly conducted interrogations,
according to The Associated Press report.


NISOURCE INC: Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.'s motion to dismiss the unjust
enrichment claims of the four remaining plaintiffs in a
purported class-action lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of West Virginia, according to NiSource,
Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges certain "select shippers," including certain
subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in
an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract
and violated state law.

Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a
complaint in the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia.  This
suit is styled, "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp., et al."

The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource
subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and
Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain
"select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme,
constituting a breach of contract and violated state law.

The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission
and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the
subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement
staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in
October 2000.

Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of
removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West
Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on
Sept. 10, 2004.

In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the
"select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause
of action.

On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion
to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to
amend.

To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint,
the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their
previously filed motions to dismiss.

In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the
Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint.

One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the
case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.

On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The defendants filed their opposition
to this motion in March 2008.  All briefing has been completed.

Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and on Aug. 19, 2008,
the Court denied the Motion for Class Certification.

In late December 2008, the lead plaintiff, Stand Energy
Corporation, reached a settlement agreement of all claims with
all Defendants.  Stand Energy Corporation was dismissed from the
case on Dec. 31, 2008.  The Columbia companies continue to
defend against the claims made by the remaining individual
plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2009, the Court denied all pending motions with the
exception of Columbia's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
claims of the four remaining plaintiffs.

The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge
Robert C. Chambers, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Joshua I. Barrett, Esq.
          Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq.
          Molly McGinley Han, Esq.
          Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq.
          Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero
          604 Virginia Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: 304-342-0133
          Fax: 304-342-4605
          Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/

               - and -

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders
          12051 Upper Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922
          Phone: 301-574-3400
          Fax: 301-574-2153

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com)
          Kirkland & Ellis
          Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-879-5000
          Fax: 202-879-5200

               - and -

          John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com)
          The Tinney Law Firm
          P. O. Box 3752
          Charleston, WV 25337-3752
          Phone: 304-720-3310
          Fax: 304-720-3315


NISOURCE INC: Royalties Lawsuits in Kentucky Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits styled "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, L.L.C.," and "Kentucky Poplar Creek Development
Company v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which name NiSource,
Inc., as a defendant, remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class-action
suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay
royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of
their oil and gas leases covering real property located within
the state of Kentucky.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007,
which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural
Resources as defendants.

On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants
to dismiss the case.  The defendants then filed their answers to
the complaint on April 25, 2008.

On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by
Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point
after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky.  The
defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on
July 18, 2008.

The class certification hearing scheduled for Nov. 13, 2008 was
vacated.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to
Columbia and Columbia subsequently assumed the defense of this
matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase
Agreement.  Poplar Creek also purports to be a class-action suit
covering royalty owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges
that Chesapeake has improperly deducted costs from the royalty
payments; there is thus some overlap of parties and issues
between the Poplar Creek and Thacker cases.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2008.

Chesapeake filed its answer on Dec. 8, 2008, which is still
pending with the court, according to the company's May 1, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com)
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902

Representing the defendants are:

         Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com)
         Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC
         300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-288-4613
         Fax: 859-255-2742

              - and -

         Nora Clevenger Price, Esq.
         (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com)
         Steptoe & Johnson
         1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250
         P.O. Box 2195
         Huntington, WV 25722-2195
         Phone: 304-522-8290
         Fax: 304-526-8089


NISOURCE INC: W.Va. Court Administers Tawney Settlement Proceeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County is supervising
the administration of the settlement proceeds in a purported
class-action suit involving the rights of mineral owners, which
names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant.

The suit is entitled, "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc."  It alleges that the defendants underpaid
royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting
post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 28, 2008).

In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants.

The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, also claimed
that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges.

The court certified the case as a class action that includes any
person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties
from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying
within the boundary of the state of West Virginia.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated
to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages
ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs.

In November 2008, a Roane County judge gave final approval to a
deal that settles the 6-year old case.

NiSource's share of the settlement liability is up to $338.8
million.  NiSource has complied with its obligations under the
settlement agreement to fund $85.5 million in the qualified
settlement fund by Jan. 13, 2009.  NiSource has also complied
with its obligation to provide a letter of credit on Jan. 15,
2009, securing the unpaid portion of the settlement.

The trial court entered its order discharging the judgment on
Jan. 20, 2009.

The Court is supervising the administration of the settlement
proceeds.  NiSource will be required to make additional
payments, pursuant to the settlement, upon notice from the Class
Administrator, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources,
Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane
County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St.
         P.O. Box 1791
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


PANERA BREAD: Reaches $671T Settlement For "Johns" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Co. will pay more than $671,000 to settle a class-
action lawsuit entitled, "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," which is accusing the company of
misclassifying managers as exempt from overtime, Joe Harris of
The Courthouse News Service reports.

A final settlement order was recently signed by Judge Jean C.
Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
California.  The order calls for Panera to pay $500,000 to a
Gross Settlement Fund; $146,887.10 for attorneys' fees; $25,000
to The Garden City Group to cover costs of administration of the
agreement; $7,500 to Johns; and $1,000 to the State of
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, according to
The Courthouse News Service report.

Previously, a settlement agreement in a purported class-action
suit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
California, entitled, "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al.,
Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," was preliminarily approved by the
court (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009).

The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and
one of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company,
Pati Johns.

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for
failure to pay overtime and termination compensation.  It seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find
just and proper (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2008).

Following mediation with the plaintiff, the company entered into
a settlement agreement in late fiscal 2008, which has been
preliminarily approved by the court, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No.
3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com)
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Fax: 816-714-7101

Representing the defendants is:

          Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com)
          Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Phone: 415-433-1940
          Fax: 415-743-6641


PFIZER INC: Sept. 25 Hearing Set For $89M Calif. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a hearing on Sept. 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For the
proposed $89 million settlement of the matter, "In re Bextra and
Celebrex Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability
Litigation, No. 05-CV-01669, MDL No. 1699."

A federal court in San Francisco has granted preliminary
approval to a proposed settlement with Pfizer, Inc. related to
the marketing of the prescription drugs Bextra and Celebrex (May
1, 2009).

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact:

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


PITNEY BOWES: Faces $20M Litigation in N.Y. Over Postage Meters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, Inc. is facing a $20 million purported class-
action lawsuit, alleging that the Stamford-based maker of
postage meters overcharges for its equipment return fee.

The suit was filed on April 22, 2098 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption, "Kings
Choice Neckwear, Inc v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2009-cv-03980."  It was filed by Kings Choice Neckwear, Inc.,
a former tie maker from New York City against Pitney Bowes,
Inc., Pitney Bowes Credit Corp., and Pitney Bowes Global
Financial Services, LLC.

In a 12-page complaint, Kings Choice said that the defendants
breached lease agreements with clients by charging an
"unconscionable, disproportionate and deceptive" equipment
return fee of $100 to $250 or more as clients return hardware at
the end of their leases.

"It is then that Pitney pounces to extract its pound of fiscal
flesh," according to the lawsuit.

Kings Choice, which recently went out of business, alleges in
the suit that it was charged $100 after returning in December a
postage meter it leased for about six years.  The plaintiff
claims in the lawsuit that, according to the UPS Web site, it
should have been charged only $11.90 in shipping to return the
roughly 17-pound item via UPS to Pitney Bowes' collection center
in Springboro, Ohio.

The plaintiff is basing the amount of the suit on an estimated
number of Pitney Bowes clients that have been overcharged by the
equipment return fee, according to the Steven Wittels, an
attorney for Kings Choice with Sanford, Wittels & Heisler LLP in
New York City.

The suit further states that the lease agreement's "Return of
Equipment" section is "ambiguous, incomplete and unenforceable"
because it does not describe how the fee will be assessed or its
amount.

"Because the conditions are ambiguous and were drafted by Pitney
Bowes with no input from Plaintiff and the class of Pitney Bowes
consumers, the contract must be construed against Pitney Bowes
and in favor of Plaintiff and the class," the suit states.

For more details, contact:

          Steven Lance Wittels, Esq. (swittels@nydclaw.com)
          Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
          950 Third Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 723-2947
          Fax: (646) 723-2948


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Approves $11M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California approved a final settlement in which
Prudential Financial, Inc., whose retail brokerage division was
sold to Wachovia Corp. in 2003, agreed to pay $11 million to
former stock brokers, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law
Journal reports.

The settlement resolves litigation between Prudential and
several stock brokers and producing managers who alleged that
they were denied overtime pay and other wages.

The stock brokers, referred to as financial advisers or
financial adviser trainees, alleged that they were misclassified
as exempt from overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FSLA) and state wage and hour laws, The National Law
Journal reported.

They also claimed that they were not reimbursed for business
expenses and did not receive timely paychecks upon leaving the
company.

California stock brokers alleged that they were not given breaks
for meals and rest periods as required by state law, reports The
National Law Journal.

The settlement involved seven class-action suits filed by
various financial advisers and producing managers.  The
settlement includes 2,329 class members who worked at Prudential
before July 1, 2003, when Wachovia acquired the brokerage
division, according to The National Law Journal report.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Calif. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower
court's decision to throw out a putative securities class-action
suit brought by Redback Networks, Inc. shareholders, who accused
the telecommunications company's executives of fraud involving
the purchase of revenues from Qwest Communications International
Inc. and others through bribery.

On May 11, 2009, the court affirmed a 2007 decision by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.


ROBERT COPELAND: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Elaborate Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Robert Price Copeland, Esq., of Marietta is facing a
purported class-action lawsuit by five people who are claiming
that he defrauded them of millions of dollars in an elaborate
Ponzi scheme, Megan Matteucci of The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reports.

The suit was filed on May 5, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under the caption, "Smith et al
v. Copeland et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-01200-JOF."  It was filed
by Joel Smith, Jr., Carolyn Smith, Norman Jones, Irene Jones and
Christopher Robinson.

Listed as defendants in the lawsuits are Robert Price Copeland,
Robert P. Copeland, P.C., James Stephen Quay, Robert Patrick
Stephens, John E. Redfearn, III, Jeffrey Reed Nesseth, Ronnie L.
Lundy, Jr., Perimeter Wealth Management Group, Inc., Physicians
Planning Group, LLC, John Beasley, Property Finders Online,
Inc., QA3 Financial, LLC and First Trust Company of Onaga.

In April, Mr. Copeland, 48, pleaded guilty in U.S. District
Court in Atlanta to one count of wire fraud.  Prosecutors say
Mr. Copeland's five-year scam defrauded more than 125 people out
of $40 million, including some senior citizens who gave him
their life savings, according to The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution report.

Five of those victims are behind the purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.  They are asking for a jury trial,
restitution, damages, and attorneys fees, reports The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution.

Attorney Will Stone, Esq., who represents the five plaintiffs,
told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he hopes to have all
of the other victims join the suit.

In general, the lawsuit claims that Mr. Copeland caused "massive
financial losses, leaving many of the victims on the brink of
financial ruin."  It also alleges the scheme violated federal
and state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
laws and securities fraud laws, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reported.

For more details, contact:

          William Woodhull Stone, Esq. (wstone5@ugaalum.uga.edu)
          Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C.
          Suite 480
          1900 The Exchange, S.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: 770-444-9325


ROHM & HAAS: Ky. Residents Expresses Concern Over Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some residents of Louisville, Kentucky say they are concerned
with proposed settlements of two class-action lawsuits filed
against Rohm and Haas, DuPont, and DuPont Performance
Elastomers, United Press International reports.

Louisville resident Linda Doyle said the letter she received
detailing the litigation settlements only described a joint
scholarship fund of nearly $800,000 the companies would create
for residents within two miles of their local plants, according
to a report by the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal.

"I thought it was very difficult to read. It was vague. I didn't
know if they meant teenagers, kids in the household. It didn't
say how much or how to apply," Ms. Doyle said.  "My biggest
thing was it didn't say you could opt out.  If it did, I didn't
understand it."

The proposed settlements would seek an agreement from suit
litigants to not file legal claims against the companies
regarding any potential air pollution or toxic chemical damages
during the next five years, United Press International reported.

Louisville resident Earl Beason has also questioned how the
settlements would benefit those in the Louisville neighborhood
of Rubbertown, where the factories lie, reports the United Press
International.


WACHOVIA CORP: Calif. Judge Give Preliminary OK to $39M Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California approved a $39 million preliminary
settlement to resolve the multidistrict litigation between
Wachovia Corp. and more than 10,000 stock brokers who alleged
that they were denied overtime pay and other wages, Amanda
Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports.

The stock brokers, referred to as financial advisers or
financial adviser trainees, alleged that they were misclassified
as exempt from overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FSLA) and state wage and hour laws.

They also claimed that they were not reimbursed for business
expenses and did not receive timely paychecks upon leaving the
company.  California stock brokers alleged that they were not
given breaks for meals and rest periods as required by state
law, according to The National Law Journal report.

The plaintiffs are represented in the case by Jeffrey Smith,
Esq., a partner at New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, and co-lead counsel Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy of
Burlingame, Calif.

In its motion for preliminary approval, Wachovia, recently
acquired by Wells Fargo & Co. Inc., said that the recent change
in its corporate ownership would result in changes in policy and
practices that could complicate the litigation, reports The
National Law Journal.

The settlement includes attorney fees, litigation costs and
$15,000 in enhancements paid to more than 30 named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking less than 25% of the gross
settlement amount.

The settlement applies to financial advisers and trainees who
worked for Wachovia Corp., Wachovia Securities LLC or First
Union Securities, Inc.  Most of the class members must make FLSA
claims, but subclasses in the settlement are identified for
workers with state claims in California, Illinois, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Ohio, The National Law
Journal reports.

A final approval hearing for the settlement is set for Oct. 5,
2009, The National Law Journal reported.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SEQUENOM INC: Dyer & Berens Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of investors of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SQNM) who purchased the Company's common stock between June 4,
2008 and April 29, 2009.  The complaint charges Sequenom and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's Down syndrome test under development.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that Sequenom employees mishandled
test data and results regarding the Down syndrome test.  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 over $11 per share to as low as
$3.23 per share, a one-day decline of more than 75%.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Sequenom
investors.

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

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Hymel Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, upheld a July
21, 2008 ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish,
which granted an exception of res judicata of J.D. Roberts and
Commercial Union Insurance Company and dismissed Ralph Hymel's
asbestos claims with prejudice.

The case is styled Ralph J. Hymel and Linda Hymel v. Eagle,
Inc., et al.

Judges Joan Bernard Armstrong, Denise R. Bagneris, and Paul A.
Bonin entered judgment in Case No. 2008-CA-1287 on March 18,
2009.

The trial court judgment recognized and enforced the "Release,
Discharge and Indemnity Agreement" executed by Mr. Hymel on Jan.
5, 1998 in the matter entitled In Re Asbestos Plaintiffs, Flight
6, No. 93-17362 of the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans.

This was an asbestos claim and the settlement and release
specifically included release of any and all future asbestos
related mesothelioma and cancer claims.

Mr. Hymel claimed he was exposed to asbestos while he worked at
Avondale Shipyards from 1958-1972. He was diagnosed with
asbestosis (but not mesothelioma or any other form of cancer) in
1993, and he filed suit the same year against Avondale's
executives and insurers, a suit that was settled in 1998 for
US$15,000.00 when Mr. Hymel executed the "Release, Discharge and
Indemnity Agreement."

Mr. Hymel sued J.D. Roberts in his capacity as an alleged
executive officer of Avondale Shipyards. Mr. Roberts did not
admit to having acted in that capacity during the relevant time
period.

In spite of having executed this settlement agreement in 1998
and receiving a substantial payment of $15,000.00 as an
inducement, Mr. Hymel filed the instant claim on Feb. 25, 2008,
for mesothelioma that was dismissed with prejudice by the trial
court on an exception of res judicata.

Lawrence G. Gettys, Esq., of Brent Coon & Associates in Baton
Rouge, La., and Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq., of Lemmon Law Firm, LLC
in Hahnville, La., represented the Hymels.

Samuel M. Rosamond III, Esq. and Adam D. Demahy, Esq., of
Crawford Lewis PLLC in New Orleans, La., represented Commercial
Union Insurance Company.

C.J. Hebert, Esq., in New Orleans, La., represented J.D.
Roberts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Liberty Mutual Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Connecticut issued split rulings in a case
involving asbestos styled Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v.
Lone Star Industries, Inc., et al.

Judges Fleming L. Norcott, Jr., Christine S. Vertefuille,
Sullivan, and Sheldon entered judgment in Case No. 18199 on
March 24, 2009.

In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered numerous insurance
coverage issues arising from asbestos and silica related injury
and illness claims made against Lone Star Industries, Inc. in
the wake of a settlement agreement entered into during its
bankruptcy reorganization proceedings.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company brought this declaratory
judgment action against Lone Star and numerous codefendant
insurance companies that had issued liability policies covering
Lone Star, to determine the coverage available for certain
asbestos and silicosis claims brought against it.

On appeal, Lone Star contended that the trial court improperly
granted numerous defendants' motions for summary judgment
because there were genuine issues of material fact with respect
to the applicability of the policy exclusions upon which they
relied.

The Supreme Court agreed with Lone Star's claims in part, and
concluded that the trial court improperly granted the motions
for summary judgment filed by American Home, Hartford Accident
and National Union.

The Supreme Court dismissed Lone Star's appeal with respect to
TIG Specialty Insurance Solutions for lack of a final judgment.
The Court further concluded that a remand to the trial court is
necessary to determine a question of subject matter
jurisdiction, namely, whether the coverage claims under the
excess policies issued by Lexington are ripe for judicial
review.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of
the trial court and remanded the case to that court for further
proceedings.

Charles D. Ray, Esq., Charles T. Lee, Esq., Jennifer A. Black,
Esq., James F. DeDonato, Esq., Catherine A. Mohan, Esq.,
Jennifer B. Strutt, Frank H. Griffin III, Esq., and Philip W.
Vogler, Esq., represented Lone Star Industries, Inc.

Robert L. Hoegle, Esq., Christopher P. Kriesen, Esq., Scott D.
Camassar, Esq., Kenneth G. Williams, Esq., Mary S. Diemer, Esq.,
and Timothy J. Fitzgibbon, Esq., represented Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Lloyd Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California,
upheld the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
which granted summary judgment in favor of Dartheatus Lloyd's
former employer, the County of Los Angeles.

The case is styled Dartheatus Lloyd, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
County of Los Angeles, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Joan D. Klein, Patti S. Kitching, and Richard D. Aldrich
entered judgment in Case No. B200505 on March 19, 2009.

In 1991, Mr. Lloyd commenced his employment with the County. In
1995, he became a permanent heat and frost insulator. In June
2003, he was laid off. In March 2004, he was rehired as a
temporary employee. He worked in that capacity until January
2006, until he was laid off for a second time.

The operative second amended complaint, filed June 9, 2006, set
forth five causes of action against the County. The gravamen of
the action was that Mr. Lloyd (1) was laid off initially, (2)
rehired as a temporary employee, (3) kept in a temporary
appointment for nearly two years, and then (4) was laid off for
a second time, all in retaliation for his complaints about
asbestos removal at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center (LAC-
USC) and his refusal to remove asbestos without being duly
certified.

On March 12, 2007, the County filed a motion for summary
judgment. On June 1, 2007, the matter came on for hearing. The
trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.

Mr. Lloyd filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. The
judgment was affirmed.

Law Offices of Leo James Terrell and Leo James Terrell, Esq.,
represented Dartheatus Lloyd.

Thomas and Thomas, Michael Thomas, Esq.; Greines, Martin, Stein
& Richland, Martin Stein, Esq., and Alison M. Turner, Esq.,
represented the County of Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. Fresenius Medical Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits involving asbestos filed against Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings, Inc. (FMCH) are stayed and transferred to or are
pending before the U.S. District Court as part of the W. R.
Grace & Co. Chapter 11 Proceedings.

FMCH is the holding company for Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.
KGaA's North American operations.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of
transactions it completed pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between Grace
and Fresenius SE.

At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W.R.
Grace & Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant
liabilities arising out of product-liability related litigation
(including asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and
other claims unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC),
which was Grace's dialysis business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of
Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations.

Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace
and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf
of the Grace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, alleging that the Merger was a fraudulent
conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and
constituted a conspiracy.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate
and Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and
tax claims against it and other claims related to the Company
that arise out of the bankruptcy Grace.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended,
fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf of
asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and the
Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future Grace-related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and
asbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claims
related to the non-NMC members of the Grace consolidated tax
group upon confirmation of a Grace bankruptcy reorganization
plan that contains those provisions.

The Company is engaged in litigation with Sealed Air Corporation
to confirm its entitlement to indemnification from Sealed Air
for all losses and expenses incurred by the Company relating to
pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-related claims.

Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that
satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation,
this litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Based in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co.
KGaA provides dialysis services and manufacturing and
distributing products and equipment for the treatment of end-
stage renal disease. In the United States, the Company also
performs clinical laboratory testing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Faces 10,300 Cases (42,800 Claims)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is involved in 10,300 cases (about 42,800
claims) alleging injuries from asbestos, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009.

The Company faced about 10,300 other cases (about 41,500 claims)
alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of monetary
damages per case. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a
period of more than two decades, PCC and several other
defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection,
about 12,400 claims were pending against the Company in state
court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on
exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting
monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim.

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

The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its
equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation,
contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a
total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present
value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after
the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June
2004.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan for reasons it set out in a
memorandum opinion. Several parties, including the Company,
filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were argued on
March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved decision.

On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the parties in the proceeding advised
the Bankruptcy Court that they had made substantial progress on
an amended plan of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that
resolved issues raised by the Court in denying the confirmation
of the 2003 Plan and that would therefore make it unnecessary
for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for
reconsideration. On March 27, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the parties
further informed the Bankruptcy Court on the progress toward the
Amended PCC Plan.

The parties filed a partial tentative plan on Aug. 8, 2008. The
parties continued to inform the Bankruptcy Court of the status
of their discussions on the Amended PCC Plan. The complete
proposed Amended PCC Plan and its ancillary documents were filed
with the Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 29, 2009.

The proposed Amended Plan would require the Company to make one
payment of US$100 million one year from the date the Amended PCC
Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met and five
additional payments of US$50 million each on subsequent
anniversaries of the first payment, subject to credits
applicable under certain circumstances to the Company's final
US$50 million payment.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims
that may be or have been raised against Corning. The Company has
recorded an additional US$150 million for those claims in its
estimated asbestos litigation liability.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$666 million at March 31, 2009,
compared with an estimate of liability of US$662 million at Dec.
31, 2008. In the first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded
asbestos litigation expense of US$4 million.

In the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company recorded a
credit to asbestos litigation expense of US$327 million, as a
result of the increase in likelihood of a settlement under the
Amended PCC Plan and a corresponding decrease in likelihood of a
settlement under the 2003 Plan.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites 23,401 Abex Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at March 31, 2009, recorded 23,401
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo-Abex Corporation (Pneumo), according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 23,688 pending asbestos-
related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo. (Class
Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained
from Pneumo in 1994) were operated through subsidiary companies,
and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul
under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and
Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex Friction product line, the Company
has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance for
those claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2009, a total of 146,645
Abex Claims were filed, of which 123,244 claims have been
resolved. During the three months ended March 31, 2009, 470
claims were filed and 757 claims were resolved.

Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved
Abex Claims was US$2,061 before insurance. A total of US$150.4
million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998
through March 31, 2009.

Historically, existing insurance coverage has provided 50
percent to 80 percent of the total defense and indemnity
payments for Abex Claims. However, insurance recovery is
currently at a lower percentage (about 30 percent) due to
exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with
certain excess insurers.

Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The
Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the
industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and
commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $811.7MM Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., as of March 31, 2009, estimates that
the liability for pending and future indemnity and defense costs
for the next 45 years will be US$811.7 million, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2009.

The Company, as of Dec. 31, 2008, estimated that the liability
for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and defense
costs for the next 45 years will be US$815.1 million. (Class
Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

Although the Company said that its estimated liability for
pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the
best estimate of its future obligation, it utilized scenarios
that it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a
broader range of potential estimates from US$735 million to
US$950 million (undiscounted).

Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The
Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the
industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and
commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Cites $183.3M Receivable at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2009, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s asbestos
receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to
US$183.3 million, of which US$66.9 million relate to costs
previously paid or insurance settlements.

The Company's asbestos-related receivable for recoveries of
costs from insurers, as of Dec. 31, 2008, amounted to US$192.3
million, of which US$74.6 million related to costs previously
paid or insurance settlements. (Class Action Reporter, March 6,
2009)

As of March 31, 2009, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$700 million.
Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance
sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements,
settlements or policy recoveries are probable.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months.

About 90 percent of the US$183.3 million receivable from
insurance companies at March 31, 2009 is due from domestic
insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better.

Based in Houston, Cooper Industries, Ltd.'s electrical products
segment makes circuit protection equipment, lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The
Company's other main business segment makes power tools for the
industrial market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and
commercial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tennessee Valley Still Records $8M Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority, during the second quarter of fiscal
2009, recorded an accretion expense of US$8 million related to
coal-fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The Company, during the first quarter of fiscal 2009, recorded a
remaining accretion expense of US$8 million related to coal-
fired and gas/oil combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and PCBs.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009)

During the second quarter of 2009, the Company's total asset
retirement obligation liability increased US$32 million due to
accretion.

The nuclear accretion expense of US$24 million and the US$8
million of accretion expense related to coal-fired and gas/oil
combustion turbine plants, asbestos, and polychlorinated
biphenyls were deferred and charged to a regulatory asset.

However, as amounts approximately equal to the non-nuclear
accretion and depreciation were collected in rates during 2009,
non-nuclear accretion and depreciation were expensed.

Based in Knoxville, Tenn., Tennessee Valley Authority is a
publicly-owned power producer in the United States, with more
than 35,000 MW of generating capacity. Its facilities include 11
fossil-powered plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear
plants, and six combustion turbine plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Gets $1.061B Tax Refund Approval in '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
USG Corporation, in the first quarter of 2009, received final
congressional Joint Committee on Taxation approval of a US$1.061
billion federal tax refund that the Company received in 2007.

Of this amount, US$1.057 billion resulted from tax deductions
generated by payments made to the asbestos trust in 2006 and the
remaining US$4 million, which the Company expects to receive in
2009, results from finalization of the audit results for 2006
and prior years.

During the fourth quarter of 2008, the Internal Revenue Service
concluded its audit of the Company's federal income tax returns
for the years 2005 and 2006.

As a result of the audit, the Company's federal taxable income
for these years will be increased by US$7 million in the
aggregate, which resulted in a decrease to the amount of the
Company's NOL carryforwards at March 31, 2009.

As a result of the closure of the IRS audit, the Company has
recorded an income tax benefit of US$6 million in the first
quarter for release of federal FIN 48 reserves, as well as the
impact of the audit results.

Based in Chicago, USG Corporation manufactures and distributes
building materials, producing products for use in new
residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel
construction as well as products used in certain industrial
processes. Its operations are organized into three segments:
North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and
Worldwide Ceilings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,184 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced 1,184 asbestos
cases out of the 3,313 cases that had been filed against it.

Central Hudson, as of Jan. 15, 2009, faced 1,183 asbestos cases
out of the 3,312 cases brought against it. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2009)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 151 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Based in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc. provides
electricity to the Hudson Valley. Utility subsidiary Central
Hudson Gas & Electric provides electricity to 367,000 customers
in eight counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley,
and delivers natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile
service territory that extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BJ Services Still Has Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain predecessors of BJ Services Company, along with numerous
other defendants, continue to face asbestos lawsuits filed in
the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in Mississippi
since August 2004.

These four lawsuits included 118 individual plaintiffs alleging
that they suffer various illnesses from exposure to asbestos and
seeking damages. The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness,
negligence, and strict liability; all based upon the status of
the Company's predecessors as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer.

Amended lawsuits were filed by four individuals against the
Company and the remainder of the original claims (114) was
dismissed. Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the
Company as an employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing
products so the Company was thereby dismissed.

Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought
his own action against the Company. As a result, the Company is
currently named as an employer in two of the Mississippi
lawsuits.

The Company said that it is possible that as many as 21 other
claimants who identified the Company or its predecessors as
their employer could file suit, but they have not done so at
this time. Minimal medical information regarding the alleged
asbestos-related disease suffered by the plaintiffs in the two
lawsuits has been provided. Accordingly, the Company is unable
to estimate its potential exposure to these lawsuits.

The Company and its predecessors in the past maintained
insurance which may be available to respond to these claims. In
addition to the Jones Act cases, the Company has been named in a
small number of additional asbestos cases. The allegations in
these cases vary, but generally include claims that the Company
provided some unspecified product or service which contained or
utilized asbestos or that an employee was exposed to asbestos at
one of the Company's facilities or customer job sites.

Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is the
successor to the Byron Jackson Company. To date, the Company has
been successful in obtaining dismissals of those successor cases
without any payment in settlements or judgments, although some
remain pending at the present time.

Based in Houston, BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping
services and other oilfield services to the oil and natural gas
industry worldwide. Services are provided through four business
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping,
International Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 74,802 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 74,802 unresolved asbestos
claims at March 31, 2009, compared with 90,184 claims at March
31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2009.

The Company faced 75,706 unresolved asbestos-related claims at
Dec. 31, 2008, compared with 90,322 claims at Dec. 31, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009)

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during
the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products
and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on Company premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,295 claims filed;
3,199 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 24,126
claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 50,676
individual claimants.

At March 31, 2008, the Company recorded 2,716 claims filed;
2,854 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 28,893
claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 61,291
individual claimants.

The Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was US$910 million at March 31, 2009. About 22 percent of
the recorded liability related to pending claims and about 78
percent related to future claims.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $11MM Defense at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products, Inc.'s defense
costs for asbestos claims were US$11 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$14 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2008.

Amchem is a former Company subsidiary.

The Company and Amchem's resolution costs for asbestos claims
were US$24 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$42 million for the three months ended March 31,
2008.

The average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and the
rate of new claim filings has fluctuated since the beginning of
2001.

The Company's management expects those fluctuations to continue
in the future based upon a number of factors, including the
number and type of claims settled in a particular period, the
jurisdictions in which those claims arose and the extent to
which any proposed legislative reform related to asbestos
litigation is being considered.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Still Has $403Mil Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$403 million at both
March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to
US$1.35 billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product
liability coverage.

The insurance receivable related to the asbestos liability was
determined after a thorough review of applicable insurance
policies and the 1985 Wellington Agreement, to which the Company
and many of its liability insurers are signatory parties, as
well as other insurance settlements, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
and taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers.

The Wellington Agreement and other agreements with insurers are
designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of
the Company's insurance policies and to resolve issues that the
insurance carriers may raise.

At March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded a total of US$271
million in receivables for costs submitted to insurance
carriers, in which US$26 million were for defense costs and
US$245 million were for resolution costs.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded a total of US$272 million
in receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers, in
which US$28 million were for defense costs and US$244 million
were for resolution costs.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Coverage Case Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive
insurance coverage continues to be pending in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.

In September 2003, the Company filed the suit, seeking to
confirm its rights to insurance for various asbestos claims and
to facilitate an orderly and timely collection of insurance
proceeds.

This lawsuit was filed against insurers that are not signatories
to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements
in place with the Company regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an orderly resolution
and collection of such insurance policies and to resolve issues
that the insurance carriers may raise.

Although the lawsuit is continuing, through the end of the first
quarter of 2009, the Company had reached settlements with
several of the carriers involved in this litigation.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation is a
chemicals and polymers company. The Company is a subsidiary of
The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Brown Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed an Oct.
2, 2007 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Bobby M. Brown service connection for respiratory and sinus
disorders due to exposure to asbestos.

The case is styled Bobby M. Brown, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Ronald M. Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 07-3182 on
March 19, 2009.

Mr. Brown served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from February
1964 to January 1968. His enlistment examination reflected a
normal evaluation of his sinuses, lungs, and chest. He reported
having had a history of asthma as a child. His service medical
records (SMRs) indicated that he was allergic to smoke and dust.

The SMRs also showed that Mr. Brown was treated for upper
respiratory infections (URIs) in February and March 1964 and was
treated for bronchopneumonia in May 1964. A November 1965
treatment record reflected that Mr. Brown had a negative chest
x-ray. He received a diagnosis of multiple allergies, to include
allergies to dust and penicillin, which were determined to have
existed prior to his enlistment. His January 1968 separation
examination revealed a normal evaluation of his lungs, chest,
and sinuses.

Mr. Brown's postservice medical records reflected that he was
treated for sinusitis and bilateral bronchitis in 1978,
sinusitis in January 1987, and URIs in November 1990, March
1993, and August 1994. A May 2000 x-ray report revealed that Mr.
Brown's lungs were clear.

In April 2002, Mr. Brown filed a claim for service connection
for disabilities alleged to have been caused by exposure to
asbestos while on board the USS Graffias in service. The VA
regional office (RO) requested that Mr. Brown provide specific
information concerning his alleged exposure to asbestos in a May
2002 letter.

In June 2002, Mr. Brown provided a response stating that he had
severe sinus problems since his separation from service and that
he sought medical treatment for sinus infections immediately
after his separation from service, but no medical records were
available for any treatment prior to January 1984.

Mr. Brown also indicated that he had smoked tobacco for 25
years, smoking about one to one and a half packs a day from 1960
to 1983. In May 2003, the RO denied Mr. Brown's claim for
service connection for a respiratory and sinus condition claimed
as residuals of asbestos exposure. Mr. Brown perfected an
appeal.

In October 2005, the Board remanded Mr. Brown's claim to obtain
a medical opinion as to "whether any of the [appellant's]
current respiratory disorders [were] due to asbestos exposure
during service." Mr. Brown underwent a VA respiratory diseases
examination. The examining physician diagnosed Mr. Brown's
respiratory symptoms as "mild chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, tobacco induced; no asbestosis found."

On Oct. 2, 2007, the Board issued its decision. This appeal
followed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Interstate Records $1.8M Settled Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Interstate Power and
Light, in the first quarter of 2009, recorded liabilities
settled of US$1.8 million due to expenditures for asbestos and
lead remediation at its Sixth Street and Prairie Creek
Generating Stations required as a result of the impacts of the
severe Midwest flooding at these generating stations in June
2008.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2009.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Alliant Energy Corporation
4902 N. Biltmore Lane
Madison, Wis. 53718
Tel. No.: (608)458-3311

Description:
Alliant Energy Corporation is an investor-owned public utility
holding company whose primary subsidiaries are Interstate Power
and Light Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Resources
and Corporate Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tasty Baking Records $7.1M ARO at March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company's asbestos asset retirement obligation was
US$7.1 million as of March 28, 2009, compared with US$7 million
as of Dec. 27, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4,
2009.

The Company has a conditional asset retirement obligation
related to asbestos in its Philadelphia manufacturing facility.

As a result of the Company's decision in May 2007 to relocate
its Philadelphia operations, it was able to estimate a
settlement date for the asset retirement obligation and recorded
an obligation of US$6.6 million which was the present value of
the future obligation.

This obligation will continue to accrete to the full value of
the future obligation over the remaining period until settlement
of the obligation which is expected to occur in June 2010, while
the capitalized asset retirement cost is depreciated through
December 2044, the remaining useful life of the Philadelphia
manufacturing facility.

The Company recorded US$100,000 in interest associated with the
ARO during the quarter ended March 28, 2009 and March 29, 2008.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Tasty Baking Company
Navy Yard Corporate Center
Three Crescent Drive, Suite 200
Philadelphia, Pa. 19112
Tel. No.: 215-221-8500

Description:
The Company produces sweet baked goods and is an independent
baking company, in operation since 1914. It has two
manufacturing facilities, one in Philadelphia, and a second in
Oxford, Pa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Has $5.1M for Cleanup at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$5.1 million in
"Accounts payable and other" for asbestos and environmental
cleanup as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$5.5 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company recorded US$3.2 million in "Other long-term
liabilities" for A&E cleanup as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

These amounts were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos-containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties it has been or expects to be assessed.

Based in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-
mile United States portion of the world's longest liquid
petroleum pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment
(owned and operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans
some 3,500 miles across North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Cites $5.4MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability was US$5,419,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$5,372,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2009.

Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
provides integrated long-term healthcare services through its
skilled nursing companies and rehabilitation therapy business.
The Company also provides other related healthcare services,
including assisted living care and hospice care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. AK Steel
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.),
since 1990, has been facing lawsuits alleging personal injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the
premises of a current or former Company facility. About 40
percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of exposure
at a facility in Houston that has been closed since.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against the Company in 1990,
five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of
the Company.

Based in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation
produces flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality
coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet
and strip form.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases v. McKesson Increase to 475
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation, through its former McKesson Chemical
Company division, is named in 475 cases involving the alleged
distribution of asbestos, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
5, 2009.

The Company was named in about 450 cases involving the alleged
distribution of asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2008)

These cases typically involve either single or multiple
plaintiffs claiming personal injuries and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the
1987 sale of McKesson Chemical Company to what is now called
Univar USA Inc., the Company has tendered each of these actions
to Univar. Univar has raised questions concerning the extent of
its obligations under the indemnification agreement.

Univar continues to defend the Company in some of these cases,
but since February 2005 has been rejecting tenders and
accordingly, the Company is incurring defense costs in
connection with the more recently served actions. The Company
said it believes that Univar remains obligated under the terms
of the indemnification agreement.

The Company has filed an arbitration demand against Univar under
the indemnification agreement seeking a determination that the
liability for these cases is Univar's responsibility.

An arbitration date of Aug. 31, 2009 has been agreed upon for
commencement of the arbitration of this dispute. In addition to
its indemnification rights against Univar, the Company said it
believes that portions of these claims are covered by insurance
and is pursuing that coverage.

Based in San Francisco, McKesson Corporation provides supply,
information and care management products and services designed
to reduce costs and improve quality across the healthcare
industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Has 50T Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to face 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related
claims at March 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
5, 2009.

Crown Cork still faced 50,000 outstanding asbestos-related
claims at Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009)

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

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

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, Crown Cork
received about 1,000 new claims, settled or dismissed about
1,000 claims for a total of US$1 million. Settlement amounts
include amounts committed to be paid in future periods.

The outstanding claims at March 31, 2009 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The
outstanding claims also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$198 million, including US$135 million for unasserted claims
and US$1 million for committed settlements that will be paid
over time.

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

The Company's accrual of US$198 million includes estimates for
probable costs for claims through the year 2018. Potential
estimated additional claims costs of US$38 million beyond 2018
have not been included in the Company's accrual.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging
products to consumer marketing companies around the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Still Party to Lawsuits in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Texas courts.

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

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

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

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

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

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging
products to consumer marketing companies around the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Cork Party to Lawsuits in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

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

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

In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002), which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to
retroactive application.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed,
due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork
raising federal and state constitutional challenges to the
amended statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956
EDA 2006). The plaintiff has requested that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court accept the appeal of this decision.

The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as
amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. supplies packaging
products to consumer marketing companies around the world.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as
a result of occupational exposure primarily to products
manufactured by the Company's former operations containing
asbestos, silica and mixed dust.

During the first quarter of 2009, certain of these cases
involving multiple plaintiffs were separated into single-
plaintiff cases. As a result, the total number of outstanding
cases increased.

About 1,234 of these types of cases remain pending, involving a
total of about 3,400 plaintiffs, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2009.

In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio state courts. The Company does not expect these claims will
be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical
criteria for asbestos-related claims.

To date, the Company has not been adjudicated liable in any of
these matters.

Based in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding
company. It operates in the component products industry through
majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company
operates in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling
interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Facing 777 Cases w/ 7,498 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, was a party to 777
pending cases involving an aggregate of 7,498 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009.

The asbestos formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted
55 claims filed, 80 claims dismissed, and one claim settled. The
average settlement amount per claim was US$95,000 and total
defense costs were US$656,600.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 723
claims filed, 2,668 claims dismissed, and 75 claims settled. The
average settlement amount per claim was US$1,813 and total
defense costs were US$3,448,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to
distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other
manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company said it believes
that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none
of its gaskets were distributed or used.

The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought.
Of the 7,498 claims pending at March 31, 2009, 139 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum). About 106 of the 139 claims
sought between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages
(which includes compensatory and punitive damages), 32 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and one sought over
US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive
damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 110 of the 139
claims sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, 28 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million and one sought over US$5
million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, 106 of the 139 claims
sought between US$0 million and US$2.5 million, 32 sought
between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and one sought over US$5
million. In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached
the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the
discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.3 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is
monetary in nature. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.

The coverage-in-place agreement makes coverage available to the
Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and
provides a methodology for the administration of asbestos
litigation defense and indemnity payments. The coverage in place
agreement allocates payment responsibility among the primary
carrier, excess carriers and the Company's subsidiary.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corporation is an
industrial manufacturer and distributor of highly engineered
products serving focused markets in a diverse range of
commercial, industrial and consumer applications. The Company
has five reportable segments: Packaging Systems, Energy
Products, Industrial Specialties, RV & Trailer Products and
Recreational Accessories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Facing Exposure Lawsuits in 3 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc. is party to asbestos lawsuits in Mississippi,
Illinois, and Wisconsin courts.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos cases in Mississippi, Illinois, Wisconsin and
California. As of May 6, 2009, the Company has been dismissed
from a majority of the cases in Mississippi, most of the cases
in Illinois and the one case in California.

The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos. The
Company's exposure to asbestos involves products the Company
purchased from third parties.

The Company has notified its insurance carriers of these claims
and is vigorously defending these actions. The Company has not
made any provision in its financial statements for the asbestos
litigation.

Based in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. engineers, produces and
markets forged and cast metal components for various load-
bearing and fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine,
aerospace and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Miracle-Gro Has Pending Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be involved in cases
alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure
to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the
Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 6, 2009.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

The Company is reviewing agreements and policies that may
provide insurance coverage or indemnity as to these claims and
is pursuing coverage under some of these agreements and
policies.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
manufactures, markets, and sells lawn and garden care products.
The Company's customers include home centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains,
independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and
drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty
crop growers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Belden Facing 114 Injury Cases at April 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., at April 20, 2009, is party to 114 asbestos
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Feb. 9, 2009, the Company was aware of 130 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants.
(Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009)

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of
products that contained the fiber, but ceased production of
those products more than 20 years ago.

Through April 20, 2009, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in 285 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with 31 of these involving any payment
to the claimant.

Based in St. Louis, Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and
markets signal transmission solutions, including cable,
connectivity and active components for mission-critical
applications in markets ranging from industrial automation to
data centers, broadcast studios, and aerospace.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. are still
subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2009.

These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted
from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the
Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that the
majority of the claimants were assembly workers at the major
U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of various products allegedly containing asbestos.

Neither the Company's settlement costs in connection with
asbestos claims nor its annual legal fees to defend these claims
have been material in the past. The Company has been successful
in obtaining the dismissal of many cases without any payment
whatsoever.

Based in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, and related aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briggs & Stratton Still Has Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various
unresolved legal actions, including asbestos-related product
liability actions, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2009.

Based in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces
air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The
Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these
products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Roper Ind. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries still are subject to
asbestos-related litigation claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 7, 2009.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Machinist Gets $12.1MM in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Cundiff, a former U.S. Navy machinist, won US$12.1
million in asbestos damages from two firms: John Crane, Inc. and
Lone Star Industries, AHN reports.

On May 11, 2009, a Los Angeles County jury ruled that the
manufacturer and supplier of an asbestos product must pay the
66-year-old Mr. Cundiff US$10 million for pain and suffering and
US$506,000 in economic damages for lost wages because he is now
afflicted with mesothelioma.

Mr. Cundiff's wife was awarded US$1.5 million for loss of
consortium.

The jury said John Crane, Inc., which made Insulag, and Lone
Star Industries, which delivered the asbestos-laced insulating
cement to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, made a defective product
and failed to warn Mr. Cundiff of its health hazard.

Mr. Cundiff handled Insulag cement in the overhauling of the USS
Kitty Hawk that lasted nine months during his Navy tour from
1962 to 1966.

Mr. Cundiff was absent during the hearing and his deposition was
used as his testimony.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Former Execs Cleared in Libby Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury cleared W. R. Grace and Co. and three of its
former executives on all charges of knowingly exposing residents
of Libby, Mont., to asbestos and concealing the danger, the
Chemical & Engineering News reports.

After a three-month trial and two days of deliberation, the jury
rejected the U.S. Government's criminal case, filed in 2005.

Between 1963 and 1990, Grace operated a mine in Libby processing
vermiculite, which was contaminated with asbestos. At the time
Grace and the executives were indicted, the Department of
Justice said 1,200 area residents suffered from asbestosis.

Grace CEO Fred E. Festa insists that the Company and its
executives never conspired to either hurt people or skirt the
law. He said, "We always believed that Grace and its former
executives had acted properly and that a jury would come to the
same conclusion."

However, federal prosecutors depicted Grace and its executives
as mine operators who conspired to frustrate government efforts
to protect public health and safety.

A conviction could have exposed the Company to millions of
dollars in fines, and the executives named in the indictment
could have faced up to 15 years in jail on the most serious
charges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ore. Developer Charged for Exposing Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Linn County District Attorney's Office, Dan
Desler, a developer from Eugene, Ore., has been arrested on
charges of unlawful air pollution, reckless endangerment and
supplying false information to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, The Associated Press reports.

The 65-year-old Mr. Mesler was lodged in the county jail on May
11, 2009 on a US$100,000 bail.

The allegations stem from asbestos found in the demolition of
buildings at a former lumber mill site in Sweet Home. The site,
once owned by Willamette Industries, is now controlled by a
trust Mr. Desler established in 2002 to build a subdivision.

The arrest came a day after The Register-Guard newspaper
published a front-page story about Mr. Desler's dealings in
Sweet Home.

Leah Koss, an environmental law specialist with the DEQ, said on
May 11, 2009 that a Linn County grand jury indicted Mr. Desler
and the Western States Land Reliance Trust on April 22, 2009.

The trust was established to benefit a Portland charity called
the Oregon Health Care Foundation, of which Mr. Desler is a
board member. It received about 400 acres in land donations from
Willamette Industries and Morse Bros., which received a combined
US$6 million in tax write-offs, according to federal tax
filings.

Mr. Desler, in a recent interview with The Register-Guard, said
Willamette Industries provided a report saying the mill site was
asbestos-free. The city of Sweet Home issued Mr. Desler a
demolition permit for the site, but it was revoked after the
city was notified by the DEQ of asbestos on-site, according to
Carol Lewis, the city's community development director.

Mr. Desler hired Charles Corp to demolish the buildings in 2007.
However, Mr. Corp, who testified before the grand jury, did not
know the site contained asbestos, said deputy district attorney
Heidi Sternhagen of Linn County.

Mr. Desler's attorney, Michael Vergamini, Esq., said he was
aware of the arrest, but it was unexpected and he could not
comment on specifics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Victims to Appeal for Financial Aid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of the James Hardie Industries N.V. asbestos scandal
will appeal to the government of Australian Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd for a financial bailout, as the Hardie fund set up to make
huge compensation payouts faces an AUD350 million shortfall, The
Australian reports.

The appeal follows an admission that the Hardie asbestos
compensation fund established in 2006 cannot meet its payment
targets over the next three to five years because of the impact
of the recession on the building products company.

Under the terms of an AUD1.5 billion settlement negotiated with
Hardie, victims of asbestos-related diseases are to receive
compensation installments if there is a fund shortfall.

However, victims groups, backed by unions, want the Rudd
Government to pay hundreds of injured workers and their families
the agreed compensation in full and seek reimbursement later
from Hardie.

Under the proposal, victims would assign their rights to
compensation to the Rudd Government, allowing it to legally
collect any shortfall from the company.

Victims groups are also appealing for special assistance from
the New South Wales Government, which was instrumental in
setting up the fund by passing special legislation three years
ago.

Paul Bastian, NSW secretary of the Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union, said he would write to the Prime Minister asking
for help and wanted Mr. Rudd to keep his word that "no one would
go without compensation."

On May 8, 2009, asbestos campaigners put pressure on the NSW
Government to come to the party following a meeting in Sydney
with NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos.

Mr. Rudd took a special interest in the welfare of Hardie
asbestos victims before the 2007 federal election, and has paid
tribute to the work of their late campaigning leader, Bernie
Banton.

Mr. Bastian said one avenue of federal funding would be to allow
AUD153 million in Hardie funds held by the tax office to be
released for victims compensation payouts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Budget Hike Approved for Mo. Court Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saline County Commissioners in Marshall, Mo., on May 7, 2009,
approved an increase of US$5,900 for asbestos removal work on
the second floor of the courthouse, The Marshall Democrat-News
reports.

Gerken Environmental Enterprises Inc. of Springfield was
originally contracted for US$14,980. However, small amounts of
additional asbestos have been found on some pipes.

In support of increasing the contract, Southern District
Commissioner Richard Hassler said, "As long as they're here, we
might as well get it done and get it done right."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aircraft Worker Compensation Claim Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos compensation claim filed by Maximillian Surman, a
retired aircraft worker of Nuneaton, England, is ongoing, the
Coventry Telegraph reports.

Mr. Surman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2008.

The 70-year-old Mr. Surman, who is a former Dunlop employee, is
now undergoing chemotherapy treatment as part of a clinical
trial.

Mr. Surman worked in the aircraft industry for more than 30
years including two spells at Dunlop's site in Holbrook Lane,
Holbrooks. He is believed to have been exposed to asbestos
fibers while working as a bench hand or "fraser" at Dunlop Rim
and Wheel Company from 1961 to 1970 and at Dunlop Ltd from 1974
to 1994.

Mr. Surman also did a similar job for dissolved firm Dex Gears
Ltd in Longford Road, Longford, from 1972 to 1973 and could have
been exposed to asbestos there. He also fears he could have been
exposed to asbestos when the Dunlop site was re-roofed during
the 1980s.

Tariq Khan, a workplace illness specialist with Irwin Mitchell
solicitors, is urging anyone who worked with Mr. Surman to help
him by sharing their memories about working practices at the
firms.

Mr. Khan said, "We are anxious to help Mr. Surman settle his
legal claim for compensation as quickly as possible and it is
vital we hear from people who have information concerning the
working practices undertaken at these three firms."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Blasts Waters & Kraus in Injury Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed judge in Los Angeles accused Dallas-based law firm,
Waters & Kraus, of attempting to force settlement by filing
asbestos cases in two separate jurisdictions, Mesothelioma
Cancer News reports.

According to a report by The National Law Journal, Waters &
Kraus filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man in Los Angeles who
passed away from mesothelioma in 2007, first in Texas and
subsequently in California.

Of their actions, Mr. Kraus is said by the Law Journal to have
stated they did so in accordance with policies for filing in
jurisdictions that allow ailing clients to not have to sit
through lengthy depositions.

Alexandra Epand with the Los Angeles asbestos litigation firm
Nixon Peabody is quoted as stating of the case, "I definitely
think this is something the defense and plaintiff's bar are
going to watch very, very closely, and it will have very
important ramifications regardless of whichever way it goes."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tatera Lawsuit v. FMC Reinstated on May 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District 1 Court of Appeals, on May 12, 2009, reinstated an
asbestos lawsuit filed by Vicki Tatera, of Greenfield, Wis.,
against FMC Corporation, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Mrs. Tatera's husband, Walter
Tatera, who died of mesothelioma in 2004.

Mrs. Tatera's suit claims Mr. Tatera developed cancer after
working at a machine shop where he ground brake linings into
specific shapes to be installed in automobiles.

The court says Mrs. Tatera can sue FMC, the supplier of the
linings, for negligence for failing to warn that the parts
contained asbestos and could be dangerous.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Jury Favors Defense in Gersten Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Alameda County, Calif., delivered a defense verdict in
favor of an unnamed engineer/general contractor in a closely
watched asbestos trial, according to a Wood, Smith, Henning &
Berman LLP press release.

The case is styled Ronald & Martha Gersten v. Asbestos Corp.
Ltd., Et Al.

This two-month trial is significant in that a jury exonerated
the sole remaining defendant from any liability, despite
evidence that Mr. Gersten, a prominent dentist, developed
mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos fibers. The same
jury rejected a claim for loss of consortium brought by Mr.
Gersten's wife.

Trial lawyers Kevin Smith, Esq., and Greg Amundson, Esq.,
retained two weeks before the start of the case, stated that
this trial is important from a national perspective.

Mr. Amundson said, "Many think that when a plaintiff walks into
a courtroom with a confirmed diagnosis of mesothelioma, a short
life expectancy, imminent painful death, and large medical
bills, the result is automatic liability, regardless of the
evidence against a particular defendant. It is this perception
that has fueled large settlements and has led to crippling
financial losses for many companies and their insurers."

Alameda County is viewed by many as a hotbed of asbestos cases
in California, with many filings made on a weekly basis for
asbestos related claims. "This result should give parties cause
to consider whether they are overpaying in settlement of
mesothelioma cases, and possibly consider taking more of these
cases to trial," said Mr. Smith, a founding partner of Wood,
Smith, Henning & Berman. "We are pleased our case joins the
ranks of the other defense verdicts, and hopefully serves as a
reminder that this type of occupational exposure litigation can
be successfully defended at trial."

In this case, the original complaint named 21 separate
defendants. Prior to trial, the majority of defendants settled.
During jury selection five additional defendants reached
settlements, leaving Mr. Smith's and Mr. Amundson's client as
the sole remaining defendant by the time opening statements were
presented. The amounts of the other parties' settlements reached
were kept confidential.

Mr. Gersten sought to hold this last defendant, an
engineer/general contractor, liable on what is commonly referred
to as the "single fiber theory." This theory claims that there
was at least one single fiber of asbestos which Mr. Gersten was
exposed to as a result of alleged negligence during the
construction of a power plant in El Centro, Calif., in 1957.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Amundson were successful in moving the court
to dismiss Mr. Gersten's product liability claims. The case
proceeded on a successive exposure theory, which contended that
Mr. Gersten's diagnosis of mesothelioma 51 years after exposure
to asbestos at the defendant's construction site could form the
basis for liability.

Prior to trial, the settlement demand was US$4.95 million, and
the engineer/general contractor made a statutory offer of
US$200,000. Mr. Gersten claimed special damages of US$1.7
million, and sought non-economic damages in multiples of the
economic damages. As a result of the the statutory offer to
compromise, Mr. Amundson/Mr. Smith's client can now recover all
costs incurred in the defense of this matter.

The Gerstens were represented by Gordon Greenwood, Esq., and
Andrea Huston, Esq., of Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood &
Harley of Oakland, Calif.

The engineer/general contractor was represented by Kevin Smith,
Esq., and Greg Amundson, Esq., of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman,
which has offices throughout California, Nevada, Arizona and
Colorado.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Liberty Mutual Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, which
granted summary judgment to Third-Party Defendants, the "UTC
Companies," including United Technologies Corporation and denied
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment.

The case is styled Elliott Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, Defendant-Appellant v. United Technologies Corporation,
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

Justices Karen Nelson Moore, Eric L. Clay, and Raymond M.
Kethledge entered judgment in Case No. 08-3419 on March 23,
2009. Justice Moore dissented.

The dispute between UTC and Liberty Mutual on appeal stemmed
from a lawsuit that Elliott Company filed against Liberty Mutual
seeking coverage under policies that Liberty Mutual issued to
UTC and Carrier Corporation.

In 1957, Elliott merged with Carrier and, in 1979, UTC acquired
Carrier. In 1981, UTC incorporated Elliott as a subsidiary of
UTC. UTC sold Elliott in 1987, and Elliott ceased to be
affiliated with UTC. While Elliott was associated with Carrier,
Liberty Mutual insured Carrier through policies effective
between July 31, 1957 and Jan. 1, 1963 (the "Carrier Policies").

In 1987, UTC filed suit against Liberty Mutual, seeking a
declaratory judgment regarding its rights to coverage under the
UTC Policies for certain environmental claims filed against UTC.
Carrier filed a similar suit against Liberty Mutual in 1988.
Liberty Mutual filed a cross-complaint in the UTC action,
seeking payment for insurance coverage allegedly owed to it by
UTC.

In December 1994, Liberty Mutual and the UTC Companies,
including Carrier and UTC, entered into a Settlement Agreement
(the "Agreement").

In April 2006, Elliott filed suit against Liberty Mutual in the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging entitlement to
coverage for liability stemming from pending personal injury
lawsuits against Elliott in which the plaintiffs sought damages
for alleged exposure to asbestos.

After removing the case to trial court, Liberty Mutual filed a
third-party complaint against the UTC Companies. Liberty Mutual
and Elliott filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On March 30, 2007, the district court denied Liberty Mutual's
motion for reconsideration, motion to direct the entry of a
final judgment or to amend the judgment.

On Feb. 20, 2008, the district court entered final judgment in
the case. Liberty Mutual appealed, arguing that the district
court erred in granting summary judgment to the UTC Companies on
the issue of their indemnification obligation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dalmine Faces 41 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris, S.A.'s Italian subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of March
31, 2009, faced a total of 41 pending asbestos claims, of which
none were covered by insurance.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, Dalmine faced 55 pending asbestos claims,
of which none were covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter,
March 13, 2009)

Dalmine S.p.A. is currently subject to 13 civil proceedings for
work-related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its
manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In
addition, another 28 asbestos related out-of-court claims have
been forwarded to Dalmine.

During the three-month period ended March 31, 2009, two new
claims were filed, no claims were adjudicated, and no claims
were paid, one claim was rejected, two claims were settled, no
claim was time barred and 13 claims were dismissed further to
the dismissal of a criminal case related to the death of workers
employed in Dalmine's plant.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR7.4
million (US$9.8 million).

Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims not yet settled is about EUR12.8 million (US$17
million).

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Still Faces Suits in Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. continue to face
asbestos exposure lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along
with numerous unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints
involving 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal injury arising
out of asbestos exposure in the course of their employment by
some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of
TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the
Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos.

The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos-
containing products in connection with drilling operations and
included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The
plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases
required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint
for each individual plaintiff and then he dismissed the original
21 complaints. The Company said it believed that it may have a
direct or indirect interest in 44 of the resulting complaints.

The Company has not been provided with sufficient information in
all claims to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to
asbestos, their medical condition or, in some cases, the vessels
potentially involved in the claims.

The Company historically has maintained broad liability
insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will
cover all liabilities arising out of the 44 claims.

Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31,
2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 136 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,065 Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd. faced 1,065 asbestos lawsuits as
of March 31, 2009, according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

An unnamed Company subsidiary, as of Dec. 31, 2008, was a
defendant in 1,008 asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action
Reporter, March 6, 2009)

One of the Company's subsidiaries is involved in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design,
construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
its litigation, funding from settlements with the primary
insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain
insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. Some of these lawsuits
include multiple plaintiffs and the Company estimates that there
are 2,821 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries.

The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against
this subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2009, the amounts
expended to resolve claims (including both attorneys' fees and
expenses, and settlement costs) have not been material, and all
deductibles with respect to the primary insurance have been
satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits. The subsidiary has in excess of US$1
billion in insurance limits.

Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At March 31,
2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 136 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noble Corp. Still Has 39 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation, at March 31, 2009, continues to be a
defendant in 39 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 11, 2009.

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

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

Based in Sugar Land, Tex., Noble Corporation is an offshore
drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company
performs contract drilling services with its fleet of 62
offshore drilling units located worldwide, including the Middle
East, India, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, the North Sea,
Brazil, and West Africa.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Resources Still Facing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., or its predecessor
companies, still face lawsuits filed by certain individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos during work at those
formerly-owned facilities.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 12, 2009.

Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its
subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. The
Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Has $7.02M Claims Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's current reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$7,025,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$7,250,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 13, 2009.

The long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$36,412,500 as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$38 million
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

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

Many of these claims are now being brought by the children and
close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result
of the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos.

To date, all of the Company's asbestos-related injury claims
have been paid and defended by its insurance carriers.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 271 Cases Pending Against Entrx at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation had 271 pending asbestos cases as of March 31,
2009, compared with 288 pending cases as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2009.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company noted
51 new cases filed, 28 defense judgments and dismissals, six
plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 34 total resolved
cases. Total indemnity payments were US$1.7 million. The average
indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases was
US$283,333 and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases
was US$50,000.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $43.44M Receivables at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation recorded an asbestos insurance coverage
receivable of US$43,437,500 as an asset on its balance sheets as
of March 31, 2009, compared with US$45,250,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.

Although defense costs are included in its insurance coverage,
the Company expended US$30,000 during the three months ended
March 31, 2009 and US$107,000 during the three months ended
March 31, 2008 to administer the asbestos claims and defend the
ACE Lawsuit.

There are numerous insurance carriers, which have issued a
number of policies to the Company over a period extending from
1967 through 1985 that still provide coverage for asbestos-
related injury claims. After 1985, the policies were issued with
provisions which purport to exclude coverage for asbestos
related claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Still Party to ACE Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, continues to be party to insurance litigation filed
by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National Insurance
Company of Omaha and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company.

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

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

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

Whether any particular asbestos lawsuit is properly classified
as being subject to an aggregate limit of liability depends upon
whether or not the suit falls within the "products" or
"completed operations" hazards found in most of the liability
policies issued to Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy.

The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary recovery from
Metalclad. The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage
responsibility among the several insurers, as well as total
coverage.

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

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corp. Accrues $375T in Allstate Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation, at March 31, 2009, has accrued US$375,000 as
a potential loss in connection with a matter concerning Allstate
Insurance Company.

In June 2004, the Company and its subsidiary, Metalclad
Insulation Corporation, entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Full Policy Release releasing Allstate from its policy
obligations for a broad range of claims arising from injury or
damage which may have occurred during the period March 15, 1980
to March 15, 1981, under an umbrella liability policy (Policy).
The Policy provided limits of US$5 million in the aggregate and
per occurrence.

Allstate claimed that liability under the Policy had not
attached, and that regardless of that fact, an exclusion in the
Policy barred coverage for virtually all claims of bodily injury
from exposure to asbestos, which is of primary concern to
Metalclad, which took the position that such asbestos coverage
existed.

The parties to the Agreement reached a compromise, whereby
Metalclad received US$2.5 million in cash, and Metalclad and the
Company agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the insurer from
all claims, which could be alleged against the insurer
respecting the policy, limited to US$2.5 million in amount.

Based on past experience related to asbestos insurance coverage,
the Company said it believes that the Agreement it entered into
in June 2004, will result in a probable loss contingency for
future insurance claims based on the indemnification provision
in the Agreement.

Although it is unable to estimate the exact amount of the loss,
the Company said it believes at this time the reasonable
estimate of the loss will not be less than US$375,000 or more
than US$2.5 million (the US$2.5 million represents the maximum
loss it would have based on the indemnification provision in the
Agreement).

The US$375,000 estimated loss contingency noted in the above
range represents 15 percent of the US$2.5 million the Company
received and is based upon its attorney's informal and general
inquiries to an insurance company of the cost for the Company to
purchase an insurance policy to cover the indemnification
provision the Company entered into.

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

If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's
asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would
have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it
defends up to US$2.5 million in the aggregate. If Allstate is
not required to provide indemnity, the Company would have no
liability to Allstate.

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


                            *********

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  * * *