---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 100

                           Headlines

ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
BANK & LENDERS: NAACP, Others File Race Discrimination Lawsuits
CARMEL WINES: Faces Suit in Israel Over Popular Grape Juice
ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Racial Discrimination Suit in Ind.
ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Remain Pending in U.S. and Canada

FREDDIE MAC: Amended Suit Filed in N.Y., New Allegations Added
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Faulty Microwave Ovens
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: May 27 Hearing Set For Consolidation of Suits
HUGHES COMMS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Shoddy Internet Service
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Several Manganese Suits Still Pending in Ohio

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over Lost Records
REMEC INC: June 2009 Pretrial Conference Set for Securities Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling on Review Bid in "Brown" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing to Appeal in "Scott" Suit Ongoing
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Ga. Smokers' Suit Over RICO Breach Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Light Cigarettes" Suit Still Pending in Mo.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Personal Injury Suit Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of May
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of May
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Tatum" Suit Set to Begin on July 6

SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Privacy Litigation
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Lawsuits in N.J., Pa. Over CDLs
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Tenn. Suit Over Revocation of CDLs
UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over AndroGel Deals
U.S. SMOKELESS: Mass. Judge To Approve $10.65M Tobacco Agreement

WORLDSPACE INC: Consolidated Litigation in N.Y. to Continue
WEIDNER PROPERTIES: Settles Tenants' Litigation in Alaska
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Summary Judgment in Ill. Ponzi Scheme Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $349.1M Losses, LAE at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $1.75MM Claims Provision
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $339.83MM Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites 131,010 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Sees $25.9M Insurance Asset

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Still Has 357 Claims in U.K.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Dana Remain at 31,000 at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Still Has $2M Receivable for CCR Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Has 981 New Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Cites $3.33Bil in Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Wabtec, Units
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Facing 67,540 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $19.6MM for A&E Coverage
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Delaware Court Rules on Federal-Mogul Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Has Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.21B for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. FirstEnergy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Md. Cases Pending v. Pepco at March 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Beloit Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,282 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,692 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Cites Pneumo Abex Obligations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 630 Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrues $23.67MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Units Still Face Actions in 33 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs PCA's Motion for Attorney's Fees

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 22 Suits Filed in Madison in April 27-May 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Cargo Worker Gets Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Cities Given Stimulus Cleanup Grants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oldham Engineer Gets GBP400T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Royal Navy Worker's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ellington Injury Case Ongoing in MDL Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. State Legislature Fails to Pass Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orono, Maine to Get $200T EPA Cleanup Grant
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Bill 1123 Currently Pending in Texas
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mirror "Bares" Disposal of Asbestos Records

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 865 W.Va. Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Cites $14MM Net Reserve at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Faces 238 Pending Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on McGaver Action in Pa. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Facing 16,818 Claims at May 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Facing 8,604 Claims at May 1
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Involved in Mt. Vernon Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Ongoing v. Parker Drilling

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifying Kraton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Facing Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Badgett Claim


                           *********

ANTS SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Labor-Related Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTs Software, Inc. intends to continue defending itself in a
labor-related putative class action complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2008, a former ANTs employee, filed a putative class
action complaint for all current and former software engineers,
for failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide meal
breaks, among other things, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Mateo.

The former employee is seeking an injunction, damages,
attorneys' fees, and penalties, according to the company's April
31, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

ANTs Software, Inc. -- http://www.ants.com/-- is developing the
Ants Compatibility Server (ACS) and develops, markets and
supports the ANTs Data Server ADS.  ACS is middleware that is
intended to offer a method to move applications from one
database to another and enable enterprises to achieve cost
efficiencies by consolidating their applications onto fewer
databases.  The company had developed technologies used in the
monitoring and management of applications and databases related
to ACS.


BANK & LENDERS: NAACP, Others File Race Discrimination Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) and others have filed separate class-action lawsuits in
U.S. District Courts against many of the country's largest
lenders alleging systematic and institutionalized racism in sub-
prime home mortgage lending, Jim Neusom of OpEdNews reports.

Wells Fargo, and GMAC Mortgage Group, just to name two, are
among the many banks and mortgage lending firms named in the
suits.  Others are sure to follow as government reports seem to
show this was a standard industry practice, according to the
OpEdNews report.

Wells Fargo charged Blacks more than twice as much as whites for
home loans.  JP Morgan charged Blacks and Latinos more than
twice that of whites.  Citigroup, U.S. Bancorp and Wachovia
charged minorities one and a half times more.  Blacks and
Latinos were more than one and half times more likely than
whites, to be denied a loan by the top banks that received a
taxpayer bailout, OpEdNews reported.

According to the lawsuits, Black homeowners who received
subprime mortgage loans from these lenders were more than 30
percent more likely to be issued a higher rate loan than
Caucasian borrowers with the same qualifications.  Income had
little to do with whom the lenders pitched their subprime loans
to.  Race and neighborhood were the prime determinants.  In
fact, upper income Blacks are more than twice as likely to have
a subprime loan as persons who lived in low-income white
neighborhoods, reports OpEdNews.

OpEdNews reported that the suits accuses Wells Fargo and others
of marking up interest rates or adding fees for Black borrowers
seeking mortgages after agreeing to lend, based on criteria such
as credit histories and home values.  Homeowners claim such acts
violated the federal Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.

These cases seeks to make Wells Fargo and others, halt any
racially biased lending practices, improve employee training,
reimburse unfair charges, and pay punitive damages, according to
the OpEdNews report.


CARMEL WINES: Faces Suit in Israel Over Popular Grape Juice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmel Wines is facing a purported NIS 10 million class-action
lawsuit in Tel Aviv District Court for allegedly misleading
consumers about one of its flagship products, Tirosh grape
juice, Noam Sharvit of Globes reports.

Israeli families often serve Tirosh grape juice to children for
Friday night kidush (blessing) at the Sabbath dinner, and at
other celebrations, according to the Globes report.

The suit was filed by petitioner Avraham Feldman, who claims
that Tirosh contains more than 20 milligram per kilogram of
sulfur dioxide (SO2), a preservative, reports Globes.

Although there is no ban on the chemical, standard regulations
state that the label of a product containing it must read
"preserved grape juice," not "natural grape juice."

Carmel Wines says that it uses bisulfite, in compliance with the
standard, as a preservative.  It argues that the lawsuit is
groundless because the average consumer does not know what
bisulfite is, but understands that the standard mandates its
use, Globes reported.

However, Mr. Feldman claims that Carmel Wines should make it
clear that bisulfite is a preservative and that the grape juice
is preserved grape juice.  He also claims that Tirosh cannot be
marketed as a natural product, because it contains a chemical
preservative.

In addition, he claims that the company is in breach of its duty
to include "sulfur dioxide" and "preservative" in the list of
ingredients for Tirosh, instead labeling it as "natural grape
juice" and "100% natural," thereby misleading consumers,
according to the Globes report.


ELI LILLY: Continues to Face Racial Discrimination Suit in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed against Eli Lilly and Co. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
alleged racial discrimination remains pending.

The suit was filed in April 2006, by several workers of the drug
company who allegedly experienced racial discrimination.  Three
former and one current Eli Lilly employee alleged that the
company paid black employees less than their white counterparts,
passed them over for promotions and verbally abused them.

The alleged discrimination dates back to 2003.  One of the
plaintiffs is Cassandra Welch, who was fired in mid-2004 for an
unrelated reason.

The suit is seeking class action on behalf of more than 1,000
black employees.  It is asking unspecified damages, lost
compensation and an order enjoining Lilly against future
discrimination.

The other plaintiffs are current sales representative, Sheryl A.
Davis of Memphis, Tennessee; and two former sales reps, Jarmaine
Bromell of Philadelphia and Raynard Tyson of North Carolina.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs amended their original
complaint to add 50 new plaintiffs, as well as the national and
local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People.

Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their
class certification motion in March 2009.

No further updates regarding the matter were provided in 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 "Welch et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case No. 1:06-
cv-00641-RLY-VSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Judge Richard L. Young, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Joshua Rose, Esq. (daver@roselawyers.com)
          Terri N. Marcus, Esq.
          David L. Rose, Esq.
          Rose & Rose, P.C.
          1320 19th St., N.W., Suite 601
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-331-8555
          Fax: 202-331-0996

Representing the defendants is:

          Ellen E. Boshkoff, Esq. (ellen.boshkoff@bakerd.com)
          Baker & Daniels
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: 317-237-1266
          Fax: 317-237-1000


ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Remain Pending in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and
marketing of Zyprexa, 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.

                         U.S. Lawsuits

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party
payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund
of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of
New York in 2006 on similar grounds.

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately
tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

In September 2008, Judge Weinstein certified a class consisting
of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities and
individual consumers.  The company appealed the certification
order, and Judge Weinstein's order denying Eli Lilly's motion
for summary judgment, in September 2008.

The Pennsylvania case is set for trial in June 2009.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an
animal health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes
its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S.,
Puerto Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's
products are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company
also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in
animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food
production.  Its principal products include Neurosciences
products, Endocrinology products, Oncology products,
Cardiovascular products, Animal health products and Other
pharmaceuticals.


FREDDIE MAC: Amended Suit Filed in N.Y., New Allegations Added
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended lawsuit was recently filed in U.S District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Freddie Mac as well as
the company's former chief executive officer, chief financial
officer, and chief business officer, Attorney at Law reports.

Investors suing the residential mortgage are accusing the
company of lying about risky loans and reporting falsified
financial returns.

The new allegations are the result of recent interviews with
former Freddie Mac employees and others who provided more
details about the operations and finances of the mortgage giant,
according to attorneys, reports Attorney at Law.

In September 2008, Freddie Mac was seized by the U.S. Government
in a move designed to save it from a crippling collapse under
the weight of mounting bad loans.  The lender remains in
operation under a government conservatorship.

Attorney at Law reported that as the financial crisis unfolded,
shares of Freddie Mac plummeted from a high of about $28 in 2008
to about $1 after the conservatorship was announced, costing
investors billions.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Central States Southeast and
Southwest Areas Pension Fund.  National Elevator Industry
Pension Plan also is a plaintiff in the suit, which is seeking
class-action status, according to the Attorney at Law report.

Some former Freddie Mac employees who were interviewed as part
of the lawsuit said the lender was an "appalling run company"
that showed signs that its capital was insufficient to support
operations as early as August 2007, according to officials.

The lawsuit also accuses Freddie Mac executives of using false
and misleading statements to illegally inflate the value of
company shares while manipulating financial data to make the
firm seem healthier than it was, reports Attorney at Law.

"Freddie Mac was essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing," said
David George, Esq., an attorney for the shareholders, according
to news service Reuters.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Mich. Suit Over Faulty Microwave Ovens
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A lawsuit was filed, on May 19, 2009, against the General
Electric Company and Samsung Electronics, Inc. in connection
with GE-branded microwave ovens.  The lawsuit seeks
certification of a nationwide class on behalf of persons who
have owned a GE-branded microwave oven manufactured on or after
January 1, 2000.

     According to plaintiff's counsel, Hassan Zavareei, "The
lawsuit alleges that GE and Samsung were responsible for the
design, manufacturing, branding, marketing, and sale of
microwave ovens that contained a defect that made the microwave
ovens unreasonably dangerous.  Because of the defect, the
microwave ovens are susceptible to activating on their own,
leading to smoke and potentially extensive fire damage.  We also
allege in the Complaint that Defendants were aware of the defect
no later than 2002 but failed to take the necessary corrective
measures or to warn consumers."

     The lead plaintiff, Timothy Hennigan, purchased a GE-
branded microwave oven in February of 2001.  In June of 2008,
Mr. Hennigan's microwave began running completely on its own,
causing the emission of sparks and smoke.  As a result, Mr.
Hennigan's home suffered smoke-related damage, and his microwave
oven could no longer be used.  Through their investigations,
lawyers for the putative class have uncovered dozens of reports
of similar incidents across the country, including incidents
that led to hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage
and pet fatalities.

     The Complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages, restitution, and a permanent injunction.

     The lawsuit is captioned, "Hennigan. v. General Electric
Co. & Samsung Electronics America, Inc.," and was filed in
federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan.

For more details, contact:

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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: May 27 Hearing Set For Consolidation of Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Louisville,
Kentucky will hear the arguments on May 27, 2009 on whether to
consolidate the class action lawsuits brought against Heartland
Payment Systems (HPY) by financial institutions, Linda McGlasson
of BankInfoSecurity.com reports.

According to Benjamin Johns, Esq., one of the attorneys
representing the class-action lawsuit from the law firm of
Chimicles & Tikellis, Haverford, PA, "These cases tend to be
long and drawn out - there have been multiple class-action suits
filed in New Jersey and in Texas."

Two class-action suits have been filed by Chimicles & Tikellis,
and a third class-action suit was also filed in Texas against
Heartland by Lone Star National Bank of Pharr, Texas, according
to the BankInfoSecurity.com report.

As first reported on Jan. 20, 2009, Heartland, the sixth-largest
payments processor in the U.S., revealed that its processing
systems were breached in 2008, exposing an undetermined number
of consumers to potential fraud.

Since then, a growing number of banking institutions have
stepped forward to announce that their customers were among
those affected by the breach, reports BankInfoSecurity.com.

Mr. Johns tells BankInfoSecurity.com that generally multiple
class-action suits are consolidated and heard in one court.
"Nothing of substance has happened before this," he says.  "The
court, once it hears the argument, will take anywhere from a
month or two to release its ruling on where the suit will be
heard."

Motions have been made to hear the case in Florida, Texas and
New Jersey U.S. district courts, according to Mr. Johns.

There are three types of class-action suits being brought
against Heartland: the financial institutions' class-action
suits; consumer cases; and also some securities fraud class-
action suits have been filed by Heartland's investors,
BankInfoSecurity.com reported.

Mr. Johns tells BankInfoSecurity.com that there are a total of
30 suits filed against Heartland in various federal courts.


HUGHES COMMS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Shoddy Internet Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
that accuses the company of duping rural customers into signing
up for its spotty Internet service with promises of fast access
and download speeds and then charges hundreds of dollars if they
drop coverage, Chris Marshall of The Courthouse News Service
reports.

The suit is captioned, "Tina Walter and Christopher Bayless, et
al. v. Hughes Communications, Inc. and Hughes Network Systems,
LLC, Case No. 09-02136," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 15, 2009.

According to the suit, one of the plaintiff signed up for the
company's Internet service, lured by its claims that its
broadband satellite technology brings rural areas services that
operate at speeds comparable to DSL hook-ups, making it possible
for customers to download "large files in minutes, not hours,"
reports the Courthouse News Service.

However, the plaintiff says she suffers "significantly slow,
even non-existent, access and upload and download speeds."  In
addition, the plaintiff says that instead of fixing the problem,
the company charged for service upgrades, but the pricier
service remains spotty and slow, The Courthouse News Service
reported.

The suit seeks damages for unfair competition and false
advertising, according to the Courthouse News Service report.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d1c

For more details, contact:

          Robert Bramson, Esq.
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Rd.
          Suite, 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: (925) 945-0200
          Fax: (925) 945-8792
          e-mail: info@bramsonplutzik.com
          Web site: http://www.bramsonplutzik.com/


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Several Manganese Suits Still Pending in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. continues to face several
federal lawsuits in Ohio involving claims of manganese-induced
illness, 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.

At March 31, 2009, the company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging manganese induced illness involving claims by
approximately 3,762 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 734
claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the
company is one of a large number of defendants.

The claimants in cases alleging manganese induced illness seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  They allege that exposure to manganese contained in
welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
neurological conditions, including a condition known as
manganism.

At March 31, 2009, cases involving 2,118 claimants were filed in
or transferred to federal court where the Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation has consolidated these cases for
pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio.

The plaintiffs have also filed eight class actions seeking
medical monitoring in state courts, six of which have been
removed and transferred to the MDL Court.  A motion to strike
all class action allegations in those six cases was granted by
the MDL Court on Aug. 4, 2008.

The class-action complaint filed in Ohio was also dismissed by
the plaintiff on Aug. 22, 2008, leaving only one potential state
court class-action.

In addition, plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint seeking
medical monitoring on behalf of current and former welders in
eight states, including three states covered by the single-state
class-action suits, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  This case was also transferred to the
MDL Court.

A motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to this
case was denied on Sept. 14, 2007 and the 16 individual
claimants dismissed their claims on March 20, 2008.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the company has been a co-defendant in
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 12,831 of
those claims were dismissed, 20 were tried to defense verdicts
in favor of the company and four were tried to plaintiff
verdicts.

In addition, 13 claims were resolved by agreement for immaterial
amounts and one claim was decided in favor of the company
following a summary judgment motion (which was reversed by an
intermediate appellate court on Nov. 26, 2008 and is the subject
of further appellate review).

On Feb. 11, 2009, a jury returned a verdict in one such case in
favor of the company and two co-defendants in the Superior Court
of California for the County of Alameda.

On April 1, 2009, the MDL Court denied post trial motions filed
by the co-defendants and entered final judgment against the
company and two co-defendants in one of the cases in which a
plaintiff verdict had been obtained on March 6, 2008.  The
judgment awards an aggregate amount of damages of $2,420,000,
$720,000 of which were compensatory ($366,000 of which were
allocable to the company) and $1,700,000 of which were punitive
($750,000 of which were allocable to the company).  The Court
also granted plaintiff's motion for costs and attorney's fees
totaling $2,173,000 ($1,105,000 of which were allocable to the
company).  The company will appeal this judgment.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer
and reseller of welding and cutting products.  Welding products
include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic
welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable
electrodes and fluxes.  The company's welding product offering
also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding
and cutting.


MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL: Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over Lost Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts General Hospital faces a breach-of-privacy lawsuit
filed by four HIV-positive patients whose records were left
behind on an Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority train by
a hospital employee, Elizabeth Cooney of The Boston Globe
reports.

In March 2009, the hospital notified 66 patients who received
care at its Infectious Disease Associates outpatient practice
that billing records bearing their names, Social Security
numbers, doctors, and diagnoses had been lost by a manager who
was riding the Red Line.  The employee had brought the paperwork
home for the weekend, but left it on the train when she returned
to work Monday morning, March 9, 2009, according to a hospital
security report, The Boston Globe reported.

The lawsuit was recently filed two of the 66 patients in Suffolk
Superior Court against the hospital and the unidentified billing
manager.  Two more patients joined the lawsuit.  All four
unnamed patients are HIV-positive, according to the Boston Globe
report.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, John Yasi, Esq., of the Salem law firm
Yasi and Yasi, said in an interview with the Boston Globe that
he has filed a motion to make the suit a class-action case that
could cover all 66 patients, a significant number of whom are
HIV-positive.

"The damages that jump out are the emotional distress
surrounding the loss of obviously very sensitive medical
information and, secondarily, the loss of personal security
information," he said.  "A Social Security number in reality may
lead to identity theft, which we all know is a nightmare,"
reports the Boston Globe.

The plaintiffs want to know whether the billing manager still
works at the hospital and whether she still has access to their
records, Mr. Yasi tells the Boston Globe, as well as what
policies have been put in place to prevent this from happening
again.

For more details, contact:

          John Yasi, Esq.
          Yasi And Yasi PC
          2 Salem Grn Ste 1
          Salem, MA 01970-3725
          Phone: (978) 741-0400


REMEC INC: June 2009 Pretrial Conference Set for Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
set a June 26, 2009 pretrial conference for the consolidated
securities fraud lawsuit filed against REMEC, Inc.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave
to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on Nov.
6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain affirmative
defenses.

Discovery has commenced and is ongoing.  The court granted
plaintiff's motion for class-certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

The parties engaged in discovery, including production of
documents, between May 2007 and March 2009.  All discovery,
including expert discovery, is now closed.

There are four motions seeking summary judgment or partial
summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by the
Defendants and one made by the Plaintiffs.  The time period for
filing dispositive motions has closed.

A Pretrial Conference has been scheduled by the Court for June
26, 2009, at which time a trial date will be set.

REMEC maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance,
and has tendered the defense of this lawsuit to its insurance
carriers.  The primary insurance carrier has agreed to pay
defense costs and provide coverage of this action, subject to a
reservation of rights, according to the company's May 1, 2009
Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, California 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058 and 800-449-4900
         Fax: 619-231-7423
         Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com

              - and -

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP
         550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 338-1133
         Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert W. Brownlie
         DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, US, LLP,
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, California 92101
         Phone: (619) 699-2700 and 858-638-6886
         Fax: 858-677-1401
         Web site: http://www.dlapiper.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Ruling on Review Bid in "Brown" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on the plaintiffs' petition for review of the order
decertifying the class in the suit styled in "Brown v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc.," remains pending, according to Reynolds
American, Inc.'s 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 action was brought against the major U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a
case filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

The action was seeking to recover restitution, disgorgement of
profits and other equitable relief under California Business and
Professions Code 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq.

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judge's order decertifying the class.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted.  Briefing is complete.
Oral argument occurred on March 3, 2009.  A decision is pending.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Briefing to Appeal in "Scott" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on an appeal to the amended judgment in favor of the
class in the Louisiana state court case styled, "Scott v.
American Tobacco Co.," which named a subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., as a defendant, is ongoing.

The suit was filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.

In 2004, a jury in Scott returned a verdict in favor of the
"Louisiana class" for $591 million to establish a state-wide
smoking cessation program.

In 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld class
certification, significantly reduced the scope of recovery, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Louisiana and U.S. Supreme Courts denied the defendants'
applications for writ of certiorari.

In July 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in
favor of the class for approximately $263 million plus interest
from June 30, 2004.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court signed the order for appeal of
the amended judgment.

Briefing is underway, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Ga. Smokers' Suit Over RICO Breach Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American, Inc. continues to defend a purported class-
action suit filed on behalf of Georgia smokers under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The suit styled, "Peoples v. Reynolds American, Inc.," was filed
on Nov. 17, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of Georgia smokers claiming that
the company, Altria and Lorillard, and/or their affiliates
wrongfully influenced the federal government's National Cancer
Institute not to recommend CT scans as a routine lung cancer
screening test for smokers.

The plaintiffs claim that the NCI's failure to endorse the test
leads insurers to deny reimbursement and persuades doctors not
to order the tests as a result.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages, including alleged
contemplated damages under RICO, punitive damages, attorney's
fees, interest and costs.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the case based on the
plaintiffs failure to state a claim meeting the basic
prerequisites of RICO, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Light Cigarettes" Suit Still Pending in Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action suits over "light cigarettes" that
were filed in Missouri against entities affiliated with Reynolds
American, Inc., and several other manufacturers remain pending.

Reynolds American was incorporated as a holding company in the
state of North Carolina on Jan. 5, 2004, and its common stock is
listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI.

On July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets, liabilities and
operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known
as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and referred to as B&W, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco
p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.

These July 30, 2004 transactions generally are referred to as
the B&W business combination.  As a result of the B&W business
combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of RAIs outstanding
common stock, and previous RJR stockholders exchanged their
shares of RJR common stock for approximately 58% of RAIs
outstanding common stock.

                       Collora Litigation

The suit "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," was filed with
the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri in May 2000.

On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all
persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special
lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri
for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants
placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights
and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce
through the date of this Order."

The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to
inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light"
smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.

The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the
claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained
"low tar and nicotine."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign
"Collora" to a single general division.  On April 9, 2007, the
Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion.

On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: "Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.," and "Black
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp."

                        Black Litigation

In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was granted on March 17, 2006.

The plaintiffs motion for class certification is scheduled to be
heard on April 16, 2008.

This case and certain other cases have been reassigned to a
single general division.

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the "Collora" and "Black"
cases pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group,
Inc.  As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Good
v. Altria Group, Inc.," this case is likely to become active in
2009, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Personal Injury Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The personal injury class-action suit styled, "Parsons v. A C &
S, Inc.," which names several Reynolds American, Inc. entities
as defendants, remains stayed by the bankruptcy proceedings of
various defendants.

In the case filed in February 1998, in Circuit Court, Ohio
County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover $1
million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The class is brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

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

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

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

No further developments in the case were reported in 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Howard Case as of May
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed against an affiliate of Reynolds
American, Inc., styled, "Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.," remains pending in Circuit Court, Madison County,
Illinois.

In the "Howard" case filed in February 2000 in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Dec. 18,
2001.

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of the "Price v. Philip Morris,
Inc." case.

The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.

The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's
stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

There is currently no activity in the case, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in Turner Case as of May
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed against a subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., styled, "Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,"
remains pending in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

In the Turner case filed in February 2000, in Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified a class on Nov. 14,
2001.

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris's appeal of the "Price v. Philip Morris
Inc." case, which the judge denied on July 11, 2003.

On Oct. 17, 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR
Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal
decision in Price.

The Price case is a seminal "lights" class-action involving RJR
Tobacco's competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal and remanded the case to the
circuit court.

There is currently no activity in the case, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Tatum" Suit Set to Begin on July 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit alleging that certain Reynolds American,
Inc. entities violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) is set for trial during the civil trial term
beginning on July 6, 2009.

On May 13, 2002, in "Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment
Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital
Investment Plan," an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-
action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, alleging ERISA violations by the defendants,
RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the
RJR Pension Investment Committee.

The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., renamed
Nabisco Group Holdings Corp. (NGH), to spin off RJR, thereby
separating NGH's tobacco business and food business.

As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously
related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for
the now separate tobacco and food businesses.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants violated ERISA by not
overriding an amendment to RJR's 401(k) plan requiring that,
prior to Feb. 1, 2000, the stock funds of the companies involved
in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., be
eliminated as investment options from RJR's 401(k) plan.

In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things,
that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the
RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation
that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the
NGH and Nabisco funds.

The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on
Dec. 10, 2003.  On Dec. 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On Jan. 20, 2005, the defendants filed a second
motion to dismiss on other grounds.  On March 7, 2007, the court
granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and
denied all pending motions as moot.  On April 6, 2007, the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On May 31,
2007, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The
remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer
and affirmative defenses on June 14, 2007.

On June 28, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the
complaint to add as parties defendant the six members of the RJR
Pension Investment Committee and the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee.  On March 13, 2008, the court denied this motion.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the court granted on Sept. 29, 2008.

Court ordered mediation occurred on July 10, 2008, but no
resolution of the case was reached.

On May 29, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings, which asked the court to dismiss the claims
asserted by class members who voluntarily transferred their
401(k) investments from the NGH and Nabisco funds before Jan.
31, 2000.  That motion remains outstanding.

On Sept. 18, 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants
filed motions for summary judgment.  A decision is pending.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class; that motion remains pending as well.  On Feb. 20, 2009,
the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied.
The case is scheduled for trial during the civil trial term
beginning on July 6, 2009, 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.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Privacy Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
     A notice program authorized by the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, began on May 20, 2009.  The notice is a result
of the Court certifying, on April 7, 2008, a plaintiff class in
lawsuits alleging that customers' personal, private, and
confidential financial information was disclosed for profit by
Sears to certain third-party vendors contrary to the
representations and obligations to its credit card holders.

     The lawsuits are "Bovay et al. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No.
01 CH 18096," consolidated with "Triezenberg et al v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., No. 02 CH 4693," and "Clark et al. v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., No. 03 CH 7605," (hereinafter "Sears Privacy
Litigation").

     The lawsuits include all persons and entities in the United
States, with the exception of members of the California Class in
"Utility Consumers' Action Network, et al. v. Sears Roebuck &
Co., et al., No. 306232" (Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco), who, between September 9, 1995, and June 22,
2001, were a Sears credit card customer and had certain
information (name, address, telephone number and scrambled or
unscrambled credit card number) disclosed by Sears to a third-
party vendor, Memberworks, Cendent, Encore Marketing and/or
Allstate Motor Club, with whom Sears had an agreement to
disclose certain information and pursuant to which Sears was
entitled to receive money, directly or indirectly, as a result
of any sales of goods, programs or services by the third-party
vendor or to Sears credit card holders or through an
administrative, service or transactional fee.

     The lawsuit claims that, contrary to its representations
not to do so, Sears, Roebuck & Co. ("Sears") obtained and
wrongfully disclosed its customers' personal, private, and
confidential financial information to third-party marketers for
profit without informing its customers.  Plaintiffs allege a
number of causes of action resulting from the alleged conduct of
Sears, including violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Unjust Enrichment, and Invasion of Privacy. Sears denies
Plaintiffs' claims.  The Court has not decided whether the Class
or Sears is right.

     The Court appointed Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates,
P.C., William J. Harte, William J. Harte, Ltd., Norman Rifkind,
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., and Bonny E. Sweeney, Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to represent the Class as
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel.

     Those who wish to remain members of the Class do not have
to do anything at this time. Class members who do not properly
and timely opt-out of the Class will be bound by all orders and
judgments of the Court.

For more details, visit http://www.searsprivacyclassaction.com.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Lawsuits in N.J., Pa. Over CDLs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co. face two separate class-action suits in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which are related to the estimated
5,000 Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDLs) the state of Tennessee
declared invalid after investigating the company's Tennessee
trucking school in 2008, Charlie Morasch of Land Line Magazine
reports.

In February 2008, the state-certified CDL testing center at a
Swift Trucking facility near Memphis was raided by multiple
state and federal agencies.  Documents were seized, and the
investigation reportedly centered on the illegal issuance of
CDLs, according to the Land Line Magazine report.

Although no charges emerged, in January 2009 the Tennessee
Department of Safety commissioner announced that drivers who
obtained CDLs through an unnamed third-party tester in Tennessee
between May 2005 and January 2008 might be required to do a
complete retest, reports Land Line Magazine.

A Freedom of Information Act request by Land Line Magazine later
revealed the tester was Swift.

Land Line Magazine reported that the Tennessee's move to yank
the CDLs following the investigation prompted other states to
revoke CDLs from drivers who originally obtained their CDLs
through Swift's Tennessee school, and has affected at least
5,000 drivers nationally.

The recently filed class-action lawsuits aim to get hearings for
the "mass revocation of hundreds of CDLs" in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, as well as other relief for former students of the
Millington, Tenn., driving school, reports Land Line Magazine.

Attorney Philip Stephen Fuoco, Esq. of Haddonfield, NJ, called
Tennessee's revocation of the CDLs unconstitutional "and un-
American," and blamed Tennessee and the other states for
revoking the licenses, Land Line Magazine reported.

For more details, contact:

          Law Firm of Philip Stephen Fuoco
          24 Wilkins Place
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033-2406
          Phone: (856) 354-1100


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces Tenn. Suit Over Revocation of CDLs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co. faces a purported class-action suit in
connection to the estimated 5,000 Commercial Driver's Licenses
(CDLs) that the state of Tennessee declared invalid after
investigating the the company's Tennessee trucking school in
2008, Charlie Morasch of Land Line Magazine reports.

The suit was filed on May 7, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee under the caption, "Lott et al
v. Swift Transportation Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2009-
cv-02287."  It was flied by Gerald L. Lott and Francisco
Armenta.

Aside from Swift Transportation, the litigation also names
Tennessee Department of Safety Commissioner David Mitchell as a
defendant, reports Land Line Magazine.

In February 2008, the state-certified CDL testing center at a
Swift Trucking facility near Memphis was raided by multiple
state and federal agencies.  Documents were seized, and the
investigation reportedly centered on the illegal issuance of
CDLs, according to the Land Line Magazine report.

Although no charges emerged, in January 2009 the Tennessee
Department of Safety announced that drivers who obtained CDLs
through one third-party tester in Tennessee between May 2005 and
January 2008 might be required to do a complete retest.

A Freedom of Information Act request by Land Line Magazine later
revealed the tester was Swift Transportation.

Tennessee's move to yank the CDLs prompted other states to
revoke CDLs from drivers who originally obtained their CDLs
through Swift's Tennessee school, and at least 5,000 drivers
nationally have been affected, Land Line Magazine reported.

The class-action lawsuit aims to get hearings for the "mass
revocation of hundreds of CDLs" in New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
as well as other relief for former students of the Millington,
Tenn., driving school, according to Land Line Magazine reports.


UNIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over AndroGel Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. along with several other drugmakers
face a purported class-action lawsuit for conspiring to keep
generic versions of the testosterone drug AndroGel off the
market.

The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota under the caption, "United Food
and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:2009-cv-01168."

Aside from Unimed Pharmaceuticals, other drugmakers named in the
suit are Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Paddock Laboratories, Inc.

The suit is "United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:2009-cv-01168," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge
Donovan W. Frank, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Karla M. Gluek, Esq. (kgluek@gustafsongluek.com)
          Gustafson Gluek PLLC
          608 2nd Ave S Ste 650
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-333-8844
          Fax: 612-339-6622


U.S. SMOKELESS: Mass. Judge To Approve $10.65M Tobacco Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Stephen Neel is expected to approve
a $10.65 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed
against the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. for price fixing, Thomas
Grillo of The Boston Herald reports.

Robert Bonsignore, the attorney who represented Massachusetts
consumers, told the Boston Herald, "This is the largest
settlement per consumer in the country in a case involving price
fixing for smokeless tobacco."  He adds, "It wasn't bad enough
that they have more than 80 percent of the market share on a
product that is more addictive than heroin, they also fixed the
price."

If approved by the Superior Court Business Litigation Session,
consumers could receive a cash payments ranging from $25 to $700
after a filing a claim with the court.  The case dates back to
2001 when three consumers signed onto the suit alleging price
fixing, The Boston Herald reported.


WORLDSPACE INC: Consolidated Litigation in N.Y. to Continue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Documents recently filed at the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
confirm that a consolidated class-action lawsuit will continue
against Worldspace, Inc., certain of the company's directors,
and others concerned with WorldSpace's Initial Public Offering,
Chris Forrester of Rapid TV News reports.

The suit, captioned, "WorldSpace Securities Litigation Case No.
07-2252," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the  Southern
District of New York.  It generally alleges that the company, in
its IPO prospectus, deliberately overstated subscriber numbers,
reports Rapid TV News.

The latest developments on the action were filed on Feb 4, 2009
when the lead plaintiff in the action filed a class proof of
claim in the amount of "not less than $55.4 million," Rapid TV
News reported.

The firm is currently emerging from its Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
and the court dealing with this was advised formally by lead
counsel of the latest developments on May 12, 2009, according to
the Rapid TV News report.


WEIDNER PROPERTIES: Settles Tenants' Litigation in Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weidner Properties settled a purported class-action lawsuit in
Alaska that was filed by former and current tenants of Weidner
Properties who paid late fees that were too high, Andrea Gusty
of CBS 11 News reports.

"The judge approved the class action settlement, which means the
checks will be going out," says Ryan Fortson, Esq. an attorney
with Northern Justice Project, the civil rights group that
brought the class-action suit, reports CBS 11 News.

The class-action lawsuit was approved last year, but the
payments were put on hold because Weidner said they could not
find all of the 3,700 Alaskans entitled to a refund, according
to the CBS 11 News report.

The settlement covers anyone who was a tenant of Weidner
Properties between July 2004 and June of 2008 -- and paid a late
fee, CBS 11 News reported.


WELLS FARGO: Seeks Summary Judgment in Ill. Ponzi Scheme Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp are seeking summary
judgment from Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack in
connection with an eight-year-old litigation over a Ponzi scheme
involving bond issues for nursing homes, Steve Korris of The St.
Clair Record reports.

In 2001, South Carolina lawyer Fred Thompson sued Marion Bass
Securities and 30 other defendants in connection with seven bond
issues for nursing homes in Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan,
according to The St. Clair Record report.

The nursing homes had defaulted in 1998, causing a loss to bond
holders that Mr. Thompson estimates at $39 million.  Mr.
Thompson's lead plaintiff, Al Kellerman, moved to certify a
class-action case on behalf of 649 investors in 2,013
transactions, The St. Clair Record reported.

Through the years bankruptcies and settlements have trimmed the
list of defendants.

Judge Stack hasn't ruled on class certification, and at his
hearing he invited lawyers to argue that before debating summary
judgment, The St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Thompson claims in the suit that Wells Fargo and Fifth Third
banks should have stopped the Ponzi scheme.

In seeking for summary judgment, the banks are arguing that
their role as indenture trustees didn't involve oversight, and
at March 24, 2009 hearing, Fifth Third's Scott Kane, Esq., said
Mr. Thompson sued the banks because he couldn't recover from
those who carried out the scheme, reports The St. Clair Record.

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Nortel Corp. (NYSE:NTL) between May 2, 2008
and September 17, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     Nortel is not named in this action as a defendant because
it and its core operating subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy
protection in January 2009.

     The complaint charges certain of Nortel's former executives
with violations of the Exchange Act.

     Nortel supplies end-to-end networking products and
solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify
communications.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that demand for the Company's products was declining
          as carriers cut back their capital expenditures and
          other customers deferred purchase decisions;

       -- that the Company's financial results were materially
          overstated as the Company was failing to properly
          write down its goodwill;

       -- that the Company's restructuring was not meeting with
          success as the Company was struggling to cut costs and
          improve profitability; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its business, operations, earnings and
          prospects.

     On September 17, 2008, Nortel issued a press release
announcing its "preliminary view on certain third quarter
results."  The Company also announced that it was engaging in a
"comprehensive review" of Nortel's business and that "planning"
was "underway for further restructuring and other cost reduction
initiatives."  In response to the Company's announcement, the
price of Nortel stock declined from $5.30 per share to $2.68, on
heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Nortel securities during the Class Period.

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

For more details, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfel, Esq. (ddjr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/nortelcorp/


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Has $349.1M Losses, LAE at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s gross unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses for asbestos claims were US$349,151,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$326,243,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

The Company's asbestos-related gross unpaid and LAE were
US$360.7 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$339.3 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, March 13, 2009)

The Company's net unpaid losses and LAE for asbestos claims were
US$224,897,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009,
compared with US$212,081,000 during the year ended March 31,
2008.

The Company's asbestos-related net unpaid and LAE expenses were
US$230.5 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, compared with
US$222.4 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action
Reporter, March 13, 2009)

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of March 31, 2009 is seven years. The
Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related
liabilities is eight years and for environmental-related
liabilities is four years.

The asbestos and environmental-related liability survival ratio
represents the asbestos and environmental reserves, net of
reinsurance, on March 31, 2009, divided by the average paid
asbestos and environmental claims for the last three years of
US$35 million, which are net of reinsurance.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an
underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty
products on a worldwide basis. The Company offers both treaty
and facultative reinsurance to property and casualty insurers
and reinsurers. The Company also writes insurance in the United
States and through the Lloyd's marketplaces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $1.75MM Claims Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related provision was
US$1,750,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31,
2009, according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net asbestos-related provision was US$6,607,000
during the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The Company's net asbestos-related gain was US$14,188,000 during
the fiscal three months ended March 28, 2008.

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $339.83MM Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$339,834,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$355,779,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$273,430,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared
with US$281,540,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.

Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims pending in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the subsidiaries during the 1970s
and earlier.

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites 131,010 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States faced
131,010 open asbestos claims during the fiscal three months
ended March 31, 2009, compared with 130,810 during the fiscal
three months ended March 28, 2008.

The Company's U.S. subsidiaries faced 130,760 open asbestos
claims during the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008, compared with
131,340 claims during the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2007.
(Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

During the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
had 1,300 new claims and 1,050 claims resolved. During the three
months ended March 28, 2008, the Company had 1,020 claims filed
and 1,550 claims resolved.

The Company's total U.S. asbestos liabilities were US$367.6
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$385.3 million as
of Dec. 26, 2008.

The Company's total asbestos-related assets were US$271.8
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$284.8 million as
of Dec. 26, 2008.

The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$20.6 million for three months ended March 31,
2009 and US$20 million for the fiscal three months ended March
28, 2008.

The Company funded US$6.4 million during the fiscal three months
ended March 31, 2009 and US$4.9 million during the fiscal three
months ended March 28, 2008 of the payments, while all remaining
amounts were paid from insurance proceeds. Through March 31,
2009, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were US$671,200,000
and total cumulative defense costs paid were US$293,700,000.

As of March 31, 2009, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$146,000,000 relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$221,600,000 relating to future unasserted claims
through the fiscal first quarter of 2024.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost
per resolved claim through March 31, 2009 has been about
US$2,800.

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Sees $25.9M Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG, as of March 31, 2009, estimated the value of
its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$25.9 million.

As of Dec. 26, 2008, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$24.8 million. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the subsidiaries' various insurers and the
subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain of the subsidiaries have
entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to make
lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by the
subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense
costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of
out-of-pocket costs previously incurred.

In the fiscal three months ended March 28, 2008, the
subsidiaries reached an agreement to settle their disputed
asbestos-related insurance coverage with an additional insurer.
As a result of this settlement, the Company increased its
asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$15.9
million in the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2008.

In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above
coverage litigation with the subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On Oct.
11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate
court decision in the Company's favor.

The Company had net cash outflows of US$6.4 million as a result
of asbestos liability indemnity payments and defense costs in
excess of insurance settlement proceeds during the fiscal three
months ended March 31, 2009. The Company expects to fund a total
of US$26.5 million of the asbestos liability indemnity and
defense costs from its cash flows in fiscal year 2009, net of
the cash expected to be received from existing insurance
settlements.

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Still Has 357 Claims in U.K.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, as of
March 31, 2009, still faced 357 claims alleging personal injury
arising from exposure to asbestos.

To date, 908 claims have been brought against the U.K.
subsidiaries. None of the settled claims has resulted in
material costs to the Company.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$37.3 million comprised of an estimated liability relating
to open (outstanding) claims of US$7.9 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the
fiscal first quarter of 2024 of US$29.4 million. Of the total,
US$2.7 million was recorded in accrued expenses and US$34.6
million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$2.7 million
was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$34.6
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment. If this ruling is reversed by legislation,
the total asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the
U.K. would be about US$50.8 million.

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs over 14,000 professionals with
specialized expertise dedicated to serving clients through one
of its two primary business groups.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Dana Remain at 31,000 at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 31,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims at March 31, 2009 and
at Dec. 31, 2008.

In addition, about 15,000 mostly inactive claims have been
settled and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with
or without payment. The Company has accrued US$125 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future
claims at March 31, 2009, compared with US$124 million at Dec.
31, 2008.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had recorded US$64 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending
and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, an
increase of US$1 million from the amount at Dec. 31, 2008 due to
accretion.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles;
driveshafts; and structural, sealing and thermal-management
products; as well as genuine service parts. As of March 31,
2009, the Company employed about 24,000 people with 113 major
facilities in 26 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Still Has $2M Receivable for CCR Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, at March 31, 2009, had a receivable of
US$2 million for the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR)
asbestos-related claims to be recovered, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

After the CCR discontinued negotiating shared settlements for
asbestos claims for its member companies in 2001, some former
CCR members defaulted on the payment of their shares of some
settlements and some settling claimants sought payment of the
unpaid shares from other members of the CCR at the time of the
settlements, including from the Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, its insurers and the claimants over a period of several
years in an effort to resolve these issues. Through March 31,
2009, the Company had paid US$47 million to claimants and
collected US$45 million with respect to these claims.

Efforts to recover additional CCR-related payments from surety
bonds and other claims are continuing. Additional recoveries are
not assured and accordingly have not been recorded as assets at
March 31, 2009.

Based in Toledo, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies axles;
driveshafts; and structural, sealing and thermal-management
products; as well as genuine service parts. As of March 31,
2009, the Company employed about 24,000 people with 113 major
facilities in 26 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Unit Has 981 New Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received 981 new asbestos claims during the three months ended
March 31, 2009, compared with 2,005 new claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2008.

As reported in the 2008 Annual Report, MLIC received 5,063
asbestos-related claims in 2008.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek
both actual and punitive damages.

MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-
containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with
respect to certain research, publication and other activities of
one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s
through the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.

MLIC said it believes that it should not have legal liability in
these cases.

Based in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, employee
benefits and financial services with operations throughout the
United States and the Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific
regions. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Company
offers life insurance, annuities, auto and home insurance,
retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as
well as group insurance and retirement & savings products and
services to corporations and other institutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Cites $3.33Bil in Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability
for unpaid claims for and claims adjustment expense was US$3.330
billion during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$3.598 billion during the three months ended March 31,
2008.

The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense was US$1.195 billion during the three
months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$1.300 billion
during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

The gross IBNR (incurred but not reported) included in the
liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense
relating to asbestos claims was US$2.246 billion during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$2.409
billion during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

The net IBNR included in the liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense relating to asbestos claims was US$929
million during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared
with US$1.052 billion during the three months ended March 31,
2008.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company had
232 claims opened, 133 claims settled, 178 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 5,701 pending claims.

During the three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company had
198 claims opened, 30 claims settled, 344 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,387 pending claims.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Wabtec, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of
its affiliates continue to face claims filed in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.

Over the last four years, the overall number of new claims filed
has significantly decreased as compared to the previous four-
year period. However, the resolution of these new claims, and
all previously filed claims, may take a significant period of
time.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that
the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Based in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation provides products and services for the global rail
industry. Wabtec is a global company with operations in 16
countries. In the first three months of 2009, about 36 percent
of the Company's revenues came from customers outside the U.S.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Continues to Face Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) continues
to be a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain
components of the Company's products many years ago.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its
former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by the
Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007. The Company is also
responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated
with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International
Corporation's (RIC) divested measurement and flow control
business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it says
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from the Company's former Allen-
Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance
carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and
future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay
the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds
are depleted.

The Company said it believes that these arrangements will
continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims
throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

In connection with the sale of its Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, the
Company agreed to indemnify the purchaser, Baldor Electric
Company, for costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy
environmental and asbestos matters of these businesses,
including certain damages pertaining to the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, arising before Jan. 31, 2007, for which the
maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received for the
sale.

Based in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial
automation company. The Company's Control Products & Solutions
unit makes industrial automation products. To complement its
automation product offerings, the Company also offers factory
management software.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Corp. Facing 67,540 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation faced 67,540 asbestos claims as of March 31,
2009, as compared with 68,520 as of Dec. 31, 2008 and 72,870 as
of March 31, 2008.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by
various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor,
generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a
producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of
the Company's products is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

During the first quarter of 2009, the Company received 1,140 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket 2,120 claims.

The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
US$15 million during 2008 and US$17.5 million during 2007.

Based in New York, CBS Corporation is a television broadcasting
and production company. The Company also operates about 40 TV
stations around the United States owns 50 percent of The CW
Network.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Reserves $19.6MM for A&E Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's net reserve unpaid losses and loss
adjustment expenses reserves was US$19.6 million at March 31,
2009, compared with US$20.3 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's gross reserve for unpaid losses and LAE was
US$19.7 million at March 31, 2009, compared with US$20.4 million
at Dec. 31, 2008.

The reserves were for liability coverage related to asbestos and
environmental impairment claims that arose from reinsurance
assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Indemnity Corporation between
1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited this business in 1976.

Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation engages in the property
and casualty and surety insurance business. The Company also
owns about 33 percent stake in Homesite Group Incorporated, a
national, full-service, mono-line provider of homeowners
insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Delaware Court Rules on Federal-Mogul Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, issued a ruling
in the asbestos case, which is part of In re Federal-Mogul
Global, et al., styled Certain Underwriters at Lloyds's London,
et al., Appellants v. Federal-Mogul Global Inc., et al.,
Appellees.

Senior District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered judgment in
Civil Action Nos. 08-0229, 08-230 on March 24, 2009.

This matter comprised two consolidated matters arising from an
appeal of the Preemption Order and Memorandum Opinion issued by
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in Case
No. 01-10578.

In the case below, the Bankruptcy Court held that the assignment
of rights in certain insurance policies to an asbestos trust is
valid under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Appellants directly
challenged that holding.

As a result, the issue remained whether, under the Bankruptcy
Code, the assignment of Asbestos Insurance Policies to a trust
is valid and enforceable against the Insurers notwithstanding
anti-assignment provisions in or incorporated in the Policies
and applicable state law.

Federal-Mogul Global Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries
("Appellees" or "FMC") filed for bankruptcy in October 2001 due
to overwhelming debts accrued from asbestos-related litigation.
FMC proposed a reorganization plan to resolve all current and
future liability claims.

Appellants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, London
Market Insurers, Certain London Market Companies ("LMI") and
Certain Appellants have maintained throughout the confirmation
process that the Plan violated their contractual rights under
the applicable insurance policies.

In accordance with the Joint Motion and Stipulation, the
Bankruptcy Court issued its Preemption Order and Memorandum
Opinion on March 19, 2008. That decision was appealed by LMI and
Certain Other Insurers (Certain Appellants). The cases have been
consolidated on appeal, which brought the Court to the present
dispute.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Has Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be party to asbestos-related
lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an
injury for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits.

However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber.
Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products
were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into cost-sharing agreements with
multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos and
silica lawsuits. The Company said it believes some of the
potential liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by
indemnity agreements with other parties.

The Company's uninsured settlement payments for past asbestos
and silica lawsuits have not been material.

Based in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver, Inc. designs,
manufactures, and sells compressor products. The Company also
makes vacuum and fluid transfer products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Has $1.21B for Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.21
billion at March 31, 2009 and US$1.23 billion at Dec. 31, 2008.

The reserves, net of reinsurance recoverable, were US$688
million at March 31, 2009 and US$704 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

About 64 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at March 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008 were for incurred
but not reported estimated losses.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation sells auto,
homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products in
Canada and the United States. The Company's life insurance
subsidiaries include Allstate Life, American Heritage Life, and
Lincoln Benefit Life. Allstate Financial provides life insurance
and investment products, targeting affluent and middle-income
consumers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. FirstEnergy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings are pending against FirstEnergy Corp.
and its subsidiaries.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Akron, Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide
electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants have a total
generating capacity of more than 14,120 MW, most generated by
coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Facing Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to face personal injury
claims, including claims by employees of third-party contractors
alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene while working
at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of acquired
companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is
an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company. Its primary line of business is the exploration,
development, production, gathering, processing and marketing of
natural gas, crude oil, condensate and NGLs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 180 Md. Cases Pending v. Pepco at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Potomac Electric Power
Company (Pepco), as of March 31, 2009, faced 180 asbestos-
related cases in the State Courts of Maryland, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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

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

Initially, a total of 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to
their complaints. While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it
appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory
damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each
defendant.

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

Of the pending cases as of March 31, 2009, about 90 cases were
filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant
Corporation for defense and indemnification under the terms of
the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement between Pepco and Mirant
under which Pepco sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about
US$360 million, the Company and Pepco believe the amounts
claimed by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Based in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc. is a diversified
energy company that, through its operating subsidiaries, is
engaged primarily in two businesses: the distribution,
transmission and default supply of electricity and the delivery
and supply of natural gas; and competitive energy generation,
marketing and supply.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Beloit Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation is still party to litigation, including
product warranty and liability claims, contract disputes and
environmental, asbestos, employment and other litigation
matters.

The Company's products are used in various industrial,
commercial and residential applications that subject it to
claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted
in injury or other damage.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures
commercial, industrial, and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) electric motors, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 26,282 Claims Ongoing v. Harsco at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced 26,282 pending
asbestos personal injury claims filed against it, according to
the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 26,235 pending asbestos
personal injury claims filed against it. (Class Action Reporter,
March 6, 2009)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90
or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several
decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants
many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous
types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the pending cases, 25,769 were pending in the New York
Supreme Court for New York County in New York State. The other
claims, totaling 513, are filed in various counties in a number
of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert
lesser amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or
do not state any amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 17,958 cases.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 437 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Based in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation provides industrial
services and engineered products. The Company's operations fall
into two reportable segments: Harsco Infrastructure (formerly
Access Services) and Harsco Metals (formerly Mill Services),
plus an "all other" category labeled Harsco Minerals & Rail.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. continues to be subject to legal and administrative
proceedings over allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances like asbestos and benzene.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Philadelphia, Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum refiner and
marketer and chemicals manufacturer with interests in logistics
and cokemaking.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Has 34,692 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation faced 34,692 asbestos cases as of
April 3, 2009, of which 1,159 cases were non-maritime and 33,533
were maritime cases.

The Company, which faced asbestos litigation for about 20 years,
was a defendant in 34,730 lawsuits as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, March 27, 2009)

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company. These cases were brought in various jurisdictions
throughout the United States.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.9 million
as of April 3, 2009 and US$5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The
Company had recovered US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for
these lawsuits.

Based in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corporation
develops, designs, manufactures, and distributes copper,
aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company
has three reportable segments: 1) North America, 2) Europe and
North Africa and 3) Rest of World.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Cites Pneumo Abex Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas, Inc. has certain indemnification obligations
related to product liability and toxic tort claims that might
emanate out of the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex Corporation.

Other companies not owned by or associated with the Company also
are responsible to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all
asbestos product liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex
after a certain date in 1998, except for certain claims
indemnified by the Company.

Based in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas, Inc. sells various brands
that it bottles under licenses from PepsiCo, Inc. or PepsiCo
joint ventures, which accounted for about 80 percent of the
Company's total net sales in fiscal year 2008. The Company
accounts for about 19 percent of all PepsiCo beverage products
sold in the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 630 Actions at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of March 31, 2009, faced 630
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's latest
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced 591 asbestos-related
lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name
many other corporate defendants. All of the claims against the
Company resolved to date have been concluded before trial,
either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to
the plaintiff that are not material to the Company.

At March 31, 2009, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of US$17 million, a significant portion of which
relates to asbestos.

Based in Glen Allen, Va., MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global
packaging company that provides packaging solutions to the
healthcare, personal and beauty care, food, beverage, tobacco,
media and entertainment, and home and garden industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrues $23.67MM Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
were US$23,673,000 as of March 31, 2009, compared with
US$23,758,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001. The Company's ultimate exposure will depend
upon the number of claims filed against it on or after Sept. 1,
2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof.

At March 31, 2009, about 3,655 cases were outstanding for which
the Company was responsible for any related liabilities. Since
inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2009, the amounts
paid for settled claims are about US$8.1 million.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims to the
insurance carrier for coverage under this agreement, and the
insurance carrier has accepted coverage for about US$1.3 million
of claims. The Company has submitted additional asbestos-related
claims to the insurance carrier for coverage.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31,
2008. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$25.3 million
to US$69.2 million for the period through 2059.

Accordingly, an incremental US$2.1 million provision in the
Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos
accrual in September 2008 increasing the reserve to US$25.3
million.

According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed
as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from US$19.1 million to US$32.1 million
during the same period.

Based in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor
vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Units Still Face Actions in 33 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and five of its subsidiaries continue to face
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims in 33 states.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia and Wyoming.

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related
personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except
for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered
in full by insurance subject to applicable deductibles.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., IDEX Corporation is an applied
solutions company specializing in fluid and metering
technologies, health and science technologies, dispensing
equipment, and fire, safety and other diversified products built
to its customers' specifications.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

A small percentage of claims have been asserted by railroad
workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries. Nearly all of the claims are related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in its automotive emission control
products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

During the first quarter of 2009, voluntary dismissals were
initiated on behalf of 12 plaintiffs and are in process. The
Company was dismissed from an additional 76 cases.

Based in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. manufactures automotive
emission control and ride control products and systems. The
Company serves both original equipment (OE) vehicle designers
and manufacturers and the repair and replacement markets, or
aftermarket, globally through brands, including Monroe, Rancho,
Clevite Elastomers and Fric Rottm ride control products and
Walker, Fonostm, and Gillettm emission control products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs PCA's Motion for Attorney's Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta
Division, affirmed Packaging Corporation of America's Motion for
Attorney's Fees, in a case involving asbestos filed by Matthew
Williams.

The case is styled Matthew Williams, Plaintiff v. Packaging
Corporation of America; and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, USW (Local 646), Defendants.

District Judge Hugh Lawson entered judgment in Civil Action No.
7:06-CV-111(HL) on March 20, 2009.

PCA filed its Motion for Attorney's Fees after the Court granted
its Motion for Summary Judgment in an Order entered on May 22,
2008.

PCA owns and operates a pulp and paper mill in Valdosta, Ga. The
mill, which opened in 1954, has been owned by PCA since 1999.
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union (USW) is the
collective bargaining representative of the maintenance and
operation employees at the facility. Local 646 consists of those
members of the bargaining unit who choose to join USW. A
collective bargaining agreement governs the terms and conditions
of employment of bargaining unit employees at the mill.

In 1970, Mr. Williams started working at PCA's Valdosta mill as
an Extra Hand in the Woodyard. In April 1977, he transferred to
the Brick-mason/Carpenter job classification in the Maintenance
Department. On July 1, 1986, he was promoted to Brick-
mason/Carpenter Leader.

When Mr. Williams started working as a Brick-mason/Carpenter,
the Maintenance Department consisted of single-skill Brick-
mason/Carpenters and multi-skill General Mechanics. Prior to
1968, the Maintenance Department consisted of numerous single-
skill job classifications like Machinists, Welders, Brick-
mason/Carpenters, and Pipefitters.

Because Tenneco, PCA's predecessor, abolished the line during
the term of a CBA, USW's predecessor filed a grievance. In
November 1998, Mr. Williams filed suit in this Court against
Tenneco for race discrimination. This Court granted summary
judgment to Tenneco, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

On Nov. 2, 2006, Mr. Williams filed suit against PCA in this
Court, alleging that PCA's refusal to place him in a line of
progression that allowed for promotions and pay increases
constituted unlawful race discrimination and retaliation.

In addition, Mr. Williams asserted a negligence claim against
PCA based on Mr. Williams' alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
during his employment at the mill.

On April 5, 2007, Mr. Williams filed an Amended Complaint that
added USW Local 646 as a Defendant. The Amended Complaint
alleged that USW Local 646 breached its duty of fair
representation when it did not process a grievance on Mr.
Williams' behalf.

PCA filed a Motion to Dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims, except
for his 1981 claims.

On May 18, 2007, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part PCA's Motion to Dismiss. On Oct. 22, 2007, Local
646 and PCA each filed Motions for Summary Judgment, and shortly
thereafter Mr. Williams filed his own Motion for Summary
Judgment. He responded to Local 646's Motion, but he did not
respond to PCA's Motion.

On June 6, 2008, PCA filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees. In its
Motion, PCA contended that it is entitled to attorney's fees
because all of Mr. Williams' claims were frivolous. PCA also
asserted that Mr. Williams' claims were brought in bad faith.

PCA's Motion for Attorney's Fees was granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 22 Suits Filed in Madison in April 27-May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of April 27, 2009 through May 1, 2009, 22 new
asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit Court,
Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- Case No. 09-L-439: Gerard Abbott of Minnesota, a laborer,
   quality control manager, concrete finisher, block layer,
   maintenance worker, restaurant manager, home renovator and
   real estate agent, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq.,
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Abbott.

-- Case No. 09-L-435: Harold L. and Peggy Austin of Arkansas
   claim Mr. Austin developed lung cancer after his work as a
   foreman at Industrial Insulation. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
   Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton,
   Ill., represent the Austins.

-- Case No. 09-L-436: Gary and Theresa Brown of Indiana claim
   Mr. Brown developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer,
   truck driver and UPS driver throughout Indiana and Ohio.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent the Browns.

-- Case No. 09-L-434: Giulio and Leonarda Cardella of Arizona
   claim Mr. Cardella developed mesothelioma after his work for
   Mormino and Sons Garden Center, the County of Maricopa
   comptroller and GC Plumbing. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq.,
   Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and David J. Page, Esq., of Saville and
   Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Cardellas.

-- Case No. 09-L-433: Charles and Mariam Carver claim Mr. Carver
   developed mesothelioma after his work for Globe American
   Corporation, the U.S. Navy and Chrysler Corporation. Richard
   L. Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., David J. Page,
   Esq., and Andrew J. Balcer, Esq., of Saville and Flint in
   Alton, Ill., represent the Carvers.

-- Case No. 09-L-430: Joe Castle of Kentucky claims his deceased
   wife, Mary Castle, died of mesothelioma. He says she came
   into contact with asbestos fibers through clothing he would
   wear home from his work as a carpenter, strip miner and
   laborer at various locations in Kentucky. Christopher R.
   Guinn, Esq., Christopher J. Levy, Esq., Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., and John A. Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Castle.

-- Case No. 09-L-445: Nileen Copeman of Michigan, a waitress and
   laborer, claims mesothelioma. She says she was also exposed
   to asbestos fibers through her husband, who worked as a
   laborer, assembly worker, owner and operator. Her father, who
   worked as a lineman and division forestry supervisor, would
   also bring asbestos fibers home on his clothing. Nicholas J.
   Angelides, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represents Ms. Copeman.

-- Case No. 09-L-452: Walter Counts of Missouri, a laborer,
   truck and tractor driver, supply motor operator and hoist
   operator at locations in Illinois and Missouri claims
   mesothelioma. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., and Sean M. Keane, Esq.,
   of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Counts.

-- Case No. 09-L-448: Judith Ann Crum claims mesothelioma on
   behalf of her deceased husband, Don Lewis Crum, who worked as
   a machinist, forestman, maintenance personnel, Wal-Mart
   greeter, drywaller and roofer. Mrs. Crum says her husband was
   secondarily exposed to asbestos through his father. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates represents Mrs.
   Crum.

-- Case No. 09-L-442: Gary Dithmart of Iowa, a laborer, claims
   colon cancer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Mr.
   Dithmart.

-- Case No. 09-L-428: Sue Dyer of Minnesota claims her deceased
   husband, Steven Dyer, developed lung cancer after his work
   from as a maintenance worker, installer, heavy equipment
   operator, metal framer, cabinet assembler and fireman. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M.
   Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mrs. Dyer.

-- Case No. 09-L-449: Delois Fleming of Tennessee claims her
   recently deceased son, Christopher Fleming, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a clerk, driver and laborer.
   Mrs. Fleming says her son was secondarily exposed to asbestos
   fibers through his father, who worked as a lab worker at
   Bridgestone/Firestone. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., W. Brent Copple,
   Esq., and Sean M. Keane, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mrs. Fleming.

-- Case No. 09-L-427: Leonard and Joyce Marie Jansen claim Mr.
   Jansen developed malignant mesothelioma after his work
   repairing AC and heating systems and replacing gaskets and
   serviced circulating pumps on cooling towers. Donald M.
   Flack, Esq., of Flack Law Office in Wood River, Ill.,
   represents the Jansens.

-- Case No. 09-L-447: John W. Johnson of Texas, a laborer,
   grinder and maintenance man, claims lung cancer. He says he
   was secondarily exposed to asbestos through his father and
   brother. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Mr.
   Johnson.

-- Case No. 09-L-441: Ronald Mitchem Sr. and Karen Mitchem claim
   Mr. Mitchem developed mesothelioma after his work performing
   various jobs within the core room of the foundry, performing
   final inspections of finished tanks, working as a maintenance
   supervisor, performing auto mechanic work and performing
   residential construction work from. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the
   Mitchems.

-- Case No. 09-L-438: Geraldine Novack of Massachusetts, a
   seamstress and cashier, claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Ms.
   Novack.

-- Case No. 09-L-446: David Rees of Illinois, a mechanic,
   laborer, service worker and coal miner, claims mesothelioma.
   G. Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Rees.

-- Case No. 09-L-444: Franklin Speckman of Ohio, a furnace
   tender, mechanical engineer, aerospace technology equipment
   designer, tool designer and plant manager from, claims
   mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
   and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCoooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Speckman.

-- Case No. 09-L-431: Tives Staten of Kentucky, a furniture
   deliveryman, laborer, mechanic, construction worker, welder
   and industrial press setter in California, Michigan and
   Florida, claims mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq.,
   Christopher J. Levy, Esq. Perry J. Browder, Esq., and John A.
   Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Staten.

-- Case No. 09-L-437: Larry Stewart claims mesothelioma on
   behalf of his deceased mother, Lora Stewart, who worked as a
   welder. She was exposed to asbestos fibers through her
   relative, William Stewart, who worked as a heating and air
   conditioning technician and sheet metal worker. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M.
   Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Stewart.

-- Case No. 09-L-429: Carol Stout of Missouri claims her
   deceased husband, Carlos Stout, developed lung cancer after
   his work at Perfection Bakeries, in the U.S. Navy, and on the
   annealing furnace in 1948. She says her husband also worked
   as a carpenter's helper, a laborer, assembler, and trim
   repairman. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Stout.

-- Case No. 09-L-443: Iris E. Williams of Michigan, a teacher,
   claims mesothelioma. She says she was also exposed to
   asbestos fibers through her father and ex-husband. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Williams.

-- Case No. 09-L-432: Joseph and Lorraine Wozniak of Nevada
   claim Mr. Wozniak developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   molder's helper, infantryman, operator, mail carrier, quality
   control and superintendent of operations in Illinois. Shane
   F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in
   East Alton, Ill., represent the Wozniaks.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartlepool Cargo Worker Gets Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Waite, a 62-year-old former docker from Seaton Carew,
Hartlepool, England, received a substantial yet undisclosed
amount of asbestos compensation at Teeside Crown Court, the
Hartlepool Mail reports.

Judge Peter Bowers ruled Mr. Waite was negligently exposed to
asbestos while unloading cargo ships in Hartlepool docks.

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority, now owned by PD Teesport,
denied that Mr. Waite had been exposed to asbestos during his
employment.

Mr. Waite did not handle asbestos, but was exposed to it while
working as a docker from 1972 until the 1980s, unloading timber
brought to Hartlepool on Russian cargo ships.

Mr. Waite said the pipe work in the ships' holds was covered
with asbestos, and that he was exposed to asbestos dust when the
pipe work insulation was disturbed as the timber was being
unloaded. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2007.

Thompsons Solicitors obtained evidence to prove that asbestos
was present on the ships' pipe work in the areas where Mr. Waite
worked.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Cities Given Stimulus Cleanup Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain cities in Massachusetts were given stimulus grants to
aid asbestos and environmental cleanup, in which the funds are
provided by federal stimulus money with money available through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Asbestos.com
reports.

The Act was designed to help communities clean up sites
containing hazardous chemicals or pollutants. Massachusetts
grants include US$2.7 million from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act and US$4.4 million from the Environmental
Protection Agency general program funding.

Announced May 12, 2009, the grants are intended to renew and
improve conditions of former industrial and commercial
locations.

The Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission received
US$400,000 for the cleanup of the former Worcester Technical
High School, while the city of Worcester received a US$200,000
communitywide assessment grant. North Brookfield received
US$200,000 that will aid in the continued cleanup of asbestos on
South Common Street.

Asbestos fabric and other asbestos-contaminated products were
created on the site until the 1980s by Aztec Industries/Asbestos
Textile.

The grant for South Common Street is the third received for the
cleanup of a 5.3-acre area known as the North Brookfield
Downtown Development Project.

Former Selectman James J. Foyle stated that the continued
cleanup of the site will make the property suitable for lease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oldham Engineer Gets GBP400T Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Smith, a 56-year-old engineer from Shaw, Oldham, England,
was awarded GBP400,000 in damages after he developed
mesothelioma in 2007 caused by exposure to asbestos, the
Manchester Evening News reports.

Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos while working as an
apprentice. He set up a business maintaining street lights for
local councils almost 25 years ago, but was forced to give it up
when he became ill in 2007.

Mr. Smith suspected a problem a year before he was diagnosed. He
went to Oldham General Hospital chest clinic. He was eventually
sent to North Manchester General, where specialist John Manders
explained he had terminal lung cancer and had a year to live.

It was claimed that Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos while
working for Associated Electrical Industries at Trafford Park,
which has since moved, and by Alstom Energy, which paid the
compensation.

Joanne Candlish, from Thompson's Solicitors, said, "It was
hugely important for Mr. Smith to protect his family's financial
welfare which he had worked all his life to maintain."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Royal Navy Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 86-year-old Donald Gregory
was linked to exposure to asbestos while he was working for
Royal Navy, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Gregory of Northwood Street, Stapleford, England, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006.

The inquest at Nottingham Coroner's Court heard Mr. Gregory's
condition deteriorated until his death on May 7, 2009 at the
Queen's Medical Centre.

Notts coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ellington Injury Case Ongoing in MDL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos lawsuit filed by 94-year-old Rubert Ellington of
Tennessee is ongoing in Multi District Litigation court, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Ellington claims his former employers owe him US$2.5 million
for wrecking his health. He sued Illinois Central Railroad at
U.S. district court in East St. Louis, Ill., in 2007, claiming
it exposed him to harmful asbestos from 1959 to 1979.

Lawyer William Gavin, Esq., of Belleville added a claim that
BNSF similarly harmed Mr. Ellington from 1957 to 1959. Mr.
Gavin's complaint showed Mr. Ellington was born in 1914.

On May 14, 2009, Mr. Ellington answered his phone in Milan,
Tenn., and said he could not hear well. He heard a question
about his age and said he was born on Sept. 21, 1914.

Mr. Ellington's claim will vanish unless Mr. Gavin rescues it
from swift disposal by U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of
Philadelphia.

Judge Robreno, responsible for pretrial proceedings in asbestos
suits from federal courts around the nation, has cleared away
claims at a rate of 6,000 in 2009.

On May 4, 2009, Judge Robreno appointed a mediator for 2,800
plaintiffs from Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois, including more
than 100 from the Southern District of Illinois.

On May 7, 2009, Judge Robreno focused on 22 Gavin plaintiffs and
five clients of St. Louis lawyer Patrick O'Brien, Esq., in the
Southern District. They all sued Illinois Central as their
former employer. Among those who listed home towns, not one
lived in Southern Illinois.

Defendants asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation to transfer them to Philadelphia, and the panel
granted transfers.

This February 2009, defendants filed show cause motions
asserting that plaintiffs did not state specific claims as Judge
Robreno required.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. State Legislature Fails to Pass Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Legislature was unsuccessful in passing a
bill that would have limited a successor corporation's liability
for asbestos-related claims to an amount equal to the
predecessor corporation's adjusted total gross assets, the
Insurance Journal reports.

According to the American Insurance Association, "Manufacturers
would have seen dramatically higher liability costs and a flood
of litigation if SB 5964 had been enacted," said Steve Suchil,
AIA assistant vice president, state affairs.

Mr. Suchil added, "The bill would have greatly expanded asbestos
liability for manufacturers who produced a product that later
had asbestos added to it."

AIA applauded the defeat of the bill. "Given the state of the
economy, now is not the time to encourage more lawsuits or
expand product liability," Mr. Suchil added.

To view the bill, visit
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5964#history.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orono, Maine to Get $200T EPA Cleanup Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The town of Orono, Maine, will receive US$200,000 from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in the form of a Brownfield
cleanup grant, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The grant will be used in the Webster Mill redevelopment
project. The Webster Mill site was once home to a paper mill.
The mill is one of 15 former mills in the state of Maine to
receive EPA funds.

The cleanup estimate for the site announced totals US$300,000.
About US$280,000 will go towards removing toxic lead and arsenic
from the soil. The remaining US$20,000 will be used to conduct
asbestos abatement in the mill building.

The Maine Historic Preservation Commission believes the 130-
year-old building could be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The building is likely the
only example of an unaltered 19th century paper mill remaining
in Maine.

The US$200,000 grant will be supplemented by the town in the
amount of US$40,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Senate Bill 1123 Currently Pending in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Robert Duncan's new asbestos bill, dubbed the
"Mesothelioma Senate Bill 1123" is currently pending in Texas,
Asbestos.com reports.

Officials have noted that the legislation may face opposition
from interest groups, corporations and businesses.

Victims of asbestos exposure may experience greater ease in
filing asbestos lawsuits due to a new bill introduced in the
Texas Senate. This new legislation, if passed, may ease the
requirements for plaintiffs who file a lawsuit to seek
compensation following an asbestos-related disease diagnosis.

The bill will significantly lower standards that are required to
demonstrate proof that exposure to asbestos was the cause of a
patient's cancer development.

Senator Duncan said recent court rulings have made filing an
asbestos-related lawsuit difficult for mesothelioma patients who
must provide evidence for the cause of their cancer.

If the bill is passed by the Texas House, it will put Texas in
line with other states when it comes to asbestos legislation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mirror "Bares" Disposal of Asbestos Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos documents seen by the Mirror prove that the Health and
Safety Executive, the United Kingdom government agency
responsible for licensing asbestos work, is shredding vital
papers about the substance, the Mirror reports.

The Mirror claims that the HSE, which boasts, "our mission is to
prevent death, injury and ill health in Great Britain's
workplaces" shreds paper files after nine years and even
destroys electronic ones after just seven years.

The revelation comes days after Prime Minister Gordon Brown met
asbestos campaigners and leaders of all the main teaching unions
and told them he wanted to tackle Britain's "Asbestos Time
Bomb."

Asbestos campaigners branded the policy "a scandal" and warned
that victims of mesothelioma could die before they get justice.

On May 17, 2009, Carole Hagedorn (a teacher diagnosed with
mesothelioma in 2008) said, "I was absolutely horrified and very
disappointed that the records have been destroyed."

The cause of her exposure cannot be disclosed for legal reasons,
but Mrs. Hagedorn, of Chelmsford, Essex, said, "I can't
establish if licensed or unlicensed asbestos contractors were
involved."

Mrs. Hagedorn said it was beyond belief that electronic records
were being destroyed when a single CD could store hundreds of
thousands items of data and the policy shows a "primitive
attitude" to the asbestos problem.

Alan Ritchie, General Secretary of construction workers' union
UCATT, said: "This is ridiculous. When a member develops
mesothelioma, the clock is ticking they only have months to
live.

"It is always a challenge to identify where a worker was exposed
to asbestos, especially in a casualized industry such as
construction. Any delay in a claim means that a worker is
unlikely to receive compensation during their lifetime. The HSE
should be assisting workers not making their battle for
compensation more difficult."

Asbestos campaigners say the policy of destroying records is a
waste of public money as insurance companies can wash their
hands of claims and all compensation has to come out of the
public purse.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Has 865 W.Va. Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging
exposure to asbestos, as of March 31, 2009, was 865 in West
Virginia and three in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced 853 asbestos exposure
claims in West Virginia and five exposure claims in
Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009)

Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging
bodily injury involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture,
sale or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the
Company. These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations
and are related to the installation and removal of asbestos-
containing materials at the Company's generation facilities.

The Company's historical operations were insured by various
foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.
Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been
reimbursed in full by recoveries from these historical insurers.

Certain insurers, however, have contested their obligations to
pay for the future defense and settlement costs relating to the
asbestos suits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and
environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.),

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.), and

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
   Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior
   Court, Ma.).

The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have resolved
their dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS will
be voluntarily dismissed.

The parties in the remaining actions seek a declaration of
coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and
environmental claims.

Based in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an
integrated energy business that owns and operates electric
generation facilities and delivers electric services to
customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia.
The Company has two business segments: Delivery and Services
segment and Generation and Marketing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Cites $14MM Net Reserve at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- and
environmental-related reserve for losses and loss adjustment
expenses were US$14 million at March 31, 2009 and US$13.9
million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's gross A&E-related reserve for losses and LAE were
US$18.4 million at March 31, 2009 and US$18.5 million at Dec.
31, 2008.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of US$58.2 million at March 31,
2009 and US$58.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s
primary business operations include insurance products and
services in three property and casualty operating segments.
These segments are Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Other
Property and Casualty.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Faces 238 Pending Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC, had 238 asbestos cases for which it was
potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed
at March 31, 2009.

The Company had recorded a US$52 million liability at March 31,
2009, related to this matter.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had 222 asbestos-related cases for
which it was potentially liable and that had not been settled
and dismissed. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company, LLC on Feb.
20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and
agreed to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses
associated with future asbestos-related claims as specified in
the agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company
apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims
based upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth
Edison locations or Company locations. The obligations under
this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms
(subject to the right of either party to terminate); pursuant to
the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until
February 2010.

Based in Chicago, Midwest Generation, LLC operates 5,776 MW of
power plants, consisting of: six coal-fired generating plants
consisting of 5,471 MW, which include the Powerton, Joliet, Will
County, Waukegan, Crawford and Fisk Stations; and the Fisk and
Waukegan on-site generating peakers consisting of 305 MW.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is still subject to litigation, including
liability claims related to the Company's current products and
asbestos-related claims, concerning premises and historic
products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2009.

Based in Middlebury, Conn., Chemtura Corporation produces
chemicals for the automotive, transportation, construction,
packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and
non-durable goods, industrial rubber and home pool and spa
chemicals markets. The Company manufactures and sells more than
3,500 products and formulations in more than 100 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on McGaver Action in Pa. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
issued ruling in the case, part of In re Asbestos Products
Liability Litigation, styled James C. McGaver v. Anchor Packing
Co., et al; James C. McGaver v. Anchor Packing Co., et al.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil
Action Nos. 2:94-cv-00861 and 2:09-cv-61548 on March 16, 2009.

A civil action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and properly docketed by that
court as 94-cv-00861. This civil action had been transferred to
this court as part of the federal systemwide asbestos products
liability litigation, known commonly as MDL 875.

This one civil action has been brought by four individual
plaintiffs. This court noted that claims of different
plaintiffs, which involve common legal issues, but totally
different alleged facts, may not be grouped into a single
action.

In the instant matter, while it is true that the claims asserted
by each of the plaintiffs against the defendants in this civil
action were based upon alleged injuries allegedly incurred as a
result of exposure to asbestos products, their individual clams
do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences, and are therefore not related.

Severance of this matter will require each of the plaintiffs to
file a Severed and Amended Complaint that provides the necessary
information about his or her individual claims.

Likewise, a filing fee must be assessed for each of these
individual plaintiffs (except for the lead plaintiff, James C.
McGaver, who had already satisfied the fee requirement in the
Wisconsin District Court).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Facing 16,818 Claims at May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 16,818
asbestos-related claims as of May 1, 2009, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

This compares with 17,854 claims as of Feb. 6, 2009, about
18,385 claims as of Oct. 27, 2008, and 18,462 claims as of July
25, 2008. These suits allege a variety of lung and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously
manufactured by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally
had a useful life of three to 12 months.

As of May 1, 2009, about 11,504 of the claims pending against
the Company were pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 10,946
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel
(MDL), either through removal or original jurisdiction. In
addition to the 10,946 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are 888 claims pending against the
Company at the MDL removed from various U.S. District Courts in
other states.)

On May 31, 2007 the MDL issued an administrative order that
required each MDL plaintiff to provide detailed information
regarding the alleged asbestos-related medical diagnoses. The
deadline for submission of those filings was Dec. 1, 2007.

On Dec. 23, 2008, the MDL issued another administrative order
providing a mechanism whereby defendants could seek dismissals
against plaintiffs who failed to comply with the prior
administrative order. The deadline for such motions was
originally set as Jan. 31, 2009, but was amended when the court
began scheduling hearings based upon the original jurisdiction
of the underlying claim.

Filing deadlines were set as 30 days prior to the hearing dates,
which have been scheduled through May 2009. The Company has
begun to see dismissals as a result of this procedure.

As of May 1, 2009, the remaining 5,314 claims pending against
the Company were pending in states other than Mississippi.

The Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case
and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights.
As of May 1, 2009, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 23,637 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6,761,000.

Of this amount, US$6,716,000, or 99 percent, was paid by the
Company's insurance carrier. The Company has about US$130
million in confirmed insurance coverage that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims, as well as
additional insurance coverage that it should be able to access.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Brandon Drying Facing 8,604 Claims at May 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., faced 8,604 asbestos-related claims as of May 1, 2009,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This compares with 8,607 asbestos claims as of Feb. 6, 2009,
about 8,664 claims as of Oct. 27, 2008, and 8,672 claims as of
July 25, 2008.

Brandon, which is a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a
subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant in many
of the asbestos cases in which the Company as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wangner Systems
Corporation, in 1999. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets
from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among
the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had sold
dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of May 1, 2009, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 8,972 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The
remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by
Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of May 1, 2009, about 6,821 (or 79 percent) of the claims
pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Int'l. Involved in Mt. Vernon Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is still a direct defendant and as
the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills in asbestos-
related cases.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.

Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
before the acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated
to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of
such products.

The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount
Vernon before the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Under
its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has
assumed the defense of these claims.

On this basis, the Company has successfully moved for dismissal
in a number of actions.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Curtiss-Wright Still Party to Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries continue to face
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's latest quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been
found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in
any case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that it
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate.

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and said it believes adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Miss. Lawsuits Ongoing v. Parker Drilling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries are
still defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended
complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in
filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship
with subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date,
about 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its
affiliates as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of
60 and none of the plaintiff complaints naming the Company are
included in the first 60 (Group I).

The initial discovery of Group I resulted in certain dismissals
with prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two
withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group
I. Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21,
2008.

Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in one
suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a firm the
Company acquired in 1996.

No amounts were accrued at March 31, 2009.

Based in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides contract
drilling and drilling-related services. Since beginning
operations in 1934, the Company has operated in 53 foreign
countries and the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Boss Holdings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings, Inc. continues to be a defendant in several
lawsuits alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves
sold by one of its predecessors-in-interest.

These actions are being defended by one or more of the Company's
products liability insurers, according to its quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12,
2009.

Based in Kewanee, Ill., Boss Holdings, Inc.'s primary operating
subsidiary is Boss Manufacturing Company. The Company operates
primarily in the work gloves and protective wear business
segment. The Company also conducts operations in the pet
supplies business segment and promotional and specialty products
segments.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chemicals Still Indemnifying Kraton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Chemicals is still indemnifying Kraton Polymers LLC on
workplace asbestos exposure claims at the Company's Belpre,
Ohio, facility, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13,
2009.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell
Chemicals relating to the separation from Shell Chemicals in
2001, Shell Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for
certain liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims
against the Company by a third party relating to matters arising
prior to the closing of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

Shell Chemicals has been named in several lawsuits relating to
the elastomers business that the Company has acquired. In
particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio,
facility.

The Company is indemnified by Shell Chemicals with respect to
these claims. In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have
entered into a consent order relating to certain environmental
remediation at the Belpre facility.

Headquartered in Houston, Kraton Polymers LLC produces styrenic
block copolymers ("SBCs"), specialty chemical products whose
chemistry the Company pioneered over 40 years ago. The Company
operates in the United States, Germany, France, The Netherlands,
Brazil and Japan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus Metering Still Facing Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus Metering Systems Inc., along with as many as 200 or more
other companies, is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
various state courts by groups of plaintiffs alleging illnesses
from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company said that currently, it is uncertain whether any
plaintiffs have dealt with any of its products, were exposed to
an asbestos-containing component part of a product of the
Company or whether such part could have been a contributing
factor to the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for
liabilities and legal costs for asbestos claims related to these
products from certain subsidiaries of Invensys Metering Systems,
those indemnities, when aggregated with all other indemnity
claims, are limited to the purchase price paid by the Company in
connection with the acquisition of Invensys.

Based in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus Metering Systems Inc. provides
advanced utility infrastructure systems, metering technologies
and related communication systems to the worldwide utility
industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MYR Group Inc. Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is subject to asbestos-related exposure claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2009.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to
these claims and adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

Based in Rolling Meadows, Ill., MYR Group Inc. provides utility
and electrical construction services with a network of local
offices located throughout the continental United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Badgett Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the April
10, 2007 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
entitlement to service connection for the cause of death of
Pauline P. Badgett's husband, veteran Kenneth R. Badgett.

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

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

Mr. Badgett served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April
1943 to November 1945.

In November 1966, the VA regional office (RO) awarded Mr.
Badgett service connection for a hearing disability and scars on
his left hand. The physician diagnosed chronic obstructive lung
disease and advised Mr. Badgett to stop smoking.

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

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

In April 2007, the Board issued the decision in which it denied
Mrs. Badgett's claim.

Before this Court, Mrs. Badgett continued to argue that Mr.
Badgett's exposure to asbestos during World War II caused his
lung cancer, which led to his death. She also asserted that the
Board erred in its treatment of the benefit of the doubt
doctrine.


                            *********

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  * * *